The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
For example:
  • Sheep have souls:
    “one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]
  • Jesus was a sheep:
    “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]
  • Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
    “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]
  • These sheep hate their parents:
    “For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35], [Luke 14:26]
  • These sheep are all atheists:
    “There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]
Click to expand...
rossum, why are you becoming a biblical literalist?
 
StAnastasia said:
rossum, why are you becoming a biblical literalist?
Click to expand...
This morning I woke up and found that I had metamorphosed into Ovis aries and on reading a copy of the Bible, found that I was now one of the few TRU-Christians[sup]TM[/sup] in the world. My religion has been hijacked by all those usurping Homo sapiens who think that Jesus came to save them, and not sheep. Can’t they read! Matthew 15:24 is clear enough for anybody!!!

Perhaps it had something to do with my not reading any Kafka last night.

rossum
 
wasmit said:
lol, do you seriously believe this fluff? :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Maybe you should believe this fluff. The problem with so many in the faith today is they say, do you believe this fluff, doubting what is written.

It is not wonder why the world looks at christianity with sceptical eyes.
 
avflf said:
View attachment 5812

End of argument. The Earth is not 6000 years old and here’s the proof. At last the "Missing Link " has been found, in Germany, and this transitional species of lemur, come monkey, come human, is 47 million years old and goes by the name of Ida.. One can readily discern its human/ape characteristics,
Click to expand...
Do you really believe this fluff?
 
buffalo said:
However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.
Click to expand...
Yet again, not the only human activity to which such an accusation might be made - for example, a desperate religion finding it necessary to bolster up phony pseudo-scientific hypotheses in order to keep congregations in line and the cash flowing.
 
Here are some Qoutes from Scientists I found very very Juicy…Everyone , please read these qoutes from men of science.

Im sorry evolutionists but you been had. Read it and Weep.

1.the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified…whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4

**2.“In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.” Misia Landau,

3.“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22

4.“We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C…” George Simpson, pro-evolution

5.“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson

6.“The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine.” Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.
  1. I got a real chuckle from this qoute…those silly evolutionists haha '‘It was once thought that ...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to be gill slits’ is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. Haha…Wow…
Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312). "…the only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or some such fearful name’’. So true…this is what ive been saying all along.

8.We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

9.“If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?” ([11], p.62 John Durant
  1. “(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.” Solly Zuckerman (
Well there you have it folks, this is the 100 percent gospel truth about evolution. Im sorry but this debate is over. Please just admit defeat before you continue to embarass yourself further.
 
Orogeny said:
And yet you are on a Catholic forum calling Catholics rude. Hmmm.

By the way do you look like God or does God look like you?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I believe the Word of God. To create doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God, which many religions have done is to create God in the image they want to believe in him, ignoring completely who he is, ignoring what is written that says who he is.
 
heiscominginthe said:
Maybe you should believe this fluff. The problem with so many in the faith today is they say, do you believe this fluff, doubting what is written.

It is no wonder why the world looks at christianity with sceptical eyes.
Click to expand...
 
Orogeny said:
What is the scientific basis for your claim?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it is a martian. That is just as believable as the missing link of man. And another thing, I don’t think this is the first finding these nuts have found and claimed to be the missing link.

Keep trying guys, eventually the Lord will return and reveal to you your foolish ways.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
George Galord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, “It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science.” (Gish 1985: 12).

Where you there to OBSERVE the transformation of ape to Man Or how we climbed out of the primordial slime.as a cell … well then if you didn’t observe it , its not really about anything is it, its not even science. This is why I claim that Evolution is a dogma of Post Modernistic Atheism, established by the world elite . Hitler was a firm BELIEVER IN evolution , this is why he tried to form his super race and to crush and kill what he thought were a lower species of people. This included Christianity as well which he thought was a creation of the jews to weaken the other nations . Evolution is a deadly and evil philosophy its not science.
Click to expand...
poe
 
heiscominginthe said:
Sorry, but I believe the Word of God. To create doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God, which many religions have done is to create God in the image they want to believe in him, ignoring completely who he is, ignoring what is written that says who he is.
Click to expand...
so, when reality and scripture disagree, scripture is right and reality is wrong? 🙂
 
heiscominginthe said:
Sorry, but I believe the Word of God. To create doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God, which many religions have done is to create God in the image they want to believe in him, ignoring completely who he is, ignoring what is written that says who he is.
Click to expand...
Then you must accept the doctrine of a flat earth: “The devil took Jesus up onto an exceeding high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” (Matthew 4:8) Viewing all the kingdoms of the world from one mountain would be possible only if the world were flat rather than spherical. So, either Matthew is lying about what happened to Jesus, or, more probably, we are not always required to interpret the Bible literally.

StAnastasia
 
avflf said:
I hold a neutral position, I have to you see. I wasn’t around 6000 years ago, much less when Ida supposedly lived.
Click to expand...
Do you hold a neutral position on whether William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066? You weren’t around for that event either.
 
StAnastasia said:
Do you hold a neutral position on whether William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066? You weren’t around for that event either.
Click to expand...
We have written record of the event by people living at the time. None of that exists for the 6000 or the 47 million year events.
 
avflf said:
We have written record of the event by people living at the time. None of that exists for the 6000 or the 47 million year events.
Click to expand...
How can you trust the written record? You learn to read and interpret it, just like you learn to read and interpret God’s “book of nature.”
 
StAnastasia said:
How can you trust the written record? You learn to read and interpret it, just like you learn to read and interpret God’s “book of nature.”
Click to expand...
Why shouldn’t I trust the chroniclers of history especially if there are more than one account of the event and there is no contradictions in the reporting? Compare that with God’s book of nature with so many different interpretations, each totally opposed to the next. Would love to carry on chatting but it’s nearly 10 pm where I am so time to say good night, talk tomorrow.
 
avflf said:
Why shouldn’t I trust the chroniclers of history especially if there are more than one account of the event and there is no contradictions in the reporting? Compare that with God’s book of nature with so many different interpretations, each totally opposed to the next. Would love to carry on chatting but it’s nearly 10 pm where I am so time to say good night, talk tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that God’s book of nature is less reliable than human books of history?
 
heiscominginthe said:
Actually, I think it is a martian. That is just as believable as the missing link of man. And another thing, I don’t think this is the first finding these nuts have found and claimed to be the missing link.

Keep trying guys, eventually the Lord will return and reveal to you your foolish ways.
Click to expand...
Again, what is the scientific basis of your claim?

Peace

Tim
 
wasmit said:
so, when reality and scripture disagree, scripture is right and reality is wrong? 🙂
Click to expand...
Reality is often times in the eyes of the beholder.

I have yet seen reality that proves scripture wrong. Now, this is why those who are born again, saved, see the same reality, but have different understandings of that reality. A man who is not born again, saved, sees things only on the physical plain, where as those who are born again see the same reality, but on the spiritual plain. That is why we are to come to God through faith.

For the real world is the spiritual world. The world we live in is merely a creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top