Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:Staffed by scientists who are Christians and Christians who are not scientists. Ultimately all christians writing about christian?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Its only those that appeal to authority that would use Augustine to attempt to add weight to their arguments. Despicable!
No relation?
Those three are different fields of science and you lump in together under evolution... Shamelessly covering your ignorance .
I'm convinced that you cannot define time.
Your burden of proof.
Define teh gong. I find you hypocritical in more ways than I thought.
Even more despicable is the person who after being exposed for his misquote and misinterpretation of Augustine, suddenly distance himself from Augustine and charge his opponent for appealing to authority.
Just tell us why Rev 20:2 speaks of an ancient serpent, why ancient serpent?
The shameless ignorance concerning evolution is yours alone, which does not invalidate any argument of mine.
I'm convinced that you lack the intellectual integrity and guts to state how long the day in Genesis is, hoping to divert attention by harping on an irrelevant issue about 24 hrs being man-made. Lame, really lame.
Still teh gong about what is teh gong? Don't be lazy. Do a search on this word in this forum and you can figure it out. So lame to call people hypocrite because of your laziness and lack of initiative to find out what teh gong means. Self-discovery is good for you, no?
Told you I quoted him not for argument and you still use it against me... Used your own link against you and you resort to childish "no you". Really shameless to deny using Augustine to appeal to authority.
Has it ever cross your mind that perhaps it's because it's older than creation of wild animals...
Still laughing at you lumping big bang, biogenesis under evolution.
Its you who cannot accept God commandment that an evening and a morning makes a day. Its you who assume that means 24hrs make a day. Are you going to define time to at least have a basis on this argument?...
It your choice of word. It could mean different things to others. And you particularly frequently use it, not so the others whoever you meant. Define to make yourself understood. Rants totally ignored.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Told you I quoted him not for argument and you still use it against me... Used your own link against you and you resort to childish "no you".
Has it ever cross your mind that perhaps it's because it's older than creation of wild animals...
Still laughing at you lumping big bang, biogenesis under evolution.
Its you who cannot accept God commandment that an evening and a morning makes a day. Its you who assume that means 24hrs make a day. Are you going to define time to at least have a basis on this argument?...
It your choice of word. It could mean different things to others. And you particularly frequently use it, not so the others whoever you meant. Define to make yourself understood. Rants totally ignored.
Nevertheless the fact remains that you misinterpreted Augustine, as I have clearly shown.
Has it ever cross your mind to just answer a simple question of why Rev 20:2 mentioned the words "ancient serpent" and what was that alluding to?
Still laughing at your failure to understand the term evolution and what fields it has been applied to. In fact, it is an entire worldview. See http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Evolution
Your false accusation is noted. I have repeatedly said that God created in six literal ordinary days, and that each day is a normal 24 hr day. Asking me to define time is again a red herring. I am asking you how long a day is in Genesis 1 and you have repeatedly evaded the answer. It is obvious that you are trying to avoid this issue because you KNOW very well that only the young earth view is exegetically tight. So now you just stall for time and try to create a diversion. You can throw red herrings all you want, I ain't biting.
Again your lack of initiative to search things for yourself is not my problem.
Well, from your link, even Augustine admits his interpretations were not infallible...
I just answered in rhetoric... Before creation of wild animals... You have to tell me what ancient meant to you.
Lol! You lumped it the 3 field science as evolution and now make it as a word term. I'm not laughing at the word usage. I'm laughing at your thinking that they are under evolution. Dont tell me you were attempting to raise the bar...
Ad naseum... Proof to me that an evening and a day is 24hrs where and when God commanded it. Else you have no case to argue. You claimed that it's 24hrs, I claimed that is an evening and a day, according to the word of God. Yet you can't accept my claim, which is totally literally from your bible version.
So you were just babbling... spamming intelligible terms... ok noted.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Well, from your link, even Augustine admits his interpretations were not infallible...
I just answered in rhetoric... Before creation of wild animals... You have to tell me what ancient meant to you.
Lol! You lumped it the 3 field science as evolution and now make it as a word term. I'm not laughing at the word usage. I'm laughing at your thinking that they are under evolution. Dont tell me you were attempting to raise the bar...
Ad naseum... Proof to me that an evening and a day is 24hrs where and when God commanded it. Else you have no case to argue. You claimed that it's 24hrs, I claimed that is an evening and a day, according to the word of God. Yet you can't accept my claim, which is totally literally from your bible version.
So you were just babbling... spamming intelligible terms... ok noted.
Again you raised an irrelevant point, since I never said Augustine was infallible.
Ever the artful dodger, still refusing to say why the phrase "ancient serpent" was used in Rev 20:2.
You are only laughing at your own ignorance. The word evolution has broad meanings. I am using it as referring to how the universe and life come into existence over long periods of time.
Making silly juvenille demands to stall for time again? What's next? Asking me to prove that a year is 365 days or a month is 30 days, and then that each of the 30 days is 24 hours? You are so lame. BTW, how many hours are there in a day? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
Clue: Hokkien. Act. Blurr.
I didn't say you say Augustine say that his interpretations were infallible. I merely use that of which provided by your link, after you concluded that my interpretations were wrong...
Serpent is used to describe the dragon in front of it. It your burden to link Rev to Gen. What does it feels like to have no concept of shame?
You are putting the big bang theory, abiogenesis and theory of evolution to your term "evolution". Its becoming a stale joke if you keep on repeating it...
Did you even read your own links? It was practically saying 24hrs not equals to an evening and a day...
In English please... blur according to wiki is not applicable to describe people... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blur#section_1
Originally posted by Aneslayer:I didn't say you say Augustine say that his interpretations were infallible. I merely use that of which provided by your link, after you concluded that my interpretations were wrong...
Serpent is used to describe the dragon in front of it. It your burden to link Rev to Gen. What does it feels like to have no concept of shame?
You are putting the big bang theory, abiogenesis and theory of evolution to your term "evolution". Its becoming a stale joke if you keep on repeating it...
Did you even read your own links? It was practically saying 24hrs not equals to an evening and a day...
In English please... blur according to wiki is not applicable to describe people... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blur#section_1
Still playing games? Why would this dragon also be called the ancient serpent who is also called satan? Afraid and ashamed to commit an answer?
I have already made clear what I meant by evolution which is a valid to include those aspects. Your refusal to accept is not my problem, not to mention that you failed to show that it was invalid or wrong.
Trying to split hairs re the 24 hr issue? Again this shows how desperate you are, no case still want to put up a front. Be my guest if you like to insult your own intelligence in the forums. No shame?
I wrote what I wrote, English or dialect is my call. If you still want to act blur about what teh gong means, so be it.
According to your link, Augustine disagree with you...
Eh? You tell me how it's linked to Genesis literal serpent...
By itself its understood to be theory of evolution only. To describe big bang theory or abiogenesis you will have to elaborate. Keep it up if you don't mind appearing ignorant to your opponents.
It there in your link..."In 1967, the second was redefined in terms of the wavelength of light, and it became the SI base unit of time". Nothing to God commandment, an evening and a morning makes a day... If you insist 24hrs make a day is what Genesis meant, you are taking human inventions more than God's literal words.
I asked in English, is it too much to ask to expect an answer in English? Won't expect good English definitions from you then...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:According to your link, Augustine disagree with you...
Eh? You tell me how it's linked to Genesis literal serpent...
By itself its understood to be theory of evolution only. To describe big bang theory or abiogenesis you will have to elaborate. Keep it up if you don't mind appearing ignorant to your opponents.
It there in your link..."In 1967, the second was redefined in terms of the wavelength of light, and it became the SI base unit of time". Nothing to God commandment, an evening and a morning makes a day... If you insist 24hrs make a day is what Genesis meant, you are taking human inventions more than God's literal words.
I asked in English, is it too much to ask to expect an answer in English? Won't expect good English definitions from you then...
Well, you would have to actually demonstrate that Augustine utterly rejects Biblical 6 days creation and did not believe in a universe/earth about 6000 years old.
Like I said, feel free to ASSUME that I am wrong about Rev 20:2. Now YOU tell me what you think the "ancient serpent" was about. Surely your belief is not dependent on mine, right? So quit the evasive tactics and answer the question.
I laugh at your notion that evolution means ONLY the Theory of Evolution. At its most basic meaning it means "change over time". Context determines meaning when a word can have more than one meaning. Obviously you did not learn that in school.
You are obviously being ridiculous. What is taking man's invention over God's Word is for you to accept the ideas of evolution over God's Word that He created in six literal days, ordinary normal days as we have them today. Do I insist that it is 24 hours day? Yes. But if you are nitpicking on the fact that a day is not EXACTLY 24 hours but slightly less, this only shows how immature you are.
I already given the answer. Is it too much for you to connect the dots, or even to check it up for yourself?
You appealed to Augustine's authority to support your interpretations even when he himself confessed that his interpretations were not infallible, but still you'd insist I'm wrong... Believe what you want then.
Satan took form of a dragon, he is older than creation and serpent being the symbol of wisdom. That's my interpretation of that verse.
Is it? See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
If you look into the disambiguous section it have lots of other broad meanings. Did you mean those too? If you insist you are not wrong, fine. So be it another fool. One more is not too much, one less is not significant.
The basis of calculation is not an evening and a morning make a day. There is no reason for me to accept it when the word of God clearly define a day especially after you were unable to prove an evening and a morning is 24hrs. Insist all you want, I'm sticking to God's word. What does your evolution means?
Yes, you failed to define " teh gong " in English when I asked in English. Nice try anyway...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:You appealed to Augustine's authority to support your interpretations even when he himself confessed that his interpretations were not infallible, but still you'd insist I'm wrong... Believe what you want then.
Satan took form of a dragon, he is older than creation and serpent being the symbol of wisdom. That's my interpretation of that verse.
Is it? See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
If you look into the disambiguous section it have lots of other broad meanings. Did you mean those too? If you insist you are not wrong, fine. So be it another fool. One more is not too much, one less is not significant.
The basis of calculation is not an evening and a morning make a day. There is no reason for me to accept it when the word of God clearly define a day especially after you were unable to prove an evening and a morning is 24hrs. Insist all you want, I'm sticking to God's word. What does your evolution means?
Yes, you failed to define " teh gong " in English when I asked in English. Nice try anyway...
So satan took the form of a dragon with legs and got his legs busted and has been crawling on his belly ever since? Satan is older than creation? Who told you that? Where is your source?
I already wrote clearly on what I meant by evolution. If you can prove that I am wrong then do it, duh.
And still you refuse to tell us exactly how long a day is in Genesis 1. Even reputable study Bibles do not have this problem. You are the first person I see who resort to this lame stall tactic. You would be booed off the stage if this is an official publoc debate.
I already told you the meaning of teh gong. Why you still act blur?
You kept saying my interpretations was wrong when even Augustine admits his interpretations were not infallible in your link, attempting to appeal to his authority on your argument. You haven't provided the evidence as you claimed to prove your interpretations right but can boastfully say im wrong. I don't see the rationale of your approach.
Satan can take form in anything I guess. Why would it bust it own legs and crawl? Serpent doesn't mean only snakes... Its also a symbol for wisedom.
If you see my previous post, its before creation of wild animals... missed out the wild animals part on the last post...
Then you are deliberately being ambiguous when asked to clarify. So much for open discussion...
See you still cannot accept God's definition of an evening and a morning makes a day as a duration of a day... Pretty straightforward. The duration of a day is an evening and a morning. That is the length of a day. I accepted it as a fact with no conflict. What is stopping you from believing God meant a day to be an evening and a day? Your timepiece?
You failed to define it in English. I wouldn't use unintelligible words to converse in postings. Meaningless.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:You kept saying my interpretations was wrong when even Augustine admits his interpretations were not infallible in your link, attempting to appeal to his authority on your argument. You haven't provided the evidence as you claimed to prove your interpretations right but can boastfully say im wrong. I don't see the rationale of your approach.
Satan can take form in anything I guess. Why would it bust it own legs and crawl? Serpent doesn't mean only snakes... Its also a symbol for wisedom.
If you see my previous post, its before creation of wild animals... missed out the wild animals part on the last post...Then you are deliberately being ambiguous when asked to clarify. So much for open discussion...
See you still cannot accept God's definition of an evening and a morning makes a day as a duration of a day... Pretty straightforward. The duration of a day is an evening and a morning. That is the length of a day. I accepted it as a fact with no conflict. What is stopping you from believing God meant a day to be an evening and a day? Your timepiece?
You failed to define it in English. I wouldn't use unintelligible words to converse in postings. Meaningless.
That your interpretation of Augustine is shown to be wrong has NOTHING to do with any notion of Augustine's infallibility, a notion that no one to holding on to anyway. Why should Augustine be infallible just to be able to say you are wrong? Like I said, you can quote Augustine, so can I. You can appeal to him, so can I. Deal with it. I have already shown how your interpretation of "could be" was already off which cannot be denied.
It's easy to see how your view crumbles upon scrutiny. If you say that Satan assumed a serpent form to tempt Eve, and God judged his serpentine form, then it means that satan can undo God's judgement by changing back to his original spiritual nature. But if you say serpent is just a symbol then explain why God would want to curse a symbol and make it eat dust? All land animals were created on Day 6 i.e. the snake was created on Day 6 along with all other land animals and also humans. So what is the big deal you are making about being created before the wild animals? Completely irrelevant!
But I asked you for your sources for your interpretation of Rev 20:2 and you went silent on that. So you anyhow gasak one ad hoc interpretation one issit?
You complaining about me being ambigious in my replies? That's really a shameless double standard thing accusation on your part.
Ad nauseum! I have already stated that I take a plain sense reading of Genesis regarding what the day is, that it is an evening and a morning. I take the view that this day is the same as our 24hrs day. Setting aside whether you think I am right or wrong, I am asking YOU (more than once already) to tell me how long that day is by our measurement, man-made or not. Stop your evading tactics on this. Or are you afraid to be shown to be in error if you make known your views? Saying "I don't know" is a cop out, and ignorance is not a basis to say that my views are wrong.
Just because you are ignorant of what "teh gong" means does not mean it is unintelligible. You may well lack the intelligence to find out what that means. Even more ironic is the fact that I have already told you what it meant. You need to be more perceptive.
^Begging question fallacy x 6...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:^Begging question fallacy x 6...
Epic-failed fallacy-detective FTW!
Originally posted by Aneslayer:^ad hominem. Appeal to ridicule.
Double standards FTW!
i usually fart in the toilet. so one day i vist the toilet many times.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Problem? What should they be writing about then? Buddhism? Of course they write about Christianity or evaluate ideas from a Christian worldview. That should be obviously expected right?
Obviously expected... obviously wrong too. Worst off as a evidence of proof.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Obviously expected... obviously wrong too. Worst off as a evidence of proof.
Why would the obviously expected be obviously wrong? You are merely making a dismissive remark. Can you back that up or are you going to give an excuse for not backing that up?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Why would the obviously expected be obviously wrong? You are merely making a dismissive remark. Can you back that up or are you going to give an excuse for not backing that up?
I believed i already explained previously. An evidence or a proof or anything christianity coming from a largely bias christian source made up of scientist/writers who are christians inclined to support the christian worldview are a bias source by itself. This makes the proof very less reliable. Even in secondary school students are taught to cross reference from other sources to prove something.
While it is not wrong for christians to support and write about christians worldview, but using that to prove whatever in the christians worldview as the factual truth is in itself wrong.
you are still the same... forever getting overly defensive. It makes things hard for ppl to have a good discussion here.
I will stop here for now. Do not think you will take what i've said.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:I believed i already explained previously. An evidence or a proof or anything christianity coming from a largely bias christian source made up of scientist/writers who are christians inclined to support the christian worldview are a bias source by itself. This makes the proof very less reliable. Even in secondary school students are taught to cross reference from other sources to prove something.
While it is not wrong for christians to support and write about christians worldview, but using that to prove whatever in the christians worldview as the factual truth is in itself wrong.
you are still the same... forever getting overly defensive. It makes things hard for ppl to have a good discussion here.
I will stop here for now. Do not think you will take what i've said.
It is still the genetic fallacy. The allegation of being unreliable must be proven, not assumed. Do you consider the accounts of the Holocaust written by the surviving Jews as unreliable because it was written by Jews to support the plight of the Jews? If you have bothered to check out the more than 7,000 articles on Creation.com you would not fail to see the cross-references and citations provided. Your objection is really without merit. And on what basis do you say it is wrong to use the information provided by Creation.com? I think you are simply being biased and prejudiced.
I am not being overly defensive anymore than you are being overly attacking. Why should I not defend my views from your criticism if I consider it unfair or erroneous? I did not dismiss your views out of hand, I actually show you why I disagree and point out where your problem lies.
And for what it's worth I also do not think you will take what I have said.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It is still the genetic fallacy. The allegation of being unreliable must be proven, not assumed. Do you consider the accounts of the Holocaust written by the surviving Jews as unreliable because it was written by Jews to support the plight of the Jews? If you have bothered to check out the more than 7,000 articles on Creation.com you would not fail to see the cross-references and citations provided. Your objection is really without merit. And on what basis do you say it is wrong to use the information provided by Creation.com? I think you are simply being biased and prejudiced.
I am not being overly defensive anymore than you are being overly attacking. Why should I not defend my views from your criticism if I consider it unfair or erroneous? I did not dismiss your views out of hand, I actually show you why I disagree and point out where your problem lies.
And for what it's worth I also do not think you will take what I have said.
source A is correct. Evidence? Source A... talk about fallacy. Im glad i scored my social studies and know how to validate my sources.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:source A is correct. Evidence? Source A... talk about fallacy. Im glad i scored my social studies and know how to validate my sources.
You may know how to validate your sources but you do not know how to read properly. How about you provide a coiple of examples to back up your allegation? A few out of 7,000 over articles shouldn't cause you much difficulty if your allegation has legs to stand.