What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Paul James]

But are those explanations necessary? I love to speculate about the flood story, but it really isn't necessary.

The easiest way is to just believe what the Bible says about it. Isn't that what Christians do?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The easiest way is to just believe what the Bible says about it. Isn't that what Christians do?

I do both. It's fun to speculate about the details. That said some narratives are very hard to understand, some of Paul's discourses in particular.

 

[Paul James]

I do both. It's fun to speculate about the details. That said some narratives are very hard to understand, some of Paul's discourses in particular.

That's what Peter said about Paul's more difficult passages.

 

[Quietus]

If you expect us to do honest research you shouldn't cheat on your references. Ballard's flood wasn't global and it happened 12,000 years ago--about 10,000 years too soon.

Well, excuse me - I’d hardly call it cheating when I was ignorant of the inaccuracy. To be fair, I didn’t even read the article. I just typed in keywords, same as anyone can do. I mean, if you really wanted to research, you can do it yourself. I’m not going to dig around and scan every page to see if it sounds convincing enough to include in a forum exchange.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, excuse me - I’d hardly call it cheating when I was ignorant of the inaccuracy. To be fair, I didn’t even read the article. I just typed in keywords, same as anyone can do. I mean, if you really wanted to research, you can do it yourself. I’m not going to dig around and scan every page to see if it sounds convincing enough to include in a forum exchange.

A poster is responsible for the links that he or she posts. Why on Earth would you post from sites that you did not check or understand? That almost sounds like an admission of trolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The easiest way is to just believe what the Bible says about it. Isn't that what Christians do?

No. Why would you do that? In fact even early Christians quite often knew that parts of the Bible were not meant to be taken literally and they did not have our advantage of available knowledge. A Christian should be interested in the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, excuse me - I’d hardly call it cheating when I was ignorant of the inaccuracy. To be fair, I didn’t even read the article. I just typed in keywords, same as anyone can do. I mean, if you really wanted to research, you can do it yourself. I’m not going to dig around and scan every page to see if it sounds convincing enough to include in a forum exchange.

We've already researched it. I dare say that the typical "evolutionist" in these forums is as familiar with creationist literature as any creationist. I recognized that Ballard link as an exception before I even opened it. You're going to have to raise your game if you expect to play here.

 

[Strathos]

I am sorry but that is reinterpretation after the fact. In fact you cannot put a tent over a globe.

 

[RDKirk]

?

There is no hard requirement from God to have done all that to be saved unto eternal life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Way to think like a Flat Earther. Epic fail.

 

[Strathos]

Way to think like a Flat Earther. Epic fail.

It's a tent over a globe. Exactly what you said can't be done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a tent over a globe. Exactly what you said can't be done.

Yes, over a sphere, not over the Earth. If that was the Earth and the bottom was Antarctica the tent would be under the Earth, not over it, from that perspective. You thought like a Flat Earther.

 

[MIDutch]

He revealed the technology of wing formation to create lift and to make more light, powerful engines to enable greater speed to lift an aircraft of the ground. Then He revealed jet engine technology to improve man's ability to fly and use aircraft as a means of common national and international transportation.

"He" did nothing of the sort. That was us dumb apes going through 2000+ years worth of trial and error and innovation and flashes of brilliance.

You make it sound like "He" wrote it all down on some clay tablets and sent it down the mountain with some guy and "poof" we humans were flying around in 747s.

 

[MIDutch]

The evidence for evolution is spurious and vague. Scientists acknowledge that there had to have been a global flood for many reasons not the least of which is sea shells at the tops of mountains. You're just apparently not up on science.

Irony meter go BOOM.

Hint: plate tectonics was one of the great scientific discoveries of our times.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You were rather rude in the abuse of your sources. Claiming that someone else is not polite is hypocritical to say the least.

Using sources is now rude. Funny.

It is odd how creationists never see that they are the first to be rude in almost all discussions.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Irony meter go BOOM.

Hint: plate tectonics was one of the great scientific discoveries of our times.

Which relevant because? The ICR article doesn't deny plate tectonics it says they might explain how the flood could have been caused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Using sources is now rude. Funny.

Using joke sources is funny. One cannot use sources where the workers at that site are required to avoid the scientific method in a scientific debate.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

So backwards. I am never the first to be rude. I am usually quite patient. The problem is that many creationists are rather ignorant about the topic that they are arguing and do not realize when they are being rude. Worse yet they do not realize when they are breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So backwards. I am never the first to be rude. I am usually quite patient.

Your insistence on using ad hominem is apparent. Not only from this thread but others. Cut it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which relevant because? The ICR article doesn't deny plate tectonics it says they might explain how the flood could have been caused.

But they can't. The spout arguments that they have no evidence for. Again, ICR is not a valid source since one needs to swear not to follow the scientific method there. As a result their work is not scientific.

The problem is that you do not understand the basics of science. This is not an attack, it is an observation. We can discuss the scientific method and evidence. If you like we can either first go over the concepts or we can apply it step by step in a discussion of either your sources or ours. But unless you are willing to do that you will never get past posting PRATT's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your insistence on using ad hominem is apparent. Not only from this thread but others. Cut it out.

And that was not ad hominem.

Most posters that use that term do not apply it properly.

Once again, let's have a discussion about the basics of science. If you actually do understand them it will be very quick. It will make you a better debater.