The Flood (2)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As long as you keep assuming it was formed, you're not going to understand. If it was indeed formed, then it was form quickly. If it wasn't formed, then it was embedded underground from Creation through the Flood, then appeared when God split Pangaea apart.

Just like if you had a jar of pennies with a fifty-cent piece in it somewhere, and you reach down and split the pennies into seven piles, and the fifty-cent piece is exposed.

So you are saying that God created the earth and formed the White Cliffs of Dover which are make from the skeltons of trillions of tiny organisms quickly and buried them and then exposed them after the flood when he split Pangea?? You are piling absurdity on absurdity in your usual fashion but it still an Omphalos approach.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying that God created the earth and formed the White Cliffs of Dover which are make from the skeltons of trillions of tiny organisms quickly and buried them and then exposed them after the flood when he split Pangea?? You are piling absurdity on absurdity in your usual fashion but it still an Omphalos approach.

If the cliffs of Dover are trillions of skeletons, then they died in and before the Flood. The Flood, of course, burying them, and they came out when God split the continents.

Of course, I'm just guessing here, but either way, evidently the Flood was a major contributor.

 

[Contracelsus]

Of course, I'm just guessing here, but either way, evidently the Flood was a major contributor.

This summarizes your argument very well.

You are GUESSING about the whole set of mechanisms but you claim the flood was a major contributor.

You have no idea how the mechanics work but you don't mind telling people that this particular thing really happened.

I think you'll convince a lot of people with your heady mixture of confessed ignorance and dogmatic proclamation!

 

[AV1611VET]

This summarizes your argument very well.

You are GUESSING about the whole set of mechanisms but you claim the flood was a major contributor.

You have no idea how the mechanics work but you don't mind telling people that this particular thing really happened.

I think you'll convince a lot of people with your heady mixture of confessed ignorance and dogmatic proclamation!

I'm as dumb as they come when it comes to science; but I know one thing --- science stands aside when God so decrees it.

 

[Contracelsus]

I'm as dumb as they come when it comes to science; but I know one thing --- science stands aside when God so decrees it.

So why on earth do you feel correct in saying that?

You confess you are dumb about science but you know when it's wrong?

That sounds like pride of the worst sort. Self-love beyond compare.

You will likely tell us it isn't yourself you love but the word of God, but you don't even know what it is you are arguing against, so how do you know when science is wrong?

Imagine if I were to tell you I know nothing about the Bible but I am absolutely sure that this book or that book are false?

WOULD YOU GIVE MY OPINION A SECOND THOUGHT? Or would you simply reject it as uninformed and ignorant?

Remember, if you want anyone to even listen to you, you must be willing to listen to them. It's part of the Golden Rule.

When you say stuff like this about your ignorance of science, then you nearly guarantee that some people will simply assume you are wrong on many other points.

Even when you aren't.

Is that how your ministry should work?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why on earth do you feel correct in saying that?

You confess you are dumb about science but you know when it's wrong?

That works both ways, you know.

 

[Contracelsus]

That works both ways, you know.

Yes, obviously I know it. It sounds like you might not have understood what I said.

Please re-read it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, obviously I know it. It sounds like you might not have understood what I said.

Contracelcus, I don't have to know science inside and out (or at all). All I have to know is the Bible. When scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the conclusions are wrong.

Talk all you want about plate tectonics, the speed of light, fossils, whatever; but the bottom line is that the Bible has the ultimate say about what happened.

You guys' points are well-documented here with pictures, charts, graphs, etc..

Our points are also well-documented.

All we're doing is peating and repeating ad nauseum.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Contracelcus, I don't have to know science inside and out (or at all). All I have to know is the Bible. When scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the conclusions are wrong.

Talk all you want about plate tectonics, the speed of light, fossils, whatever; but the bottom line is that the Bible has the ultimate say about what happened.

You guys' points are well-documented here with pictures, charts, graphs, etc..

Our points are also well-documented.

All we're doing is peating and repeating ad nauseum.

Your (that's singular, since not even other creationists believe you) points are well documented? Give me a break. Your points consist of millenia old folk stories of questionable origin, and the only reason you believe them is because they contain a self-fulfilling prophecy that was, unsurprisingly, fulfilled.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your (that's singular, since not even other creationists believe you) points are well documented? Give me a break. Your points consist of millenia old folk stories of questionable origin, and the only reason you believe them is because they contain a self-fulfilling prophecy that was, unsurprisingly, fulfilled.

And let me guess --- you want me to "stop lying" --- right?

 

[Molal]

And let me guess --- you want me to "stop lying" --- right?

I know I've said this before, but I have alot of respect for you and your beliefs. I do not agree with you at all times; however, I know you have courage to stay here in this forum and talk about the bible and your faith.

Most people have problems (including christians) when belief systems contradict observed data. And usually, these contradictions occur when a particular biblical interpretation is used (in my opinion).

AV - I don;t think people are calling you a liar (I am not), I think people get a little annoyed that you appear to fail to acknowledge the observed data and they become more annoyed when you state the bible is right even when your data says otherwise. They are annoyed because they believe that you should be more open minded.........I think in this instance they fail to understand your religious convictions and that, for you to be wrong means your salvation is at issue.

I hope I make sense and that this helps you understand why others may attack in such as fashion. This is not an excuse, just an attempt at explaining the reasoning.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV - I don;t think people are calling you a liar (I am not)...

Thank you, Molal --- but that was actually a little inside joke; as MrGoodBytes is always telling me to "stop lying," and I interpret that as just another Atheist admitting he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

I think people get a little annoyed that you appear to fail to acknowledge the observed data and they become more annoyed when you state the bible is right even when your data says otherwise.

Well they can stay annoyed too; because if the pictures, charts, etc. they show us lead them to conclude God doesn't exist, or the Bible is wrong, or both --- I don't want any part of it.

 

[Contracelsus]

Contracelcus, I don't have to know science inside and out (or at all). All I have to know is the Bible.

That's the point. WHY should I believe you know the Bible? You've already claimed ignorance of science yet you don't mind telling us you know when it is wrong.

So you've proven you don't care about knowing something before pontificating on it.

Why should I believe you are right about the Bible?

When scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the conclusions are wrong.

Sorry but you've already indicated you are more than happy to make statements from ignorance. You are not a reliable source of information now.

Talk all you want about plate tectonics, the speed of light, fossils, whatever; but the bottom line is that the Bible has the ultimate say about what happened.

You say what? I am sorry but you are arguing against things you have already confessed to not understanding which makes your claims of things you do understand worth exactly nothing.

You guys' points are well-documented here with pictures, charts, graphs, etc..

Our points are also well-documented.

But they are not equally well documented. You have one document, the scientists have many independent lines of evidence.

Guess who wins that particular p-match?

All we're doing is peating and repeating ad nauseum.

No, YOU peat and repeat points ad nauseam. The scientists present data and facts. Multiple lines. If you had more than one line of evidence you'd present it but you don't and you think its a virtue that you don't understand the science. I am unsure how you spin that to be a valid argument.

 

[Contracelsus]

Thank you, Molal --- but that was actually a little inside joke; as MrGoodBytes is always telling me to "stop lying," and I interpret that as just another Atheist admitting he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Most scientists (I don't know about whom you are speaking here) don't think Creationists are lying, just ignorant. You have proven you are just ignorant of the science. Not lying.

Well they can stay annoyed too; because if the pictures, charts, etc. they show us lead them to conclude God doesn't exist, or the Bible is wrong, or both --- I don't want any part of it.

Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've already claimed ignorance of science yet you don't mind telling us you know when it is wrong.

I know why it's wrong, and that's all I need to know.

Example: Thaumaturgy says that India is shoving itself up into the Asaian continent. Fine, no problem - so far.

But then, he shows a chart showing that India started out miles south of the Asian continent, moving north at only centimeters per year, and when I ask how long it took to collide; I get an answer of 250 million years.

It is at this point that I disagree. That 250 million years is based on India starting out miles south of Asia.

It's like you guys think you can place India anywhere on the map you want, have it move as slowly as you want, then claim time will cover the difference.

That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.

If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

And I'll ask you this --- does that work both ways? Yes or no?* Is it just as folly to not know the Scriptures?

*Please be honest with your reply. Let's not drag this out, okay?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know why it's wrong, and that's all I need to know.

Example: Thaumaturgy says that India is shoving itself up into the Asaian continent. Fine, no problem - so far.

But then, he shows a chart showing that India started out miles south of the Asian continent, moving north at only centimeters per year, and when I ask how long it took to collide; I get an answer of 250 million years.

Ain't math grand?

It is at this point that I disagree. That 250 million years is based on India starting out miles south of Asia.

It's like you guys think you can place India anywhere on the map you want, have it move as slowly as you want, then claim time will cover the difference.

We're not the ones who placed India on the map -- it was already there. If you prefer, it was your God who put it there.

We're not the ones making India move -- it's moving, and if you prefer, it's your God moving it. We have, however, clocked its speed quite reliably.

Continents are not late-model cars -- they don't stop on a dime or make sharp right turns -- at least, not without leaving some pretty massive and easily detectible skid marks.

So, God put India there, and God's been moving it around. Why do you disagree with God? Because some men wrote a book?

That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.

I see -- knowledge would only get in the way -- even when that knowledge comes from God Himself, it must never come between you and your Bible.

If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.

Because any man who claims to be writing God's words is never wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And I'll ask you this --- does that work both ways? Yes or no?* Is it just as folly to not know the Scriptures?

*Please be honest with your reply. Let's not drag this out, okay?

What folly can come from not knowing the Scriptures? Is it any more or less folly than from not knowing the Koran?

 

[FishFace]

Contracelcus, I don't have to know science inside and out (or at all). All I have to know is the Bible. When scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the conclusions are wrong.

The map is not the territory. If you want to believe that, then you ought to have support. You demonstrably don't.

Talk all you want about plate tectonics, the speed of light, fossils, whatever; but the bottom line is that the Bible has the ultimate say about what happened.

The bottom line? No. The bottom line is reality, something demonstrably discoverable as near as possible by science. Reality is routinely avoided or ignored in literature.

All we're doing is peating and repeating ad nauseum.

Why is that? Because you refuse to give any evidence for your claim that the Bible is absolute truth. So we keep asking. That's the nature of the thing - we're at an impasse, here. If you aren't willing to provide justification, we can't progress.

 

[Contracelsus]

And I'll ask you this --- does that work both ways? Yes or no?* Is it just as folly to not know the Scriptures?

*Please be honest with your reply. Let's not drag this out, okay?

No it is far more folly to not understand science. The scriptures don't tell you much useful stuff. Maybe some "human behavior" stuff.

Science will keep you alive, will make your life better, but most importantly being able to think critically and using clear concepts of evidence and information processing will do you more good.

Sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.