49 Unique Guild Members 14 Level 100 characters 401 Website/Forum Members 0 Posts in 24 hours 0 Posts in 7 days 84313 Total Posts Nelthilta is the last poster
49 Unique Guild Members 14 Level 100 characters 401 Website/Forum Members 0 Posts in 24 hours 0 Posts in 7 days 84313 Total Posts Nelthilta is the last poster
Not to just come in with a troll here, I have read these posts. I want to say a lot more about historical parts of the bible that seem highly inaccurate, but I can't remember the needed information to base my claim besides the fact that I say it's so.
One of the issues is the flood. I always found it odd that the great flood was so huge that it had to have been at least exagerated. To think that there was enough water on Earth to make a flood like that is not likely. Tons of info can be found about the flood to make a very reasonable claim that it could never have happened. But then again you have to think that carbon dating is correct, which I guess although it has proven in the past to be semi-accurate, we still have people living in hopes that their dreams can't be crushed.
I also would like to point out that I don't want to think about having the earth populated from just 2 people. Kind of a bummer when you think that way, you were related to every single person you ever fucked. Kinda gross.
----
Sen. Stevens discussing the internet
Quote
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
One of the issues is the flood. I always found it odd that the great flood was so huge that it had to have been at least exagerated. To think that there was enough water on Earth to make a flood like that is not likely. Tons of info can be found about the flood to make a very reasonable claim that it could never have happened. But then again you have to think that carbon dating is correct, which I guess although it has proven in the past to be semi-accurate, we still have people living in hopes that their dreams can't be crushed.
Funny that you mentioning "crushing" people. Boiling is also a key thing when discussing the flood.
You don't have to attack the flood from a carbon dating perspective, because imperically, there isn't enough water on the planet to completely cover the planet, up to the highest mountain tops.
There are two different explanations I've heard from creationists explaining the flood:
1) There was a huge shield of liquid water in the atmosphere just hovering there, and conveniently, blocking out harmful UV rays, thus explaining why people could live so long before the flood.
2) There was a LOT more water vapor in the atmosphere then, which ALSO did an effective job of blocking UV rays.
Both are preposterous, however, since to calculate the amount of water needed for such a flood, it would end up being something like hundreds times stronger air pressure, enough so to make it so that we're practically all swiming in water vapor, and because of the immesnse pressure, it's pretty much always boiling. Somethign to that effect, and I apologize I don't have the numbers at my finger tips.
Either way, there isn't enough water on the planet to cover every piece of water on the planet, and if there WAS that much water 4k years ago, where did it go? The only explanation is that God got rid of it.
---- If the Da Vinci Code, a murder-mystery novel, threatens your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak and should be threatened.
Yeah, Sarfati is the guy that wrote the book "Refuting Evolution". I read it a few years ago. It's pretty much the Creationist Christian "Bible" if you will for proving that evolution is wrong and creation is right. He does make some interesting points. I've linked some of his text on these forums (the carbon dating argument, for example). He also makes some pretty weak arguments that are ridiculous, circular, or contradictory. I encourage everybody to read this book and decide for yourself. The entire book has been made available online free of charge (to make it that much easier to indoctrinate people) at this URL:
It's interesting that you take his writings as the end-all-be-all on carbon dating. Basically his thesis is that out of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of datings, a couple inaccuracies were found and therefore the whole dating method is questionable. That's kind of like saying if you find a couple death row inmates that later turn out to be innocent, every death row inmate in the world must be innocent since clearly the justice system is a complete failure.
I also think it's neat how he boasts so much about all the letters after his name. You know, because the more letters you've got, the more validity your arguments have.
Anyway, here's an idea. Don't stop at "Refuting Evolution". Look into some more intelligent material, maybe something longer than 80 pages in length at 14 pt font.
You wanna have your mind completely blown? Read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. You will never see things the same again.
And by the way, mainstream creationist Christian scientists do not promote the canopy theory (what chops mentioned) as the explanation for where the water came from. This article discusses where all the water could have come from.
And by the way, mainstream creationist Christian scientists do not promote the canopy theory (what chops mentioned) as the explanation for where the water came from. This article discusses where all the water could have come from.
Paterooni, go read those two links you provided again. Read them all the way through.
Ok, done? Now... Sarfati and others attempt to scientifically explain the flood using current knowledge. But their very argument defies science. Science observes something in nature, and then attempts to explain it through hypothesis and experimentation. Sarfati also attempts to explain events with hypothesis and experimentation, but his natural observations are text in a book. He isn't observing a reality, he is observing written words and attempting to justify them scientifically. He might as well have read Alice in Wonderland and attempted to explain all of the oddities in that book with scientific reason. Further, all of his conclusions about where the water came from, plate techtonics, and the sun, moon, and stars are being drawn based on our current knowledge of the universe. Strange thing though: we have a much better understanding of the world now than we did when the Old Testament was written. Back then, the Earth was flat. Back then, it was completely conceivable for the land to come up from under the sea. There was no such thing as "plate techtonics". And the sun, stars, and moon were holes in a sheet in the sky, perhaps miniature stained-glass windows peering into heaven above. And obviously, the earth was the center of it all in this geocentric expanse. The people who wrote those elaborate stories were extremely dumb as pertains to actual knowledge of our universe. Sarfati and others should not try to justify such uninformed rantings with present-day knowledge.
His response to there being no Egyptian record of a flood is particularly convincing: "I don’t know much about Egyptian legends, but I see no reason to trust Isaak when he says that they have no flood records."
His response to there being no Egyptian record of a flood is particularly convincing: "I don’t know much about Egyptian legends, but I see no reason to trust Isaak when he says that they have no flood records."
---- F'ed in the A.
Well, I'm convinced
---- If the Da Vinci Code, a murder-mystery novel, threatens your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak and should be threatened.
It's interesting that you take his writings as the end-all-be-all on carbon dating. Basically his thesis is that out of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of datings, a couple inaccuracies were found and therefore the whole dating method is questionable. That's kind of like saying if you find a couple death row inmates that later turn out to be innocent, every death row inmate in the world must be innocent since clearly the justice system is a complete failure.
I don't see how you could read that article and come to the conclusion that their thesis says "out of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of datings, a couple inaccuracies were found and therefore the whole dating method is questionable." I didn't get that idea at all. I read that and their point is: carbon dating cannot accurately date something supposedly millions of year old. I also thought this quote was interesting:
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
Ok, done? Now... Sarfati and others attempt to scientifically explain the flood using current knowledge. But their very argument defies science. Science observes something in nature, and then attempts to explain it through hypothesis and experimentation. Sarfati also attempts to explain events with hypothesis and experimentation, but his natural observations are text in a book. He isn't observing a reality, he is observing written words and attempting to justify them scientifically. He might as well have read Alice in Wonderland and attempted to explain all of the oddities in that book with scientific reason.
You're not understanding who he's ministering to. AiG is a ministry primarily to Christians. It reinforces their worldview and their belief system. It gives them tools to protect themselves and their family from the lies the world feeds us. If you're already a Christian, but you're struggling with "how do i know what to believe, my college professor is telling me the Bible is a fairy tale, because there's fossils in rock layers all over the earth and we all know that takes miiilllllions of years to happen" then AiG is there to help you equip yourself with the information you need to sniff out the world's tricks.
Just because he wants to scientifically show how the events in the Bible could have occurred and how the world does indeed look like these events have occurred, doesn't mean his logic is suspect and needs to be completely thrown out. I'm not sure how you justify believing that you know for a fact that your "impartial" view of the world is entitled to preclude a chronicle of history that you were not alive to witness.
Quote
Back then, the Earth was flat. Back then, it was completely conceivable for the land to come up from under the sea.
lol rade
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
- Job 26:7 NIV
How could that description be accurately interpreted as flat while using the moon as context? Even if that's not enough for you, the Bible does not say anywhere the Earth is flat. And unless you can produce a passage that indicates this, it's a little loopy to suggest it does.
There was no such thing as "plate techtonics". And the sun, stars, and moon were holes in a sheet in the sky, perhaps miniature stained-glass windows peering into heaven above. And obviously, the earth was the center of it all in this geocentric expanse. The people who wrote those elaborate stories were extremely dumb as pertains to actual knowledge of our universe. Sarfati and others should not try to justify such uninformed rantings with present-day knowledge.
You know, the arguments you're using now are illustrating something. It is more than a waste of time for you and I to debate Christianity vs., well, non-Christianity or whatever position it is you're advocating.
You and I cannot see eye-to-eye on this, but this is not because it is Christian vs. Non-Christian. If you were an ardent evolutionist who wanted to prove evolution is more plausible than creation, then we'd have a good old time debating the heck out of that subject.
In this case it is because we are both playing by different rules. I say the answers are out there and I seek them. You say there are no answers and anyone claiming to have them better be able to have something you can see and they can reproduce. I don't intend on debating on those terms on this board, because if that is where we are going with things, then it is no longer an intellectual debate. It is a debate about "what are we here for" and when that gets going, that's when I will be going into presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have no intention of presenting the actual Gospel here on this board because I find message boards don't work really well when evangelizing, because then everyone will just get mad and tell me I'm "pushing [my] beliefs onto others." I prefer to present the Gospel face to face and leave the debating issues stuff for the msg boards.
Perhaps we should realize that this is going no where (as do most internet debates) and perhaps take a break from it
Chops, you may now post that legendary picture comparing arguing on the internet to the special olympics. thanks!
I'd just like to point out here that articles from biased sites like 'answersingenesis.org' makes for some pretty biased, shitty references. That's just honestly, in my o, for srsly.
I'd just like to point out here that articles from biased sites like 'answersingenesis.org' makes for some pretty biased, shitty references. That's just honestly, in my o, for srsly.
Yellow is the One and Only true Color. All other Colors are false pigments. And I can prove it, too. Just ask my friend Banana and he'll tell you.
At first I thought, "Oh no, another Chezzin thread hijack veering way off topic". But after watching the video fully, I see you you were spot on. Good work for once, Chezzin.
