Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Giants Vs Dinosaurs

question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:30:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.
Have you ever read a book and no that book of fairytales doesn't count?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:30:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This reminds me of an absurdist metaphor I heard once about viewing a problem in such an infinitely wrong way that it ends up closer to being right than anything else.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:37:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

So if I can prove there was many giant men bones found over 20 feet tall just like the bones of the so called dinos then what will that prove? Evolutionist must have missed something out some where
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:37:00 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

So if I can prove there was many giant men bones found over 20 feet tall just like the bones of the so called dinos then what will that prove? Evolutionist must have missed something out some where

There are no bones of 20 feet tall humans in the fossil record, any creationist evidence you can point to is almost certainly a fraud (some giant bones were easily sniffed out as fakes years ago). If they did exist, then it I bet it could still be shown that they shared a common ancestor with the apes meaning that it wouldn't harm evolution any. They could have survived in strange conditions which made them that way, which would actually support evolution! If you want creationism to be true, then you have to show that there a human fossils as old as the oldest animal fossils as The Bible said humans and the oldest animals existed side by side. This is not possible, as the fossil record clearly points to evolution of more complex organisms as time went on, with modern humans not showing up till a few hundred thousand years ago (that is not long considering evolution has been going on for billions of years).

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:41:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

I was really refreshed to hear that. I almost heard shades of St. Augustine there for a moment.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:53:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

I've always wondered that if the dinosaurs all died out due to a huge catastrophic event, how did so many species survive and sustain the biological diversity? As I understand it, dinosaurs lived in a variety of environments, and if they all died out at the same time, how did enough biological diversity remain to give rise to hominids and other species?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only Christians worth taking seriously are those that abandon the only possible source for their religious belief system?? That doesn't even make sense.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:44:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only Christians worth taking seriously are those that abandon the only possible source for their religious belief system?? That doesn't even make sense.

yec is the only possible source for their religious belief system? ....what?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:55:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:44:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only Christians worth taking seriously are those that abandon the only possible source for their religious belief system?? That doesn't even make sense.

yec is the only possible source for their religious belief system? ....what?

Yeah that kind of threw me off to....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:44:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only Christians worth taking seriously are those that abandon the only possible source for their religious belief system?? That doesn't even make sense.

I hope you know that you have fallen behind. Most Christians have "evolved" ;)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know how to ask this in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful, or confrontational.

How can a progressive creationists, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, etc. claim to be a bible-believer if they deny one of the most crucial books, Genesis, and ignore the references that Jesus Himself made to Genesis??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:10:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:44:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only Christians worth taking seriously are those that abandon the only possible source for their religious belief system?? That doesn't even make sense.

I hope you know that you have fallen behind. Most Christians have "evolved" ;)

HAHA...That's ok, I think I'll just stay back here with lowly, less sophisticated.
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:37:00 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

So if I can prove there was many giant men bones found over 20 feet tall just like the bones of the so called dinos then what will that prove? Evolutionist must have missed something out some where

There are no bones of 20 feet tall humans in the fossil record, any creationist evidence you can point to is almost certainly a fraud (some giant bones were easily sniffed out as fakes years ago). If they did exist, then it I bet it could still be shown that they shared a common ancestor with the apes meaning that it wouldn't harm evolution any. They could have survived in strange conditions which made them that way, which would actually support evolution! If you want creationism to be true, then you have to show that there a human fossils as old as the oldest animal fossils as The Bible said humans and the oldest animals existed side by side. This is not possible, as the fossil record clearly points to evolution of more complex organisms as time went on, with modern humans not showing up till a few hundred thousand years ago (that is not long considering evolution has been going on for billions of years).

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

So how man years ago did the mammoth come about? Well when they disappear or evolve - so king kong was real and the giant men must evolved from them , so the war between godzilla and king kong was true and the cyclops vs dragons or dinos had to be a possibility about 10 billion years ago man just got smaller and smaller sooner or later we all will be midgets then back to germs and start back over...I just hope I don't evolve back a germ or bacteria that causes illness , I wonder who evolved from the hiv virus 20 milliom years ago because they have to be some terrible species to come from that..curious
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:55:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:51:20 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:37:00 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

So if I can prove there was many giant men bones found over 20 feet tall just like the bones of the so called dinos then what will that prove? Evolutionist must have missed something out some where

There are no bones of 20 feet tall humans in the fossil record, any creationist evidence you can point to is almost certainly a fraud (some giant bones were easily sniffed out as fakes years ago). If they did exist, then it I bet it could still be shown that they shared a common ancestor with the apes meaning that it wouldn't harm evolution any. They could have survived in strange conditions which made them that way, which would actually support evolution! If you want creationism to be true, then you have to show that there a human fossils as old as the oldest animal fossils as The Bible said humans and the oldest animals existed side by side. This is not possible, as the fossil record clearly points to evolution of more complex organisms as time went on, with modern humans not showing up till a few hundred thousand years ago (that is not long considering evolution has been going on for billions of years).

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

So how man years ago did the mammoth come about? Well when they disappear or evolve - so king kong was real and the giant men must evolved from them , so the war between godzilla and king kong was true and the cyclops vs dragons or dinos had to be a possibility about 10 billion years ago man just got smaller and smaller sooner or later we all will be midgets then back to germs and start back over...I just hope I don't evolve back a germ or bacteria that causes illness , I wonder who evolved from the hiv virus 20 milliom years ago because they have to be some terrible species to come from that..curious

I literally can't tell if you're trolling or serious. Your questions are loaded with maximum fail.

If you are being serious, I have to ask: is your profile age a lie, or were you home schooled?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:17:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:55:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:51:20 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:57:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:37:00 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

So if I can prove there was many giant men bones found over 20 feet tall just like the bones of the so called dinos then what will that prove? Evolutionist must have missed something out some where

There are no bones of 20 feet tall humans in the fossil record, any creationist evidence you can point to is almost certainly a fraud (some giant bones were easily sniffed out as fakes years ago). If they did exist, then it I bet it could still be shown that they shared a common ancestor with the apes meaning that it wouldn't harm evolution any. They could have survived in strange conditions which made them that way, which would actually support evolution! If you want creationism to be true, then you have to show that there a human fossils as old as the oldest animal fossils as The Bible said humans and the oldest animals existed side by side. This is not possible, as the fossil record clearly points to evolution of more complex organisms as time went on, with modern humans not showing up till a few hundred thousand years ago (that is not long considering evolution has been going on for billions of years).

Young Earth Creationism is absolutely silly, and sophisticated Theists agree. William Lane Craig (Christian philosopher and apologist) claims that Young Earth Creationism is "embarrassing". I agree. I would ditch that nonsense, as the only Christians worth taking seriously are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.

So how man years ago did the mammoth come about? Well when they disappear or evolve - so king kong was real and the giant men must evolved from them , so the war between godzilla and king kong was true and the cyclops vs dragons or dinos had to be a possibility about 10 billion years ago man just got smaller and smaller sooner or later we all will be midgets then back to germs and start back over...I just hope I don't evolve back a germ or bacteria that causes illness , I wonder who evolved from the hiv virus 20 milliom years ago because they have to be some terriblspecies to come from that..curious

I literally can't tell if you're trolling or serious. Your questions are loaded with maximum fail.

If you are being serious, I have to ask: is your profile age a lie, or were you home schooled?

Actually public schooled just like the most is the problem but I am asking the question for educated people such as yourself because you have the answers I never was interested in or believed when Iwas in school I'm not that type of person to believe what the majority believes in
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:25:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:17:59 AM, question4u wrote:


Actually public schooled just like the most is the problem but I am asking the question for educated people such as yourself because you have the answers I never was interested in or believed when Iwas in school I'm not that type of person to believe what the majority believes in

Well, under the presumption that you are not, in fact, a troll, I'm curious what it is about evolution that you're having a hard time with. These things you're posting seem like an odd mix of confusion and sarcasm.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:06:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:44:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I don't know how to ask this in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful, or confrontational.

How can a progressive creationists, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, etc. claim to be a bible-believer if they deny one of the most crucial books, Genesis, and ignore the references that Jesus Himself made to Genesis??

Broadly speaking, they wouldn't say that Genesis was meant to be an accurate, scientific description of creation and origins in the first place like you seem to presuppose. To say that misses the point, and actually robs Genesis of much of it's theological significance. It's not meant to convey that, literally, such and such happened in such and order - rather that it functions as an etiological narrative meant be (in part) a polemic against other ANE creation myths asserting God's dominance, power, and goodness, convey and imbdue religious meaning to certain practices (i.e. all the "temple imagery" in Genesis), and explain Israel's origin and their predicament at the time (their exile). All of these observations have been routinely made for centuries - especially with the advent of modern biblical criticism. So when you go on to try to force Genesis into a paradigm that it's not supposed to be fit into, and force alien and anachronistic meaning onto the text (as YEC does), in essence, YOU would be the one denying Genesis. And, obviously, they would understand Jesus' references to Genesis in an entirely different light than you do.

So, my question to you is this: how can you claim to be a "bible-believer" when you are denying Genesis?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:13:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:06:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:44:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I don't know how to ask this in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful, or confrontational.

How can a progressive creationists, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, etc. claim to be a bible-believer if they deny one of the most crucial books, Genesis, and ignore the references that Jesus Himself made to Genesis??


Broadly speaking, they wouldn't say that Genesis was meant to be an accurate, scientific description of creation and origins in the first place like you seem to presuppose. To say that misses the point, and actually robs Genesis of much of it's theological significance. It's not meant to convey that, literally, such and such happened in such and order - rather that it functions as an etiological narrative meant be (in part) a polemic against other ANE creation myths asserting God's dominance, power, and goodness, convey and imbdue religious meaning to certain practices (i.e. all the "temple imagery" in Genesis), and explain Israel's origin and their predicament at the time (their exile). All of these observations have been routinely made for centuries - especially with the advent of modern biblical criticism. So when you go on to try to force Genesis into a paradigm that it's not supposed to be fit into, and force alien and anachronistic meaning onto the text (as YEC does), in essence, YOU would be the one denying Genesis. And, obviously, they would understand Jesus' references to Genesis in an entirely different light than you do.

So, my question to you is this: how can you claim to be a "bible-believer" when you are denying Genesis?

Oh pooka. You do make me laugh.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:21:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:13:06 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:06:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:44:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I don't know how to ask this in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful, or confrontational.

How can a progressive creationists, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, etc. claim to be a bible-believer if they deny one of the most crucial books, Genesis, and ignore the references that Jesus Himself made to Genesis??


Broadly speaking, they wouldn't say that Genesis was meant to be an accurate, scientific description of creation and origins in the first place like you seem to presuppose. To say that misses the point, and actually robs Genesis of much of it's theological significance. It's not meant to convey that, literally, such and such happened in such and order - rather that it functions as an etiological narrative meant be (in part) a polemic against other ANE creation myths asserting God's dominance, power, and goodness, convey and imbdue religious meaning to certain practices (i.e. all the "temple imagery" in Genesis), and explain Israel's origin and their predicament at the time (their exile). All of these observations have been routinely made for centuries - especially with the advent of modern biblical criticism. So when you go on to try to force Genesis into a paradigm that it's not supposed to be fit into, and force alien and anachronistic meaning onto the text (as YEC does), in essence, YOU would be the one denying Genesis. And, obviously, they would understand Jesus' references to Genesis in an entirely different light than you do.

So, my question to you is this: how can you claim to be a "bible-believer" when you are denying Genesis?

Oh pooka. You do make me laugh.

In a good way or bad way? o_O
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:26:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 1:21:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:13:06 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/3/2013 1:06:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:44:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I don't know how to ask this in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful, or confrontational.

How can a progressive creationists, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, etc. claim to be a bible-believer if they deny one of the most crucial books, Genesis, and ignore the references that Jesus Himself made to Genesis??


Broadly speaking, they wouldn't say that Genesis was meant to be an accurate, scientific description of creation and origins in the first place like you seem to presuppose. To say that misses the point, and actually robs Genesis of much of it's theological significance. It's not meant to convey that, literally, such and such happened in such and order - rather that it functions as an etiological narrative meant be (in part) a polemic against other ANE creation myths asserting God's dominance, power, and goodness, convey and imbdue religious meaning to certain practices (i.e. all the "temple imagery" in Genesis), and explain Israel's origin and their predicament at the time (their exile). All of these observations have been routinely made for centuries - especially with the advent of modern biblical criticism. So when you go on to try to force Genesis into a paradigm that it's not supposed to be fit into, and force alien and anachronistic meaning onto the text (as YEC does), in essence, YOU would be the one denying Genesis. And, obviously, they would understand Jesus' references to Genesis in an entirely different light than you do.

So, my question to you is this: how can you claim to be a "bible-believer" when you are denying Genesis?

Oh pooka. You do make me laugh.

In a good way or bad way? o_O

Definitely in a good way. ;)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 6:35:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 1:40:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

There were no giant men; Men were generally smaller the farther into the past you go. Dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago, the most plausible explanation was due to a large asteroid impact. If this did not happen, we would not be here because this gave rise to mammals. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old, we share a common ancestor with the apes and the chimpanzee is our closest living relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Those have evolved then decided it's not a good idea so they suicide for your sake RT
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 8:37:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:25:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:17:59 AM, question4u wrote:


Actually public schooled just like the most is the problem but I am asking the question for educated people such as yourself because you have the answers I never was interested in or believed when Iwas in school I'm not that type of person to believe what the majority believes in

Well, under the presumption that you are not, in fact, a troll, I'm curious what it is about evolution that you're having a hard time with. These things you're posting seem like an odd mix of confusion and sarcasm.

Your correct about your last statement but I asked a serious question if you don't have or want to share your opinon please keep it moving
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 8:50:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:27:49 PM, question4u wrote:
This is mainly for anyone especially evolutionist or any one that believed dinosaurs existed millions and millions of years ago. Do you believe that Giant men also existed during those years? Did they Coexist? did the man rule or did the dinosaurs? Or only dinos existed man only came millions of years after and was only able to evolve in a ape like stature or for some mermaids also nothing else until us of course? I really want to know what you think.

lol
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 9:31:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:51:20 PM, question4u wrote:
So how man years ago did the mammoth come about? Well when they disappear or evolve - so king kong was real and the giant men must evolved from them , so the war between godzilla and king kong was true and the cyclops vs dragons or dinos had to be a possibility about 10 billion years ago man just got smaller and smaller sooner or later we all will be midgets then back to germs and start back over...I just hope I don't evolve back a germ or bacteria that causes illness , I wonder who evolved from the hiv virus 20 milliom years ago because they have to be some terrible species to come from that..curious

What the...? Comedy gold, whatever the intention behind it was.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 9:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
- so king kong was real and the giant men must evolved from them , so the war between godzilla and king kong was true and the cyclops vs dragons

Are you ok?? Get a tylenol. Stay away from hallucinogens, laughter is good but that stuff will make oatmeal of your noodle!