A verse answers nothing. A snappy one-liner from one of countless religious texts doesn't tell us about the natural world, it tells us about fear and superstition.I’m not the one who initiated a subject that is easily answered by a verse.Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
Encyclopedia of American Loons
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.americanloons.blogspot.com
So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
I think it's a neat trick to be able to defend the magical properties of one's particular version of gods with "but... but.... but... but.... my gods are exempt from any questioning.''
I’m waiting for your genius to provide your first post that actually contains information as opposed to an ad hominem.
Why would you think God would not allow you to examine His word and not ask questions?
You realize that your post contains nothing to bolster evolution.A verse answers nothing. A snappy one-liner from one of countless religious texts doesn't tell us about the natural world, it tells us about fear and superstition.I’m not the one who initiated a subject that is easily answered by a verse.Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
Encyclopedia of American Loons
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. Since we were speaking of humans and human consciousness, I didn’t feel it necessary to qualify the model composed of “reason” or rationality in the same context as religious belief. Second, you are welcomed to strip down the model composed of reason and rationality and examine it. Conversely, what is to be gained by stripping down one particular model of magic and supernaturalism, asserting there may be one or more supernatural entities, and then not expounding what those supernatural entities might be? There are many reasons for trust in reason and rationality. I have empirical data to support reason and rationality. The fundamentalist has ‘divine revelation”, whatever that revelation might be. If someday it’s discovered that there is a mode of perception that is better than reason and/or accessible to humans, then I’m happy to include it in my model. But you haven’t established that (no one has) and so I’m not about to accept your claims that reason is limited or fallible are true when you don’t know that for a fact. As knowledge is gained, reason gains more and more of a foothold, while faith and your collection of “supernatural entities” doesn’t.
Evolution needs no bolstering since it already enjoys overwhelming support among the scientifically literate. Even Catholics have no problem with it.
What's "perfect"?
An ad hominem...by a self-proclaimed genius!
It is ad hom, but WTF, ACCURATE.
That was not an ad hominem. You clearly have no idea what that term means.
Perfect? Wha? These are terms and ideas that scientists do not use. Only religious nutters.
And you have not presented any evolutionist who has ever addressed this issue.
Are you retarded?
Every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.
