Ophi says "certainly."
The Genesis Account and Science
- Thread starter Saquist
- Start date
Ophilolite, you won't be the first geologist to walk out of discussion because you disagreed with a new theory...you're your own participant here.
And if you want your thoughts to be honestly and propperly considered try to follow the line of thread. If you can't add anything constructive and mature to the conversation then feel free to walk out.
If they're anymore childish remark you'd like to make feel free to make them. I don't know how you wish me to respond but hecklers have been around as long as forums have.
You've done your worse I suspect...gotten angry, laughed cried, beat the keyboard. Just know I'm on the otherside passively looking back completely devoid of any emotion toward you or your hysterics. You can not play against any sense of humiliation with me, you as you currently are will never effect me in such away. I feel no anxiety nor presure for your comtempt of me.
However I will continue with summarizing Genesis for those who care to listen.
And if you want your thoughts to be honestly and propperly considered try to follow the line of thread. If you can't add anything constructive and mature to the conversation then feel free to walk out.
If they're anymore childish remark you'd like to make feel free to make them. I don't know how you wish me to respond but hecklers have been around as long as forums have.
You've done your worse I suspect...gotten angry, laughed cried, beat the keyboard. Just know I'm on the otherside passively looking back completely devoid of any emotion toward you or your hysterics. You can not play against any sense of humiliation with me, you as you currently are will never effect me in such away. I feel no anxiety nor presure for your comtempt of me.
However I will continue with summarizing Genesis for those who care to listen.
And don't forget about those two questions about Noah and Abraham please.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What I mean is that your total lack of comprehension of the scientific method; of what constitutes facts; of what a theory or a hypothesis is; of how all of these aspects relate to our means of learning about our world; and most tellingly, your refusal to even recognise your ignorance; together, all these things are truly dumb, not the thread, but your approach within the thread.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You don't have a theory. You have bunch of ill founded mumbo-jumbo.
And there is no discussion to walk out of. Your blinkered thinking; pedantic and patronising attitude; ignorance of the scientific method; all these render discsussion with you impossible.
Last edited:
Ophi, do you consider Darwinism to be a hypothesis or a theory?
saquist said:
Not at all, we know a great deal about the scientific knowledge of ancient Jews. Nothing they could not have known at the time is contained in Genesis. There is nothing about how the moon only reflects the sun's light, how the stars are distant suns, how the earth is round, how the earth revolves around the sun, the proper sequence of life arising, etc..
Of course those facts remain unrevealed. But does the account contain information harmonizing with established scientific fact...
I believe you're implng that the answer is yes...on the foundation that Ophiliolite laided out previoiusly. It does not violate the laws of physics.
Therefore the thinking in Genesis is sound.
I believe you're implng that the answer is yes...on the foundation that Ophiliolite laided out previoiusly. It does not violate the laws of physics.
Therefore the thinking in Genesis is sound.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is off topic. I do not consider it to be anything. I know it to be a suite of theories.
My bad.
I pointed out how it doesn't concur with etablished fact, for instance that flowering trees existed before creatures, not true.
I asure you it will be addressed. I too have question about this.
There is lack of knowledge on my part as to the ascending order of evolution. Perhaps something I've taken for granted.
When we approach that topic soon have some refrences ready and I'll see about getting my presentation together for my own refrences.
There is lack of knowledge on my part as to the ascending order of evolution. Perhaps something I've taken for granted.
When we approach that topic soon have some refrences ready and I'll see about getting my presentation together for my own refrences.
And don't forget about Noah and Abraham.
Day in the bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons.
(Zercharish 14:8)
Most notably..."The day of harvest" invovles many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Paslm 90 :4; 2 Peter 3: 8, 10) Juddgement Day: covers many years. (Mathew 10:15; 11:22-24) It woud seem reasonable thtat hte "days' of Genesis could likewis have embraced long periods of time-millennums. What then, took place during those creative days? Most importantly is the Bible's account of those day's scientific?
The First Day.
"Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And ther came to be eveing and ther came to be morning, a first day"-Genesis 1:3,5
The Sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to vivisable on earth on the first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
Apparently that light came gradulally, over a long period of time.
The Genesis rendering by translator J.W Watts reflects this when it says: "And gardually light came into existence." (A distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. It was light diffused, which was indicated by a Rotherhams' Emphasized Bible.
[/URL][/IMG]
much as this artist rendering depicts and also the web site it came from...whichi is not a creationist website.
(Zercharish 14:8)
Most notably..."The day of harvest" invovles many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Paslm 90 :4; 2 Peter 3: 8, 10) Juddgement Day: covers many years. (Mathew 10:15; 11:22-24) It woud seem reasonable thtat hte "days' of Genesis could likewis have embraced long periods of time-millennums. What then, took place during those creative days? Most importantly is the Bible's account of those day's scientific?
The First Day.
"Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And ther came to be eveing and ther came to be morning, a first day"-Genesis 1:3,5
The Sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to vivisable on earth on the first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
Apparently that light came gradulally, over a long period of time.
The Genesis rendering by translator J.W Watts reflects this when it says: "And gardually light came into existence." (A distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. It was light diffused, which was indicated by a Rotherhams' Emphasized Bible.
much as this artist rendering depicts and also the web site it came from...whichi is not a creationist website.
Sorry to bother you with scientific details. But the sun was there before the planet. And so was the light.
That's not "fact" it is "theory".
There IS NO "fact", so it is impossible to refute his "theory".
Didn't you catch that earlier?
