Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Don't take Hank to the bank, he's overdrawn.
Don't take Hank to the bank, he's overdrawn.
Hank-Your ignorance is showing. There aren’t many (if any) educated scientists that would claim it was not possible to fit several of every kind of land based animal into a vessel with the Arc’s dimensions. Do a little research.
Don't take Hank to the bank, he's overdrawn.
Hank-Your ignorance is showing. There aren’t many (if any) educated scientists that would claim it was not possible to fit several of every kind of land based animal into a vessel with the Arc’s dimensions. Do a little research.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
First of all, this is a strawman. Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on board the ark -- just land-dwelling creatures that breathe through nostrils. That rules out the vast majority of the animal kingdom. Nor did they evolve into anything -- they're still the same kind of animals they always were.
Secondly, the evolutionist has a much bigger problem than we do. Sure, we believe many of the animals alive today descended from animals on Noah's Ark. The typical evolutionist believes all the animals (and plants) on Earth descended from a batch of chemicals that somehow came to life. Now, which sounds more implausible?
Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
First of all, this is a strawman. Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on board the ark -- just land-dwelling creatures that breathe through nostrils. That rules out the vast majority of the animal kingdom. Nor did they evolve into anything -- they're still the same kind of animals they always were.
Secondly, the evolutionist has a much bigger problem than we do. Sure, we believe many of the animals alive today descended from animals on Noah's Ark. The typical evolutionist believes all the animals (and plants) on Earth descended from a batch of chemicals that somehow came to life. Now, which sounds more implausible?
Last edited:
Response to PUREX
Response to PUREX
Mere assertion of a truth might not convince but the truth might still be true because of its origin in a relationship with God who really can speak truthes at every level.
I think I resist the notion that absolute and relative truth or morality can be entirely distinguished. There is a core of absolute truth and morality which I think is universally recognisable even in a fallen mankind and which resonates with the very nature of God.
Take the issue of child rape raised by Bob Enyart for instance - an obvious evil! Relativists might argue that in some cultures the age of consent is lower than in America for instance. So sex with a 14 year old girl is for instance totally legal in Germany but I believe it is not in America. So what would be statutory child rape in America might be a consensual fornication in Germany. So the boundary might get a little blurry about when a child ceases to be a child according to which culture you inhabit. Historically Americans have had relationships at all sorts of age groups and marriages have occurred between girls of 11 and older men up until the last few centuries in the western world also. But the absolute truth is that 99% of people around the world will know that raping a child of say 7 years old is an absolute evil that all would condemn. That this is so clearly true that this is an obvious instance of wrong seems to support the Christian notion that mankind is made in the image of God and that their is a resonance with Gods morality in a human being that is truly universal across all cultures and times.
Bob can argue that child rape is an example of absolute evil and the whole world should agree with him. Suddenly we have both a truth and moral judgment which implies a law and a sense of truth that is universally shared.
Response to PUREX
Mere assertion of a truth might not convince but the truth might still be true because of its origin in a relationship with God who really can speak truthes at every level.
I think I resist the notion that absolute and relative truth or morality can be entirely distinguished. There is a core of absolute truth and morality which I think is universally recognisable even in a fallen mankind and which resonates with the very nature of God.
Take the issue of child rape raised by Bob Enyart for instance - an obvious evil! Relativists might argue that in some cultures the age of consent is lower than in America for instance. So sex with a 14 year old girl is for instance totally legal in Germany but I believe it is not in America. So what would be statutory child rape in America might be a consensual fornication in Germany. So the boundary might get a little blurry about when a child ceases to be a child according to which culture you inhabit. Historically Americans have had relationships at all sorts of age groups and marriages have occurred between girls of 11 and older men up until the last few centuries in the western world also. But the absolute truth is that 99% of people around the world will know that raping a child of say 7 years old is an absolute evil that all would condemn. That this is so clearly true that this is an obvious instance of wrong seems to support the Christian notion that mankind is made in the image of God and that their is a resonance with Gods morality in a human being that is truly universal across all cultures and times.
Bob can argue that child rape is an example of absolute evil and the whole world should agree with him. Suddenly we have both a truth and moral judgment which implies a law and a sense of truth that is universally shared.
PureX
Well-known member
Re: Who’s the believer?
Re: Who’s the believer?
But to your point, all the observable "laws" of the universe tell us is that they appear to remain intact within the universe itself. Unfortunately, what this also means is that they don't tell us a thing regarding what might occur before, after, or outside of our known universe. So though they are consistent within their limits, they reveal nothing beyond those limits, which is where we need to go if we are to answer the our questions about the existence of what we call "God".
I personally choose to believe in God, though I will freely admit that I have no proof whatever of God's existence. I'm puzzled by people who can't just leave it at that, but who seem intent upon proclaiming the existence or non-existence of God when it's obvious that we simply do not have the ability to make that assessment at this time. Yet I suppose it's the open door of our own ignorance that allows for all this speculation to presume itself to be some sort of "truth" in the first place.
We are indeed "wonderfully and frighfully made".
Re: Who’s the believer?
We can choose to believe anything we want to for any reason we want to, regarding or disregarding whatever evidence we choose. As is certainly evidenced by this forum! *smile*
But to your point, all the observable "laws" of the universe tell us is that they appear to remain intact within the universe itself. Unfortunately, what this also means is that they don't tell us a thing regarding what might occur before, after, or outside of our known universe. So though they are consistent within their limits, they reveal nothing beyond those limits, which is where we need to go if we are to answer the our questions about the existence of what we call "God".
I personally choose to believe in God, though I will freely admit that I have no proof whatever of God's existence. I'm puzzled by people who can't just leave it at that, but who seem intent upon proclaiming the existence or non-existence of God when it's obvious that we simply do not have the ability to make that assessment at this time. Yet I suppose it's the open door of our own ignorance that allows for all this speculation to presume itself to be some sort of "truth" in the first place.
We are indeed "wonderfully and frighfully made".
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.
Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You know what bothers me the most about this flood if the world was only 10 000 yrs old? What happened to the Egyptians when this was going on? The flood is dated to 4000 to 5000 years ago by creationists. This time frame coincides with the height of the Egyptian empire. They are also noted as people who wrote everthing down. So did they fail to see this flood that emcompassed the world?
Kind of odd if you ask me.Spartin
How big would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?
How big would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?
Stratnerd said;
How big would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?
Stratnerd said;
Me neither….oh wait… there’s that dust on the moon thing, radiometric halos, minerals and salts in the oceans, magnetic field, Moon’s distance from the Earth, the Sun’s diminishing size, human population count, existence of asteroids and meteors, …well anyway, me neither.
Stephen986
New member
One wonders why so much energy is expended, arguing over whether or not God exists, when Jesus Christ already has told us how to go about finding out for ourselves. Just follow the pathway that He has laid out for us, beginning with the first beatitude, and proceeding on to the sixth:
When you have seen Him, you will know. Try it; you'll like it!
- Status