interesting

[Butters]

Just thought this was interesting.
http://www.evolvingcode.net/recon.php3

[yxboom]

Is there a specific reason as to why you posted the link otherwise it will have to be removed.

[RufusAtticus]

I guessing to show that "evolution" is not incompatable with "Christianity."

[Butters]

To Mods, my apologies.

To Rufus, Exactly! It seems that there are a few Christians that take the view that evolution is only compatible with atheism. And it seems that it is easy for everyone to forget that MOST Christians accept evolution. Just thought a reminder was in order.

[Socrates]

Of course, evolution is compatible with "Christianity" of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by "Christian" women who unequally yoke with unbelievers. But evolution is not compatible with BIBLICAL Christianity -- the only sort there is -- see The Skeptics and their 'Churchian' Allies (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3906.asp).

That WFJ who wrote the web page Butterball cited typically whinged about the AiG's author's perfectly reasonable defence of that article, which pointed out the heresies that follow compromise, e.g. saying that Christ was wrong. And he also cited another article from AiG but misrepresented it because it did NOT deny that one could be a Christian and an evolutionist.

The WFJ of course ignores the main arguments for the historicity of Genesis, the problem that death and suffering were caused by Adam's sin, and tells fibs that the literal view is a recent invention (Josephus, Irenaeus, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan are only a few of the early exegetes who affirmed literal days).

[Yog^sothoth]

But if Josephus was there and you are here like what? 2000 years in the future how can you know?

[Socrates]

Yog, for heavens sake, we have Josephus's WRITINGS!! E.g. Book 1 of Jewish Antiquities has the heading:

Containing the interval of three thousand eight hundred and thirty-three years.
From the Creation to the death of Isaac.

Although Josephus used the inflated LXX chronology, there is no room for any long creation days or any gaps. And here's how he explains Genesis 1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim, and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47974#post47974)
Butters:

Just thought this was interesting.
http://www.evolvingcode.net/recon.php3

The usual evolutionary deceptions.

----------

Evolutionary Lies

Myth 1: Only very 'liberal' Christians can accept a non-literal interpretation of Genesis' creation

This is the typical “loaded” word argument. Actually it is only people who are willing to “symbolize” or otherwise rationalize away the plain narrative in Genesis who accept evolution from a primitive replicating molecule.

Myth 2. The Bible clearly divides into poetic (non-literal) sections, and straightforward ('scientifically factual') narrative, with Genesis in the latter group

Another “straw man” argument. Nobody is claiming that the narrative in Genesis is “scientific”, for no scientific explanation of creation week is offered. It is simply the narrative of an eyewitness account, probably related by God to Adam to be written down for the benefit of all of future mankind.

Myth 3. Nothing within the Genesis account of creation indicates a non-literal (symbolic or poetic) interpretation is appropriate It is simply untrue that Genesis is clearly written as scientific narrative..

No creationist has ever claimed Genesis is a scientific narrative, only that it is an eyewitness narrative that clearly conflicts with current scientific belief in large scale evolution from a primitive replicating molecule.

Myth 5. Atheism is an unavoidable long-term consequence of accepting evolutionary theory

There is a clear tendency for this to be the case, especially for those who make the study of evolution their life’s work. The 1998 survey reported in Nature showed that over 95% of leading biologists (biologist members of the National Academy of Science) reject belief in God. And there has been an upward steady trend toward disbelief in God as indicated by comparison to earlier similar studies.

Myth 6: 'Intelligent Design' (creationism) is consistent with scientific evidence

Even evolutionists make remarks about the “apparent” design in nature. It takes considerable brainwashing to convince people that the DNA information coding system found in all forms of life can arise by copying errors in a primitive replicating molecule..

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48042#post48042)
Butters:

To Mods, my apologies.

To Rufus, Exactly! It seems that there are a few Christians that take the view that evolution is only compatible with atheism. And it seems that it is easy for everyone to forget that MOST Christians accept evolution. Just thought a reminder was in order.

Most people avoid controversial topics ("never discuss politics and religion"). In addition Jesus stated that most people are on the broad way that leads to destruction. It may well be that most Christians are on this broad way, and belief in evolution may be one factor that degrades their belief in the "literal" truth that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, rose from the dead and only belief in Him will save us from our sins.

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48551#post48551)
Socratism:

The usual evolutionary deceptions.


I still you still haven't given up lying and hurling slanderous attacks without any support.

Myth 2. The Bible clearly divides into poetic (non-literal) sections, and straightforward ('scientifically factual') narrative, with Genesis in the latter group

Another “straw man” argument. Nobody is claiming that the narrative in Genesis is “scientific”, for no scientific explanation of creation week is offered.

Yet you want such fairy tales TAUGHT as science in science classrooms!

It is simply the narrative of an eyewitness account, probably related by God to Adam to be written down for the benefit of all of future mankind.

And your evidence that it's an eyewitness account? Oh right, you don't bother with evidence! Just believe it on blind faith and ignore the evidence!

Myth 3. Nothing within the Genesis account of creation indicates a non-literal (symbolic or poetic) interpretation is appropriate It is simply untrue that Genesis is clearly written as scientific narrative..

No creationist has ever claimed Genesis is a scientific narrative, only that it is an eyewitness narrative that clearly conflicts with current scientific belief in large scale evolution from a primitive replicating molecule.

And an old earth, and evolution, and star formation etc. etc. etc. Creationists do treat it as a scientific narrative. They claim (falsely of course) to be doing science. They want their fairy tales taught as science!

Myth 5. Atheism is an unavoidable long-term consequence of accepting evolutionary theory

That IS a creationist lie twit!

There is a clear tendency for this to be the case, especially for those who make the study of evolution their life’s work. The 1998 survey reported in Nature showed that over 95% of leading biologists (biologist members of the National Academy of Science) reject belief in God. And there has been an upward steady trend toward disbelief in God as indicated by comparison to earlier similar studies.

So? That doesn't change reality no matter how much you wish it did.

Even evolutionists make remarks about the “apparent” design in nature. It takes considerable brainwashing to convince people that the DNA information coding system found in all forms of life can arise by copying errors in a primitive replicating molecule..

Education is not brainwashing. Studying the evidence is not brainwashing. Brainwashing is what the creationist loonies do.

The fact remains that there is no evidence to support creation "science".

Basically all you're saying is that to be a Christian, you have to believe lies. Because if you accept facts, you might end up rejecting all of Christianity. How pathetic!

[Butters]

Let me get this straight.
Genisis is and eyewitness account of creation, written down by Adam?
Then the Jews (who wrote the O.T.) and Christians, every one of then are liars, because they claim that Moses wrote the Genisis account. Is that a fair assesment of your claim?

Socrates, Your statement about "Christianity" of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by "Christian" women who unequally yoke with unbelievers." Shows your ignorance, sexism, and prejudice. I know it bothers you greatly that MOST Christians accept evolution, but that's just to bad.

[Socratism]

Creationism explains the evidence in a manner more scientifically reasonable than does evolution from a primitive replicating molecule.

If one starts with genomes in a perfect condition it is understandable and scientifically reasonable that they would degrade over time to an imperfect state. Believing that errors could accumulate over time to generate the DNA coding system, error correcting mechanisms, etc. is so far out that it almost defies belief that so many people have been brainwashed into accepting it.

God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages.

The DNA coding system and the other fantastically sophisticated mechanisms of cells is more than enough evidence to convince me that evolution is a clever deception which appeals to humans who wish to be their own gods or to persons who have either not dug into it in detail or are incapable of doing so and just go along with "the crowd".

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48418#post48418)
Socrates:

The WFJ of course ignores the main arguments for the historicity of Genesis, the problem that death and suffering were caused by Adam's sin,

They don't ignore the problem, they just don't solve it by believing lies as you do.

and tells fibs that the literal view is a recent invention (Josephus, Irenaeus, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan are only a few of the early exegetes who affirmed literal days).

This hardly proves that the topic wasn't an issue and that there weren't theologians who disagreed.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48582#post48582)
Socratism:

Creationism explains the evidence in a manner more scientifically reasonable than does evolution from a primitive replicating molecule.


Not according to scientists it doesn't. Creationism (ie. young earth, global flood, limited variation etc.) is directly apposed to all evidence.

If one starts with genomes in a perfect condition it is understandable and scientifically reasonable that they would degrade over time to an imperfect state.

But there is no evidence that the genome started in perfect condition. If all humans can be traced back to Noah and co. there should be a genetic bottleneck that can be found. Of course, none exist.

Believing that errors could accumulate over time to generate the DNA coding system, error correcting mechanisms, etc. is so far out that it almost defies belief that so many people have been brainwashed into accepting it.

Of course, you ignore the fact that scientists who accept it were not "brainwashed" but came to the conclusion through research and study.

God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages.

Of course, you have no evidence that God did any such thing.

The DNA coding system and the other fantastically sophisticated mechanisms of cells is more than enough evidence to convince me that evolution is a clever deception which appeals to humans who wish to be their own gods or to persons who have either not dug into it in detail or are incapable of doing so and just go along with "the crowd".

Argument from ignorance and delusions. That's all creationists have!

Biologists (including Christians) have been digging into it in detail for decades. They accept it and reject the simplistic myths of creationism.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48580#post48580)
Butters:

Let me get this straight.
Genisis is and eyewitness account of creation, written down by Adam?
Then the Jews (who wrote the O.T.) and Christians, every one of then are liars, because they claim that Moses wrote the Genisis account. Is that a fair assesment of your claim?

.

The Torah is traditionally called the "Books of Moses" and 4 out of 5 of them are about events centering around Moses and the Exodus. He probably didn't actually write them personally but had scribes assisting in the effort. Certainly He did not personally write about his own death and burial, for instance.

It has only recently been discovered that writings more ancient than the time of Moses used a method of displaying the "signature" of the original author. This discovery caused people to look at Genesis in a light different than the traditional view, which was that God must have "dictated" Genesis to Moses since the events in Genesis occurred long before he was born.

The new theory, based on the recognition that the "these are the generations" phrases in Genesis were actually the signatures of the people who actually wrote Genesis. The theory fits quite well all the way back to Adam since the signatures are of people that would have been eyewitnesses to the events described (except for creation week).

I believe that these early writings were preserved by Noah, added to in subsequent years by other writers to describe the subsequent events in Genesis, and finally edited by Moses into a single document called "Genesis".

To me this is far more sensible than the theory that God "dictated" Genesis to Moses.

[Butters]

So then you ARE calling All the church leaders liars?!

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48595#post48595)
Butters:

So then you ARE calling All the church leaders liars?!

Like so many other cases they were overly influenced by the ideas of the scientists of their day.

100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet. Thus, the concept of stories passed down "around the campfire" was invoked. It may be true that myths are passed down orally in many societies, but it is not universally true that writing was unknown in very early times, for archaeologists have -proven otherwise.

I do not consider it "lying" to repeat the errors that theologians pick up from incorrect science. But I think it best when the truth is known to admit past mistakes and accept more reasonable explanations Science never deals with absolute truth but hopefully continually makes corrections in order to move in the right direction.

After all, we all agree with the statement, "that's how science works".

Of course that is not how God works, because only He knows the absolute truth from the very beginning.

[Butters]

Woa! Slow down there bud! Are you saying that the church did not say that Moses wrote Genisis before 100 years ago?

[Socrates]

Butterball:
Socrates, Your statement about "Christianity" of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by "Christian" women who unequally yoke with unbelievers." Shows your ignorance, sexism, and prejudice. What piffle. I would say the same about a "Christian" man who unequally yoked with an unbelieving woman. Of course I mentioned the women because there are two unbelievers on theology Web who have claimed to have Christian wives who married them while professing Christianity.

And of course, evolution can provide no objective moral basis for objecting to sexism or other forms of prejudice. Darwin and his evolutionary colleagues were very sexist and racist, more so than even their culture.

[Woman]

"God must have..." Seems like a fall back position when something can't be explained. We all know the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis. Now the thinking is that Adam wrote the beginning and passed it down to Noah and so on.

Socratism:
God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages

Then where is it? Why would such care be taken for thousands of years and then poof!

Socratism:
The Torah is traditionally called the "Books of Moses" and 4 out of 5 of them are about events centering around Moses and the Exodus. He probably didn't actually write them personally but had scribes assisting in the effort. Certainly He did not personally write about his own death and burial, for instance.

So the scribes wrote that part? Then what? Did they give it to someone else? Were they also "inspired?

Socratism:
100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet.

Well, obviously if God taught Adam how to read and write, there was NEVER a time in history (indeed no prehistory at all) when man didn't read and write. Why didn't those darned cave men leave us the information regarding how the Neanderthals died out? Sure would save archeologists and anthropologists a lot of time!!!

[Socrates]

Mona Lisa aka La gioconda wrote:"God must have..." Seems like a fall back position when something can't be explained. We all know the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis. Now the thinking is that Adam wrote the beginning and passed it down to Noah and so on. This is hardly unreasonable, given known near-eastern literary practices. Please check out The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp)?

Socratism:

God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages
Woman:

Then where is it? Why would such care be taken for thousands of years and then poof! The whole point is that it has NOT vanished, but been incorporated into Genesis. And the evidence is the colophon in Genesis 5:1 "This is the account (toledoth) of Adam," which Wiseman took as a signature. This makes far more sense than splitting up chapters and even verses into imaginary authors like Ms. J, Mr E, Mr P and Mr D!

Socratism:

The Torah is traditionally called the "Books of Moses" and 4 out of 5 of them are about events centering around Moses and the Exodus. He probably didn't actually write them personally but had scribes assisting in the effort. Certainly He did not personally write about his own death and burial, for instance.

Woman:
So the scribes wrote that part? Then what? What have you in mind? Do you have any problem because your edition of Shakespeare has the date of his death? In Moses' case, it was probably written by Joshua, himself the author of an inspired book. And there was nothing in ancient times to say that something written by scribes had less authority, provided they were under the authority of the named author.

Socratism:
100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet.
Well, obviously if God taught Adam how to read and write, there was NEVER a time in history (indeed no prehistory at all) when man didn't read and write. Exactly! But this doesn't mean that some people groups that became isolated after Babel would RETAIN these skills.Why didn't those darned cave men leave us the information regarding how the Neanderthals died out? Sure would save archeologists and anthropologists a lot of time!!!They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

[AtheistArchon]

They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

- Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around. :tongue:

[Tycho]

Today @ 01:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49198#post49198)
AtheistArchon:
- Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around. :tongue:
Not to mention the tectonic plates speeding around the globe, raising magnitude 13.4 earthquakes. Hey! Let's visit that shining symbol of creationism, Mr. Kent Hovind! What kind of difficulties could early Mankind have to contend with? Here's a few:

- Super-fast photons crashing into the Earth
(http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8 )

- A canopy of water to block out the Sun!
- Cushing venusian pressures from said canopy.
- A planet so crowded that what scientists today think is hundreds of millions of years' worth of life actually existed within a few thousand (hundred?) years.
(http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=10 )

[Socrates]

I wrote:
They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

AtheistArchon:
Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around. Probably not in the regions worst affected in the post-Flood Ice Age. Tycho:Not to mention the tectonic plates speeding around the globe, raising magnitude 13.4 earthquakes.Nope, catastrophic plate tectonics was an efficient cause of the Flood, while Neandertals were post-Flood. See the articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp
Tycho:Hey! Let's visit that shining symbol of creationism, Mr. Kent Hovind!Why? I've already pointed out that he doesn't speak for me, and Woman highly commended AiG's article on him, Maintaining Creationist Integrity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp).

[AtheistArchon]

- This is OT, but I'll keep it short...

- I really like the vapor canopy hypothesis. At first glance, it looks pretty interesting. After all, the atmosphere holds lots of water vapor.

- One of my favorite problems with it, though, is the issue of condensation vs. evaporation. When water evaporates, it tends to cool the surface of whatever it was sitting on... which is why it's beneficial for us to sweat when we get too hot. Conversely, when water condenses, it releases heat. The amount of water condensing and falling as rain that is described in Genesis would have raised the temp of the surface of the planet to about 6,400 degrees Farenheit. Now that's a warm afternoon!

- Creation "science".

[AtheistArchon]

catastrophic plate tectonics was an efficient cause of the Flood, while Neandertals were post-Flood. See the articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp

- Ah yes, and the credentials of these articles are as follows:

Batten, D. (Ed.), Ham, K., Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., Chapter 11, What about continental drift? The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, Australia, p. 147, 1999. Return to text.

Although significant papers on catastrophic plate tectonics were presented in 1994, the idea was first presented by John Baumgardner at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He added details to the concept at the 1990 ICC. Return to text.

Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys, D.R., Snelling, A.A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K.P., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of Earth history; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 609–621, 1994. Return to text.

Baumgardner, J.R., Computer modelling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 49–62, 1994. Return to text.

Baumgardner, J.R., Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 63–75, 1994. Return to text.

For example, Reed, J.K. (Ed.), Plate Tectonics: A Different View, Creation Research Society Monograph 10, St Joseph, pp. 11–23, 2000. Many other such references are cited in the forum. Return to text.

- It seems that publishing only in creationist journals also has the effect of having creationist arguments pulled from only those same journals!

- Why is there not a genuine scientific study validating catastrophic continental drift? Why must it be limited to creationist gatherings and publications? Perhaps there's a cabal of evil scientists out there trying to fool us and snub Christians?

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49122#post49122)
Socrates:
And of course, evolution can provide no objective moral basis for objecting to sexism or other forms of prejudice.

Neither does any other scientific theory.

Darwin and his evolutionary colleagues were very sexist and racist, more so than even their culture.

Not true at all. But truth obviously doesn't concern you.

[Butters]

Socrates,Before I lose all interest in talking to someone who is willing to discount every piece of physical evidence in front of them for a blind and baseless acceptance of a collection of books that no one knows anything about I will ask you one more time. Are you saying that the Christian church did not claim that Genesis was written by Moses?

[QED]

while Neandertals were post-Flood.

I assume this is a statement of faith. If not, what flood artifacts are you using to date the flood, how do you date them, and what methods are you using to date neanderthals?

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49840#post49840)
QED:

I assume this is a statement of faith. If not, what flood artifacts are you using to date the flood, how do you date them, and what methods are you using to date neanderthals?

The Bible, The Bible, The Bible.

Does that help?:lol:

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49641#post49641)
Butters:

Socrates,Before I lose all interest in talking to someone who is willing to discount every piece of physical evidence in front of them for a blind and baseless acceptance of a collection of books that no one knows anything about I will ask you one more time. Are you saying that the Christian church did not claim that Genesis was written by Moses?

When you say "the Christian church did not claim" do you mean did any Christian say that, did all Christians say that or did the hierarchy and/or Pope declare it to be official dogma?

Throughout its history the Christian church has many times deviated from both scripture as well as its Jewish roots. In the light of that it would not surprise me if some Church leaders were under the mistaken impression that attributing the Torah to Moses by referring to it as "The Books of Moses" meant that he personally generated the accounts in Genesis "from scratch".

Since many felt that science had proven that writing was not invented until near to or after the time of Moses, it is understandable that they would conclude that Moses either received Genesis directly from God or that it was passed down from "stories around the campfire". Even today, when we know that writing goes back thousands of years before the time of Moses, the "oral history" speculation continues to be taught and believed by many, if not most. It is a persistent legend, probably because there are a few examples of this mode of transmission even today, for example in Australia. Thus, calling Genesis "oral history" allows people to downgrade its message, since we all know the "telephone game" will distort the truth over time.

[QED]

tgamble, what is the Hebrew word for Neanderthal? I don't think they get the answer from the Bible. I'm pretty sure they don't get it from valid dating techniques. But I am interested in knowing how they can flatly say (as if it were a fact) that Neanderthals are post-flood humans. Surely they didn't just pull it out of their bottoms... And it isn't just Socrates. I did a search on his Bible (www.answersingenesis.org[/url), and found the same statement. It just makes me wonder how their train of thought led them to this wonderful conclusion.

[Butters]

"When you say "the Christian church did not claim" do you mean did any Christian say that, did all Christians say that or did the hierarchy and/or Pope declare it to be official dogma?

Throughout its history the Christian church has many times deviated from both scripture as well as its Jewish roots. In the light of that it would not surprise me if some Church leaders were under the mistaken impression that attributing the Torah to Moses by referring to it as "The Books of Moses" meant that he personally generated the accounts in Genesis "from scratch".


who in the hell do you think you're trying to fool? You know as well as I, that the Jews, the Catholics, and the Protestants, have all claimed that the books of Moses were written by Moses himself. These books were given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. Now that the fact that people are free to question this without fear of being burned at the stake, they are forced to admit that he was not the author. The Jews and Christians have lied about the origins of the Bible for thousands of years. Now that they want to change their story its just a little too late. As far as your ludicrous theory that God dictated these books to Adam, and that Noah brought them on the ark and preserve them has no basis in fact, Scripture, church tradition, speculation, wishfull thinking, or even desperate wishfull thinking. This is the most unfounded, insane, theory that I believe I have ever heard. And as I am here thinking about it, I believe that this will be my last response to you on any subject. My pet cat is capable of carrying on a more rational conversation. Good luck with your life, you're going to need it.

P.S. This goes for your alter ego Socrates as well, hmmm... two posters, names almost the same, position the same, assertions the same, style the same...?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 11:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50504#post50504)
QED:

tgamble, what is the Hebrew word for Neanderthal? I don't think they get the answer from the Bible. I'm pretty sure they don't get it from valid dating techniques. But I am interested in knowing how they can flatly say (as if it were a fact) that Neanderthals are post-flood humans. Surely they didn't just pull it out of their bottoms...

Don't bet on it!

And it isn't just Socrates. I did a search on his Bible (www.answersingenesis.org[/url), and found the same statement. It just makes me wonder how their train of thought led them to this wonderful conclusion.

Simple, they assume the bible is the TRUTH and have to force the fossils found into their myths. So they just make stuff up.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

And of course, evolution can provide no objective moral basis for objecting to sexism or other forms of prejudice. Darwin and his evolutionary colleagues were very sexist and racist, more so than even their culture.

Gosh! Why didn't I think of that?

*starts to harass women and becomes a racist*