Noah's Ark

#126
#126
MercyPercy said:
That doesn't explain what happened to the unicorns though. :whistling:
Click to expand...

So, wait... A 17th century English word used to describe an unknown ancient species of horned land mammal (that was described as alive after the flood) is supposed to embarrass Christianity and disprove the flood story?

Here are the Biblical references to "unicorns". I've taken the liberty to replace the questionable translation with an equally questionable horned mammal, that would actually fit the descriptions of power and wildness even better. Would that make you feel better?

Will the rhinoceros be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10 Canst thou bind the rhinoceros with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Click to expand...

6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young rhinoceros.
Click to expand...

7 And the rhinoceros shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Click to expand...

:whistling:
 
Last edited:
#130
#130
CNCVol88 said:
I believe in macro evolution and it's the origin of man. I don't necessarily believe Adam and Eve is a literal tale. If I believe my God is bigger than I can imagine (I do) it shouldn't be hard to believe that he put systems in place such as evolution. That doesn't take away from the miracle of life to me. It adds to it.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a possibility that God could have done it that way, and I respect your view. It would cause some theological issues per sin/humanity/the fall/ and Christ's redemption. It would also indicate that Jesus was lying about God's specific creation of man "in the beginning".

Personally, I see it as a concession to the faith of Darwinian evolution, that is far from proven. I see it as a concession that isn't necessary.

:hi:
 
#132
#132
orangeblooded2 said:
Drop a Bomb? Do the due diligence and look it up as you say. This stuff as been out their for at least as many years as the proved layer of ash that encompasses the world from the asteroid that sturck of the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Like you say I'm not trying to be a jerk but I see it as common knowldge and 35 years or so of study does not condense down into a link for instant gratification.
Click to expand...

Again, you made the claim, and others asked for proof. And your answer is "figure it out" and "it's out there, go find it". That would be the same as someone saying "The Bible is false and it's been proven" and when asked for proof, said person says "It's been known for years" and "Go look it up".

No one is asking for one link that proves it all, but it seems if it's as common knowledge as you claim that you could provide at least one link that gets the ball rolling.
 
#135
#135
So god created this little random planet in the middle of nowhere, orbiting a standard star, on the edge of a common galaxy floating in a expanse of space that isn't really special at all. We know that life can only survive on some of its surface some of the time. 99% of All species ever living are now dead, and eventually the sun will engulf this planet killing everything forever.

This is some God isn't it? Even more ridiculous is that his primary concern has been meddling in the real estate affairs of a specific people on a worthless patch of desert in the Middle East, justified by a set of 1000's year old texts every other religion believes to be true that details his history of narcissistic genocide and family carpentry business, or some raving pedophile tripping in a cave 700 years later claiming it was all really the work of a god who sent his minion named "Gabriel" to set the record straight.

Is there anything really more absurd then people killing each other over such nonsense?
 
#136
#136
rjd970 said:
So god created this little random planet in the middle of nowhere, orbiting a standard star, on the edge of a common galaxy floating in a expanse of space that isn't really special at all. We know that life can only survive on some of its surface some of the time. 99% of All species ever living are now dead, and eventually the sun will engulf this planet killing everything forever.
Click to expand...

I've bolded some of the many things you've misrepresented either out of callous or lack of knowledge. You know, if you're going to rag on something, it would help to understand it and present it from its own internal paradigm. It bears repeating, it's sloppy and a bit disingenuous to "disprove" one paradigm by the logic of another.

What I mean is, you have inferred atheistic/nihilistic logic to attribute the logic of a religious interpretation of reality. Christianity makes sense within the Christian paradigm, which is all a logical person could ask of it. It breaks down only when attributed your nihilism.

Christianity states that God created a special planet for a special purpose-- which is relationship with a special creation. He created the expanse of space around it to:

  • Mark time-- which it does.
  • Create harvest seasons -- which it does.
  • Reveal His glory -- which it does.

Your predictive abilities per the sun engulfing us are seriously misplaced.

rjd970 said:
This is some God isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes He is.

rjd970 said:
Even more ridiculous is that his primary concern has been meddling in the real estate affairs of a specific people on a worthless patch of desert in the Middle East, justified by a set of 1000's year old texts every other religion believes to be true that details his history of narcissistic genocide and family carpentry business, or some raving pedophile tripping in a cave 700 years later claiming it was all really the work of a god who sent his minion named "Gabriel" to set the record straight.
Click to expand...


It was a bit hard to dissect this giant, run-on sentence, but I'll try to highlight issues I would take issue with.

If you had cared to get to know the paradigm that you are trashing, you would immediately see the mistake you're making. His "primary concern" is not meddling in real estate. His "primary concern" as stated in the paradigm, is that He be glorified. It's important because it also goes back to your first paragraph per the cosmos.

His "primary concern" is not the extension of 99% of species. It's not the duration of the planet. It's not the lifespan of people. It's not the importance of one planet over another, or that you segment out portions of the known universe.

So, what we have in your diatribe is basically the arguments:

"I don't understand much of this..."

and

"I would have done it differently..."

and

"My atheistic philosophy means that pretty much everything is meaningless..."

All unskillfully woven into a perceived refutation of that which you obviously don't understand.


rjd970 said:
Is there anything really more absurd then people killing each other over such nonsense?
Click to expand...

That is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#137
#137
Are you saying the sun wont expand and engulf the planet eventually? That's what stars do when the die.

Slowly but surely I am beginning to think arguing with you is pointless.
 
#138
#138
MercyPercy said:
Are you saying the sun wont expand and engulf the planet eventually? That's what stars do when the(y) die and are left to their own devices.
Click to expand...

Have you read the book of Revelation? It's important, because, as I've stated, it's important to judge a paradigm for internal consistency. That's why I made the statement that the OPs predictive abilities are misplace.

He was heavily inferring that all of this is pointless and meaningless, and partly basing it all on a grand destruction that he is predicting will happen.

It hasn't. Christianity points to a future event that would include:

  • the Creator coming back to rule His creation
  • The gathering of those that accepted His rule
  • The destruction of fallen creation
  • A new creation that is perfect and eternal.

Do you see how the two predictions, that have yet to be proven one way or another, could alter the perceived meaning of it all?

PS: Your inability to recognize this speaks to whether you're the one to judge the internal consistency of the paradigm.

MercyPercy said:
Slowly but surely I am beginning to think arguing with you is pointless.
Click to expand...

I'm yet to see you actually try, to be honest.
 
#139
#139
MercyPercy said:
Are you saying the sun wont expand and engulf the planet eventually? That's what stars do when the die.

Slowly but surely I am beginning to think arguing with you is pointless.
Click to expand...

That's just one more area where science and the bible agree. Earth will one day be destroyed by fire
 
#140
#140
Orange_Crush said:
Have you read the book of Revelation? It's important, because, as I've stated, it's important to judge a paradigm for internal consistency. That's why I made the statement that the OPs predictive abilities are misplace.

He was heavily inferring that all of this is pointless and meaningless, and partly basing it all on a grand destruction that he is predicting will happen.

It hasn't. Christianity points to a future event that would include:

  • the Creator coming back to rule His creation
  • The gathering of those that accepted His rule
  • The destruction of fallen creation
  • A new creation that is perfect and eternal.

Do you see how the two predictions, that have yet to be proven one way or another, could alter the perceived meaning of it all?

PS: Your inability to recognize this speaks to whether you're the one to judge the internal consistency of the paradigm.



I'm yet to see you actually try, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason I'm not so gung ho as you are is because the debate is old by now, and I'm tired of arguing with people who lack the capacity to explore the possibility that they might be wrong.

Imagine being at a bar and there's a drunk guy arguing with you about his belief in Santa and he just won't stop, and you might begin to understand where my exasperation comes from. Nothing I say to you will ever change your thought process, sadly enough. It's always been weird to me, seeing seemingly very capable and smart people sucked into the fantasy. Without being purposefully demeaning and with all due respect, me choosing not to dive headfirst into this debate all over again is akin to me ditching the bar with drunk santa guy. Or at least moving a few chairs over.

I expect you'll have a long retort to this, but it really isn't necessary. Not gonna change each other's minds. :hi:
 
#143
#143
MercyPercy said:
Perhaps the reason I'm not so gung ho as you are is because the debate is old by now, and I'm tired of arguing with people who lack the capacity to explore the possibility that they might be wrong.

Imagine being at a bar and there's a drunk guy arguing with you about his belief in Santa and he just won't stop, and you might begin to understand where my exasperation comes from. Nothing I say to you will ever change your thought process, sadly enough. It's always been weird to me, seeing seemingly very capable and smart people sucked into the fantasy. Without being purposefully demeaning and with all due respect, me choosing not to dive headfirst into this debate all over again is akin to me ditching the bar with drunk santa guy. Or at least moving a few chairs over.

I expect you'll have a long retort to this, but it really isn't necessary. Not gonna change each other's minds. :hi:
Click to expand...

You really are a wonder. You dove head first into the debate before I got here. You were content to quip about the opposition with references to unicorns and our faith not matching the "circumstances" of "reality". I asked for proof. You turned into Jimmeny Cricket.

Silence.

You showed the lack of ability to think of the feasibility of evolution since the flood. I took the time to show that I can think from the perspectives of:

  • Darwinian evolutionists
  • Punctuated Equillibrium evolutionists
  • Moder naturalists
  • Those of the atheistic philosophical persuasion
  • Specifically, Nihilistic atheists.

I've actually studied each in search of the truth. And yet, your retort is that "Nothing you say to me will ever change my thought process." Oh, and while not knowing my paradigm, equating it to Santa Claus.

You're rich. And for the record, you're grasping at any way possible to extricate yourself from answering the questions I've posed, while retaining your dignity.

So, I'll let it go. You have a good day.
 
#144
#144
Orange_Crush said:
You really are a wonder. You dove head first into the debate before I got here. You were content to quip about the opposition with references to unicorns and our faith not matching the "circumstances" of "reality". I asked for proof. You turned into Jimmeny Cricket.

Silence.

You showed the lack of ability to think of the feasibility of evolution since the flood. I took the time to show that I can think from the perspectives of:

  • Darwinian evolutionists
  • Punctuated Equillibrium evolutionists
  • Moder naturalists
  • Those of the atheistic philosophical persuasion
  • Specifically, Nihilistic atheists.

I've actually studied each in search of the truth. And yet, your retort is that "Nothing you say to me will ever change my thought process." Oh, and while not knowing my paradigm, equating it to Santa Claus.

You're rich. And for the record, you're grasping at any way possible to extricate yourself from answering the questions I've posed, while retaining your dignity.

So, I'll let it go. You have a good day.
Click to expand...

Noooooooooooooooo













Well crap,
It was fun while it lasted
 
#146
#146
Orange_Crush said:
You really are a wonder. You dove head first into the debate before I got here. You were content to quip about the opposition with references to unicorns and our faith not matching the "circumstances" of "reality". I asked for proof. You turned into Jimmeny Cricket.

Silence.

You showed the lack of ability to think of the feasibility of evolution since the flood. I took the time to show that I can think from the perspectives of:

  • Darwinian evolutionists
  • Punctuated Equillibrium evolutionists
  • Moder naturalists
  • Those of the atheistic philosophical persuasion
  • Specifically, Nihilistic atheists.

I've actually studied each in search of the truth. And yet, your retort is that "Nothing you say to me will ever change my thought process." Oh, and while not knowing my paradigm, equating it to Santa Claus.

You're rich. And for the record, you're grasping at any way possible to extricate yourself from answering the questions I've posed, while retaining your dignity.

So, I'll let it go. You have a good day.
Click to expand...




Wise choice ...why put yourself through the aggravation .
 
#147
#147
govols/cc said:
Some have sense to not blow themselves up though or expect 72 virgins or whatever it is if they do.
Click to expand...

No, they did something much worse. Kidnapped people and forced them to become car bombers against their will.
 
#149
#149
NEOCON said:
had no idea ur name was after that.

very cool.

I remember in the 80s when slice was very popular and came in grape and other flavors.

I miss the 80s.
Click to expand...

flockofseagulls.jpg


Ouch!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top