Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes ---

Neither reliable nor scientific nor testable.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes ---

In other words NO.

 

[AV1611VET]

How old are you anyway kid?

53 --- with the mentality of a teenager.

In the movie Jaws, there's a scene where they're standing on the dock with a Tiger Shark. Hooper says, "It's a tiger shark"; and a man looks at him and says, "A whaaaaaat?"

I could very easily pass for that guy, and be his stunt-double.

 

[AV1611VET]

bbl

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

In my opinion, there is no known evidence that falsifies "special creation" or a world-wide flood.

Or rather, that evidence has been presented, but you dismiss it out of hand for contradicting your interpretation of the Bible. What evidence would you accept?

 

[FishFace]

Consider this:

If you were in the business of building perfect cars, and someone bought one of your cars and wrecked it --- who's to blame?

You or the driver?

Please AV, why are you using this analogy when you know it's dishonest?

God did not just create the earth, and then while he was out buying some milk, humanity came along and wrecked it. He created the earth, humanity, milk and everything else too, and, being omnipresent, was there while we wrecked it!

The correct analogy (as well you know, but ignore, the only explanation for which is that you are being dishonest) is that I create a car, and a driver, then sell it to someone who I know is going to drive it off a cliff. I get into the car as he drives it along, telling me how he's going to drive it off a cliff and sit there quite happily as he does so, even though, as it transpired, I had the capacity to stop him (perhaps I installed dual controls.)

In this story, who's the fool? The driver who drove the car off the cliff, or the maker who knowingly sold the car to the crazy driver, who could've halted the sale, or halted the car, but did neither, and who then proceeded to blame the driver for the whole mess, even though he was the one who could have easily stopped all this nonsense at any point in the story? Who then cursed both car and driver for doing what he knew they were going to do, but didn't warn them about in any way to which they would respond?

The annoying thing, though, now, is not the analogy itself, but the fact that AV is using it again, despite knowing full well that it was flawed from the very beginning. The only explanation for him doing it a second time is that he is deliberately trying to construct an argument he knows doesn't exist.

 

[FishFace]

We may look like apes, but God says we aren't.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked which was, if we're not apes why do we look so much like them?

Apparently we're extremely different to apes - according to you, this is - what, then, is the difference? We're practically identical. The largest difference is probably in brain size and capability, but that is hardly monumental, it's not even a whole new organ. Its effects, one can hardly deny, are clearly very wide reaching, but that's not the point. There is no difference, other than in degrees, between a man and a chimp.

Why?

 

[FishFace]

No

Edited for accuracy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Consider this:

If you were in the business of building perfect cars, and someone bought one of your cars and wrecked it --- who's to blame?

You or the driver?

If the car was perfect it would be impossible to wreck, by definition.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Please AV, why are you using this analogy when you know it's dishonest?

God did not just create the earth, and then while he was out buying some milk, humanity came along and wrecked it. He created the earth, humanity, milk and everything else too, and, being omnipresent, was there while we wrecked it!

The correct analogy (as well you know, but ignore, the only explanation for which is that you are being dishonest) is that I create a car, and a driver, then sell it to someone who I know is going to drive it off a cliff. I get into the car as he drives it along, telling me how he's going to drive it off a cliff and sit there quite happily as he does so, even though, as it transpired, I had the capacity to stop him (perhaps I installed dual controls.)

In this story, who's the fool? The driver who drove the car off the cliff, or the maker who knowingly sold the car to the crazy driver, who could've halted the sale, or halted the car, but did neither, and who then proceeded to blame the driver for the whole mess, even though he was the one who could have easily stopped all this nonsense at any point in the story? Who then cursed both car and driver for doing what he knew they were going to do, but didn't warn them about in any way to which they would respond?

The annoying thing, though, now, is not the analogy itself, but the fact that AV is using it again, despite knowing full well that it was flawed from the very beginning. The only explanation for him doing it a second time is that he is deliberately trying to construct an argument he knows doesn't exist.

Prepare to be attacked by AV1611 for "adding things to the analogy until it makes no sense anymore".

 

[FishFace]

Radiometric dating.

In my opinion, there is no known evidence that falsifies "special creation" or a world-wide flood.

At first I was going to call you a troll for the first two words. But then I realise that, as well as being a troll, (not, as I first thought, because you thought radiometric dating simply didn't work, but if it did, would falsify a young earth, but rather because you're still going on about an imagined difference between age and time having been in existence, or whatever nonsense it is.) you misread the post you quoted. Loudmouth asked for evidence that would falsify a young earth, global flood, etc, not what does falsify it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Radiometric dating.

Then a young earth has been falsified.

In my opinion, there is no known evidence that falsifies "special creation" or a world-wide flood.

I didn't ask for known evidence. I asked for potential evidence. What, if found, would falsify special creation or a recent world wide flood?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Consider this:

If you were in the business of building perfect cars, and someone bought one of your cars and wrecked it --- who's to blame?

You or the driver?

So God created a perfect car and created an imperfect driver who he knew would wreck and then gave it to him. What this analogy actually does is highlight the absurdity of the whole "perfect creation until it was cursed by God" nonsense. A truely ominpotent and omniscient deity would not create something that was going to become a complete mess in a short time and consider it "Good". He would not be "repented" of his creation and be forced to destroy it with a big flood. Not only is there no scientific evidence of this global flood and overwhelming masses of evidence against it, the apologetics are a complete mess and you have shown that you can't actually address either problem.

 

[Tomk80]

Perfection is not immunity against failure --- omnipotence is.

Bull. If something is perfect, it does not fail. If I create a car and claim it is perfect yet it breaks down after a while, it is not perfect whatever my claims are.

Adam and Eve were made full-aware of their consequences before eating of the forbidden fruit.

Nonsense. Someone who has never experienced the consequences cannot be said to be full-aware. Someone who has never seen death around him or her has no concept of death.

 

[Tomk80]

Or DNA (and looks) could be only .000000001% different from the apes, and we would still be "man".

We may look like apes, but God says we aren't.

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible][bible]1 Kings 10:22[/bible]

Yes, we are 'man'. We are human. We are also apes. Just as ducks are both ducks and birds. Just as chimpanzees are both chimpanzees and apes. Just as apes are both apes and mammals.

List all characteristics that apes share and you will also have described humans. There are some features in which we differ from other apes, just like chimpanzees and gorillas are both apes but also have features that set them apart as gorillas and chimpanzees.

All gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are apes. But not all apes are humans, not all apes are gorillas and not all apes are chimpanzees.

 

[FishFace]

Then a young earth has been falsified.

He's just trolling you. He thinks there's a difference between being young and having existed for a short length of time remember?

Well, that might not be precisely it, but you can't blame me for not remembering the precise words someone uses to describe nonsense...

 

[Loudmouth]

He's just trolling you. He thinks there's a difference between being young and having existed for a short length of time remember?

Actually, he's now on record stating that radiometric dating falsifies a young earth.

 

[MoonLancer]

Consider this:

If you were in the business of building perfect cars, and someone bought one of your cars and wrecked it --- who's to blame?

You or the driver?

so god creates the perfect man (the car). so who or what is the driver

*edit misread*

 

[FishFace]

Actually, he's now on record stating that radiometric dating falsifies a young earth.

Indeed, but tomorrow, or whenever he's next on his library computer, he will, of course, tell you that he never said anything to the contrary, and the radiometric dating doesn't falsify an earth that was created 6,000 years ago.

He will also tell you that God injecting decay products into rocks that make them all look 4.5 billion years old is not deceitful, and is nothing at all like Omphalos.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Or DNA (and looks) could be only .000000001% different from the apes, and we would still be "man".

We may look like apes, but God says we aren't.

Just a thought!!! since truth cant contradict truth and the evidence from science on this is overwhelming, maybe you are simply misinterpreting the bible and both the bible and nature are correct.
EDIT:for example - perhaps we are made in the spiritual rather than physical image of God.