The Flood

[Josh1]

Pete said:But I recongize live debates about subjects like evolution are generally worthless because the subjects are too deep to be properly debated or discussed in that format. All that those live debates prove is who is a better debater. It has little bearing on the subjects being debated.

Some would disagree,Pete. Including me and evidently Dr.Hovind. Gary Demar(one of the foreknown authorities on the preterist view) Said live debates is where you have to think quickly and know your theory. It is in book "End Times Fiction" . So I'm not suprised that the only other people who think like you are evolutionist. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Arikay said: read the scripture literally If you do not accept that literal interpretation, then you are not a biblical literalist, sorry.

You did not answer my question. Where did it say it was flat? Answer that for starters. If the word flat is in that verse, I will give you 250,000 dollars. Fair enough?

 

[Arikay]

You must have skipped over most of what I wrote. It does not say "flat", but it does say Circle. Which is flat

Where does the bible say the earth is 6000 years old?

Now, my question,
if we showed DrDino lied to you, would you still believe him?

Arikay said: read the scripture literally If you do not accept that literal interpretation, then you are not a biblical literalist, sorry.

You did not answer my question. Where did it say it was flat? Answer that for starters. If the word flat is in that verse, I will give you 250,000 dollars. Fair enough?

 

[Josh1]

Let me ask you a question,Mechanical Bliss. How did the world come into being? Just answer that question. I don't have to defend Dr.Hovind, he does quite well himself. Yes, I do like Dr.Hovind. I have met him on several occasions. Been to his seminars and watched his tapes. Do I agree with him on everything,probally not. I don't claim I know everything and neither does he. But that is what you guys have got to get into your head. Some dude with some Ph.d. don't know it all either. Which Dr.Hovind does have by the way. I believe the Bible and that God created the earth. Most of yall "believe" that the earth just came into existence. When has something like that ever happened? I am talking something into nothing. So then you ask, where did God come from? I don't know. God is more complicated than men. But is it not more plausible to believe in a Creator , then just believing that something came from nothing? Like I said at the beginning,I am not here to argue,fuss,or fight. But isn't it fun to discuss things without nobody getting mad. Thats what i'm here for. I respect that all of you have kept respectable attitudes and not gone to the immature name calling. God Bless. Josh

 

[Josh1]

Arikay, there was no hebrew word for sphere at the time. Circle is basically what uneducated people thought of that time when describing such. BTW, circle is not flat, so please stop with the flat theory.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Where did the gravity come from?

Gravity is the warping of space-time caused by the inherent properties of matter.

Yeah, you know where im going now,don't you.

You are going back to First Cause. At which point, I will say, "I don't know". Is that what you are looking for?

 

[Josh1]

Correction I meant educated and uneducated at that time. I meant to type it but I got on a different train of thought. LOL. I have truly got a one tracked mind.

 

[Josh1]

Yes Pete, that is what i'm looking for. Just to say what I have said many times before. Believing in a creator is much more plausible than believing that something came from nothing. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

1) You never answered my question,
if we showed DrDino lied to you, would you still believe him?

2) You really must have not read what I wrote. It had dictionary definition of circle and everything. It even addressed your claim.
But anyway, this is all besides the point. I would like an answer to my question. Although it always amazes me how much biblical literalists will fight against a literal interpretation of the bible, if it doesn't fit with their preconcieved views.

Arikay, there was no hebrew word for sphere at the time. Circle is basically what uneducated people thought of that time when describing such. BTW, circle is not flat, so please stop with the flat theory.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Some would disagree,Pete. Including me and evidently Dr.Hovind. Gary Demar(one of the foreknown authorities on the preterist view) Said live debates is where you have to think quickly and know your theory.

Again, the theory of evolution is far too deep for simple verbal debate. It has nothing to do with "knowing your theory". It has to do with there is simply too much material to be convered in the timespan of a verbal debate (and especially since Hovind routinely digresses into all sorts of other fields like geology, cosmology, etc).

You can disagree all you want, but that's simply reality. Pick up a textbook or journal on evolution and it will become very apparent to you why verbal debate is inadequate to properly discuss such subjects.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yes Pete, that is what i'm looking for. Just to say what I have said many times before. Believing in a creator is much more plausible than believing that something came from nothing. God Bless.

That's just an argument from personal incredulity, and a flawed one at that since it ignores the issue of where God came from.

Besides, I don't believe everything came from "nothing". I simply don't know where everything came from. I don't know what existed before the universe. It could have been something. It could have been anything. I simply don't know, and I will not pretend I do.

 

[Gracchus]

Arikay, there was no hebrew word for sphere at the time. Circle is basically what uneducated people thought of that time when describing such.

You imply that your holy book was written so that it could be understood by the uneducated. How would it have been written for those that were educated? Of course the creationist position has always been that ignorance of anything but scripture is superior to education.

BTW, circle is not flat, so please stop with the flat theory.

A circle is a closed curve consisting of the set of all points in a plane that are equidistant from a given single point. That is a definition from plane geometry. Plane = flat. Moreover, Babylonian cosmology, familiar to all "educated" people of that time, is consistent with the wording of your holy book.

KJV 1:6

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

Easton Bible Dictionary:

Firmament from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Ge 1:7) The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Ps 148:4) It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Ge 1:14) and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Ge 7:11 Isa 24:18 Mal 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

The Babylonian cosmos consisted of land surrounded by a single, world girdling ocean, covered by a dome that supported the planets and the stars. And that world was flat save for mountains, hills, valleys and such. It is the world view still held by untaught children, and flat-Earth creationists.

Those creationists who have yielded this world view in the face of facts and public ridicule, now try to claim that their holy book does not depict the Babylonian cosmology, and they deny Ussher's carefully calculated age of the Earth and the date of the Noachian flood, faced with the undeniable fact of Egyptian and Chinese history. Creationists have yielded those positions, and in a classic example of double-think they now try to deny that they ever tried to defend them.

"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities."--Voltaire

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Let me ask you a question,Mechanical Bliss. How did the world come into being?

The accretion of matter in the solar system and gravity.

Some dude with some Ph.d. don't know it all either. Which Dr.Hovind does have by the way.

Is it a doctorate in science? No.
Is it a doctorate from an accredited university? No, it's a diploma mill.

I believe the Bible and that God created the earth.

...and that negates modern science how exactly?

But is it not more plausible to believe in a Creator , then just believing that something came from nothing?

No, I'd say definitely not. Besides, it seems like you're arguing purely from personal incredulity rather than knowledge from actually studying science.

 

[DrLao]

Doesn't it also say in that verse that the heavens are held up and unfurled like a tent?

Ah, here it is...

Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

The heavens are above the earth like a canopy or tent. You can't pitch a tent around a sphere. You do it over a flat surface. So, the second half here also says the Earth is flat.

 

[TrueCreation]

Unfortunatly I have.

If I remember right, most of his stuff seems to be PRATT list stuff. I believe Answers in Genesis (another creationist group) suggests not to use his stuff because its not scientifically sounds(which is VERY ironic).

--They did so wisely. If I were then I would crash Hovinds party a quite a bit harder than they, but I'm not them. The scientific credibility(or lack thereof) Hovind exhibits is so blatently obvious to any eye even slightly trained in scientific inquiry.

Even when i was a strict YEC, I would readily suffice that Hovind stinketh.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--They did so wisely. If I were then I would crash Hovinds party a quite a bit harder than they, but I'm not them. The scientific credibility(or lack thereof) Hovind exhibits is so blatently obvious to any eye even slightly trained in scientific inquiry.

Even when i was a strict YEC, I would readily suffice that Hovind stinketh.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Of course if AiG would stop using all their bogus arguments for a young earth and global flood there would be nothing left.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Josh1]

Arikay:1) You never answered my question,
if we showed DrDino lied to you, would you still believe him?

The anser is no. If you showed me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was wrong then I would not believe him. But so far all I have got is a bunch of assumptions. Dr.Hovind is not right on everything,neither am I, and neither are any of yall. So if your just gonna try pinpoint some little things and say because of that I should disreguard all of what he says,its not gonna work.

 

[Josh1]

Pete:Again, the theory of evolution is far too deep for simple verbal debate. It has nothing to do with "knowing your theory". It has to do with there is simply too much material to be convered in the timespan of a verbal debate (and especially since Hovind routinely digresses into all sorts of other fields like geology, cosmology, etc).

You can disagree all you want, but that's simply reality. Pick up a textbook or journal on evolution and it will become very apparent to you why verbal debate is inadequate to properly discuss such subjects

Pete, we could go back and forth for weeks,months,years even, and we probally would still disagree on this subject. So I am gonna drop this particular subject with you. It seems as if I say one thing is better and then you say the opposite. I guess it is a matter of opinion. That would be as far as I will stretch that subject. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Pete:That's just an argument from personal incredulity, and a flawed one at that since it ignores the issue of where God came from.

I don't ignore the issue of where God came from. I don't know. My point is that in all the years of human history, something never came from nothing. There was always a creator. So I have "in the beginning God". You have "in the beginning matter". Or whatever else you decide to put there. I could turn the tables on you and just cry out that all your argument pertain personal disbelief. The point i'm trying to make is that is that your point can not be proven. You are looking at your Belief and thinking it can't be wrong. Yet, you admit that you have no idea where this theory starts. Sounds like religion to me. God Bless.

 

[Gracchus]

Bravo, Josh1! Your arguments refuted, you nevertheless deny defeat and proclaim a draw. You are not the first and I dare say you will not be the last creationist to use this smoke-screen tactic.