An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[Kababe]

Intelligence by your own definition is defending your position. That's all am looking for. Either that or you abandon it.

Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.

Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.

When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.

[vooke]

Sun stopping is no different from sunrise or sunset; words mean exactly that, figures of speech
Sunrise to date is still an English word and nobody gives a hoot about the 'error' in that word
Terrible and lame example to justify taking Genesis as metaphorical

But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Kababe,
The Sun is moving  and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place.  So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".

bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.

[vooke]

kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?

When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.

[Kababe]

kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?

When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.

vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity and then its easy peasy. 

[vooke]

God takes lifeless dust...it is still lifeless
He makes a man in His own image....man is still lifeless
He breaths into man his breath of life and man becomes a living soul
The lifeless dust was actually CREATURES
Man is sent to till CREATURES seeing he came from CREATURES
Man dies and returns to CREATURES because he was formed out of CREATURES


Why couldn't God have formed man out of dust? What's so difficult in literally forming Adam out of the earth?

kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?

When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.

vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity hen its easy peasy. 

[Kababe]

God takes lifeless dust...it is still lifeless
He makes a man in His own image....man is still lifeless
He breaths into man his breath of life and man becomes a living soul
The lifeless dust was actually CREATURES
Man is sent to till CREATURES seeing he came from CREATURES
Man dies and returns to CREATURES because he was formed out of CREATURES

kadame,
how do you make the intellectual leap from studying Genesis 2 to read DUST as a reference to CREATURES?

When you first earn the pedestal you are claiming then talk to me about intelligence. I've defended my position. You have resorted to your usual low life ways because after you have thrown all you have nothing sticks. All you have is the tool of the Pharisee, derision. Nothing more.

vooke, how do you read a whole 7 pages and manage to misunderstand basic English? O wait, I forgot. You just have to lack integrity hen its easy peasy. 

I change my mind, it's not necessarily lack of integrity, it could just be a slow day.

[vooke]

Why couldn't God have formed man out of dust? What's so difficult in literally forming Adam out of the earth?

If a creature can take this

and turn it into this;


Why is it preposterous to believe that the creator took this

and made this?

I change my mind, it's not necessarily lack of integrity, it could just be a slow day.

[Kababe]

When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.

[bittertruth]

Kababe, your view is misleading and unbibilical.
1. God created man in His own image both physical body and supernatural.
2. This thing you call DNA, God's the ultimate author. What do u understand by "breath of life"?  Isn't dna a living cell?

My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. 

[Kababe]

Sun stopping is no different from sunrise or sunset; words mean exactly that, figures of speech
Sunrise to date is still an English word and nobody gives a hoot about the 'error' in that word
Terrible and lame example to justify taking Genesis as metaphorical

But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Kababe,
The Sun is moving  and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place.  So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".

bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.

The example came about because people did in fact take it literally and use it today to point at "errors". Of course its not an error. That's the point! Kudoz for preaching to the choir. And sunrise/sunset/sun stood still...they are only obvious figures of speech because we KNOW today that scientifically, the sun don't rise/set/stand still. Go back 1,000 years and ask Christians and people in the past if these are "figures of speech'' or plain facts.

Still pretending there's just one Genesis account, or did you go and flip through your Bible? I'm curious how your literalism reconciles them.

[Kababe]

Kababe, your view is misleading and unbibilical.
1. God created man in His own image both physical body and supernatural.
2. This thing you call DNA, God's the ultimate author. What do u understand by "breath of life"?  Isn't dna a living cell?

My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless omolecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. 

Bittertruth, explain to me how your body is in God's image.

No. 2: of course God is the ultimate author of DNA. what gave you the impression I think it has a different author?

My view is not unbiblical, its just not yours. If it is unbiblical, you will show me where it contradicts the Bible. not where it contradicts your interpretation.

[vooke]

The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals

Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution

Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.

Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.

Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.

vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito

When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.

[Sunshine]

The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals

Please. You can sing something a thousand times. Repetition never turned anything to fact. Of course Adam had a DEFINITE start, writing that in bold/italics/capital adds exactly ZERO to your points. The debate is never whether Adam existed forever or was created. And O...You believe dust was turned into a creature, ALREADY! The fact that you are so gleefully making fun of your own beliefs is a joy to watch, actually.

Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution

Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.

God formed man from the dust. That's all the bible says. God had to turn inanimate dust into some type of animal, whether you believe that was instant or took a million years, so the idea there was rcorded it started with dust adds nothing to your point since you are presuming it, not proving it.

Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.

What is recorded is first there was soil and at the end there was Adam. You cant force your singular tunnel vision interpretation on that. What happened between the soil and Adam only God knows, and I am free to believe it was exactly as science says.

Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.

You have still to explain the HOW and here you are insisting there was no ambiguity. Was soil just transformed into a body or were elements from it transformed or was Adam just called from the depths of it whole?

vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito

If you have any modicum of decency keep your legendary arrogance to yourself. your interpretation is not what "Genesis is saying", genius, and I already accept what it is saying, and know what it is NOT saying too. And when you find the lock to God's house that gives you the authority on who you let it, feel free to snd me pm on your executive fatwa excluding me. In the mean-time, keep your creationist nonsense to yourself.

When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.

[/quote]

So do you believe both creation accounts in Genesis were literal, or just the first or just the second?

[vooke]

Whether God took a second or a billion years in creating Adam, He never formed Adam from animals but from dust. So throwing in billions of years into creation of man is not helping your vain attempt at transforming DUST into CREATURES

Creation account spans Genesis 1 & 2. Which accounts are you taking about?

The reason why Evilution is incompatible with creation is because;
1. Man(Adam) had a DEFINITE start and it was NOT another animal contrary to evilution model; he came from the dust, a fact that has repeatedly been drummed into you
2. No amount of exegesis,eisegesis,hermeneutics,PhD in Theology,popes,8 foreskins of Jesus,bloody vial of John Paul's blood, weeping Mary idols,any future popes, necromancy,dead saints,Turin shroud or ANYTHING can change DUST into CREATURES. Adam was NEVER created from animals

Please. You can sing something a thousand times. Repetition never turned anything to fact. Of course Adam had a DEFINITE start, writing that in bold/italics/capital adds exactly ZERO to your points. The debate is never whether Adam existed forever or was created. And O...You believe dust was turned into a creature, ALREADY! The fact that you are so gleefully making fun of your own beliefs is a joy to watch, actually.

Evilution could be compatible with scriptures if;
1. Adam was created from other animals and,
2. Adam was born like the next mammal
3. The Genesis 1 & 2 creation account is a fable,allegory, metaphor
4. Man is EXEMPTED from the vagaries of evilution

Again, God is unlimited, He could have evolved Adam from other animals. He could have killed an animal and made man out of it, He could have siphoned some DNA from any animal and made Adam out of it. What is RECORDED is that He used DUST and none of that. God Himself can NEVER change His Word or what He did.

God formed man from the dust. That's all the bible says. God had to turn inanimate dust into some type of animal, whether you believe that was instant or took a million years, so the idea there was rcorded it started with dust adds nothing to your point since you are presuming it, not proving it.

Jesus turned water into wine and not blood. It is forever established and settled that water turned into wine. He could have turned water into ANYTHING but He didn't. kadame you are arguing that since Jesus could turn water into ANYTHING, it is limiting Him to insist (as is recorded) that He turned it into wine and nothing else.

What is recorded is first there was soil and at the end there was Adam. You cant force your singular tunnel vision interpretation on that. What happened between the soil and Adam only God knows, and I am free to believe it was exactly as science says.

Arguments from silence will not help you. There is no silence,vacuum nor ambiguity as to HOW God created man which you are licensed to fill with your fantasies. You have dust/ground, breath of life and God's Wisdom. None of those fit with ANY evilutionary model which demands time,chance and propagation of traits.

You have still to explain the HOW and here you are insisting there was no ambiguity. Was soil just transformed into a body or were elements from it transformed or was Adam just called from the depths of it whole?

vooke never wrote Genesis and neither did you. If you have any modicum of reverence for the scriptures, accept what Genesis is saying; Adam was formed from dust/ground, the same he was sent to till, and the same he and we return to upon death. If that is too ridiculous for your head, then board the next atheistic train and join Termie and Pundito

If you have any modicum of decency keep your legendary arrogance to yourself. your interpretation is not what "Genesis is saying", genius, and I already accept what it is saying, and know what it is NOT saying too. And when you find the lock to God's house that gives you the authority on who you let it, feel free to snd me pm on your executive fatwa excluding me. In the mean-time, keep your creationist nonsense to yourself.

When you find the debate about what God can and cant do, be sure to alert me so I can give it the contempt it deserves. In the mean time, the debate on what God did and didn't do, it rages on. Is it that you simply cant debate without creating your own debate and ignoring the actual one...or its just that slow day.

So do you believe both creation accounts in Genesis were literal, or just the first or just the second?
[/quote]

[veritas]

 

[Sunshine]

Whether God took a second or a billion years in creating Adam, He never formed Adam from animals but from dust. So throwing in billions of years into creation of man is not helping your vain attempt at transforming DUST into CREATURES

Creation account spans Genesis 1 & 2. Which accounts are you taking about?

God formed man from dust is not in disagreement, again repetition never made a fact. That dust could've gone through a billion transformations before it became Adam. So much for you false dust/creature dichotomy.

The "single" creation account, how do you reconcile it with your literalist reading?

Now, now, lets settle down. 

[vooke]

Am sure when we bury you , your priest apart from praying that you rest in piece will quote Job, dust to dust and ashes to ashes
The same 'billion transformations' your body will go through after death is what God did from dust to make Adam
How many creatures do you turn into before decaying?
There is NO ROOM for millions of creatures between dust and Adam apart from your head. And you need to quit second-guessing God. He said dust not dust-mollusks-invertabrates-vertabrates-amphibians-Adam

Once again, how do I reconcile what with what?

God formed man from dust is not in disagreement, again repetition never made a fact. That dust could've gone through a billion transformations before it became Adam. So much for you false dust/creature dichotomy.

The "single" creation account, how do you reconcile it with your literalist reading?

Now, now, lets settle down. 

[vooke]

kadame, don't trust vooke, but at the very least revere God and His WORD. Look at Paul;
  1 Corinthians 15:47-48 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

47 The first man was from the earth
and made of dust;
the second man is[a] from heaven.
48 Like the man made of dust,
so are those who are made of dust;
like the heavenly man,
so are those who are heavenly.

[vooke]

Solomon, the Preacher, Ecclesiastes talking not vooke. vooke is a hater, an arrogant sob.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 and the dust returns to the earth as it once was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Is the body returning to other animal forms and finally dust?

[vooke]

vooke is KIDOR,an Okoyu supremacist, the Psalmist is inspired
Psalm 103:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

14 For He knows what we are made of,
remembering that we are dust.

He remembers that we are formed out of billions of billions of transformation between soil/dust and our bodies