Originally posted by JS357I am emphasizing in my own subtle way that Kent Hovind, champion of creationism, is in prison for fraud. Whether he is gay or not, involved in a prison romance or not is really no business of mine. I withdraw the statement and apologize to anyone I have offended. (Nice poem by the way). I do not believe that the mountains literally danced, but that this was a figure of speech.
What's with the references to sexual orientation, catstorm?
2 edits
Originally posted by catstormThe New American Standard Bible translates that as "quickly" instead of "soon" so perhaps it does not mean "soon" at all. That is, when He does come, It will happen quickly.
Young Earth Creationists say that the days of creation must be literal 24 hour days because that is the ordinary, plain meaning of the word 'day'. Jesus, 2000 years ago told his followers that he was coming again 'soon'. 2000 years is not the ordinary, plain meaning of the word 'soon'. Why don't you believe that the mountains danced? The Bible says so. Are you calling God a liar?
However, even Jewish Rabbis that knows the Hebrew have stated that "YOM" in Genesis One means a literal 24 hour day because each day is numbered and consists of an evening and morning. Besides that the fourth commandment depends on the six days of creation as being literal 24 hour days because that is the amount of time allowed for the Sabbath observence for the seventh day.
Exodus 20:8-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Originally posted by catstormIt is common sense to me that we all can be wrong on a number of things, since none of us are infallible. 😏
Two last questions for now. If you were to divide the literally-meant verses in the Bible from those that are to be taken figuratively, is it possible that you might be wrong about any of them? When you say common sense do you mean infallibility?
Originally posted by catstormCourt trials are not conducted as a debate. Prosecutors would never allow a defendant to debate them. The Prosecutor is trying to get a conviction because a conviction is a win for the prosecutor.
Hovind's debating skills did not help him against the Prosecutor. I believe I would defeat him as easily as I defeated you, though his cellmate/boyfriend would likely take his side. Next topic?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
1 edit
Originally posted by catstormThose are the lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein in the play/movie The Sound of Music.
I am emphasizing in my own subtle way that Kent Hovind, champion of creationism, is in prison for fraud. Whether he is gay or not, involved in a prison romance or not is really no business of mine. I withdraw the statement and apologize to anyone I have offended. (Nice poem by the way). I do not believe that the mountains literally danced, but that this was a figure of speech.
Just to show that hills can be alive if you play them music. It says so in the song.
Originally posted by RJHindsA better example would have been Kent Hovind debating Ken Ham, who are bitterly divided. No matter who won, it would not disprove creationism because one creationist would win and one would lose.
Court trials are not conducted as a debate. Prosecutors would never allow a defendant to debate them. The Prosecutor is trying to get a conviction because a conviction is a win for the prosecutor.
Originally posted by JS357Yes, thank you. I trust we will not have to debate whether 'the hills are alive' is intended to be taken literally and whether geology textbooks will need to be revised.
Those are the lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein in the play/movie The Sound of Music.
Just to show that hills can be alive if you play them music. It says so in the song.
Q: Creationists make the mistake of thinking there are only two players in the game, Evolution and Creation. If evolution was proved wrong tomorrow which Creator would replace it in the textbooks? God? Allah? Bramah? Odin? And who would decide?
A: I have no answer for this. Anyone?
Originally posted by catstormNone of them, obviously. We would look for another scientific explanation that was backed by evidence, not holy books.
Q: Creationists make the mistake of thinking there are only two players in the game, Evolution and Creation. If evolution was proved wrong tomorrow which Creator would replace it in the textbooks? God? Allah? Bramah? Odin? And who would decide?
A: I have no answer for this. Anyone?
Originally posted by catstormYes, of course. Yom means day. One of the meanings of day is 'a period of time'. However, in the context of Genesis one in which each day is numbered and consists of an evening and morning just like every other 24 hour day of the week in a Jewish calendar, and the seventh day is described as a Sabbath day of rest for God as well as man, it should be obvious that 'a period of time' is 24 hours for each numbered day of that seven day week.
There is a great deal of disagreement among Rabbis as to the correct meaning of 'yom' in the context of Genesis 1, and about every other word. The Rabbi of the local Conservative synagogue interprets it as 'period of time'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by catstormEvolution cannot be disproved.
Q: Creationists make the mistake of thinking there are only two players in the game, Evolution and Creation. If evolution was proved wrong tomorrow which Creator would replace it in the textbooks? God? Allah? Bramah? Odin? And who would decide?
A: I have no answer for this. Anyone?
It could be found to be incomplete, or insufficient, but it cannot be disproven any more.
Because it's BEEN proven.
Originally posted by catstormI don't know what you could mean by being bitterly divided. A minor disagreement here or there does not equate into being bitterly divided. Ken Ham is also a young earth creationist.
A better example would have been Kent Hovind debating Ken Ham, who are bitterly divided. No matter who won, it would not disprove creationism because one creationist would win and one would lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is where you are wrong. Evolution has been disproven.
Evolution cannot be disproved.
It could be found to be incomplete, or insufficient, but it cannot be disproven any more.
Because it's BEEN proven.
Evolution Demolition
Evolution is Wrong: Darwinism Exposed
The Death of Darwinism: The New Evolutionism - Soft Tissue Dinosaurs, etc. - Dr. G. Charles Jackson