-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
As RD said, when you come onto a Christian Forum spouting irrational beliefs, don't expect us to be very nice.
In fact, I'm kind of surprised Sherman hasn't banned you already for being a troll, since she's a bit stricter than I am when it comes to keeping trolls off the site.
People like myself and @Right Divider, and others, don't find it necessary to be nice to people who come onto our home turf and disparage our beliefs and claim to be a know-it-all.
Try growing thicker skin and actually dealing with our challenges to your position.
The Flood isn't a myth like the stories you find in Greek Mythology. It actually happened.
Now, that's not to say that Greek Mythology doesn't have some basis in reality, but that's a different topic for another thread.
Just because the records of the Flood in the Bible do not predate other records of a catastrophic event in other cultures does not mean that the stories themselves originated before the Flood happened.
Don't confuse the records of events with the events themselves.
Also, the fact that other cultures have a record of a flood event at all, despite being separate from the record found in the Bible, is VERY strong evidence that a flood did, in fact, occur. As @Idolater pointed out, what you have is corroborating evidence for a flood, not evidence against it.
You have it backwards.
The flood came first. The story of the flood was passed down through a few generations, and then the story of Tower of Babel occurred, where God confused the languages of the people, and so the story was passed down to their descendants, but not quite as accurately as it should have been. Extrapolate that by a few centuries, and you get stories like the epic of Gilgamesh, among others, and if you go even further out from the flood, and go around the world. to each culture, almost every single culture has a flood story of some kind, though most have been distorted by time and exaggeration.
The Bible contains the accurate record of the Flood, or at least, the most accurate record, even if it's not perfect. This is because God Himself, who was present at the flood, was able to preserve the story as a part of His nation's history, by having Moses record it.
Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon, after his rebellion against God. It has nothing to do with the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Pour in from where? What amount of water could form the Black Sea by simply "pouring into" where the Black Sea exists?
Perhaps a flood of some sort? Hmmm.
False.
Creation was about 7500 years ago. Anything happening before 5300 years ago, and your dates are wrong, or at the very least, your dating mechanism is in need of serious calibration, since that's when the flood occurred, and any sort of ruins of any civilization would have been utterly destroyed by the flood.
Nope. you don't get "water covered the mountains by 15 cubits (the length from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow)" by 'water pouring into the Black Sea."
There's evidence of major devastating floods all over the earth, sir.
There's seashells on the tops of mountains, above the treelines. You don't get that by "local flooding."
Except for all the evidence you just stated that you want to assert doesn't actually support a global flood.
Missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, there is.
You're apparently forgetting that if the earth was a smooth ball, the surface of the earth would be covered by about 8,810 feet of water.
But the earth isn't a smooth round ball. It's a lumpy mass that has denser parts and less dense parts, where sea-level varies by about 600 feet, depending on where you're at (due to gravity).
The Hydroplate Theory hasn't been around for "200 years." It's been around for less than 70 years, and there has been much opposition to it simply because it's not held by the already established position that doesn't do a very good job of explaining the evidence.
You're right, they don't.
We're not saying the rocks lie. We're saying the rocks aren't saying what you insist they say.
It's not.
More corroborating evidence.
Again, you have it backwards. You're starting with the assumption that the global flood didn't happen and so have to explain that somehow by saying that it was just a local myth of a flood that has been blown out of proportion, when in reality, the flood is what inspired those stories.
Conjecture won't get you anywhere.
So clean the dust off your beliefs then. We'll wait.
No, there aren't.
We have collections of every coin that was used in the Bible.
We have discovered the locations of cities named in the Bible (particularly relevant to this discussion, places like Sodom, Avaris)
We know the regions in which the stories of the Bible took place, and archaologists have time and time again confirmed what the Bible says.
The Bible is true. Literally.
Genesis contradicts itself if it is read in that manner. That's how we know your claim is false.
Yet you won't link to them. Why?
No, you're not.
Liar.
Saying "the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, but only figuratively" IS 'unChristian,' because the Bible is internally consistent, and externally validated
I don't believe you.
What Christ do you believe in? Some figurative person who doesn't actually exist?
This is why your position is wrong, because it undermines the rest of the Bible.
This forum is for discussion of ideas, and the promotion of truth.
So what? Christians uses it because the history contained within it is directly tied to their faith.
And Christianity.
The problem with this claim (aside from the fact that the Koran has literally nothing to do with this discussion) is that roughly half of the New Testament is directed at the same people the Old Testament was written about, and that the the people written about and the authors considered Paul's writings to be scripture.
The whole Bible is the Scriptures. Not just the Old Testament.
It is. But that's ok. We don't kick people out just because they have a difference in opinion.
It wasn't.
That's what every forum is for.
Don't be so dramatic. Just grow thicker skin and engage in the discussion like a normal human being, and you'll be fine.
Right Divider
Body part
Oh, the irony. It is YOU that has the "rusted on belief" system.
The all too common tactic of elephant hurling. If there really was such "an endless abundance" you would actually identify some. But you don't. You just keep making vague claims without support.
Well, you could fool anyone with all of your contradictory claims against it.
Indeed you have. It's sad that you cannot see that.
That is a FALSE ACCUSATION. I have never said any such thing.
Yes, we reject false "Christian" dogma.
You continue to show your immense confusion. The entire Bible is "Christian scripture".
You are free to discuss.... but your continued FALSE claims are what we don't like.
Last edited:
No problems, all the best.
Right Divider
Body part
So you will not even try to defend any of the claims that you've made?
So this "endless abundance" does not really exist?
Exod 20:8-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (20:10) But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: (20:11) For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
This scripture can ONLY support a LITERAL six day creation. There is NO other option.
Last edited:
Reality is not moved a millimetre by anything you or I believe. If I say black you'll say white. I do find it personally rather sad that religion has been reduced to superstition and fantasy when it doesn't have to be that way. Even beyond the Creationist followers the rest of Christianity is not doing too well either.
There are supposedly 2.38 billion Christians, just imagine what the world might be like if they ever acted as Christians, it would change almost overnight.
Endless abundance, yes that was a bit of hyperbolic word usage. Basically what I meant was that for over 150 Christians and then Creationist Christians have thrown everything they could at Darwin and his hypothesis of transmutation and natural selection and yet today it has never been a stronger theory and a multitude of transitional fossils are beginning to close the gaps in evolution. Every year the evidence mounts.
Now you and I both know that this in no way diminishes God as the Causer and Creator. Every step in evolution was preordained and known to God who Caused it all. All it does is show us that God has employed natural order as one of His many tools to roll out the tapestry of Creation.
Endless abundance means that for anybody who is a lover of the truth they can access a great many studies form all the natural sciences so that no excuse exists for anybody to imagine that Genesis is literal, but they do?
Right Divider
Body part
And yet you just keep repeating your beliefs. Get to some facts.
Wrong. Just another false accusation.
Stop making vague and generally false accusations.
Don't change the subject.
That is irrelevant to the topic.
Right Divider
Body part
"A bit"? Try a LOT. Stop using fake arguments and get to something real.
Right back to your ELEPHANT HURLING. Stop faking it and get on to some facts.
Telling falsehoods is no way to respect your Creator.
Made up nonsense. Again, giving us your beliefs instead of facts.
Fake news... stop telling us what you BELIEVE and start showing us some facts.
Again, with the false accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Beg your pardon Gents,
Reviewing several pages, it seems you simply apply the criticisms lodged at creationists back at evolutionists. Evolution is circular, unscientific, improbable; there is a supposed disagreement among evolutionists, etc.
I do not like the approach because it does not address the fact that the same criticisms would seemingly apply to creationism 100 fold.
Reviewing several pages, it seems you simply apply the criticisms lodged at creationists back at evolutionists. Evolution is circular, unscientific, improbable; there is a supposed disagreement among evolutionists, etc.
I do not like the approach because it does not address the fact that the same criticisms would seemingly apply to creationism 100 fold.
Right Divider
Body part
Your entire post is nonsense.
I strain to see, Good Sir, how such an empty response qualifies as a response at all.
Right Divider
Body part
Keep trying.... You'll figure it out.
And, in case my response would seem equally bald and in a measured part hypocritical, may I offer some evidence of what has been done?
To begin:
Please to explain how any of your recent arguments advances the dialogue at all beyond what appears in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
To begin:
Please to explain how any of your recent arguments advances the dialogue at all beyond what appears in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Make a point.
Right Divider
Body part
From the article: 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Wrong. "Evolution" is not even a theory. "Evolution" is an unfalsifiable belief system.
Wrong. "Evolution" is not even a theory. "Evolution" is an unfalsifiable belief system.
Right Divider
Body part
From the article: 2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Natural selection is fully and completely compatible with the Creation Model.
Natural selection is fully and completely compatible with the Creation Model.
Last edited:
This commits two ploys called out in the article. Let us move beyond parroted sensibilities if we can.
And to the falsifiability bit:
Indirect observations are indeed repeatable across the multitude of disciplines that support evolution
Please to expound.
Right Divider
Body part
The idea of a single common ancestor of all life has no observations, direct or indirect.