Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I have never understood an atheist. What I recognize is that we are spirit, soul and body while you believe we are only soul (mind, will and emotions) and body. Jesus said His words were spirit and life, they speak to our spirits. The real you. No issue with that sentiment, none whatsoever...I partially believe some of that myself. "HOWEVER", do you see that trying to govern a people by that kind of faith will never end in anything but all kinds of bad? The historical proof of that sentence is overwhelming. That's how humans have talked themselves into all kinds of distorted behaviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Christians used to burn heterosexual couples because they were caught having sex with the woman on top. They did this because of some fgt by the name of Augustine thought he knew the true will of god, universe whatever. I would hope that would give everyone pause Christian, muslim or Jew....that's how ridiculous a human society was at one point. Because of religious distortions. Because some charismatic guy convinced people he knew the shit of all shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Faith is a No issue with that sentiment, none whatsoever...I partially believe some of that myself. "HOWEVER", do you see that trying to govern a people by that kind of faith will never end in anything but all kinds of bad? The historical proof of that sentence is overwhelming. That's how humans have talked themselves into all kinds of distorted behaviors. Actually Cleve I am just trying to defend my faith. I like that we have free will. I don't want to see anything forced on anyone. I don't like anyone trying to force anything on me and If I am coming off that way that is not my intention. The bible is not a science book or a math book and was never meant to replace those but it is a book about people and spiritual concepts. People have done evil things in the name of all religions but in the Christian faith were they really following the teachings of the New Covenant or doing these things on their own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Eventually, you pro mmgw people have to listen to the facts There has been......no.....global....warming for several years. And CO2 has gone up. www.forbes.com/.../2011/06/08/ten-years...the-global-warmingCached Jun 07, 2011 · Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? ... take a deep breath and think about global warming. Many years ago the globe was a lot warmer than ... http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/03/global-temperature-standstill-lengthens-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months-since-sept-1996-214-months/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Stop lying and playing the liberal politics with the whole mmgw thing. It's just a political lever to win over the "other side" that isn't liberal. And the UN depends on it for redistribution of wealth to poor countries. Not buyin into a flawed theory. Nope. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 woodypeckerhead gonna have rejections legit sciencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong This idea suggests that birds cannot possibly have evolved naturally, because how did they go from no wings to full wings - presumably any intermediate stage would not confer any environmental benefit? Like if you had stubby little wings, you would not outperform other birds and have the mutation win out? Well, that makes sense on the face of it, until you actually think about it. You notice that bids have two legs and two wings, while the dinosaurs they evolved from had two legs and two arms. So rather than just sprouting wings and hoping for the best, birds gradually changed the purpose of the arms. The scales became more feathery - which did confer an evolutionary advantage, keeping the cold-blooded dinosaurs warmer - and eventually, those feathers changed from soft fluffly pillow-feathers to strong, rigid flight feathers. For more information, check out this article. It's not completely clear what the first 'wings' were used for - perhaps the aerodynamic properties of the feathers helped those dinosaurs that pumped their arms, like us, when running, and the feathers helped them go faster? What is clear from the fossil records is the gradual change over time from the former state of affairs to the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong Of course we would here the 'missing link' argument - that we can find plenty of species of extinct apes, and plenty of new humanoids, but nothing to suggest that one came from the other. This is a tired and boring argument that has been shot down plenty of times before. It was first proposed about 150 years ago, when the fossil record was quite incomplete. BAsically, it was a criticism of darwin's theory, which has subsequently been discarded by science. Darwin was in the ballpark, but had the wrong idea. A missing link stayed in the public consciousness though, even though it's no longer relevant. Also, the idea that a lack of evidence can be used to disprove something is wrong. What disproves something is contradictory evidence. For example, what disproves Noah's ark is not the idea of a 'global flodd' - in fact, there was such a massive flood, covering mediterranean countries and the levante, which at the time would have represented a 'global' flood. Instead, it's the building a wooden boat big enough to house two of every species; convincing two of every species to get on; convincing them to not eat each other (and so not eat anything) and stay alive; not having the massive complications that come from incestual breeding; and countless other things. See this article for a better description of why there's no 'missing link' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I have to go to work, maybe someone else can take a look over the others. Generally ranging from 'I see what you're saying, but not quite' to 'OMG, you're an idiot' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Also, the idea that a lack of evidence can be used to disprove something is wrong. What disproves something is contradictory evidence. For example, what disproves Noah's ark is not the idea of a 'global flodd' - in fact, there was such a massive flood, covering mediterranean countries and the levante, which at the time would have represented a 'global' flood. Instead, it's the building a wooden boat big enough to house two of every species; convincing two of every species to get on; convincing them to not eat each other (and so not eat anything) and stay alive; not having the massive complications that come from incestual breeding; and countless other things. ********************************************************************************************************************************************************* From a believers point of view Jesus validates the story of Noah's Ark. Before throwing away Noah's ark as being too far fetched I (as a believer) am not going to unless it can be proved it didn't happen. Bill Nye the science guy said in response to replicating building Noah's ark today: “If he builds that ark, it’s my strong opinion, it’s bad for the commonwealth of Kentucky and bad for scientists based in Kentucky and bad for the U.S. And I’m not joking, bad for the world. I challenge them to try to float this ship, to try and make this a seaworthy ship.” As it turns out, the science guy was completely wrong when it comes to Noah’s Ark. Various engineering studies have compared the dimensions listed in Genesis to actual naval designs and found them to be optimal. Some scientists have even declared that Noah’s Ark could have survived in storms where the waves were around 100 feet high. Still, some question whether Noah’s Ark could handle the weight of the 70,000 pairs of animal species that were supposedly packed away by Noah. The Bible story lists an unknown wood type called “gopher wood” so the study instead considered how cypress wood would hold up under the strain of so many beasts. After crunching the numbers they were surprised to find out that even 2.15 million livestock could have safely survived the journey on Noah’s Ark. Some other studies believe Noah would have only had to gather around 16,000 types of animals assuming only “flying creatures and air-breathing land animals” were included, although others claim the number is closer to 40,000 based up the number of known species in the world that fit the bill (scientists believe the total number of species, including land, air, and sea creatures, is somewhere between two to 100 million). Regardless, the physics shows that Noah’s Ark could have handled it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There's not 100% complete evidence for evolution, so I'm disregarding it, but "Before throwing away Noah's ark as being too far fetched I (as a believer) am not going to unless it can be proved it didn't happen." It's impossible to even try to have a reasonable conversation with this kind of logic going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Eventually, you pro mmgw people have to listen to the facts There has been......no.....global....warming for several years. And CO2 has gone up. Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global ... www.forbes.com/.../2011/06/08/ten-years...the-global-warmingCached Jun 07, 2011 · Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? ... take a deep breath and think about global warming. Many years ago the globe was a lot warmer than ... http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/03/global-temperature-standstill-lengthens-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months-since-sept-1996-214-months/ your first link is bad - This link is not authorized by Yahoo. For your 2nd and 3rd link- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Here are some thoughts from a man of faith too... 1. The Bible was created and canonized centuries after the life of Christ. 2. Many letters and writings were considered and scrutinized. Some of these were by the Gnostics. Those that were not deemed inspired were destroyed and those that shared in those letters or believed in those letters were considered heretics, cast out of the church, or hunted and killed. Thank you Roman Catholic Church for your very un-christlike ways. 3. Sure the "church" had 3 rules to go by when selecting which manuscripts make up the Bible, but I have always been concerned that, man, being whom he is, man, didn't always get it right and that the RCC may have had other ulterior motives when canonizing what is known as the NT. 4. Even greats like Martin Luther disagreed that certain books like Hebrews, James, Jude, 1&2 Peter and Revelations were lesser books and should be treated with much "care" when being read and interpreting. http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html My concern is that as Christians, we sometimes speak of the "Word of God" as if it appeared magically with no known explanation for its being. Rather, the Bible took centuries to put together and even then, some still felt that the "Church" got it wrong. Yet, modern Christians act as if the Bible is a perfect piece of literature written by God himself and passed to man in perfect form, that's hardly the case. The Bible has a long history of creation and canonization that is hardly divine. And those that disagreed with the church, well, we know what happened to them... Jesus Loves you.. unless you don't believe in the trinity, then you die!!! Then for centuries, the RCC was the only ones allowed to read and interpret the scriptures. They kept it out of the hands of the people. This is why the RCC was and is still corrupt today and why Martin Luther had enough (even though Martin Luther still held onto some very RCC beliefs). To think that the RCC didn't distort beliefs in their interpretation is imaginary. That brings me to another concern. Bibliolatry. Again, modern Christians' faith, for many hinges on the Bible. For some, the bigger the bible the better, as it represents how big their faith is and for many the Bible is the symbol and which has overtaken the cross. Yet, Christians today forget that for centuries, after the life of Christ, THERE WAS NO BIBLE...No Bible!!!? Yep, hard to believe that Christianity at one time had no Bible. What did these Christians do? How did they manage to get saved and live holy lives without the word of God to guide them. Imagine, first Century Christians didn't have a Bible to study, to read, to memorize scripture, or to collect dust on the coffee table or to set out for other Christian friends when they come over. Yet these first century Christians managed to be saved, and thousands, with no Bible to study or to memorize scripture, allowed themselve to be martyred. Yet today, Christians continually pound the idea that in order to be a good christian one need daily devotional time in "the word". They need to memorize scripture and read through the bible entirely... Why? The first century Christians didn't do this.. why do I have to do it? This is because man has the wrong idea on what the Bible really is. Do you know the Bible never calls itself "Perfect".... Man said.. not the Bible. Do you know the Bible never says that we should read it daily? Only man has said that? Do you know that the Bible never says we should memorize scriptures? Only man has said such things... For first Century Christians they had one thing to hold onto... the Gospel. And I'm not even talking about the first 4 books of the Bible. For many, all they heard was the story of Jesus Christ and how he represented the foretold Messiah in the Old Testament. They heard first hand eye-witness accounts and when measured against the Old Testament prophecies, they believed. That's it. And for many, they took this belief and died for it. There was no Bible for them to read or study. There were no arguments about evolution or Noah's ark.. it was purely the message of Jesus Christ. And belief in Christ meant one thing, victory over death. Not money, not health, not prosperity.. Eternal life in a home prepared by Christ, for if it were not so, he wouldn't have said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I've never given a man a bj so I doubt i'm very good at it, nevertheless I would consider giving you one for this post. Offers on the table is what i'm saying.......lol Fucking spot on with this post. Here are some thoughts from a man of faith too... 1. The Bible was created and canonized centuries after the life of Christ. 2. Many letters and writings were considered and scrutinized. Some of these were by the Gnostics. Those that were not deemed inspired were destroyed and those that shared in those letters or believed in those letters were considered heretics, cast out of the church, or hunted and killed. Thank you Roman Catholic Church for your very un-christlike ways. 3. Sure the "church" had 3 rules to go by when selecting which manuscripts make up the Bible, but I have always been concerned that, man, being whom he is, man, didn't always get it right and that the RCC may have had other ulterior motives when canonizing what is known as the NT. 4. Even greats like Martin Luther disagreed that certain books like Hebrews, James, Jude, 1&2 Peter and Revelations were lesser books and should be treated with much "care" when being read and interpreting. http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html My concern is that as Christians, we sometimes speak of the "Word of God" as if it appeared magically with no known explanation for its being. Rather, the Bible took centuries to put together and even then, some still felt that the "Church" got it wrong. Yet, modern Christians act as if the Bible is a perfect piece of literature written by God himself and passed to man in perfect form, that's hardly the case. The Bible has a long history of creation and canonization that is hardly divine. And those that disagreed with the church, well, we know what happened to them... Jesus Loves you.. unless you don't believe in the trinity, then you die!!! Then for centuries, the RCC was the only ones allowed to read and interpret the scriptures. They kept it out of the hands of the people. This is why the RCC was and is still corrupt today and why Martin Luther had enough (even though Martin Luther still held onto some very RCC beliefs). To think that the RCC didn't distort beliefs in their interpretation is imaginary. That brings me to another concern. Bibliolatry. Again, modern Christians' faith, for many hinges on the Bible. For some, the bigger the bible the better, as it represents how big their faith is and for many the Bible is the symbol and which has overtaken the cross. Yet, Christians today forget that for centuries, after the life of Christ, THERE WAS NO BIBLE...No Bible!!!? Yep, hard to believe that Christianity at one time had no Bible. What did these Christians do? How did they manage to get saved and live holy lives without the word of God to guide them. Imagine, first Century Christians didn't have a Bible to study, to read, to memorize scripture, or to collect dust on the coffee table or to set out for other Christian friends when they come over. Yet these first century Christians managed to be saved, and thousands, with no Bible to study or to memorize scripture, allowed themselve to be martyred. Yet today, Christians continually pound the idea that in order to be a good christian one need daily devotional time in "the word". They need to memorize scripture and read through the bible entirely... Why? The first century Christians didn't do this.. why do I have to do it? This is because man has the wrong idea on what the Bible really is. Do you know the Bible never calls itself "Perfect".... Man said.. not the Bible. Do you know the Bible never says that we should read it daily? Only man has said that? Do you know that the Bible never says we should memorize scriptures? Only man has said such things... For first Century Christians they had one thing to hold onto... the Gospel. And I'm not even talking about the first 4 books of the Bible. For many, all they heard was the story of Jesus Christ and how he represented the foretold Messiah in the Old Testament. They heard first hand eye-witness accounts and when measured against the Old Testament prophecies, they believed. That's it. And for many, they took this belief and died for it. There was no Bible for them to read or study. There were no arguments about evolution or Noah's ark.. it was purely the message of Jesus Christ. And belief in Christ meant one thing, victory over death. Not money, not health, not prosperity.. Eternal life in a home prepared by Christ, for if it were not so, he wouldn't have said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Sorry about that link - weird - it worked fine when I first went to it, and my antivirus and anti-malware didn't give me an alert. Speaking of which, I am now using the free BitDefender antivirus, it's great, but I have to buy it soon, because when the free version trial is over, I didn't get any notification, it just ended up unactive. Not good. Maybe I missed it, somebody else missed it..... and everybody should use the free or bought version of MalwareBytes. This program runs with your antivirus, and is excellent. Make sure you download it from a valid source. I went and clicked on that link, and sure enough, have never seen that message before. I'll go delete it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/27/un-climate-change-report-dismisses-slowdown-in-global-warming/ http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted/?intcmp=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/19/how-much-longer-can-earth-support-life/?intcmp=related any libs think they must move to mars RIGHT NOW ??? On a more serious note - I don't see how societies can continually destroy millions and millions of rainforests, and forests, etc., and not have it affect our global weather, and overall temperature in the long run. But allow liberals to tax my lawn mower, tractor, wood burning stove, and the miles I drive? NOPE. Liberals can pay us, though, for not cutting down our 15 acres of woods. When you mmgw people all shave your heads and paint them white to reflect the sun's rays.... maybe then I might consider mmgw not a farce. Or, I also reserve the right to LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/27/un-climate-change-report-dismisses-slowdown-in-global-warming/ http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?intcmp=related http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/?intcmp=related http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/17/is-global-warming-actually-far-lower-than-scientists-predicted/?intcmp=related I like that to disprove the world is not warming, 3/4 of these links directly say the world is warming but slower than predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/19/how-much-longer-can-earth-support-life/?intcmp=related any libs think they must move to mars RIGHT NOW ??? On a more serious note - I don't see how societies can continually destroy millions and millions of rainforests, and forests, etc., and not have it affect our global weather, and overall temperature in the long run. But allow liberals to tax my lawn mower, tractor, wood burning stove, and the miles I drive? NOPE. Liberals can pay us, though, for not cutting down our 15 acres of woods. When you mmgw people all shave your heads and paint them white to reflect the sun's rays.... maybe then I might consider mmgw not a farce. Or, I also reserve the right to LMAO. Why would people shaving their heads prove to you its not a farce, no matter how liberals\politicans are reacting does not change what has or has not been done to our worlds environment. You can believe in mmgw but disagree with the politcal response to it(I think this is what steve believes). The earth may take 2billion years to move out of the habitable zone but if the earths environment is destroy before that(by either natural or man-made) it would not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 The point is, it is no crisis - the models are WRONG. Now, if it is going up .5... okay, if that IS legit, stop the freaking destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest. Or duct tape the mouths of Obamao, Pelosi, Trump, Putin, etc, to stop all the hot air. Oh, come on, admit it - "shaving your head and painting it white" was kinda funny.... Now, I keep showing that mmgw -push- is by people who have that political/global economy agenda. do I think what people do affects global climate? Sure. That is why I keep harping about our forests, especially our globe's virgin rainforests. Millions and millions and millions of acres over decades. But an immediate crisis that requires us to be taxed over it? hahaha. Nope. Never gonna buy it. It isn't just a slippery slope; it's a mile high, sheer cliff to buy into the farce of immediate crisis, to give the UN, and liberal politicians who always need more taxes and fees and control, and even the silly Pope, who wants what the UN wants - global redistribution of wealth. I say, leave America alone. Our wealth doesn't need to be given away by those who don't own it. The UN is a corrupt, worthless, very, very expensive entity, big deal, but redistributing what we and some other "affluent" nations have is just global extortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 The point is, it is no crisis - the models are WRONG. Now, if it is going up .5... okay, if that IS legit, stop the freaking destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest. Or duct tape the mouths of Obamao, Pelosi, Trump, Putin, etc, to stop all the hot air. Oh, come on, admit it - "shaving your head and painting it white" was kinda funny.... I find the image of all them with duct tape mouths funnier though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 yes yes it's all so funny. Except we're already seeing our environment change, how it ends up I have no clue...but whatever the root cause is, whether it's us or it's the planets normal cycle..we'd better figure something out quick. At this rate in a couple years allergies will become so bad people won't be able to work. If something happens to plants from all this extra co2 in the air and they start to not agree with the human biology anymore....or the biologies of other animals we rely on, yeah we're fucked. YOu all will be eating synthetic military ration type food...you think trying to prevent warming now by giving up a little bit of your lifestyle was too much of a put out? Just wait. Wait how profoundly your lives change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 yes yes it's all so funny. Except we're already seeing our environment change, how it ends up I have no clue...but whatever the root cause is, whether it's us or it's the planets normal cycle..we'd better figure something out quick. At this rate in a couple years allergies will become so bad people won't be able to work. If something happens to plants from all this extra co2 in the air and they start to not agree with the human biology anymore....or the biologies of other animals we rely on, yeah we're fucked. YOu all will be eating synthetic military ration type food...you think trying to prevent warming now by giving up a little bit of your lifestyle was too much of a put out? Just wait. Wait how profoundly your lives change. by the most extreme projections its not going to reach that point for decades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 by the most extreme projections its not going to reach that point for decades even that's close enough....but those projections don't take into account any emerging technologies that human will most likely come up with in their quest to relentlessly shit where they eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There's not 100% complete evidence for evolution, so I'm disregarding it, but "Before throwing away Noah's ark as being too far fetched I (as a believer) am not going to unless it can be proved it didn't happen." It's impossible to even try to have a reasonable conversation with this kind of logic going on. Pretty much. "You can't scientifically prove every point of evolution from the beginning to now. So even though I still don't understand what a scientific theory is, I know evolution is a lie." "I know a guy lived in a fish because the bible says so. You can't prove it didn't happen!" Mind numbing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Pretty much. "You can't scientifically prove every point of evolution from the beginning to now. So even though I still don't understand what a scientific theory is, I know evolution is a lie." "I know a guy lived in a fish because the bible says so. You can't prove it didn't happen!" Mind numbing Mind numbing is believing we evolved from pond scum and you can't even explain how the pond scum was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Mind numbing is believing we evolved from pond scum and you can't even explain how the pond scum was created. Basically your mind is saying that in the absence 100% undeniable scientific proof....I'll go with a 2000 year old fairy tale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Basically your mind is saying that in the absence 100% undeniable scientific proof....I'll go with a 2000 year old fairy tale? It is easier for me to believe out of the spiritual realm came the physical realm rather than the physical realm created the physical realm (out of nothing). This corresponds with the bible that things seen were not made of things that appear Hebrew 11:3. The physical realm was not made out of things we see. The spiritual realm created the physical realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 It is easier for me to believe out of the spiritual realm came the physical realm rather than the physical realm created the physical realm (out of nothing). This corresponds with the bible that things seen were not made of things that appear Hebrew 11:3. The physical realm was not made out of things we see. The spiritual realm created the physical realm. And what happened in the roughly 13 billion years between the creation of the universe and Adam and Eve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 And what happened in the roughly 13 billion years between the creation of the universe and Adam and Eve? Have you been around roughly 13 billion years? neither have I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.