Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Spartin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
And what problems might those be?



I'm not attempting to reduce anything -- I'm simply saying what Genesis says in regards to which animals went on board the ark.



A kind can be a species, a genus, or even a family, depending on the kind of animal in question. For instance, brown bears, black bears, asiatic black bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears, sun bears, polar bears, and probably giant pandas would all fall under the heading of bear-kind. Similarly, lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, lynxes, leopards, panthers, cougars, ocelots, bobcats, and even housecats would fall under the heading of cat-kind. Another example would be wolves, coyotes, dingoes, dogs, jackals, and perhaps foxes making up the dog-kind.

So what about Elephants? In fossil records, there were 160 different species of of these very large animals. I thought on the Ark they brought 2 of every species aboad. Now if we look at current times, there is only 3 species left around. Did they become extinct after the fact or was the "All animals" just a joke in Genesis? Even without looking at the fossil record, lets look at the animal itself. It weighs roughly 12,000 pounds. Not only is it going to eat far more than Noah and his sons weigh, it will excrete the weight of one of the Sons no problem. With that much waste and 160 different types of elephants, that is a load of food just for one animal. Where would it be kept on the ark? Where would 320 elephants be kept? You can say the ark is the Giant of all ships known to man and I could say that is possible. One thing remains though, why can't we find any evidence of such a huge and I mean Giagantic ARK. An aircraft carrier maybe half the size, so don't you think we couldn't find it?? Especially since it is "well documented" where the Ark was put on land? I would be really happy if you could explain this to me. Good luck


Spartin

 

[Spartin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by Wedge
I love to watch fundamentalists do a tap dance whenever the massive problems of "Noah" and the "ark" are raised.

Here we see the typical attempt to reduce the number of animals taken aboard the ark. But just ask a fundamentalist to define "kinds" and you will see that they have no idea of what a "kind" really means. However, they are stuck with that word "because it says so in the bible".


Typical confusion over the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. On the one hand fundamentalists have to admit to evolution in order for the "kinds" to change into different species, yet on the other they need to have limits to the evolution. But just ask a fundamentalist to define these limits and you will see that they have no idea of what they are.

The Bible says so and the Egyptians were still building pyramids during this "World Wide Flood". I would like someone who believes in the flood to enlighten me please.

Spartin

 

[Spartin]

Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Originally posted by Freak
These atheists have been dumbed down. They honestly question the truth that "chair" can only be "chair", as it cannot be a "spider." These are absolute statements.
:kookoo:

Are you serious? He wasn't really relating to chairs in itself, he was just using a prior example to convey an idea to the person who said the phrase. He is trying to hammer down the issue of absolute. To top it all off, you misread or are misinterpreting his statements. He stated that He "knows" that a chair isn't a spider. Please read it again before you state something like this again. You misrepresent yourself and your position. Read quips post again and the edit function will work for you. Feeling to the need to say atheists are dumbed down is simple fallicy on your part when you state something like this.


Spartin

 

[Eireann]

Re: Re: Re: Bob is CREAMING Zaketh

Re: Re: Re: Bob is CREAMING Zaketh

Originally posted by RogerB
Yes, CREAMING!

You have bad hibit of questionsing other's standards. I find that hilarious coming from a witch.

And why is that hilarious? Or do you just get off on spewing cultural epithets?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by shima
Lion:
>>We do know that in every possible test case, that we have observed, the laws of thermodynamics prevail.<<

Yes, as far as we can tell, the laws of thermodynamics hold within this universe. It however makes no statement of "laws" that apply "outside" out universe, as in the case BEFORE the beginning of our universe.

Actually, as I recall, someone last year posted a link to an article about some scientists in Australia (I think) that disproved one of the laws of thermodynamics in a laboratory setting. I don't recall the details, but it was something to do with entropy. They did say, though, that they doubted the effect could likely be reproduced outside a laboratory setting, and could only be achieved when working with small amounts of matter. Still, it does show that the "laws" of physics aren't quite as unassailable as some may believe.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
Don't hold your breath. God did it once and there's no need to do it again.

Perhaps you'd be better equipped to discuss the issue of Dick York vs Dick Sargent as the quintessential Darrin on Bewitched.

Is there some particular reason you've felt it necessary to insult my religious beliefs with every post you've made toward me of late, even in conversations having nothing to do with religion? Did you simply not know I was a witch (surprising, since most of this board has known for a couple years). Or did a witch do something to you recently that you have this need to insult every witch you come across?

 

[Eireann]

Re: How big would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?

Re: How big would the sun have been 5 billion years ago?

Originally posted by Lion
Me neither….oh wait… there’s that dust on the moon thing

Which suggests a young earth how?

radiometric halos, minerals and salts in the oceans, magnetic field, Moon’s distance from the Earth

All of which suggest a young earth how?

the Sun’s diminishing size

Which suggests a young earth how? The change in the sun's size is something that is occurring and has been over the course of millions of years, according to most projections I've seen. This is certainly not very supportive of YEC.

human population count

Ah, yes, the old why isn't it standing room only argument. It's a good argument, too, when you ignore factors such as mortality rates (until recent decades, mortality rates were often equal to and sometimes greater than natality rates), sickness, war and disease, inadequate health care, plague, natural disasters, and so on.

existence of asteroids and meteors

Oh yeah, rocks flying through space. That proves the earth is young. How could I ever have doubted? [/sarcasm]

 

[Eireann]

Freak,

Regarding the whole chair/spider/good/evil thing (although I'm not particularly concerned with the chair or spider, unless I happened to be sitting in the chair and the spider is looking hungry), I have some questions for you about good and evil.

Okay, we can agree that there is at least some semblance of universality in the discussion of good and evil. In other words, everyone has some idea of things they consider "good" or "evil." However, though you and I may both believe in good and evil, we may not necessarily agree that the same things are good or that the same things are evil. So while every culture may have catagories of "good" and "evil" as part of their belief system, the contents under those catagories are far from universal.

So ...

1. What determines, to you, if a thing should be catagorized as "evil?"

2. What determines, to you, if a thing should be catagorized as "good?"

3. If a thing (read: person, being, creature, entity) is capable of being good, is it also capable of being evil, and vice versa?

4. Are there beings that are capable of only one and not the other in any circumstances? In other words, are there things that are evil that cannot possibly, at any time under any circumstance, be good (or do good for the sake of good), and vice versa?

5. If a demon is a fallen angel as many believe, although it may be barred from ever becoming an angel again and gaining the presence of God, is it also automatically barred from ever possibly becoming a good entity? Is it relegated always and only to being evil? Likewise with angels, are they always and only relegated to being good without the possibility of becoming evil? According to the Bible, angels were at least at one time capable of becoming evil (else they wouldn't have fallen or followed the being incorrectly named Lucifer). Does that condition of "ethical changeability" apply only to angels and not to demons as well? And if a demon were to possibly become good, what would it become, especially if it cannot become an angel again? Would it become an earthbound spirit, or something entirely different?

 

[PureX]

Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Originally posted by Freak
These atheists have been dumbed down. They honestly question the truth that "chair" can only be "chair", as it cannot be a "spider." These are absolute statements.
:kookoo:

They are meaningless statements from someone who can't tell the difference between what he thinks ABOUT something and the thing he is thinking about. Therefor he thinks an absolute statement equals an absolute.

 

[Soulman]

Zakath is asking the impossible. If it was possible to “prove” the existence of God, faith wouldn’t be necessary. The unbeliever rejects the “evidence” of the creation, the “evidence” of the power of the gospel (transformed lives and the believer’s “witness” to the truth), and the “evidence” of the special revelation of God’s Word. While supressing the truth, the atheist MUST conclude that believer's are a)psychological cripples, b) clinically insane, or c) pathological liars, hardly the basis of an unprejudiced "debate." Bob's taking Zak apart one limb at a time, but Zak is “proving” something else; that “seeing” (the evidence) is NOT the same thing as “believing” the evidence. It may not "prove" anything, but watching Zak lay bare the intellectual bankruptcy as well as the spiritual bankruptcy of atheism is worth the price of admission.

Soulman

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Soulman
Zakath is asking the impossible. If it was possible to “prove” the existence of God, faith wouldn’t be necessary. The unbeliever rejects the “evidence” of the creation, the “evidence” of the power of the gospel (transformed lives and the believer’s “witness” to the truth), and the “evidence” of the special revelation of God’s Word. While supressing the truth, the atheist MUST conclude that believer's are a)psychological cripples, b) clinically insane, or c) pathological liars, hardly the basis of an unprejudiced "debate." Bob's taking Zak apart one limb at a time, but Zak is “proving” something else; that “seeing” (the evidence) is NOT the same thing as “believing” the evidence. It may not "prove" anything, but watching Zak lay bare the intellectual bankruptcy as well as the spiritual bankruptcy of atheism is worth the price of admission.

Soulman

AMEN!

 

[Soulman]

Pure said,

…who can't tell the difference between what he thinks ABOUT something and the thing he is thinking about. Therefore he thinks an absolute statement equals an absolute.

Give us an example of an "absolute" that you haven't first "thought" about. There may be a difference between a “thought” and the “object” of thought (the chair and “thinking” about the chair), but thought has no power over the absoluteness of the chair, or anything else. If merely “thinking” about an absolute “taints the evidence” of the absolute, then the only solution is to STOP THINKING. The concrete reality of the “chair” is an absolute. Our “perception” of the chair, or our “thinking” about the chair, changes nothing. Either the chair IS, or it ISN’T. Bickering over the “kind” or “color” or “style” of the chair only proves that the chair exists.

Soulman

 

[Soulman]

This has already been mentioned, but how do we argue against something if the something doesn’t exist? In other words, if there was no a priori concept of God in the first place, there would be no concept of God to deny or argue against. (For example, without an a priori concept of the color “blue” it would be impossible to debate the “absoluteness” or the "reality" of blue. The color blue must exist conceptually prior to denying its “absolute blueness”). Therefore, the fact that we are capable of arguing against the existence of God is a kind evidence supporting the existence of God. Ironic, ain’t it?

Soulman

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Soulman
Zakath is asking the impossible. If it was possible to “prove” the existence of God, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

Then why do you suppose that Enyart agreed to the debate?

The unbeliever rejects the “evidence” of the creation,

Because each religion with a creation myth attributes creation to their deity and none other. Since there is observably a single earth, all the claims by all the religions cannot be correct. Unless you prove yours is correct, it is merely another conflicting claim.

the “evidence” of the power of the gospel (transformed lives and the believer’s “witness” to the truth), and

I know people similarly transformed by the application of psychotherapy or Buddhism. Neither of these require belief in or even the existence of deity to function...

the “evidence” of the special revelation of God’s Word.

I presume you mean the eclectic collection of writings referred to as "The Bible"? I find no more credible evidence in that contradictory collection of writings that exist today only as multiple translations of non existent originals that were written in languages that most modern Westerners cannot even read, than I do in the Hindu scriptures or the Muslim scriptures.

While supressing the truth,

What truth might that be?

...the atheist MUST conclude that believer's are a)psychological cripples, b) clinically insane, or c) pathological liars, hardly the basis of an unprejudiced "debate."

Hey, you said it, not me.

Bob's taking Zak apart one limb at a time, but Zak is “proving” something else; that “seeing” (the evidence) is NOT the same thing as “believing” the evidence.

Because if what I am shown is not convincing then it is not effective evidence, no matter how many of you believers assert otherwise.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Soulman
This has already been mentioned, but how do we argue against something if the something doesn’t exist?

Then why spend an entire post mentioning again...

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Zakath in BR-VII
The Problem of God as the Creator also essentially begs the question he raises about the violations of the laws of thermodynamics at the Creation. How did Pastor Enyart's God created matter and energy from nothing? Of course, perhaps he assumes "magic" as the means to answering that question…

Let's hear the explanation for the physics behind Pastor Enyart's God as creator and perhaps this atheist will reconsider his disbelieving position…

Ah yes. Beautiful! If you can make God not be God, then I'll believe in Him. Maybe I'll make the claim: if you can explain to me how this tomato is a bean sprout, then I'll believe it's a bean sprout.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Ah yes. Beautiful! If you can make God not be God, then I'll believe in Him. Maybe I'll make the claim: if you can explain to me how this tomato is a bean sprout, then I'll believe it's a bean sprout.

You appear to have missed my point. Let's see if Enyart does better...

 

[RogerB]

The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:
1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.
2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.
3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.
Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.

Looks an awful lot like:

 

[RogerB]

Post #3 and still nothing but vapor from Zak.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Post #3 and still nothing but vapor from Zak.

When in Rome, do as the Romans...