Good one!
I don't do hallucinogenics much at all, but yeah, you can think some pretty crazy **** when you're rollin' as hard as CJ is right now.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Good one!
I don't do hallucinogenics much at all, but yeah, you can think some pretty crazy **** when you're rollin' as hard as CJ is right now.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....the idea of an early paradise has been pervasive in mankind’s religions and traditions. One author noted: “Many civilizations believed in a primordial paradise that was characterized by perfection, freedom, peace, happiness, abundance, and the absence of duress, tensions, and conflicts. .*.*. This belief gave rise in the collective consciousness to a profound nostalgia for the lost but not forgotten paradise and to a strong desire to recover it.”
Among scholars, intellectuals, and historians, it was once popular to attest that the events recorded in the Bible book of Genesis were true and historical. These days, skepticism about all such matters is more in fashion.
The Genesis account speaks of the garden as a real place. Two of the four rivers mentioned in the account—the Euphrates and the Tigris, or Hiddekel—flow today, and some of their source waters are very close together. The account even names the lands through which those rivers flowed and specifies the natural resources well-known in the area. To the people of ancient Israel, the original audience who read this record, these details were informative.
Do myths and fairy tales work that way? Or do they tend to omit specifics that could readily be verified or denied? “Once upon a time in a faraway land” is a way to begin a fairy tale. History, though, tends to include relevant details, as the Eden account does!
Is it really believable that God formed Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?
Modern science has confirmed that the human body is composed of various elements—such as hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon—all of which are found in the earth’s crust. But how were those elements assembled into a living creature?
Many scientists theorize that life arose on its own, starting with very simple forms that gradually, over millions of years, became more and more complex. However, the term “simple” can be misleading, for all living things—even microscopic single-celled organisms—are incredibly complex. There is no proof that any kind of life has ever arisen by chance or ever could. Rather, all living things bear unmistakable evidence of design by an intelligence far greater than our own.—Romans 1:20.
As to creating the woman by using a rib from the man, where is the difficulty in that? God could have used other means, but his manner of making the woman had beautiful significance. He wanted the man and the woman to marry and to form a close bond, as if they were “one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Is not the way man and woman can complement each other, forming a stable and mutually nourishing bond, powerful evidence of a wise and loving Creator?
Furthermore, modern geneticists have acknowledged that all humans likely descended from only one male and one female. Really, then, is the Genesis account far-fetched?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....no collections ever taken!
However, they do accept donations. They just don't do it during services.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...you must be referring to the Catholic Church?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....oh, by the way, they don't believe in the Garden of Eden....they believe in the "evolution" theory!
Because it's impossible for both to exist? I can't wait for your well thought out, copied, and pasted reply.
Just more Watchtower garbage....
"When I got untethered from the comfort of religion, it wasn't a loss of faith for me. It was a discovery of self. I had thought that I'm capable enough to handle any situation. There's peace in understanding that I have only one life, here and now, and I'm responsible," - Brad Pitt
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...well then, here it is!
Is the theory of evolution really compatible with the teachings of the Bible? If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24) Is that how Jesus viewed this Bible account? “Did you not read,” said Jesus, “that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.
Jesus was here quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter*2. If Jesus believed the first marriage to be a fictional story, would he have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage? No. Jesus pointed to the Genesis account because he knew it to be true history.—John 17:17.
Jesus’ disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) If Adam were a fictional character, at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? If the rootstock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David? (Matthew 1:1) The Gospel writer Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” Clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis.—Luke 1:3.
The apostle Paul’s faith in Jesus was linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account. He wrote: “Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1*Corinthians 15:21,*22) If Adam were not literally the forefather of all mankind, the one through whom “sin entered into the world and death through sin,” why would Jesus have needed to die to undo the effects of inherited sin?—Romans 5:12; 6:23.
To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible. Any attempt to marry these beliefs can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”—Ephesians 4:14.
Why not? We get lessons and teaching from stories all the time.
It's myth all the way down.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
How accurate is carbon dating?....not very!
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
MVP
Well-Known Member
such a cute and reliable website
. I love question under article - are you ready to accept Jesus?.. LMAO...
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
such a cute and reliable website
....so why don't you pick a website that says "carbon dating" is most reliable, especially with regards to specimens dating more than a couple of thousand years!
https://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/the-science-behind-carbon-dating/
60,000 seems more than a couple of thousand.
Dude the Earth wasn't even around 60,000 years ago...that's how unreliable carbon dating is!
