New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[TLK Valentine]

And wait a minute.

God created a water shield to protect Earth from the Sun... that he himself created.


What?

It would appear the the creationists' god is not big on foresight.

 

[nuttypiglet]

There are other ways to prove things besides "you was there".

rarely. You see, you need witnesses otherwise its circumstantial and simply interpretation.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes, and it doesn't talk about "evil genes".

No, that's something 'you' keep quoting for some reason, but please explain what the book of Enoch does say.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Those people are idiots. There's absolutely no reason to think there was ever a water canopy above the Earth, and a myriad of reasons to think there wasn't.



God doesn't need to cause rain. Rain happens because of the properties of water. It couldn't not rain, unless God stopped it for some strange reason.

Stopped it? there's the interpretation again. Perhaps it wasn't a natural thing YET. Not being stopped, but not a natural thing. We know that the oxygen concentration was higher, but what if air pressure was also different.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Those people are idiots. There's absolutely no reason to think there was ever a water canopy above the Earth, and a myriad of reasons to think there wasn't.



God doesn't need to cause rain. Rain happens because of the properties of water. It couldn't not rain, unless God stopped it for some strange reason.

I see. So rain occurs due to the properties of water eh? there aren't other factors invoved? oh my.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Stopped it? there's the interpretation again. Perhaps it wasn't a natural thing YET. Not being stopped, but not a natural thing. We know that the oxygen concentration was higher, but what if air pressure was also different.

You can't think of any reasons why no rain would be a problem then?

 

[lasthero]

Stopped it? there's the interpretation again. Perhaps it wasn't a natural thing YET. Not being stopped, but not a natural thing. We know that the oxygen concentration was higher, but what if air pressure was also different.

Neither of those things would effect water in such a way that evaporation would stop. If you feel the would, demonstrate so instead of asserting it as fact without evidence.

 

[lasthero]

I see. So rain occurs due to the properties of water eh? there aren't other factors invoved?

Did I say that? No.

 

[lasthero]

rarely. You see, you need witnesses otherwise its circumstantial and simply interpretation.

Really?

Eye witnesses are not nearly as reliable as you seem to think they are. They make mistakes all the time. They can have conflicting reports. They can lie. Translations can be misunderstood. And an eyewitness can be circumstantial, depending on how they viewed the event in question.

People are convicted without eyewitness testimony all the time. The idea that you can't draw a conclusion unless someone was there to witness an event firsthand has got to be one of the most ridiculous notions creationists ever peddled.

 

[morningstar2651]

It would appear the the creationists' god is not big on foresight.

Wouldn't that be an example of unintelligent design?

 

[EternalDragon]

Really?

Eye witnesses are not nearly as reliable as you seem to think they are. They make mistakes all the time. They can have conflicting reports. They can lie. Translations can be misunderstood. And an eyewitness can be circumstantial, depending on how they viewed the event in question.

People are convicted without eyewitness testimony all the time. The idea that you can't draw a conclusion unless someone was there to witness an event firsthand has got to be one of the most ridiculous notions creationists ever peddled.

Did you flunk history class? What are your views of say Greek history or Roman history or Assyrian history? If you reject the biblical historical records then you must also reject all historical records. The Bible is the most accurate of all of them.

 

[lasthero]

What are your views of say Greek history or Roman history or Assyrian history?

Which specific parts?

If you reject the biblical historical records then you must also reject all historical records.

That's a ridiculous claim. There are things in the Bible that have been verified, and there are things that haven't. That I have to accept everything in the Bible just because some things are true is a silly notion.

The Bible is the most accurate of all of them.

Please demonstrate that the Bible is the most accurate historical record.

 

[EternalDragon]

Which specific parts?

All of it. Do you reject history or not?

That's a ridiculous claim. There are things in the Bible that have been verified, and there are things that haven't. That I have to accept everything in the Bible just because some things are true is a silly notion.

So you accept some Biblical writings as true history then? How about every book that claims it is truth from God and not from men?

Please demonstrate that the Bible is the most accurate historical record.

I'm not going to go jumping through the hoops for people anymore. The info is out there. If you are sincerely searching for answers they can be found easily enough with google. Ancient copies of the Bible we have today exist and match nearly 100%. Science has also shown the bible to be extremely accurate in historical data.

 

[Loudmouth]

All of it. Do you reject history or not?

Where did you demonstrate that it is history?

So you accept some Biblical writings as true history then? How about every book that claims it is truth from God and not from men?

You mean those books that are written by men?

I'm not going to go jumping through the hoops for people anymore. The info is out there. If you are sincerely searching for answers they can be found easily enough with google. Ancient copies of the Bible we have today exist and match nearly 100%. Science has also shown the bible to be extremely accurate in historical data.

Science has shown that the Earth is old, there was no recent global flood, and that species evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[lasthero]

All of it. Do you reject history or not?

You really should be specific. Not everything about the history of those civilizations is completely settled.

So you accept some Biblical writings as true history then?

Within reason, yes. Certain things depicted in the Bible did happen, and have been verified as such. The question is whether there was supernatural agency involved. I can accept that there was a King David - or someone like him, at least - without accepting that he had a deathmatch with a giant, the same way I can accept George Washington existed without accepting that he chopped down a cherry tree or that he had wooden dentures.

I'm not going to go jumping through the hoops for people anymore.

When have you ever jumped through any hoops? At best, what you do is copy stuff you find from creationist websites or through a lazy Google search. As if you actually put any real effort into any of the arguments you make.

 

[Doveaman]

No, he doesn't. A blind person can check all of the workings of the apparatus and verify for themselves that it would detect a sun if there really was one. This is true of ALL scientific equipment.

Rubbish.

The blind man has to rely on the manufactured apparatus you provide and on the operations manual you provide, and follow the rules you provide.

Your apparatus, your rules, your method of interpreting the results, and your trustworthiness. The blind man has to put his faith in you and your methods.

No Please cite these measureable effects,

The universe.

and show that they were caused by God.

How would you show the blind man that the photons are caused by the sun?

Because the telescope records photons when pointed at the Sun.

The blind man doesn’t know what you are pointing at. All he knows is that there is something called photons affecting the telescope. He doesn't know the cause of the photons.

You have never seen a radiowave, and yet you can use scientific experiments that are testable, repeatable, and verifiable to detect radiowaves.

Radiowaves, like photons, exist right here on earth and can be easily verified to exist. The sun does not.

There is no reason why pixels on the screen can not be made for touch instead of sight.

The pixels are caused by the effects (photons) of the sun.

How do you demonstrate to the blind man that the sun is the cause of those photons?

How do I demonstrate to a blind atheist that the Son is the cause of the universe?

Do you know what sight is? Sight is the effect of photons striking your retina.

Blind people have retinas. If it was that simple, everyone with retinas would be able to see, even blind people.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you flunk history class? What are your views of say Greek history or Roman history or Assyrian history? If you reject the biblical historical records then you must also reject all historical records. The Bible is the most accurate of all of them.

Look up historical method (on your own) and you can educate yourself on how historians determine what can be verified as "historical" or not.

 

[EternalDragon]

You really should be specific. Not everything about the history of those civilizations is completely settled.

So what is real history and what is not and are you sure about it?

Within reason, yes. Certain things depicted in the Bible did happen, and have been verified as such. The question is whether there was supernatural agency involved. I can accept that there was a King David - or someone like him, at least - without accepting that he had a deathmatch with a giant, the same way I can accept George Washington existed without accepting that he chopped down a cherry tree or that he had wooden dentures.

You are free to accept whatever you like. But it has nothing to do with biblical truth.

When have you ever jumped through any hoops? At best, what you do is copy stuff you find from creationist websites or through a lazy Google search. As if you actually put any real effort into any of the arguments you make.

I really don't recall posting much from creationist sites. Every unbeliever asks for evidence as if they have to see things face to face to believe them yet they believe things they can't see face to face. They ask for citations. We give it then you complain about the citations.

If I am lazy then stop asking me for the evidence or for citations. In my opinion it is just another excuse not to accept God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rubbish.

The blind man has to rely on the manufactured apparatus you provide and on the operations manual you provide, and follow the rules you provide.

Why would the blind man be forced to do so? Why couldn't the blind man determine for himself if I gave him the proper rules and if the apparatus is operating correctly?

[qutoe]Your apparatus, your rules, your method of interpreting the results, and your trustworthiness. The blind man has to put his faith in you and your methods.[/quote]

No, he doesn't.

The universe.

Please show evidence that the universe is being affected by God.

How would you show the blind man that the photons are caused by the sun?

The same way that we show sighted people that the Sun produces photons with wavelengths outside our very narrow range of vision.

The blind man doesn’t know what you are pointing at.

He knows as well as we do. The telescope is pointing towards a very strong producer of photons.

All he knows is that there is something called photons affecting the telescope. He doesn't know the cause of the photons.

We didn't know the cause of photons for thousands of years even though we were sighted. It took instruments that went beyond our ability to see in order to figure out that mystery.

Radiowaves, like photons, exist right here on earth and can be easily verified to exist. The sun does not.
The pixels are caused by the effects (photons) of the sun.

Radiowaves ARE photons, and the photons from the sun exist right here on Earth.

How do you demonstrate to the blind man that the sun is the cause of those photons?

The same way you would prove it to a sighted person.

How do I demonstrate to a blind atheist that the Son is the cause of the universe?

By presenting empirical evidence. Where is it?

Blind people have retinas. If it was that simple, everyone with retinas would be able to see, even blind people.

They don't have retinas that work. Are you really this dense?

 

[lasthero]

So what is real history and what is not and are you sure about it?

Again, be specific. Which parts are you talking about?

You are free to accept whatever you like. But it has nothing to do with biblical truth.

I never said it did.

I really don't recall posting much from creationist sites.

Oh, yes you have. EvolutionNews might not refer to itself as such, but excrement by another name is just as pungent.

They ask for citations. We give it then you complain about the citations.

Not all citations are created equal.

If I am lazy then stop asking me for the evidence or for citations.

Excuse me for asking you to support your claims. Please, continue pulling things from your digestive tract. And be sure to wash your hands when you're done.