Question about the flood

AV1611VET said:

Deuteronomy 34:8 And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

Click to expand...

I stand by what I said and you didn't even try/attempt to argue otherwise.

joshua 1 9 said:

Science is not based on opinion, it is based on what can be tested and observed.

Click to expand...

Idd. And what is tested and observed, concludes evolution. Not some mysterious religious creation myth.

DogmaHunter said:

I stand by what I said and you didn't even try/attempt to argue otherwise.

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

There's what's called "godly sorrow."

GatodeQ said:

And yes, you did provide reasons why, but my question really was : Why not just re-create them after the flood?

Click to expand...

God finished His creation on Day 6. He created everything by that time and will NOT create anything thereafter. What God said, it will not change and should not change.

juvenissun said:

God finished His creation on Day 6. He created everything by that time and will NOT create anything thereafter. What God said, it will not change and should not change.

Click to expand...

God WILL finish His creation of the perfect Heaven at the end of the present 6th Day. We live today at Gen 1:27 since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ, Spiritually. We will advance to the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 when Jesus returns. God Bless you

Jason0047 said:

I do not believe in a Flat Earth. But I do not believe in taking in flu shots just because everyone else does it. I remember one guy at work got really really sick after he received his flu shot. Now, if there is a deadly virus around that is killing people on an island, I am not opposed to taking a shot if I know it could save my life. It depends on the situation of exposure to such things.

See this article here:
10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!

Click to expand...

What rubbish. Apart from the first cherry-picked data point (which even then, is debatable), everything else on this list is unsubstantiated. This page and every other page it references are dangerously scaremongering and ought to be made responsible for the deaths and disease they cause as a result.

So, hopefully you can be big enough to learn from the following, This is how *evidence* is provided (anecdotal stories as found in your link are next to useless in hard science...) - Here's a peer-reviewed research paper on the Actual effectiveness of the influenza using actual records from the Ontario residents health record statistics - Effectiveness of Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-Associated Deaths and Hospitalizations among Ontario Residents Aged ≥65 Years: Estimates with Generalized Linear Models Accounting for Healthy Vaccinee Effects - and here's an extract of data from that same study for reference: - please note the last two lines in this dataset (2007/2008 figures and average figures respectively) which show for approximately 50% vaccination rates, the figures for "all causes deaths", "30 day pneumonia/influenza deaths" and "pneumonia/influenza hospitalizations" rates for both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. You'll notice that the statistical columns for each of the vaccinated/unvaccinated records are raw counts and are supported by the second column labelled "Influenza Vaccinations (%)" in raw numbers and as a percentage of the statistically significant population count.

Here is what the dataset from this table indicates, feel free to ask questions - Unvaccinated patients were 33% more likely to be hospitalized with pneumonia/influenza complications. Unvaccinated patients were also found to be 48% more likely for a 30 day pneumonia/influenza death, and finally, Unvaccinated patients were found to be 73% more likely to die outright.

This is real-world records for Ontario Residents less than or equal to 65 years of age. These are a matter of public record if you'd like to go source your own dataset and collate your results.

So you are demonstrably at higher risk of death and/or hospitalization with your anti-vaccination point of view. now That's how to do Evidence.

Jason0047 said:

No you wouldn't. Otherwise you would be a believer by now. Remember, there are atheists who were die hard in believing in Atheism and Evolutionism; Yet, Jesus Christ changed their lives.

Click to expand...

So, you're going to be so presumptuous as to tell me what I think? You're just plain Wrong. In what nonsense imaginary universe would someone who knows that God, heaven and hell are real, then deny such an all-knowing being and eternity?? It just doesn't make sense! In fact, it's equivalent to declaring that "gravity isn't real" and stepping off the top of a skyscraper. I bet you wouldn't do it...

And about your anecdotal stories of atheists converting to Christianity, atheists have converted to any number of other religions as well - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Then of course, you have the reverse - the fastest growing demographic in the US now, those converting from religion of one sort or another (mainly Christianity) to no religion at all (i.e. the "Nones"). In fact, here's a Pew Research report on this very phenomenon: A closer look at America’s rapidly growing religious ‘nones’ - somewhat less anecdotal than your fanciful stories...

Jason0047 said:

Macro- Evolutionism is not Scientific Progress but it is a fairy tale whereby folks are chasing their own tail or the wind.

Click to expand...

So, no evidence to refute ERVs? What about transitional fossils of such things as Tiktaalik Rosae, Archaeopteryx, and Australopithecus afarensis? How about the literal fact that life is seen throughout the geological column in order that matches the phylogenetic tree of life derived separately - incidentally the same phylogenetic tree that was exactly matched by the dna genotyping when we finally got this ability too.

Jason0047 said:

God finished the creation on Day 6. It is not a lack of power but one of His own divine choice. Why?
Because of faith. God wants us to have faith in Him. Not an unreasonable faith; For the creation declares His glory whereby man is without excuse of His existence.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, the Universe's Ultimate Hide & Seek Champion wants a personal relationship with me... If I have to talk myself into a position of confirmation bias before I can see evidence for his existence, then there's something wrong with this picture. Faith is the worst way imaginable to come by the truth. By faith, anyone can come to believe in any religion, not just yours. This is borne out in the fact that there are so many religions out there besides the abrahamic religions all enjoying exactly the same faith based justification, and so many versions of your own religion as well, all professing 100% conviction that their particular version is the one true way, often at the behest of even other flavours of the same religion.

Jason0047 said:

See these Mathematical prophecies at these links here:

Mathematical Bible Prophecy
Mathematical Bible Prophecy

Then there is the hundreds of Messianic Prophecies that have been fulfilled:

AccordingtotheScriptures.org :: 353 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ

Then there are the Typifications of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (Which are in the hundreds for the Life Story of Joseph in Genesis) and then there is the Pre-Incarnate Appearances of Jesus in the Old Testament, too.

The Dead Sea Scrolls discovery shows us the accuracy of these prophecies; So nobody can say that they wrote down these prophecies later on (after the fact).

Click to expand...

So, Nowhere in the first mathematical bible prophecy link does any version of Daniel 9:24-26 mention years. Keep in mind the Bible does mention years elsewhere, so to decide all of a sudden that the writers meant "Years" instead of "Weeks" is just confirmation bias of the highest order.

On the second mathematical prophecy, apart from the fact that this affirms the Jewish religion and not the Christian religion, the fact that this numerology exercise has to be interpreted post-fact, and only after deciphering an extensive array of alternative calculations not plainly obvious is again an exercise in extreme confirmation bias. A prophecy shouldn't require such complex deciphering to fit the facts, it should be plainly obvious and give us an anchor point to verify its veracity on the face of it. Of All the biblical writings, how is it that your numerology only has these two very mediocre examples? I'm sure I've seen better numerology exercises than these two examples...

Then Finally, the "accordingtotheScriptures.org link - these alleged "prophecies" are the joke of a lifetime. I started out to see what these "prophecies" were....

This list starts out with a table of thre columns, 1=Scripture, 2=Prophecy and 3=Fulfillment. This is Good, the first row referenced Scripture is Genesis 3:15 and understanding what this says will help with the next two "Prophecies" in this list too - From my plain reading of all the versions I could find at Genesis 3:15 - Bible Gateway , God is dressing down the Serpent in the Garden of Eden here - essentially God tells the Serpent that going forward, there will be open hostility between her ( & her descendants ) and the Serpent (& his descendants), Adam (& his descendants) will stomp on his head & the Serpent will strike at his heels.... or something to that effect... So, let's see how profound the "Prophecies" are then?

#1 - Prophecy is "Seed of a Woman (Virgin Birth)".... umm, what? How is this in any way related to God cursing the Serpent to be hated by the decendants of Adam and Eve?? Anyway, the Fulfillment is Galatians 4:4-5. so Paul is writing to other Christians about an event he has no first hand experience of. Matthew 1:18 is the claim that Jesus was an immaculate conception. Interestingly of course, Luke 3 and Matthew 1 give very different Genealogies for Joseph specifically. Anyway, this doesn't match anything with anything! FAIL!

#2 - This Prophecy is "He will Bruise Satan's Head" - Well, at least this one has something to do with the actual reading (as I see it anyway) of Genesis 3:15. - so the Fulfillment is Hebrews 2:14 and 1John 3:8, let's see now.... Hebrews 2:14 is talking about how by accepting Jesus as your Savior, one "might destroy him that had the power of death - that is, the Devil". well, that's nice, if you believe he exists... If by talking to any Christian today, the Devil is very much alive and kicking, apparently overtaking this World and all the sould in it, bringing about the Rapture any day now... Then, 1John 3:8 talks about how Jesus was brought about to again destroy the work of the devil. Jesus has since left this World to go sit by the Lord's side in Heaven, so No bruising is going on here, nobody gets to stand on the Serpent's head and subsequently no destroying the Devil, nor his Plans - nor is there any striking at heels, or similar. I guess if you take Genesis 3:15 as an allegorical quip, then you could turn it into any kind of defeat of the Devil or his 'work" that you fancy, but both these verses attributed as "fulfilling" this supposed "prophecy" aren't even that - they both just talk about how it "might" foil the Devil and his Plans.... another very average happenstance being claimed as "Fulfilled Prophecy" in the most average of circumstance to be honest...

#3 - another Prophecy claim is "Christ's heel would be bruised with nails on the cross" - Genesis 3:15 makes no mention of Christ... but I digress - let's see if it matches the Fulfillment: So, Matthew 27:35 and Luke 24:39-40 are given - Matthew 27:35 is literally talking about parting out Jesus' garments on his crucifixion, nothing about his heels are mentioned at all. Luke 24:39-40 is of course one of the several versions of how Jesus revealed himself to the living after he rose from the dead, this one proudly showing off his crucifixion wounds.... but no bruised heels though.

So, That's Three fails out of three I've looked into. This list is a very ordinary and even more so vague list of "prophecies" that aren't even extroardinary in any way, even if they were fulfilled... and they aren't in my humble opinion - perhaps you could go through this list and pick the best 10 alleged "Prophecies" you think best presents your hypothesis and I'll look into them more thoroughly, because I'm not doing this 350 more times...

Jason0047 said:

A lack of a sacrifice and or blood would undermine the weight of a person's sins and it would not resolve justice. It would not give anyone a real gravity or weight of their own sin if they knew no consequences were attached to them in the world. The sacrifice of an innocent is the balance that makes us to reconsider our evil ways. Also, take for example: When a loving father pushes his son out of the way of a moving car whereby he gets hit is considered a great act of love. A person who is willing to lay down his life for another out of love is considered one of the highest forms of love that there is. A person who is self sacrificing in service to their wife is considered devoted and loving. The Bible says the life of the flesh is in the blood. So it makes sense that if life is to be granted, that blood would have to be involved. A consequence would have to be involved for sin which brings death. God wants to show us that there are serious consequences to our wrong actions. Sin brings death; So only life (the life of the flesh in blood) can have any true hope of cleansing sin (Which brings death). Many believers today are still moved by the love of God of His sending His only Son to be a sacrifice for us to die in our place. But this was not a permanent sacrifice where the Son stayed dead. The Son had risen from the grave and lives today. Death is not the end for those who are of God's Kingdom.

Click to expand...

God created all the rules by which "Sin" (not something I accept to be a thing btw) is a problem requiring this "blood sacrifice" to be absolved of. Your loving father examples are a complete non-sequitir to the issue I brought up - unless you changed it to read "When a loving father puts his son in harms way of a moving car so he can push his son out of the way whereby he gets hit is considered a great act of love.", then you might be closer to the mark - but seriously, only a psychopath would deliberately put their son in harms way so they can save them from it...

Jason0047 said:

The Bible does not specifically say. But there are many possibilties that can easily resolve this. God could have put the carnivores in a deep sleep; Or the carnivores that we have come to know of today ate vegetation until after the global flood. Genesis 1:30 is suggestive that all animals ate only plants.

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." (Genesis 1:30).

After the Global Flood, God told man that he could hunt the animals for food.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:3-4).

So it is very possible that when man was commanded to eat of the animals, that the animals themselves also were given the same allowance by God. For man was supposed to have dominion and rule over the animals (Genesis 1:26).

Click to expand...

Okay, so Magic is the answer to all these mysteries that are impossible to satisfy with naturalistic means? Then I can safely discard all of that as nonsense. It has no place here in the Science Forums, and it doesn't in any way help bring about a better understanding of Christianity to non-believers & believers of other religions.... unless of course they believe Magic is a thing too...

Jason0047 said:

With God all things are possible. God can do miracles. So God simply could have made the animals to be comforted or God have brought food from angels for them. For in Exodus, God brought manna (bread) down from Heaven for the Israelites (See Exodus 16). It is not impossible for God to bring food down from Heaven for the animals if it was absolutely necessary. But I do not think it was needed. I think there was enough room on the Ark for both the food and the animals. But if you think there might have not been enough room for the food, this is not a problem for God who can make miracles to happen.

Click to expand...

Miracles (continued) - a very unscientific way to cover your bases. Me personally, I'd rather believe in Harry Potter and his Magic if I was to accept Magic as a valid explanation of anything. He has morals, and it'd be possible to meet him in real life at least.

Jason0047 said:

Not at all. You are living in a Scientific World without God. But with God all things are possible.

Click to expand...

Harry Potter makes everything possible too, have you seen what he can do? This is nonsense, and none of the evidence we find supports this, and in fact there's plenty of evidence that contradicts this idea.

Jason0047 said:

The church under the New Covenant or New Testament was given no major commands from God in regards to owning slaves like the nation of Israel was given. Also, there was no mistreatment of any slaves, either; The slaves also had the choice to be set free on the seventh year of Jubilee. The mistreatment of slaves is condemned in Scripture; And the Bible forbids forcing somebody who is free to be your slave. So you do not know what you are talking about. You are like most atheists who have a slanted view of what the Bible actually says.

Click to expand...

You're deluded and if you do believe this, then you've again convinced yourself of the idea in spite of the evidence contrary. Only Hebrew Men were to be let go after 7 years, and even then you could still trick them into becoming life-long slaves if you could marry them off and he didn't want to leave his wife & any children they had together during his enslavement with you. Hebrew Women and any other slaves bought from the heathen nations around you were heritable pieces of property you could will to your own kids, you could beat them so long as they got up after a day or two, etc. Also, your fellow Hebrew man servants weren't to be treated like regular slaves, you had to treat them like hired hands and not rule them with rigor, but fear thy God... whatever that's supposed to mean in that context. It certainly doesn't support your mental gymnastics on this point.

Jason0047 said:

The church is not the same as the nation of Israel. Believers today are not under the Old Covenant but the New Covenant whereby they are commanded to pray, do good, and to love their enemies.

If you want to get a little more perspective of what is going on in the Law of a rebellious son being potentially stoned, please read this article here.

Also, you have to take note that this was not an adolescent child but a young adult who was cancerous to the community as a whole and to the family. This was also not a one time act of rebellion but a continual rebellious son who refused any correction who was more often times was a drunk, etc. What loving parent would want to harm their own child? So the stoning of a child was no doubt a last resort for any family if they found that their son's behavior was seriously harming others that were innocent. But if you want to take the moral high ground on this one, then why does the atheistic world believe in murdering babies inside a mother's womb when they are innocent?

Click to expand...

Where does the bible say the New covenant does away with the Old? Where do you get the Ten Commandments from? or Have you done away with them too?

In any case, Matthew 5:17-20 are in stark disagreement to you - Jesus specifically said these Hebrew laws would be upheld until Heaven and Earth pass away - I may not believe a Heaven exists, but I'm quite certain Earth is still here, and his statement said that both had to be gone before you could disregard even the least of these laws... Luke 16:16-17 also disagree with you, your position according to your own Scripture is completely against you here.

I read your article, along with the footnotes provided, but it doesn't make any mention of an unruly child being an adolescent, or otherwise not a child, nor does it say anything about how parents loved their child so much that they wouldn't use this supposedly "redundant" law that God still thought relevant enough to codify in writing for everyone. Surely an unruly child destructive to society would fall under all the other laws of the time, and wouldn't need a specific law enabling their parents to condemn their child at their behest? As for Abortion, this is a topic deserving of its own discussion, but suffice to say most people who support abortion tend to really support the right of the woman to choose to succumb to a pregnancy or not, irrespective of the apparently "atheistic" societies you wish to pin it on. Ironically, it tends to be Christian societies that partake in abortions the most, and moreso especially, the Christian societies that go out of their way to not impart an appropriate sex education to their teens at school. There are so many variables to consider in such a scenario, whether socio-economic, or health, religious ideology & standing, or really, any other reason a woman might choose to be honest - but this is an aside, I'm not sure I have a position on Abortion, either pro or not in the first trimester or so of a pregnancy, so your question is a non-starter for me and quite frankly, irrelevant to old testament law decreed by God. Maybe you should take this matter up with your elected representative(??)

Lastly, about 70% to 75% of total pregnancies auto-abort without any intervention from the mother in any way What Do Miscarriage Statistics Really Mean? , so if your Scripture is correct in that God planned this entire universe and everything in it, then your God is the biggest abortionist of all. I bet you go all "Special Pleading" on that point now...

Jason0047 said:

There is no such things as Atheist morals. Morals in the world of Atheism is all subjective to the individual. There is no general consensus to what is good and right. In God's Kingdom, God makes the law that is to be the general consensus. Atheists believe they come from the slime. So if they thought they just evolved by the process of natural selection or the survival of the fittest, one can do anything they wanted and it would not really matter.

Click to expand...

LOL! I'll hazard a guess that I have better morals than you, I'm happy to discuss of course & see if you can convince us. To kick things off, here's how I derive my base moral framework. To borrow what Matt Dillahunty quite eloquently posited, I define what is moral as something that promotes happiness, health, and/or wellbeing in humans, then animals, etc. So, regardless if this is something you agree with or not, I have my base framework with which I make objective assessments of moral behaviour. So, I can almost universally decide on this alone what is moral and what is not.

Now, let's say your God tells you to sacrifice your first born like Abraham or Jeptha (with his Daughter) - in fact, let's assume we both somehow get the same message - I of course don't believe in God, so let's just say I heard a "voice in my head" instead. So, the questions I have for you -

1) How would this play out with your allegedly superior "Objective Moral Standard"?
2) Can you tell me how it goes with my allegedly non-existent "Subjective Moral Standard"?
2.b) Extra Points if you care to explain how you answered question 2) according to my proposed moral framework

Jason0047 said:

Yes, I think Ron Wyatt is a fraud. But as I said before, even a blind squirrel can get lucky and find a nut. I believe the discovery of the Red Sea crossing (at the gulf of Aqaba) and Mt. Sina (i.e. Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia nearby) are significant and eye opening discoveries. You can't fake geography. The locations fit the biblical account to a "T." But I know this is not enough to excite you in any way because you have the mind set of rejecting any evidence that comes from the Bible (no matter how good it is).

Click to expand...

But hang on a sec, there's NO Evidence from Ron Wyatt on ANYTHING he apparently discovered - he literally just wrote everything down asserting he discovered things like the writers of the bible wrote everything down - this just isn't how facts are determined, otherwise we could just as easily get the same verifications that Muslims tout as showing the truth of the Quran over the Bible - Miracle of the Quran - WikiAhmadiyya, Islam & Ahmadiyya encyclopedia free online

Jason0047 said:

Well, there are many great Biblical evidences that back up the Bible. Such as...

The hidden code in the Hebrew Scriptures:



Then there is Biblical Numerics.

This is not looking to divine the future from numbers like Pagan Numerology or treating numbers as if they should rule your life or anything silly like that. The purpose of Biblical Numerics is to merely show us that God's Word is divine. For just looking at the meaning of the numbers in the Bible based on how they are used repeatedly show us a specific meaning (glorifying His Word). For example, Christ was in the wilderness 40 days and 40 nights. This was like a trial. Noah was also in a trial, too. He was in the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights. In other words, the number 40 in the Bible is simply telling us that it relates to a trial or testing.

Anyways, please check out this video here on the amazing occurences on the number 8 in the King James Bible.



Watch the video until the very end. it has information taken from the Bible itself that will blow your mind (Especially towards the end of the video).

Also, here is a great video on the number 7 in the Greek language by Chuck Missler, as well.



Also, what is fascinating is that it is 49 letter intervals that is used in discovering this Hebrew Torah message (That Chuck Missler talks about in his video that I shown above) that glorifies God in the Torah; And yet we coincidentally see this 49 letter intervals again with another interesting fact revealed that glorifies the Lord again within the Scriptures.

What am I talking about?

A short genealogy of David in Genesis 38.


online uploader

Talk about God glorifying His own Word!!!

Click to expand...

I'll get back to you after I have time to watch the videos - but on all this numerology that isn't numerology business, I'm a little confused - What is special about the number 49, is it significant in any way? I ask, because of all the apparently significant numbers in the Bible, 49 doesn't even make the top ten. http://listverse.com/2012/09/20/top-10-significant-numbers-in-biblical-numerology/ Also, the term 40 days and 40 nights, wasn't that how writers of the time said "a Very long and/or unspecifiied amount of time"? The Biblical Expression “40 Days and 40 Nights” Just Means a “Really Long Time” - sorry, I don't see what your fuss is about, perhaps you could explain it to me?

Talk about God working in mysterious ways...

Jason0047 said:

It is more like a lack of evidence that makes Evolution hard to believe. If it was true, then we should see tons of transitional fossils of many animals everywhere. We should see half giraffe half something else bones all over, but we don't. We should see animals even slowly evolving into other species today, but we don't see this. What you got are pretty little pictures showing Evolution of animals and bones in a museum saying that such a thing happened. That's it. That's all you got. A theory that does not have any real weight or evidence to it. Change in variations within a species own kind (Micro-Evolution) is not proof of Macro Evolution (i.e. a particular kind of animal changing into a completely different animal like a fish turning into a reptile or a reptile turning into a bird or a monkey turning into a man).

Click to expand...

So, really, it's just your ignorance of the subject that's at issue here, not that there's any scientific dissent at all, right?
I'm sure plenty of posters here have already pointed this out to you, but far be it for me to rest on my laurels - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent - pick something out of this list and let's discuss it. Perhaps you could learn something in the process...?

Oscarr said:

I downloaded a 400 page document from a number of respected scientists who went to great lengths to show that evolution is a load of trollop. Unless your fingers are broken and cannot use a keyboard, you can look up the link on Google for yourself.

Click to expand...

Still waiting patiently for the link to this 400 page document...

Bugeyedcreepy said:

Still waiting patiently for the link to this 400 page document...

Click to expand...

I see... Your computer doesn't have Google on it. Actually I can't be bothered trying to counter the delusion of evolution seeing that it is a deliberate delusion placed in the hearts of those who refused to accept the gospel of Christ. It doesn't matter if you did get the 400 page document and read what it contains, because you wouldn't believe it anyway, so I decided not to waste my time.

Oscarr said:

I see... Your computer doesn't have Google on it. Actually I can't be bothered trying to counter the delusion of evolution seeing that it is a deliberate delusion placed in the hearts of those who refused to accept the gospel of Christ. It doesn't matter if you did get the 400 page document and read what it contains, because you wouldn't believe it anyway, so I decided not to waste my time.

Click to expand...

Your claim was rather vague. And since evolution has never been refuted it makes your source rather difficult to find.

And by the way calling the theory a "deliberate delusion" And claiming that other "refuse to accept the gospel of Christ" is breaking the Ninth Commandment. They are claims that you cannot substantiate against others. It does not matter if you believe them to be true or not. The Ninth Commandment covers more than just mere lying.

GatodeQ said:

What was the purpose of saving the animals?

Click to expand...

Ostensibly it's about God starting over. Preserving just enough to start over with.

-CryptoLutheran

Oscarr said:

I see... Your computer doesn't have Google on it. Actually I can't be bothered trying to counter the delusion of evolution seeing that it is a deliberate delusion placed in the hearts of those who refused to accept the gospel of Christ. It doesn't matter if you did get the 400 page document and read what it contains, because you wouldn't believe it anyway, so I decided not to waste my time.

Click to expand...

~ -=| Or |=-~ .... It could just be that you were telling porkie pies? I'm going to throw down with that.

Yep, That's right, I'm calling you out on it.

Edit: I meant to ask though - you obviously don't mean this trolling document from Discovery.org, right? http://www.discovery.org/f/660 - because that's only 23 pages long and has been thoroughly discredited in a number of places, but rationalwiki has an excellent dissertation of all the names listed against this document with the actual background of their real contributions (if any) in their appropriate fields of <ahem> interest. It is comprehensive, so go take a look and see how underwhelming these signatories are in this field of Science: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - RationalWiki

Also, there's Project Steve - where *Actual* researchers in *Actual* sciences related to Evolution only named Steve, or Stephanie and their language/locale specific derivatives have signed a tongue-in-cheek counter petition affirming Evolution as the best (only??) explanation for the diversity of life on this planet... Project Steve | NCSE

If you'd like to go straight to "Meeting the Steves", hit this link - List of Steves | NCSE - which, as of this posting, has 1417 Steve Signatures! That's more than twice what Discovery.org's *Entire List* of Everyone vaguely associated with a university degree from all over the world mustered to sign theirs...

DogmaHunter said:

Idd. And what is tested and observed, concludes evolution. Not some mysterious religious creation myth.

Click to expand...

There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science. The problem is with the traditions of man and science helps us to understand the teaching we find in our Bible.

Mark 7 "7 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ 8 You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” 9 He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition.…"

joshua 1 9 said:

There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science. The problem is with the traditions of man and science helps us to understand the teaching we find in our Bible.

Mark 7 "7 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ 8 You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” 9 He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition.…"

Click to expand...

So the Bible tells us that there was no worldwide flood? The scientific evidence is quite clear on that topic.

Subduction Zone said:

So the Bible tells us that there was no worldwide flood?

Click to expand...

Correct, the Bible does not use the word: "worldwide" (ertos הארץ) The word used is Adam-ah. Adams world was flood: a bio diverse eco system, not the whole world or biosphere. This is something I have studied for over 50 years now. World wide there are many Edens on land and in the Ocean.

joshua 1 9 said:

Correct, the Bible does not use the word: "worldwide" (ertos הארץ) The word used is Adam-ah. Adams world was flood: a bio diverse eco system, not the whole world or biosphere. This is something I have studied for over 50 years now. World wide there are many Edens on land and in the Ocean.

Click to expand...

The problem with a local flood is that it makes the gathering of all animals pointless. That is just one problem of course. A local flood would not have killed off man. All you do when you reinterpret the Bible is to give yourself new problems.

Subduction Zone said:

The problem with a local flood is that it makes the gathering of all animals pointless. That is just one problem of course. A local flood would not have killed off man. All you do when you reinterpret the Bible is to give yourself new problems.

Click to expand...

All true discovery creates more questions then answers.

joshua 1 9 said:

All true discovery creates more questions then answers.

Click to expand...

You have not made any true discoveries. All you have are one failed ad hoc argument after another.

joshua 1 9 said:

There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science.

Click to expand...

That's obviously false.

The problem is with the traditions of man and science helps us to understand the teaching we find in our Bible.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It does the opposite, if anything.

DogmaHunter said:

That's obviously false.

Click to expand...

Wonderful, if this is so obvious then show me a contradiction. You have already tried and every single time you have failed.

Subduction Zone said:

All you have are one failed ad hoc argument after another.

Click to expand...

"i know what you are but what am i"