Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,

[AV1611VET]

1) See? Even in discussing the incompatibility of our operating systems, we are unable to reach a plane of agreement. You believe scripture is affecting nonbelievers in a way that we do not. It's like we're not even having the same conversation.

I disagree.

Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.

I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.

In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.

Instead, you seem to have some kind of attraction for Christians in general, and creationists specifically.

2) Many of us are well-versed in "basic theology," having been theists ourselves at one time.

I find that hard to believe.

Here are some examples, w/o using names:

1. One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible for 30 years, but was unaware that Pharaoh had been performing genocide against the Hebrews.
2. One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.
3. One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but had no idea what Dispensation Theology is; and even though DT is not expressly taught in the Bible, it is basic theology.

These are just some examples out of several.

However, most of the verses you post can be reduced to "God did it."

Yup.

The message you send when you post a Bible verse to trump whatever scientific discovery is threatening your beliefs is that God did it, and that settles it. But consequently, you're also saying that this scientific discovery didn't do it, and that these scientists are wrong.

It doesn't matter.

I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.

I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

 

[Cabal]

I disagree.

Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.

I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.

In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.

Because there are so many of them on this board, and so many of them are creationists.

One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.

I assume this is directed at me - and if so, that is a completely false description of the situation. You got the extreme reaction you did because your arguments were UTTERLY TERRIBLE.

Also, if you call the land someone lives in the source of the antichrist and say people who accept taxonomy for decent reasons (as opposed to BS "genetic" reasons) are claiming they lack sin, expect people's reactions to be vehement.

It doesn't matter.

I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.

I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

No, you get "and you accuse us of retrofitting." Basically, it's hypocrisy.

I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

No, you get "you HAVE to be kidding me." Basically, it's completely unfounded and out of context.

I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

No, you get "According to their interpretation, they believed they were doing the right thing." Basically, it's not as simple as you make out.

 

[gaara4158]

I disagree.

Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.

I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.

In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.

Instead, you seem to have some kind of attraction for Christians in general, and creationists specifically.

It's been explained to you why you don't see us going after Taoists, Deists, Pagans, etc. For one, there's far fewer of them in these parts. For another, it's not the TDorP's that are trying to horn their creation beliefs into science classes. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

I find that hard to believe.

Here are some examples, w/o using names:
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible for 30 years, but was unaware that Pharaoh had been performing genocide against the Hebrews.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but had no idea what Dispensation Theology is; and even though DT is not expressly taught in the Bible, it is basic theology.

You seem to have discovered that there's more than one way to interpret the Bible. Congratulations.

t doesn't matter.

I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.

I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.

So, don't you think maybe you should leave the Bible out of this? If the issue isn't biblical, why use the Bible to deal with it? If I want to identify a flower by its petals, I'm not going to reference Shakespeare's famous quote "A rose, by any other name, is still a rose." I"m going to reference a book on botany. Leaving Shakespeare out of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, don't you think maybe you should leave the Bible out of this?

I don't know if you know this or not, but I have started a few threads in which I made it clear I would like the Bible left out of it.

Low and behold (and to my pleasant surprise), I couldn't keep people from bringing the Bible into the discussion; despite the fact that I mentioned several times to please leave the Bible out of the conversation.

Here's an example: 1.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't know if you know this or not, but I have started a few threads in which I made it clear I would like the Bible left out of it.

Low and behold (and to my pleasant surprise), I couldn't keep people from bringing the Bible into the discussion; despite the fact that I mentioned several times to please leave the Bible out of the conversation.

....And this fits in with your Boolean logic claim that science cannot contradict the Bible, how?

And all of this:

:Using the Bible for scientific evidence is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

I use the Bible and Science like Boolean Logic:

1. If it's supported by the Bible and science, I support it.
2. If it's supported by the Bible, but not by science, I support it.
3. If it's not mentioned in the Bible, but supported by science, I support it.
4. If it's not mentioned in the Bible and not supported by science, I don't support it.

Hi, Mark --- Fossils are a testament to death, and death is a testament to sin.

Evolutionists like to daisy-chain these fossils into one long story of natural selection, fights for survival, mutations, and who-knows-what-all; but the Bible clearly paints a different picture.

There are creatures mentioned in the Bible that only an evolutionist can deny, and they deny them with passion; changing, as the Bible says, the glory of our uncorruptible God into all manner of birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

The Bible said it --- that settles it.

Anything to the contrary is futile resistance.

No --- my God documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, how He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were; and even preserves that Documentation for everyone to read.

How about yours?

That is called Last Thursdayism, and is falsified (pwned) by a literal interpretation of the Scriptures; which this challenge demonstrates.

QV please.

I don't know when the Scientific Method first was used, it looks like around 1885, but for the record, I'm talking about science.

You can set the Scientific Method up as a barrier between no science and science, but the Bible has science in operation in Daniel's time:Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.

And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74.

In short, the Bible (and others) disagree with you, and the Scientific Method can take a hike.

Nowhere at all --- but I'm amazed at why TEs believe the way they do. The Bible shoots down the E part of TE in It's opening chapter. I don't see TE in the Bible at all --- even if I step back and look at Genesis One allegorically.

Well then, let's call it "embedded evolution" then, okay?

Animals were created as though they had evolved for billions of years. Have you got a problem with that? if so, what?

Yes, I have a problem with that --- it's called "creation. "

I have a thread on this that I can dig up --- but won't.

But I have two good questions for you, laconicstudent:

1. If you think there's such a thing as abiogenesis, which came first in the universe, life or non-life?
2. If you think God's method of choice is evolution, what did the angels evolve from?

I'm confused how you can claim that you've in reality wanted the Bible left out of this all along when you so constantly make statements such as the above. You have clearly been using Scripture to base your arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?

Do you see all the water on the earth? Is that an impressive evidence? What other evidence do you need?

 

[laconicstudent]

Do you see all the water on the earth? Is that an impressive evidence? What other evidence do you need?

I don't understand. We have water. So does Europa, comets and the Kuiper belt. Mars may have ice deposits under the poles. Most of the moons in the outer system are comprised largely of ice. The fact that we have one of the most common molecules in the universe doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Jazmyn]

We must ask, what evidence would a global flood, one which went higher than most mountains leave?

 

[laconicstudent]

We must ask, what evidence would a global flood, one which went higher than most mountains leave?

A lot more then has been observed in the fossil record and geology.

 

[azmurath]

The Bible said it --- that settles it.

Anything to the contrary is futile resistance.

Awesome job putting any semblance of thought into your response.


Honestly, it offends me greatly that you just turn off your brain and spew anything that pops into your brainwashed mind.

 

[laconicstudent]

Awesome job putting any semblance of thought into your response.


Honestly, it offends me greatly that you just turn off your brain and spew anything that pops into your brainwashed mind.

Um, isn't that bolded statement an oxymoron? I would think the entire problem is that nothing that contradicts his view of the Bible is allowed to enter his mind.

He himself has bragged about his "boolean logic"

 

[godsmission]

Creationism seems to be just another word for brain dead.

 

[Baggins]

We must ask, what evidence would a global flood, one which went higher than most mountains leave?

A thicklayer of poorly sorted conglomerate lying unconformably over the whole of the earth's surface locally comprising of material from the geological strata beneath it.

A bit like the glacial till tthat lies over much of Northern Europe that William Buckland originally interpreted as a biblical flood layer.

The absolute lack of this layer is definitive evidence that no global flood occured in the last few thousand years, the lack of a similar layer in the geological record proves that no global flood has ever occured.

And simple physics and the amount of water we have on earth show that it is impossible for an global flood to have ever occured or to occur in the future.

the closest we have come to a global flood was the Cretaceous and that was not a flood but a massive and slow rise in sea level when we lost polar ice caps. This lead to massive carbonate deposits world wide.

The flood story in the Bible is derivative of older Sumerian flood stories which are not suprising as that civilisation lived between two rivers that regularly flooded.

I find that a much more like source for the flood allegory in the Bible than the flooding of the Black Sea.

 

[nagwalk]

I live in the North Western part of BC Canada. Scientists are puzzeld by the existance of shell food imbedded in the mountain tops surrounding my homeland.

Apart from the Bible, we have oral history pointing to a time when the earth was flooded. These stories were among us prior to the coming of the missionaries or the bible

 

[laconicstudent]

There's also the slight issue that a global flood would completely destroy the aquatic ecosystem, and the vast majority of aquatic life would go extinct.

And it would wash away the topsoil all over the world. What happened in the American Dust Bowl would happen all over the world.

And it would deposit salts all over the land. Farming might be a little difficult when the receding flood water leave behind salt in what used to be farmlands.

There's also all those delicate geological formations that simply would not be here if we'd suffered a flood as recently as a few thousand years ago.

 

[laconicstudent]

I live in the North Western part of BC Canada. Scientists are puzzeld by the existance of shell food imbedded in the mountain tops surrounding my homeland.

Apart from the Bible, we have oral history pointing to a time when the earth was flooded. These stories were among us prior to the coming of the missionaries or the bible

Um, so a mystery about Trilobites that I cannot explain, and oral histories which could refer to local floods. The point is that the damage from a global flood a few thousand years ago would be so devastating to the ecosystem that we still wouldn't have fully recovered.

 

[godsmission]

I live in the North Western part of BC Canada. Scientists are puzzeld by the existance of shell food imbedded in the mountain tops surrounding my homeland.

That's because at one time those mountains were below sea level at the bottom of the sea, there is coral half way up mountains.

The Mediterranean sea is known to have dried up at least 6 times.

 

[laconicstudent]

And since Godsmission refuted the trilobite, that only leaves the folk lore of a flood..... Which aren't scientific evidence. There's no indication that the floods recorded in those legends were global. They were most likely local

 

[godsmission]

You need only look at the depth of some coal mines, coal made from trees that lived on the surface once.

 

[Baggins]

I live in the North Western part of BC Canada. Scientists are puzzeld by the existance of shell food imbedded in the mountain tops surrounding my homeland.

That sounds very unlikely. I doubt any scientist that has even the most basic introduction to the Earth Sciences in the last 50-60 years would have the slightest doubt as to how fossilised shells got into the mountain tops of British Columbia


Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you really do know some scientists who are baffled by fossil sea creatures in mountains send them here and I will explain it to them it isn't a very difficult concept.

Apart from the Bible, we have oral history pointing to a time when the earth was flooded. These stories were among us prior to the coming of the missionaries or the bible

In most parts of the world people have stories about floods because they live near to rivers that flood or near seas that can have tidal waves, and floods make good stories.

Extrapolating that into evidence for a global flood when there is not one scrap of physical evidence for that happening is ridiculous.

I think you need to catch up with the last 100 years or so of geological thought.