Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[PhilosophicalBluster]

[The OP]

This is what I keep on trying to explain to SheildoFaith. This shows that the Bible is not written by G-d, it is written by man. Or actually men, in this case. The Bible is a collection of stories from many different writers.

I've used this point (two separate creation stories) in debates before, there's really no logical defense to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

... there's really no logical defense to it.

Then look for an illogical one.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

 

[BananaSlug]

Bad logic is no way to win an argument. They make you look foolish and that can really hurt the side you are trying to help. Take the "crocoduck" for example...

Christians seem to forget that the Bible was inspired by God but written by men, all of whom were pre-scientific people. Why didn't God care to teach us about atoms, cells, and open-heart surgery in the Bible? Because it was meant to be a spiritual guidebook, not a biology book. I guess a good cure for acne would be to sacrifice two doves, or maybe if I want my goats to give birth to speckled offspring I'll mate them by some stripped branches.
We have no evidence for a global flood, but a great deal of evidence for a huge, localized flood around the Black Sea. Does this mean that the Bible is wrong about a global flood? Nope. Let's see why...

^This is what we think of when we think of the world. We know about every continent, ocean, and mountain.

See how much smaller the world was on this medieval Moroccan map?

^This is a modern map for comparison with the medieval map.

^Here's a representation of an ancient Roman map. The world is smaller than the previous map! They did not know about Australia, the Americas, Japan, Southern Africa, etc.

I'm sure the world was still smaller to the ancient peoples when the ancient flood of the Black Sea happened! So the Bible can still be true about the world as the ancient Abrahamic people viewed it but not the literal whole globe!

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you trying to make a point, BS? If so, what is it, please?

 

[Split Rock]

Are you trying to make a point, BS? If so, what is it, please?

The point he is trying to make is that the "world" as the Hebrews who wrote Genesis knew it was much smaller than the "world" we know today.

 

[juvenissun]

No, there isn't, because the crust isn't uniform enough for the existing water to cover the entire surface.


According to what current understanding? From where do we know this? What is the time scale you're talking about? What was the process that caused this increase from 0% to its current 30% land coverage?

I thought it was your goal here to teach?

It sounds like you do not believe what I said. You are not paying me tuition and I could not teach you here as in a classroom. I tell you what I know. You do not take it, then that is it.

Otherwise, ask one answerable question with a decent attitude, so the conversation could be continued.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry about that but in debates about science slick rhetoric and quick wit does not "prove" your point. To back up my points I use evidence. Could I have simplyfied my point? Yes I could have but then I would not have been able to fully explain the facts. Evidence wins the argument in science.

I don't mind you keep doing that. However, it would then no debate.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

It sounds like you do not believe what I said.

Good catch! You've figured out that us scientists don't believe what you say unless what you way is backed with EVIDENCE. SCIENTIFIC evidence.

You are not paying me tuition

Nor would we.

I tell you what I know.

*You tell us what you (wrongly) think.

You do not take it, then that is it.

Is this your method of teaching? If so, please tell me where you 'teach', so that I may never set foot within several tens of miles of there.

Otherwise, ask one answerable question with a decent attitude, so the conversation could be continued.

Nobody here is giving you a bad attitude, you're just unwilling/unable to answer the questions. And if you really can only answer 1 question at a time, you're in the wrong place, bubba.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I don't mind you keep doing that. However, it would then no debate.

 

[juvenissun]

See how much smaller the world was on this medieval Moroccan map?

This is a very interesting map. I don't think you can point out easily where on the map means where it is now.

 

[juvenissun]

The point he is trying to make is that the "world" as the Hebrews who wrote Genesis knew it was much smaller than the "world" we know today.

So, is it possible for them to have an idea about the north pole?
If you think they could, then where would be the most likely place for them to take as the north pole?

 

[juvenissun]

Good catch! You've figured out that us scientists don't believe what you say unless what you way is backed with EVIDENCE. SCIENTIFIC evidence.

Nor would we.

*You tell us what you (wrongly) think.

Is this your method of teaching? If so, please tell me where you 'teach', so that I may never set foot within several tens of miles of there.


Nobody here is giving you a bad attitude, you're just unwilling/unable to answer the questions. And if you really can only answer 1 question at a time, you're in the wrong place, bubba.

Hey, did you ask for reference on the growth of continent before? If you did, why don't you teach Chalnoth a little bit on that?

Are you still in school now? Did you get your BS?

 

[Chalnoth]

It sounds like you do not believe what I said. You are not paying me tuition and I could not teach you here as in a classroom. I tell you what I know. You do not take it, then that is it.

Otherwise, ask one answerable question with a decent attitude, so the conversation could be continued.

I will treat you with respect when you make a post deserving of it. Until you actually engage in a discussion, I have no reason to present you with any respect at all.

After all, your entire method of discussion is horribly dishonest, hypocritical, and vacuous. You are still doing nothing more than presenting bald assertion after bald assertion. You provide no reasoning, no evidence whatsoever. And yet you claim to be "teaching", and you claim that if we "ask nicely" we'll get answers.

You cannot demand respect or decency when you show none yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

If would make more sense if you read it as the south is on the top. At least it would make more sense to the Mediterranean Sea. But it would also make other problems.

 

[BananaSlug]

As you see, "North" is really just a man made waypoint in order for us to navigate. Though Earth does have an axis, the current north star (Polaris) has not always been the north star.

The north and south celestial poles are the two imaginary points in the sky where the Earth'saxis of rotation, "infinitely extended", intersects the imaginary rotating sphere of stars called the celestial sphere. The north and south celestial poles appear directly overhead to an observer at the Earth's North Pole and South Pole respectively.

Due to the precession of the equinoxes the direction of the Earth's axis is very slowly but continuously changing, and as the projection of the Earth's axis moves around the celestial sphere over the millennia, the role of North Star passes from one star to another. Since the precession of the equinoxes is so slow, taking about 26,000 years to complete a cycle, a single star typically holds that title for many centuries.
In 3000 BCE the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star. At magnitude 3.67 (fourth magnitude) it is only one-fifth as bright as Polaris, the current North Star.
Gamma Cephei (also known as Alrai, situated 45 light-years away) will become closer to the northern celestial pole than Polaris around 3000 CE, and be at its closest approach around 4000 CE. The title of North Star then will pass to Iota Cephei (ι Cephei, situated 115 light-years away) some time around 5200 CE. The first magnitude star Vega (26 light-years away) will then become the North Star by 14000 CE.

The "north" star became the "north" star because it made it a lot easier to navigate with a fixed point in the sky. You could just as easily say Antartica is at the north pole since "north" and "south" is all relative.
BTW, I fixed the medieval map for you...

 

[AV1611VET]

The point he is trying to make is that the "world" as the Hebrews who wrote Genesis knew it was much smaller than the "world" we know today.

It wouldn't be "smaller" --- it would be more like "in one piece".

The total landmass would not have been scattered all over the globe prior to Genesis 10.

(Yes --- I know --- the Hebrews didn't exist as yet prior to Genesis 10.)

 

[Split Rock]

It wouldn't be "smaller" --- it would be more like "in one piece".

The total landmass would not have been scattered all over the globe prior to Genesis 10.

(Yes --- I know --- the Hebrews didn't exist as yet prior to Genesis 10.)

1. Genesis 10 says nothing whatsoever about the breakup of Pangea. Obviously the writers knew nothing about Pangea, since they did not live millions of years ago.

2. Regardless of whether or not there was one continent or many during The Flood, the writers of Genesis knew of only a small part of the entire world.

 

[Split Rock]

So, is it possible for them to have an idea about the north pole?
If you think they could, then where would be the most likely place for them to take as the north pole?

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The Hebrews of this time period only knew of a small part of the entire world. This small part was their concept of "the world."

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Genesis 10 says nothing whatsoever about the breakup of Pangea. Obviously the writers knew nothing about Pangea, since they did not live millions of years ago.

I disagree.

2. Regardless of whether or not there was one continent or many during The Flood, the writers of Genesis knew of only a small part of the entire world.

Even though I showed how that, in my [pet] opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey?

 

[Split Rock]

I disagree.

Based on what? Faulty "science" made up by incompetent, God-hating "scientists?"

Even though I showed how that, in my [pet] opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey?

When did you show that? I must have missed it.