Subduction Zone
Regular Member
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.?
Upvote
0
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?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.
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?
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.
Solves a lot more problems than it creates tho. Net progress!Well yes, but that approach has its own problems. However it first requires admitting that the physical evidence disproves a global flood.
If you are trying to claim a global flood solves problems you could not be more wrong.Solves a lot more problems than it creates tho. Net progress!
No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood.If you are trying to claim a global flood solves problems you could not be more wrong.
"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.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.
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.No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood.
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."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.
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.
To preserve a precious personal commitment to a literal reading of every event described in the Bible.But if we're going to go with that, why bother with a flood at all?
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."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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
"Could have" is not science. "Could have" is where science begins."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.
If a source is flawed it is flawed. Being a Christian source doesn't excuse it.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.
If you make a claim, why shouldn't you be the one to find evidence for 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.
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.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.