17 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI see two different claims made here.
Genesis 1
Order goes something like this; Heaven and Earth, Light and dark, then he made heaven again (firmament). On the second day, he made earth / dry land (again), and seas. God also made vegetation on the second day. On the third day god made stars, the sun and the moon, and then got tired and couldn't be bother with anything else that day. ...[text shortened]... . But in Gen 2, nothing was alive until AFTER man.
http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp
Gen. 1. Creation of Earth
Gen. 2. Creation of the garden of Eden.
Apparently, the garden of Eden was created after man. So? How does the creation of a local event refute the global creation? Perhaps I am simply still being dull, but I continue to fail to see any contradiction.
God creates the world. God creates man. God creates a special place which is the garden of Eden. God places man in Eden.
I don't understand the problem with this timeline.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by OmnislashThe problem is the generation of life. Gen 1 has it before man, but Gen 2 says that there was no life (because god forgot to water his creation) until after the creation of man...
I see two different claims made here.
Gen. 1. Creation of Earth
Gen. 2. Creation of the garden of Eden.
Apparently, the garden of Eden was created after man. So? How does the creation of a local event refute the global creation? Perhaps I am simply still being dull, but I continue to fail to see any contradiction.
God creates the world. God c ...[text shortened]... garden of Eden. God places man in Eden.
I don't understand the problem with this timeline.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo no life till man was 'invented?' What about those big moving
The problem is the generation of life. Gen 1 has it before man, but Gen 2 says that there was no life (because god forgot to water his creation) until after the creation of man...
thingys they call dinosaurs? I will go out on a limb here and
say that they were alive at one point and there were definitely
no humans of any ilk around 60 million years ago.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyOriginally posted by whodey
I can't fight it any more. I started reading Darwins descent of Man and have become a new convert. A few questions remain for me, however, after converting to my new faith. Here are some of Darwins quotes in question.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and repl ...[text shortened]... d choosing what they want to teach about Darwins beliefs, they to will see the light.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
I have to say deforestation is destroying the small tribes of the amazon, also many natives are having there cultures forgoten and they are living intergrated lives for example native indians in america.
Well I do not agree with his sexist comments but at the time i can see why he thought them through history male has been the dominant sex but this is correcting its self now. You only have to look at a list of some of the most famous scientists to think this but there are other factors he was not considering at the time such as many men would of been lisened to more and may of had better educations.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSmall correction. Anglia is the region in England (Angle-land) that the Angles settled. They came from Angeln.
I looked at the Wikipedia article about Celts and it agrees with you that "Celticness" is a cultural quality, and not one of ancestry.
However "Anglo-Saxon" refers to a blending of two separate Germanic tribes in Britain; the Angles and the Saxons, from Anglia and Saxony respectively.