This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A realization I made reading through 1-2 Peter and 1-3 John today.

#101OrangeWizardPosted 4/22/2013 12:37:14 PM
From: JonWood007 | #100
Had to happen during human history


Human history according to the timeframe of science, or the undescribed timeframe of the bible?

Can you provide some reliable sources of a water related one that happened at some point doing human history?


Again, whose timeframe of "human history"?

We have for humans at some points. There was one 70,000 years ago when a supervolcano erupted.


Okay.

No, that's the firmament separating the waters below the earth (oceans) with the waters above (what waters above)?


You asked me a question, and then I answered you. You don't get to say "No". This isn't a test. I'm not being graded. Either accept my answer or don't.

So did we get a day and night cycle before or after we got plants?


Both.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#102OrangeWizardPosted 4/22/2013 12:41:41 PM
If after, how could plants grow when one side of the earth is frozen and the other is scorching?


Are you assuming literal day and night cycles that took millions of years to complete?
Haha. Why?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#103JonWood007Posted 4/22/2013 12:44:06 PM(edited)
Human history according to the timeframe of science, or the undescribed timeframe of the bible?


Let me put it this way, were Adam and Eve human?

Also, if the time frame of science and the time frame of the Bible are not the same, doesn't that more or less imply the Bible is wrong, or at the very least there's no reason to believe what it has to say?

You asked me a question, and then I answered you. You don't get to say "No". This isn't a test. I'm not being graded. Either accept my answer or don't.


Well then your answer is wrong.

Both.


THis is an invalid answer.


Are you assuming literal day and night cycles that took millions of years to complete?
Haha. Why?


It said he didn't separate day and night until after he made plants. Plants kinda require a regular day and night cycle to live. You also said the "days" did not happen concurrently.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#104OrangeWizardPosted 4/22/2013 1:12:25 PM
From: JonWood007 | #103
Let me put it this way, were Adam and Eve human?


Yes.

I don't see your point.

Also, if the time frame of science and the time frame of the Bible are not the same, doesn't that more or less imply the Bible is wrong, or at the very least there's no reason to believe what it has to say?


If "The only reason I have for believing in anything is based on science, and everything else is wrong", then yes.

Well then your answer is wrong.


If you say so. You know more about the bible than I do, I guess.

THis is an invalid answer.


Well, you know more about the bible than I do, I guess.

It said he didn't separate day and night until after he made plants.


I'm referring to the bits inbetween each creative day that say "And there came to be a morning and an evening, the X day". What are YOU talking about?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#105JonWood007Posted 4/22/2013 2:28:20 PM

Yes.

I don't see your point.


Then the fall and all subsequent events, including the flood, had to occur during human history. There is no record of this.

If "The only reason I have for believing in anything is based on science, and everything else is wrong", then yes.


The Bible directly contradicts science. And yes, I trust science more than the Bible. To quote Richard Dawkins, "it works, *****es!"


I'm referring to the bits inbetween each creative day that say "And there came to be a morning and an evening, the X day". What are YOU talking about?


Well that poses its own problems. It implies that they are literal days. Or are they referring to heaven's days or something?

I was referring mainly to Genesis 1:14-1:19. Apparently God made the sun, moon, and stars AFTER he made the plants on earth, which rely on these things. So I guess I spoke a little too harshly with the day light cycles assuming the earth didn't move, but still, without these things, the world would FREEZE. No sun, moon, and stars = almost total darkness and lack of heat. Without the stars, it would be total. How would plants live at absolute zero, OW?
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#106OrangeWizardPosted 4/22/2013 2:39:44 PM
From: JonWood007 | #105
Then the fall and all subsequent events, including the flood, had to occur during human history. There is no record of this.


"Human history" as known by science?

The Bible directly contradicts science.


If you say so.

It implies that they are literal days.


No it doesn't.

I was referring mainly to Genesis 1:14-1:19. Apparently God made the sun, moon, and stars AFTER he made the plants on earth,


No, these things were already there. They were just "revealed", so a hypothetical person on earth could see them. Genesis is from that sort of perspective. How else do you propose to have light without the sun?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#107DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/22/2013 3:35:44 PM

"Human history" as known by science?


Yessir, do you have reason to believe science has errored or are you just dogmaticly dismissing it or what?


Not responding to your points to me until you respond to mine. But you managed to derail my topic to Creationism. Thanks. It's obvious you had to, since I demonstrated how we can know the Gospels were written post-diction of Jerusalem's destruction and how the Christian faith didn't even start based on them and you have zero rebuttals whatsoever.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#108JonWood007Posted 4/22/2013 3:46:24 PM

"Human history" as known by science?


Of course. Do you distrust science? if so, this conversation is more or less over.


No it doesn't.


What does it mean then?


No, these things were already there. They were just "revealed", so a hypothetical person on earth could see them. Genesis is from that sort of perspective. How else do you propose to have light without the sun?


The answer is that you don't.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#109OrangeWizardPosted 4/22/2013 4:35:22 PM
From: DarkContractor | #107
Yessir, do you have reason to believe science has errored or are you just dogmaticly dismissing it or what?


How would science know if, say, Adam and Eve lived alone for thousands of years? How does science know that human history started? By human fossils or other evidences of sentient life, like tools or paintings and stuff.

Well if they didn't die for thousands of years, then there'd be no fossils, and it's not uncommon for science to not find stuff like tools, that can erode with age.

Not responding to your points to me until you respond to mine.


What points haven't I responded to?

From: JonWood007 | #108
What does it mean then?


Beginnings and endings of periods of time.

The answer is that you don't.


Exactly, therefore, the sun was there.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#110DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/22/2013 4:38:37 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #109
How would science know if, say, Adam and Eve lived alone for thousands of years? How does science know that human history started? By human fossils or other evidences of sentient life, like tools or paintings and stuff.

Well if they didn't die for thousands of years, then there'd be no fossils, and it's not uncommon for science to not find stuff like tools, that can erode with age.



I agree completely, I used the same apologetic when I was a Christian but this isn't the point we're focusing on. We're looking at Noah's Ark, post regression from perfection.



What points haven't I responded to?


The ones you wouldn't read.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya