Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisting! (My Thoughts on the Creation Museum)

[Kylie]

You do!?

What's God's name?

Av's interpretation of the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

lol

Yeah, all those people outside the stadium with the placards, ranting about how soccer doesn't really exist. I see them all the time, AV. All. The. Time.

And also, I'm a Star Trek fan. What's that you say about Captain Picard? He's bald? Lalalalalala I can't hear yO=ou! No such thing as bald! He's not bald, it's just that his hair got cloaked while he was a cadet when he had an assignment working on a Klingon cloaking device!

And the only people I ever see denying unemployment are lying politicians.

Oooookay.

Not sure what that was all about, but now that it's off your mind, I hope you have a GREAT day!

 

[Kylie]

Oooookay.

Not sure what that was all about, but now that it's off your mind, I hope you have a GREAT day!

Your comprehensions skills are just as good as they always were, AV.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe in them?
If not, mind if I don't either?

The names of characters in stories aren't dependend on wheter the stories are believed to be real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A metal Cross was installed off the side of the roadway on Highway 50 where a Child's body had been thrown where a father and son, in this country illegally~had disposed of her after rape and murder when she was no longer needed.

A woman, an Atheist was so offended by the Cross that she and her fellows were able to have the Cross ordered removed by the state```

Atheist are not the only religion that is offended by Christian Symbols, the other insists they are~ these are not passive non believers, they are offended because it is a Symbol of the True Faith that shows their religion to be~ Not according to truth or fact~

Atheists have beliefs that corroborate their faith as was insisted on millions by their church in the Soviet.

Those from that church here on this forum are here to mock and attack God's Church and it's peoples~in favor of their faith~with their very zeal to deny being a religion~ they show themselves to be that very thing```

You can repeat such nonsense all you like.
It won't change the fact that atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is, in fact, the word used for those people who don't follow a religion.

So you couldn't be more wrong, even if you tried.

 

[Goatee]

How long is a day to God? 1,000 years? 1 million years?

The only time that Dinosaurs lived at the same time as man is in the movies!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How long is a day to God? 1,000 years? 1 million years?

The only time that Dinosaurs lived at the same time as man is in the movies!

And in The Flinstones cartoon.

 

[dmmesdale]

Are there written accounts that confirm the Noah story? I must admit my ignorance of them, I'd be interested if you could post some links.

Try google since my time is limited. If written accounts is the standard then produce written accounts for the existence of a theoretical creature; a common ancestor which connect modern apes and man from the ancients.

I don't know where you got the notion of a double standard from, are you seriously suggesting that Noah's flood has as much evidence as common descent?

Feigning ignorance? You set the standard for written accounts. Under that standard there is plenty of written accounts to establish the historicity of Noah from multiple sources and none for your theoretical creature. That is a double standard. Actual evidence does not have to cater to your prejudices to count as evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The names of characters in stories aren't dependend on wheter the stories are believed to be real.

Yeokay -- was that some kind of a point you made?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only time that Dinosaurs lived at the same time as man is in the movies!

That would be one of the few times the movies got it right.

 

[AV1611VET]

And in The Flinstones cartoon.

That would be one of the few times the cartoons got it right.

 

[Goatee]

That would be one of the few times the movies got it right.

Yes, pure fantasy. I agree

 

[Jimmy D]

Try google since my time is limited. If written accounts is the standard then produce written accounts for the existence of a theoretical creature; a common ancestor which connect modern apes and man from the ancients.

Feigning ignorance? You set the standard for written accounts. Under that standard there is plenty of written accounts to establish the historicity of Noah from multiple sources and none for your theoretical creature. That is a double standard. Actual evidence does not have to cater to your prejudices to count as evidence.

Your time is limited? Do you think I've got time to waste searching for evidence for something I don't believe happened? If I made such an outlandish claim I would expect to have to back it up with evidence.

I'll just take your reticence as an admission that you were merely making empty assertions.

 

[dmmesdale]

Your time is limited? Do you think I've got time to waste searching for evidence for something I don't believe happened? If I made such an outlandish claim I would expect to have to back it up with evidence.

I'll just take your reticence as an admission that you were merely making empty assertions.

Who cares what you believe? What can you prove? You're not going to get anywhere with heads i win and tails you lose arguments. I demonstrated a double standard relating to historical existence. You assume the theoretical creature exists and have questions about the historicity of Noah? There is multiple compiled written sources attesting to the historicity of the flood from the ancients. Why are they all wrong and modern critics right? That is a double standard. That means evidence is not your standard in the first place. Faith is your standard, whatever caters to your prejudices is your standard. That is not science. You even have the kings of Europe tracing their geneologies back to Adam. They certainly believed it to be history. So why are they all wrong and moderns right with their theoretical creatures? Not one speck of physical evidence anywhere. What you do is cherry pick things while ignoring all the multiple compiled real evidence which contradicts your assumptions. That is not the way to do investigation. It is not that hard to Google history of Noah and do a little reading and i am not here to spoon feed you.

Earler you asked a question and i provided a direct answer. (My 140) Then asked a reciprocal question and you responded with not your biology teacher. You like to play with a stacked deck and when confronted on your duplicity you whine. You cannot compete on a level playing field because your case is weak. If you wish to cross examine then you better be prepared to be cross examined in return. Lets put your faith under a microscope and have you explain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeokay -- was that some kind of a point you made?

No, just a response to your comment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who cares what you believe? What can you prove? You're not going to get anywhere with heads i win and tails you lose arguments. I demonstrated a double standard relating to historical existence. You assume the theoretical creature exists and have questions about the historicity of Noah? There is multiple compiled written sources attesting to the historicity of the flood from the ancients. Why are they all wrong and modern critics right?

Because the modern critics base their conclusions on the kind of evidence that isn't subject to human bias and beliefs. Whereas the pro-side only has "just so" stories. Literally.

When reality doesn't match the beliefs of people - it's the beliefs of people that are wrong, not reality.

That is a double standard

Quite the opposite, in fact. It's a very clear singular standard: objective evidence gets priority over subjective beliefs.

That means evidence is not your standard in the first place.

Au contraire.

Faith is your standard, whatever caters to your prejudices is your standard

Projection.

You even have the kings of Europe tracing their geneologies back to Adam

You mean like how Al-bagdadi and Saddam Hussein "traced" their lineage back to mohammed? Or how Julius Ceasar "traced" his lineage to some Roman god?

You might want to consider that "tracing" is a wrong word to use. "Asserting" seems a better fit here.

They certainly believed it to be history.

So? Go ask a scientologist what he certainly believes to be history. Do you believe that to, simply because they believe it? My guess is "no".

It is not that hard to Google history of Noah and do a little reading and i am not here to spoon feed you.

I get directed to legends about Gilgamesh etc.
As for when it comes to corroborating evidence in the real world, it seems as if a literal biblical flood has been dissmissed centuries ago.

Earler you asked a question and i provided a direct answer. (My 140) Then asked a reciprocal question and you responded with not your biology teacher. You like to play with a stacked deck and when confronted on your duplicity you whine. You cannot compete on a level playing field because your case is weak. If you wish to cross examine then you better be prepared to be cross examined in return. Lets put your faith under a microscope and have you explain.

There is no level playing field here.

You basically require a complete biology course. You're not going to get that in forum posts.

 

[Jimmy D]

Who cares what you believe? What can you prove? You're not going to get anywhere with heads i win and tails you lose arguments.

Obfuscation. I'm merely asking you to provide evidence for your assertions.

I demonstrated a double standard relating to historical existence.

I think your overstating your case a bit there. You claimed....

a) There are numerous corroborating written records for Noah's flood, although when challenged you can't actually provide any of them.

b) That there's some sort of "double standard" employed when evaluating biblical claims in comparison to scientific claims which is nonsense, they're different things.

You assume the theoretical creature exists and have questions about the historicity of Noah?

Don't presume to tell me what I think. It's a stupid comparison but let's weigh the evidence shall we?

1.
Evidence for Noah - A few paragraphs in the old testament.
Evidence against Noah - All the empirical, verifiable and applied knowledge we've accumulated in geology and biology over the last 200 years states the story didn't happen. Not one iota of scientific evidence to suggest it did.

2.
Evidence for Common ancestry - The theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

Evidence against Common ancestry - A few paragraphs in the old testament.

There is multiple compiled written sources attesting to the historicity of the flood from the ancients. Why are they all wrong and modern critics right?

How can I comment on the veracity of these written sources if you won't even say what they are?

That is a double standard. That means evidence is not your standard in the first place. Faith is your standard, whatever caters to your prejudices is your standard. That is not science. You even have the kings of Europe tracing their geneologies back to Adam. They certainly believed it to be history. So why are they all wrong and moderns right with their theoretical creatures? Not one speck of physical evidence anywhere. What you do is cherry pick things while ignoring all the multiple compiled real evidence which contradicts your assumptions. That is not the way to do investigation. It is not that hard to Google history of Noah and do a little reading and i am not here to spoon feed you.

What are you going on about now? Modern biology is based on objective empirical evidence, it can be verified by anyone with an understanding of the subject. The stories of the Old testament are treated as myth because they are contradictory to observations of the natural world.

I can't ignore the evidence, you have failed to present it.

Earler you asked a question and i provided a direct answer. (My 140) Then asked a reciprocal question and you responded with not your biology teacher. You like to play with a stacked deck and when confronted on your duplicity you whine. You cannot compete on a level playing field because your case is weak. If you wish to cross examine then you better be prepared to be cross examined in return. Lets put your faith under a microscope and have you explain.

I asked you if you thought dinos and humans co existed and you said "Yup, before the flood".

You asked me to demonstrate "proofs" of common descent or some such nonsense, hardly the same is it? I'm not your biology teacher. If you want a level playing field try asking if i accept common ancestry..... the answer is "yup" if you want to know.

Now, what would you like explaining to you? Why I accept the findings of biology and the earth sciences, or how those sciences work?

I'd still like to see the numerous written records of Noah's flood by the way.

 

[sethrak]

Well, Your faith in the way all things come to be, is different than ours~but you stick to your Dogma~ spending much time preaching it~even here on a forum of the true faith~ go in peace with your belief or talk with those who share your faith.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, Your faith in the way all things come to be, is different than ours~but you stick to your Dogma~ spending much time preaching it~even here on a forum of the true faith~ go in peace with your belief or talk with those who share your faith.

What dogma?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, Your faith in the way all things come to be, is different than ours~but you stick to your Dogma~ spending much time preaching it~even here on a forum of the true faith~ go in peace with your belief or talk with those who share your faith.

But I am interested to find out about what you, yourself, believe.

I had formed the general impression that members of the Orthodox and Oriental churches were not generally hard-core creationists. Is that not correct?