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…752753755757758…822

Comments

  • Options
    #22622
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    J C wrote: »
    ... to that I will simply add that there are theories ... and ... 'drumroll' ...
    ... there are Creation Science Theories!!!!:eek::):D
    ... as well as amazing Creation-supportive facts!!!

    ... even your admission that the time the theological debate has been going on is measured in hundreds / thousands of years (rather than the hundreds of thousands or indeed the millions of years that Evolutionists talk about) is an interesting fact supporting the 'Young Earth' Theory!!!:eek::):D

    Nice, now someone's changed the subject for you, you're back spouting random creationist generalisations.

    And you've still 'never been proven wrong'. ;)


  • Options
    #22623
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    .<rabble>


    ... even your admission that the time the theological debate has been going on is measured in hundreds / thousands of years (rather than the hundreds of thousands or indeed the millions of years that Evolutionists talk about) is an interesting fact supporting the 'Young Earth' Theory!!!:eek::):D
    No its not. No need to be so obtuse. Or Hyperactive....Frosted Flakes?

    Obviously tribal and primal man would have had no need for this debate, or at the time the capacity for it. As I said, it could be measured in either hundreds of years, since the time of John Calvin, Darwin and all them. Or it could have gone on much earlier, as long as we've had agriculture and civilization for instance, which historians peg at as early as 9,000 years ago. With civilization came artisanship and philosophy, and the point at which we would have had time to devote to these types of discussions.

    So no, not an admission of anything. It would be ridiculous to insinuate such a debate had been going on for millions of years,. At least on this planet, by Humans. The duration of the debate has no direct correlation on the lifetime of the planet or of the human genome.


  • Options
    #22624
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Atheism is not a theory.

    /pedantic
    ... you're correct ... it's technically an oxymoron!!!!:D

    ... it is the denial that God exists, because some people would like to think that He doesn't exist, even though it is patently obvious that He does exist!!!:eek::D

    Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
    19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
    20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
    21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
    22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
    23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

    .


  • Options
    #22625
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    No its not. No need to be so obtuse. Or Hyperactive....Frosted Flakes?

    Obviously tribal and primal man would have had no need for this debate, or at the time the capacity for it. As I said, it could be measured in either hundreds of years, since the time of John Calvin, Darwin and all them. Or it could have gone on much earlier, as long as we've had agriculture and civilization for instance, which historians peg at as early as 9,000 years ago. With civilization came artisanship and philosophy, and the point at which we would have had time to devote to these types of discussions.

    So no, not an admission of anything. It would be ridiculous to insinuate such a debate had been going on for millions of years,. At least on this planet, by Humans. The duration of the debate has no direct correlation on the lifetime of the planet or of the human genome.
    ... Evolutionist claims that Mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years ... stretching out to millions of years according to some people ... are seriously undermined by the bald fact that recorded history only stretches back less than 10,000 years!!!!

    ... an objective observer would conclude that Humanity were only around for less than 10,000 years ... but the Materialists need to deny God and His Creation propels them to believe an obvious non sequitur and they therefore adore the (supposedly spontaneously evolved) creature ... rather than the Creator ... even though all of the evidence is 'shouting' young earth ... and direct creation!!!


  • Options
    #22626
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    depends what you mean by recorded history

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

    The evidence points to the earth being very old, and in support of evolution. Saying otherwise is like saying France is going to win the world cup


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22627
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... two questions to the mods:-

    ... when did my sig become '2 big' ... it's been on here for over six months with no complaints?

    ... why wasn't I directly informed and given the opportunity to change it to meet your exacting standards ... rather than a straight erasure without any communication beforehand ????:(:(


  • Options
    #22628
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    gosplan wrote: »
    Nice, now someone's changed the subject for you, you're back spouting random creationist generalisations.

    And you've still 'never been proven wrong'. ;)

    Well dodging all the difficult questions is a very good way to never be proven wrong :D

    attachment.php?attachmentid=118375&stc=1&d=1277800564


  • Options
    #22629
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    J C wrote: »
    ...and creeping things.

    lol


  • Options
    #22630
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... Evolutionist claims that Mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years ... stretching out to millions of years according to some people are seriously undermined by the bald fact that recorded history only stretches back less than 10,000 years!!!!

    ... an objective observer would conclude that Humanity were only around for less than 10,000 years ... but the Materialists need to deny God and His Creation propels them to believe an obvious non sequitur and they therefore adore the (supposedly spontaneously evolved) creature ... rather than the Creator ... even though all of the evidence is 'shouting' young earth ... and direct creation!!!
    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    depends what you mean by recorded history

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

    The evidence points to the earth being very old, and in support of evolution. Saying otherwise is like saying France is going to win the world cup
    Thank you Nick.

    The Recorded History argument J_C already kinda flies in the face of what you're trying to preach, which is iirc, the earth is 6000 years old?

    Either way I already know that factually to be a falsehood so I'll not fillet you about it.

    But your point being that somehow written word/heiroglyphs are the earliest signs of mankind? Untrue. As Nick points out Paleontological records indicate otherwise. There is also no telling what civilizations existed in our own Pre-History. Pre-History in this context being anything that pre-dates our current civilization, one which is thought to be about 10,000 years old by your own admission. Which again, nullifies the 6k year young earthy theory. gg.

    And even if we are the first Civilization of Mankind, theres still the Paleontological evidence to prove that Home Sapiens and their predecessors have been around, again, for thousands, even millions of years, upon the planet earth.


  • Options
    #22631
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Professing to be wise, they became fools,
    and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals
    ... and creeping things


    liamw
    lol
    ... if the cap fits ... !!!:pac::):D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22632
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    Thank you Nick.

    The Recorded History argument J_C already kinda flies in the face of what you're trying to preach, which is iirc, the earth is 6000 years old?

    Either way I already know that factually to be a falsehood so I'll not fillet you about it.

    But your point being that somehow written word/heiroglyphs are the earliest signs of mankind? Untrue. As Nick points out Paleontological records indicate otherwise. There is also no telling what civilizations existed in our own Pre-History. Pre-History in this context being anything that pre-dates our current civilization, one which is thought to be about 10,000 years old by your own admission. Which again, nullifies the 6k year young earthy theory. gg.

    And even if we are the first Civilization of Mankind, theres still the Paleontological evidence to prove that Home Sapiens and their predecessors have been around, again, for thousands, even millions of years, upon the planet earth.
    ... recorded history is written history ... and it allows an exact provenance and age to be established!!!

    ... all this 'pre-history' stuff is highly speculative and allows the imaginings of the Evolutionist to run wild ... most of it is quite recent indeed ... and the rest is pre-flood ... or ante-diluvian if you are a Creation Scientist!!!:)


  • Options
    #22633
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... recorded history is written history ... and it allows an exact provenance and age to be established!!!

    ... all this 'pre-history' stuff is highly speculative and allows the imaginings of the Evolutionist to run wild ... most of it is quite recent indeed ... and the rest is pre-flood ... or ante-diluvian if you are a Creation Scientist!!!:)
    Perhaps Genesis is merely describing in narrative and poetic terms the formation of the Mediterranean sea during the Zanclean Deluge, now thought to have occured about 5 million years ago.

    Considering Genesis was about 3500 years ago written, I wouldn't put geology past Humans back then. Humans that built Babylon, and the Pyramids. They would have well been able to theorize about the Deluge and the then-distribution of the Human population surrounding the Mediterranean.

    Written History doesn't Provenance jack dude. Were you writing essays when you were an infant? If you acknowledge infancy in Humans in down right ridiculous to presume Humanity experienced no such period of infancy before learning the use of tools or language or writing or fire.


  • Options
    #22634
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    Perhaps Genesis is merely describing in narrative and poetic terms the formation of the Mediterranean sea during the Zanclean Deluge, now thought to have occured about 5 million years ago.
    ... more Evolutionist wishful thinking no doubt!!!

    .... based on an ancient Greek Myth about 'Hercules'!!!

    ... come to think about it the whole Evolutionist idea is also based on an ancient Greek Myth as well !!!!
    Overheal wrote: »
    Considering Genesis was about 3500 years ago written, I wouldn't put geology past Humans back then. Humans that built Babylon, and the Pyramids. They would have well been able to theorize about the Deluge and the then-distribution of the Human population surrounding the Mediterranean.

    Written History doesn't Provenance jack dude. Were you writing essays when you were an infant? If you acknowledge infancy in Humans in down right ridiculous to presume Humanity experienced no such period of infancy before learning the use of tools or language or writing or fire.
    ... writing is as old as Humanity ... which is less than 10,000 years!!!:rolleyes::D


  • Options
    #22635
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    The young earth arguement is like that game in wimbledon that went on for hours, knocking the ball back and forth. The evidence points to and old old earth, no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and shout. The bible doesnt even give an age of the earth, theres no dilemma in christian belief and old earth theories.


  • Options
    #22636
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... more Evolutionist wishful thinking no doubt!!!

    .... based on an ancient Greek Myth about 'Hercules'!!!

    ... come to think about it the whole Evolutionist idea is also based on an ancient Greek Myth as well !!!!
    I never said anything about Greek Mythology. But then who decides that Greek Mythology is False and the Bible is Truth? You? lol

    Actually I believe I was referring to the authors of Genesis if you will reread my post. If anyone was referencing Greek Mythology for your argument to be valid; it was them.
    ... writing is as old as Humanity ... which is less than 10,000 years!!!:rolleyes::D
    Actually fossil records have proven that Humans are at the very least evident from as early as 200,000 years ago.

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

    Though it is adorable watching your use of smileys and exclamation points to crutch your flaccid assumptions.


  • Options
    #22637
    patrickk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭patrickk


    Man has been on earth for pretty long time as far back as the dinosaurs :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9tYZ22Qufk&feature=player_embedded


  • Options
    #22638
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    The young earth arguement is like that game in wimbledon that went on for hours, knocking the ball back and forth. The evidence points to and old old earth, no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and shout. The bible doesnt even give an age of the earth, theres no dilemma in christian belief and old earth theories.
    ... the Bible gives the genealogy from Jesus Christ back to Adam ... so unless you believe that Jesus lived 2 million years ago instead of 2 thousand years ago ... you have many considerable dilemmas if you are a Christian and an Old Earth Evolutionist !!!!:):D

    ... and it has been my experience, on this thread and elsewhere, that Evolutionists are the ones with their fingers stuck firmly in their aural orifices !!!:eek::P:):D


  • Options
    #22639
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... the Bible gives the genealogy from Jesus Christ back to Adam ... so unless you believe that Jesus lived 2 million years ago instead of thousand years ago ... you have many considerable dilemmas if you are a Christian and an Old Earth Evolutionist !!!!:):D
    ... except the Bible is a fairy tale!!! :):D:p:D:eek:

    Tell me where is the evidence of Adam's existence?


  • Options
    #22640
    patrickk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭patrickk


    this goes back for few million years:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9tYZ22Qufk&feature=player_embedded


  • Options
    #22641
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    patrickk wrote: »
    Man has been on earth for pretty long time as far back as the dinosaurs :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9tYZ22Qufk&feature=player_embedded
    ... Man and Dinosaurs have both existed for less than 10,000 years!!:):D

    ... and Evolutionists have covered up as much evidence as they have uncovered ... as they use 'knowledge filters' and denial to maintain their millions of years paradigm!!!!
    ... and here is the story of an evolutionist who nearly 'let the cat out of the bag' on Evolution!!!!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22642
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    The mid atlantic ridge
    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-mid-atlantic-ridge.htm
    http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/earthmag/reversal.htm

    My point isnt just "ha ha, proved!" but you cant explain the difference in direction of the magnetic material within 6 thousand years. So im interested in a young earth advocates response to this


  • Options
    #22643
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    J C wrote: »
    ... Man and Dinosaurs have both existed for less than 10,000 years!!:):D
    Now you're just being farcical.


  • Options
    #22644
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Overheal wrote: »
    Now you're just being farcical.
    Why?

    ... and BTW Prof Dawkins doesn't seem to appreciate that if it appears to quack like a duck and appears to swim like a duck and appears to look like a duck ... it can be safely concluded that it is a duck!!!!

    ... ditto with his conclusion that living processes appear to have been designed for a purpose ... it can be safely concluded that they were!!!:D


  • Options
    #22645
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Overheal wrote: »
    Now you're just being farcical.
    You're new here I see :D

    @J C: love the new sig. Dishonestly stripped of its context as always. You never disappoint


  • Options
    #22646
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    The mid atlantic ridge
    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-mid-atlantic-ridge.htm
    http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/earthmag/reversal.htm

    My point isnt just "ha ha, proved!" but you cant explain the difference in direction of the magnetic material within 6 thousand years. So im interested in a young earth advocates response to this
    ... just as well that you are not claiming that your point is proven ... because it isn't.

    It is thought that there were rapid magnetic reversals during the catastrophic Diluvian Seismic processes ... and you can read all about it here including the discovery of a magnetic reversal that occurred in less than 15 days!!!:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i3/fossil.asp


  • Options
    #22647
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're new here I see :D

    @J C: love the new sig. Dishonestly stripped of its context as always. You never disappoint
    ... where is the dishonesty ... if I put in a larger quote the mods will erase it ...
    In any event, Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denied this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...
    ... but materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI ... and we have the maths to prove it!!!:D

    It is a fair quote that highlights Prof Dawkins belief that even though living organisms have the appearance of purposeful design, that this didn't actually happen ... and Creationist arguments that the appearance of Intelligent Design is actually very good evidence that it did!!!!


  • Options
    #22648
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're new here I see :D
    ... what Sam means is that the Evolutionists have already tried all of their usual arguments on this thread ... and none of them work!!!!:):)


  • Options
    #22649
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... where is the dishonesty ... if I put in a larger quote the mods will erase it ...
    In any event, Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denied this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...
    Sigh. Do you understand the difference between saying that life has the appearance of being designed and saying that life was designed, and that saying that life has the appearance of being designed but was actually not is not "promptly denying" anything?*



    *Yes of course you do but if you admitted that then you couldn't put a dishonest out of context quote in your sig.


  • Options
    #22650
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    J C wrote: »
    ... what Sam means is that the Evolutionists have already tried all of their usual arguments on this thread ... and none of them work!!!!:):)

    What??

    17/06 - another usual day, numerous posts from JC.

    18/06 - numerous posts from JC including one claiming that Creationists have all of the scientific models that work. He also advises that he has physical evidence for the actions of God and scientific proof for the existence of God.

    19/06 - numerous posts from JC. Ignores calls to demonstrate the previous day's claims.

    20/06 -JC posts again, talking about the logic behind his arguing, a lot of which is contained here. Also repeats his claim ... we can scientifically and mathematically prove that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God. For some reason, he still doesn't post the proof that would end this thread rather quickly.

    21/06 - more posts from JC, still no proof. He briefly explains CSI, which appears to be the proof he speaks of.

    22/02 - liamw posts what we believe is JC's proof, along with SamVimes debunk of it. We assume this is the proof JC was referring as he wouldn't post it himself. :o

    23/02 - JC details basic CSI theory again. He also points out his retort to SamVimes debunking of his CSI example which no-one can make sense of.

    24/02 - JC asked to explain his illogical retort. The response is 'I did debunk Sams comments with pure science!!!!'

    25/02 - No posts from JC

    26/02 - JC just quotes himself, repeating the illogical retort that he's been asked about. No further information.

    27/02 - No posts from JC

    28/02 - JC posts once about Creation Science facts and the young earth theory.

    29/02 - JC back to numerous posts per day. Happily, the subject has now changed to aging the earth and analogies about ducks.



    I'm calling you out JC.
    J C wrote: »
    scientific proof for the existence of God

    It's been nearly two weeks. Are you going to acknowledge that you weren't being truthful here or are you going to go into this proof.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22651
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,423 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    gosplan wrote: »
    It's been nearly two weeks. Are you going to acknowledge that you weren't being truthful here or are you going to go into this proof.
    Im happy to wait for an answer. The anticipation has clearly disrupted the flow of the thread enough as it is.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement