Creation Science

DogmaHunter · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
For the same reason science is science, peer review.
Although with the Bible they use the word canon.

Peer review?! That's hilarious.

What peer review?

Not at all, this just shows how little you know. The foundation for his temple is still there in Jerusalem. Called the wailing wall. David gathered the materials for the building and his son Solomon actually did the construction work. Even though there was no sound of a hammer because all the pieces were already made and the building was ready to assemble. This has a lot of application for the church today, but you say your bored with the actual practical application of the Bible in our lives today.

"practical application of the bible"?

That's rich.

It's a story like any other. Some of it is true, some of it isn't.

I don't think, for example, this particular David fought this creature called "Goliath", or that there even is such a creature to begin with.

Again, New York exists - Superman doesn't.

For all practical intents and purposes, Superman is a mythological / fictional figure. Even if there is a Clark Kent in New York who's a journalist.

That's what I mean. It doesn't matter to me if this person actually existed or not. What does matter to me is how people believe they can slip in Superman by getting other people to acknowledge that New York exists.

The David you spoke of is a mythological figure. Actually, it sounds more like you are hallucinating about him or something.

You did say that you know him and that he knows you, right?
And then you asked me if I could understand that...

Well...no, I can't.

Why? Because your dogma can not stand up to the truth?

What you call "truth" is the dogma that's boring me.

MikeEnders · Aug 7, 2015

RickG said:
You are describing what he actually does, but you don't see it. Once again. He is presenting his view of the geologic column and claiming that it is the geologists view of it. He is misrepresenting their view. GEOLOGISTS DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS NOT WHAT WOODMORAPPE SAYS IT IS. He then goes on with his version as if it were that of geologists. Put another way, he is making up his own version and saying it is the geologists version.

Yawn.....already covered this and even quoted where he makes reference to the internet in general not Geological journals. You have no point except trying to ignore the quote I put up that shows he is not just talking about Geologists.

I have previously listed, with references, a list of 25 locations on earth in which the column is complete, you are free to source those.

Anyone can put up a list. You were not even asked that by the poster but were asked to SHOW where the geological column is complete. Thats more than a list but showing details about it. Still if you claim his definitions don't mesh with reality its interesting you put up 25 examples that allege to disprove his thesis with his definition. This is quite funny because you know his definition claim it doesn't exist because its not what geologist mean BUT you are presenting evidence that it exists in the context of HIS definitin

And by stating that you are latching onto his view of the column, one where all layers are supposed to be the same globally like in a layered onion. True that there are formations found on different continents that are the same, which is due to continental drift. But the idea that geology says it is like an onion layer around the world is wrong.

I am not latching on to anything except one thing I won't be allowing you to wiggle out of. Your claim in this thread is not that Woodmorappre is merely wrong but that he is deliberately misrepresenting. Given he states early what his take is you have pure smoke to claim he is deliberately misrepresenting anything. He could be as wrong as can be but not deliberately misrepresenting. It all comes down to your claim that he has never heard or read anyone making the claim. You have to be totally desperate to claim to know for a fact what no one has ever stated on the internet 16 years ago.

The claim is that the geologic column does not exist. And it doesn't in the way Woodmorappre describes it. Are you saying the geologic column doesn't exist? He is not describing the same geologic column geologist describe.

I think I have made my self really clear. Since you still identify with Christian as a presbyterian I shouldn't have to stress the point that Christians are not free to make false accusations against other Christians. Unless your OP was just a pretense and a fabrication against a YEC believer it behooves YOU to back the claim of deliberate misrepresentation. YOU didn't start this thread saying he was merely wrong, confused or in error. You started this thread with an accusation or lying and misrepresentation and I assure you since you have been giving instruction as to what you will accept and what the thread is about I will hold you to the subject of the OP.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

juvenissun said:
You quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
And you criticize: This statement is a dishonest misrepresentation.

So you think the (complete) geological column actually exists.

My question to you is: can you show ONE place where this column exists? Then you gave me a bunch of places. What is shown at this places? Does any one of them show a strata go from Cambrian to Pleistocene?

If not why do you suggest it actually exists?

Please do not smoke the screen by given un-necessary information. You may fully answer this question in one or two lines.

Can you show me one place where the Biblical timeline exists?

joshua 1 9 · Aug 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Peer review?! That's hilarious.

What peer review?

Holy Scripture was written by about forty authors over the course of 1500 years. So how do we determine what goes in the Bible and what is not considered to be scripture?

I don't think, for example, this particular David fought this creature called "Goliath", or that there even is such a creature to begin with.

There are still giants today and most of them are pretty clumsy. There are still little guys today that love to take out the big guys. It is a real ego booster for them. I have a friend that is over 6' 5" & over 300 pounds. He talks about how he use to get beat up in school.

The David you spoke of is a mythological figure.

As usual your wrong, don't know what your talking about and your wasting people time.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Holy Scripture was written by about forty authors over the course of 1500 years. So how do we determine what goes in the Bible and what is not considered to be scripture?

How do you determine if a claim is true or not? Does a claim become true if you simply believe in it really, really hard?

joshua 1 9 · Aug 7, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Can you show me one place where the Biblical timeline exists?

That is all covered in Arch Bishop Usshers book. The material is available to you, I told you where to find it. Now it is up to you if you want to follow though or not.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

MikeEnders said:
Anyone can put up a list. You were not even asked that by the poster but were asked to SHOW where the geological column is complete.

Why does it need to be found as a complete geologic column to start with? The idealized geologic column that you are referring to is no different than this historic timeline:

When you look at that timeline, do you think it is trying to assert that anywhere you dig in the world you will find artifacts from every period on that timeline, all neatly stacked one on top of the other?

If not, then why do you expect the same thing from the idealized timeline for geology?

Even more, how dishonest is it to try and portray this idealized geologic timeline as suggesting that we should find every geologic period stacked one on top of the other across the entire globe, or even at all?

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
That is all covered in Arch Bishop Usshers book. The material is available to you, I told you where to find it. Now it is up to you if you want to follow though or not.

I am asking for one archeological dig where artifacts from every event in the Bible are neatly stacked one on top of the other. If you are going to treat the Biblical timeline like creationists treat the geologic timeline, then shouldn't you expect such an archeological site to exist?

joshua 1 9 · Aug 7, 2015

Loudmouth said:
How do you determine if a claim is true or not?

The Bible is a covenant, and that is why we call the Bible old and new covenant. A Covenant is a legal binding contract. If you do your part then you can be sure God will do His part. If you do NOTHING, then don't expect God to do anything. The Bible is jam packed and filled with promises. For example: "Isa55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.7 Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.…". Here are LOTS of promises. If you seek the Lord, If you call upon Him, If you return to the Lord then He will have compassion and you will be abundantly pardoned.

The Bible is filled with many, many promises. Even you can buy books that list many of the promises of God. If we do our part then we can be sure (according to covenant theology) that God will do His part.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
The Bible is a covenant, and that is why we call the Bible old and new covenant. A Covenant is a legal binding contract. If you do your part then you can be sure God will do His part.

So you have chosen the "believe in it really, really hard" path. That answers that question.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 7, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I am asking for one archaeological dig where artifacts from every event in the Bible are neatly stacked one on top of the other.

I have been studying ancient history for over 50 years now. I can assure you that I have never, ever found a contradiction between the Bible and Archaeology and Ancient History. Again and again and again the Bible has been proven to be accurate and true. Just as accurate and just as true is what the Bible tells us about scoffers and infidels.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I have been studying ancient history for over 50 years now. I can assure you that I have never, ever found a contradiction between the Bible and Archaeology and Ancient History. Again and again and again the Bible has been proven to be accurate and true. Just as accurate and just as true is what the Bible tells us about scoffers and infidels.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Do you understand how it relates to the discussion?

MikeEnders · Aug 7, 2015

Loudmouth said:
When you look at that timeline, do you think it is trying to assert that anywhere you dig in the world you will find artifacts from every period on that timeline, all neatly stacked one on top of the other?

If not, then why do you expect the same thing from the idealized timeline for geology?

Even more, how dishonest is it to try and portray this idealized geologic timeline as suggesting that we should find every geologic period stacked one on top of the other across the entire globe, or even at all?

NOt dishonest at all because as I already have debunked your analogy is untenable logically. Its silliness comes down to three points

A) no creationists I know claims that the geologic column must be present at a site of their choosing limited by geography. you can choose anywhere on earth.
B) The geologic column unlike the history of Israel in the Bible is not limited to a single geographic zone
C) the geologic column is not limited to a particular time where biblical archaeology is limited to when Israel is present

So saying that they equate much less is key is really quite ridiculous. Even more so when the nature of occupation at a site tends to remove or entirely erase the archaeological evidence of the occupation before it. The analogy breaks apart in so many areas its embarrassing to present it as a weak one much less a key one.

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

MikeEnders said:
B) The geologic column unlike the history of Israel in the Bible is not limited to a single geographic zone

Deposition of sediments at any one point of history IS LIMITED to certain places. Also, erosion is occurring at different places at different times. Subduction is also inconsistent geographically and temporally.

Therefore, there should be no expectation that sediments from every age should be found one on top of the other anywhere on the globe. To pretend that it should is just silly.

MikeEnders · Aug 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
I don't think, for example, this particular David fought this creature called "Goliath", or that there even is such a creature to begin with.

Again, New York exists - Superman doesn't.

For all practical intents and purposes, Superman is a mythological / fictional figure. Even if there is a Clark Kent in New York who's a journalist.

David killed a tall guy with a slingshot. Thats hardly Superman and down the drain goes your claim of a Clark Kent Superman comparison. Skeptics just keep moving the goal posts. A few years ago it was there was no David at all as king then ooops....things like this started getting reported

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

When you have archaeologists reporting they found evidence of the Fortress of Solace call me and we'll do lunch.

Larniavc · Aug 7, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
So how do we determine what goes in the Bible and what is not considered to be scripture?

That would be the Council of Nicaea

MikeEnders · Aug 7, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Deposition of sediments at any one point of history IS LIMITED to certain places

Thats plural so how does that negate why your comparison doesn't work? Unless you don't understand basic maths having plural potential sample sites across the world is going to increase possibilities

Also, erosion is occurring at different places at different times. Subduction is also inconsistent geographically and temporally.

Again plural. Much more potential sample spots and a layer does not have to eradicate a subsequent one where an occupation of a site in your analogy would.

Its just a weak silly comparison. Give it up.

Therefore, there should be no expectation that sediments from every age should be found one on top of the other anywhere on the globe.

Congratulations you just made Creation.com's point

To pretend that it should is just silly.

and I suspect that Creation.com's point would be to assume what is absent was there is just as silly. Like it or not some popularizer's have made it seem like they can simply dig down and find fossils in each layer with no assumptions. So Creation.com writes an article saying - not really.

So getting back to the subject of this thread - how does that make them deliberately misrepresenting even if they have it wrong?

Loudmouth · Aug 7, 2015

MikeEnders said:
Thats plural so how does that negate why your comparison doesn't work? Unless you don't understand basic maths having plural potential sample sites across the world is going to increase possibilities

It may increase possibilities, but it doesn't ensure 100% actuality. I can point to many places around the world that are either experiencing erosion or are not experiencing sedimentation.

Therefore, there should be no expectation that the geologic timeline should be found all in one place.

and I suspect that Creation.com's point would be to assume what is absent was there is just as silly.

It isn't absent. It just isn't worldwide. We can find sediments from every period in the geologic timeline.

MikeEnders · Aug 7, 2015

Larnievc said:
That would be the Council of Nicaea

Word to Christians on this site. When an atheist links to a source make sure to check it (and double check wikipedia as a source since skeptics love to sign up there to be editors). From the source above -

There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council

Oops.........

Oncedeceived · Aug 7, 2015

MikeEnders said:
Word to Christians on this site. When an atheist links to a source make sure to check it (and double check wikipedia as a source since skeptics love to sign up there to be editors). From the source above -

Oops.........

I couldn't agree more.

Creation Science

Code Monkey

Newbie

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency