Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Last 100,000 years would be good.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the last 100,000 years. However, this doesn't stop young earth creationists from claiming that there was a recent global flood some 4,000 years ago. You would think that they would need data to back this up, wouldn't they?

Actually, the Noah myth is a retelling of the much older Babylonian myth. Perhaps you are missing the cultural context of the flood myth.

According the the Genesis story, most of the earth would still be covered with water, but the question is how much dry land was formed and how much of it was bodies of water?
Whether this event was billions of yrs ago or 6000 yrs ago, I will leave that up to others to argue about. Thoughts?

Genesis 1:9 And 'Elohiym is saying: "they shall flow together, the water from under the heavens, to one place and shall appear the dry", and it is becoming so.
10 And 'Elohiym is calling to dry, land/'erets, and to confluence of the waters he calls Seas/yam. And 'Elohiym is seeing that Good.

 

[Loudmouth]

According the the Genesis story, most of the earth would still be covered with water, but the question is how much dry land was formed and how much of it was bodies of water?

More importantly, what does the data say?

Whether this event was billions of yrs ago or 6000 yrs ago, I will leave that up to others to argue about. Thoughts?

According to most YEC's, it occurred 4,000 years ago and covered all land on the entire Earth. Shouldn't they have data to back these claims up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Shouldn't they have data to back these claims up?

It depends if God removed it to restore the earth to habitable conditions.

Mankind was reduced to eight people, and a replenishing of the population was being called for.

 

[mzungu]

It depends if God removed it to restore the earth to habitable conditions.

Mankind was reduced to eight people, and a replenishing of the population was being called for.

Just as you refuse to accept that you are one of the African ape family so do I refuse to accept that I am the product of incest!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as you refuse to accept that you are one of the African ape family so do I refuse to accept that I am the product of incest!

You might want to check your documentation on that.

Unless you're setting a boundary that you won't pass, I would say you might have to admit somewhere along the line life started out with a brother & sister getting together.

 

[mzungu]

You might want to check your documentation on that.

Unless you're setting a boundary that you won't pass, I would say you might have to admit somewhere along the line life started out with a brother & sister getting together.

Absolutely not! I am an Ape and certainly not the product of incest. I find the very idea to be anathema to me especially when it is condoned by a religious movement!

I know that it is impossible to sway you from your beliefs and likewise I shall never believe in nor accept any deity to rule my life. My trust is in science! We both have our convictions!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It depends if God removed it to restore the earth to habitable conditions.

Mankind was reduced to eight people, and a replenishing of the population was being called for.

My bro Peter also casually mentions that

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

1 Peter 3:20 To ones being stubborn once when awaited the out of the God, patience, in days of Noah of being constructed an Ark into which few, this being eight souls, were saved thru water

Hebrews 11:7 To faith being apprised Noah, the concerning the not as yet things being seen, being reverent, prepares an Ark into salvation of his house--through which he condemns the world, and of the according to faith, righteousness became enjoyer of allotment.

 

[mzungu]

My bro Peter also casually mentions that

I clicked on your camera icon and was shocked! Are you seriously insulting a major figure of Christianity? Or is it all in jest?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I clicked on your camera icon and was shocked! Are you seriously insulting a major figure of Christianity? Or is it all in jest?

Actually, that was in response to this thread concerning some Christian sects inplying Paul was a "false Apostle" who taught against the Law of Moses

Acts 21:21 "They were instructed yet about the apostasy/apo-stasian <646> thou are teaching from Moses, the according to the nations/gentiles all Judeans saying 'no to be circumcising them the offsprings, no yet to the customs/eqesin <1485> to be walking'". [2 Thess 2:3]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7589021/
[REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

Hey Guys lets talk....we need to figure out this new debate issue about Paul as its getting out of hand a bit....I dont want to add anymore to the MJ SOP(statement of purpose) as lists tend to get sooooooo long but if we needed to, what else besides this Paul issue would you add? just curious...

In case some of you dont know whats been going on, there have been lots of threads and posts discrediting Paul and his ministry to the gentiles, and that has never been main stream MJ doctrine or teaching therefore its beginning to be a disruption to the forum

What are your thoughts on this issue and what other issues are of concern?

 

[mzungu]

Actually, that was in response to this thread concerning some Christian sects inplying Paul was a "false Apostle" who taught against the Law of Moses

http://www.christianforums.com/t7589021/
[REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

OK! Thanks for the clarification!

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely not! I am an Ape and certainly not the product of incest. I find the very idea to be anathema to me especially when it is condoned by a religious movement!

I know that it is impossible to sway you from your beliefs and likewise I shall never believe in nor accept any deity to rule my life. My trust is in science! We both have our convictions!

I use Moses' refusal to be considered the son of Pharaoh's daughter for my justification; which, in fact, he was not Pharaoh's daughter's son.

In addition to that, I use Documentation to show Who, what, why, when, where, how, what order, how long it took, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Your turn.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I use Moses' refusal to be considered the son of Pharaoh's daughter for my justification; which, in fact, he was not Pharaoh's daughter's son.

In addition to that, I use Documentation to show Who, what, why, when, where, how, what order, how long it took, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Your turn.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

John 5:45 "No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of-ye toward the Father, is the one-accusing of-ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped"
[Luke 16:31/Reve 12:10]

Luke 16:31 Saying yet to him "if Moses and the Prophets not they are hearing, neither if ever anyone out of dead-ones may be rising/anasth <450> (5632), they shall be being persuaded".

 

[mzungu]

I use Moses' refusal to be considered the son of Pharaoh's daughter for my justification; which, in fact, he was not Pharaoh's daughter's son.

In addition to that, I use Documentation to show Who, what, why, when, where, how, what order, how long it took, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Your turn.

Ah but you base your beliefs in faith and not empirical evidences. This is the difference between us. Other than that there is not much that separates us!

 

[AV1611VET]

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

John 5:45 "No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of-ye toward the Father, is the one-accusing of-ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped"
[Luke 16:31/Reve 12:10]

Luke 16:31 Saying yet to him "if Moses and the Prophets not they are hearing, neither if ever anyone out of dead-ones may be rising/anasth <450> (5632), they shall be being persuaded".

Yes, sir!

I use that passage to point out to these guys that the evidence they demand isn't going to be as convincing as they think it is.

Even if someone returned from the grave, they wouldn't believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah but you base your beliefs in faith and not empirical evidences. This is the difference between us. Other than that there is not much that separates us!

You weren't there to see Mrs. Homo Erectus give birth to Miss Homo Sapiens, either; so you walk by faith as well.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, sir!

I use that passage to point out to these guys that the evidence they demand isn't going to be as convincing as they think it is.

Even if someone returned from the grave, they wouldn't believe.

That covenantle parable of the richman/lazarus in Luke 16 is the largest study I have on the NT of the Bible....fascinating!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7461118/#post54553876
Lazarus and 2 witnesses of Reve 11 similarity

John 11:39 Jesus is saying "take away ye! the stone".
Martha is saying to Him, the sister of the one having deceased "Lord, already he stinking, for it is fourth-day
43 And these saying, to a great Voice He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

Reve 11:12 And they hear a great Voice out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye here!".
And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them, the enemies of them.

 

[mzungu]

You weren't there to see Mrs. Homo Erectus give birth to Miss Homo Sapiens, either; so you walk by faith as well.

No AV; One does not need to see the sperm fuse with the egg in order to accept a humans existence.

Empirical evidence gives the data and the theory explains those data. This procedure is what science is based on and not faith. Science does not function by faith. It has rules that govern how it should function in order for the results to be accepted. Also science is a never-ending quest for knowledge. It matters little that new knowledge may overturn previous knowledge. But as time progresses, science becomes more accurate due to the great advancements in technology that is the tools science uses.

You cannot trespass into the realms of science with a faith based belief and expect science to accept your beliefs. This is tantamount to comparing oranges to transistors.

I have no problems with your faith nor beliefs so long as they remain in the realms of religion. Your beliefs are respected by myself and I shall always support your right to freedom of religion and free speech.

I need to know that a bridge was built to the latest specifications and not depend on faith that the bridge will not collapse.

Air transport is the safest mode of travel and for a good reasons too. I need not explain the reasons as I am sure you are well aware of them. Yes accidents happen and science learns from them in order to make planes and air travel safer.

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV; One does not need to see the sperm fuse with the egg in order to accept a humans existence.

I said "give birth to".

 

[mzungu]

I said "give birth to".

It makes no difference! When you see a frog you immediately know that it was once an embryo which hatched into a tadpole and grew into a frog. We know this because we have studied this and have the empirical evidence. The same applies to all the fields of science. We need not see the hydrogen combine with oxygen to know that the outcome will be water as we have the atomic theory to explain the empirical evidence that this will be the outcome. Many elements and their characteristics were very precisely predicted before their discovery due to the Atomic Theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you see a frog you immediately know that it was once an embryo which hatched into a tadpole and grew into a frog.

But you've never seen a frog's predecessor give birth to a frog, have you?