[Damian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Note that the only way creationists can explain the worldwide flood and today's distribution of fish, is to assume evolution.

Not surprising.

Do you believe that Noah's flood is a mythological story or a historical fact?

[The Barbarian]

Do you believe that Noah's flood is a mythological story or a historical fact?

Could be a literal fact. Or it could be entirely allegorical. There was a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time. Clearly, there are allegorical parts to Genesis. But that's not what the story is about.

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Could be a fact. There was a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time. Clearly, there are allegorical parts to Genesis. But that's not what the story is about.

Could be a fact_ ?
Let's talk about that.

What do you feel about the biblical canon? I know you are a Catholic, but I'm just pertaining to the main books in general. Do you feel that Genesis shouldn't have been issued into it? Because it seems to me that Genesis is the most discredited book of all of them.

It's interesting, when taking into account the gravity of the Pentateuch, that a lot of Christians seem to water down the events within them. Do you even believe that Moses split the Red Sea?

The problem is that these things are miracles and divine intervention, and yet believers of God still get rattled by an unbeliever's opinion. This really only leaves one recourse for theistic evolutionists, Christian Deists, and the like., and that's to conclude that the first several books of the Bible are fables with a tidbit of fact.
Is that the notion that you express?

[Damian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Could be a literal fact. Or it could be entirely allegorical. There was a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time. Clearly, there are allegorical parts to Genesis. But that's not what the story is about.

Sounds like you're waffling. Clearly, the Genesis flood story is mythological.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Damian

Sounds like you're waffling. Clearly, the Genesis flood story is mythological.

Why is it clearly mythological?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

Could be a fact_ ?
Let's talk about that.

What do you feel about the biblical canon? I know you are a Catholic, but I'm just pertaining to the main books in general. Do you feel that Genesis shouldn't have been issued into it? Because it seems to me that Genesis is the most discredited book of all of them.

It's interesting, when taking into account the gravity of the Pentateuch, that a lot of Christians seem to water down the events within them. Do you even believe that Moses split the Red Sea?

The problem is that these things are miracles and divine intervention, and yet believers of God still get rattled by an unbeliever's opinion. This really only leaves one recourse for theistic evolutionists, Christian Deists, and the like., and that's to conclude that the first several books of the Bible are fables with a tidbit of fact.
Is that the notion that you express?

Nobody gers rattled by stupidity, other than the sheer audacity accompanied by the person spewing it.

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by noguru

Nobody gers rattled by stupidity, other than the sheer audacity accompanied by the person spewing it.

That's a non-answer, unless you are calling the author of Genesis a stupid, audacious, lie spewer

Try again.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Why is it clearly mythological?

The Genesis flood story is as mythological as the Genesis creation story. If I have to explain why, then I would give the alternative viewpoint a modicum of respectability that it certainly does not deserve. Certainly, someone who subscribes to a literal interpretation of the biblical flood story is in no position to argue against a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

That's a non-answer, unless you are calling the author of Genesis a stupid, audacious, lie spewer

Try again.

Who said I was calling the author of Genesis stupid. Read my response again, and lay off the egg nog. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by noguru

Who said I was calling the author of Genesis stupid. Read my response again, and lay off the egg nog. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You seem to be having difficulty with my inquiry:

Could be a fact_ ?
Let's talk about that.

What do you feel about the biblical canon? I know you are a Catholic, but I'm just pertaining to the main books in general. Do you feel that Genesis shouldn't have been issued into it? Because it seems to me that Genesis is the most discredited book of all of them.

It's interesting, when taking into account the gravity of the Pentateuch, that a lot of Christians seem to water down the events within them. Do you even believe that Moses split the Red Sea?

The problem is that these things are miracles and divine intervention, and yet believers of God still get rattled by an unbeliever's opinion. This really only leaves one recourse for theistic evolutionists, Christian Deists, and the like., and that's to conclude that the first several books of the Bible are fables with a tidbit of fact.
Is that the notion that you express?

It seems pretty simple to me. What do you make of Genesis, and the whole Pentateuch for that matter? Do you actually have a theology on it, or do you simply ignore/dismiss it?
I see a few of you badgering creationists in just about every way possible, but I never actually see any of you actually present your case as it pertains to the Bible.
It's about time creationists were risen from the hot seat you all put in it.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

You seem to be having difficulty with my inquiry:



It seems pretty simple to me. What do you make of Genesis, and the whole Pentateuch for that matter? Do you actually have a theology on it, or do you simply ignore/dismiss it?
I see a few of you badgering creationists in just about every way possible, but I never actually see any of you actually present your case as it pertains to the Bible.
It's about time creationists were risen from the hot seat you all put in it.

Would you like a blanket statement to cover it all, or should I break it down line by line for you? And yes, it is pretty simple, as long as you don't force others to oversimplify because of your own shortcomings.

I only badger people who behave like idiots, and that actually leaves out some YECs who do not do this. I have explained this all to you before. Of course I don't expect you to remember.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Damian

The Genesis flood story is as mythological as the Genesis creation story. If I have to explain why, then I would give the alternative viewpoint a modicum of respectability that it certainly does not deserve. Certainly, someone who subscribes to a literal interpretation of the biblical flood story is in no position to argue against a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story.

Why can't you give the literal interpretation of creation a modicum of respectability?

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by noguru

Would you like a blanket statement to cover it all, or should I break it down line by line for you? And yes, it is pretty simple, as long as you don't force others to oversimplify because of your own shortcomings.

What do you mean shortcomings? It seems to me that the only one's with shortcomings are people like you. You all fail miserably at giving some kind of theology, on a theology forum at that, that supports your notion which is pretty much contradicts Scripture wholesale as far as I can tell. The Creation events, the Flood, etc. are laced through the entire Bible.

What I see is an utter refusal to explain yourselves, and perhaps it is because you all really have no model for your belief. In which case, you have no real right to be disgruntling creationists.

I only badger people who behave like idiots, and that actually leaves out some YECs who do not do this. I have explained this all to you before. Of course I don't expect you to remember.

You were quick to put every single letter I posted on another thread to your pretentious remarks, but refused to explain your own standing. You remember that?, I know you didn't forget that-

You badger people who present a challenge by making them look like they are not with your grandstands. I had presented plenty to this thread, with little competent opposition now that I think about it, and guess what happened? You and The Barbarian come here with your garbage. As usual, you pro-evos have shown precisely how much you simply do not belong in theological discussions.

[The Barbarian]

Could be a fact_ ?

Yep. I have an open mind on that.

What do you feel about the biblical canon?

I think it was a mistake to remove some of it.

I know you are a Catholic, but I'm just pertaining to the main books in general. Do you feel that Genesis shouldn't have been issued into it?

I don't see anything wrong with Genesis. I think too many people want to read it as a literal history, when it's clear from the text that it can't be.

Because it seems to me that Genesis is the most discredited book of all of them.

I don't think any of it is "discredited."

It's interesting, when taking into account the gravity of the Pentateuch, that a lot of Christians seem to water down the events within them. Do you even believe that Moses split the Red Sea?

If it happened, God did it. Would your faith be different, if it was different than a literal history?

The problem is that these things are miracles and divine intervention, and yet believers of God still get rattled by an unbeliever's opinion.

That never bothered me. What unbelievers think isn't really significant.

This really only leaves one recourse for theistic evolutionists, Christian Deists, and the like., and that's to conclude that the first several books of the Bible are fables with a tidbit of fact.

I don't see how anyone draw such a conclusion.

Is that the notion that you express?

I'm pretty much orthodox Christian on that one. God's truth can be expressed in a parables, allegories, or even within literal history.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Of course you won't see fish becoming amphibians over a human lifetime or even over the length of human civilization up to this point. That is well understood, and not to be expected.

And yet in the matter of a few years we can see changes that are trumpeted as evolution - simple and compelling evidence that the changes wrought might be solely due to adaptation and not at all due to mutation and selection.

But the amount of change required to become something you would call "new" is nebulous and the "new" is not obvious UNTIL the transitional forms connecting the "new" and "old" are extinct.

But ask the question in a slightly different way and we get adamant cries from the evolutionist that anything and everything constitutes great evidence for evolutionary change. I once saw a bird's song being used to justify evolution!