With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
You only think he is great because you agree with him....SnakeLord said:
I mean... I never heard of this guy before... he shouldn't be the greatest.
Besides... the greatest is Shkespeare.
Or at least that's what most people think...
Sorry... I don't know about those things.
I know. See how much better the discussion is when we don't attack each other pesonally and take everything personally.
Sorry. Just came out of a thread that I had to deal with countless personal attacks....
For them, usually yes.
They do. The difference is that we are not using any personal attacks, which makes the discussion much more clear.
I also changed a little bit. I always believed that Jesus was a rabbi. But only now I recognize and don't repress that fact. That's because I had to go through some arguments in order to find out this fact. I was working on that on those times. Now, I went trhough the arguments and I found that Jesus was likely just a rabbi and that his teachings were supposed to be followed and that he shouldn't be worshipped. Is not that I didn't see before - I just didn't accept thsoe facts.
Yes I did. I have to think about that...
Yeah, that's why I said "as far as I personally see it". I wasn't implying that anyone else had to agree.
Well, apparently Shakespeare couldn't even write, and the stories, (which are very political based), were actually written by a politician of the time who couldn't be named because it would obviously lead to his painful demise.
Gotta love a good conspiracy.. Personally however, I never was a fan of Shakespeare, or Bacon, or whoever it actually was
Can't say I'm that bothered either way. I just go along with the discussion no matter who says what
Bollocks, you're stupid.
Just messing..
It's a nice speech, my only problem being the usage of "fact" three times, in places where it is unwarranted.
Oh ok. I didn't realize that. Sorry.SnakeLord said:
Yeah... I heard this story in English 12, a couple of years ago. Weeeeird, eh? But as far as I remember, he is still referred as the greatest author of all times.
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmm.... Bacon......
Btw, do you know how to cook bacon? I've been craving for it. Specially now that you mentioned it.
Well, good for you. Sometimes it's hard to deal with lots of personal attacks...
Kid...
Why not? Isn't it clear thet Jesus was a teacher?
Np.
Bah, 99% of people don't even understand a word he's saying
Find a pig, kill it, and then slice it up. After this buy an apple to stuff in its mouth, (it stops it from complaining). Once this is done, throw slices onto a frying pan and wiggle them around for a few minutes. Get some bread, some tomato sauce, and a copy of Animal Farm, (not the porno). Sit down and eat the bacon sarnie while laughing at Napolean and all the other pigs who think they're tough.
You don't wanna meet my wife then
Nah, she's a gem.You taking the piss 'cause I'm a midget?
Here's the problem.. Lord of the Rings says Aragorn is a king. Beyond that, The Epic of Gilgamesh, says Gilgamesh is a half man-half god, and so on.
Without even being able to validate the accuracy and truth of the text by any other means than using the book to validate the book, we surely cannot reach a position of "fact" regarding anything written in it?
Shakespeare and Twain were both geniuses of the highest order but lived in very different times and places. Anyone dismissing either without actually reading some of their work is only cheating themselves in a big way. For example; "Can'st thou not minister to a mind diseased or pluck from the heart a rooted sorrow?", was written almost four hundred years ago as WS had MacBeth ask his doctor what we can all relate to even now. And what was the good doctor's response but....."it is for you to minister to thine own self". He had no cure for the King's pain, so the King then sent many to their deaths in battle to defend a lost cause. Sound familiar (Iraq)?
Thanks to the progress of science through psychology we can now minister to the diseased mind in many cases. But it is still the individual who must fend for his own in this world as SouthStar has valiantly discovered at the beginning of this thread. The slow and painful march of progress can only move so fast. There is so much left to discover. Soon we will find another Earth in the stars, and not long before or after, we will find life somewhere else in the galaxy. Then eventually maybe intelligent life. We will eventually learn their secrets and maybe even work together for the mutual survival of our civilizations. For the survival of everything we all hold dear is paramount.
But we may never make it that far until we here on Earth learn to work together in peace. We need a new ethical foundation of mutual survival of the human species. The old religious traditions are hopelessly foundering amidst an onslaught of new scientific revelations that have discredited much of their explanations, yet they still serve a valuable function in society because most people are not yet educated enough to understand much about science, yet still need to know how they should live. "Love one another" is still the essence of human life, being the incorridgably social creatures that we are. The problem with the old religions is that they have not learned that the essence of truth in is the testing of it. If you cannot test a theory, then you will never know if it is really true or not. Only science does this. This process is the essence of the scientific method.
Their ancient explanations for why we should behave a certain way have become increasingly ridiculous as society has become more educated. Yet, we need faith and love, and we need science, but they do not fit very nicely together because one is ancient and the other rather new. After all, most of the adherents of all of the major religions in the world that have lived up to this point....... couldn't even read, let alone debate great authors. We must all learn to work together, as a species, or we may all perish sooner than we think. "And I looked and I saw a new heaven and a new earth......". - Revelation. Our species may indeed one day, far into the future, look up and see a different Sun from a new earth, or we may be snuffed out in our prime right here on our current stage. "Out, out brief candle......a poor player, who struts and frets his hour upon the stage of life, and then is gone." - WS.
Thanks to the progress of science through psychology we can now minister to the diseased mind in many cases. But it is still the individual who must fend for his own in this world as SouthStar has valiantly discovered at the beginning of this thread. The slow and painful march of progress can only move so fast. There is so much left to discover. Soon we will find another Earth in the stars, and not long before or after, we will find life somewhere else in the galaxy. Then eventually maybe intelligent life. We will eventually learn their secrets and maybe even work together for the mutual survival of our civilizations. For the survival of everything we all hold dear is paramount.
But we may never make it that far until we here on Earth learn to work together in peace. We need a new ethical foundation of mutual survival of the human species. The old religious traditions are hopelessly foundering amidst an onslaught of new scientific revelations that have discredited much of their explanations, yet they still serve a valuable function in society because most people are not yet educated enough to understand much about science, yet still need to know how they should live. "Love one another" is still the essence of human life, being the incorridgably social creatures that we are. The problem with the old religions is that they have not learned that the essence of truth in is the testing of it. If you cannot test a theory, then you will never know if it is really true or not. Only science does this. This process is the essence of the scientific method.
Their ancient explanations for why we should behave a certain way have become increasingly ridiculous as society has become more educated. Yet, we need faith and love, and we need science, but they do not fit very nicely together because one is ancient and the other rather new. After all, most of the adherents of all of the major religions in the world that have lived up to this point....... couldn't even read, let alone debate great authors. We must all learn to work together, as a species, or we may all perish sooner than we think. "And I looked and I saw a new heaven and a new earth......". - Revelation. Our species may indeed one day, far into the future, look up and see a different Sun from a new earth, or we may be snuffed out in our prime right here on our current stage. "Out, out brief candle......a poor player, who struts and frets his hour upon the stage of life, and then is gone." - WS.
Well... the book is an account of what people believed in at those times, right?SnakeLord said:
Also, it is possible to find evidence by searching the places cited in the Bible.
And last, but not least, it is possible to get some verses and ponder about their validity. For instance, take 1 Corinthians 16:14 as an example.
1 Corinthians 16:14
"14 Let all that you do be done in love."
Do you need to go through the trouble of validating God and Jesus' existance to examine this verse? No. So why not ponder abou it? Maybe it is wise to do everything with love, right?
Well... I could go through the trouble of discussing this here, right now. But I have better things to do at the moment. Like trying your recipe for bacon.
Don't worry.... I will figure out wheter He exists or not.... hopefully...
TruthSeeker said:
Well... the book is an account of what people believed in at those times, right?
Also, it is possible to find evidence by searching the places cited in the Bible.
And last, but not least, it is possible to get some verses and ponder about their validity. For instance, take 1 Corinthians 16:14 as an example.
1 Corinthians 16:14
"14 Let all that you do be done in love."
Do you need to go through the trouble of validating God and Jesus' existance to examine this verse? No. So why not ponder abou it? Maybe it is wise to do everything with love, right?
Well... I could go through the trouble of discussing this here, right now. But I have better things to do at the moment. Like trying your recipe for bacon.
Don't worry.... I will figure out wheter He exists or not.... hopefully...
That is not at all the issue he is pointing out. We know it is beneficial to do things in love and we know that some things in the Bible are historically accurate. That is however not the point he is trying to make. What about the belief held by Gospel writers that Jesus is God? Are you going to blindly and ignorantly take their word for it?
Perhaps, yes. There can always be other motives though for writing something. Politics plays a large part. If you look at it from a political standpoint, the jewish god was done away with in favour of something so un-OT like, as to come across to many as merely being done for political reasons.
The OT most certainly shows a society with very little understanding of the world, trying to adapt rules and regulations to control its populous- and everything is seen as the doing of a supreme sky being - He is not only responsible for any victorious battles, but for all the tragedy that life hands out.
Then we come to the NT, with a jew, turned non-jew and in summary ends up with the jews being the losers. It would stand to reason given the time era.
Not really, no.
For example take the city of Erech, which was the home of Gilgamesh. According to Genesis x, 10, it was founded by Nimrod, the son of Cush, the "mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar, and so is not only mentioned in the oldest text known to mankind, but much later mentioned in the bible.
Does the existance of this city give any precedence to the existence of Gilgamesh, or more to the point, Gilgamesh's supposed half man/half god status?
Evidence can, will and has been collected and analyzed- and to date not one piece of evidence suggests anything supernatural or 'beyond this world'.
In general a writer will use a location that is familiar to him, and base his story using the laws, etc of his society. Steven King for example uses the city of Maine for all his stories - but we can surely state that the existence of Maine does not mean the existence of vampires, demon possessed cars or buried spaceships.
And while it's fully possible that the characters in the stories could very well have been actual people, there's no value in thinking that these people would have actually been that which the stories claimed. If there was a Gilgamesh, he was most likely a very respected hunter - and gained the image of godliness as he became legend. The same would be true of jesus, and you have even stated that you would see him as a rabbi, and a teacher - but not a god. However, in old times - legends would form and would be far beyond the actual realities.
Sure, but because a book happens to say something that you agree with, doesn't make it of any worldly importance. Take for instance my liking for Mark Twain. He says many worthwhile things that would make a person sit down and 'ponder'. That doesn't give any credence or validity towards the book as a whole.
Especially when that very same book says things that go completely against those few words of wisdom. So on the one hand we see this speech of love, and on the other see jesus saying he didnt come for love or peace but to bring the sword. To set a man against his father, a woman against her mother etc etc.
Should we sit down and ponder about that as much as the sentence you happen to agree with? Who dares think that's ok? (the religious majority). They'll happily ignore anything even remotely nasty and then dare preach all their "love one another" garbage like it's all the book says. That is simply ignorant because the book says a lot more, 2/3's of which are purely disgusting - involving various annihilations of mankind. Surely those who dare preach 'love' should be the same people who are very anti-god. After all, every major man killing event has been undertaken by god, and even our very end as a whole is down to god. Jesus will come on the wind to rule us like we're sheep - to dismiss human leaders, and claim himself the big cheese. After he's had his fun, god will release satan to undoubtedly cause humans some more harm, before god then wipes us off the face of the planet.
Where is the love? Ok, god's god, he doesn't need to love - but when a human claims he loves, he should be fighting god, not worshipping him - because it is god that is going to get us all killed. That is undeniable.
Oh I know, you all want an eternity of this supposed 'god love' which has yet to be seen in any way whatsoever, and the possibility of a town full of gold is just too much for the greed of man to ignore. He can keep it, you can keep it.. It is not love, it is not the acts of a wonderful father - it is lambs being led to the slaughter.
That's not how humans are, nor is it how they have ever been. It's like trying to turn butterflies into mass murderers, or tigers into vegetarians. It is not our nature, and as much as we can sit there and dream about a world full of peace, full of harmony, and a place where there is nothing but love - it is not what we are. This in itself is enough to show god's irrelevancy. We are but animals following the same patterns and laws as the other animals, we just have the ability to daydream.
Besides, as much as a religious man would preach it, even he would be guilty of doing the opposite given the right circumstances. Imagine a paedophile comes into your house to abduct and kill your children. I doubt, no matter how religious you are, that you would show this man anything even remotely close to "love".
And that's at the extremes. I've seen serious lack of "love" on this forum for the smallest of reasons, let alone something like the example above. It's very very easy to say "do everything with love", but something completely different to act in such manner.
If god thinks 'love thy neighbour' and 'love thy enemy' are worthwhile laws then he is a complete nincompoop who knows absolutely nothing about that which he has created.
Last edited:
I thought Gilgamesh's city is Ur? Perhaps, Erech became Ur after all these years? Nimrod, the great hunter, seems to be the same character as Gilgamesh.
Furthermore, Gilgamesh is not just half-man, half-god. That would conceivable, at least if one believes gods can have sex. Gilgamesh is 1/3 god, 2/3 human, or something like that. In any case, the fraction does not work out.
You also have no final proof whether Gilgamesh is older than some of the stories in the Bible, or whether the Bible is. Surely the Genesis stories we have are not in their final form, but a possibility exists that Abraham, or scribes, wrote down Abraham's story, and this was preserved by the Jewish tribe all the way to Moses. A possibily exists that the stories remained in oral form, and are much older. Of course, if Moses wrote all of Genesis, then the Bible is many years older. Unlikely, however, the writing throughout Genesis as been studied, and found to contain three interweaving strains.
No, Abraham came from Ur. Terah took Abraham, Lot and Sarah, (Sarai) and made them leave Ur. (Gen 11:27/32)
Gilgamesh was king of Erech.
No, it's the opposite: He was 2/3's god, 1/3 human - but saying 'half man/half god' was sufficient enough for the actual question I posed.
That would be seen when dating.
Sure, Abraham being from Sumeria would have most likely taken Sumerian culture and stories along with him - and told them to others who then wrote them down and ammended them for their own culture. This could even include the story of Abraham going to kill his son and finding a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. In the temple in Ur they excavated some statues etc, one of which was of a ram caught in a thicket by its horns.
But if that's the case, it would go further to discrediting the bible, than supporting it. Perhaps, if this were the case, we should all be worshipping Marduk and the million other Sumerian gods, as opposed to one god who is most likely an amalgamation of those gods - which not only explains the biblical gods multiple personalities but also his usage of multiples when talking: ("Let us go down"), etc.
No, it would show that the stories are many years older, and that the bible is merely a much later version of those stories, with all the typical changes that would arrive after such a long time gap- and as a result, a lot less accurate than an original version would be.
Well, taking other cultures stories and ammending them for your own society is the norm, but is more than enough to show that the bible is little more than a more modern re-telling of stories, that can never be as accurate as the originals. It's like reading the original writings of vampires, and then reading Anne Rice.
What we end up with, is a book that's worth reading, but not worth falling into some life of servitude and worship over.
Last edited:
Have you read my posts (even the one before that!)? I clearly state that Jesus was a rabbi!§outh§tar said:
Sorry for the slow response - been gone.SnakeLord said:
As for the time to make DNA/RNA and the Cell by trial and error. It is not possible for any of these things to be created by trial and error. First, the Amino Acids cannot exist in the environment in which the spontaneously form - they also spontaneously decay (there are many amino acids and as far as I am aware, no one - no scientist or team of scientists - have found any way or any environment in which amino acids will form spontaneously) Even if we could find such an environment (a very big if) then there would by necessity have to be many trillions of such molecules in a "soup" constantly trying to combine. If such a highly unlikely scenario did exist then it would have to consist of just the four amino acids used to form the DNA chain (five if you count RNA). Then these chains would have to "by trial and error" form into a long DNA strand. I once saw an estimate that if there were one billion such attempts per second, it would take an average of 27 trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion years to come up with Human DNA. Human DNA is only one of the DNA chains which is used in life today (around 3 billion pairs). Since the estimated age of Earth is only about 4.5 billion years and the estimated age of the universe is only 6 billion years, this hardly seems long enough. Some DNA strands are only in the millions of pairs (some fungi), but there are some strands which stretch to hundreds of billions of pairs (some flowering plants). This of course ignores the fact that you also have to add the edge molecules to form the ladder. This also ignores the fact that the DNA component amino-acid pairs need not even form a chain at all but might form in a different pattern negating the possibility of life. Just give it time, shows a gross lack of understanding about the complexities involved.
Have you ever programmed a computer (I do it for a living). The DNA chain is analogous to a computer program. I started on punch cards - and the DNA chain is like a deck of punch cards. Try putting a set of 3 billion punch cards out on the lawn and see if it runs the program? Even if it is a perfect program, it does nothing. The DNA/program is useless without the computer to run it. The organic computer which runs the DNA "program" is even more complex than the DNA itself. There are all kinds of specialized molecules which read all or parts of the DNA (and somehow know exactly where to go on the DNA to read when needed). How did these molecules come into being? What is the evolutionary path by which these machines learned to coexist with DNA and utilize this pattern? For evolution to work, there must always be a path from less organized to more organized and some means to prefer more organized (survival of the fittest). Darwin could not know about the hugely complex mechanisms of the cell and therefore had no idea of the impossibility of what he proposed. If DNA might require 10^72 years to randomly occur (and that's just human DNA - not counting all the other DNA strands in existence) then the cell would be orders of magnitude less likely and require more time to develop.
You simply don't understand the scope of what you propose when you say "just give it time". There has not been anything like enough time. Speaking of time, how do we even know there has been several billion year? What evidence is there that such a time span has occurred? Actually, none. The evolutionary scientists went to the astronomers and told them their numbers must be wrong because evolution would take much more time than had been allotted thus far. The astronomers acquiesced and changed their estimates to accommodate. The evolutionists then demanded more time, and the astronomers again obliged, but after three of four such cycles, the astronomers stopped, saying they simply could not support any such claims. Even to support current estimates, the astronomers must ignore known theory predictions - like general relativity - and known anomalous data - like quasars. They must rely on shaky, unproven theories - like "old light" - which have no basis and ignore other known theories. The current situation is a house of cards which everyone is trying not to upset.
Just give it some time? There is not anywhere near enough time, not by many many orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. It is just as possible that Abraham told the true stories and the Sumerians modified the stories known by Abraham. After all, according to the bible stories, Naoh was still alive when Abraham left Ur. Surely Noah would still know which is true since he lived it.SnakeLord said:
But the place exists.SnakeLord said:
Maybe not as far as one can comprehend....
Sure. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the book teaches things. In fact, my point is that everything written in it has some validity to an extent. Even because there's a lot of symbology in it.
Which I explained as additions or trasmutations from what God actually is and do. They just blame on God. That doesn't make God unexistant nor makes Him evil. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? Is it possible to prove that He doesn't exist?
Besides, you can always take the words of wisdom and gnore the rest. Just because some things in the Bible are wrong, that doesn't invalidate the whole thing. Which falacy is that? Composition, maybe... I don't even know anymore... I have to go anyways...
1) God is love
2) God is not going to kill anyone - and He never does.
What is our true nature? Why don't you take a look at babies, and see how we truly are....?
So.... screw evolution?
Ahhh.... the old same argument...
Who has unconditional love? This argument does nothing. It's only an inductive argument that implies that unconditional love is not practiced by anybody. That doesn't mean that unconditional love is impossible to achieve. You may call it the "law of detachment", but it is an old buddhist and taoist perspective on life that excludes the circumstances and puts the power of choice on people. But that's a whole book all by itself, so it's not really practical to discuss here...
Yes indeed. that's the whole purpose of the freaking book. To show how to do that. The challenge is to see that in the midst of so much human ignoprance attached to God. We could discuss the possibility of an all-loving God existing and still ignore the whole Bible. The Bible doesn't invalidate the possibility of an all-loving God to exist.
The creation has transformed itself.
If you analize the whole Bible in the light of philosophy and psychology, you may find that Jung had a point when he talked about the "collective conscious"....
But we're not talking human DNA from scratch, we're talking the basic forms of life which then evolve into more advanced organisms - which eventually, through it's course, has led to humanity.
What's the simplest "living" thing you know of? and how hard "impossible" would it be for that to have formed, and then for evolution to have carried the process onwards?
Your example takes the tone of a man being instantly formed, as opposed to something very very basic being formed, and then progressing.
Oh, and this coming from the man who thinks it happened in 7 days? (Well, 1 day - the click of a finger)
To stay in line with your analogy, we're talking an old spectrum 16k game, but you seem more interested in UT2004.
I wouldn't know, my expertise does not lie in this area, but I would still not be inclined to say "a big invisible dude in space did it". Wouldn't it be better just to say "I don't know"?
Using the word "prefer" you make it sound like a personal choice. Let's look at two animals that get separated by natural disaster/etc. Over time the differences in environment would leave one distinctly different from the other. As time progresses they would adapt all the more to the other environment - and so on, until such time where the pair are no longer able to mate, and are not considered the same species.
Alas, I do not have a degree in genetics, but again can only state that a long period of time comes across as more worthy than the entire creation of everything, as we still see it today, (except dinosaurs), in less time than it takes to say "Let there be life". Lack of a genetics degree, and indeed an understanding of the world 4.5 billion years ago, does not give one reason to turn all supernatural. You're handing your intelligence over to ancient shepherds. No tools, no computers, no scientific understanding of so much as a cloud - and yet these people just said it and got it all right first time round- even though they still thought the world was flat and there was a big dome in the sky.
And once more, we're not talking 'fully functioning human being', we're talking simple organism. As I said earlier, pick the simplest thing that you consider to be alive and we'll work from there. You don't run a race from end to start, so there's no point doing that now.
There's more to it than speaking to a handful of astronomers. There are many methods used to date this planet - all of which concur without the need for astronomers.
So Noah told the stories to the Sumerians, who wrote a fake version, and even got Noah's name wrong.. and then 1 and a half millennia later, Noah got pissed off and decided to get someone to write the real version?
----------
Yes, but it's pretty meaningless.
What are you saying?
Ok, and that technically makes the bible worthless. Might aswell just read one of the other vast choice of ancient texts, or just stick to more modern day works like Lord of the Rings or The Diceman.
I hate this shit, and I'm merely going to pass it back to you: Can you prove the giant invisible giraffe of Jupiter doesn't exist? Is it possible to prove it doesn't exist?
Your argumen is futile, and until such time where it can be shown as a reality, there is no choice but to confine it to the realms of make believe and fantasy.
I also somewhat detest when it comes to the nasty shit in the bible, those who are at the forefront of god worship, defend it by making humans look like bigger bastards. "It's the humans fault, don't blame my lovely god- he's perfect, we're all shitheads and scumbags that might aswell rot".
It's the nastiest thing I know - watching people drag their own kind down into the gutter all for the sake of a being that hides in the shadows.
But then why read it at all? You can get those same words of wisdom reading any pamphlet handed out at your local police station, school, or perhaps even your mother.
Other than a few core rules, what in it is of any specific wisdom?
Says who? Do you know him? Have you met him? Has he sent you an email with a love heart on it?
Says who? The majority of religious people keep telling me to read the bible, even you have done that - and it's full to the brim with god killing people, and goes on to tell us that eventually he'll come back and slaughter the rest of us.
But let me guess.. It's the same old shit of: "the parts that say god is loving are written by god, the rest is just lies made up by man".
You saying there's harmony, peace or love with babies? Hell no, they scream their lungs off 24/7 because they want a tit to suck on. That's it. It's a fight for survival, not because they have lots of love for their mothers boob. Bonding comes about later - and is not reserved for 'all of humanity', because that is not our nature. Give them a year or two and they'll be beating their siblings up. Conflict is natural, and happens from a very early age.
Not at all, but evolution is not a personal choice. You can't sit down and say "Hmm, I'd like to evolve so I love all humans". It does not work that way.
So basically it makes them emotionless? That's what you aspire to be?
Well, it certainly taught me some valid methods of torture. And where does it show how? Is it like a step by step method, or more like a weightwatchers plan?
But who says god is all loving, and where did they get that information?
Yes yes, keep dragging mankind down into the gutter. Very pleasant.
You flunked math didn't you... There is a maximum amount of time and in that maximum amount of time, the most complex organism has to form. You are trying to say the least complex form evolved in the maximum time - nonsequiter.SnakeLord said:
Actually, this is Darwin's false premise. There are no simple organisms. Even one-celled animals are hugely complex.
No, I don't think evolution happened in 7 days (the bible actually says 6). I don't think evolution happened at all. Evolution (Macro-evolution) is absurd from beginning to end. There is no truth in it. It cannot have happened. It is categorically impossible.
Now, did God create all life in six days (actually three)? Possibly - but I can't prove it. What I can do is show the utter absurdity of Evolution by chance (Macro-evolution). The failure of Evolution does not by itself point to Creation. Go find something else to explain the utter magnificance and supurb detail of life as we see it today. Maybe an alien race came and seeded this planet - I don't know. What I do know is that Macro-evolution IS FALSE.
I don't believe I did either... Yes, I am quite content to say "I don't know"
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? This is called Micro-evolution and every theist I know BELIEVES Micro-evolution. This in no way asserts the truth of Macro-evolution.
I'm sorry but I just can't discuss this with you since you have no notion what you are saying. There are no dating methods for 4.5 billion years.
Yes, that would be my take on it - after all, Noah would be the father/ancestor of the Sumerians. Noah's name would change with the language - see the Tower of Babel. Babel was around 200 years after the Flood and Abram left Ur about a century after that. The flood was in Naoh's 600th year and Noah lived to be 950. Noah and Abram overlap about half a century.
It's kind of amusing arguing Bible verses with someone who obviously hasn't actually read the Bible.
Last edited:
If you want to get mathematical about it, David, you ought to stop assuming that there is only one world possible for life to occur. Current estimates of the size of the universe range from really big to infinite. If the universe is infinititely large, the probability of life of occuring somewhere is 1. If the universe is even close to infinity, then the chance of life occuring is >>0.