To all athiests out there: bring it on

[Smilin]

Originally posted by lucaspa
This is Bishop Ussher's count in the 1600s.  However, by 1800 no Christian accepted these figures. Christians who were also naturalists accepted that the earth is millions of years old.

What you seem to be doing is pitting your interpretation of the Bible against the evidence God left in His creation.  Since it's you vs God, you are going to lose.

Amazingly though,

The same chronology has resurfaced among the YEC movement.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by repentandbelieve
With God, all things are possible (Mat 19:26) 

Really? Can God create a rock He can't lift?

Where did all the water come from and then all the water go?  Genesis 6-8 doesn't mention anything miraculous.  The evidence God left in His creation says there never was a world-wide Flood. This was admitted by Rev. Adam Sedgwick in 1831 when he left the Presidency of the Royal Geological Society.

"Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood.  For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits.  In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths.  (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)"

I think you might find a little history on the subject of Christianity and the Floodto be beneficial. Apparently you don't know much about the history of Christian thought.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by tacoman528
To seebs,
That is my definition of a rediculous question. but I'll answer it anyway. in my experience, God doesn't lie. It even says in the Bible that he cannot lie. If he says he created the earth in six days, there was a flood that overran the earth, and Jesus walked in Palestine 2000 years ago, I'll believe it.

It also states in the Bible that you can handle serpents and drink poison without being harmed...do you believe that (literally) as well...and if so...would you demonstrate?

It also sais if any body part offends thee...hand, eye, etc...you should chop it off/pluck it out...

the next time your hand offends thee..i.e. self-gratification...will you chop it off for us?

the next time you check out a pretty girl with lust in your heart...will you pluck your eye out for us?

 

 

[Aceldama]

Originally posted by tacoman528
To Aceldama,
first of all, the universe was created in six days, not one. Try to get your stories right. I believe the earth was created in six days and not millions of years because that's what the bible says. But i'm sure that is not enough evidence so I will give you scientific proof. If the plants were created on the third day and the sun was created on the fourth day, how did the plants live if the "days" were actually longer that about a week

 

I was talking about prooving the first sentance in Genesis. But I can see how you may of misunderstood me.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by tacoman528
in my experience, God doesn't lie. It even says in the Bible that he cannot lie. If he says he created the earth in six days, there was a flood that overran the earth, and Jesus walked in Palestine 2000 years ago, I'll believe it.

It says in the gospels that all the world was taxed.  Do you believe that Japanese, Inuits, and Swedes were taxed?  If not, why not?  If you believe only the Roman Empire was taxed, then why doesn't the text say so.

What you seem to be saying is that the whole Bible is either a direct dictation by God or directly written by God. Where does it say that in the Bible?  When I gave my 5 year old daughter a simplified explanation of television, was I lying to her?  When high school textbooks draw discrete orbitals of electrons around atoms, are they lying?

 

[Smilin]

Paul also stated that every living creature had been preached to...

Funny....my Native American ancestors never received a visit from him...

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Warrior FC
You can't trust the bible which is claimed to be inspired words from God, but why do you trust what other men say? The same men you trust in for evolution, science, etc.. are the same men that are capable of lying, cheating, stealing, and killing!

But the data doesn't lie. 

The difference is that you are trusting people you don't know to have written down the stories in the Bible accurately.  More importantly, you are trusting you that your literal interpretation is correct. Now, since you are capable of cheating, lying, stealing, and killing, why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible.  Maybe God wasn't trying to say He created in six literal days, but that He created for a purpose.  That would be true but your interpretation of literal six days and the geneology would be wrong.

Science works only with observations that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.  I don't have to trust my astronomy colleagues or my physicist colleagues.  I can go and get samples of the rocks and do the radioisotope measurements myself. And I'll get the same results they did.  And I can look through a telescope and measure parallax to the nearest stars, measure the parallax to Cepheid variables, determine that intrinsic brightness is always the same and work out the inverse square law for apparent brightness, and work out distances in light years to the nearer galaxies for myself. I can even do the measurements to determine the speed of light.  I don't for a number of reasons, but I could. And other people have checked the measurements.

So "trust" isn't the right word here.  You must trust that the authors of the gospels told you the truth about the empty tomb and the risen Jesus because you can't look for yourself.  But I can check out my fellow scientists and they check out me.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Smilin
Amazingly though,

The same chronology has resurfaced among the YEC movement.

Of course, because the YEC movement is using Ussher's figures without bothering to look at what Christians have been doing. The only area that YECers are more ignorant in than science is Christianity. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JesusServant
Why would Him not leaving evidence of every action he performed dampen your faith?

It's not the lack of evidence. After all, there is no lasting evidence of the Parting of the Red Sea.  What is disturbing is the evidence that can't be there IF a global Flood happened.  It's the evidence that is there that is the problem.

For instance,
"Complexity of Holocene Climate as Reconstructed from a Greenland Ice Core"
[1].

ABSTRACT: "Glaciochemical time series developed from Summit, Greenland,
indicate that the chemical composition of the atmosphere was dynamic during
the Holocene epoch.  Concentrations of sea salt and terrestrial dusts
increased in Summit snow during the periods 0 to 600, 2400 to 3100, 5000 to
6100, 7800 to 8800, and more than 11,300 years ago.  The most recent
increase, and also the most abrupt, coincides with the Little Ice Age.  These
changes imply that either the north polar vortex expanded or the meridional
air flow intensified during these periods, and that temperatures in the mid
to high northern latitudes were potentially coldest since the Younger Dryas
event."

If the earth is 6,000 years old, how can we have ice cores that show 11,300 years?  If a Flood occurred in that time period, why aren't the ice cores interrupted?  BTW, there are ice cores from the Andes that go back over 30,000 years.  If the Andes were formed after a Flood, those ice cores can't be there. Yet there they are.

There are literally ( ) thousands of other bits of data that can't be there if a Flood happened.

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by Smilin
What evidence are you referring to?

No scientific evidence concerning the true age of the earth, the age of the universe, evolution, abiogenisis, the fossil record, hominids, chemistry, biology, etc..etc. has dampened my faith in God one bit.

To alter science to fit any particular theological doctrines is nothing more than creating lies.  In addition, Christianity in no way refutes any current Science.  To suggest that any science is anti-biblical is pure ignorance.

I don't know why you're attacking me on these issues.  You assume many things about me none of which I have posted.  Oh, and if you're going to mention how christianity doesn't refute science you must in fact run that argument both ways.

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by lucaspa
It's not the lack of evidence. After all, there is no lasting evidence of the Parting of the Red Sea.  What is disturbing is the evidence that can't be there IF a global Flood happened.  It's the evidence that is there that is the problem.

For instance,
"Complexity of Holocene Climate as Reconstructed from a Greenland Ice Core"
[1].

ABSTRACT: "Glaciochemical time series developed from Summit, Greenland,
indicate that the chemical composition of the atmosphere was dynamic during
the Holocene epoch.  Concentrations of sea salt and terrestrial dusts
increased in Summit snow during the periods 0 to 600, 2400 to 3100, 5000 to
6100, 7800 to 8800, and more than 11,300 years ago.  The most recent
increase, and also the most abrupt, coincides with the Little Ice Age.  These
changes imply that either the north polar vortex expanded or the meridional
air flow intensified during these periods, and that temperatures in the mid
to high northern latitudes were potentially coldest since the Younger Dryas
event."

If the earth is 6,000 years old, how can we have ice cores that show 11,300 years?  If a Flood occurred in that time period, why aren't the ice cores interrupted?  BTW, there are ice cores from the Andes that go back over 30,000 years.  If the Andes were formed after a Flood, those ice cores can't be there. Yet there they are.

There are literally ( ) thousands of other bits of data that can't be there if a Flood happened.

Apparently if you're a Christian and you post in this thread, it is assumed that you're a YEC?  Whatever.  Another post directed at me for no particular reason.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree I would disagree.  Modern-day science has purposed itself to attempt to prove the theory of naturalism, that is, that tangible reality is all that exists, and there is no God.  This is entirely different from its original purpose of taking whatever the evidence is and drawing the proper conclusions from it.

I submit that what you have seen is an attempt by atheists to say that science does this.  Yes, some scientists think that science shows there is no deity.  But are those individual scientists correct and are their statements their own or are they "science"?  I say "No" to both statements.  The reason more scientists don't fight with them is because 1) they do get the science right and 2) we automatically filter out their personal beliefs.  I had to read The Blind Watchmaker a second time to focus in on Dawkins' atheistic statements.  I had read them the first time, but automatically discarded them for the personal faith they were and ignored them.  Many scientists, including Dawkins', are taking greater pains to separate their personal beliefs from what science is.  If you can find a copy (it's out of print), you should read Science Held Hostage by Young, Meninga, and Van Till.  Three Christian scientists analyze how creationists and atheists attempt to hijack science.

Assuming God did create the universe and the Bible is His inherent, infalliable word, why would He choose to make it unscientific?  It doesn't make sense to me.

The problem here is the assumptions.  The first one is fine, but the second is falsified by internal evidence in the Bible.  For instance, you don't take the Psalms literally, do you? Because they are poetry, you will say. Yet all of the Pentateuch is poetry in Hebrew. Jews still sing the Pentateuch in synagogue.

Also, are you claiming that the Bible is theologically infallible or completely infallible? If the first, you can make a case. But the second is indefensible by such statements that camels are cloven hoofed and rabbits chew cud.

Also, if God created the universe, then everything we find in the universe had to have been put there by God, didn't it? And that includes all the evidence that shows creationism to be false and evolution to be true.  The bad thing about your premises is that they pit God against God.  What is happening, of course, is that your premises about an infallible Bible is being pitted against God. Fortunately for Christianity, most Christians can see your fallacy. If they couldn't, Christianity would be gone because you set Christianity up not only to be falsified, but actually falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JesusServant
Apparently if you're a Christian and you post in this thread, it is assumed that you're a YEC?  Whatever.  Another post directed at me for no particular reason.

JesusServant, I know that you are a theistic evolutionist, not a YEC.  The reason I posted to you was for the science, not your religious beliefs.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that, for science, it's never "lack of evidence".  Ideas get in trouble because of evidence that is there, not evidence that is lacking.

Science works by deductive logic.  This states that true statements can't have false consequences.  For the theory that a violent, global Flood caused all the geology on the planet, there are consequences that we see that simply can't be there if the theory is true.  Therefore, since true theories can't have false consequences, the theory is false.

I'm trying to get you guys to think like scientists: take an idea, assume it is true, make deductions from the idea, then look for the consequences in an attempt to falsify the theory.

Despite what Late Creataceous says, it is possible to prove that entities do not exist.  That is what science does all the time.  It falsifies the existence of entities.

The situation with deity is that science hasn't been able to falsify deity.  Mostly this is due to the limitations methodological materialism imposes on science.  Our experimental methods simply won't directly test for deity and falsify it. Partly it is due to the fact that most of the critical statements about deity don't leave evidence that we can study today. As I said, there is no evidence for the Parting of the Red Sea. But by it's very nature, that event/entity wouldn't have left evidence that survives to today.  Wearing my science hat, I can't comment at all whether that event happened.

 

[tacoman528]

To Humanista,
first of all, sorry to everyone for the delay in explanations. I have had a ton of schoolwork and I didn't think there would be so many questions (not that I can't answer all of them) so it may be awhile before I get to all of them, luckily, many of my christian brothers and sisters will be helping me. Trust me, I'm doing the best I can.

answer to your question: not all the water came from the canopy. look in Genesis 7:11. The most of the water didn't come from the sky

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
I do not like the abuse teenagers have to put up with on here. But if they can handle it, they are more than welcome as far as I am concerned. Did you know that David was about 14 when he defeated Golieth? Did you know that Mary was not much more then 14 when she brought the baby Jesus into the world.

There is no question that God uses teenagers. The enemy uses them to if you have read up on the shootings in our schools.

But would God use a teenager who quotes Hovind? God knows better than that...

 

[tacoman528]

Continuation of the previous list of why the earth is about 6000 years old...

The Earth is spinning at about 1000 miles per hour and it is slowing down. Very slowly. so slowly that 6000 years ago, it wouldn't be spinning too much faster. However, at the time YOU say that dinosaurs would be walking the earth: about 200 million years ago. The centrifucal force of the spinning earth would cause those dinosaurs to fly off the earth. And if it wasn't spinning that fast to begin with, anything that could make it spin that fast would have to be so big or so fast that when impact was made, life would be eliminated from the earth.

Another reason:

The earth is moving away from the sun. Extremely slowly. So slow that 6000 years ago, once again, no big deal. millions of years ago is, once again, a problem.

Reason's for the flood:

This will also be an answer to many of your questions concerning whether there was a flood or not.

Reasons for a flood:
Rarely are complete skeletons intact

trees running through supposed millions of years worth of rock layer

mass amounts of marine fossils in specific areas

dead clams on top of mount everest

Many cultures have their own version of the flood story very similar to the bible's flood story.

huge amounts of closed clam fossils (most clams open when they die)


Reasons for the flood being 4000 years ago:

The oldes tree is 4000 years old

The Nile, Amazon, and Ganges rivers all 4000 years old

The Sahara Desert is 4000 years old

Niagra Falls is 4000 years old


By the way, human bones are found amongst dinosaur bones all the time. They are just ignored by most science textbooks (because they think that humans lived only 1million years ago and that dinosaurs died off much earlier) There are even dinosaurs mentioned in the bible. Check out Job 38
They weren't called dinosaurs by the way, they were called Behemoths and Leviathans.

 

[notto]

tacoman528,

If I find a series of multiple intact dinosaur nests with their eggs still neatly arranged in a circle and covered with grass and branches, can I assume that all of the sediment below them was "pre flood" or do I assume that all sediment above them was "post flood".

One of these assumptions needs to be correct in a flood scenario. A flood cannot move an egg nest so either the eggs were covered originally by the flood where they were laid (on pre-flood groud), or they were laid after the flood (on post flood groud).

Any thoughts?

 

[tacoman528]

To all readers,
So now people are insulting Hovind eh?
Some are even saying that he is using me

I will tell you that I do not even know Hovind
I have shaken his hand once though.
Though you have no idea how much I wish I could know him

I've listened to tons of his stuff. He has answered all of my questions. I have not noticed an ounce of personal greed on his part. I just think that you're sick of him always answering your scientific questions so you then begin asking rediculous questions (rediculous questions defined in my first post) and he refused to answer those questions (like I do, by the way) so now you are talking trash about him. You can talk all the trash you want, about Hovind, about me, about God and the Bible. I won't do anything about it, Hovind won't do anything about it (That's what bothers you the most), but the bible sure talks about you a lot. Read II Peter 3:3

I wish I was as great a man as Hovind. He goes all around the country bringing the truth with him, God's word. Most christians wouldn't even think of going next door. I sure encourage you to visit his website at www-drdino-com because If I don't have the answers, he does, and so does the bible. (please substitute the dashes with dots on the URL address)

I hope this message cleared up any, untruths about Dr. Hovind

 

[notto]

Originally posted by tacoman528

I wish I was as great a man as Hovind. He goes all around the country bringing the truth with him, God's word. Most christians wouldn't even think of going next door. I sure encourage you to visit his website at www-drdino-com because If I don't have the answers, he does, and so does the bible. (please substitute the dashes with dots on the URL address)

Here are a few words of this great man.

"The globalist, the Council of the Committee of Three Hundred, has as one of their goals to reduce the world population from six billion to one-half billion people. There are too many people here that cannot be controlled; so get rid of them. That's why AIDS was purposefully developed in a Maryland laboratory to wipe out population."

Do you agree with this statement tacoman? Do you think this is a "truth" as said by Hovind?

 

[tacoman528]

Dear Notto,
The answer to your first question: could be both.
If it was covered when the flood happened here is the explanation.
The rain maybe did not move the eggs but the mud could still have covered them. Maybe when the water was released from the subterrainean chambers, the mud from the earth was carried up onto the surface where the mud may have oozed over the eggs slowly, not disturbing them.

The eggs may have been layed after the flood and there was a mudslide that covered them. There are many possibilities.