The Flood

[AV1611VET]

Then you will know WHY I said it!

This IS my explanation to you as far as I'm going to take it.

Be careful, Inan, these people know how to get under your skin.

Some will search your posts high and low to find one little word to magnify something you say.

Even when you agree with what they're saying.

 

[Baggins]

Be careful, Inan, these people know how to get under your skin.

Some will search your posts high and low to find one little word to magnify something you say.

Even when you agree with what they're saying.

Yeah because it would be awful if she had to explain her flaming of people wouldn't it? I mean Christians don't do things like that so it must have a reasonable explanation, just so darned hard to come to any other conclusion.

As for your idea that pangea existed a few thousand years ago; that is obviously nonsense, it is very easy to date the break up of various bits of pangea because the rifting leads to the creation of igneous rocks which are dateable, so it is very easy to say that it didn't happen in the time of Peleg, whoever he was.

It happend over a period of many millions of years as well, you could say that it is still happening today, we can measure the speed that plates move and it is of the order of millimetres a year. The speed of plate movement you need to break up a super continent quickly would create so much energy that the earth would be a molten ball of liquid rock, and peleg would probably find it pretty difficult to beget anyone on that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Be careful, Inan, these people know how to get under your skin.

Some will search your posts high and low to find one little word to magnify something you say.

AV, this is called 'research', and backing up a claim.

 

[FishFace]

Be careful, Inan, these people know how to get under your skin.

Some will search your posts high and low to find one little word to magnify something you say.

Even when you agree with what they're saying.

AV, we know you're still bitter about us not agreeing with your meaningless distinction between embedded age and embedded history, or the same between "x years old" and "existed for x years." But you never actually agreed with us.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for your idea that pangea existed a few thousand years ago; that is obviously nonsense, it is very easy to date the break up of various bits of pangea because the rifting leads to the creation of igneous rocks which are dateable, so it is very easy to say that it didn't happen in the time of Peleg, whoever he was.

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

 

[Baggins]

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

I can imagine you could be very convincing if I wasn't so hung up on evidence

 

[thaumaturgy]

Unless you are looking at it "allegorically" as it seems you guys prefer to do. That way you can make it say whatever you want.

Hey didn't you say you were a gap theorist?

Just a tic, let me "dig back through old posts..."

I thought you were gap theorist?

I am but don't tell them, okay?

Ah yes.

So, why are you a Gap theorist? Is it because the Bible doesn't say something that would help it match it up to the data we have?

Many people have tried to place a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1. There are many different versions as to what supposedly happened in this “gap” of time. Most versions of the “gap” theory place millions of years of geologic time (including billions of fossil animals) in between these two first verses of Genesis. This is the “ruin-reconstruction” version of the gap theory.(SOURCE)

Why would one need to interpret any time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 unless they want it to not disagree with external data?

Sounds kinda like making it say whatever you want.

I am confused by this stance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

If it wasn't for your insitance that the Bible means what you want it to mean, you could almost be conviced.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am confused by this stance.

The Gap Theory is good at explaining "scars" on the face of the earth, as well as why the earth is so old, and other small "inconsistencies" between science and Scripture.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

Ah, AV, you give me a warm feeling with that post.

As Baggins points out, evidence gets in the way.

That is precisely why so many scientists see YEC as inherently dishonest. We don't think most YEC's or Creationists are lying by any stretch of the imagination, but it thrives where evidence and data is actively witheld.

Look at how many Creationist posters loudly proclaim their ignorance of the science or their lack of interest in actually learning the science!

I'd be less inclined to think YEC was antithetical to truth if I had heard of any YEC on this board had ever confessed to taking a geology class or maybe 2!

It's important enough for them to debate against vociferously, but not important enough to learn about the science underlying it? Not even at a fundamental level?

As I've said before, atheists usually come to the board with at least a fundamental grasp of religion and the Bible when debating religion. YEC seem to come on here either comfortable with or quite proud of never having gotten a training in the science they argue against.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

You hold science up to a higher standard and you say THIS:

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Gap Theory is good at explaining "scars" on the face of the earth, as well as why the earth is so old, and other small "inconsistencies" between science and Scripture.

But AV, there are no "inconsistencies" between science and Scripture are there? If the bible was inerrant and truth, then people wouldn't need to force the Bible to say what they want it to say to re-align these "inconsistencies" with what the evidence before their eyes says.

And down the rabbit hole we go....

 

[AV1611VET]

You hold science up to a higher standard and you say THIS:

If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

I'm also fond of saying that nature is hostile, but obedient to God. There's no gap in logic here [pun intended].

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm also fond of saying that nature is hostile, but obedient to God. There's no gap in logic here [pun intended].

Lemme get this straight:

You hold science up to a high standard.

Science is the study of nature using natural factors to model natural events.

Nature is hostile but obedient to God.

And you are reasonably sure that if Nature wasn't in the way you could convince us of your version of events?

OK. So either nature is DISobedient to God by hiding his works, OR you think science can work without nature.

Did I miss something here?

This "higher standard" sounds kinda like "bottom of the post-hoc justification barrel"

 

[AV1611VET]

But AV, there are no "inconsistencies" between science and Scripture are there? If the bible was inerrant and truth, then people wouldn't need to force the Bible to say what they want it to say to re-align these "inconsistencies" with what the evidence before their eyes says.

If the Bible tells one story, and nature tells another story, it's partly our job to reconcile Scripture with science.

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]

OTOH, it's partly your job to reconcile science with Scripture.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Scientists, in my opinion, are a gift from God.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If the Bible tells one story, and nature tells another story, it's partly our job to reconcile Scripture with science.

That sounds an awful lot like making the Bible say something it doesn't already say. If the Bible is inerrant it requires no additional data. Additional data only repeats the truth of the Bible, it doesn't add to it!

I am really liking the Belshazzar example lately. If we didn't have external data to the contrary and all we had was your beloved KJV we would never know the truth that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson and not son.

[bible]Daniel 5:2[/bible]

But I don't mind that we need external evidence to explain the Bible. Because the Bible isn't inerrant, and it is open to interpretation. It is open to linquistic interpretation, it is open to allegorical interpretation, it is open to understanding as part-myth.

It is, and always has been for me, a debate against Literalism. Literalism is internally inconsistent.

You can't have it both ways.

Scientists, in my opinion, are a gift from God.

That's why the Literal Bible treats them the way it does.

(PICTURE DELETED, it was rude of me, sorry.)

"All you have to do is believe what I say! You can still do yer thing, but make sure it never disagrees with what I say. Is that so hard? Here, have some flowers..."

 

[AV1611VET]

And you are reasonably sure that if Nature wasn't in the way you could convince us of your version of events?

Again, it's not my job to convince anyone of anything --- that's the Holy Spirit's job.

Even Paul had to be persuaded of things concerning God.

[bible]Romans 8:38[/bible]
[bible]2 Timothy 1:12[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Again, it's not my job to convince anyone of anything --- that's the Holy Spirit's job.

AV, as usual, when presented with a push back you run away.

And since I know you like it when someone "digs up" old posts to remind you, I'll do that for you (only this one isn't so old...I would think you remembered it);

Originally Posted by AV1611VET
If it wasn't for nature getting in the way, I could almost convince you, couldn't I, Baggins?

Your job or not, we were discussing your ability to convince.

Q.E.D.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am really liking the Belshazzar example lately. If we didn't have external data to the contrary and all we had was your beloved KJV we would never know the truth that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson and not son.

As I explain to people, shouting "contradiction" should be a last resort, not a first one - as a contradiction is a powerful explanation of something that is bogus.

And the only time anyone should even think of calling something in the Bible a contradiction is if it clearly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Then, and only then, can something be labeled a contradiction.

In the case of Belshazzar you like bringing up, you don't have nearly enough evidence to declare it a contradiction.

Back then they called their grandsons "son," and also, (who was it?) Nabonidus (?) could have abandoned Belshazzar, and Belshazzar could have been taken in by his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar (or vice-versa).

There are too many variables to label this a "contradiction."

Of course - (you know me) - if his birth records show him to be the son of Nabonidus, and the Bible says he is the son of Nebuchadnezzar, which set of records do you think I'm going to go with?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Back then they called their grandsons "son,"

In ENGLISH? Remember, you think the KJV is the be-all and end-all of translations. So it should accurately reflect all aspects.

Please point me in the direction of common usage of 17th century English in which SON and GRANDSON were not differentiated.

Otherwise you have to have external data to point out what the actual fact of the matter is.

And it can't be the original Hebrew. We are working with the KJV, the most accurate translation into our language of the Bible as is known to humankind, ordained by God and guided by his holy hand.


Now I will glady acquiesce that perhaps you have some data to show that in the 17th century English didn't differentiate SON from GRANDSON. I can always stand to be corrected. I may be wrong.

But then it calls into question the utility of the KJV today if a reader can't know what it says today.

and also, (who was it?) Nabonidus (?) could have abandoned Belshazzar, and Belshazzar could have been taken in by his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar (or vice-versa).

"Coulda woulda shoulda". Sorry, but you are adding to the story. It doesn't say that in Daniel 5:2

There are too many variables to label this a "contradiction."

But we are dealing only with what the Bible says.

We can't add to it or anything else. If you don't like what the Bible says, then just say so. You seem to have to spend so much time coming up with ultra-legalisitic interpretations or "unstated backstories" to explain when the KJV states something that is incorrect.

Of course - (you know me) - if his birth records show him to be the son of Nabonidus, and the Bible says he is the son of Nebuchadnessar, which set of records do you think I'm going to go with?

Facts do get in the way I know.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As I explain to people, shouting "contradiction" should be a last resort, not a first one - as a contradiction is a powerful explanation of something that is bogus.

I suppose that is why there are so many contradictions in Young Earth Creationism and "Flood Geology" and why your very idea of a 4.55 billion year old earth that was created 6000 years ago is a contradiction. They are all example of things that are bogus.

And the only time anyone should even think of calling something in the Bible a contradiction is if it clearly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction. I guess it goes something like this. "If there is any way we can either reinterpret the text, call it poetry or make up some story now matter how absurdly twsited to try to justify claiming it is not a contradiction we will say it is not a contradiction". Is that about right?