Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

[MrGoodBytes]

That is AV in a nutshell.

Pretty much - though I would add "ridiculing professional scientists for being unable to prove his own speculations" to the list.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So AV can you answer the questions in post 294?

 

[AV1611VET]

So AV can you answer the questions in post 294?

For about the fourth time, you mean?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

For about the fourth time, you mean?

No for the first time because you haven't actually answered them at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

No for the first time because you haven't actually answered them at all.

Then in that case --- I'll pass.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then in that case --- I'll pass.

In other words you have totally failed to explain away the obvious absurdities in the creation and flood stories in spite of your claim to be an expert on such matters. Not only can you not handle the scientific falsifications of your interpretation of the creation and flood stories, you can't handle the apologetic mess either. Thanks for conceeding defeat.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then in that case --- I'll pass.

No surprise.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Christianity is not gray --- it is black-and-white; therefore, you either like it, or you don't.

There's no middle ground.

Making it sound all the more irrelevent for this day and age.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then in that case --- I'll pass.

Stick it to the man, AV! It's not like you started this thread with the explicit purpose of answering questions, after all.

 

[FishFace]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Because God, Who is not the author of confusion, would not start His Word out with allegory.


Yes and didn't God supposedly "author" a lot of confusion when He got afraid of what people might accomplish if they built too big a tower and got to heaven? It's a good thing the version of God wasn't still around when we went to the moon!

It would seem that AV has stopped taking questions now that it has been clearly revealed that he doesn't actually have any answers.

F.B.

There's the wonder of the thing. Anyone who was in any doubt whether AV actually had a clue (there can't have been many) now knows for sure that he doesn't - all due to a thread started by AV himself!

 

[metherion]

What about the list from 284?
Brought back up in (I think) 296?


Metherion

 

[Calculon]

I have a question.

Is there even a shred of evidence in favour of creationism?

 

[TheOutsider]

I have a question.

Is there even a shred of evidence in favour of creationism?

We had two separate threads recently asking for scientific evidence for Creationism. Both went for more than a week with nothing from the Creationists. Draw whatever conclusion you want from that..

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a question.

Is there even a shred of evidence in favour of creationism?

We had two separate threads recently asking for scientific evidence for Creationism. Both went for more than a week with nothing from the Creationists. Draw whatever conclusion you want from that..

Have either of you two seen this thread?

 

[PeterMaclellan]

We've all seen you're transparent attempt to get others to logically justify your own indecipherable arguments. That thread contains no evidence supporting Creationism, just your attempts to prove that evidence doesn't matter, which you fail at.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Have either of you two seen this thread?

You might want to show this to FoeHammer or LittleNipper. They believe that there is evidence for creation. We don't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Have either of you two seen this thread?

Seen it. It's gibberish. No evidence. Move on.

 

[metherion]

If the thread is back up, even temporarily, I would like to repost my list of questions MADE ONLY FROM BIBLICAL VERSES. NOTHING EXTRA-BIBLCAL IN THEM. These should be easiest of all to answer, since they use nothing outside of the Good Book. No science, no evolution, no geology, nothing.

1. Wasn't the earth dry in 8:11, when Noah knew the waters were abated from the earth? Doesn't that mean that it was dry? After all, if the water is gone it can't be wet.
So now we have 3 dry dates, each more than a month apart!

2. Noah doesn't disembark until 8:18, which is at the direct behest of God from the prevous few verses, and no date was mentioned in the disembarking description. So how do we know which one it was?

3. Noah knows it is dry, but doesn't poke his head out of the Ark for more than a month afterwards?

4. How long was the raven in the air? After all, it specifically says the raven was in the air until the earth was dry. So, how long was it?

5. Where did the olive tree come from? After all, it specifically says in Gen 7:23 that all that lived on dry land died.

Gen 7:23
23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Emphasis mine

So, where did the olive branch come from? It says all living substance. Not all living creatures, not all living animals, all living substance.

6. Is the 40 days of rain in the 150 or not? I never really understood that. It doesn't seem like it should be. Why else would they numerate the days it rained separately?

7. How do 7:24 and 8:3 not indicate that the Flood was ended?
For 7:24, if the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days, doesn't that mean that after 150 days the waters weren't prevailing on it anymore? And for 8:3, aren't the waters gone if it specifically says that after 150 days they were abated?

Metherion

 

[FishFace]

Have either of you two seen this thread?

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've all seen you're transparent attempt to get others to logically justify your own indecipherable arguments. That thread contains no evidence supporting Creationism, just your attempts to prove that evidence doesn't matter, which you fail at.

Seen it. It's gibberish. No evidence. Move on.

"No evidence" --- that's exactly the point of the thread.

Like I say, even when we agree with you guys, you're not happy.

It's not what we say that matters, it's what we are that seems to bother you guys.