Considering your butchering of it as the only example, your claim is as comical as all of the other provocative statements made so far in this thread. As an aside, I am always curious as to why those who believe in a day-age theory demand that "yom", in this context, can only be understood in an age sense, but never in a regular day sense.
The whole point of this thread is there is nothing about science or evolution that attacks God.
Clever yet deceptive how you bundle "science" and "evolution" as if they are the same. True science does not attack God since the founders of much of our scientific theory were believers in God and in Creation.
You are treading in the waters of blasphemy when you state that there is nothing about evolution that attacks God. Don't you remember the Scopes "Monkey" trial? Are you so uninformed about the debate that you ignore the fact that evolution was invented purely as a way to remove God from the culture? Evolution is the antithesis of Creation and is the primary religion of Hell that removes the Creator and replaces Him with Chance.
But since you claim that science is working here, then perhaps you can explain how plants, which require C02 and sunlight in order to survive (we will ignore symbiotic relationships with critters for pollination for the moment) were able to do so without the sun. In the narrative, plants appeared on day three and the sun appeared on day four. According to your calculus, that would mean that in total darkness and temperatures approaching absolute zero, plants were thriving and reproducing for "billions of years" until the sun and its energy finally showed up.
The "whole point of the thread" has been a showcase of lies on your part, especially when you open up with the outrageous and highly offensive lie "Those who don't believe in evolution don't beleive in God". Since evolution has its own origins in the nineteenth century, it follows that you condemn all of humanity before Darwin to Hell on the basis of your own confusion.
Furthermore, I have been patient in giving you ample opportunity to add meat to the bones of your statements. Rather, after telling everyone who doesn't suck-up to atheistic evolution that they are going to Hell you come out and deny the Scriptures as Truth. This is what makes your opening statement even more ironic. You reject Scriptures, call God a liar, embrace atheistic evolution, then call those who believe Scripture, love God, reject pagan explanations of origins as those who "don't believe in God".
I think the Adam and Eve story is almost completely a story about the Spirit and not about physical life and death.
Of course you would. Because if you believed it to be true then it would confirm the Gospel and condemn secular human achievement to vanity. But riddle me this, we have something called a geneology. Most people skip over it because it is boring, but it is there for a reason. It provides a chain of men to link with history. Now since you reject Adam and Eve and I am guessing the first few thousand years of human existance as "a story" rather than history, can you point out in the geneology exactly where history ends and allegory begins?
I know, I know, you will blow off this question too because you would rather blindly believe athiests and God haters rather than think for yourself.
..................................
Clever yet deceptive how you bundle "science" and "evolution" as if they are the same. True science does not attack God since the founders of much of our scientific theory were believers in God and in Creation
.......................
17 posted on 12/01/2004 6:45:07 AM MST by Reuben Hick
Evolution is a hypothetical construct for which there is no corroborating data.
A course in the "Philosophy of Science" will show that evolution is not science but a construct without proof.
i.e. evolution is a religion with less proof than the Bible.
His willing bondslave
chuck
sWhat are your credentials in Hebrew? I am quite accomplished at it.
rConsidering your butchering of it as the only example, your claim is as comical as all of the other provocative statements made so far in this thread. As an aside, I am always curious as to why those who believe in a day-age theory demand that "yom", in this context, can only be understood in an age sense, but never in a regular day sense.
How do you know I butchered it? You just don't want to accept the truth. You think that your limited knowledge of Hebrew, which I suspect is zero, allows you to know what yom means in Genesis? The reason you must accept the indefinite period translation is because if you don't Genesis does not comport with reality. Therefore you are denying the truth of God using evolution to create different forms of life on Earth over long periods of time.
There are several other technical reasons why yom cannot be day in Genesis 1, but I am not going to waste my time enlightening you, as you seem more intent on insult and ridicule instead of education.