so how may billion years did it take to resurrect Jesus?
Creationists please read!
- Thread starter Believe
- Start date
so how may billion years did it take to resurrect Jesus?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Win. Who knows whats 900 years in genesis is today, maybe 900 years, but who knows?
Yes, AN.Y.THING. He created evolution so that the creatures and critters he knew were great could take shape on his planet.
Could* cause disaster, and probably will, because if He is talking to the world as a whole that probably means we failed the test.
Time. God is the master of time.
Why creationism would implode.
The creationist hypothesis is one which doesn't present itself unless u look 4 it. That is as clear a indication as any that it baised and non scientific. Not to mention that a global flood is impossible [where did water come from and where did it go]? Also its impossible to fit all species in a boat of any kind, its also impossible to fit all genera in a boat. And the time humans have existed isnt long enough for these genera to speciate. Also, a gene pool less than 20,000 years old [biblical story cannot be b4 the ice age] would have so little variations today that animals would die quite easily from diseases and would have ceased to exist 2day.
The creationist hypothesis is one which doesn't present itself unless u look 4 it. That is as clear a indication as any that it baised and non scientific. Not to mention that a global flood is impossible [where did water come from and where did it go]? Also its impossible to fit all species in a boat of any kind, its also impossible to fit all genera in a boat. And the time humans have existed isnt long enough for these genera to speciate. Also, a gene pool less than 20,000 years old [biblical story cannot be b4 the ice age] would have so little variations today that animals would die quite easily from diseases and would have ceased to exist 2day.
All creation stories deal with events to which there were no human witnesses, this requires that for them to be accurate, their authors had to have had a method of accessing information about such events. Whether that method was speaking with a god or something different, is unimportant. What is important is that the method itself would be far more valuable than any result of employing that method. Because, after all, any result could be retrieved by employing the method. In short, if there were any credible creation story, nobody would have needed to record it, neither would anyone have needed to record any other religious writing. It would all be available by employing the method by which it was learned, so the only thing that needed recording was the method. Yet we have no record of that method.
With such a method there would be no unsolved crime, there would be no successful deceit. People in possession of such a method, who didn't record it, would be the most criminally antisocial characters in human history.
All in all, creation stories not only dont make sense, realism about their tales is actually insulting to the authors.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Genesis is full of deception. The apple story was mistold, creation is mislead, and Noah's flood was regional, but great. The only important thing to take from Genesis is the power of God, 7 days of creation, we are living in Saturday and it is about a half past 10. The tree of life was symbolic, but literal. The whole serpent thing, that happend. Aadm was not the first male humanoid, but the first man to give rise in stature, and mind. Cain killed Abel, but Abel was the killer. The most important thing about Genesis is the generations, that is the holy bloodline, which remains in tact today. Before anything evolved God created it in Heaven to see that it was perfect. We are all his children, and we are all perfect, even the heathens are perfectly terrible, and their justice will be perfect. Emotions, virtues, hate, fear, anger, hope, faith, bravery are all made up from God. The 7 lights of God which stand before the Lord.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Abraham existed from about 3500 bc to 3000 bc, meaning the only things he wrote in the bible were Genesis, and the first place that book was taken was to Egypt, that is where the deception occured. Osiris = Satan, Seth = Michael, Nephthys = Gabriel, Anubis = Son of Adam, probably Cain, but possibly Seth, the sun = something greater, GOD, Isis = Bride of satan, Horus = Fallen virtue Contemt, and used by Satan as the first attempt to lead man kind into slavery. Noah flood marked the first day of the 7th Day, that was about 10,000 bc.
If God just went create, create, snap, create then everything would be perfect and their would be no point to his science project that is life and nature. The voice of God will ring through the cosmos when he speaks.
I'll leave that idea where it belongs, in the dustbin of history.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. Our job is to live it, and leave it be.
We are not idiots we are not sure how creation come , evolution is part of creation as far I believe
How do you know a God is required? Naturalism is the default position.
what is Naturalism ? Why are attempting to use fancy words ? Talk to me chemically how would you do it . or show me some citation on how is done , I can see evolution have taken long time much longer then between the planet cooling off and life to appear. and so on
Naturalism means that only natural forces were involved. I don't have to know exactly how it happened, because there is no valid supernatural explanation. And actually, evolution started to happen rather soon. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the first cells are about 3.8 billion years old.
So there was a talking snake, about as intelligent as a human, that tempted the first woman to take an apple from a tree that, when eaten from, gave people Godlike wisdom?
I think that's one of the _least_ likely of the Genesis stories to have any basis in reality. (As opposed to the Deluge, which likely had some resemblance to an actual event.)
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Because:
- A. That is an extraordinary assertion, since the existence of a supernatural universe full of supernatural creatures and forces claims to falsify science, which has never come close to being falsified in half a millennium, and...
- B. The Rule of Laplace requires all extraordinary assertions to be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect, and...
- C. You have no evidence (not even ordinary evidence!) to support this extraordinary assertion...
To lapse into a respectful position for just a moment, I would like to point out the obvious:
- 1. The definition of "the universe" is "everything that exists."
- 2. God obviously exists--at least in your fairytale model of the universe. If he did not exist, he wouldn't be able to do any of the amazing things your fairytale credits him with.
- 3. Since God exists, then by definition he is part of the universe.
- 4. Therefore, the assertion that God created the universe implies that God created himself.
- 5. This is the Fallacy of Recursion, a bonehead argument that we all learned to identify and make rude fun of in our freshman year in college. (Actually in my college fifty years ago the upperclassmen would have stuck your head in the toilet and flushed it every time they heard you say something this stupid. Fortunately we are somewhat kinder to trolls today.)
- 6. Therefore I have not only the right but the obligation to say that this argument is pure bullshit.
Who defined the Universe? "The definition of "the universe" is "everything that exists."
The universe exists but we haven't yet been able to define it.
Is there a defining boundary. There is no defined point of origin. What have you defined?
You tell me what existed before the Big Bang? I say God existed before the Big Bang, but what do you say?
God put the Energy into the universe to start off the universe, so he didn't create himself, but he created the Universe.
And I am glad you admitted your argument was pure bullshit when you said: "Therefore I have not only the right but the obligation to say that this argument is pure bullshit"
Thank you.
I don't understand all the negativity over this subject. I am inclined to agree that there is a bit of both going on.
Despite the sarcasm I am inviting there have been thousands of psychic experiments where the results suggest telepathy is probable. I think it is horrid that you folks can look at a double blind psychic experiment that defies 75000:1 odds (or greater) [Dream Telepathy
by Montague Ullman, M.D. and Stanley Krippner, Ph.D. with Alan Vaughan], and write it off as chance. Mainly because it suits your OC compulsion to have everything it its place with labels.
I am not going to expand on that in this thread, but anyone who has been involved in psychic research, or knows how to research the subject can verify those kind of statistics are routinely ignored.
I actually did contact the James Randi Foundation in the past and was told they did not accept "probabilities" as proof, and neither does the scientific community.
Okay on to the point.
Let's pretend for a second that telepathy is real, and that the probabilities can now be measured accurately with new tools recently invented (we are pretending).
This would mean that all man was connected somewhat to each other (at least) and possibly all of nature. We might even form a global consciousness at some level because as it turns out we all have Borg (Star Trek reference) type talking going on in all our heads from our collective.
So IF telepathy did exist, then it would be reasonable to deduce that perhaps we can all remotely influence each other, and could possibly be in connection with something that is "all that is combined".
Could this "all that is" be god? God knows about every sparrow that falls in the forest for he is every sparrow that falls in the forest. hmmm.
What if a thought from man (we are pretending telepathy is real) influenced a creature or man itself into mating with someone "different", or altered someones destiny slightly (not that there is a destiny).
This is just a random thought about creationism that psychic researchers are forced to look at. We must look at how telepathy could be possible.
I understand your textbooks say there is no such thing as telepathy so this argument is moot.
I am still involved in psychic research and currently am investigating precognition with statistically above average results. I cannot see how anyone can view the world and not believe in telepathy, but I guess my experience has allowed me to witness the "unexplainable" a lot more than most.
I am not going to expand on anything I have said here. If people are not known trolls and have a genuine interest in telepathy/precognition I would be happy to discuss things via private messages.
Despite the sarcasm I am inviting there have been thousands of psychic experiments where the results suggest telepathy is probable. I think it is horrid that you folks can look at a double blind psychic experiment that defies 75000:1 odds (or greater) [Dream Telepathy
by Montague Ullman, M.D. and Stanley Krippner, Ph.D. with Alan Vaughan], and write it off as chance. Mainly because it suits your OC compulsion to have everything it its place with labels.
I am not going to expand on that in this thread, but anyone who has been involved in psychic research, or knows how to research the subject can verify those kind of statistics are routinely ignored.
I actually did contact the James Randi Foundation in the past and was told they did not accept "probabilities" as proof, and neither does the scientific community.
Okay on to the point.
Let's pretend for a second that telepathy is real, and that the probabilities can now be measured accurately with new tools recently invented (we are pretending).
This would mean that all man was connected somewhat to each other (at least) and possibly all of nature. We might even form a global consciousness at some level because as it turns out we all have Borg (Star Trek reference) type talking going on in all our heads from our collective.
So IF telepathy did exist, then it would be reasonable to deduce that perhaps we can all remotely influence each other, and could possibly be in connection with something that is "all that is combined".
Could this "all that is" be god? God knows about every sparrow that falls in the forest for he is every sparrow that falls in the forest. hmmm.
What if a thought from man (we are pretending telepathy is real) influenced a creature or man itself into mating with someone "different", or altered someones destiny slightly (not that there is a destiny).
This is just a random thought about creationism that psychic researchers are forced to look at. We must look at how telepathy could be possible.
I understand your textbooks say there is no such thing as telepathy so this argument is moot.
I am still involved in psychic research and currently am investigating precognition with statistically above average results. I cannot see how anyone can view the world and not believe in telepathy, but I guess my experience has allowed me to witness the "unexplainable" a lot more than most.
I am not going to expand on anything I have said here. If people are not known trolls and have a genuine interest in telepathy/precognition I would be happy to discuss things via private messages.