User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 38 of 147 FirstFirst ... 283435363738394041424888138 ... LastLast
Results 297 to 304 of 1176

Thread: Where does everyone stand in regards to...

  1. #297

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] I'm having trouble seeing how one could fit the literal Adam and Eve story in there
    I asked that... they're metaphors [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_n_32.gif[/img]
    speaking of carinovorus animals... How did carnivorous animals survive? or were there no carnivorous animals? how did they get their giant pointy teeth, internal organs JUST for digesting meat, evil looking talons, flesh tearing beaks...
    wait... did they CHANGE
    GASP!!!
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  2. #298
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 31 2004,6:16)]I asked that... they're metaphors [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_n_32.gif[/img]
    But the Flood isn't?

    Who decides which parts of this book are literal and which aren't?

    This is consistency? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/confused.gif[/img]

  3. #299

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Who decides which parts of this book are literal and which aren't?
    easy. They're literal until they're disproven by science (I edited the previous post btw... I edit too much.)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]This is consistency?
    lol... apparently so! I'm afraid what they consider an INconsistant book! wow. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_k_ani_32.gif[/img]
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  4. #300

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Dec. 31 2004,6:21)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 31 2004,6:16)]I asked that... they're metaphors [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile_n_32.gif[/img]
    But the Flood isn't?

    Who decides which parts of this book are literal and which aren't?

    This is consistency? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/confused.gif[/img]
    Exactly the point, who does decide?
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  5. #301

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Dec. 31 2004,6:11)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Dec. 31 2004,5:35)]I'm hearing a lot of this "you don't understand evolution, youre WRONG!!!!" Here is another point. You don't really understand creationism very well, so don't even think about getting mad if we don't understand evolution when you don't understand creation. I'm not pointing at anyone spacific, cause we're all guilty of it.
    I would love to hear a solid creation theory. I can't find any so far.
    Evolution isn't creation, but it is solid.
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  6. #302
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's a pattern throughout history that's pretty easy to spot.

    The church says the world is one way. People using reason determine that it's a different way. The church vehemently denies it until decades or centuries later it becomes so blatantly obvious that it's true that they have to accept it to retain any amount of credibility with the public. However at that point there are these new things scientists are discovering that absolutely aren't true. Those last things ended up being true, but there's no way these new things can be true. Fast forward a century and the church is accepting their validity all over again. However there are these new things...

    And the cycle repeats. Over and over. For centuries science has been dragging the church kicking and screaming behind it.

    This creation thing must be an exception I guess?

    I don't mean this to sound accusatory... it's just too typical of the pattern to ignore. Granted there were scientific theories the church denied that didn't pan out... but how many of them held up so extensively for so long? And a theory holding up for so long today is much more impressive than past theories holding up. Scientists then didn't have an easily referenced global catalog of existing research and instantaneous global communication between each other.

    We don't have absolute definitive proof (absolute definitive proof of your own existence doesn't even exist), but it's a bit more solid than a lot of the things people are choosing to base their worldviews on.

    EDIT: Rereading this I feel I have to add this part. The work of scientists more than 700(?) years ago or so (can't think back to a good number right now) probably can't be compared to modern science, which is what I'm talking about. The philosophical protocal hadn't been worked out yet. It took "scientists" a long time to figure out the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Why? Religion and ego prevented them from accepting the possibility. This wouldn't be such a problem today.

  7. #303

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They even killed people because they disagreed. Good thing they don't do it now or I'd have been killed YEARS ago! LOL
    big YAY for separation of church and state!
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  8. #304

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kissimmee Florida
    Posts
    297
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On the last page (29), people were talking about prophecies in the bible that were accurate. What were they? Or where could they be found in the bible. I'm also getting the idea from skimming through the postings that there are different versions of the bible - are they similar or are there big differences? No , I've never opened a bible so I'm not commenting on its content- just curiosity questions from reading the threads.
    And what do you mean the sun is not a chariot of fire! Next thing you'll be telling me is the Easter Bunny is not a monotreme and can't really lay eggs.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •