Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
It IS when it cites it's information, and the article writer's sources in the citation are reliable and have accurate information.
Don't generalize anad wish away data. Wikipedia says we breathe oxygen. Did you know that? But guess what - "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION". DAng. Now I'll never know what I breathe.
In some cases - yes, it's not reliable. But see above, my first sentence.
Your mistake is thinking Wikipedia is presented as a source -- rather, it is presented as what it is, a collection of links to sources. The particular page that you chose to blithely ignore contains 37 links, most of them to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
But then, I realize that creationists don't consider peer-reviewed scientific journals to be reliable sources of information ...
Ha ha!
Thanks - you beat me to it: we must have been writing at the same time.
You know very well, so why do you need to be told that life is an inevitable result of nature given the proper conditions...Where there is liquid water there is life...
I know this wasn't apparent in my rhetorical reply, but I am atheist; I was just positing food for thought for the religious folk to answer this silly question for themselves. They can believe whatever they want, it has absolutely zero effect on what I believe.
Wrong. It precisely means a period of darkness, then light, never a literal or figurative meaning "day" and the words badly translated here evening and and morning are themselves subject to context, abd nay have specific meanings as well but I havent gotten far enough in every b9iblical usage to figure out what that means. Gen 1:1 specifically means "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth", as every single other place in the bible the word means "In the beginning of" and is not intended to mean that everything in the seven periods of darkness then light happened in the beginning, or even that it has all yet happened, for God has not yet rested, he has not yet finished making man, as when God is finished making man, man will be perfect in the sense that nothing an individual has set out to do he will be unable to do, as set forth collectively of man in the Tower of Bebel incident which the Bible does not refer to as a curse or punishment, because it was not, but merely an act in the process of creating man. Thus my interpretation is consistent with other parts of the Bible. Please point out a part of the Bible with which it is inconsistent.
Would somebody please define "nature". The source of the diversity of life is chaos, but that is insufficient for life itself. Would somebody please define nature in a way that provides for this?
Wrong. It precisely means a period of darkness, then light, never a literal or figurative meaning "day" and the words badly translated here evening and and morning are themselves subject to context, abd nay have specific meanings as well but I havent gotten far enough in every b9iblical usage to figure out what that means. Gen 1:1 specifically means "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth", as every single other place in the bible the word means "In the beginning of" and is not intended to mean that everything in the seven periods of darkness then light happened in the beginning, or even that it has all yet happened, for God has not yet rested, he has not yet finished making man, as when God is finished making man, man will be perfect in the sense that nothing an individual has set out to do he will be unable to do, as set forth collectively of man in the Tower of Bebel incident which the Bible does not refer to as a curse or punishment, because it was not, but merely an act in the process of creating man. Thus my interpretation is consistent with other parts of the Bible. Please point out a part of the Bible with which it is inconsistent.
Too bad that much of the bible is inconsistent with reality...The tower of babel story is a good example of that.
Too bad that much of the bible is inconsistent with reality...The tower of babel story is a good example of that.
While there may be some allowance for poetic license, on the whole, the Tower of Babel story is not inconsistent with reality. Point out and explain an inconsistency with reality, and I shall explain to you whether it fits into the mistranslation category, and possibly even make an attempt to provide the correct translation, poetic license, where I shall attempt to provide my reasoning for that, or why it is in fact consistent with reality.
Dinosaurs are real and evolved, just like we (humans) did. Adam and Eve is a fairy tale, as it has no evidence. Look at any picture of Adam and Eve, and they will have a belly button. Why do they have belly buttons if they were the first humans? Belly buttons are the mark of a human that has had an umbilical cord, which also means they were born from a woman's womb.
Pssst...here's a hint...those aren't real pictures...cameras weren't invented yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
