davidylan:

Simply say you chose not to see them or you scoffed at them. Even if there were 1000 threads explaining genesis . . . one of you woolheads will still come back demanding more "Explanation". Nothing new here . . . next quest pls.

What exactly has it "explained"? we are not here demanding explanations because you have NON at all, if we need any explanations we know where to go, stop deluding yourself into thinking you have any "explanations" you have NON at all, in fact you don't even know what you are saying talk less of trying to explain it to any one. stop giving yourself too much credit that you don't deserve at all. Stupid and hopeless fool. . . .

abeg nah, make we no turn this thread to fight.

davidylan:

The day i see you make a cerebral contribution to a thread aside from snide remarks and insults . . . hell will freeze over.

sure. . . that is the ONLY language fools like you understand, so i have to speak in the only language goons like you understand. idiot. . . . . .

mazaje:

What exactly has it "explained"? we are not here demanding explanations because you have NON at all, if we need any explanations we know where to go, stop deluding yourself into thinking you have any "explanations" you have NON at all, in fact you don't even know what you are saying talk less of trying to explain it to any one. stop giving yourself too much credit that you don't deserve at all. Stupid and hopeless fool. . . .

The reason you cant see any "explanations" is that 95% of the time you're not asking a question because you want an answer . . . majority of you stumble on someone's poorly researched claims on the web then rush here to pretend to be interested in an answer. If you cant craft your own questions its harder to understand the answer.

Krayola . . . i'm sure you note your atheist brethren.

wirinet:

Noetic, I sometimes avoid entering a debate with you because you responses are stereotyped, but i decided to enter this one because you are asking specific questions and giving "cogent" reason why you disagree with evolution. Although i disagree with your conclusions of " if evolution cannot explain the existence of life on earth then Genesis must be true". I am sorry i had never seen anyone reason that way. They are lots of things i do not understand and i leave it that way " I Do Not Understand". I might seek explanations but until i find one i understand and agree with.

I believe your assertions here are not true.

1. I clearly stated that my conclusion is based on extensive analyses. . . .some of which resulted in certain questions evolutionists cannot answer. . .I have listed the questions.

2. why does the "I dont understand" logic apply to ur position on creationism?

All the questions you raised were raised and answered adequately by scientists, the problem you have with evolution does not fall within the purview of evolution itself,  It falls within either biogenesis, biochemistry or molecular biology. Evolution in the strict sense deals with the diversification and differentiation of organisms on the earth surface, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
So your puzzle of how the first life appeared on earth is more directed at Molecular Biologist than evolutionist.

ur assertions are false again.

Evolution attempts to explain the variety of life with special emphasis on the source and origin of life. This is buttressed by biogenesis and biology.
Dishonesty is not allowed in debates.

Also i do not know your background or your ability to understand science, because i had deduced ( maybe wrongly) from past debates that you do not have adequate scientific background, so i thought you copy davidylans line of arguments since he claims to be a biologist.

what has any of this got to do with the topic? please be focused.

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

please produce those answers here to educate my ignorance. . .  , I am sure other creationists are reading too . . .they would love to see answers to these questions.

To answer your question, you first have to define what you mean by LIFE. Because when we say LIFE people have varied definitions of its meanings. Some can define life and afterlife and beforelife. I had provided my own definition in one of the debates. So lets have your definition of life, then we can go into how life can start from non-life.

what has this got to do with the topic of the thread?

i claim to be an evolutionist but you have provided me with many evolutionary terms i am unfamilair with, like spontaneous generation and last universal ancestor please explain what they are, after all we are here to learn.

Another IGNORAMUS claiming to be an evolutionist. google and wikipedia might be useful in helping u understand those terms.

davidylan:

The reason you cant see any "explanations" is that 95% of the time you're not asking a question because you want an answer . . . majority of you stumble on someone's poorly researched claims on the web then rush here to pretend to be interested in an answer. If you cant craft your own questions its harder to understand the answer.

Krayola . . . i'm sure you note your atheist brethren.

again stop the foolishness you are displaying here and the ridiculous claim that you have "answers" you have non at all, no body is here to ask you any question but to show you that you have NO arguments at all. If you have any arguments you will not be foolishly and stupidly waiting on the evolutionist to provide their evidence for evolution before claiming to provide the evidence for creationism that you don't have and will never have to provide. You will simply go and provide your  scientific evidence for creationism and shut the other side up once and for all.

You don't know what you are talking about apart from regurgitating the idea's of ancient men that thought the earth was created before the sun as you "facts". Deluded idiot. . . . . . . .

haha. . . This is a hopeless exercise. I give up  

mazaje:

again stop the foolishness you are displaying here and the ridiculous claim that you have "answers" you have non at all, no body is here to ask you any question but to show you that you have NO arguments at all. If you have any arguments you will not be foolishly and stupidly waiting on the evolutionist to provide their evidence for evolution before claiming to provide the evidence for creationism that you don't have and will never have to provide. You will simply go and provide your  scientific evidence for creationism and shut the other side up one and for all.

You don't know what you are talking about apart from regurgitating the idea's of ancient men that thought the earth was created before the sun as you "facts". Deluded idiot. . . . . . . . 

Anyone knows what this dude is saying? I cant make anything out of this rant. Perhaps Krayola has an idea.

davidylan:

Anyone knows what this dude is saying? I cant make anything out of this rant. Perhaps Krayola has an idea.

the dude is speaking in the ONLY language you understand. . . .stupid and hopeless fool. . . . .

mazaje:

the dude is speaking in the ONLY language you understand. . . .stupid and hopeless fool. . . . .

I am with you on this one, that is the only language the deluded fool understands.

@ Noetic Are u still going to explain why you believe Genesis over Science? U haven't said anything about Genesis yet. . .

Krayola:

@ Noetic Are u still going to explain why you believe Genesis over Science? U haven't said anything about Genesis yet. . .

1. what do u understand by science?

2. I believe Genesis over evolution. . . . .not science.

3. I was only waiting to be sure that ur atheistic ignorant trolls had cooled their nerves.

Hey hey hey hey why spoil this nice thread?  
Ok david we get it now move along.
noetic and K please take center stage again, I am waiting for the genesis part.

where is krayola?

noetic2:

1. what do u understand by science?

2. I believe Genesis over evolution. . . . .not science.

3. I was only waiting to be sure that ur atheistic ignorant trolls had cooled their nerves.

Hey boy take it easy on the insults, don't you have a civil tongue in your head? Stop the name calling it gives no credibility to your argument.

noetic2:

1. what do u understand by science?

A systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

noetic2:

2. I believe Genesis over evolution. . . . .not science.

Fair enough. Why do u believe Genesis to be more credible than evolution?

noetic2:

3. I was only waiting to be sure that ur atheistic ignorant trolls had cooled their nerves.

How about we just ignore any post we find offensive? We really can't control what anyone does.

Chrisbenogor:

Hey boy take it easy on the insults, don't you have a civil tongue in your head? Stop the name calling it gives no credibility to your argument.

1. what does ignorance mean?
2. what does troll mean?
3. Which of the two words is insulting?

you did not have to respond, considering that u had nothing reasonable to say. . . pls get lost.

noetic2:

1. what does ignorance mean?
2. what does troll mean?
3. Which of the two words is insulting?

you did not have to respond, considering that u had nothing reasonable to say. . . pls get lost.

Every time you christians keep showing us why this country does not develop despite all the God fearing people we have professing to have heard from the lord. A name calling contest achieves nothing, just stop it . Some people are trying to read this thread.

Genesis 1 offers a direct analyses of how God made the heaven and earth. with special emphasis of the earth. Genesis 2 offers an analyses of how the creation took place from a human perspective which corroborates modern human scientific knowledge including photosynthesis. . .

between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 is an unknown period of time. this fact is established by several biblical verses.
The bible also gives accounts of what the earth looked like after Gen 1:1 . . . .and also what the earth looked like slightly before verse 2. The number of years between these two verses are not known,  . . .I would delve into that unless required.

As far as creationism is concerned. . . . creation took 7 days.

Day 1. . . .God created light 1.
Day 2. . . .God made the firnament et all.
Day 3. . . .God made plants
Day 4. . . . God made Light 2. . . .that marks seasons and time.
Day 5. . , God made fishes and birds
Day 6. . ,  . God made the animals and Man
Day 7 . . . God created Rest.

God made several assertions. All of this assertions are valid even till today.
1. In verse 3 the light was called Day and the night darkness

Its pretty obvious, there is definitely no need for further analyses. but this type of light created here is unique. here is what the dictionary calls it.
18. spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light

2. In verse 9 He called the dry place land and the water sea

Thats pretty obvious.

3. in verse 16 He decreed that the sun rules at night and the moon at night

Bear in mind that God created a kind of light in verse 14. . .  .this type of light, I have no explanation of. but just like was said by God, we know that
a. the sun rules truly by day
b. the moon rules by night.
c. the sun generates its own light
d. the moon obtains it light from the sun
e. the moon takes much time to travel at night.
f. the traveling and the inability of the moon to generate its own light does not dispute the fact that the moon rules by night.

4. in verse 22 God asked that the animals be fruitful and increase.

This is the only plausible explanation for the reproduction in animals. There is yet no repeatable, scientific, observable, recordable or reproducible analyses, process, theory or evidence to suggest that animals evolve. Neither is there any alternative to re-production (except for cloning). . . .which in essence is what God decreed here.


5. in verse 28 God asked that man be fruitful and multiply.

Reproduction is still the only observable, repeatable, recordable and reproducable evidence for the emergence of humans that we know of. This was exactly what God decreed here, by stating that be fruitful and multiply.

By logical and intellectual analyses of each of this pronouncements from God, these pronouncements are undeniably so even till this day.


It is impossible to lay emphasis and explicit credence of creationism on genesis 1 without analysing genesis 2. Genesis 2 represents human analyses of creationism with emphasis on modern scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge including the complexity of the sun, moon, stars, photosyntesis et all.

From genesis 2 we understand that, though God had created all things. . . .they did not appear to us as such.

# There was no plant on the field or tree because there was no man to till the ground and water the fields (Gen 2:4).This corroborates the fact that the sun and the moon had been made. . . there was light.
Modern agricultural process explains that there needs to be some form of photosyntesis and irrigation or watering of plants before plants can grow. Genesis 2 corroborates this.

Thanks. Just before I respond just want to clear something up. U say things like "God said", and "God decreed", would I be correct to assume that u believe Genesis is the literal word of God, and that you accept its authority, over that of evolutionists, based on that assumption.

Also, do u acknowledge that humans are related to the other human-like species whose fossils have been found, or was the man God created Homo-Sapien? I know that Genesis says Adam and Eve had hands and could speak. . .I also know Abel was a shepherd while Cane was a farmer, so I'm assuming they were not primitive beings without language, or any form of culture. Is that the same way u understand Genesis?  I mean do u think the earth is thousands of years old as opposed to billions. I just want to know what ur understanding is so I don't end up trying to refute something that u do not believe in the 1st place.

Krayola2:

Thanks. Just before I respond just want to clear something up. U say things like "God said", and "God decreed", would I be correct to assume that u believe Genesis is the literal word of God, and that you accept its authority, over that of evolutionists, based on that assumption.

The bible is the literal word of God.

Also, do u acknowledge that humans are related to the other human-like species whose fossils have been found, or was the man God created Homo-Sapien? I know that Genesis says Adam and Eve had hands and could speak. . .I also know Abel was a shepherd while Cane was a farmer, so I'm assuming they were not primitive beings without language, or any form of culture. Is that the same way u understand Genesis?

Humans are homo-sapiens who have no relationship with any other specie.

  I mean do u think the earth is thousands of years old as opposed to billions. I just want to know what ur understanding is so I don't end up trying to refute something that u do not believe in the 1st place.

I believe that there was a gap between Genesis 1verse 1 and verse 2. I have lots of biblical evidences to buttress this fact.
As to how old the earth is, I cannot state because I do know that there was a pre-adam era between genesis 1 v1 and v2. . . .how long this era was, I do not know.

I decided to take this debate in a different direction, I hope u don't mind. I want us to keep the issues separate (Evolution- Genesis), and also our explanations separate (mine -yours) I'm not going to try to "debunk" ur interpretation of the Bible. I know some readers will be disappointed but I have read numerous threads about this, and they all went that route, and nothing came out of them but deadlock and insults. I will only ask questions when I don't understand something, and I will not try to refute ur responses (only try to understand them). I will, in turn, just tell you what i think of the biblical accounts, and why. If u have questions, please ask, and i will do likewise. But hopefully at the end of this u will understand why i believe what i do, and i will have a better understanding of why u believe what u do. I won't try to convince you, but if u have any questions please ask. This is a very complicated topic and I just spent the last few hours digging thru school notes and books trying to summarize a shit load of stuff. I know some of it might not be clear so just ask me if something isn't. Remember, though, we are trying to understand each other's beliefs, and not to prove each other wrong. We keep the discussions of ur beliefs and mine separate, and we keep the ones about evolution separate too. (so we don't get caught up in another “us vs them” situation). Others that want to join in the debate can, i just plead that we try to respect each other, and, for once, not try to ridicule each other. Let us just try to understand. And when we can't resist the urge to object to something, let us please try to be polite.

I'll first explain what my understanding of Genesis is, and why I do not accept it as an authority when it comes to matters relating to the origin of the Earth. I don't want u to be unsure of how familiar I am with the Bible, or to think that I do not respect Christians or the Christian faith, so I'll tell u a little bit about myself. I was born and raised in a very very very Christian home. I went to church every sunday in Nigeria, and my family gathered every night at 9pm to read the bible, praise God and pray. I did this from when I was a baby till I was a teenager. I went to sunday school, went to a catholic primary school (my family was not catholic. We were Anglican, but later went to some Pentecostal churches. We were not really concerned with denomination. We just worshipped God. Sorta pluralist approach), and I even attended a Catholic high school for a year when i moved to Canada. I also attended lots and lots of services at churches like Redeemed, MFM, the thing that happens at Lagos Ibadan express way (can't remember what its called). I grew up with the Bible. I also study religion at University and have taken quite a few courses where we had to go thru the entire bible, and do all sorts of projects and papers, etc. So i'm quite familiar with the Bible, and where I have doubt I have several books that are accepted within the larger academic community that i refer to. (I will always state when i do this so u know) If I make any claims u do not agree with, please do not question my motives, because I do not intend to ridicule ur faith. Just let me know where u disagree and hopefully we can work it out.

First of all I know that Jewish civilization did not emerge in a vacuum. Rather it was forged out of the essential elements of an extensive Mesopotamian cultural heritage. Also, until around the time of Elijah, Jews did not believe their God was the only god. They believed there were other gods, but their's was the Supreme one. It was something called monolatry, and not monotheism. The latter was a later development.

Another thing is that when u read the stories of the Bible, you have to realize that some of them were written way way waaaaay after the “fact” (sometimes centuries, sometimes decades, some were records of recent events. I mean that the Israelites were a people creating an identity for themselves, based on certain beliefs that had been passed down orally by tradition. So when a lot of the writing was done, current events and previous ones are retrojected waay into the past, and then stories are created to illustrate how they understood their history based on these beliefs about God and his relationship with them.  

My understanding of the creation story in Genesis (based on what I have studied over the last 3 years and not what i was raised with, which is identical, i assume for now, to what u believe) is that the story does not focus on a scientific account of the origin of the universe, but on the gracious provision of God for humankind. Three thousand years ago people were not asking scientific questions, but theological ones. In my opinion, reading the bible without literal and historical sensivities is not intellectually honest. But that is just my opinion. We know how much things have changed since the 1980s, i can't even start to imaging what people were like 3000 years ago.  The purpose of the Genesis account was not to explain how the earh came to be, but to state what exactly the nature of the relationship betweem them and their God was. This was to be the basis for all future developments of their philosophy/worldview. .

“Modern readers should not allow issues of no consequence to the purposes of these early narratives to obscure their profound view of God and humanity.” Fant Clyde An Introduction to the Bible

The purpose of Genesis was not to give a scientific account. Science didn't exist.


Aight. . . I don't want to bore u with details, so if anything is unclear please ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure u might have heard of the hypothesis that several traditions were incorporated into the Torah. J,E,D and P. Scholars have studied the writing styles, grammar, vocabulary, of the text, and used archaelogical evidence etc to develop this hypothesis. (Remember you don't have to agree with it, I just want you to understand so lets not yet get into debating whether it is valid or not). My explanation of my understanding of Genesis and why i do not accept it as authority regarding the origin of the earth involves the J and the P traditions, so I'll will describe both a little bit.


The J tradition is the oldest according to this hypothesis. It dates back to the 9th century BCE, and attributed the most anththropomorphic chracter to God, referred to as YHWH.  The creation account in Genesis 2 is believed to come out of this tradition.

The P tradition is from the 5th century BCE, which has a more transcendental view of God, and emphasizes the importance of the sacrificial system. It is also the only tradition that states that tithes are to be given to priests and Levites (evidence of statehood and tax-collection) The creation account is Genesis 1 comes out of this tradition.

This P tradition shows the 1st signs of Monotheism. . .that only 1 God exists and none other.

“It occured when foreign Gods were seen as simply the works of men's hands. This was the view Elijah had in the 9th centure BCE when , confronting the prophets of Baal, declared 'The Lord, he is God; The Lord he is God.' (1 kings 18:39). Certainly by the time of Jeremiah (several decades after the babylonian exile), monotheism appears to have taken a firm hold on the Israelite community. In the words of Jeremiah: 'Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them for they can do no evil, neither is it in then to do good' (Jeremiah 10:5). Psalm 82 also describes how God rebukes the other Gods for their injustice and deprives them of divine status and immortality." Dan Cohn- Sherbok. Judaism “History, Belief, and practice”

This change in world-view changed western religion permanently and is responsible for the account of creation in Genesis 1. I will explain why I believe this to be so, and why despite this the Bible retains both its scriptural authority, and remains consistent with science (Justifying why there are many biblical scholars who are devout christians regardless of the “inconsistencies” in the bible. They just have a more thorough understanding of it, and it reinforces their faith rather than weaken it)

The account in Genesis 2 is the original tradition passed down orally. It takes as a given that God made the Heaven and the Earth and does not attempt to explain how. This was not their concern. If you read it carefully (get your bible) you will notice the following.
"1)That it describes god in human terms. i.e God formed, God planted, God placed. This shows that God was not seen as radically transcendent (outside this world), but close to man, and in close contact to man. i.e. Involved in his life and concerned about his well being and conduct “The Lord God called Adam 'Where are u'. . . 'How could you do such a thing?'. . .” Genesis 2: 8

2)The first person (' adam, which translates to “human” in ancient hebrew) is made from soil ('adama – notice the play of words). BUT, this human is not complete until a second act of creation, when the first woman (eve, which translates to life of life-giver) is created in Genesis 2:23. they both come from one body; they both are animated by the breath of God; they both are drawn to one another as “one flesh”; and they both return to the soil from which they came. This is the original creation story of the Israelites, and it was not concerned with the origin of the earth, but of humans, and our relationship with the Creator . ." [/b] Fant Clyde An Introduction to the Bible (paraphrased. . .only a brief summary)
[b]Nothing in this passage, considering it was developed over 3000 years ago, is inconsistent with science. It was a deep, insightful, and honest response to a honest question. That is because politics was not involved yet. Israel was not yet a “Super- power”


Now to the creation story in Genesis 1. First I want to emphasize that though it can be tempting for some to be cynical, the intent of this story was not to decieve anybody. It was just the way of the times, and that was how culture was preserved, and history written back then.

I already described briefly earlier the shift from Monolatry(One most powerful God among other less powerful gods) to Monotheism (radical transcendence of the only God). Israelites (perhaps Elijah was the visionary who discovered this) saw all the other Gods as man made. They were made of wood, broze etc. They were made of things of this world. It was a revolutionary idea that had developed slowly over centuries. The Israelite God created the universe and “its fullness there-of”. Therefore, by definition he had authority over all the other gods, and had the power to render them out of commission. As the stories of Elijah tell us. These stories do not always tell us about actual events, but actual development of ideas and world-view. The stories of Elijah's victory over other gods illustrate the change in belief about the nature and status of their God.

This is what the story in genesis seeks to articulate. Not to tell us about the actual origin of the earth, but incorporate this new belief into their tradition. It was written to affirm that their God was the creator of all that exists, and everything else was beneath, and subject to His Authority . The objective of the writers was to document what they now knew for sure to be true. That the other gods were nothing more than material objects, and that the power that sustains was not of this world. It wasn't supposed to describe the actual way the earth was created, but to show the transcendence and dominion of their God over all that exists. His word is his power. ( God said, made, created is used when creating, though he does other things like setting and separating).

Now I'm not saying this is all true for sure, i'm just saying that based on what I have studied, I believe Evolution over Genesis when it comes to the origin of the Earth,. Not because I think the bible is a book of “lies”, but because I do not believe that was what the writers sought to describe. I, however, believe the account in Genesis 2, viewed with literal and historical sensitivites, can be reconciled with evolution because it does not make any claims that are, in my opinion, inaccurate in light of modern science.


(this took me a while to write and i'm too tired to read over it and look for mistakes in articulation or grammar or whateva. If I messed up on something please just ask and i'll try to clarify, just please make una no attack me o) I need to get away from this computer. later

Chrisbenogor:

Every time you christians keep showing us why this country does not develop despite all the God fearing people we have professing to have heard from the lord. A name calling contest achieves nothing, just stop it . Some people are trying to read this thread.

what a ridiculous hypocrite. The insults started from mazaje . . . i notice you completely overlooked that minor fact only to start bleating about others.

this was where the thread derailing started . . . go back and read post #12

Krayola2:

Thanks. Just before I respond just want to clear something up. U say things like "God said", and "God decreed", would I be correct to assume that u believe Genesis is the literal word of God, and that you accept its authority, over that of evolutionists, based on that assumption.

Also, do u acknowledge that humans are related to the other human-like species whose fossils have been found, or was the man God created Homo-Sapien? I know that Genesis says Adam and Eve had hands and could speak. . .I also know Abel was a shepherd while Cane was a farmer, so I'm assuming they were not primitive beings without language, or any form of culture. Is that the same way u understand Genesis?  I mean do u think the earth is thousands of years old as opposed to billions. I just want to know what ur understanding is so I don't end up trying to refute something that u do not believe in the 1st place.

Evolutionists too simply "said" and "decreed" . . . why do you accept their authority based on flawed assumption?

Krayola2:

I'm sure u might have heard of [size=18pt]the hypothesis[/size] that several traditions were incorporated into the Torah. [size=18pt]J,E,D and P[/size].

I was enjoying Krayola's long post until i ran into the JEDP HYPOTHESIS. I didnt bother to continue again.

We have thrashed the JEDP issue long and hard here before and have long since dumped it as nothing but a dubious backdoor attempt to delegitimise the bible in the name of "Science" and "scholarship".

To start with . . . the JEPD itself is called a HYPOTHESIS . . . NOT A FACT! How can you use a HYPOTHESIS to debunk a claim?

Please simply google JEDP here to see other threads where this issue has been discarded as another spurious atheist canard.

this is chrisbenogor addressing the JEDP hypothesis . . .

Thank you very much, if mazaje insults me I will tell him to stop just like I am telling you now, maybe I am biased but if I have insulted you in time past I apologise.
Ok issue at hand, you are quite right burden of proof is on me, but it does shift in a conversation.
I kept silent yesterday mostly because I was trying to reconcile the problems in the documentary hypothesis, [size=14pt]I agree that the theory has a lot of loop holes in it [/size]but it has formed the foundation of other criticisms today. So far the theory does not address who wrote it but there is more than enough proof it was not written by moses.
You have faith, if you have evidence than Moses did then convince me.

noetic2:

The bible is the literal word of God.

Ok.  

noetic2:

Humans are homo-sapiens who have no relationship with any other specie.

ok. So i won't discuss fossils since u don't think they have anything to do with humans. Do u think that tools that have been found by archaelogists some of which are believed to be over hundreds of thousands years old (in some cases over a million years) suggest that perhaps humans or at least human like species have been on earth. Also that tools from more recent periods (about 40000 years old) have been found too, and the advancement in design and utility suggest that we have been on the earth longer that Genesis 1 suggests?

Do u think Anthropology and archaeology are a fraud, and they just try to deceive people by making stuff up?

noetic2:

I believe that there was a gap between Genesis 1verse 1 and verse 2. I have lots of biblical evidences to buttress this fact.
As to how old the earth is, I cannot state because I do know that there was a pre-adam era between genesis 1 v1 and v2. . .  .how long this era was, I do not know.

So I'm assuming u believe the Bible was written in the order it is now. Genesis 1 first, and Revelation last. Am i wrong in assuming this?

@ davidlyan please please please. . .i stated this is not another "us vs them" thing. If u want to settle sumn with Chrisbenogor, feel free to start a thread for that. This isn't about who is right or wrong. Its just so we can state our views and try to grasp what we all think. i hope it works, or at least survives the first HALF HOUR

sorry to respond on noetic's behalf but spare me this once.

Krayola2:

ok. So i won't discuss fossils since u don't think they mean anything. Do u think that tools that have been found by archaelogists some of which are believed to be over hundreds of thousands years old (in some cases over a million years) suggest that perhaps humans or at least human like species have been on earth. Also that tools from more recent periods (about 40000 years old) have been found too, and the advancement in design and utility suggest that we have been on the earth longer that Genesis 1 suggests?

I'm not sure you were reading noetic's post at all or paying much attention. Infact noetic does agree that the earth is much longer than the 6000 yrs Genesis 1 suggests . . . i quote him.

I believe that there was a gap between Genesis 1verse 1 and verse 2. I have lots of biblical evidences to buttress this fact.
As to how old the earth is, I cannot state because I do know that there was a pre-adam era between genesis 1 v1 and v2. . .  .how long this era was, I do not know.

Krayola2:

So I'm assuming u believe the Bible was written in the order it is now. Genesis 1 first, and Revelation last. Am i wrong in assuming this?

What did his response have to do with the order in which the bible was written? No christian believes the bible is in perfect chronological order if not Chronicles wont be repeating certain things written in the books of Samuel and Kings.

Pay attention dude.

davidylan:

sorry to respond on noetic's behalf but spare me this once.

I'm not sure you were reading noetic's post at all or paying much attention. Infact noetic does agree that the earth is much longer than the 6000 yrs Genesis 1 suggests . . . i quote him.

I was not ASKING about the earth. I was ASKING about humans. Also, i was not debunking anything, just wanted to understand what exactly he thinks.

davidylan:

What did his response have to do with the order in which the bible was written? No christian believes the bible is in perfect chronological order if not Chronicles wont be repeating certain things written in the books of Samuel and Kings.

Pay attention dude.

I don't assume to know what all Christians believe. Maybe u know, I don't. So i asked.

As far as the hypothesis is concerned, all u had to do was ask me to explain. I haven't jumped at Noetic2's throat for stating his views that i disagree with, have I? All I did was ask questions? This debate is a process, and not everything will be settled in one post. I have anticipated all those concerns and will explain when need be. But please we can't keep jumping at each other's throats all the time. We're all adults, and I don't buy into the idea that Nigerians can never be civil.

I will respond soon.