Disproving Young earth Creationism and biblical mythology

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Jhn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

You can quote the words, but you lack understanding. Maybe one day you will want understanding and seek it out.


"biblical.....gobbledygook.....blah.....blah.....blah.....and so on.....and so forth..."

Marshall Applewhite claimed understanding, Jim Jones, David Koresh.....

Perhaps others see it as complete primitive and rumor based nonsense, because they understand only too well.




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ninjas4321
 



1 what did carnivores eat on the ark?
2 if all creatures were created by a benevolent loving god why is there a species of wasp that lays its egg inside a tarantula eating it from the inside out?
3 If we are not descended from an apelike creature then why do we share so many similar to apes including looks behavior and DNA?
4 How did Jesus come back from the dead?
5 How did Noah Fit every singe animal on the ark without the boat sinking?
6 If there were only two people at the begening of time and they had kids wouldn't that lead to incest
7 If there was only two people at the beginning of time then why are there so many different races today?
8 How did your god create life can you explain how it works
9 Why are the continents moving apart at a rate that would put them together millions of years ago?
10 How did animals that live in Australia get there if the ark ended up on a mountain?
11 If humans are special creatures then why do we share the traits of violence Rage warfare with animals?
12 If Humans lived at the same time with dinosaurs then wouldn't cave man drawings show dinosaurs?
13 If the planet is 6000 years old then why are there societys that are 1200 years old?
14 if evolution is false then why have we found bones of Cretures that look like primive humans?
15 If Cristanity is the one true religion and the bible is truth in evryword then expalin to me why there are so many diffrent religions out there


Answers comparable to the questions.


1. Each other, but they all had babies first.
2. God hates tarantulas.
3.While it is true that some people look like apes, act like apes and smell like apes. I have yet to see an ape that resembles anything close to a human.
4. As any common ape would know, no one really knows. But someone had to do it.
5. Boat ? Wait what ? No Arc ? You're gonna to have to make up my mind before I can answer that but I think the answer will be because it was an arc, not a boat.
6. No incest is only practiced by royalty, you know, monarchs and such. Think Queens and Kings and guillotines.
7. There is only one race as far as I know, the human race.
8.Can you explain it without him ?
9.I don't know, but when do they start moving together again ? Or do they just keep moving apart ?
10. Maybe they had boats ?
11. Why then don't animals share the blame for Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the atom bomb ? why do humans have to take all the blame ?
12. Wouldn't that depend on if they survived seeing the dinosaurs ?
13. Show me the dumb ass that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old ? Where is he ? Who is he ?
14. I know this one too. Because there were primitive humans.
15. Out where ? Oh out there ? I don't know, but isn't out there where the truth is ?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
We don't need disprove anything about the biblical mythology... The burden of proof is not ours, they need to prove to us that story is true. And guess what? They can't.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Jhn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

You can quote the words, but you lack understanding. Maybe one day you will want understanding and seek it out.


"biblical.....gobbledygook.....blah.....blah.....blah.....and so on.....and so forth..."

Marshall Applewhite claimed understanding, Jim Jones, David Koresh.....

Perhaps others see it as complete primitive and rumor based nonsense, because they understand only too well.


Nice of you to chime in without looking at the post I replied to. The only gobbledygook was your post my friend.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's ok. I'm glad we're friends.

I read the post. I doubted your rebuttal claims of a superior understanding, or that cherry picking settles the contradictions. As well as the inference that genuine wisdom beyond occasional common sense resides in the quoted book. I still do.

edit on 25-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
We don't need disprove anything about the biblical mythology... The burden of proof is not ours, they need to prove to us that story is true. And guess what? They can't.

Matthew 13:11 But he answered and said to them: “It has been given to you to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it has not been given.
I sure hope that others will see that if they want proof, they need to look for it.
Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Proverbs 9:12 If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; if you scoff, you alone will bear it.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
All scientific evidence points to a 4.5 billion year old earth and that life started 3 billion years ago, and has evolved into the diversity we can see today. Anything else is pure speculation and certainly not backed by evidence.


I note that none of your scientific authorities were there to see it, and yet you speak of anything else as "pure speculation." It is an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Your "science" lacks rigor.

Yes, I am keeping my comments minimal now.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Barcs
All scientific evidence points to a 4.5 billion year old earth and that life started 3 billion years ago, and has evolved into the diversity we can see today. Anything else is pure speculation and certainly not backed by evidence.


I note that none of your scientific authorities were there to see it, and yet you speak of anything else as "pure speculation." It is an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Your "science" lacks rigor.

Yes, I am keeping my comments minimal now.


Stop it. Look at the fossil record. It speaks for itself. Scientific evidence isn't up for interpretation. It's is pretty specific and exact. Were you around to see creation happen? Alright then. At least science tries to understand what happened. You think you already know and that science should just stop trying to learn. That attitude gets us nowhere.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Barcs
All scientific evidence points to a 4.5 billion year old earth and that life started 3 billion years ago, and has evolved into the diversity we can see today. Anything else is pure speculation and certainly not backed by evidence.


I note that none of your scientific authorities were there to see it, and yet you speak of anything else as "pure speculation." It is an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Your "science" lacks rigor.

Yes, I am keeping my comments minimal now.


Stop it. Look at the fossil record. It speaks for itself. Scientific evidence isn't up for interpretation. It's is pretty specific and exact. Were you around to see creation happen? Alright then. At least science tries to understand what happened. You think you already know and that science should just stop trying to learn. That attitude gets us nowhere.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


As I have said before, our views are so divergent, that we have no common ground for discussion. What you said about science at least trying to understand is true, up to a point, but science took the wrong road many years ago, and in areas that you, sir, are probably unaware of, and don't presume that I am still talking about the creation vs evolution box. There are many boxes, such as the gravitational vs electric models of the universe. Do your homework, you may still be working on the surface.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ninjas4321
 


"Logic" isn't high up on the list of priorities when it comes to the bible, there's hundreds of cases where it's demonstrably wrong (just like all religious scriptures).



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


You have no clue about science given your posts in this and the carrot thread



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


You have no clue about science given your posts in this and the carrot thread


Oh, my, here's yet another evolutionist who "knows" things that happened millions of years ago, but has no clue as to what I know or don't know about science (or "science"). You know, some of us lack the ability to see what they are looking at - if I have learned one thing from this life, it is that.

Tell me, do you think I am philosophizing here or scientificating?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


You have no clue about science given your posts in this and the carrot thread


Oh, my, here's yet another evolutionist who "knows" things that happened millions of years ago, but has no clue as to what I know or don't know about science (or "science"). You know, some of us lack the ability to see what they are looking at - if I have learned one thing from this life, it is that.

Tell me, do you think I am philosophizing here or scientificating?


Well then, the thread title is "disproving young earth creationism and biblical mythology". So let me ask you this, are you a believer of young earth creationism? Are you also ignoring the fact that the bible is scientifically wrong in hundreds of cases?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


You have no clue about science given your posts in this and the carrot thread


Oh, my, here's yet another evolutionist who "knows" things that happened millions of years ago, but has no clue as to what I know or don't know about science (or "science"). You know, some of us lack the ability to see what they are looking at - if I have learned one thing from this life, it is that.

Tell me, do you think I am philosophizing here or scientificating?


Well then, the thread title is "disproving young earth creationism and biblical mythology". So let me ask you this, are you a believer of young earth creationism? Are you also ignoring the fact that the bible is scientifically wrong in hundreds of cases?


Fair question, but your wording is telling. You ask if I am a young earth creationist, and quickly add, "Are you also ignoring..." You imply that if I'm a YEC, then I am ignoring something - that it's ignorance, not a positive belief. Yes, I subscribe to the creation model, but the time factor is an open issue for me. I try to remind people on various threads that without a time machine, some things about the past are only best guesses, and I take my own advice. I don't know if the Earth is young or old, and there is evidence each way. Will it surprise you to know that I accept micro-evolution? A frog is a frog is a frog, never a prince, whatever the time factor.

I find the site you link to offensive, and I see clearly that some here see creationist sites in just that light. Linking to an outside source just does not cut it. None of us should be so smug that we link to whatever, and think we have trounced the opposition. I think we should post ideas here and defend them here. Perhaps you could bring up a few instances from the Bible for discussion.

Are you ignoring the fact (there can be no dispute) that the scientific method is first outlined in the Book of Daniel? Hypothesis, control group, and experimental group - it's all there. Daniel 1:10-19

edit on 8-7-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 





I don't know if the Earth is young or old, and there is evidence each way. Will it surprise you to know that I accept micro-evolution? A frog is a frog is a frog, never a prince, whatever the time factor.


There really isn't any evidence for a young earth, and we have witnessed macroevolution (speciation) both in the lab and in nature.





I find the site you link to offensive, and I see clearly that some here see creationist sites in just that light. Linking to an outside source just does not cut it.


That site I linked shows FACTS! It shows where the bible is demonstrably wrong, like when it comes to a global flood, or people living inside whales...

You might not like it, but scientifically the bible is clearly wrong.




Are you ignoring the fact (there can be no dispute) that the scientific method is first outlined in the Book of Daniel? Hypothesis, control group, and experimental group - it's all there. Daniel 1:10-19


Sad that they're not actually applying it though



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Macro-evolution in nature and in the lab? I'm not taking your word on that.

You may actually be correct on some level, on the subject of Bible vs science. There are things in the Bible which would contradict science, in your view, and that should not surprise us, as the Bible is a supernatural book, a idea you (no doubt) can not accept. How, for instance, can you grapple with the heptadic structure of the text of the Bible while maintaining an atheistic, evolutionary mindset? If you try, cognitive dissonance sets in, and you turn away from the subject, mumbling something about yeah, they did that in Moby Dick...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ninjas4321
 


As good as these questions are I don't think you've disproved Biblical creation. Of course I don't believe in Biblical creation of course but I still don't think you've provided any evidence that Biblical creation is false, you've just pointed out some big questions in the idea.

A theory is only good as its explanatory power and on that level creation is a huge failure for many of the reasons you've pointed out here. The Bible goes into no details about how and why God creates. He seems to create using divine command, as in magic words, and he apparently makes living things look so similar and have so much in common that they appear to have evolved. If God didn't want us to think we share ancestors with apes then why do we look and behave so similarly to them?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 





Macro-evolution in nature and in the lab? I'm not taking your word on that.


Nobody expects you to...but you could have at least done a 5min Google search to learn how very wrong you are


Macro-evolution witnessed in the lab and nature is a FACT.

More examples of speciation...

Those are FACTS, ignore them if you will, but you're gonna look silly



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   


There is only one race as far as I know, the human race


Yeah, right. Face the truth that all the races that exist on the earth today could not have evolved in only the last 4 or 5 thousand years (or whenever the flood supposedly was).

Also, there's not enough water on earth to cover all the mountains. The amount of water it would take to raise the whole ocean to that level is more than all the water on earth.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   


Age of the Earth from seasonal rings and layers If you’ve ever seen a horizontal slice of a tree trunk, you’ve seen how a tree forms a new growth ring each year. In years of drought, the tree grows less quickly so the ring is narrower; in good growing seasons the ring is thicker. A tree’s age can be found by simply counting its rings. By comparing the pattern of thick and thin rings to weather records, scientists can verify that the method is accurate. This method can even be used on dead trees that fell in a forest long ago. For example, the last 200 rings in the dead tree might match up with 200 rings early in the life of the living tree, so the two trees together can count back many years. In this way, multiple trees can be used to build a master chronology for a forested region. European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology.1 The annual ice layers in glaciers provide a similar method that goes back much further in history. Each year, snowfall varies throughout the seasons and an annual layer is formed. Like the tree rings, this method can be verified by comparison to historical records for weather, as well as to records of volcanic eruptions around the globe that left thin dust layers on the glaciers. Scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland2 and 740,000 years old in Antarctica.3 These annual layers go back much farther than the 10,000 years advocated by the young earth creationists. The Earth must be at least 740,000 years old.


biologos.org...





new topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join