Bringing up Creationism and Noah turns CU into DU

[djones520]

I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence.  It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth?  God created physics.  He is not bound by physics. 

Reference my first post in this topic.  There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.

[Lord Undies]

I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence.  It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth?  God created physics.  He is not bound by physics. 

Reference my first post in this topic.  There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.

But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty.  To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context.  That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality. 

Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate?  Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair?  I don't buy it and I never have. 

If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms.  I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.

[djones520]

I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence.  It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth?  God created physics.  He is not bound by physics. 

Reference my first post in this topic.  There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.

But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty.  To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context.  That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality. 

Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate?  Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair?  I don't buy it and I never have. 

If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms.  I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.

Which makes my point still true.  There is no point in the matter.

[Lord Undies]

I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence.  It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth?  God created physics.  He is not bound by physics. 

Reference my first post in this topic.  There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.

But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty.  To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context.  That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality. 

Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate?  Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair?  I don't buy it and I never have. 

If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms.  I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.

Which makes my point still true.  There is no point in the matter.

Actually, It negates your point.  It troubles me you can't see that. 

God said His word would never die.  It hasn't.  We still, in the year of Our Lord 2008, have people trying to deny God.  I find it tragic yet fascinating.  It fascinates me to what lengths some folks will go to in order to deny God's existence when, even if God doesn't exist, there is no real point in denying Him.  Rejecting such love and compassion is anti-human.  It is like wishing and hoping for death. 

I know God is the ultimate government.  God stops you, as a human, from living a completely guilt-free life.  That is a bummer.  God is a downer.  But yet we accept mans law which does basically the same things.  It is such a paradox. 

I asked myself, back when I was about thirteen, why guilt exists.  I figured it out when I was about fourteen.  It makes us human and responsible.   Right and wrong will never change, regardless of our decadent hope and sinful dreams. 

[djones520]

Edit:  Just forget it.  I'm not getting into this again tonight.

[Lord Undies]

God stops you, as a human, from living a completely guilt-free life.

No he doesn't.  My morals do.

Morals that where not taught to me through the bible, or by church, or by religious parents.

I'm getting sick and tired of people always asserting that Atheists are not bound by morals.  Christians don't have a patent on the concept of morals.  There was a system of right and wrong long before the Bible was written.

It doesn't matter where your morals come from.  That is a silly concept.  Yes, you want to be credited with being the master of your domain, and that's only human.  Unfortunately, the concept of right and wrong begins, continues, and ends with God.  Otherwise, you would be the arbitrator, and you are not.  Just like Charles Manson wasn't. 

I always think it is "cute" how the religion of atheism borrows from God but can never bring themselves to credit Him. 

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

The literal translation of the word day means a period of time.  In the beginning there was no time as we know it.  Hence, God created X on X day (period of time).  Religious scholars and scientists have been arguing forever, if one day they would stop being so hardheaded, they may see that they are both right.  Science is HOW God created the universe, and a day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours.

Another example, God vs. Big Bang Theory:  Big Bang Theory says there was essentially nothing, then BANG it's here.  Isn't that pretty much what the Bibke says?  God said BANG, and creation was here.

I agree. It says in the Bible God created the Earth and heavens in 6 days, but what is a day to God? Hell, a blink of His eye could be a millennium for all we know. But it's kind of an iffy subject to get into. For one, if you go by the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3, God could have let the Earth sit for quite a while before getting to work.


 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

But in Exodus... 21:7 I think, Moses does say God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th, thus giving us our week on which to go by.

Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Creation, original sin, Noah's flood...and even morality...are those things that are so universal among human consiousness it makes me go, "Hm-m-m..."

I'm left to wonder if we have adequate translations for the orignal terms "day" "flood" etc. It seems these are more linguisitic controversies rather than scientificalism but when I read the Native American and Polynesian tribes have creation, sin flood stories and moral codes mimicking the same as the semitic nations of the Middle East and ditto the Asians and Europeans, I can't help but wonder if humanity shares a common experience only to find itself later scattered across the globe.

[The Night Owl]

Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.

Athiesm comes in a few flavors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

Okay, okay..... since this got bumped up again, here's something to ponder. If there was no "God"........ why say it during sex? Even atheists say it. They don't say "Oh, science!" (yeah, I watched that SP episode this afternoon) Admit it, it was He who gave ya the ability to have those orgasms that make your toes curl up like fried bacon. 

[Chris_]

Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.

Athiesm comes in a few flavors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

...all of them sour.

[Chris_]

About the story of Noah...

Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.

I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.

 

Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?

Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology.  The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God.  Jesus taught using many parables.

[Chris_]

About the story of Noah...

Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.

I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.

 

Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?

Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology.  The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God.  Jesus taught using many parables.

So you claim they are not true?  Prove it.

[Chris_]

About the story of Noah...

Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.

I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.

 

Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?

Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology.  The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God.  Jesus taught using many parables.

So you claim they are not true?  Prove it.

Can you name the Pharisee in that story?  Was the Prodigal Son a personal friend of Jesus?  Come on, you are arguing for arguing's sake.
 
I do have billions of data points that DISPROVE any "global flood" in the 4 billion years of Earth's existence.

[Chris_]

About the story of Noah...

Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.

I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.

 

Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?

Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology.  The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God.  Jesus taught using many parables.

So you claim they are not true?  Prove it.

Can you name the Pharisee in that story?  Was the Prodigal Son a personal friend of jesus?  Come on, you are arguing for arguing's sake.
 
I do have billions of data points that DISPROVE any "global flood" in the 4 billion years of Earth's existence.

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old. 

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

isn't a smile.

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

:whatever: isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

[djones520]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Might wanna back of Freedumb.  Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Might wanna back of Freedumb.  Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.

My faith hasn't been attacked.  FD is just showing a profound lack of it.

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Nope, no PhD.  Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you.     You have a PhD?  In Life Science?  Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences.   

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251

http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

:whatever: isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Might wanna back of Freedumb.  Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.

Good point.  I don't want to get anyone upset.  God, can you imagine the ruckus if I brought up The Theory of Gravity?

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

:whatever: isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Nope, no PhD.  Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you.   :whatever:  You have a PhD?  In Life Science?  Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences.   :whatever:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251

http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific article in any of those citations.  "Cause we said so" isn't accepted in science circles.

And since I *agree* with the scientists, I don't have to have a degree of any kind.  I accept their analysis and evidence.  Since you have chosen to suggest that millions of scientists, billions of data points and a theory developed over a hundred years are all wrong, the onus is on you to prove it -- scientifically.

[Chris_]

My faith hasn't been attacked.  FD is just showing a profound lack of it.

I am a Christian.

[Chris_]

Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up.  There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen.  There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old

I noticed the smile.  I assume that means you are kidding.

isn't a smile.

I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.

Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...

Nope, no PhD.  Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you.     You have a PhD?  In Life Science?  Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences.   

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251

http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific article in any of those citations.  "Cause we said so" isn't accepted in science circles. 

"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO.  BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.

And since I *agree* with the scientists, I don't have to have a degree of any kind.  I accept their analysis and evidence. 

...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...?   

Since you have chosen to suggest that millions of scientists, billions of data points and a theory developed over a hundred years are all wrong, the onus is on you to prove it -- scientifically.

Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically.  Good luck with that.