BodyKiss:


You splitted my comment out of context, but still could not make a sense in your reply.




SMH, This is a very silly and dumb analogy, and obviously a telling of low level reasoning.
To see how stvpid this question is, tell me, if you have sex with your spouse, what are the odds she'll get pregnate and give birth to a human immediatly? Expecting to observe such large changes directly is nothing but a sign of dumbness. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. And for your information, Big Bang and Evolution are not the same.

zeemahn:


You see, opinions among bible scholars concerning this topic differs. Some take the 6000 years literally while others insist that due to so so and so, it correspond to what science says.You should not expect me to know when even bible scholars have contradictory views about the age of the earth and universe.

But either way, what criteria do we use to chose what is literal and what is not literal in the bible?

dejilg:


Am not sure u read wat I posted...if u did, u won't ask which criteria I used! The Bible was specific in saying "day" and describing it as "sun up and sun down"....so why wud I do gymnastics with it? Isn't it plain enuf?

I usually believe atheists read more about science? How come u ddnt even know that the Biblical days of Creation amounts to the exact age of the universe as proposed by Science wen factors such as the expansion constant of our universe and time is concerned? Or don't u know that time reads differently depending on what part of the Universe you are? The only thing u can get that is about 6000 years from the Bible is d Creation of Man! Bearing in mind dat "Adam" was even created before "Eve" and that the geneology is done using "generations" which actually isn't a rigid time event!? Science at this stage in man's history shows that the universe had been created/directed even from the Big-Bang(or name it wat u will) --- Intelligent Design can't even be overlooked anymore!

winner01:
This is a very embarassing and shallow reply, the most unintelligent reply ive read on nairaland in recent times, and im sorry to have engaged you.
Have a nice life.

zeemahn:


The last time I checked, you were the one that posted this



And according to what Science have been discovering, the universe is over 45 billion years old. So you're the one that did not read or understand what you wrote.

what criteria do we use to chose what is literal and what is not literal in the bible?

.

dejilg:


I usually believe atheists read more about science? How come u ddnt even know that the Biblical days of Creation amounts to the exact age of the universe as proposed by Science wen factors such as the expansion constant of our universe and time is concerned? Or don't u know that time reads differently depending on what part of the Universe you are? The only thing u can get that is about 6000 years from the Bible is d Creation of Man! Bearing in mind dat "Adam" was even created before "Eve" and that the geneology is done using "generations" which actually isn't a rigid time event!? Science at this stage in man's history shows that the universe had been created/directed even from the Big-Bang(or name it wat u will) --- Intelligent Design can't even be overlooked anymore!

Joshuabase:


Time doesn't read differently in different parts of the universe, your knowledge of gravitational time - dilation is shallow.

dejilg:
a simple question I ask:

Is Evolution scientific?

dejilg:


Ok Sir, who knows more, please explain it to me!

dejilg:


don't be in haste to post in ur futile effort of Bible thrashing! The universe isn't "45 billion years old". Its just about 13Billion years old! and am not here to give u a full treat on how they arrive at that nor show u that the 6 days of creation of the Bible gives that! I pointed some info to u which u chose to ignore all in a bid to make a point (which u also rushed and erred)...I mentioned d fact that time isn't constant everywhere, and dat its even affected by out expanding universe of which the expansion factor even played a major important role in determing the age of the universe! So if u really want to make urself a professor in Biblical studies! Kindly make some research of this in relation to d Bible! Thank you

As per the Criteria used in picking literal or not! Historical context and Biblical definitions are just more than enough

vooks:

Clearly, that's why you was butt hurt after been dumped by the imaginary biracial who now wants to get back

frank317:


I can't even imagine how foolish u sound sometimes. O dont know how old you are but its time you let go of teenage attitude.

vooks:

Weeping harder than the bereaved, what ails you you bloody idiot?
That I wiped the toilet floor with your ret@rded logic?
Grow a pair son

vooks:

Weeping harder than the bereaved, what ails you you bloody idiot?
That I wiped the toilet floor with your ret@rded logic?
Grow a pair son

Avoidhellfire:
So how come Richard Dawkins is a devil worshiping Illuminati member? if God does not exist then it means that the devil that is worshiped by the Illuminati does not also exist. Since we know that Richard Dawkins worships the devil with the Illuminati then it means that God exists.

dejilg:


true, but does this mean that God doesn't exist? does it mean an event didn't take place cos several people reported it differently? so wats ur point exactly?

Joshuabase:

It appears you need to be educated on the scientific process


Hypothesis
Experimentation
Inference
Theory
Experimentation
Law

Evolution is a well known fact just like it's a fact the sun is a sphere

Docjay487:
Many more users, Posts keep recycling...replies also recycling... NL has changed though.

@op if you really mean that as a question (I mean like an answer can matter at all) and not an atheism evangelism to church people finding this section interesting... check out
apologeticspress.com. More goodies there.

winner01:
Godandscience.org is also great. You can check out some of my threads.

winner01:
Thanks Bro.

lalasticlala:


U don't like putting direct link source to your articles.

lalasticlala:


U don't like putting direct link source to your articles.

winner01:
I've corrected that on this thread. I try to post the names of the people whose intellectual materials i refer to. I'll try to correct other threads too by posting a direct link to their sources. Thank you Sir.