A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

The idea that the continents drifted apart in some mad biblical time dash is ABSURD! LOL!

I can see it now...South America is coming around turn five but wait folks here comes the birth of the Hawaiian Island Chain...POP! POP! POP!...there just sprouting like beans folks!!

And here comes Everest as the Asian and Indian plates are grinding together and up....WHOA! LOOK AT THAT BABY GO!!!

AND RIGHT THERE!!

AboveAlpha

 

At this time you forgot to bring your "wikipedia" link supporting your point...

 

Why label the Book of Genesis as "creationist" at all? What if the intent of the stories therein are not about the creation of the Earth?
Has anyone posting here considered the Intent of the ultimate author?

Most Christians are wrong in their knowledge of Genesis.
They are the wrongest on just 1 issue: Who lied in the garden of Eden?

Most Christians say that "nature's God" lied. Hows that?

They make Him a liar when they preach eternal life to everyone either in some hell or some heaven.

The Lord of Life and Love said, "... the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." In essence He said, "the wages of sin is death.." Eternal death.

And someone else said, "Ye shall not surely die."

So when Christians tell you about "hell", they are saying the same thing, "Ye shall not surely die."

The Creator tells us that we will die if ....... . And the Christians tell us that we will have eternal life in either hell or heaven.

So why are Christians calling Jesus Christ a liar?

Because they are putting Talmudic doctrines 1st in their minds. Eternal life in Hell is a Talmudic concept.

So if most Christians are calling Jesus Christ a liar, how can the rest of their doctrines be correct?

 

No difference with NASA website:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

So, you take a picture of an event and give your opinion, and in base of "your opinion" you invent a "mysterious force"... excuse me but that is fantasy to me.

It's fantasy because such a mystery hasn't been proved and so far, no one can prove the existence of that so called dark energy... all this fuss about dark energy is lunacies.

I will tell you why.

The force known as gravity (whatever the explanation of the phenomenon is) is something that we can experience and is taken as proven by the several observations and even experiments made about/with gravity.

So far, what we see from far away galaxies is practically a "still stand universe", we can't see their motion, they are that far away that pictures taken through the years won't be enough to verify any hipothesis, currently the hypothesis are made in base of interpretation of "stand still pictures". Period!

Lets see an analogy.

There is a car standing still in the the middle of the street, the driver is on his seat and with the hands in the steering wheel. A person running very fast and listening music from his Iphone got distracted and hit the front of the car. The hit was that bad that his body rejected itself from the front of the car making him fly away a few feet. Someone took a picture right after the hit and posted in Facebook. The comment written in the title says that the man was hit by the car, and comments even from "experts" agreed with him.

But, that is not what happened.

The same rule applies to those views from our point of observation, most of the interpretations about those pictures are nothing but guesses made by scientitsts in base of their ideas, imaginations, expectations, etc... and for this reason they themselves can't give for granted their conclusions. They didn't see what happened BEFORE the pictures were taken... they just want to prove that the universe expands and are idiotic enough to see expansion everywhere from now on...

You can't take as fact their deluded imaginations.

Look, the idea of dark energy is just an assumption invented because someone thought that if there is a force pulling together celestial bodies, then there must be another force setting them apart... but such is just imaginations... imaginations that are later on applied to interpret pictures of far away galaxies.

Why far away galaxies?

Simple, because with this strategy nobody can prove them wrong of their lunacies. If dark energy does exist, then we should detect it right here, even between the parameters of the outer atmosphere and solid ground, between the parameters of the solar system, between the parameters of the Milky Way... but no, they pulled your legs and told you that dark energy in action can be "only and solely" be observable through standing still pictures of far away galaxies.

You and others demand "solid evidence" of the existence of God, but God is the reason of religion not so of science.

But we can demand fom you the solid evidence of the existence of dark energy, black hoiles, time, worm holes, parallel universes, and etc. etc... and you have NOTHING but "mysteries"...

Come on, face it, the current theories of science enjoy of more fantasy than any cartoon movie from Disney.

 

Evolution theory existed before Darwin. The hypothesis is that current species are the consequence of inferior, simpler and worst species. Evolutionists and Darwin agreed that man came from monkeys, apes, a former species that was savage, had low standard of reasoning, etc. etc. The whole idea is that life on earth was getting a better and superior status. This is how this theory started, and we know that such idea is a fallacy. By consequence, the theory of evolution is FALSE and MUST BE DISCARDED. Period.

The Big Bang theory fails to demonstrate the original point of such expansion. If you write back about the Big Bang, don't forget to show the direction pointing the universal epicenter, the point of its origin, and show as well the direction of the expansion. If you can't show this observation, then you have nothing, because that is the main requirement to validate such a hypothesis of the Big Bang.

Question, what observation of nature are you talking about then?

 

The special technique you assume did exist wasn't propagated perhaps because it was not needed anymore, God says the Mabul will be a one time catastrophe in human's history...

About "your extimates" about canines and felines coming from one couple since the ark, even the most skeptic atheists recognizes that dogs (the whole variety of dogs from Saint Bernard to Chihuahua) come from a common ancestor and their diversity started no farther than a few thousands years ago. Besides, we know by fact that whatever the evolutionists say about mutation rate is a complete nonsense... their calculations are laughable... they expect a universal mutation rate based on their own established environment (read lab) ha ha ha...

Well, this is interesting, a guy made a half size scale replica of Noah's ark. The replica is an attempt to duplicate such an ark, we don't have the blueprints and less the measurement of the width lenght, etc of the logs. Still, it looks good.

http://www.pbase.com/paulthedane/noahs_ark



And also this attempt (showed below) to demonstrate the capabilities of the ark to float is also interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV8QoiCAf7Y

[video=youtube;WV8QoiCAf7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV8QoiCAf7Y[/video]

 

To Carlos Lebaron:
Expanding Earth hypothesis explains "continental drift".
A German scientist took a balloon and drew the continents on it as they are at present. Then he gradually deflated the balloon. The continents all came together.
[video=youtube;7kL7qDeI05U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U[/video]

Are you related to the LeBarons in Chihuahua?

 

.

Falsehoods in bold

falsehood in bold

falsehood in bold

falsehood in bold

The fallacies are yours

falsehood in bold

no creo can advance their arguments without the use of falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

Fake science peddled by folks with mindsets like Carlos here are exactly why atheists need to stop fighting over the ten commandments in courthouses and stars on historic monuments. Backwards and ignorant thinking like that can and does infect educational systems and that will be far more damaging and have much more reaching consequences than a plaque in a building. Children growing up receiving nonsense like that instead of real science instruction are going to be behind in what we already know is going to be(because it already is) an increasingly technical world.

 

Hey, at least the wikipedia links have extensive bibliographies. You cite "All About Creation".

Probably because you don't understand:
A) The status of "dark energy" within physics (It's a hypothesis to explain observed phenomenon)
B) Why we created the hypothesis.

Honestly, I'm not going to bother debating cosmology and physics with you. Two reasons: firstly you've demonstrated explicitly that you're basically scientifically illiterate; and secondly, physics isn't my field of expertise, so I'm liable to not understand the objections you throw at me or be able to provide adequate answers. Now, this, on the other hand:

Hoo boy. You just stepped in it big time. There were previous theories of development before Darwin's work (Lamarkism being the biggest name), but if they did in fact claim that current species are the consequence of "inferior" or "simpler" species, then they have very little to do with what Darwin proposed (natural selection and survival of the fittest), and naturally should be discarded. The idea, however, that evolution is based on that, is utterly bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Neither Darwin nor modern evolutionary theories invoke such ideas, and discarding it because of something entirely unrelated is ludicrous. You might as well assert that we should reject evolution because of social Darwinism.

Seriously, the logic on display here is just so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing weak, I don't even know how to process it. A theory was originally created and had a low standard of evidence 150 years ago. Because back then it had weak evidence but was still largely correct (again, Darwin's version never asserted what you claim), we should throw away the evolved version of the theory which exists today - a version which not only is backed by more evidence than virtually any other scientific theory in existence, but which builds the background of biology, without which nothing in biology actually makes sense. For those wondering, the evidence for evolution includes:
- The fossil record
- Genetic similarity
- The phylogenetic tree of life building absolute concordance within species with all available evidence
- The predictive power of evolution (specifically in fossil-hunting but also in general)
- Ring species
- Basic computer simulations (no, really)
- It just goes on and on and on...

...In fact, the theory of evolution we know today can almost be directly taken from three known qualities of life: everything dies, living things reproduce with genetic variation, and those better equipped to survive in their environment will pass on their genes better.

See, this is what I meant when I stated that you don't understand the theory or the evidence for it. These people didn't come together one day and say, "All right, we need an explanation for nature that doesn't involve god!" Instead, they saw natural phenomena (the discovery leading to the big bang theory was infrared background radiation, the discovery leading to evolution was the Galapagos finches; the evidence that came together to prop the theory up beyond that is so extensive it'd take multiple books just to chronicle it all) and tried to find a solid, falsifiable explanation with good predictive power. Then they tested it against further information, and proceeded to modify or discard it as necessary. You know, the way science works.

 

TY. Finally a viewpoint of your belief. You believe the flood happened a few thousand years ago as stated in the bible. And time was different just a few thousand years ago than it is today.
Did I comprehend correctly?

 

so no other art form or anything makes interpretations?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so whats your interpretation of freewill?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so whats your interpretation of freewill?

 

Believeing in God has little to do with "controlling ourselves". Do you act on every impulse that have?

 

Nope, but that isn't why we are being sent to Hell. God, according to the Bible, doesn't care about past sins. As long as you repent, and here is the KICKER, accept Jesus Christ as your savior you can go to heaven. Why is that a requirement?

 

I'm not so sure timelines are real important to scripture. Sometimes they're important, and others times they may not be.

 

I don't think I ever said God created humans first, but anyway.

I want to break this down, because evolution is the point I'm trying to get a grip on. I'm slow, so bear with me. If we are made in the image of God with a "concious" mind, then when did this concious develop? Scripture never seems to come even remotely close, to me, to giving even a vague idea of some evolutionary process.

 

What does that have to do with controlling yourself? Do think we get punished for doing what comes natural?

 

Well, they do, but most people don't look at, say, "The Catcher in the Rye" as a way to live their lives.

 

So its not the fact of the interpretation that you have a problem with, its the thing thats being interpreted?

 

Because nobody is saying that we shouldn't control ourselves. But that isn't why we are being punished for all of eternity. I control myself, but according to your Bible I will go to Hell because I haven't accepted Jesus as my savior.

 

Is there a specific passage you're referring to?

 

It's the fact that people are relying on something which has to be heavily interpreted (and has been interpreted no less than 33,000 different ways) as a guidebook for their lives.

 

Can I ask you a serious question since you don't seem to actually know about the passage: Do you think that's a fair judgement, to send people to hell for simply not believing in God or accepting Jesus as your savior?

 

Alot of people live fine without the "heavy" interprtation. So like I said it's not the interpretation its the object that's being interpreted, right? yes or no.

 

I didn't say I didn't know about the passage, I simply asked you to present it, so we could work with it. Do you believe that God sends people to Hell for simply not believing in Him, or accepting Jesus Christ as savior?