Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Christianity Really Brainwashing?

page: 46
54
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 



It looks like you and undo are reading from different books, undo's verision fo the flood was local to the black sea....therefore could not have cause the formation of the grand canyon.



WOW!!!!!! That's an even bigger miracle than a worldwide flood!!!! So you're telling me there was a local flood that covered the mountaintops?




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I quote The grand canyon is a great example of Noahs flood. no it isn't.

geology.com...

It took millions of years to form. and before you post links to Christian websites which are flawed mine is a one made by and for real Geologists.


The flood was only a localized phenomena encompassing only the people of Noah, not the entire planet. That is what it says in my book.


So God is a complete moron? He had Noah and his son's go through all that trouble for so many years when all he had to do was tell Noah to pick up and MOVE OUT OF THE LOCAL AREA?????



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vogon42
 



It looks like you and undo are reading from different books, undo's verision fo the flood was local to the black sea....therefore could not have cause the formation of the grand canyon.



WOW!!!!!! That's an even bigger miracle than a worldwide flood!!!! So you're telling me there was a local flood that covered the mountaintops?


Yep seems odd that If the Flood was local, the waters could rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I quote The grand canyon is a great example of Noahs flood. no it isn't.

geology.com...

It took millions of years to form. and before you post links to Christian websites which are flawed mine is a one made by and for real Geologists.


The flood was only a localized phenomena encompassing only the people of Noah, not the entire planet. That is what it says in my book.


If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.


Really now? Because even local can mean something up to hundreds of km? Maybe there wasn't that much time you know?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

I did look at all the websites another person had posted claiming the Grand canyon was caused by one single flood, they were all posted on Christian websites which have an interest in trying to prove the bible is right.
True you could say the same about all the geologists in the world who say it was formed over millions of years but I looked at the evidence provided from both sides and i used my brain to come to the conclusion that the geologists who say it is millions of years old are right.
just because you have found one geologist who says it was caused in one flood doesn't mean it is true.
look at the pennines in the UK they were formed due to the last ice age carving vast valleys etc with ice.
We see how they are made because we are seeing how they are made now, we can goto norway and see what ice/water is doing to the area. That is another way of proving what has happened.
edit on 31-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I quote The grand canyon is a great example of Noahs flood. no it isn't.

geology.com...

It took millions of years to form. and before you post links to Christian websites which are flawed mine is a one made by and for real Geologists.


"Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

I guarantee you that you've never studied the young-Earth arguments, but are relying on the criticism of old-Earth Geologists. Can you tell me what arguments young-Earth, creation-believing scientists are in error about?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Really now? Because even local can mean something up to hundreds of km? Maybe there wasn't that much time you know?


There was a lot more time to build the ark that it would have taken to move out of the local area.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vogon42
 



It looks like you and undo are reading from different books, undo's verision fo the flood was local to the black sea....therefore could not have cause the formation of the grand canyon.



WOW!!!!!! That's an even bigger miracle than a worldwide flood!!!! So you're telling me there was a local flood that covered the mountaintops?


Yep seems odd that If the Flood was local, the waters could rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains.


You do realize that you are making yourself look not so bright, right?

What if it was a combination of rain, storms and volcanic activity? What if it was an island which sank? (Like Atlantis) Then the "waves" can surely not only be 8m above "mountains" but THOUSANDS OF METERS because it is the land which is going down.
edit on 31/12/2011 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Really now? Because even local can mean something up to hundreds of km? Maybe there wasn't that much time you know?


There was a lot more time to build the ark that it would have taken to move out of the local area.


Read my post above.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

I did look at all the websites another person had posted claiming the Grand canyon was caused by one single flood, they were all posted on Christian websites which have an interest in trying to prove the bible is right.


The Bible stands on it's own merits, the young-Earth creation scientists are vested in proving modern science in regards to the age of the Earth/fossils is in error.


True you could say the same about all the geologists in the world who say it was formed over millions of years but I looked at the evidence provided from both sides and i used my brain to come to the conclusion that the geologists who say it is millions of years old are right.


Well, we have a paradox, that was the same process I encountered when I came to the opposite conclusion. And I began my endevours as an old-Earth, Evolutionist.


just because you have found one geologist who says it was caused in one flood doesn't mean it is true.


No, I linked just one. No point wasting bandwith copy/pasting all the scientists who reject old-Earth hypothesis. I'd have that post deleted for violating the T&C anyways. So are you still denying that young-Earth Geologists are not "real" Geologists?


look at the pennines in the UK they were formed due to the last ice age carving vast valleys etc with ice.
We see how they are made because we are seeing how they are made now, we can goto norway and see what ice/water is doing to the area. That is another way of proving what has happened.


Yet, we cannot point to modern examples of canyons being formed in minutes and days (Mt. St. Helens disaster) instead of millions of years??? Does that make sense to you?



edit on 31-12-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Wait so you will believe 2 of Plato's dialogues, Timaeus and Critias, which are the only existing written records which specifically refer to Atlantis for sufficient evidence, yet you will not believe the 5686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament? That my friend is a Double Standard if ever I saw one.
edit on 31-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I quote The grand canyon is a great example of Noahs flood. no it isn't.

geology.com...

It took millions of years to form. and before you post links to Christian websites which are flawed mine is a one made by and for real Geologists.


"Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

I guarantee you that you've never studied the young-Earth arguments, but are relying on the criticism of old-Earth Geologists. Can you tell me what arguments young-Earth, creation-believing scientists are in error about?


Why do you have to make those two (ceationists and scientists) a contrast?

I am a scientist. I am a believer too. I believe God created the universe. But nowhere in my book does it say that God created it 6000 years ago, or similar stuff. In fact, God EXPLICITLY states that he created it in STAGES. Loooong stages.
There must not be a contrast between these statements. I believe that God kick-started the creation which then unfolded as it did, for ca. 15 billions of years. Why is this a problem?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Really now? Because even local can mean something up to hundreds of km? Maybe there wasn't that much time you know?


There was a lot more time to build the ark that it would have taken to move out of the local area.


Read my post above.


I did, if you made a vaild point I would have given you a star for it. But you're ignoring that God commanded Noah to build the arkand it was God who sent the rains and opened the floodgates of the deep.

Was God caught off-guard as well? Or was He an idiot and had Noah spend all that time building the ark when all He had to do was tell Noah to move??

Which one is it?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Wait so you will believe 2 of Plato's dialogues, Timaeus and Critias, which are the only existing written records which specifically refer to Atlantis for sufficient evidence, yet you will not believe the 5686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament? That my friend is a Double Standard if ever I saw one.
edit on 31-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


What?!

Are you seriously being so literal or just playing stupid? (Sorry, not meaning to be disrespectful, I am genuinely curious).

I said, what if it was an Island - like the tale about Atlantis - I did not say I believe in Atlantis - I wanted to give you an example.

Wait, you will understand this literally too ...

Let me rephrase it.

FORGET ATLANTIS.

There was an Island - no matter what it's name. Somewhere. Noah was there, preaching to his people. They were evil, wanted to stone him, persecuted him, etc. He built an ark. The island was flooded. It sank. Noah survived. Yay!

Simple enough?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Why is this a problem?


It's a HUGE problem. If death entered the world with the fall of man, how would there have been opportunity for evolution to produce what we see today by billions of years of natural selection and death?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Really now? Because even local can mean something up to hundreds of km? Maybe there wasn't that much time you know?


There was a lot more time to build the ark that it would have taken to move out of the local area.


Read my post above.


I did, if you made a vaild point I would have given you a star for it. But you're ignoring that God commanded Noah to build the arkand it was God who sent the rains and opened the floodgates of the deep.

Was God caught off-guard as well? Or was He an idiot and had Noah spend all that time building the ark when all He had to do was tell Noah to move??

Which one is it?


And once again,

What if it was a bloody island? He would of course need a bloody ark to get away there from! How else was he supposed to "move" frome there?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Why is this a problem?


It's a HUGE problem. If death entered the world with the fall of man, how would there have been opportunity for evolution to produce what we see today by billions of years of natural selection and death?


What?

Where is the question here? Or what are you trying to say? I do not see it, sorry.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Better than any answer I could give him, great post.
6000 years heck we have things made by humans or our direct ancestors that are 2 million years old.
www.nytimes.com...

or do you want a bit closer in time?

23 thousand years ago

news.discovery.com...

Oh wait I forgot they were put there by God to test our faith

edit on 31-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So I popped this Andrew A. Snelling into Google and it looks like he has a big problem with his personal ethics.

After writing a paper entitled Koongarra uranium deposit (in which he correctly uses the old earth time scales) he was challenged on his duplicity by a Dr Alex Ritchie and was forced to write this

www.trueorigin.org...

When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology


But its probably going to be ok he can just ask baby Jesus to forgive him and all will be well



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Better than any answer I could give him, great post.
6000 years heck we have things made by humans or our direct ancestors that are 2 million years old.
www.nytimes.com...

or do you want a bit closer in time?

23 thousand years ago

news.discovery.com...

Oh wait I forgot they were put there by God to test our faith

edit on 31-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


The problem is they rely on the Bible - which contains some parts that were probably revealed to Moses and other prophets - but the book was mostly REwritten much later, because it was lost at one time.
Those who re-wrote it - did this relying on THEIR understanding of things, this is why we find so many contradictions and simply cut scientific errors in it. They tried, but they could not know everything.
Thus we have the "generations" of people since Adam - and when one adds their age, one after another, we get this RIDICULOUS notion that Adam must have lived sometime around the year 4000 BCE.

But, the writers of the Bible, although they mentioned generations - who is to say they did not leave countless generations BETWEEN?
I mean, we see those errors even as late as in the time of Matthew and Luke, who could not get right the generations of Jesus, which is yesterday in terms of history.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join