The Bible is so confusing!

[Galatians220]

Wait your turn. Let him answer my question first

No worries, both of you will have your fun :)

I looked at it closely, even at the meaning of the word and yes, it does seem that the scribe has written erroneously but only if you isolate the verse. Look at the background of why I think it's different:

5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

Verse 8 is not saying that the Scribes lied writing false scripture, it is an expression of dismay, an expression of hopelessness on the part God.

They have slidden back, they have not hearkened, they have ignored, and they have Rejected the Word of the Lord.

Yet again is the value of Context.

[Galatians220]

So... if the "lord has preserved the ancient records almost perfectly intact as originally written" how does that explain the really wacky stuff that's in the bible? Not 'misinterpreted' or 'mistranslated' things but stuff like contradictory science, mysterious populace gestation, and so forth?

Well if you go back to my other posts, you can see that every single one has been answered. If you would just look at the context, you would understand

[Guest Believer_1829]

No worries, both of you will have your fun :)

I looked at it closely, even at the meaning of the word and yes, it does seem that the scribe has written erroneously but only if you isolate the verse. Look at the background of why I think it's different:

5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

Verse 8 is not saying that the Scribes lied writing false scripture, it is an expression of dismay, an expression of hopelessness on the part God.

They have slidden back, they have not hearkened, they have ignored, and they have Rejected the Word of the Lord.

Yet again is the value of Context.

I suppose that would be one way to interpret the verses. Perhaps though it is saying the ones the people consider wise men are in dismay because they rejected the word of the Lord and yet thought they would be allowed to prosper?... the Lord does ask "what wisdom is in them" (Is "them" the wise men?)

So, I am not sure if your interpretation of the context of the verse really invalidates my question.

[Galatians220]

I suppose that would be one way to interpret the verses. Perhaps though it is saying the ones the people consider wise men are in dismay because they rejected the word of the Lord and yet thought they would be allowed to prosper?... the Lord does ask "what wisdom is in them" (Is "them" the wise men?)

So, I am not sure if your interpretation of the context of the verse really invalidates my question.

In the beginning of the context, its talking about all of the people or else God through Jeremiah would only condemn the scribes but he didn't.

God would have condemned the Scribes for their deception, fooling the people to sin but the whole context is talking about all of them rejecting, not hearing, not heeding, and so in dismay, it is as though everything what God said was a lie because they said, "we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us"

[Guest Believer_1829]

In the beginning of the context, its talking about all of the people or else God through Jeremiah would only condemn the scribes but he didn't.

God would have condemned the Scribes for their deception, fooling the people to sin but the whole context is talking about all of them rejecting, not hearing, not heeding, and so in dismay, it is as though everything what God said was a lie because they said, "we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us"

I still believe you are putting your particular interpretation on the verse. Could not the verses in question be condemning all three groups?

• The people for getting to the point where they have allowed themselves to be led astray and refusing to repent.
• The scribes for fiddling with the records.
• The "wise men" for rejecting the Law of the Lord.

[Galatians220]

And yet people still see different things in the same Bible. Perceptions are just different, not requiring any denial, drugs, etc.

The difference between gaining Bible context and the context of colors, is that we do not know all of the Bible's exact history. There are conflicts with archaeology and science in some areas (evolution, 6000 year old vs 4 billion year old earth, Adam as first person, etc). It isn't that any of this isn't true, but that each conflict causes people to perceive things in different ways. Some deny the fossil record , in order to believe in Adam and a 6000 year old earth. Others incorporate it, realizing that perhaps 6000 years is a bit short. Some end up disbelieving in the scripture because of the apparent controversy.

1st, Carbon Dating (C -14) is not that precise; it is only accurate up to 5000 BC and the rest can be murky which is why the rocks, the fossils, and the Universe varies from Millions to Trillions of years.

2nd, the Tree rings can be confused as well because there are many rings around the main rings

3rd, there are other methods to determine the age of the object such as Radio Dating (1).

Evolution, and Heresies have all served to discredit God and His word in one way or another. We should have already expect this to happen because in 1 Timothy 6:20

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

God has made it clear that he has made the Earth and the life therein, in 6 Literal Days. You could quote scripture that says a “Day is a thousand years to the Lord” (Psalm 90) but look closely at the sentence in Genesis:

And the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31.

Every Single Created Thing, ended with those words. There is no arguing with Scripture, it's a 24 hour day.

The NT supports the Literal 6 day Creation by this statement in the Book of Hebrews:

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3

When Moses proclaims his Law as an everlasting covenant, but then Jesus fulfills it, who is correct? Unless we are willing to use a little bit of magic to bring the two together, there is an apparent disconnect. Yes, you can use the term "context" to bring them together, but the disconnect is still there; unless we determine that Moses said something different than what was written down.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. - John 1:17

Well we need no magic here because in Deuteronomy 18 it says:

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Now Moses is the Law Giver, he was responsible for the Mosaic Law. Here, God will raise a Prophet – Like Unto Thee – that's Moses, and He will speak unto them. Now who do you think have already fulfilled that Prophecy other than the Lord Jesus Christ? He said:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:17-18

Jesus went on to complete the Law of Moses order for Him to live and die to the Law so it wouldn't be a Curse on us (Galatians 3:13)

As for others, I would advise that you look up Messianic Prophecies concerning Jesus in the OT. I found a link here and it said that it has 365 Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled.

365 Messianic Prophecies

For all of this, we have a few choices. We can ignore parts of it and live with what we like. We can try to put things into our own context. We can reject it all. Or we can ask those who know the original author of all things - the prophets. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, save he reveal his secrets through his servants, the prophets" (Amos 3:7). Prophets and apostles are the foundation of Christ's Church (Ephesians 2), and need to be available to us until we "all come to a unity of the faith" in Christ (Eph 4).

In this way, we get things in God's context, and not our own.

Agreed, but if any Prophet contradicts the Word of God:

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. - Deuteronomy 13:1-3

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. - Deuteronomy 18:21-22

*

Recommended Site in Dealing with Evolution:

- The True.Origin Archive -

Citation links

1. - Radiometric Dating Game -

2.

3.

__________________

Edited August 5, 2009 by Galatians220

[Galatians220]

I still believe you are putting your particular interpretation on the verse. Could not the verses in question be condemning all three groups?

• The people for getting to the point where they have allowed themselves to be led astray and refusing to repent.
• The scribes for fiddling with the records.
• The "wise men" for rejecting the Law of the Lord.

Yes, it can be that the scribes fiddled with the records and that the wise men have also rejected the Lord but then the Lord would have said more about the corrupting of His word on the part of the Scribes and the wise men telling them that they have deceived His people to sin and have corrupted his words telling lies.

Here is an example of how God holds teachers in strict order:

1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. - James 3:1

The word, master (heb. "Didaskalos"), there is also a word for teacher (1)

1. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

[Guest Believer_1829]

Yes, it can be that the scribes fiddled with the records and that the wise men have also rejected the Lord but then the Lord would have said more about the corrupting of His word on the part of the Scribes and the wise men telling them that they have deceived His people to sin and have corrupted his words telling lies.

Here is an example of how God holds teachers in strict order:

1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. - James 3:1

The word, master (heb. "Didaskalos"), there is also a word for teacher (1)

1. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Yes, it can be that the scribes fiddled with the records and that the wise men have also rejected the Lord

Thank you for acknowledging that as a possible context of the verses in question.

but then the Lord would have said more about the corrupting of His word on the part of the Scribes and the wise men

Who are we to say what the Lord would or would not do?

[Galatians220]

Thank you for acknowledging that as a possible context of the verses in question.

Now a big of change.... about the wisemen, it says they are ashamed (heb. yabesh, dry, without moisture) and it also says that they have been ""Taken" (heb. La'chad captured) and so what wisdom in them.... This could mean two things. they are either sedued or have given up.

With that in mind, the Scribes have written a lie. This may mean that the Scribes have indeed written lies.... I've changed my mind because of the other half of the context:

On the wisemen:

10 Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

11 [color="DimGray"]For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

God did say a lot about the wisemen and the scribes, for he charged them guilty for misleading the people.

Mind you however that false scripture has also existed just as much as false teachers and prophets. There are for example, the story of Lilleth who was said to be the first woman before Eve, and then there are the text that has been rejected as false such as Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, 1-4 maccabees, etc

Does this mean that the scribes added to the word of God and twisted it? Possibly. However, it can also mean that the scribes merely passed their writings as God's Word.

But lets say that the first is true, that they have gotten rid of the original, and have made their own.... that means that we would have seen the paganistic doctrines in our bibles; instead of God being mono-theistic, he would have been one of the many gods and godesses in the ancient world, and that the practices of the nations, the Jews would have practiced to this day. The Jews after all have a chronic tendancy to forget God, follow after other gods and practiced them even to sacrifice their infants.

This is why God says:

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:6

The fact that the land of Israel have been invaded, time and time again, the cities, the temples, and the treasures have been looted as well as destroyed, and that the much of people have been annihilated and the remnent exiled proves that first, God existed, and second, he has kept Israel as he promised and then third, that he kept his words Pure.

During exile, it would have been so easy for them to conform, to adopt pagan gods, and forget who they are and who God is like the Gypsies, who have come from south asia, and have converted to Catholicism. The Jews did not forget, the Words of Scripture not forgotten, and despite the centuries in exile, they have returned to God.

So while the scribes can change and corrupt, their works will not last long, not while God exists

This verse proves true and have stood the test of Time and it remains true today.

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:5-6

Edited August 5, 2009 by Galatians220

[Guest Believer_1829]

Thank you for acknowledging that as a possible context of the verses in question.

Now a big of change.... about the wisemen, it says they are ashamed (heb. yabesh, dry, without moisture) and it also says that they have been ""Taken" (heb. La'chad captured) and so what wisdom in them.... This could mean two things. they are either sedued or have given up.

With that in mind, the Scribes have written a lie. This may mean that the Scribes have indeed written lies.... I've changed my mind because of the other half of the context:

On the wisemen:

10 Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

11 [color="DimGray"]For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

God did say a lot about the wisemen and the scribes, for he charged them guilty for misleading the people.

Mind you however that false scripture has also existed just as much as false teachers and prophets. There are for example, the story of Lilleth who was said to be the first woman before Eve, and then there are the text that has been rejected as false such as Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, 1-4 maccabees, etc

Does this mean that the scribes added to the word of God and twisted it? Possibly. However, it can also mean that the scribes merely passed their writings as God's Word.

But lets say that the first is true, that they have gotten rid of the original, and have made their own.... that means that we would have seen the paganistic doctrines in our bibles; instead of God being mono-theistic, he would have been one of the many gods and godesses in the ancient world, and that the practices of the nations, the Jews would have practiced to this day. The Jews after all have a chronic tendancy to forget God, follow after other gods and practiced them even to sacrifice their infants.

This is why God says:

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:6

The fact that the land of Israel have been invaded, time and time again, the cities, the temples, and the treasures have been looted as well as destroyed, and that the much of people have been annihilated and the remnent exiled proves that first, God existed, and second, he has kept Israel as he promised and then third, that he kept his words Pure.

During exile, it would have been so easy for them to conform, to adopt pagan gods, and forget who they are and who God is like the Gypsies, who have come from south asia, and have converted to Catholicism. The Jews did not forget, the Words of Scripture not forgotten, and despite the centuries in exile, they have returned to God.

So while the scribes can change and corrupt, their works will not last long, not while God exists

This verse proves true and have stood the test of Time and it remains true today.

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:5-6

Having found that the scribes did indeed deal falsely with the records, let's look at something that may show something that has been changed and how that may testify of the Book of Mormon and it's importance...

[EruditioSalvatus]

So... basic scientific inaccuracies and really weird occurrences are because they're "taken out of context" or some eeeeeevil scribe decided to have a field day and screw with people's heads?

I guess this makes sense. How else would you get light without a sun, plants growing without a sun, cud chewing rabbits, exponential population growth in just a few shot generations, incorrect connotations about ostriches, and so forth...

[Galatians220]

So... basic scientific inaccuracies and really weird occurrences are because they're "taken out of context" or some eeeeeevil scribe decided to have a field day and screw with people's heads?

I guess this makes sense. How else would you get light without a sun, plants growing without a sun, cud chewing rabbits, exponential population growth in just a few shot generations, incorrect connotations about ostriches, and so forth...

Why is it hard for you to believe that God can, by his words, frame the world in 6 days?

You know for a fact that the majority of the scientific community disbelieved in God because He cannot be observed, tested, lacked evidence of his existence, and that Evolution itself disproves God simply because Man evolved came from monkeys which, obviously, He didn't look like at all, did he? Are you willing to believe that God looked like a Monkey?

If you have given in to the old earth theory despite the fact that the Bible clearly says that God created everything in 6 days simply because it seemed more realistic, then why don't you, believe in evolution because:

1. There are a number of artifacts that seemed to strongly suggest, that man evolved from ones who first walked upright to ones who used tools but just below modern man.

2. Our DNA and that of the monkeys in terms of closeness is only 98%. How is it then that Man didn't evolve from Monkeys when they're DNA is that close?

3. Dinosaurs and other living creatures, by fossil records, also seemed to evolve from bacteria, to fishes that soon crawled inland to become as big as a crane. If everything evolved, then why not man because that's what evolution is all about, a biological change that happens over time through mutations in DNA.

If you are going to disbelieve scripture for the reason of science, then why not go the whole 9 yards by abandoning your belief in God completely?

Edited August 6, 2009 by Galatians220

[rameumptom]

1st, Carbon Dating (C -14) is not that precise; it is only accurate up to 5000 BC and the rest can be murky which is why the rocks, the fossils, and the Universe varies from Millions to Trillions of years.

2nd, the Tree rings can be confused as well because there are many rings around the main rings

3rd, there are other methods to determine the age of the object such as Radio Dating (1).

Evolution, and Heresies have all served to discredit God and His word in one way or another. We should have already expect this to happen because in 1 Timothy 6:20

__________________

Actually raw Carbon 14 Dating data, is not precise, but when calibrated has shown to be very valid. And other dating methods, including tree rings, glacier dating, and uranium 238 dating, are all consistent with each other.

The earth IS over 4 billion years old, and the universe is about 13-15 billion. BTW, your "trillions" is a strawman, as there are no processes used for dating right now that suggest anywhere near one trillion, much less "trillions."

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll note that the Samarium-neodymium dating method has a half-life of 100 billion years.

Evolution does not discredit God. In this area, we must realize that Evolution is a theory. However, believing the earth is 6000 years old is also a theory. Somehow, there is a definitive truth that eludes both science and religion, which we hopefully will someday have.

LDS belief is that God has been creating and destroying worlds continually (Moses 1). Joseph Smith taught that this world was made from the remains of previous worlds/creations. We see in the Bible record and in the science record a consistent creation/destruction cycle.

So, God could have created an ancient earth, and destroyed it on occasion to bring forth a new creation. This would explain the massive destructions in the past: 250 million years ago, 60 million years ago, 13,000 years ago, etc. 1/4 billion years ago, 90% of all life on earth was destroyed, opening the door for dinosaurs. 60 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were destroyed, it opened the door for mammals to rule the earth. And the Ice Age opened the way for modern man, which would have included Adam as the first man under God's covenant (which would be like the Abrahamic covenant, where all mankind is blessed in his seed).

Here we have a theory from Joseph Smith and his followers that incorporates all things, and doesn't just rely on a narrow reading of the Bible. As it is, the Bible has 2 creation stories (chapter 1 versus chapter 2), one having man created before animals, and the other with man created last. Which one are you going to believe, or should we consider that these stories may have some symbolism or legendary tales in them?

[rameumptom]

By the way, the Bible does not say the earth was created in 6 days, but in 6 periods. Each period is of indeterminate length of time, and was called a "day" only after it was completed. As it is, if you also believe that God created the earth from nothing (ex nihilo creation), then you are also misreading the Bible, which states that God formed it from chaos (a good description of both the Big Bang and the formation of planets from matter floating in space that coalesce).

Perhaps instead of insisting all other theories are wrong, you should first realize that yours is a theory, based upon YOUR reading of Genesis, and that there are likely other valid theories from Genesis that fit in with the scientific record better, and may likely be more correct than your own.

[EruditioSalvatus]

Why is it hard for you to believe that God can, by his words, frame the world in 6 days?

I don't remember saying that. I said it's queer that there was light without a sun, or have photosynthesizing plants before a sun for that matter.

You know for a fact that the majority of the scientific community disbelieved in God because He cannot be observed, tested, lacked evidence of his existence, and that Evolution itself disproves God simply because Man evolved came from monkeys which, obviously, He didn't look like at all, did he?

No one has ever really said humans evolved from monkeys, that's a misnomer. Persons will point out that apes, but not monkeys, are genetically similar to humans.

There are actually dozens, probably more, persons in the scientific community who believe in god. However, they believe in the divine spirit as a supernatural force and not a scientific toy. Empirically, god may be lacking but that does not seem to dissuade them from their faith.

Are you willing to believe that God looked like a Monkey

What I believe is personal and not in question here.

If you are going to disbelieve scripture for the reason of science,

I never said that, either. I was simply hoping for a little meshing between the bible and the most basic, even common sense, truths.

then why not go the whole 9 yards by abandoning your belief in God completely?

There was faith in a divine spirit before there was a bible and there will be faith in a divine spirit while people argue and muddle over what the bible does or does no say, and there will be faith in a divine spirit after the bible goes away.

[bmy-]

Why is it hard for you to believe that God can, by his words, frame the world in 6 days?

You know for a fact that the majority of the scientific community disbelieved in God because He cannot be observed, tested, lacked evidence of his existence, and that Evolution itself disproves God simply because Man evolved came from monkeys which, obviously, He didn't look like at all, did he? Are you willing to believe that God looked like a Monkey?

You should brush up your evolutionary biology.. man did not evolve from monkeys. Man and monkeys share a common ancestor -- that's it.

If you have given in to the old earth theory despite the fact that the Bible clearly says that God created everything in 6 days simply because it seemed more realistic, then why don't you, believe in evolution because:

Look around you -- things change. Bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics through natural selection.. and this is happening rapidly. 'Young earth creationism' is a joke and it's no coincidence that those who believe it misrepresent scientific theories and the like. Challenge evolution all you would like -- that's science -- but challenge it with something worth while (not creationism).

1. There are a number of artifacts that seemed to strongly suggest, that man evolved from ones who first walked upright to ones who used tools but just below modern man.

2. Our DNA and that of the monkeys in terms of closeness is only 98%. How is it then that Man didn't evolve from Monkeys when they're DNA is that close?

3. Dinosaurs and other living creatures, by fossil records, also seemed to evolve from bacteria, to fishes that soon crawled inland to become as big as a crane. If everything evolved, then why not man because that's what evolution is all about, a biological change that happens over time through mutations in DNA.

1. I don't see your point.. if there is one.

2. Common ancestor.

3. Again.. another blatant misrepresentation. Your "soon" took place over billions of years. That's not to mention that bacteria did NOT evolve directly into fish.

Please take a few college level (heck, even highschool level would work) biology courses and quit frequenting Kent Hovinds YEC websites.

Edited August 7, 2009 by bmy-

[Guest Believer_1829]

So there are seriously members who believe in the doctrines of the LDS church concerning "eternal progression" that believe we evolved from some creature that monkeys also evolved from? Wow.

[bmy-]

So there are seriously members who believe in the doctrines of the LDS church concerning "eternal progression" that believe we evolved from some creature that monkeys also evolved from? Wow.

We (as a species, this includes God) evolved from something. What that something was.. or when that something was makes no real difference. It could have been 8 billion years ago and 100 million light years away.. or on the exact timeline of this planet.

I'm blown away that people do not believe in evolution.

[Guest Believer_1829]

We (as a species, this includes God) evolved from something. What that something was.. or when that something was makes no real difference. It could have been 8 billion years ago and 100 million light years away.. or on the exact timeline of this planet.

I'm blown away that people do not believe in evolution.

We both consider the other quite insane then. Good, we have reached an understanding.

[Guest Believer_1829]

We (as a species, this includes God) evolved from something. What that something was.. or when that something was makes no real difference. It could have been 8 billion years ago and 100 million light years away.. or on the exact timeline of this planet.

I'm blown away that people do not believe in evolution.

We both consider the other quite insane then. Good, we have reached an understanding.

[EruditioSalvatus]

If you don't believe in evolution take a glance at how staph bacteria has evol... developed resistances to antibacterial agents, such as penicillin, over the past 60 years.

[Guest Believer_1829]

What I don't understand is why Darwinists are so determined to make us believe in evolution. It baffles me how militant they are sometimes. I could care less, believe what you want.

[bmy-]

We both consider the other quite insane then. Good, we have reached an understanding.

Insane? Nah. Uneducated (in this subject)? Yes.

What I don't understand is why Darwinists are so determined to make us believe in evolution. It baffles me how militant they are sometimes. I could care less, believe what you want.

It's not that I care if you believe in evolution or not.. it's that you clearly have no understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and you misrepresent your faulty knowledge on internet forums.

All i'm asking is that you educate yourself and then make a decision.

[EruditioSalvatus]

It baffles me how militant they are sometimes. I could care less, believe what you want.

Don't worry, there's been thousands of people throughout history who hold on to ideas. Flat Earth society, earth centered solar system worshipers, believers that god causes birth defects, and so forth.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but eventually everything changes.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Insane? Nah. Uneducated (in this subject)? Yes.

It's not that I care if you believe in evolution or not.. it's that you clearly have no understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and you misrepresent your faulty knowledge on internet forums.

All i'm asking is that you educate yourself and then make a decision.

See... you are getting your tail feathers all ruffled, telling me I am uneducated, etc... Perfect example, thank you. You accuse me of "misrepresenting <my> faulty knowledge on internet forums", when it actuality I haven't even said anything on the subject (except that I disagree), and I ignore Darwinist discussions in other forums.

Why does it matter to you what I believe on the subject?

Why do Darwinists go into religious chat rooms and boards (not saying you do) and go on and on about it?

Why so much insistence on something so unimportant?