Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[blueboy]

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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

You said:



And later, you've said:



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.

That put a smile on my face.
Good for you.
Righteous indignation is such a good look.
Jesus will definitely want you for a sunbeam.

 

[7djengo7]

That put a smile on my face.

Did it put a smile on your face, or are you just shamelessly lying through your teeth again, joker?
If it did, why did it?

Good for you.

What?

Righteous indignation is such a good look.

What (if anything) do you mean by "righteous indignation"?

Jesus will definitely want you for a sunbeam.

What do you mean by that?

 

[7djengo7]

I appreciate that science gets stuff wrong,

That's one interesting difference between you and rationally-thinking people. You have no scruples against calling getting stuff wrong, "science."

 

[7djengo7]

I do hope you jumped on him for the dreadful slander he posted about be.

To what "dreadful slander" are you referring? Exact verbatim quotation and http url to the source text, please? Too much to ask?

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

Funny how the only thing you respond to of mine is a short post directed at your hypocrisy, and not a long one addressing your arguments.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible.

It does not "become failed science", it is fake "science" to start with. Billions of years is fake science. Evolution (all life sharing a single common ancestor) is fake science, etc. etc. etc.

Remember, the Bible would not exist if not for science.

That's a very silly comment.

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.

You give "science" too much credit.

I appreciate that science gets stuff wrong,

All the time. Especially historical science.

but they have this wonderful self-correcting mechanism called peer review.

When the "peers" share the same bias, it does not work at all.

Scientists love nothing better than to find fault with the research of others and in this way errors get purged from the system.

Pure mythology.

Creation science is not science.

That is a lie.

It is a process of substantiation where none exists.

More lies.

Conclusions are draw and research, or evidence is tortured to try to make it fit a Creationist world view.

No, that would be the Evolutionists doing just that.

Some groups like the Jehovah Witness often employ quote mining to basically reach false conclusions.

We don't agree with the JW's nor people like you.

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.

Fairy tale.

The writers of Genesis were producing a Teaching suitable for a simple Bronze Age people who had no scientific understanding relative to today.

More silly opinions based on nothing.

Genesis was not written specifically for somebody living in 2022.

It was written for anyone in any time.

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.

Science does NOT disagree with the plain reading of Genesis. Only your pseudo-science does.

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.

Continuing to post your incorrect opinion is dumb and useless.

Thanks for your response.

You're welcome.

 

[Idolater]

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

Because the Bible said that. Your new-age-y eastern mysticism psychobabble gobbledygook? That's not in the Bible.

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 New Covenant is new. It's even newer than the covenant God made with man saying He would never again destroy the Earth with flood (the rainbow).

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.

You mean like, massive petroleum, natural gas and coal deposits everywhere? You mean like a ton of water (the world ocean)? You mean like tons of fossils? Evidence of mass flooding and mass extinction?

 

[User Name]

Because the Bible said that. Your new-age-y eastern mysticism psychobabble gobbledygook? That's not in the Bible.

The Church doesn’t require belief in flood geology or catastrophism, and it doesn’t require an absolute rejection of evolutionary theory (only the strictly materialistic version). Nor does it require a young earth.

Lastly, the Bible doesn’t require the Flood (an actual historical event, as indicated several times in the NT) to have been literally global, as we see in the treatment of the Flood in The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

Neither the Bible nor the Catholic Church requires one to believe that it was literally global in nature, and legitimate science would indicate that it was not as well.

Noah's Flood And Catholicism: Important Basic Facts

Noah's Flood was historical. Neither the Bible nor the Catholic Church require one to believe that it was literally global in nature, and science agrees.

www.patheos.com

 

[7djengo7]

Neither the Bible nor the Catholic Church requires one to believe that it was literally global in nature, and legitimate science would indicate that it was not as well.

You're right about the Bible, here. The Bible only requires one to believe that the flood covered all the earth, all the dry land that God had created. The Bible does not require one to believe that the flood covered the waters, the seas.

 

[Yorzhik]

Abraham lived around 2200 BC.

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

You're telling me Shem lived about 1000 years?



Not even close.

Gen 11:10This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. 11After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. 13After he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. 14Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 15After he begot Eber, Salah lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. 16Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg. 17After he begot Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. 18Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. 20Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug. 21After he begot Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. 22Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. 23After he begot Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 24Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah. 25After he begot Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters. 26Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Shem at the flood lives for 500 more years (years after the flood shown in parenthesis):
| 2 years later Arphaxad is born to Shem (2)
| 35 years later Salah is born to Arphaxad (37)
| 30 years later Eber is born to Salah (67)
| 34 years later Peleg is born to Eber (101)
| 30 years later Reu is born to Peleg (131)
| 32 years later Serug is born to Reu (163)
| 30 years later Nahor is born to Serug (193)
| 29 years later Terah is born to Nahor (222)
| 70 years later Abram is born to Terah (292)
So it appears from this passage that after Abram is born Shem has about 200 more years to live. Is my math wrong?

 

[Yorzhik]

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

While true it is my opinion, it's an opinion based on both biblical and scientific evidence. You, so far, have simply relied on consensus, which is neither biblical nor scientific.

And since it seems like you aren't interested in a biblical argument (which, as it turns out is the more important), we can confine or discussion to the weaker argument - that of science.

I'll have to reiterate this last point since you showed a lack of reading comprehension in what you wrote next. I will no longer be relying on biblical arguments since you seem to have such a low view of the Bible and such a high view for consensus.

I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible.

Here is a solid demonstration by you of a lack of reading comprehension. It should have been clear from my example that I was not basing my explanation on what failed science is based on its contradiction of the bible. My example was about salt and its health outcomes based on successful science.

Here, I'll go over what failed science is again just to be clear: Failed science is science that sees the evidence and then comes to an illogical or irrational conclusion. I shouldn't have to say the evidence I'm citing is confined to physical evidence based on context, but in the interest of your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension I'd like you to take note of it.

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.

That would only be true if the science were inconsistent with the scientific conclusions of a Christian Creationist. But the scientific conclusions of a YE Christian Creationist are consistent with science, so this is just wrong.

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.

Unfortunately peer review is not 100% reliable. Sometimes, especially when the science is philosophically charged, the gatekeepers of scientific publications will opt for failed science instead of correcting scientific errors.

Creation science is not science.

In its colloquial sense creation science has made better predictions and come to more solid conclusions. So if you're willing to say that accurate scientific predictions and logical and rational conclusions based on scientific evidence are not science, that is the only way this statement would be correct.

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.

While I agree that quote mining is wrong, it has been my experience that accurate quotes are more often considered a "quote mine" for people that believe in common descent simply because they do not understand what a hostile witness is.

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.

Ok. That's your opinion. Jesus seemed to think it was actual history and the word of God so I'll go with Him on my opinion of what the OT is.

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.

But Genesis, as a YEC would read it, is consistent with science. Genesis would be illogical if one reads it the way you do.

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.

I used to believe in common descent. But after having the courage of my convictions and following the evidence where it lead, I understand the wonders of creation were made a few thousand years ago and the flood was global in scale.

BTW, I read publications by common descentists more than by YEC. Usually my focus when I discuss this topic with common descentists is to show common descent is wrong, not that YEC is right.

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.

I beg to differ. The overwhelming evidence (don't forget the confines of my response) shows the flood was global and about 4000 years ago (or roughly 5000 according to JR which I'm good with as well). The planar surfaces between the continent sized sedimentary layers show the extent of the flood, and dinosaur blood gives us a very young age for these layers.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

As I said above, condemning someone for judging you is hypocritical.

Perhaps you are reacting to somebody who is challenging you somewhat.

People like you are not a challenge at all.

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?

Pointing out the flaws in your argumentation is not "unloading."

The Flood of Noah is in its way an event,

Meaningless nonsense.

The flood is an event that did, in fact, occur.

it is 40 days and nights of rain,

And a total of 150 days of water on the earth that covered the mountaintops.

which means that Noah received from God 40 years of the raining down of a divine revelation.

Meaningless nonsense.

The Ark is not a big boat,

Yes, it was.

it is an Ark of Covenant with God.

The Ark of the Covenant is not Noah's Ark. They are two very different vessels.

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.

More meaningless nonsense.

'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:

Notice the similes and metaphors in those passages.

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

Of sorts.

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

Flood of water? no.

A flood of new believers? Yes.

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

It's called figurative language. The Bible uses it often.

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.

No, that's not why it's possible, nor is it what happened.

What happened was God disallowed capital punishment for murderers after Cain killed his brother, and the result was that man became so wicked that they even interbreeded with demons and corrupted the genetic information contained within their descendants bodies.

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.

More nonsense.

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

That's what happened, regardless if we (or if you, for that matter) believe it.

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.

Your mockery of God notwithstanding, God was entirely justified in destroying humanity, because of how wicked they had become.

This would of course leave a planet utterly devastated,

Yes, the Flood of Noah did devastate the planet. It also ruined the solar system.

eco-systems destroyed beyond any hope of returning

False.

and if humans could have survived they would see the evidence of this deluge everywhere.

It's not that there isn't evidence. It's just that you're averting your eyes from it.

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.

Isn't God's creation amazing, that it can be restored even after a global flood?

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

What you believe is irrelevant, not to mention wrong.

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

Says the one who has so far only given his opinions.

I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible.

Science fails when it goes against reality.

Remember, the Bible would not exist if not for science.

False.

Language [is from science],

Nope. Language comes from God.

Languages change over time, but they did not arise from grunts and noises of animals.

Language is the conveyance of information. Information must come from intelligence.

The Origin of Language | KGOV.com

kgov.com

the internet, etc, etc, all of this is from science,

Many of the fathers of the physical sciences were creationists.

but as soon as it goes near the sacred belief of a Christian Creationist it reverts to failed science.

Nope.

I appreciate that science gets stuff wrong, but they have this wonderful self-correcting mechanism called peer review.

As per NCBI:

"Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication."

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's not what you think it is.

Scientists love nothing better than to find fault with the research of others and in this way errors get purged from the system.

How awfully biased of them.

Creation science is not science.

Yes, it is.

It is a process of substantiation where none exists.

False.

Conclusions are draw and research,

False.

or evidence is tortured to try to make it fit a Creationist world view.

False.

Some groups like the Jehovah Witness often employ quote mining to basically reach false conclusions.

JWs are just as wrong on this subject as you are.

Now to the Bible, the OT is a non-Christian Scripture.

Repeating yourself won't make the phrase magically come true, or be any more relevant.

It's a compilation of various religions that existed before Christ.

False.

It is not the literal word of God,

Yes it is.

though it is the Divine Will of God that passes through a Teacher,

More nonsense.

such as Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Isaiah,

Abraham was a man chosen by God to be the father of many nations.
Noah was a man chosen by God to save his family (and thus humanity through him) from the coming floodwaters.
Moses was a man chosen by God to lead His people out of Egypt and into the Promised land, and to write the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.
David was a man chosen by God to be the first king of Israel, so that Jesus, God the Son, could be born as a descendant of him, to be the final and rightful ruler of Israel.
Isaiah was a man chosen by God to be a prophet to the nation of Israel.

etc and is produced as comprehensible human language and then eventually was compiled as a written account.

More nonsense. God is fully capable of writing a book that can be understood by humans.

The writers of Genesis

Genesis was written by one man, not many.

were producing a Teaching suitable for a simple Bronze Age people who had no scientific understanding relative to today.

This you say of the people who lived in the era that the pyramids were built, that no one today can even imagine exactly how they were built.

Again, ancient men were geniuses compared to men of today.

Genesis was not written specifically for somebody living in 2022.

It was written for all people everywhere and in any age.

A person living in 2022 must apply the knowledge of this age to reading Genesis

This is called presentism, and in this case, it's fallacious.

Try just reading scripture in the context of scripture, not modern day interpretations.

otherwise it becomes an illogical story of superstition and dogma and brings Christianity into disrepute with logic and reason.

False.

If you seek truth then you need the courage of your conviction to look at real science,

Someone needs to look in a mirror and say that...

Because we already look at real science. You don't.

not Creationist publications.

What's wrong with Creationist publications?

Real science is amoral, it is not trying to undermine religion.

Duh.

Yet the "science" (if it can even be called that) you promote does just that.

It seeks only to reveal the wonders of God's Creation.

Not the "science" you promote.

No evidence exists for the Flood of Noah

False.

apart from that which is purloined for the purpose of trying to substantiate a literal take of Genesis.

Special pleading is a fallacy, sir.

Thanks for your response.

I'd say the same, but you haven't responded to me, so I can't.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Gen 11:10This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. 11After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. 13After he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. 14Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 15After he begot Eber, Salah lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. 16Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg. 17After he begot Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. 18Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. 20Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug. 21After he begot Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. 22Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. 23After he begot Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 24Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah. 25After he begot Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters. 26Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Shem at the flood lives for 500 more years (years after the flood shown in parenthesis):
| 2 years later Arphaxad is born to Shem (2)
| 35 years later Salah is born to Arphaxad (37)
| 30 years later Eber is born to Salah (67)
| 34 years later Peleg is born to Eber (101)
| 30 years later Reu is born to Peleg (131)
| 32 years later Serug is born to Reu (163)
| 30 years later Nahor is born to Serug (193)
| 29 years later Terah is born to Nahor (222)
| 70 years later Abram is born to Terah (292)
So it appears from this passage that after Abram is born Shem has about 200 more years to live. Is my math wrong?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Biblical Answer:

www.creationscience.com

 

[blueboy]

While true it is my opinion, it's an opinion based on both biblical and scientific evidence. You, so far, have simply relied on consensus, which is neither biblical nor scientific.

And since it seems like you aren't interested in a biblical argument (which, as it turns out is the more important), we can confine or discussion to the weaker argument - that of science.

I'll have to reiterate this last point since you showed a lack of reading comprehension in what you wrote next. I will no longer be relying on biblical arguments since you seem to have such a low view of the Bible and such a high view for consensus.

Here is a solid demonstration by you of a lack of reading comprehension. It should have been clear from my example that I was not basing my explanation on what failed science is based on its contradiction of the bible. My example was about salt and its health outcomes based on successful science.

Here, I'll go over what failed science is again just to be clear: Failed science is science that sees the evidence and then comes to an illogical or irrational conclusion. I shouldn't have to say the evidence I'm citing is confined to physical evidence based on context, but in the interest of your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension I'd like you to take note of it.


That would only be true if the science were inconsistent with the scientific conclusions of a Christian Creationist. But the scientific conclusions of a YE Christian Creationist are consistent with science, so this is just wrong.

Unfortunately peer review is not 100% reliable. Sometimes, especially when the science is philosophically charged, the gatekeepers of scientific publications will opt for failed science instead of correcting scientific errors.

In its colloquial sense creation science has made better predictions and come to more solid conclusions. So if you're willing to say that accurate scientific predictions and logical and rational conclusions based on scientific evidence are not science, that is the only way this statement would be correct.

While I agree that quote mining is wrong, it has been my experience that accurate quotes are more often considered a "quote mine" for people that believe in common descent simply because they do not understand what a hostile witness is.

Ok. That's your opinion. Jesus seemed to think it was actual history and the word of God so I'll go with Him on my opinion of what the OT is.

But Genesis, as a YEC would read it, is consistent with science. Genesis would be illogical if one reads it the way you do.

I used to believe in common descent. But after having the courage of my convictions and following the evidence where it lead, I understand the wonders of creation were made a few thousand years ago and the flood was global in scale.

BTW, I read publications by common descentists more than by YEC. Usually my focus when I discuss this topic with common descentists is to show common descent is wrong, not that YEC is right.

I beg to differ. The overwhelming evidence (don't forget the confines of my response) shows the flood was global and about 4000 years ago (or roughly 5000 according to JR which I'm good with as well). The planar surfaces between the continent sized sedimentary layers show the extent of the flood, and dinosaur blood gives us a very young age for these layers.

I have read your post, it employs the very same derogatory tone as the others. I'm wondering if you are all schooled in how to respond?

Speaking of myth, there are 3 Flood epics from Sumerian and Babylonian that predate the Flood of Noah. Gilgamesh and the more ancient poem of Gilgamesh and the epic of Atrahasis within which we get the complete foundation for the Noah Flood story. Ecclesiastics is also lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Interestingly there is evidence that the Black Sea formed via a catastrophic collapse that allowed the sea to pour in likely catching farming communities by surprise. It is believed that the roar of waters flooding in would have been so unimaginable that it would have been audible up to 100 kilometres away. This occurred around 7,600 years ago and is a likely candidate for the Bibles Flood myth. There is also evidence of major devastating floods in this Biblical region, anyone of which could have been the basis of the story.

As for evidence of a global Flood, none exists. There is evidence in the sediments of huge regional floods, but, there simply is not enough water in the planetary system to produce a flood even remotely similar the the Flood of Noah and for over 200 years now real geologists, some I might add were wonderful Christian scholars, back in the day when Christianity had the courage of its conviction to allow the evidence to determine what was real and what was myth, the entire body of geologists have not found anything to suggest that a global flood occurred. The rocks simply do not lie.

As for a massive regional flood, this seems to be the basis of the story. There are many myths from the Mesopotamian region speaking of a catastrophic deluge, they do happen and it is likely that the Bible authors used such an event as the basis of a story concerning the protective power of God, rather than a literal story of a boat and saving animals.

I guess that in the age of the Flood their world was very small and any flood seemed global.

 

[7djengo7]

Here, once again, you have reasserted your unproved claim:

Speaking of myth, there are 3 Flood epics from Sumerian and Babylonian that predate the Flood of Noah. Gilgamesh and the more ancient poem of Gilgamesh and the epic of Atrahasis within which we get the complete foundation for the Noah Flood story.

LOL

On 11 August 2022, you had already claimed that same thing:

Genesis is a powerful teaching that uses the framework of an existing story that can be found in Gilgamesh.

The next day, 12 August 2022, you were confronted about that claim of yours:

Let's hear you "prove" your claim that Genesis is dependent in its composition on the document called "The Epic of Gilgamesh". I mean, what "proof" will you come up with for us, if not merely to parrot from some of your fellow Bible despisers, those of them whom you may happen to revere as "experts" on this question?

Now, almost a month later, on 8 September 2022, you are sitting there, once again, just re-parroting your same, unproved claim. Where's your "proof" for your claim that Genesis is dependent in its composition on your cherished Gilgamesh writing, Professor Bible-despising Poser?

 

[7djengo7]

Ecclesiastics is also lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

"Ecclesiastics"??

Oh, yeah, Bible-despiser. You sure know your stuff, don't you!

 

[Idolater]

... there are 3 Flood epics from Sumerian and Babylonian that predate the Flood of Noah. Gilgamesh and the more ancient poem of Gilgamesh and the epic of Atrahasis within which we get the complete foundation for the Noah Flood story. ...

So you have extra-Biblical corroboration of the literal account in the Bible.

What exactly are you arguing here.

As for evidence of a global Flood, none exists.

You're confusing proof and evidence. There's plenty of evidence, question is, is there proof. Like is there proof of millions and billions of years? Is there proof of evolution?

There is evidence in the sediments of huge ... floods

Right, multiple huge floods.

, but, there simply is not enough water in the planetary system to produce a flood even remotely similar the the Flood of Noah and for over 200 years now real geologists, some I might add were wonderful Christian scholars, back in the day when Christianity had the courage of its conviction to allow the evidence to determine what was real and what was myth, the entire body of geologists have not found anything to suggest that a global flood occurred.

There is still some water beneath the Earth's crust. (Wonder how that got there.) That's where most of the Flood water came from, it was all down there and now it's almost all up here (the oceans). It was a one-time, one-off, one-timer. Just once. Can't happen again. Can't get the toothpaste back into that tube.

The rocks simply do not lie.

No one's saying they do. We're saying the conclusions made by geologists' radiometric dating methods' measurements are suspect.

Also sedimentary rocks need cement of some type. And if there's a lot of sedimentary rock, then there has to be a lot of cement. Where'd that all come from?

There are many myths from the Mesopotamian region speaking of a catastrophic deluge

Maybe because there was a catastrophic deluge.

, they do happen and it is likely that the Bible authors used

Based on nothing. You say this, based on nothing.

I guess ...

Yep.

 

[Right Divider]

I have read your post, it employs the very same derogatory tone as the others. I'm wondering if you are all schooled in how to respond?

When someone comes to a Christian forum and makes unchristian claims without any support, the response that they get is bound to seem to have a "derogatory tone" to them. Get over it and get on with some facts.

 

[Yorzhik]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Biblical Answer:

www.creationscience.com

Seems reasonable.

 

[blueboy]

When someone comes to a Christian forum and makes unchristian claims without any support, the response that they get is bound to seem to have a "derogatory tone" to them. Get over it and get on with some facts.

Facts and evidence will have no effect on rusted on belief. There is an endless abundance of studies, research and proof that contradicts literal Genesis, but it does not contradict a symbolic, allegoric, spiritual reading of Genesis, there are too many studies to mention by a multitude of sciences that are freely available and so very easy to access to anybody with a real desire for the truth.

You may not accept what I say, but I'm a Creationist too.

I have never made a single unChristian claim on this site, nor would I knowingly. I have no idea why you think your love for Christ renders my love for Christ as something second rate?

It may be a Christian forum, but is it only for a very specific kind of Christian? That said the OT is not a Christian Scripture, it's the Scripture of Judaism and is as different from the NT as the Koran is.

Now if my presence is out of place, in that this was set up just for Creationist Christians to meet and have a bit of a chat, well I will apologise for dropping in uninvited and leave you guys to it, just let me know.