How many of you creationists...

[AV1611VET]

exactly because you don't know he cleaned it. You just know that theirs an inconsistency and thus you assert he cleaned it up in order to believe as you do that the flood happened.

No, there's not an inconsistency.

If that was an inconsistency, then everyone who spills milk, cleans it up, then tells someone they spilled milk w/o telling them they cleaned it up is also being inconsistent.

 

[LightSeaker]

And documenting that He cleaned it up would change that --- would it?

Why not look at the documentation found in God's own creation directly?!? Or are you saying that God would deceive us through His own Creation?

.

 

[LightSeaker]

If that was an inconsistency, then everyone who spills milk, cleans it up, then tells someone they spilled milk w/o telling them they cleaned it up is also being inconsistent.

Sheesh....the importance of the subject is far greater than spilt milk.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not look at the documentation found in God's own creation directly?!? Or are you saying that God would deceive us through His own Creation?

I'm not qualified to do that --- and the ones that are report that it didn't happen; which tells me they either need to keep looking, or abandon the search and go on the Documentation alone.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, there's not an inconsistency.

If that was an inconsistency, then everyone who spills milk, cleans it up, then tells someone they spilled milk w/o telling them they cleaned it up is also being inconsistent.

Is that really the example you want to use?

I can

A: take a sample from the floor to tell if milk had been spilt and cleaned with water

or

B: take a sample from the floor to tell if a cleaner or chemical was involved.

My point is that the flood is not like spilt milk. Its ridiculous to say it is.

it also assumes in this example that the flood was an accident or something causal. Is that what your trying to say?

 

[LightSeaker]

I'm not qualified to do that --- and the ones that are report that it didn't happen; which tells me they either need to keep looking, or abandon the search and go on the Documentation alone.

I see. You prefer documentation that's totally faulty because it's coming from the myths of a very ancient middle-eastern tribe of nomadic desert dwellers. And you prefer those ancient myths over what Creation itself is telling us.

That doesn't make sense to me.

.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not qualified to do that --- and the ones that are report that it didn't happen; which tells me they either need to keep looking, or abandon the search and go on the Documentation alone.

But the 'documentation" does not say God cleaned anything up after the Flood. Therefore, you are not going by the "Documentation," you are just going by your own ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the 'documentation" does not say God cleaned anything up after the Flood.

Then, if you think that's such a big deal --- by all means --- keep looking.

Remember Elijah?

He was taken to Heaven in a flaming chariot.

The empiricists of the day didn't think it happened.

What was Elisha's [final] advice?

"Go look."

And they did --- for three days --- and found nothing.

Yet if anyone would have said after that that it didn't happen --- they would have been wrong.

 

[MoonLancer]

empiricists? new word?

 

[loveiseverywhere]

The Bible isn't "documentation." It's literature.

 

[Cabal]

The Bible isn't "documentation." It's literature.

Exactly.

It's funny given how often AV claims that "it's in the documentation" and yet has to resort to his own extrabiblical ideas all the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible isn't "documentation." It's literature.

Is It now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly.

It's funny given how often AV claims that "it's in the documentation" and yet has to resort to his own extrabiblical ideas all the time.

You mean like when I answer a question with "basic doctrine"?

 

[Cabal]

You mean like when I answer a question with "basic doctrine"?

Not when it comes to trying to prop up your creationism, you don't.

 

[MoonLancer]

You mean like when I answer a question with "basic doctrine"?

is Neptune being the location for the flood water and also being a warning to rogue angels considered basic doctrine?

 

[LightSeaker]

You mean like when I answer a question with "basic doctrine"?

You confuse me here. Doctrine is just a bunch of beliefs taught by the Church. It's man's attempt to understand God. You will accept those beliefs over what God Himself has documented with in His Own Creation. I don't understand why what God is showing us in His own Creation does not take precedence over all else.


.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean like when I answer a question with "basic doctrine"?

is Neptune being the location for the flood water and also being a warning to rogue angels considered basic doctrine?

No --- but then I neither claim it is in the Bible, nor call it "basic doctrine".

It's funny given how often AV claims that "it's in the documentation"...

 

[AV1611VET]

Doctrine is just a bunch of beliefs taught by the Church.

It's much more than that.

Doctrine is beliefs in codified form.

For example, the doctrine of Regeneration is all through the Bible, in what Chuck Missler calls "Spread-Spectrum Design".

The doctrine of Regeneration takes those passages and lists them on a single page, along with such things as definitions, applications, and examples.

This is why the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible is one of the best there is, it doesn't list the doctrines on a single page, but it does "chain reference" them.

In addition, the Scofield Reference Bible, also one of the best there is, not only chain-references them, but uses the last reference in the chain as the place to look for his comprehensive footnotes on that particular doctrine.

 

[LightSeaker]

Doctrine is beliefs in codified form.

ie…Beliefs. Which you give more credence to than what God is showing us in His own Creation. And I'm not understanding that.

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is It now?

yes, it is -- I do hope you have some convincing argument to the contrary.