[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
…I will try to make up my mind about them in the shortest amount of time possible.
[/quote]
Why? What’s the hurry?
[/quote]
Life is short, and he wants to avoid wasting your time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
…I will try to make up my mind about them in the shortest amount of time possible.
[/quote]
Why? What’s the hurry?
[/quote]
Meaning that I dont are going to use more time on them than what is necessary. Not meaning
I am going to hurry trough them. I have just read one them of carefully and checked the claims in there up against other sources( see my previous post above ), but I think it will take me atleast a week to be able to falsify or verify the claims in all your links. Thats what I ment with as fast as possible.
Actually I think we can conclude this discussion allready based on this:
Considering that the “out of many” book on American history are right when it comes that people where able to cross the baring strait 3000 BC, then the “creationist” hypothesis are in theory possible, but if one are to call it true and the “secular” theory false, then the person who does it, are ignoring evidence that shows that people lived on the American continent long before the creationist timeline of the world( aprox 6000 years ). The evidence are arceological findings of tools dated to be 12000 years old( if I remember correctly ). I guess then that the discussion beetwen the creationists and the seculars are on the accuracy of various dating tools( carbon dating for instance ). When it comes to carbon dating and its accuracy I have to admit I dont know enough about it to make a reasonable judgment on its accuracy.
ps. I will try to find some better sources regarding “interclacier periods” than wikipedia. I can check
the university library tomorow.
Florelius you are a very reasonable and civil sort of man, that is much appreciated!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.
I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]now who would have ever dreamed that you two would be allies against me. Wadda shock. Another outrageous accusation where the accuser runs away when a demonstration of his accusation is demanded. Like I said, you have no testimony and you’re a coward.
A simple question about loving your country after you accuse me of plagiarism and this is what we get? A pagan with the name of Jesus on his lips is a thousand times more useful to Satan than a Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens.
To the OP. I read up a bit here and there now, but do not keep on top of all the latest in the relevant scientific fields like I once did. The reason is basically twofold. One, nothing’s really changed. The same incestuous presuppositional biases exist now that always have and always will. You did it yourself when starting this thread.
You assumed their proposed age for the earth and universe thereby believing that that framework was the only possibility. There is not one shred of “proof” for ANY of the theories advanced today to escape responsibility to the one true and living God.
No, I am not the person to elaborate on that because as I’ve said I don’t really keep up any more because I have other things to do. Number two and more importantly is that I do not believe that your problem is an intellectual one. It is utterly unbiblical to suppose that the only thing lacking in unbelievers is their failure to accept a list of propositions and that if presented with a sufficiently persuasive argument built on their own unbelieving foundation they will believe.
It’s that they are dead in sin and CANNOT believe until raised from that state by Christ Himself. The unbeliever’s problem is sin which makes it an ethical and not an intellectual issue. Hence my chiding of our friend on the previous page.
The bottom line is when I want to know something I go to the source and look it up. You won’t find me starting a thread titled “Can an atheist/agnostic tell me why there is radiocarbon in diamonds?”. That would be bating them to fight and probably wouldn’t get me the best answer if that’s what I was really after. Now if I wanted to debate then that’s the thread I would start.
Number two is alluded to above. I believe that a philosophical defense of the historic gospel and hence historic Christianity, which cannot coexist with an old earth, is the far superior and biblical approach. The alleged scientific method itself falls to the ground unless the God I worship is first pre-assumed, which He is by everybody, including His most rabid enemies. This is because they are created in His image and see His signature in their mirror everyday.
Stuff like this Indian discussion is interesting and having it is fine, but it ultimately proves or disproves absolutely nothing.
[/quote]
Here is the obvious point that escapes you. Push’s faith is based on a much more literal interpretation of the Old Testament than mine. Much, much more. Yet, wonder of wonders, we can still be friends and have civil conversation.
You and your ilk set yourselves up as judge and jury of all that is Holy. Keep it up and you might just find experience more judgement than you can stand.
While you stated that you have declared yourself as Calvinist “forever”, I have no recollection of you having done so. No big deal either way as I have tended to bypass your pompous ramblings. I simply recognize the Calvinist tone of your posts. While long ago and distant in my memory, I have read the works of Calvin and Augustine. Total depravity of man and unconditional election did not resonate with my heart or soul, so I left them in the past.
As I have told you before, I agree with C S Lewis who in “Mere Christianity” warned how we as the body of Christ should not bicker in the open with one another about the differences between our affiliations as this impedes our ability to spread the Gospel. Once we help someone to accept Jesus as their personal Savior there will be plenty of time to debate the other.
I would wager that C S Lewis and his philosophy have brought and will continue to bring far more souls to Christ than than the hateful and judgmental rhetoric you spew.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Florelius you are a very reasonable and civil sort of man, that is much appreciated![/quote]
Glad to hear that you feel that way Aragorn.
ps. Are you a fan of JRR Tolkiens fiction considering your nick?
[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Total depravity of man and unconditional election did not resonate with my heart or soul, so I left them in the past. >>>[/quote]I’m sure[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< the body of Christ >>>[/quote]Nobody would be more thrilled than me for you to learn what that is.[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< hateful and judgmental rhetoric you spew. >>>[/quote]Is that so? Where is your demonstration of the plagiarism you accused me of mister love and grace. Am I gonna get an answer as to whether you love your country or not and tell me. Dead serious here. What IS judgmentalism?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Total depravity of man and unconditional election did not resonate with my heart or soul, so I left them in the past. >>>[/quote]I’m sure[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< the body of Christ >>>[/quote]Nobody would be more thrilled than me for you to learn that that is.[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< hateful and judgmental rhetoric you spew. >>>[/quote]Is that so? Where is your demonstration of the plagiarism you accused me of mister love and grace. Am I gonna get an answer as to whether you love your country or not and tell me. Dead serious here. What IS judgmentalism?
[/quote]
Push, if you are reading this post, from the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry for equating you with this gibbering fool.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Push, if you are reading this post, from the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry for equating you with this gibbering fool.[/quote]And from the bottom of my heart I’m even sorrier. Praise God that you have been disabused of that tragic misconception.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Push, if you are reading this post, from the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry for equating you with this gibbering fool.[/quote]And from the bottom of my heart I’m even sorrier. Praise God that you have been disabused of that tragic misconception.
[/quote]
Take your false piety, sarcasm, and feigned outrage elsewhere.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Push, if you are reading this post, from the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry for equating you with this gibbering fool.[/quote]And from the bottom of my heart I’m even sorrier. Praise God that you have been disabused of that tragic misconception.
[/quote]Take your false piety, sarcasm, and feigned outrage elsewhere.[/quote]No. Now what =] Come one Mak. Right when I thought you were gittin yer drawers pulled somewhat back up ya gotta go n start with the spitball routine again.?
well the way I see it is that when the authors of the Bible wrote about the entire world being flooded they were talking about their entire world (not a very large area on the global scale) so there is no issue at all. You can have a flood destroying the world of a group of people and not at all affecting people thousands of miles away. Add into this the fact that the authors were themselves not talking about recent history but recounting a tale passed down through the generations (and most likely embellished and agrandised at every retelling) and a few people getting their houses washed away in relatively small area becomes the world engulfed in floods.
But that’s just the way I see it. It is of course possible that the bible is literally true. Any God that is all powerful can literally do what they like so logical issues are meaningless.
Hey flor!
do you even understand what atheist and agnostic mean? there’s no way you can be both. one means
do not believe in god and or religion that has god or gods… and that man has all the answers.
the second means you may beleive in god or religions that has god or gods, but want absolute proof.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
well the way I see it is that when the authors of the Bible wrote about the entire world being flooded they were talking about their entire world (not a very large area on the global scale) so there is no issue at all. You can have a flood destroying the world of a group of people and not at all affecting people thousands of miles away. Add into this the fact that the authors were themselves not talking about recent history but recounting a tale passed down through the generations (and most likely embellished and agrandised at every retelling) and a few people getting their houses washed away in relatively small area becomes the world engulfed in floods.
But that’s just the way I see it. It is of course possible that the bible is literally true. Any God that is all powerful can literally do what they like so logical issues are meaningless.[/quote]
The problem with the above is it’s not what the Bible says.
Also, Jesus Christ himself referred to Noah and the Flood and when He did so He implied He took the story literally.[/quote]
Oh I know that, which is why you have the two options, either the Bible is just a book of fables and histories, or an all powerful god made stuff happen however he wanted and influenced people to write a book how he wanted. Either way works. It’s up to all of us individually to decide which we believe is more likely.
Hey Push, I know what the Bible says and it is written in the same way as a lot of other religious texts, myths and mythologies. Like I say, over time with re-telling stories get inflated and added to and that is my view as to what happened with the Bible. Again, it’s just my view and of course it could be literally true if you accept the premise that the Bible truly talks about an all powerful being.