Early Egyptian Dynasties

Serapha · #31 20th August 2003, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

(population growth)

And your getting this from the bible?

Or from one of those creationist groups that treat the human population like an exponential equation and pretend thats how it worked in real life?

Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.

Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?

~malaka~

Serapha · #32 20th August 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

Thats, um, Not evidence.

So, tell me one thing, is your number of around 32,000 based on a guess, or actual physical evidence?

And yes, taking 2 people and then making them reproduce exponentially is still just a guess, as it would need to be backed up by some evidence to be more than that.

Speaking of the flood, maybe you can answer a question I have.
I wrote this on the forum awhile ago,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/Cre...asscience.html

Can you show me the evidence that Should show up if its true?

Im also curious, when do you say the flood is, as your idea apparently differs with places like AIG.

My friend,

If you want me to critique your article, send a request to me by PM... and I will be glad to address each point you posted in your article.

and as I posted in my last posting.... are you posting on the right forum?

~malaka~

Arikay · #33 20th August 2003, 03:25 AM

"I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue"

This forum description is:
"Science, Creation & Evolution
Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers."

Maybe it is you who are on the wrong forum. However, if you are looking for people who agree with your views, you may not find the christians only forum any more comforting, as there are many christians there who accept evolution and are against creationism (remember, there is a difference between creation and creationism).

Nope, im not christian. But im not against christianity either. I actually support it. Unfortunatly Creationists seem to present a distorted image of it, and I dont like that.

" you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand."

Please tell me how I am doing that?
I may be standing against Your interpretation of what the bible teaches, but I have not said anything here that is against christianity.

Are you against the flat earth theory, and believe the earth is round? If so you are going against what a literal interpretation of the bible teaches.

However, if you would like to claim that you must be a YEC to be christian, maybe you should start a thread on it, I know quite a few christians who would probably want to have a word with you.

As far as the article, I dont really want a critique, just the evidence that should be there if those creationist claims in the "article" (I dont really think of it as one

) are right. however im always open to corrections.

However, it would be interesting to know if you are baseing your population count on actual physical evidence, just exponential math, or maybe something else?

Originally Posted by Malaka

Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.

Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?

~malaka~

Serapha · #34 20th August 2003, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

"I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue"

This forum description is:
"Science, Creation & Evolution
Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers."

Maybe it is you who are on the wrong forum....

I returned to look at the posting, and I find that I was sent her by a link posted by another member...

My apologies... I have no intention of spending time on this forum as I have publicly posted in the past.

The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

Jet Black · #35 20th August 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Malaka

The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

in what way don't se follow the rules? I barely ever see any anti-christian postings in the science forum, and equally little pro-atheist posts. The majority of people here seem to be either theistic evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, or atheistic who say so little about their religious bias that they may as well be agnostic.

please don't go round making accusations that we don't follow the rules, because we do.

Arikay · #36 20th August 2003, 03:58 AM

I, like Jet black, am curious what rules you think I or others are breaking?

You may see me as going against the bible, but I am only going against your personal interpretation of the bible, and not it or christianity.

That is, if you do come back here. Which I hope you do, and not leave your claim unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by Malaka

I returned to look at the posting, and I find that I was sent her by a link posted by another member...

My apologies... I have no intention of spending time on this forum as I have publicly posted in the past.

The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

Arikay · #37 20th August 2003, 04:28 AM

I PMed him to find out what he was talking about, and he doesnt like that we often break the guidelines posted at the top of the forum (the top post).

From the sound of it, I doubt we will get him back here to actually support his claims.

Jet Black · #38 20th August 2003, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I PMed him to find out what he was talking about, and he doesnt like that we often break the guidelines posted at the top of the forum (the top post).

From the sound of it, I doubt we will get him back here to actually support his claims.

heh: well from what I see,

(1) is rarely broken

(2) not applicable

(3) broken more often than not by YECers, rarely broken by evolutionists

(4) see 3

(5) this seems to be fairly chilled out place, though anyone can reture from a convo if they like. so six of one and half a dozen of the other if it happens

(6) I'll let him have this one though as with 5, both sides are equally to blame, though I do see evolutionists try and limit the conversation more than the creationists do

(7) see 3 and 4.

Arikay · #39 20th August 2003, 04:55 AM

Yeah, I was looking at them and I agree. And not to mention that number 4 (Im assuming thats the Talk origins and AIG one) states at the begining that its only a suggestion.

As far as 3 and 4, I have rarely seen evolutionists plagerize, but it almost seems common with some creationists that I have run into recently.
And with 4, I also rarely see evolutionists post entire articles, only quote sections, but we have recently had creationists do so with AIG articles.

It seems like he is either really sensative to rule breaking, or he just wanted a reason to leave. But I dont know.

Jet Black · #40 20th August 2003, 04:59 AM

I think he just wanted an excuse. not many people like it when their opinions are under assault by fact.