Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[blueboy]

Did you mean to say here "When science fails...."?



We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.



We also discuss facts and evidence. Opinions are a dime a dozen.



Rather, your claims are the result of looking at secular dogma. In other words, it's not science.



Speak for yourself.



Applying science to scripture is what we've been asking for from the secular scientific community for the past however long. They refuse to comply, because doing so might invalidate their a priori notion of millions of years and evolution and the Big Bang (not that that hasn't already been upended...).



At no point has a literal interpretation of scripture (not woodenly literal, mind you, but a consistent application of reasoning, where what is written as literal is taken literally, and what is written as a figure of speech or metaphor is taken as such) ever made Christianity a mockery. Other religions, yes. But not Christianity.

What makes a mockery of Christianity is when people refuse to take God at His word, mashing it up and saying "it's all figurative."



Was there ever a point when there were no humans?

If so, was there ever a point where there was more than one human?

If so, then how do you go from zero humans to more than one human, without ever crossing having the point where there is a first human?



Satan certainly is a serpent.



One that caused the entire solar system to be affected? Yup, that did happen.



Yup, that existed too.



For most, and then 7 of other animals.

You should think about visiting the Ark Exhibit in Kentucky, run by Ken Ham and AiG.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Yes, those stories of REAL events do hold wisdom. Saying it's all symbolic, however, removes any wisdom you might gain from them, however.



Ever heard of the Tower of Babel?

It happened within a few hundred years of the Flood.

Guess what happens when you take a group of people who have the same history, then split them up by changing their native language and send them out across the earth?

You end up with nearly every culture on earth having those same stories about the flood and garden of Eden, even if they're all mashed into one.

Guess what happens when the actual account is preserved by God, and given to Moses, who wrote Genesis?

You get the Pentateuch, and then all you need are various authors of scripture throughout the next 1600 years or so.



Except that the things in the Bible actually happened (or in the case of Revelation, will happen).



True, but that doesn't mean that what he wrote should be taken allegorically or non-literally.



You should listen to the recent episodes of Real Science Radio, where this exact subject is talked about.

Here's the links:

Molecular Biology & The Breath of Life | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Molecular Biology & The Breath of Life - Part II | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Duh. Yet he breathed life into Adam. It's a figure of speech that means he started the process of life. See the above kgov shows for reference.



It's also what man does.



Nope.

The image of God is the image that He created for His Son to indwell, whom He then created man in the image of. (ie, head, torso, two arms, two legs, a face, etc...)



A spirit is something that isn't physical. What occurred when God breathed life into Adam was the start of a physical process, and the attachment of a soul/spirit to Adam.



Yes.



Correct.



Yes.



No.

Eve was the first woman. An actual living, breathing, human woman.



Procreation is involved, but Eve is not just a walking womb.



Nope, Adam was a human man, the first man.

Both Adam and Eve had souls and spirits.



False.



Correct. Literally.

That's what makes man so special.



No.



No, they're not.

Adam and Eve were created perfect. Then they sinned, and as a result, God cast them out of the Garden.



New-age nonsense.



More new-age nonsense.



Lead balloons do float, by the way...



Sorry, no emojis here.



Try telling her that she's actually just Eve, the human life force.

Bet you she smacks some sense into you.

We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.

That's exactly what I am doing, in light of what we know to be true. We know that Adam was not literally the first human. There are countless hundreds of thousands of scientists who have worked in the various sciences and their evidence, though always being refined, tells us that modern humans have existed for at least 70 to 80k years and perhaps longer.

Now to refute this literalists go on an endless search for the slightest flake of contradictor evidence, or an odd date reading, anything to substantiate a belief that Adam was literally the first man. This is simply not true. The Bible and especially Genesis was written for a place and a time and a capacity for understanding that has no comparison to this age.

You can't make something true by belief, you have to look at all the evidence and that includes science. Science does no more than reveal the attributes of Creation. It does not invent reality. It does not reveal anything that does not already exist in the natural order of God's plan. So when amoral science reveals the history of humankind going back many, many thousands of years before Genesis, how is it then possible to call this, considering the Bible evidence? It's not considering the evidence, the science of our age is also part of the evidence. What you claim to be evidence is accepting a literal reading of a work that is symbolic and contradicts all know science.

Sure there are a tiny group claiming to be scientists who build impossible scenarios as to how Genesis might be literal, but in the scheme of things they amount to nothing.

Adam was not the first man, Eve was not made from his rib, the earth is billions of years old, the universe was not made in 6 days, a global flood did not cover the earth, etc, etc. These are simple mental images for a much simpler humanity back in a Bronze Age era. These teachings if thought as literal back then still conveyed meaning and an education, but today we can extract the real gems of meaning because we are aided by science to help us divide symbolic, allegoric, poetic language from literal language.

Is God the Creator, yes. Did He Create humans, yes. Did He Create the universe, yes. How, we don't know, but it seems highly probable that the natural order and laws of natural order were employed over vast ages. Now when Teaching simple Bronze Age people who had no concepts of even the basic states of natural order you write Genesis as a simple story because it is a perfect truth for the age and capacity of the people.

Today we know without the slightest doubt that these stories are not literal, they contain a great symbolic truth embedded in a simple story. The simple story served greatly the first people to hear these stories and much later our generation living in an age of science can extract an even greater insight because we now have an understanding to extract the deeper symbolic meanings.

I do accept the Bible, that's why I have not rejected it for science like so many others have, that said, there is nothing to be gained by claiming something that is impossible to be God's word. God's word also exists in the symbolic meanings of these ancient Scriptures.

Thanks for you reply.

 

[Right Divider]

We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.

That's exactly what I am doing, in light of what we know to be true. We know that Adam was not literally the first human.

That is FALSE. How do we "know" this? The Bible makes it crystal clear that Adam was the first man and the first human.

There are countless hundreds of thousands of scientists who have worked in the various sciences and their evidence, though always being refined, tells us that modern humans have existed for at least 70 to 80k years and perhaps longer.

Fake news. Their "works" is not true science.

Now to refute this literalists go on an endless search for the slightest flake of contradictor evidence, or an odd date reading, anything to substantiate a belief that Adam was literally the first man.

1Cor 15:45 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

God says that the first man was Adam, you say no. I'll stick with God on this one.

This is simply not true.

What you are saying is not true.

The Bible and especially Genesis was written for a place and a time and a capacity for understanding that has no comparison to this age.

Men were never stupid. God created man in HIS image. Adam named the animals on his FIRST day of existence.

You can't make something true by belief,

And yet you try to do just that.

you have to look at all the evidence and that includes science.

Real science does not conflict with the Bible. The nonsense that you call science does.

Science does no more than reveal the attributes of Creation.

Real science does not conflict with the Bible.

It does not invent reality.

The nonsense that you call science does.

It does not reveal anything that does not already exist in the natural order of God's plan.

Again, real science is consistent with the Bible.

So when amoral science reveals the history of humankind going back many, many thousands of years before Genesis, how is it then possible to call this, considering the Bible evidence?

Because "science" does no such thing.

It's not considering the evidence, the science of our age is also part of the evidence.

Not the phony stuff... like billions of years, etc.

What you claim to be evidence is accepting a literal reading of a work that is symbolic and contradicts all know science.

Wrong again.

Sure there are a tiny group claiming to be scientists who build impossible scenarios as to how Genesis might be literal, but in the scheme of things they amount to nothing.

False claim.... AGAIN!

Adam was not the first man, Eve was not made from his rib,

Yes, they are.

the earth is billions of years old, the universe was not made in 6 days, a global flood did not cover the earth, etc, etc.

False.

These are simple mental images for a much simpler humanity back in a Bronze Age era. These teachings if thought as literal back then still conveyed meaning and an education, but today we can extract the real gems of meaning because we are aided by science to help us divide symbolic, allegoric, poetic language from literal language.

Nonsense, again and again.

Is God the Creator, yes.

How do you know this?

Did He Create humans, yes.

How do you know this?

Did He Create the universe, yes.

How do you know this?

How, we don't know, but it seems highly probable that the natural order and laws of natural order were employed over vast ages.

"Highly probable"?

Now when Teaching simple Bronze Age people who had no concepts of even the basic states of natural order you write Genesis as a simple story because it is a perfect truth for the age and capacity of the people.

Your story is mythology.

Today we know without the slightest doubt that these stories are not literal,

Wrong.

they contain a great symbolic truth embedded in a simple story.

They also contain literal truth.

The simple story served greatly the first people to hear these stories and much later our generation living in an age of science can extract an even greater insight because we now have an understanding to extract the deeper symbolic meanings.

Modern age snob-ism.

I do accept the Bible,

No, you don't.

that's why I have not rejected it for science like so many others have, that said, there is nothing to be gained by claiming something that is impossible to be God's word. God's word also exists in the symbolic meanings of these ancient Scriptures.

You are massively confused. We can help, if you will listen to reason. If not, too bad for you.

Thanks for you reply.

You're welcome.

 

[Yorzhik]

Scientific truth and religious truth are one and the same. When religion contradicts proven science it's superstition and dogma. When religion fails to acknowledge religion its materialism.

I'm not asking you to buy my claims about anything, this is just a site where we express opinions. My claims are a result of looking at the best science available, the science you and I live by every second of every day and applying it to Scripture, especially in places where a literal interpretation has made religion a mockery. First man, taking snakes, global floods, Garden of Paradise, a wooden boat with two of every animal. None of this is literal, but it does hold within these stories a great symbolic wisdom.

All these subject points have appeared in various creation myths before Genesis was written. They were used because they were part of the myth history of the region. But the writer, via divine influence, wove a deeper truth into the narrative.

Let me give you an example. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils. So Adam had a living soul because of the breath of God. God obviously does not breath, this is what animals do, so that breath was the image or likeness of God, it was spirit. God breath His spirit into him. Then Eve was made from a rib bone, in other words, from flesh and blood. So Eve is the human life force that comes about through flesh, or procreation and Adam is spirit that comes about through God, which is the image or likeness to God that is a part of every single human. Humans being the only creature with a spirit because God breathed, or attached, or bequeathed each human with a living, eternal spirit.

Adam and Eve represent ever human that will ever be. They are a generic representation of every one of us. Adam the human spirit and Eve the human life force that is constantly being tempted. In this case the snake represents attachment because it is a creature with its entire body on the earth. We humans are always tempted by attachment to things other than God and this is when we are expelled form the Garden of Paradise of God's good pleasure. This is only a small part of the meaning behind this story.

Now of course I imagine this will go over like a lead ballon. I will be very disappointed if I don't get a bunch of laughing emojis.

All the best, my wife is calling me and she must be obeyed at all cost.

Adam was not the first man, Eve was not made from his rib, the earth is billions of years old, the universe was not made in 6 days, a global flood did not cover the earth, etc, etc. These are simple mental images for a much simpler humanity back in a Bronze Age era. These teachings if thought as literal back then still conveyed meaning and an education, but today we can extract the real gems of meaning because we are aided by science to help us divide symbolic, allegoric, poetic language from literal language.

Today we know without the slightest doubt that these stories are not literal, they contain a great symbolic truth embedded in a simple story. The simple story served greatly the first people to hear these stories and much later our generation living in an age of science can extract an even greater insight because we now have an understanding to extract the deeper symbolic meanings.

These ideas are simply wrong.

Failed science is science that sees the evidence and then comes to an illogical or irrational conclusion. An example might be where "scientifically" we all know that salt causes high blood pressure. Before the truth came out, my father who's degree was in biology, was part of the group that was studying the effects of salt in cows. They had a hole straight to the cows stomach and were pouring in exact amounts of salt and watching the effects. Turns out, as long as the cows were able to drink when they were thirsty, there wasn't much difference between cows getting excessive amounts of salt and the control group.

Does this mean humans are OK with excessive salt if they can drink when they are thirsty? No it doesn't. But what it does mean is that the dogma about salt intake should be questioned. But did people see my father having skepticism of salt dogma as rational? Did they realize they were supporting failed science? No... they treated people like him like you treat YEC.

But not only do we read the bible in a reasonable way like we would read any informational writing, but the science is consistent with a simple reading of the biblical text. That means successful science shows the earth is relatively young. It means the whole earth was flooded about 4000 years ago. If you think otherwise you are doing the same thing as people who think they need to stay away from salt for health reasons instead of just, in general, eating salt to taste and drinking when they are thirsty.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.

That's exactly what I am doing,

Take it from someone who's not you: No, it's not what you're doing.

in light of what we know to be true.

Maybe what you know to be true is actually wrong. Considered that yet?

We know that Adam was not literally the first human.

Then your knowledge is in error, because he was, in fact, the first human.

There are countless hundreds of thousands of scientists who have worked in the various sciences and their evidence,

So what?

DNA evidence points to Mitochondrial Eve (likely Eve herself), and Y-Chromosomal Adam (Noah), both in places where it would be appropriate for them to exist if Genesis were literally true.

though always being refined, tells us that modern humans have existed for at least 70 to 80k years and perhaps longer.

Then they're wrong, because the upper limit for the age of the earth is 10,000 years, but a more accurate answer for the actual age of the Earth is that the Earth is around 7500 years old, give or take 100 years.

Now to refute this literalists go on an endless search for the slightest flake of contradictor evidence,

It's not endless. There's plenty of evidence that contradicts any age of the earth that is older than 10,000 years.

or an odd date reading, anything to substantiate a belief that Adam was literally the first man.

Supra.

This is simply not true.

What isn't? The Bible is true, because God, the Author, is true, while every man is a liar.

The Bible and especially Genesis was written for a place and a time and a capacity for understanding that has no comparison to this age.

@Right Divider, I have no problem understanding the Bible, and especially Genesis, do you?

@blueboy Maybe the reason you can't understand the Bible, and especially Genesis, is that you're over-spiritualizing it, interpreting what is meant as literal as figurative, and over-analogizing that which is figurative.

Try reading the Bible as is, without your interpretation. Let the words on the page mean what they actually mean. It'll be a lot easier to understand if you do.

You can't make something true by belief,

Yet you are constantly trying to.

you have to look at all the evidence and that includes science.

Agreed. Something you're not doing.

Science does no more than reveal the attributes of Creation.

Agreed. Something that you keep trying to twist.

It does not invent reality.

Agreed. Reality is that God created in 6 days, 7500 (plus/minus 100) years ago, and that He destroyed the earth in a global flood around 3290 (plus/minus 100) BC.

It does not reveal anything that does not already exist in the natural order of God's plan.

Correct. So why are you trying to introduce things that don't exist as if they did?

So when amoral science reveals the history of humankind going back many, many thousands of years before Genesis, how is it then possible to call this, considering the Bible evidence?

You are, quite literally, begging the question, and with a very loaded question at that.

Science reveals the history of humankind going back to around 5532 BC.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - When Was the Flood, the Exodus, and Creation?

It does not reveal the history of humankind going back "many, many thousands of years before Genesis," as you put it.

It's not considering the evidence,

The evidence points to an old earth.... 7500 or so years old!

the science of our age is also part of the evidence.

Correct.

What you claim to be evidence

No, what IS evidence. It's not just a claim.

is accepting a literal reading of a work that is symbolic and contradicts all know science.

No, it's not, and no, it doesn't.

Sure there are a tiny group claiming to be scientists who build impossible scenarios as to how Genesis might be literal, but in the scheme of things they amount to nothing.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Adam was not the first man,

Yes, he was.

Eve was not made from his rib,

Yes, she was.

the earth is billions of years old,

No, it's not.

the universe was not made in 6 days,

Yes and no. The universe itself was made on day one, but the universe (if you use that word as a synecdoche for all of creation) and everything in it was made in six days.

a global flood did not cover the earth,

By definition, a global flood is an earth covering flood.

The Flood of Noah was a global flood, and the Hydroplate Theory shows how it happened.

etc, etc.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

These are simple mental images

Sure, but they describe complex things.

for a much simpler humanity back in a Bronze Age era.

Whatever that means...

Look, like I said in the other thread, ancient men were geniuses in comparison to modern day men.

These teachings if thought as literal back

They're just as literal now as they were back when they happened.

then still conveyed meaning and an education,

Things don't have to be symbolic in order for there to be a lesson taught.

but today we can extract the real gems of meaning because we are aided by science to help us divide symbolic, allegoric, poetic language from literal language.

All it takes to "divide" the two is to just read it.

Overstressing the symbolic aspect when something is meant as literal, or the reverse, the literal aspect when something is meant as symbolic, destroys the intent of what is being said.

Is God the Creator, yes. Did He Create humans, yes. Did He Create the universe, yes.

But you don't believe those things. You prefer that men arose via some unspecified means, that God didn't create Adam to be the first man, that the universe wasn't made in six days, etc.

How, we don't know,

But you do?

God says He spoke things into existence, and he formed man from the dust of the ground.

but it seems highly probable that the natural order and laws of natural order were employed over vast ages.

Your opinions don't trump reality.

Now when Teaching simple Bronze Age people who had no concepts of even the basic states of natural order you write Genesis as a simple story because it is a perfect truth for the age and capacity of the people.

The problem is that the story continues past Genesis, into Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth, and beyond, all the way to Revelation.

It's all one continuous storyline, blueboy. Genesis is just the introduction, the foundation for the rest of the Bible.

Today we know without the slightest doubt that these stories are not literal,

False.

The stories have been shown to be true and literal, despite your claims to the contrary.

they contain a great symbolic truth embedded in a simple story.

No one here has yet denied that there is symbolic truth contained in the scriptures. What we deny is that therefore the scriptures must not be literal.

The simple story served greatly the first people to hear these stories and much later our generation living in an age of science can extract an even greater insight because we now have an understanding to extract the deeper symbolic meanings.

False.

I do accept the Bible,

Liar.

You reject it, because you reject the simple reading of scripture to mean what it actually says, and instead try to over-spiritualize, over-symbolize that which it says.

that's why I have not rejected it

Quit lying.

for science like so many others have,

You favor your own a priori beliefs over the simple reading of the Bible. That's your problem.

that said, there is nothing to be gained by claiming something that is impossible to be God's word.

The Bible is, in fact, God's word, despite your claims to the contrary.

God's word also exists in the symbolic meanings

God's word was never intended to be taken woodenly literally, nor was it ever intended to be taken only symbolically.

of these a kooooo Scriptures.

Wut?

 

[JudgeRightly]

the earth is relatively young

It's actually old, about 7500 years (give or take 100 years) old!

4000 years ago

4000 years ago is around the time of Abraham, not the flood.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm not asking you to buy my claims about anything,

Why not? Do you agree, then, that the stuff you have been claiming here, in your hatred of and opposition against the Bible, is false?

What would you do differently in these threads than you've been doing, if you did want us to buy the stuff you have been claiming?

this is just a site where we express opinions. My claims are a result of looking at the best science available

What about your claims when you claim (as you're doing, right here) that what you choose to call "the best science available" is the best science available? What is that claim of yours a result of? Why, you claim that solely because those whom you reverently choose to call "science" and "scientists" have handed it down to you.

 

[blueboy]

Why not? Do you agree, then, that the stuff you have been claiming here, in your hatred of and opposition against the Bible, is false?

What would you do differently in these threads than you've been doing, if you did want us to buy the stuff you have been claiming?



What about your claims when you claim (as you're doing, right here) that what you choose to call "the best science available" is the best science available? What is that claim of yours a result of? Why, you claim that solely because those whom you reverently choose to call "science" and "scientists" have handed it down to you.

Why not? Do you agree, then, that the stuff you have been claiming here, in your hatred of and opposition against the Bible, is false?

What would you do differently in these threads than you've been doing, if you did want us to buy the stuff you have been claiming?



What about your claims when you claim (as you're doing, right here) that what you choose to call "the best science available" is the best science available? What is that claim of yours a result of? Why, you claim that solely because those whom you reverently choose to call "science" and "scientists" have handed it down to you.

I'm talking to you, no more, no less. Humans work best when there is an opportunity for all to engage in an unfettered debate. If I was to accept something you said, or heaven forbid, you accepted something I said, the heavens are not upended, truth is not violated, it's just a couple of people sharing their take on what the Bible is expressing.

Now I know you love God and Jesus and honour the Bible in your own way, so I will not take umbrage at you suggesting that because I don't agree with you that I have hatred and opposition towards the Bible. We have more in common than what divides us. I love the same God as you, the same Jesus as you and I follow the moral code as you, I presume. We differ in our rendering of a non-Christian aspect of the Bible which you believe is literal and I do not. That's fine, we will let God deal with us.

As for science, this insurmountable obstacle that gets in the craw of Creationists. Science is no more than organised knowledge. We organise a branch of science and this generates electricity, or delivers clean water, or produces graduates from medical institutions, or builds cars, or prints Bibles, or builds churches, our builds homes and streets, entertains us via TVs, builds musical instruments, educates dental graduates, it can transplant a heart, replace a knee, give a blood transfusion, build the internet. This science that we use today is the best available, tomorrow it will have improved upon and refined even more our understanding of the natural world.

Science is an accumulation of knowledge the gets handed on to the next generation and they in turn improve upon it. So when archaeologists, palaeontologists, anthropologists tell me that the universe is likely to be 14 billion years old, that the earth is 4 billion years old, that modern humans passed through evolution to reach this relative perfection, that Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans, that the Flood of Noah did not happen and they do so by providing what looks to me as convincing evidence, well I'll tell you what I don't do, I do not then reject the truth of the Bible.

I go back to the Bible and I look at it in places that contradict science if taken literally and see if has a symbolic meaning, because it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that Genesis is not a literal work.

So I am placing my love and respect before the Bible and I use a bit of science to give me a better understanding of God's word.

 

[7djengo7]

I will not take umbrage at you suggesting that because I don't agree with you that I have hatred and opposition towards the Bible.

1. You're shamelessly lying through your teeth. You've already shown your colors, your nasty disposition.
2. You don't know how little I care whether or not you take umbrage at me for my pointing out your hatred and opposition against God and His Word.

We differ in our rendering of a non-Christian aspect of the Bible which you believe is literal and I do not.

I believe the Bible, whereas you do not believe the Bible. I believe the Bible is true, whereas you do not believe the Bible is true. I am a Christian, whereas you are a non-Christian.

Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans,

Then who, according to you, were the first humans? And to how many persons are you referring by your phrase, "the first humans"? Some human(s) had to be the first human(s).

the Flood of Noah did not happen

So the flood of Noah is not an event? See, events are things that happen/things that happen are events. If, by your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," you are not referring to any event, then to what are you referring by it? By my phrase, "the flood of Noah," I'm referring to an event—something that happened. If, by your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," you're not referring to something that happened, then you're not referring to what I'm referring to by my phrase, "the flood of Noah".

I'm talking to you, no more, no less.

Um, OK.

In any case, you're obviously not reading what I write, and much less are you rationally responding to any of it or answering any of the questions I've been asking you. So, it's difficult to see that your "talking to" me amounts to anything other than raving and trolling.

 

[Yorzhik]

It's actually old, about 7500 years (give or take 100 years) old!

Depends on what I'm measuring against. "Relatively" is like saying a semi-truck is small; compared to most vehicles on the road, i.e. reality, it generally isn't small. But compared to the claimed size of the Deathstar, it is properly described as small. One might even go as far as to say "tiny"!

4000 years ago is around the time of Abraham, not the flood.

LOL, Abraham wasn't too far from the flood, he could have talked with Shem, one of the people on the ark. So since I said *about* 4000 years, my statement was normal, accurate, English.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm talking to you, no more, no less. Humans work best when there is an opportunity for all to engage in an unfettered debate.

And yet... you don't debate. You just keep making unsupported claims.

If I was to accept something you said, or heaven forbid, you accepted something I said, the heavens are not upended, truth is not violated, it's just a couple of people sharing their take on what the Bible is expressing.

We believe what the Bible says. You say that it cannot mean what it says.

Now I know you love God and Jesus and honour the Bible in your own way, so I will not take umbrage at you suggesting that because I don't agree with you that I have hatred and opposition towards the Bible. We have more in common than what divides us. I love the same God as you, the same Jesus as you and I follow the moral code as you, I presume. We differ in our rendering of a non-Christian aspect of the Bible which you believe is literal and I do not. That's fine, we will let God deal with us.

You've provided no argument as to why we should not believe the Bible just the way it is written.

As for science, this insurmountable obstacle that gets in the craw of Creationists.

Hot air.

Science is no more than organised knowledge. We organise a branch of science and this generates electricity, or delivers clean water, or produces graduates from medical institutions, or builds cars, or prints Bibles, or builds churches, our builds homes and streets, entertains us via TVs, builds musical instruments, educates dental graduates, it can transplant a heart, replace a knee, give a blood transfusion, build the internet. This science that we use today is the best available, tomorrow it will have improved upon and refined even more our understanding of the natural world.

The science that you just described is real science. Experiments can be verified and repeated. The origin of the universe does NOT fall into this category.

Science is an accumulation of knowledge the gets handed on to the next generation and they in turn improve upon it. So when archaeologists, palaeontologists, anthropologists tell me that the universe is likely to be 14 billion years old, that the earth is 4 billion years old, that modern humans passed through evolution to reach this relative perfection, that Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans, that the Flood of Noah did not happen and they do so by providing what looks to me as convincing evidence, well I'll tell you what I don't do, I do not then reject the truth of the Bible.

Those archaeologists, palaeontologists, anthropologists that tell you this are wrong. It's just that simple. You are too easily convinced by bad arguments. You put too much faith in "experts".

I go back to the Bible and I look at it in places that contradict science if taken literally and see if has a symbolic meaning, because it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that Genesis is not a literal work.

Please show us these places. Again the fallacious arguments from you.

So I am placing my love and respect before the Bible and I use a bit of science to give me a better understanding of God's word.

You are misguided by fake "science".

 

[JudgeRightly]

LOL, Abraham wasn't too far from the flood, he could have talked with Shem, one of the people on the ark.

Abraham lived around 2200 BC.

The Flood occurred around 3290 BC (±100 years).

You're telling me Shem lived about 1000 years?

So since I said *about* 4000 years, my statement was normal, accurate, English.

Not even close.

 

[Right Divider]

You're telling me Shem lived about 1000 years?

Gen 11:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:10) ¶ These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: (11:11) And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Looks like Shem lived to be about six hundred years old.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Gen 11:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:10) ¶ These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: (11:11) And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Looks like Shem lived to be about six hundred years old.

In other words, Abraham would NOT have been able to talk to Shem, as @Yorzhik claimed, because Shem would died around and at least before 2700 BC, and Abraham was born no earlier than 2300 BC.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anyways, @Yorzhik, my point is that saying the flood was "about 4000 years ago" isn't close enough to the actual date of the Flood to be able to say that it was "about 4000 years ago."

And so, the claim, even though it's an estimate, is wrong.

 

[blueboy]

1. You're shamelessly lying through your teeth. You've already shown your colors, your nasty disposition.
2. You don't know how little I care whether or not you take umbrage at me for my pointing out your hatred and opposition against God and His Word.

I believe the Bible, whereas you do not believe the Bible. I believe the Bible is true, whereas you do not believe the Bible is true. I am a Christian, whereas you are a non-Christian.



Then who, according to you, were the first humans? And to how many persons are you referring by your phrase, "the first humans"? Some human(s) had to be the first human(s).



So the flood of Noah is not an event? See, events are things that happen/things that happen are events. If, by your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," you are not referring to any event, then to what are you referring by it? By my phrase, "the flood of Noah," I'm referring to an event—something that happened. If, by your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," you're not referring to something that happened, then you're not referring to what I'm referring to by my phrase, "the flood of Noah".



Um, OK.

In any case, you're obviously not reading what I write, and much less are you rationally responding to any of it or answering any of the questions I've been asking you. So, it's difficult to see that your "talking to" me amounts to anything other than raving and trolling.

Dear fellow, you are judging me and that is way above your pay grade.

Now let's leave all this nonsense about me shamelessly lying and my nasty disposition. You're playing the man and not the ball. I have my faults, but my wife loves me, my kids love me and my friends love me, so I can't be nearly as nasty as you find me. Perhaps you are reacting to somebody who is challenging you somewhat. If you were totally comfortable in your belief, somebody like me would be water off a ducks back, but you are absolutely unloading, so I can only assume I have touched a nerve?

The Flood of Noah is in its way an event, it is 40 days and nights of rain, which means that Noah received from God 40 years of the raining down of a divine revelation. The Ark is not a big boat, it is an Ark of Covenant with God. Meaning that those who followed the teachings of Noah can enter into a covenant, a place in which they protect and preserve their human spirit from the rampages of the ego, materialism that replaces God in one's life, form ignoble passion and excesses.

'Have a look at these passages.

Matthew 24/37 - But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 24/39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17/26 - And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:

Was there a Flood in any part of the age of Jesus? Has there been a global flood in the last 2000 years? And yet the age of Jesus was compared to the age of Noah, how is that possible? It's possible because in the age of Noah the people were more concerned about wealth and pleasure than harkening to the word of God.

In the age of Jesus, when He was murdered He had a small group of dedicated followers. The Flood they took them away was their egos, their sin and material cravings that replaced a love of God.

You believe that the Flood of Noah was a real event and God killed every human except 8. The problem with this is how one then must perceive God as a revenge filled being whose Creation has failed, so He has no alternative but to destroy everything and start again. This would of course leave a planet utterly devastated, eco-systems destroyed beyond any hope of returning and if humans could have survived they would see the evidence of this deluge everywhere. Somebody mentioned the rebound after Mt St Helens, but Mt St Helens is about a billionth of the planet's surface, whereas the literal Flood was a total coverage.

I believe this is an moral teaching, highly symbolic, expressed as a story.

 

[JudgeRightly]

you are judging me

And you're judging him for judging you. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

[Right Divider]

The Flood of Noah is in its way an event, it is 40 days and nights of rain, which means that Noah received from God 40 years of the raining down of a divine revelation.

Utter hogwash.

The Ark is not a big boat, it is an Ark of Covenant with God.

You are still making silly claims without support.

Meaning that those who followed the teachings of Noah can enter into a covenant, a place in which they protect and preserve their human spirit from the rampages of the ego, materialism that replaces God in one's life, form ignoble passion and excesses.

Fairy tales.

You believe that the Flood of Noah was a real event and God killed every human except 8.

Only because that is exactly what the Bible says.

The problem with this is how one then must perceive God as a revenge filled being whose Creation has failed, so He has no alternative but to destroy everything and start again.

The Creator has the right to every man's life.

This would of course leave a planet utterly devastated, eco-systems destroyed beyond any hope of returning and if humans could have survived they would see the evidence of this deluge everywhere.

Claims sans support. Boring!!

I believe this is an moral teaching, highly symbolic, expressed as a story.

What you believe is irrelevant.

 

[blueboy]

These ideas are simply wrong.

Failed science is science that sees the evidence and then comes to an illogical or irrational conclusion. An example might be where "scientifically" we all know that salt causes high blood pressure. Before the truth came out, my father who's degree was in biology, was part of the group that was studying the effects of salt in cows. They had a hole straight to the cows stomach and were pouring in exact amounts of salt and watching the effects. Turns out, as long as the cows were able to drink when they were thirsty, there wasn't much difference between cows getting excessive amounts of salt and the control group.

Does this mean humans are OK with excessive salt if they can drink when they are thirsty? No it doesn't. But what it does mean is that the dogma about salt intake should be questioned. But did people see my father having skepticism of salt dogma as rational? Did they realize they were supporting failed science? No... they treated people like him like you treat YEC.

But not only do we read the bible in a reasonable way like we would read any informational writing, but the science is consistent with a simple reading of the biblical text. That means successful science shows the earth is relatively young. It means the whole earth was flooded about 4000 years ago. If you think otherwise you are doing the same thing as people who think they need to stay away from salt for health reasons instead of just, in general, eating salt to taste and drinking when they are thirsty.

These ideas are simply wrong. That of course is no more than an opinion.

I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible. Remember, the Bible would not exist if not for science. Language, the internet, etc, etc, all of this is from science, but as soon as it goes near the sacred belief of a Christian Creationist it reverts to failed science.

I appreciate that science gets stuff wrong, but they have this wonderful self-correcting mechanism called peer review. Scientists love nothing better than to find fault with the research of others and in this way errors get purged from the system.

Creation science is not science. It is a process of substantiation where none exists. Conclusions are draw and research, or evidence is tortured to try to make it fit a Creationist world view. Some groups like the Jehovah Witness often employ quote mining to basically reach false conclusions.

Now to the Bible, the OT is a non-Christian Scripture. It's a compilation of various religions that existed before Christ. It is not the literal word of God, though it is the Divine Will of God that passes through a Teacher, such as Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc and is produced as comprehensible human language and then eventually was compiled as a written account.

The writers of Genesis were producing a Teaching suitable for a simple Bronze Age people who had no scientific understanding relative to today. Genesis was not written specifically for somebody living in 2022. A person living in 2022 must apply the knowledge of this age to reading Genesis otherwise it becomes an illogical story of superstition and dogma and brings Christianity into disrepute with logic and reason.

If you seek truth then you need the courage of your conviction to look at real science, not Creationist publications. Real science is amoral, it is not trying to undermine religion. It seeks only to reveal the wonders of God's Creation. No evidence exists for the Flood of Noah apart from that which is purloined for the purpose of trying to substantiate a literal take of Genesis.

Thanks for your response.

 

[7djengo7]

Dear fellow, you are judging me

I'm merely affirming truth, and if you need to call that "judging me," why, I've no quarrel with that at all. To judge is merely to affirm a proposition. Every proposition has/is about a subject. I'm judging—which is to say, affirming—true propositions. And you happen to be the subject of those true propositions.

1. True proposition: 'blueboy is a shameless liar-through-his-teeth.'
2. False proposition: 'blueboy is not a shameless liar-through-his-teeth.'
3. True proposition: 'blueboy is showing his nasty disposition.'
4. False proposition: 'blueboy is not showing his nasty disposition.'

Obviously, being a rationally-thinking person, I'm going to judge/affirm propositions 1 and 3, here, because they are both true. And, conversely, I'm not going to judge/affirm propositions 2 and 4, seeing as they are both false. Duh.

and that is way above your pay grade.

How much are you getting paid for your exemplary career as a shamelessly transparent hypocrite, blueboy?

so I can only assume I have touched a nerve?

By your documented actions, you have already made it clear that you don't really think that you have touched a nerve with me, so why do you keep saying things you don't believe? Answer: see proposition 1, above.

The Flood of Noah is in its way an event

When you say that X is "in its way an event," which do you mean?

1. X is an event.
2. X is not an event.

Either X is an event, or it is not. So, which is it, blueboy: Is the flood of Noah an event? Yes or No?
Or, another way of putting it: By your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," are you referring to an event? Yes or No?

And, if, by your phrase, "the Flood of Noah," you're not referring to a flood of water upon the earth, a global, geophysical catastrophe, then you're not referring to the flood of Noah. Why would you choose to say the phrase, "the Flood of Noah," so as to not be referring to the flood of Noah? Not a brilliant move for you to make, blueboy.

The Ark is not a big boat

If, by your phrase, "the Ark," you're not referring to a boat, a big boat, then you are not referring to the Ark. And, if you're so dumb as to not be referring to the Ark when you say the phrase, "the Ark," then it would be ridiculous for you to expect to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people, blueboy.

Meaning that those who followed the teachings of Noah can enter into a covenant,

Feel free to give us a copy of the full text of these "the teachings of Noah," so that we can read exactly what you're talking about. And cite for us the provenance and historical transmission thereof. Oh, and describe for us your having "entered into" this "covenant" of which you speak. Tell us of what your "entering into" it consisted, and when it occurred.

a place in which they protect and preserve their human spirit from the rampages of the ego, materialism that replaces God in one's life, form ignoble passion and excesses.

So, God is somehow "in" your life, whereas God has been somehow "replaced" in the lives of those of us who, unlike you, believe the Bible and are thus young-earth creationists?

Was there a Flood in any part of the age of Jesus?

Yes. In Noah's day, you Christ-blasphemer.

Has there been a global flood in the last 2000 years?

Yes....if by your phrase, "a global flood," you don't mean a global flood, but instead mean some event that 1) is not a global flood, and 2) has happened in the last 2,000 years.

And yet the age of Jesus was compared to the age of Noah, how is that possible?

To which part of the age of Jesus, the Ancient of Days, are you referring? The age of Noah is only one of many parts thereof.

It's possible because in the age of Noah the people were more concerned about wealth and pleasure than harkening to the word of God.

Give us a copy of the text of this so-called "the word of God" you speak of, so that we can see whether or not it would have even been worth the while of the people, in the age of Noah, to harken to it.

You believe that the Flood of Noah was a real event

The flood of Noah was an event. What (if anything) do you mean to signify beyond that by sticking your adjective, "real," onto your noun, "event," as though you imagine you are somehow modifying the latter?

Like I said in my previous post, the flood of Noah was an event, and since every event is something that happens, the flood of Noah happened.

the literal Flood was a total coverage.

Yes it was, indeed. The Noahic flood was a total coverage of the earth, by water.

You said:

I don't agree with you that I have hatred and opposition towards the Bible.

And later, you've said:

God killed every human except 8

That's the Bible. That God killed every man, woman and child except 8 is the Bible. Do you have hatred and opposition towards that? Yes or No? If Yes, you do, then you have hatred and opposition towards the Bible. And if Yes, you do, nevertheless, so what? Your hatred and opposition towards it is of absolutely zero consequence against the truth of it.

 

[blueboy]

And you're judging him for judging you. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

While I'm sure I'm a hypocrite, I do work on myself to try not to be, I'm a work in progress, but in this case, no I'm not a hypocrite. Our dear friend overstepped the mark and I recognised it for what it was. I do hope you jumped on him for the dreadful slander he posted about be. I'm sure you did with a name like, JudgeRightly.