Quote: Methos said: Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
Or perhaps he created it and then went down to "separate the waters". According the very first sentence, that conclusion would be much more prudent.
Quote: So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Uh.....No you're not. You're going at length to argue about it. You're pretty much past any point of "offering speculation".
Quote: Methos said: No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
You said:
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created,
But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere.
More directly adressing this, the Bible, in fact, does not say it came from nowhere, but that God created it and then went to it and rearranged everything.
It certianly wouldn't be a summary of a post explanation as I had asserted, but you were playing with separation of context too much for me to figure that out.
Quote: That's not at all what I'm doing.
Yes it is. You're proclaiming that because the word "beginning" isn't used multiple times throughout the explanation of the seven days that the world prolly sat their in a disarrayed mess for a long time before God came to fix it up.
Quote: theory9 said: In other words, you've never done any such thing, my little penciltop troll. And you haven't "stated" your view yet on this thread, although a chimp could predict what it says.
O I C
So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
Quote: magicjay38 said: Creationism requires the belief in God.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Quote: The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
Quote: Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
Quote: Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
No. It's not.
Quote: BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
