The Sword in the Sand

[atinymonkey]

I don't deny evolution' date=' it's a fact. There are even some evolutionary-Christians, Christians who believe in the Creation and then evolution occurring afterwards. However, I seriously doubt the Big Bang like you doubt the Creation.

[/quote']

I think everybody on this forum understands creationism, a child of five could, and the disputes are based on knowlage. However only a handfull of people here understand the Big Bang theory, I doubt you are one of them, and the disputes are always based on ignorance. That's what tends to annoy people, imho.

[Cornelius]

However only a handfull of people here understand the Big Bang theory, I doubt you are one of them, and the disputes are always based on ignorance. That's what tends to annoy people, imho.

 

How are my disputes based on ignorance? You're automatically saying the Big Bang theory is correct because there's scientific proof for it. Am I correct? The only ignorance I see here, is that you believe every aspect of life should be proved with science and only science.

 

And I notice everyone making the argument for Behemoth being a dinosaur conveniently failed to mention that the Bible describes it as having a navel (16), and also describes the strength of its bones (18) - which nobody observing could have known. It even goes on to say what behemoth does at the weekend, when it's not ramapaging and eating goats (21-23). It's just a ****ing set piece, get over it.

 

Job recorded it. Really, I'm not asking you to believe this, just stating that the Bible shouldn't be quickly dismissed as false.

 

Leviathan isn't even a description of a specific beast - it's just a metaphor for man's impotence in the face of nature. It amazes me that some people can say "oh you just don't understand the bible" one minute, yet abandon their ability to interpret it properly the second it becomes convenient.

 

Are you sure?

 

Where the hell is all the water for a global flood supposed to come from? Seriously - calculate the vacant space volume of the average layer required to cover everything, and then calculate the volume of water tied up as ice and cloud.

 

Try these, pretty interesting reads:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

 

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

[MaxCathedral]

I used to believe in just a local flood...except if it was local, why didn't Noah simply walk out of the area.

[atinymonkey]

How are my disputes based on ignorance?

I stated that it was my opinion that you know very little about the Big Bang theory, and by that extension had no basis from which to dismiss it. Feel free to demonstrate an understanding if you happen to have one, and I'll retract my assumption with an unreserved apology.

 

You're automatically saying the Big Bang theory is correct because there's scientific proof for it. Am I correct?

Nope. I never once voiced my opinion on the theory. What I'm saying is you can't dismiss a theory simply because you don't understand it. You could dismiss it if it presented faulty data or illogical steps, no substantiation, poor maths, bias etc but you have not attempted to do that.

 

The only ignorance I see here' date=' is that you believe every aspect of life should be proved with science and only science.

[/quote']

No, not proved with science. Science is a methodology, a way of examining evidence. I don't know how I can put it clearer but it's not only evidence and proof that is important, but the framework in which you objectively analyse it to come to an unbiased conclusion. You could call it logic, if it helped.

[Mokele]

Cornelius, that you consider Answers In Genesis to be a worthy source of information has effectively killed your arguement. That alone gives us credible reason to question any fact you may cite, since you are clearly incapable of distinguishing fact from faction.

 

As for the trackway, why don't you ask *real* paleontologists what it is? Oh, wait, that's right, because you might find out you're *wrong*.

 

Stop wasting our time with your already-discredited information. Do you *seriously* think these disproven ideas haven't been spewed by a thousand crackpots before you?

 

Before I go, I'd like to give you something to think about: The biblical version of creation has been out of favor and regarded as allegorical for over 200 years, even before Darwin. In *ALL* of that time, creationism has not been able to mount a strong enough arguement to be regarded as anything but a group of ignorant dogmatists incapable of logical thought. If there were *realy* any truth to creationism, how can you explain this total failure to produce any evidence or logic that doesn't fall apart at the slightest scrutiny?

 

Mokele

[Cornelius]

Since I cannot back up anything I say with hard-core proof, I lose. You guys win.

[Hellbender]

Since I cannot back up anything I say with hard-core proof, I lose. You guys win.

Replace your snide "hard-core proof" with "logic and evidence" and you are correct.

[Cornelius]

You mean only with the word "evidence."

 

Honestly, you didn't even have to respond to my post, but it seems like you love instigating conflict.

[Hellbender]

Honestly, you didn't even have to respond to my post, but it seems like you love instigating conflict.

I'm done with this discussion before this gets even more ugly.

[Mokele]

but it seems like you love instigating conflict.

 

1) We aren't the ones posting discredited and mis-informed arguements on a forum where they're *guaranteed* to be torn to shreds and laughed at, so we aren't exactly the instigators, are we?

 

2) There's a lot to be said for conflict. Without conflict, there would be no evolution, no challenge, no life, nothing worthwhile. Look into Hindu theology. Kali and Shiva are two of the most-revered gods, because the Hindus realize, correctly, that death and destruction are every bit as vital to the world as birth and creation.

 

3) To re-phrase your post: "Waaa, I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

 

Come back when you actually know something, kid.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

Job recorded it. Really, I'm not asking you to believe this, just stating that the Bible shouldn't be quickly dismissed as false.

I am not "dismissing the bible as false" - I am pointing out what it actually says and accusing you of selectively ignoring parts that contradict your claims (and by "you" I mean the pro "Behemoth is a dinosaur" camp in this thread, not just you as an individual).

 

 

Are you sure?

About what? If you mean about Leviathan being a metaphor, then yes. If you mean about how amazed I am, then also yes.

 

 

Try these, pretty interesting reads:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

Do you seriously think those articles HELP?

 

The first one removes reason from the equation. Archimedes would be apoplectic.

 

The second one tries to shore up the biblical flood's lack of evidence by adding a major new event for which there is no evidence. There is actually a net drop in evidence.

 

The third one is perfectly reasonable except for the fact that the biblical flood has been tacked on, and is not required for an explanation as to how relics from an ancient town are under water.