Jesus Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 This is still going on? You guys demolish would be assassins in here that’s for damn sure. It’s not even close when you read the exchanges. I’m pretty impressed with the intelligence being thrown around. I don’t even need to go back to college for a science review. I have all of you here, no need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 On 2/7/2019 at 1:51 AM, mwc said: God is a very confusing thing. He does creates light and separates it from the darkness. This is called day and night. But, later, he creates the sun and the moon and these separate the light and darkness I have no ideal how you came to your conclusions regarding the scriptures of Genesis 1, but there is a reason it is written that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. So the best advice I have is that you find another teacher cause the one that taught you that God created light obviously didn't have a clue. However, by chance were you taught that the darkness of space is caused by the absence of light, or better yet dark matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeeker0 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 @Justus What's Phasmalogy TM? And why is a holy ghost your god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 10 hours ago, Justus said: I have no ideal how you came to your conclusions regarding the scriptures of Genesis 1, but there is a reason it is written that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. So the best advice I have is that you find another teacher cause the one that taught you that God created light obviously didn't have a clue. However, by chance were you taught that the darkness of space is caused by the absence of light, or better yet dark matter? Oh no. I don't really want to find another teacher but if I must. Any suggestions? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 13, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2019 11 hours ago, Justus said: I have no ideal how you came to your conclusions regarding the scriptures of Genesis 1, but there is a reason it is written that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. So the best advice I have is that you find another teacher cause the one that taught you that God created light obviously didn't have a clue. However, by chance were you taught that the darkness of space is caused by the absence of light, or better yet dark matter? Well if you're this interested in going further, then would you go ahead and lay out the 6 days of creation according to your own interpretation, or that which you subscribe to. Let's take a look at it and see what it is that YOU are claiming. Setting aside these other christian interpretations that you don't seem to subscribe to. Just lay it out starting with Genesis 1:1 and go through each of the days interpreting what they mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Genesis 1:3..."and god said "let there be light", and there was light. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 14 hours ago, Justus said: I have no ideal how you came to your conclusions regarding the scriptures of Genesis 1, but there is a reason it is written that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. So the best advice I have is that you find another teacher cause the one that taught you that God created light obviously didn't have a clue. However, by chance were you taught that the darkness of space is caused by the absence of light, or better yet dark matter? Gen 1:3-4 and Gen 1:14-18 It would appear that MWC's explicit source in this case was the bible itself...if he needs another teacher than the bible....oh my... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilsCabanaBoy Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 On 1/17/2019 at 5:19 AM, ag_NO_stic said: I'm not a mod, but I'd go to your site and debate! I'm not really in the mood for formal style rules and would vastly prefer a civil and informal one, but I'm not so disillusioned as to turn one down yet! Maybe another year or so. I wouldn't want you running back to your forum and saying we were all chicken! I would definitely want to get what we're debating, topic wise, pretty nailed down. What would you like to debate? lol Since chickens used to be dinosaurs who ate humans before the flood, God decided to change them after they left the ark. He really does love us, the chicken proves this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 On 2/13/2019 at 7:50 AM, Joshpantera said: Well if you're this interested in going further, then would you go ahead and lay out the 6 days of creation according to your own interpretation, or that which you subscribe to. Let's take a look at it and see what it is that YOU are claiming. Setting aside these other christian interpretations that you don't seem to subscribe to. Just lay it out starting with Genesis 1:1 and go through each of the days interpreting what they mean. I was just pointing out that the assertion that the passage regarding the two great lights is referring unto the sun and moon is wrong, since it refers to two lights, not two terrestrial bodies we call the sun and the moon. While that fact would be obvious if one was familiar with the EMS would understand the difference between infrared light, visible light and darkness. [Psss. EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum)]. However, there is a reason I don't just lay it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilsCabanaBoy Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 15 minutes ago, Justus said: I was just pointing out that the assertion that the passage regarding the two great lights is referring unto the sun and moon is wrong, since it refers to two lights, not two terrestrial bodies we call the sun and the moon. While that fact would be obvious if one was familiar with the EMS would understand the difference between infrared light, visible light and darkness. [Psss. EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum)]. However, there is a reason I don't just lay it out. The moon has no light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted February 17, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2019 17 minutes ago, Justus said: I was just pointing out that the assertion that the passage regarding the two great lights is referring unto the sun and moon is wrong, since it refers to two lights, not two terrestrial bodies we call the sun and the moon. While that fact would be obvious if one was familiar with the EMS would understand the difference between infrared light, visible light and darkness. [Psss. EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum)]. However, there is a reason I don't just lay it out. Really? And your evidence that it's not referring to the sun and the moon is? You are taking modern understanding and trying to read it back into ancient text and claim they were not talking about the sun and the moon. Well we'll never know because we can't go ask the writer "Hey Mr Writer, when you say God gave two great lights to rule the day and night, did you mean the sun and moon, or the electromagnetic spectrum?" However I would bet, base on what we know about ancient peoples and their writings they were referring to the sun and the moon. No need to read stuff into the bible that isn't there. You go ask any scholar what they think that passage refers to and I'll bet the vast majority will agree with me. Some may say that the days are meant metaphorically and not 6 literal days, but two lights refers to sun and moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said: Really? And your evidence that it's not referring to the sun and the moon is? You are taking modern understanding and trying to read it back into ancient text and claim they were not talking about the sun and the moon. Well we'll never know because we can't go ask the writer "Hey Mr Writer, when you say God gave two great lights to rule the day and night, did you mean the sun and moon, or the electromagnetic spectrum?" However I would bet, base on what we know about ancient peoples and their writings they were referring to the sun and the moon. No need to read stuff into the bible that isn't there. You go ask any scholar what they think that passage refers to and I'll bet the vast majority will agree with me. Some may say that the days are meant metaphorically and not 6 literal days, but two lights refers to sun and moon. Poster Justus is a coward. He attempts to project an air of mystery and special knowledge (of which only he holds), but then runs away from direct questions with one of two infantile and vacuous tactics: (i) refusing to respond or (ii) responding with more mystery and riddles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 17 hours ago, Justus said: I was just pointing out that the assertion that the passage regarding the two great lights is referring unto the sun and moon is wrong, since it refers to two lights, not two terrestrial bodies we call the sun and the moon. While that fact would be obvious if one was familiar with the EMS would understand the difference between infrared light, visible light and darkness. [Psss. EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum)]. However, there is a reason I don't just lay it out. Are you going to tell us the reason you don't just lay it out? I have a pretty good idea. I think you don't lay it out because it's a terrible trap for you to walk into. Whatever interpretation you choose, or even make up as you go along, will fail miserably. I've tested my own claim here against countless christian posters and apologists. I've gone into all variety of people trying to present something even remotely valid. Old earth, young earth, literal, symbolic, new agey, all kinds of apologetics. They all get worse and worse as they go along. So I'm 99.9% confident that no matter what path you choose to take, you'll fail in the process of trying to substantiate the creation account(s). And BTW, dodging the question only keeps you in the losing seat. There's only one way out of this, and that's to substantiate the creation account(s). Good luck with which ever choice you make. Either way, readers can gain a lot of experience and wisdom by following our exchanges here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 If someone really had an answer then wouldn't it be better to post it and dazzle us with their brilliance than to withhold (supposed) information and continue to make their self look ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 One difference between infrared, visible light and darkness is frequency (wavelength). Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Hopefully 4 days of silence means the end of beating a dead horse! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 On 2/17/2019 at 2:59 PM, LogicalFallacy said: Really? And your evidence that it's not referring to the sun and the moon is? Dah! I am not limited to your limited understanding which interprets the passage regarding the two great lights as the Sun and the moon. If your interpretation is that the two great lights refer unto the Sun and Moon then where is your evidence that it is? Does the passage specifically reference the Sun or the moon? No it doesn't. So if you are going to put your faith in your interpretation that it is referring unto the Sun and Moon then you obviously didn't grasp the passage in Genesis 1: 3-5. And seeing that you don't grasp Genesis 1:3-5 then is it of any wonder you don't grasp what the evidence is that Genesis 1:13-18 is not referring unto the Sun and Moon. On 2/17/2019 at 7:10 PM, sdelsolray said: Poster Justus is a coward. He attempts to project an air of mystery and special knowledge (of which only he holds), but then runs away from direct questions with one of two infantile and vacuous tactics: (i) refusing to respond or (ii) responding with more mystery and riddles. You do know that if I fail to respond to a question it might be that I didn't see the question or got sidetracked. But apparently you would rather judge first and inquire later. However I do reserve the right to refuse to answer the assumption of someone who assumes that their interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation while acknowledging there is no truth in it. But let's see, exactly what is your question? So did you have something to say regarding the two great lights or did you post this because just wanted to say something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 2, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 2, 2019 53 minutes ago, Justus said: Dah! I am not limited to your limited understanding which interprets the passage regarding the two great lights as the Sun and the moon. If your interpretation is that the two great lights refer unto the Sun and Moon then where is your evidence that it is? Does the passage specifically reference the Sun or the moon? No it doesn't. So if you are going to put your faith in your interpretation that it is referring unto the Sun and Moon then you obviously didn't grasp the passage in Genesis 1: 3-5. And seeing that you don't grasp Genesis 1:3-5 then is it of any wonder you don't grasp what the evidence is that Genesis 1:13-18 is not referring unto the Sun and Moon. Considering you are the only Christian I have ever come across that doesn't interpret "two great lights" as the sun and the moon I'd say I am safe in going with the primary Christian interpretation. Please note its not "my" interpretation. It's the standard christian interpretation. Come back and argue once you've convinced your fellow Christians of your interpretation. And if you are going by whether a passage specifically references something then most of Christendom will fall over. Jesus is never specifically mentioned in the OT prophesies once. Not. Once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said: Considering you are the only Christian I have ever come across that doesn't interpret "two great lights" as the sun and the moon I'd say I am safe in going with the primary Christian interpretation. So why do you insist on calling me a Christian? I have never referred unto myself as a Christian and have no intention of referring unto myself as a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Would atheist be a better label, Justus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted March 2, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Justus said: So why do you insist on calling me a Christian? I have never referred unto myself as a Christian and have no intention of referring unto myself as a Christian. Using the generally accurate rule, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.... even though I thought the duck was a little off. If you aren't a Christian what are you? I guess that would then lead to what are your general beliefs surrounding the bible, God etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 8:23 AM, Joshpantera said: So I'm 99.9% confident that no matter what path you choose to take, you'll fail in the process of trying to substantiate the creation account(s). That statement indicates that you really don't have a clue how science works. But, if you are confident then what can I say, you're confident. Of course one can be confident when they run a shell game. But why only 99.9% confident and not a 100% confident one might ask, seeing that a person picking the shell would have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the shell with the pea under it, their odds or confident would be 33.3% While there are two of three shells which the pea wouldn't be under, those two shells would give the dealer a 66.6% chance that one of them would be the one that the player would pick, then a honest dealer of the shell game could not claim to have any more that 66.6% confidence that the player would fail to choose he shell with the pea under it, So it doesn't surprise me that you are 99.9% confident which is why I have 0% doubt they you don't know of any plausible theory for abiogenesis seeing that living matter can not evolve from non-living matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 7 hours ago, midniterider said: Would atheist be a better label, Justus? Why the insistent desire to label people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 2, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted March 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Justus said: That statement indicates that you really don't have a clue how science works. But, if you are confident then what can I say, you're confident. Of course one can be confident when they run a shell game. But why only 99.9% confident and not a 100% confident one might ask, seeing that a person picking the shell would have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the shell with the pea under it, their odds or confident would be 33.3% While there are two of three shells which the pea wouldn't be under, those two shells would give the dealer a 66.6% chance that one of them would be the one that the player would pick, then a honest dealer of the shell game could not claim to have any more that 66.6% confidence that the player would fail to choose he shell with the pea under it, So it doesn't surprise me that you are 99.9% confident which is why I have 0% doubt they you don't know of any plausible theory for abiogenesis seeing that living matter can not evolve from non-living matter. Fucking peas when Josh plainly asked you to state your interpretation of how the universe was created. You're a waste of time and entrails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 57 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: Fucking peas when Josh plainly asked you to state your interpretation of how the universe was created. You're a waste of time and entrails. Probably better off if you stick with your Church doctrine since you can't get pass that creation part. Quote You're a waste of time and entrails. You really have evolved haven't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now