Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…303304306308309…822

Comments

  • Options
    #9152
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    J C wrote: »
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......

    Interestingly, physicists use a similar technique that shows why the universe isn't 6,000 years old.


  • Options
    #9153
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    JC: I'm sure your last post was made partly in jest, however you display a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. If you are going to argue convincingly in any way against it may I suggest you do a bit more research.

    No evolutionist is suggesting that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man'.


  • Options
    #9154
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    iUseVi wrote: »
    No evolutionist is suggesting that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man'.

    Funnily enough, that is similar to their explanation for the appearance of man.

    Oh the irony.


  • Options
    #9155
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......


    daithifleming
    Interestingly, physicists use a similar technique that shows why the universe isn't 6,000 years old.

    .........if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!! banghead.gif


  • Options
    #9156
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    I'm sorry, did you just repeat yourself exactly? That really isn't a powerful way to argue your point. (Typical creationist though)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9157
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by iUseVi
    No evolutionist is suggesting that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man'.

    daithifleming
    Funnily enough, that is similar to their explanation for the appearance of man.

    Oh the irony.

    It is indeed ironic........but there the similarity ends.......because Creation was instantaneous and under the intelligent direction of an omnipotent God!!!!:D

    .......while Evolution NEVER HAPPENED!!! banghead.gif


  • Options
    #9158
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Proof please.


  • Options
    #9159
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    iUseVi wrote: »
    I'm sorry, did you just repeat yourself exactly? That really isn't a powerful way to argue your point.

    ......when it is true........it bears repetition!!!:D

    iUseVi wrote: »
    Proof please.

    ....to repeat..........
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    .......and the Evolutionist Hypothesis that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' can be disproven by the fact that muck has NEVER been observed to spontaneously turn into anything.....other than MORE muck!!!!

    ...and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!


    Once upon a time, when I was an Evolutionist, I carefully stuck a feather
    into some well manured fertile ground.........but to my utter amazement (and disappointment) it NEVER did grow a Hen!!!!!:eek::D

    .......when I became a Creation Scientist I finally worked out that, unlike a fertilised egg, the feather didn't have the functional information or the intelligently designed ability to grow a Hen!!!!:D


  • Options
    #9160
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    J C wrote: »
    ....to repeat..........
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    .......and the Evolutionist Hypothesis that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' can be disproven by the fact that muck has NEVER been observed to spontaneously turn into anything.....other than MORE muck!!!!

    ...and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!


    Once upon a time, when I was an Evolutionist, I carefully stuck a feather
    into some well manured fertile ground.........but to my utter amazement (and disappointment) it NEVER did grow a Hen!!!!!:eek::D

    .......when I became a Creation Scientist I finally worked out that the feather didn't have the functional information or the intelligently designed ability to grow a Hen!!!!:D

    You are just copying and pasting the same old stuff again and again and again and again. Like I said before thats no form of argument. Evolutionists do not believe that inanimate objects suddenly spring into life. That would truly be absurd! Evolution (or descent through modification) is a tried and true process. It has nothing however to do with the origin of life, which is what you are talking about when you mention inanimate objects becoming alive. This is a whole other topic involving, yes much speculation, and also organic biology. Please do not confuse evolution with abiogenesis.


  • Options
    #9161
    Hot Dog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    Once upon a time, when I was an Evolutionist, I carefully stuck a feather
    into some well manured fertile ground.........but to my utter amazement (and disappointment) it NEVER did grow a Hen!!!!!

    A swing and a miss


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9162
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    iUseVi wrote: »
    JC: I'm sure your last post was made partly in jest, however you display a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. If you are going to argue convincingly in any way against it may I suggest you do a bit more research.

    No evolutionist is suggesting that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man'.
    .....they certainly do believe that a "primordial soup" of base chemicals (which is mucky stuff)........was the starting point for a series of spontaneous transitions that eventually produced Mankind!!!!


  • Options
    #9163
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Hot Dog wrote: »
    A swing and a miss

    .......I'm sorry.....but I actually 'connected' with a 1.....2 to Evolutionism.......and now Evolution is concussed......and not making any sense at all!!!!:D


  • Options
    #9164
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    J C wrote: »
    .......I'm sorry.....but I actually 'connected' with a 1.....2 to the Evolutionist's jaw.......and now he is concussed......and not making any sense!!!!:D

    groan. seriously I may be new around here but from what I've seen you only re-hash the same old 'arguments' and pretend that you are actually 'winning'.

    Do you have anything original to say? That.....doesn't......contain......loads............of......dots......


  • Options
    #9165
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Evolutionists do not believe that inanimate objects suddenly spring into life. That would truly be absurd! Evolution (or descent through modification) is a tried and true process.

    I agree that Evolutionists do not believe that inanimate objects suddenly spring into life.....and I agree that this would be absurd!!!!:D

    However, Evolutionists do believe that inanimate objects slowly sprang into life.....and that is equally absurd!!!!banghead.gif


  • Options
    #9166
    Hot Dog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    However, Evolutionists do believe that inanimate objects slowly sprang into life.....and that is equally absurd!!!

    evolution is not abiogenesis. Can you understand this? Nor is it physics, geology or anything else.


  • Options
    #9167
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that Evolutionists do not believe that inanimate objects suddenly spring into life.....and I agree that this would be absurd!!!!:D

    However, Evolutionists do believe that inanimate objects slowly sprang into life.....and that is equally absurd!!!!banghead.gif

    That's incorrect JC. And would you maintain that it is just as easy to jump up a cliff to climb a mountain, rather than walking sedentarily up a gradual slope to acheive the same height?


  • Options
    #9168
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    ....and therefore Creation Science DOESN'T need the mainstream bookshops!!!
    Yes indeed, it's a bit like all those late-night shopping channels sell stuff that don't "need" normal retail outlets. For much the same reason!


  • Options
    #9169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    Well the Flat Earthers disagree, and they have their own science and scientists to demonstrate this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm). They have interpreted the evidence and come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat. Of course they hardly need to do that because the Bible already confirmed that for them in the first place, so what other conclusion could the evidence seriously point to.

    This sounds awful familiar ....
    J C wrote: »
    ..and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........

    Oh I'm sorry, have you actually been in a space shuttle and observed a flat Earth? I would guess no. So what are you talking about? You haven't observed it, and according to the Flat Earth society those that claim to are simply lying to push a secular agenda and to deny the truth of the Bible. It is quite easy to see why atheists and secularists would want to distort the reality of a flat Earth to push their agenda that the Bible is wrong and there is no God.

    Wow, again this sounds awful awful familiar....

    You sure you and Wolfsbane aren't Flat Earthers? This kind of thing seems right up your alley.


  • Options
    #9170
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Havent read up on this thread in ages. Nice to see I havent missed much. The page counter just keeps on going but the argument stays the same..
    :cool:


  • Options
    #9171
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Havent read up on this thread in ages. Nice to see I havent missed much. The page counter just keeps on going but the argument stays the same..
    :cool:

    A quintain can hit you a nasty wallop occasionally, but it remains a quintain.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9172
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    The young earth Hypothesis can be disproven by measuring the distance to distant stars


  • Options
    #9173
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    MooseJam wrote: »
    The young earth Hypothesis can be disproven by measuring the distance to distant stars

    no............ for you see that the speed of light................ was FASTER back then!!! :eek::eek::cool::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #9174
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A quintain can hit you a nasty wallop occasionally, but it remains a quintain.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    .....and being hoist on their own Petard......is also an occupational hazard for Evolutionists!!!!!

    ......and speaking of petards stuck in places where petards should not be......here is Wicki as if on cue....
    wrote:
    Wicknight
    Oh I'm sorry, have you actually been in a space shuttle and observed a flat Earth? I would guess no. So what are you talking about? You haven't observed it, and according to the Flat Earth society those that claim to are simply lying

    Accusing your opposition of lying is also a habit that some Evolutionists have developed on this thread......

    .....and for all those who still cling to the Flat Earth and Evolution hypotheses can I repeat.....

    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    .......and the Evolutionist Hypothesis that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' can be disproven by the fact that muck has NEVER been observed to spontaneously turn into anything.....other than MORE muck!!!!

    ...and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!:D


  • Options
    #9175
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    J C wrote: »
    .....and being hoist on their own Petard......is also an occupational hazard for Evolutionists!!!!!

    ......and speaking of petards stuck in places where petards should not be......here is Wicki as if on cue....



    Accusing your opposition of lying is also a habit that some Evolutionists have developed on this thread......

    .....and for all those who still cling to the Flat Earth and Evolution hypotheses can I repeat.....

    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    .......and the Evolutionist Hypothesis that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' can be disproven by the fact that muck has NEVER been observed to spontaneously turn into anything.....other than MORE muck!!!!

    ...and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!:D

    Dear God, he has turned into a spambot!


  • Options
    #9176
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    J C wrote: »
    The Flat Earth Hypothesis can be disproven by directly measuring the curvature of the Earth ...by simultanously measuring the angle of the Sun at two points on the Earth's Surface.......
    .......and the Evolutionist Hypothesis that 'muck spontaneously evolved into Man' can be disproven by the fact that muck has NEVER been observed to spontaneously turn into anything.....other than MORE muck!!!!

    Not, of course, that modern muck is anything like a pre-biotic chemical mix, but I'm sure that's a trivial consideration.
    J C wrote: »
    ...and if you STILL believe in a Flat Earth and Evolution, could I suggest that you take a ride on the Space Shuttle and look DOWN...........and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!:D

    Because looking at the Earth from space would...offer clues on abiogenesis? Or resurrection? Presumably one or the other is meant, anyway, since otherwise the relevancy is difficult to discern.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #9177
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    daithifleming wrote: »
    no............ for you see that the speed of light................ was FASTER back then!!! :eek::eek::cool::rolleyes:
    Both Young Earthers and Big Bangers have to speculate that something was faster than light today - light itself or the supposed inflation of the Big Bang. Maybe you know of a different solution?
    How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
    http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf


  • Options
    #9178
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Given that it has already established on this thread that articles from Creation Ministries cannot be trusted as they appear to have no proper form of editorial process and frequently post articles with lies and misrepresentations, I'm rather at a loss why you would continue to post articles from them?
    I must have missed this established truth. As I recall, it was just opinions, prejudices and rants. Proof enough for some no doubt.


  • Options
    #9179
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    daithifleming wrote: »
    no............ for you see that the speed of light................ was FASTER back then!!! :eek::eek::cool::rolleyes:
    Shees, daithi, what on earth are you reading -- the koran or something? The speed of light was exactly the same back then. It was just that time ran slower.

    Easy, peasy.


  • Options
    #9180
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    and THEN try thinking about how long it takes something that is dead to spontanously spring back to life again!!!:D

    It took Jesus three days if I remember correctly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9181
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Sounds exactly like JC and Wolfsbane.

    I wonder if Wolfsbane's theory on the unfair censorship of challenging science by the scientific community extends to the Flat Earthers' claims. :rolleyes:

    By the way in case anyone was wonder the Flat Earth Society is not a piss take. These people genuinely believe that Earth is flat and that both the Bible and the scientific evidence supports that position

    Sounds awfully familiar
    :pac::pac:
    Had a look at their site. Seems just another quasi-religious scam.

    How you equate it with the Creation Science movement is beyond me - who are the scientists in the Flat Earth Society? Maybe I've missed that bit of information? Creation Science has a large number of well-qualified and practising scientists.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement