Jerusalem pre flood remains

[laconicstudent]

That depends on whose attitude you are talking about.

That attitude of Christians, specifically the one's who keep badmouthing science and trying to force creationism into schools.

What really gives Christians a bad rep is not believing in the bible, as Jesus did. Not believing in creation.

1. Jesus never said that Creationism was the physical mechanism by which the world came into being.

2. Yes, when Christians bury their heads in the sand to avoid empirical evidence and refuse to accept anything that contradicts their religious text, it makes them look like uneducated, narrow-minded fanatics.

Accepting the godless foolishness of man above and beyond the truth of God, for NO reason.

You mean aside from all the physical evidence?

You get that, right? Standing up for the truth, and asking hard quaetions of so called science,

You do realize that most of the objections and "hard questions" Creationists try and make only highlight their comic ignorance.

and it's disciples of the deception, is actually a good thing.

No, because it becomes obvious that the people objecting don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about in regards to basic biology.

Letting them lie, and walk all over you, and steal the faith away in schools is a bad thing.

No. Creationists also love their little conspiracy theory, but it just makes all Christians look silly.

 

[Mallon]

It's almost as though the last 2000 years of Christian thought concerning theology of nature never occurred.

 

[dad]

It's almost as though the last 2000 years of Christian thought concerning theology of nature never occurred.

Really? How about last week, is that out too? Keep us posted.

 

[dad]

That attitude of Christians, specifically the one's who keep badmouthing science and trying to force creationism into schools.

Science is a possessed evil creature, that needs to be exorcised. At least the so called science, that pretends to deal in old ages, and the future. The attitude of anyone that knows the truth, and cares a whit about it, is to hate evil. Not bend over for it.

1. Jesus never said that Creationism was the physical mechanism by which the world came into being.

Neither did I. So? Who says there was any physical only anything at the time of creation??? Get with the plan, here man.

2. Yes, when Christians bury their heads in the sand to avoid empirical evidence and refuse to accept anything that contradicts their religious text, it makes them look like uneducated, narrow-minded fanatics.

They do? Are you a Christian? Are you exempt? Must be nice. Tell us how we ought to react to utterly stupid fables, based on nothing at all, pretending they are science? Really. Let's see the way we all should react..?

You mean aside from all the physical evidence?

No such thing. Sorry you were taught lies. Seek help. Creation is beyond the physical only, as is heaven. I kid you not.

You do realize that most of the objections and "hard questions" Creationists try and make only highlight their comic ignorance.

No. On the contrary. I spit on the demonstrated absurdity of godless so called science, and how it really and truly is defeated unto death. Amen. This is news?

No, because it becomes obvious that the people objecting don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about in regards to basic biology.

Dreaming in technicolor, still, are we? How sweet. Get the facts you think you have on the table, and rest assured they will die the death. I guarantee it. Get busy now, we await your dazzling stuff.

No. Creationists also love their little conspiracy theory, but it just makes all Christians look silly.

They do? How nice. No idea what you are wasting valuable time about now. Nor do I care. Look up "cohesive". or "point", and maybe "put it on the table"

Until then, newbie, there are other colors than green.

 

[teddyv]

Science is a possessed evil creature, that needs to be exorcised. At least the so called science, that pretends to deal in old ages, and the future. The attitude of anyone that knows the truth, and cares a whit about it, is to hate evil. Not bend over for it.

I'll have to remember to bring a priest and holy water the next time I'm in the field. The water would at least help determine strike and dip. And the priest can carry the samples.

 

[Mallon]

Science is a possessed evil creature, that needs to be exorcised.

... says the guy over the Internet from the comfort of his temperature-controlled home.

 

[dad]

... says the guy over the Internet from the comfort of his temperature-controlled home.

Post flood, present state room, I might add. Just like all scientists also live. The so called sciences that claim to deal in old ages, all rely on the premise that this state, and it's laws had to apply at the early history of man.

The resulting fables indeed are pretty wicked.

 

[dad]

I'll have to remember to bring a priest and holy water the next time I'm in the field. The water would at least help determine strike and dip. And the priest can carry the samples.

Well, not all science is bad. Or opposes the bible. If all you are doing is giving a urine sample on an oil field, I see no reason to lump that in with the alternate creation preaching, rabidly anti God so called sciences.

If they are firmly in this universe state, and here and now, they are real science.

 

[teddyv]

Well, not all science is bad. Or opposes the bible. If all you are doing is giving a urine sample on an oil field, I see no reason to lump that in with the alternate creation preaching, rabidly anti God so called sciences.

If they are firmly in this universe state, and here and now, they are real science.

The last sentence suggests that there is not even a reason for discourse.

 

[Mallon]

Anyone see any parallels between this thread and this video?

YouTube - Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute

 

[dad]

The last sentence suggests that there is not even a reason for discourse.

The new heavens coming will see new realities and laws. Present science that is for the here and now, simply won't apply. Not sure you are able to say anything about it, any more than how this present universe state had to be before the fall, or the flood.

Science that deals just in this state is well and good. Everything else is a fraud, a lie, and without one tiny iota of concrete evidence. Get over it.

 

[Assyrian]

Unfortunately, while the bible does tell us about the new heaven and earth, your pre Peleg state is something you have completely made up yourself.

 

[dad]

Unfortunately, while the bible does tell us about the new heaven and earth, your pre Peleg state is something you have completely made up yourself.

Not at all. I simply deduce from the evidence of history and the bible. It is impossible for many things that happened in the bible to happen in this nature. No making anything up. The land mass movement, and water, without killing heat, the living a thousand years, or forever, the rapid tree and plant growth, etc.

I can't just wave it all away rather than believing it happened, sorry. The only question is how it happened, and the answer is in a different universe state. I can't wave away the evidence that evollution happens slowly now. Yet, 4500 years ago, the one kind was on the ark, that all species had to evolve from. Impossible in today's regime. Light getting here for man in creation week from distant stars, also impossible in today's universe! And on it goes, we are to believe it, or not. Science has already won the day over standard creationist positions. There is no way same state science can allign with bible past and future.

That is why the evos thought they had won the argument. Newslash: they lose. There is no way to impose this present state on the future or past. No possible way. Science is sidelined. The truth goes marching on.

 

[laconicstudent]

Not at all. I simply deduce from the evidence of history and the bible. It is impossible for many things that happened in the bible to happen in this nature. No making anything up. The land mass movement, and water, without killing heat, the living a thousand years, or forever, the rapid tree and plant growth, etc.

ergo, the belief of the majority of Christians that these things did not literally happen.

Yet, 4500 years ago, the one kind was on the ark, that all species had to evolve from. Impossible in today's regime.

Therefore, the flood wasn't global.

Light getting here for man in creation week from distant stars, also impossible in today's universe!

Therefore, the universe is older then 6,000 years

And on it goes, we are to believe it, or not. Science has already won the day over standard creationist positions. There is no way same state science can allign with bible past and future.

That is only a correct statement if you cling to a narrow-minded literal interpretation.

That is why the evos thought they had won the argument.

Lol, the have.

Newslash: they lose. There is no way to impose this present state on the future or past. No possible way. Science is sidelined. The truth goes marching on.

No. It means that your interpretation of Scriptures is wrong. You can bury your head and keep singing "lalalalal I can't hear you!", but the world will move on and Christians who hold to those beliefs will become increasingly fringe and disconnected from the world, and die out.

 

[Mallon]

That is why the evos thought they had won the argument. Newslash: they lose. There is no way to impose this present state on the future or past. No possible way. Science is sidelined. The truth goes marching on.

YouTube - Monty Python-The Black Knight

 

[Assyrian]

Not at all. I simply deduce from the evidence of history and the bible. It is impossible for many things that happened in the bible to happen in this nature. No making anything up. The land mass movement, and water, without killing heat, the living a thousand years, or forever, the rapid tree and plant growth, etc.

I can't just wave it all away rather than believing it happened, sorry. The only question is how it happened, and the answer is in a different universe state. I can't wave away the evidence that evollution happens slowly now. Yet, 4500 years ago, the one kind was on the ark, that all species had to evolve from. Impossible in today's regime. Light getting here for man in creation week from distant stars, also impossible in today's universe! And on it goes, we are to believe it, or not. Science has already won the day over standard creationist positions. There is no way same state science can allign with bible past and future.

That is why the evos thought they had won the argument. Newslash: they lose. There is no way to impose this present state on the future or past. No possible way. Science is sidelined. The truth goes marching on.

In other words, you made it up because of all the problems you have in your young earth interpretation of Genesis. but that does make it true, it just makes it wishful thinking. There is no evidence for your split, there is certainly none in science and there isn't a single reference to it in scripture. Wanting it to be true because you cannot imagine that your young earth creationism could possible be mistaken does not make it so.

 

[dad]

ergo, the belief of the majority of Christians that these things did not literally happen.



Therefore, the flood wasn't global.




Therefore, the universe is older then 6,000 years

It was not the belief of Jesus, however. Therefore He is right, they are wrong.

No. It means that your interpretation of Scriptures is wrong. You can bury your head and keep singing "lalalalal I can't hear you!", but the world will move on and Christians who hold to those beliefs will become increasingly fringe and disconnected from the world, and die out.

Not at all. The world will move nowhere, except where God see fit. The basis for the anti God so called science beliefs you speak of, I have addressed here. That is, the belief in this present universe state having existed. Sing what ever you like, and believe what you like, it can't change that. Perhaps addressing it might be a good thing to do.

 

[pgp_protector]

YouTube - Monty Python-The Black Knight

 

[dad]

In other words, you made it up because of all the problems you have in your young earth interpretation of Genesis.

No. The clues in Genesis, added to the clues of the future state, lead to one conclusion. The only other conclusion is to disbelieve Jesus. He spoke of the days of the garden, and the flood. Many have opted to do that, thinking science forced them to. No. Science doesn't even address it as it turns out.

but that does make it true, it just makes it wishful thinking. There is no evidence for your split, there is certainly none in science and there isn't a single reference to it in scripture.

Of course there is ALL of it. The fact that the continents were together, etc etc. All agree with a different state. It depends on how we look at it. The evidence of man's records is clear. It agrees with a different state as well. The bible is clear also. There are stark and real differences both in the far past and future, with this present universe, and it's laws, and forces, and state. No way round it, except to disbelieve it. Even then, there is NO WAY to support a same state past.

 

[laconicstudent]

It was not the belief of Jesus, however. Therefore He is right, they are wrong.

Thats funny. I don't remember Jesus ever addressing the issue. I was under the impression that he was more concerned with redeeming the sinners then correcting their scientific knowledge.

Not at all. The world will move nowhere, except where God see fit.

And God clearly allowed science to discover physical evidence that the Earth is older then 6,000 years.

The basis for the anti God so called science beliefs you speak of,

Not really. Thats just a creationist propaganda.

That is, the belief in this present universe state having existed. Sing what ever you like, and believe what you like, it can't change that. Perhaps addressing it might be a good thing to do.

You're postulating this idea of universe states simply to allow you to fit a literal creation story in with glaringly obvious scientific evidence that directly contradicts it. This would be considered poor logic.