quick question for the y.e.c's

Originally posted by josephw
No. The seventh day is the sabbath. A day of rest. Also, it is symbolic of that rest which God gives the one that trusts Him for salvation and eternal life.

It's not religion. It's about faith. Not wishful fantasy. Faith is substantive. Faith is a walk.

All of it is on God's terms of course. That's why it is faith and not religion.

Religion is man's ...[text shortened]... ive by [b]the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Italics mine)[/b]

so creation took 6 days then.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Because of heightened awareness and early detection. This only means more women know early they have it and can take steps to save their lives, not that more women are getting it.

I'm sure you'd rather return to yesteryear when women got breast cancer and suffered through it their entire lives only to die early of it, never knowing why.

No I do not want women to die of breast cancer. My wife had it and is okay now, even though she has to take a pill for ten years to prevent it from coming back. I was just trying to point out that due to increased mutations that, in general, both men and women or degenerating instead of evolving into better humans. Even though we may be able to detect all kinds of cancer, I still believe more people are getting it now than 5000 or so years ago going back to Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No I do not want women to die of breast cancer. My wife had it and is okay now, even though she has to take a pill for ten years to prevent it from coming back. I was just trying to point out that due to increased mutations that, in general, both men and women or degenerating instead of evolving into better humans. Even though we may be able to detect al ...[text shortened]... ill believe more people are getting it now than 5000 or so years ago going back to Adam and Eve.

which cancer statistics from 5000 years ago are you using to form your opinion? are you adjusting the statistics to include the increased life expectancy and are you considering population numbers and dispersal? im sure you have taken all this and more into account rather than drawing some bizarre illogical conclusion just by looking at the amount of old people you know who have cancer.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No I do not want women to die of breast cancer. My wife had it and is okay now, even though she has to take a pill for ten years to prevent it from coming back. I was just trying to point out that due to increased mutations that, in general, both men and women or degenerating instead of evolving into better humans. Even though we may be able to detect al ...[text shortened]... ill believe more people are getting it now than 5000 or so years ago going back to Adam and Eve.

...and if you are arguing that an increase in cancer rates proves evolution is wrong (which it doesnt as there are a whole bunch of other issues) do you therefore accept that a decrease in cancer would prove evolution correct.........or do you only accept conditions when they support your crazy world view?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so creation took 6 days then.

So what's your point?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so creation took 6 days then.

I'm with josephw on this one ... can't make head nor tail of what you mean.

😉

Originally posted by josephw
So what's your point?

you pedantically corrected me for saying creation took 6 days (even arguing it was done instantly). you said it took 7 days. i ask you what happened on the seventh day, you said................nothing.

therefore creation wasnt immediate, creation wasnt seven days (nothing got created on the seventh day) creation took 6 days........

not a massively important point, i know. but you felt it was important enough to correct me from 6 to 7....so i made the point just for you 🙂

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm with josephw on this one ... can't make head nor tail of what you mean.

😉

oohhh wolfy!!!!! you have browny points so ill forgive you this time!!!!!!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
which cancer statistics from 5000 years ago are you using to form your opinion? are you adjusting the statistics to include the increased life expectancy and are you considering population numbers and dispersal? im sure you have taken all this and more into account rather than drawing some bizarre illogical conclusion just by looking at the amount of old people you know who have cancer.

It is common sense. There was no cancer 5000 years ago.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is common sense. There was no cancer 5000 years ago.

when was the first case of cancer?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
when was the first case of cancer?

It was sometime after the flood of Noah's day. I believe it was known to exist around 1500 B.C. I can't tell you the exact date of the first case of cancer however.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was sometime after the flood of Noah's day. I believe it was known to exist around 1500 B.C. I can't tell you the exact date of the first case of cancer however.

can you give me any detailed information about cancer pre - 1900's............that gives you 80% of all known y.e.c. time............go.

also if you are confident enough to judge the reason for the average joe pre- 1 a.d. will you please list the top 10 reasons for death?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
can you give me any detailed information about cancer pre - 1900's............that gives you 80% of all known y.e.c. time............go.

also if you are confident enough to judge the reason for the average joe pre- 1 a.d. will you please list the top 10 reasons for death?

No.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No.

no i wont........or no i cant?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you pedantically corrected me for saying creation took 6 days (even arguing it was done instantly). you said it took 7 days. i ask you what happened on the seventh day, you said................nothing.

therefore creation wasnt immediate, creation wasnt seven days (nothing got created on the seventh day) creation took 6 days........

not a massively ...[text shortened]... ou felt it was important enough to correct me from 6 to 7....so i made the point just for you 🙂

Apparently you only hear what you have to say, and ignored my replies. Typical of a closed mind. I answered you directly, but you are probably just incapable of coherent and logical discourse, so now I will have to ignore you.

Of course, you can go back and read the exchange and apologize for your rude and deceptive conduct, and I would forgive and forget about it, but you won't.

You can't!