Posted on 05/05/2009 9:44:52 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
The YEC folks are championing God's Word, wherein we learn what is necessary for salvation and on that we don't debate.
We don't debate whether it is true or not, even if we disagree about other things.
My daughter says I'm “calcified”, is that like “recalcitrant”?
(1)For the Evo-atheist folk, that's in a book that really has something truthful to say about the origin of all the species.
The scary thing is I think I would have agreed with you if I could have figured out what you were saying.
Your stone-cold sober post was just as funny as the one I so rudely questioned.
“The scary thing is I think I would have agreed with you if I could have figured out what you were saying.
Your stone-cold sober post was just as funny as the one I so rudely questioned.”
I didn’t take it as rude at all.
I tried to read the post out loud to someone tonight and had a rough time making it through the dialect myself... and folks talk like that where I hail from!
I meant well, but I’m afraid something might have been lost in the translation.
GG
You aren’t gonna want a hug or anything, are you? Cause there isn’t anything you need to apologize for, really.
As GGG will agree, I don’t get hurt feelings and take stuff personally. And if I poke an eye it’s only to the first knuckle.
Cheers.
“You aren’t gonna want a hug or anything, are you?”
Hugging? Not blinkin’ likely! I come from a long line of porcupines. As a porcupine you learn young that huggin’ is a baaaaddd idea.
GG
If I believed in Evolution, puns would be the Neanderthal of humor... followed closely by anything Joy Behar has ever said...
Did I mention, that was funny too?
So, I stoop.
“I think it prudent to never assume anything.”
Ok, just tell me how you interpret the 4th commandment sensibly without agreeing that the six days of creation are actually six days and not unspecified periods of time or whatnot.
“Using your “logic”, I can use the bible to support all manner of mischief.”
I respectfully disagree. Interpreting any manuscript begins with interpreting what literary style you are dealing with. Any linguist or interpreter will tell you that. If you don’t believe me, search for basic guidelines for translations on Alta Vista or something. You’ll see.
GGG to GG: “I would never want to be in a foxhole with you...you would have me laughing so hard that you would get us both killed!”
GG in response: Nah... rather droll in person.
Me: Do you know what “droll” means? At least you did sum up my impression of you based on your original screed: “[I am] without the intellect, the wit, or the ability to write.”
Stop it!!! You’re killin’ me man!!!
Geez, your funny. And that “screed” word? Love it... absolutely love it!!!
Peace, joker.
“In your circumstance however, your interpretation seems to begin with a conclusion and then seeks support for it.”
Again, I disagree. Open the book of Genesis and read.
It is a straight historical narrative beginning with a time and place. It unfolds history chronologically giving detailed genealogies, geography, people movements, the rise and fall of kings and administrations, battles, wars, and natural disasters.
To say it is anything other than an historical narrative is simply dishonest, if you have ever read it. If you don’t agree with me, quickly check the summary of research of any published biblical and archeological scholar, and not just the Christian ones. Archeologists of a myriad of faiths utilize it as a straight historical narrative for a reason.
It has been proven as accurate history time and time again by archeological, historical, and geographical comparison. It is an an ancient historical narrative text.
The scientific method: There can be no God. Therefore, let’s see what theory we can build to disprove His existence.
The creationist method: There must be a God. Therefore, let’s investigate how He made this universe and how it works.
Science does not, can not, deal with the supernatural realm. Science does not address theology. Science only makes assumptions based on observation. Period.
“Where do you draw the line? How can you presume your interpretation is accurate?”
That’s the problem... it’s not “your” interpretation. As I’ve been directed by Evolutionists before (like they originated the saying) “words mean things”. The meaning of the words in the Bible, including “Yom” have been studied and culturally proven time and again. You would truly have to discount the entire Word of God if Creation did not happen in the classical sense.
“I offer direct, unambiguous statements, and you just shined them on.”
Marie, you’re a great advocate for Creation and for God.
The problem with the supreme arrogance of Evolution... you know, survival of the fittest and all... is that it allows no possibility that the purveyor could possibly be mistaken. Although there is no; and I mean absolutely NO concrete evidence for Evolution, those who believe in it do so wholeheartedly, unapologetically and with an abundance of conceit. They continually call Believers to account for their viewpoint yet cannot adequately account for their own. And when they are questioned further, their haughty hearts are utterly convinced no further explanation is needed. Indeed they feel they have taught we poor misguided souls all that is possible… they truly believe it is the Creationist who is utterly deceived.
The religion of Evolution is evil, arrogant and merciless and it continues to claim otherwise intelligent victims through outright lies and subtle deception. Still, no one is a victim who does not allow themselves to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.