Thin layer of silt proves flood

That means you are claiming that God can and does lie. That raises huge theological problems. If he lied about the Flood why believe him about heaven etc.?

Subduction Zone said:

Perhaps you should have looked at your earlier claim since the source that you did not quote from did not support your claim. And your post is highly misleading. The unsupported quote that you used did not come from your link. That almost makes it look as if you were trying to lie.

Click to expand...

The whole line of argument is weird. The theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy to deny the existence of God because Hitler approved of the Prophet Mohammed who was a pedophile?

Speedwell said:

The whole line of argument is weird. The theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy to deny the existence of God because Hitler approved of the Prophet Mohammed who was a pedophile?

Click to expand...

This is why creationism is such a lost cause. Invariably they all wind up in wacky conspiracy theory land.

durangodawood said:

All this talk of "evidence" is worthless.

God could have just made a global flood, and then fixed things to look like there wasnt a global flood.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but that approach has its own problems. However it first requires admitting that the physical evidence disproves a global flood.

Strathos said:

Well yes, but that approach has its own problems. However it first requires admitting that the physical evidence disproves a global flood.

Click to expand...

Solves a lot more problems than it creates tho. Net progress!

durangodawood said:

Solves a lot more problems than it creates tho. Net progress!

Click to expand...

If you are trying to claim a global flood solves problems you could not be more wrong.

Aussie Pete said:

I've had enough dealings with atheists to know that I'm wasting my time and energy. Enough is enough.

Click to expand...

Hey, if you can provide evidence, I will accept it. I'm just asking that you do so. So far, all you;ve done is make claims, and anyone can do that.

Subduction Zone said:

If you are trying to claim a global flood solves problems you could not be more wrong.

Click to expand...

No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood.

durangodawood said:

No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood.

Click to expand...

But if we're going to go with that, why bother with a flood at all?

Kylie said:

Hey, if you can provide evidence, I will accept it. I'm just asking that you do so. So far, all you;ve done is make claims, and anyone can do that.

Click to expand...

"No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood." Typical comment that is not only unsubstantiated but flies in the face of evidence. I refer to a book that was written by someone with the ideal education and real world experience to describe how the flood could have and probably did happen. It's a good thing that the author has passed away because the response was libellous.

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed. This is how the USSR suppressed Christians. They decided that Christianity was insanity. Anyone who refused to bow to the Communist regime was imprisoned, tortured, exiled and some were murdered.

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself. Them: blah blah you don't know really.

I make a statement. Response: you know nothing. Me: I was taught the subject and I reject the proposition. Them: there is much information available, obviously you know nothing, why don't you look it up?

I get really annoyed when people make personal attacks on people they do not know on a completely flawed premise. The only reason I respond to atheists is maybe to offer a different point of view so that others may not accept atheist claims without at least knowing that their opinion is not the only one and that they are not necessarily correct.

Aussie Pete said:

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed.

Click to expand...

By all means, I urge you to absorb the excellent fact-based information at the Christian site BioLogos.

durangodawood said:

No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood.

Click to expand...

That is not an explanation. It is a cop out. And it is ultimately a claim that God lied. Theologically it is a very poor explanation.

Aussie Pete said:

"No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood." Typical comment that is not only unsubstantiated but flies in the face of evidence. I refer to a book that was written by someone with the ideal education and real world experience to describe how the flood could have and probably did happen. It's a good thing that the author has passed away because the response was libellous.

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed. This is how the USSR suppressed Christians. They decided that Christianity was insanity. Anyone who refused to bow to the Communist regime was imprisoned, tortured, exiled and some were murdered.

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself. Them: blah blah you don't know really.

I make a statement. Response: you know nothing. Me: I was taught the subject and I reject the proposition. Them: there is much information available, obviously you know nothing, why don't you look it up?

I get really annoyed when people make personal attacks on people they do not know on a completely flawed premise. The only reason I respond to atheists is maybe to offer a different point of view so that others may not accept atheist claims without at least knowing that their opinion is not the only one and that they are not necessarily correct.

Click to expand...

No, if a source is a lying source it is of no use. It is hard to find a creationist source that is not a lying source. Every organization that I have seen requires their workers not to follow the scientific method. Therefore they are worthless in a scientific debate. Meanwhile more than once Christian sources have been linked to you where they do follow the scientific method. Why do you reject those? Once again you appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of doing.

And if you are responding to my claim and calling it "libelous" that is a falsehood. I made no libelous claims.

Aussie Pete said:

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed.

Click to expand...

Getting your feet held to the fire about your claims kinda sucks, doesn't it.

Kylie said:

But if we're going to go with that, why bother with a flood at all?

Click to expand...

To preserve a precious personal commitment to a literal reading of every event described in the Bible.

Aussie Pete said:

"No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood." Typical comment that is not only unsubstantiated but flies in the face of evidence. I refer to a book that was written by someone with the ideal education and real world experience to describe how the flood could have and probably did happen. It's a good thing that the author has passed away because the response was libellous.

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed. This is how the USSR suppressed Christians. They decided that Christianity was insanity. Anyone who refused to bow to the Communist regime was imprisoned, tortured, exiled and some were murdered.

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself. Them: blah blah you don't know really.

I make a statement. Response: you know nothing. Me: I was taught the subject and I reject the proposition. Them: there is much information available, obviously you know nothing, why don't you look it up?

I get really annoyed when people make personal attacks on people they do not know on a completely flawed premise. The only reason I respond to atheists is maybe to offer a different point of view so that others may not accept atheist claims without at least knowing that their opinion is not the only one and that they are not necessarily correct.

Click to expand...

I think youre way out of line suggesting that your predicament here is in any way comparable to persecution in Soviet Russia.... or even that frank discussion of these matters leads to gulags.

Aussie Pete said:

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed.

Click to expand...

You're still trying to paint this as an atheist versus Christian argument. It isn't. Creationism is not synonymous with Christianity (and vise-versa).

The only way to make any progress in these discussions is to set aside such dichotomies.

(Especially since not everyone you're talking to is an atheist.)

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself.

Click to expand...

That is how discussions work though. If you make a statement, you should be prepared to support it. If you can't support, then it's just unsubstantiated noise.

There is no sense complaining about it.

pitabread said:

You're still trying to paint this as an atheist versus Christian argument. It isn't. Creationism is not synonymous with Christianity (and vise-versa).

The only way to make any progress in these discussions is to set aside such dichotomies.

Click to expand...

Some Christians believe in evolution. Obviously I'm not one of them. I've yet to meet an atheist who believes in Creationism. The majority of the many atheists I've had discussions with use evolution as their answer to where everyone and everything originated. The only other views I've come across are things such as life originating from outer space or alternative universes. I'll buy lunch for the first atheist I talk to that believes in creationism. I am not putting any money aside for that day.

Aussie Pete said:

Some Christians believe in evolution. Obviously I'm not one of them. I've yet to meet an atheist who believes in Creationism.

Click to expand...

Most Christians accept evolution. And not everyone is the discussion here is an atheist.

And while there may not be any atheist creationists, there are creationists of other religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam)

Labeling this as a Christian vs atheism discussion is a false dichotomy.

The majority of the many atheists I've had discussions with use evolution as their answer to where everyone and everything originated.

Click to expand...

Biological evolution explains the origin and diversity of species. Most people that understand what biological evolution is (e.g. the folks you are discussing things with) know that.

I've yet to meet anyone who understands evolution claim that evolution is the "answer to where everyone and everything originated".

Aussie Pete said:

"No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood." Typical comment that is not only unsubstantiated but flies in the face of evidence. I refer to a book that was written by someone with the ideal education and real world experience to describe how the flood could have and probably did happen. It's a good thing that the author has passed away because the response was libellous.

Click to expand...

"Could have" is not science. "Could have" is where science begins.

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed. This is how the USSR suppressed Christians. They decided that Christianity was insanity. Anyone who refused to bow to the Communist regime was imprisoned, tortured, exiled and some were murdered.

Click to expand...

If a source is flawed it is flawed. Being a Christian source doesn't excuse it.

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself. Them: blah blah you don't know really.

Click to expand...

If you make a claim, why shouldn't you be the one to find evidence for it?

I make a statement. Response: you know nothing. Me: I was taught the subject and I reject the proposition. Them: there is much information available, obviously you know nothing, why don't you look it up?

I get really annoyed when people make personal attacks on people they do not know on a completely flawed premise. The only reason I respond to atheists is maybe to offer a different point of view so that others may not accept atheist claims without at least knowing that their opinion is not the only one and that they are not necessarily correct.

Click to expand...

One thing you fail to take into account is that most of us have been having these discussions with creationists for some time. We have read the books carefully (Whtcomb & Morris, Walter Brown, Gentry, Gish, etc.) and studied the websites (ICR, AiG, CRI, etc.). No, we are not just saying that these sources must be flawed because they are "Christian." We are familiar width these sources and know they are flawed because they are flawed. They are riddled with logical fallacies, bad data and false claims about evolutionary theory.

The other thing you fail to take into account is that we are not all atheists. Not only that, but the atheists here are generally not hostile to Christianity as such. I am an Anglican and make no secret of it nor in my belief in the literal truth of the tenets of the Nicene Creed. The only hostility I have ever experienced in these forums because of my faith has come from creationists like you.