Hell you even stated that the citation I gave which refuted your lies wasn't valid even though the site states that science and the bible are not exclusive.

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

Now, can someone please clean up my house with me? Some friends got me drunk, and now there are tiny corn chip fragments everywhere.

-------
Routinely sucking the cosmic fugue off our fingers.

The Bible doesn't imply the universe being 6000 years old.  It only leads to the notion (through human interpretation) that life on earth existed for 6-10000 years.

-------
You'd think a thousand miles would be enough,
I guess I'll keep walking.

---

The Bible doesn't imply the universe being 6000 years old.  It only leads to the notion (through human interpretation) that life on earth existed for 6-10000 years.

---

It doesn't even do that.

There is no absolute chronology set out in the Bible.

There are no dates.

-------
When a man leaves his darkness, he follows the Son.

My post was saying that the age of the universe and the age of life on earth are not the same thing.

-------
You'd think a thousand miles would be enough,
I guess I'll keep walking.

---

My post was saying that the age of the universe and the age of life on earth are not the same thing.

---

They are for literal creationists.

Post edited at 7:38 am on Dec. 4, 2006 by The Samsoniteman

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

---

No, science conflicts with your literal interpretation of the bible which you have classified as the only true view.  

---

That's not what you said earlier

Quote: from obvious child at 11:17 pm on Dec. 2, 2006

---

Your falsely as you engage in dishonest behavior and betray the word of Christ every chance you get, argue that both are exclusive.

---

First you argued that science and the Bible does not conflict with each other, now you're arguing that it does.

pretty ironic that you call me dishonest.

And I DO NOT interpret the Bible literally, I interpret the passages in the Bible according to its context, which can be found via. exegesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp

---

Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion.

---

Post edited at 12:25 pm on Dec. 4, 2006 by yankeefan

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

=)

-------
You'd think a thousand miles would be enough,
I guess I'll keep walking.

---

That's not what you said earlier

---

Doesn't matter.

---

First you argued that science and the Bible does not conflict with each other, now you're arguing that it does.

---

Show me, I'd love to see where I said that.

I said that science conflicts with a literal intepretation not the bible as a whole. It is just that you have made it clear that only your interpretation is valid in your eyes hence my earlier statement, it's not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension.

---

pretty ironic that you call me dishonest.

---

Hardly given that I just proved you were dishonest.

---

And I DO NOT interpret the Bible literally, I interpret the passages in the Bible according to its context, which can be found via. exegesis.

---

Then why is it that those who understand exegesnis such as horseman and Exceedinlyrare think you're full of shit?

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

I believe in god but I'm not buying what these "creationists" are selling
they have the right to voice their opinion but not to call it fact and say everyone else's theory is wrong especially without REAL proof

I said that science conflicts with a literal intepretation not the bible as a whole. It is just that you have made it clear that only your interpretation is valid in your eyes hence my earlier statement, it's not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension.

Once again, you keep saying I take the Bible literally, thank you for ignoring my post and putting words in my mouth YET AGAIN.

Quote: from yankeefan at 3:21 pm on Dec. 4, 2006

---

And I DO NOT interpret the Bible literally, I interpret the passages in the Bible according to its context, which can be found via. exegesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp

---

Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion.

---

---

Quote: from obvious child at 11:17 pm on Dec. 2, 2006

---

Your falsely as you engage in dishonest behavior and betray the word of Christ every chance you get, argue that both are exclusive.

---

Quote: from obvious child at 3:32 pm on Dec. 3, 2006

---

No, science conflicts with your literal interpretation of the bible which you have classified as the only true view.

Hell you even stated that the citation I gave which refuted your lies wasn't valid even though the site states that science and the bible are not exclusive.

---

Light from distant stars:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp


-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

---

who ever though people could cram so many lies into one post

I believe in god but I'm not buying what these "creationists" are selling
they have the right to voice their opinion but not to call it fact and say everyone else's theory is wrong especially without REAL proof

---

What's ridiculous is that evolution is taught as irrefutable fact and that any evidence against the theory of evolution is censored from American classrooms.

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.