Big blunder by the Institute for Creation Research

[dyanaprajna2011]

hey, maybe it's a meme implanted by aliens to keep us pure? maybe they seeded apes with higher brain functions and implanted false memories of them leaving their people behind in whatever disaster seemed locally plausible. and on the 21st december of 2012, they will return, and harvest the faithful, hurl earth into the sun, and transfer the crop to a new planet.

but that is not a hypothesis, that's just how I would do it

Sounds good to me.

 

[outhouse]

that also means NONE of these stories can be true. since it can't have been either a dude [named X, Y or Z], but also siblings, and babies, and.. whatever. umbrellas. but where does that story come from?

I thought you could answer this easily


They all come from regional floods

tsunamis or rain

its a fact there has never been a global flood.

one might add that a large meteor impact would cause quite the regional mess.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I

It may be significant that the Ark settled on the Mountains of Ararat which just happen to be in a tectonically active region believed to be the junction of three crustal plates.

There is no evidemce that a "Noah" or an ark ever existed. The geological record does not show a global flood. The story of Noah and the ark was a hebraic adaptation of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. The bible should not be treated as a science reference book at all.

 

[javajo]

Wow am I ever notorious for simply saying I believe the Bible! I'll try and give everyone an answer, but I can't do this every time I come here. Besides, its back to work Monday, yea! Hope all of you had a nice Thanksgiving!

Even when reason, logic, and knowledge shows your faith to be absurd?

Your opinion.

It's one thing to believe things that cannot be either proven or disproven by science to be the work of a divine being, it's another thing entirely to believe things are the products of a divine being when science clearly shows it not to be the case. The whole premise of science is that it is there to explain how the world works. It's based on what we can see, what we can experience, what we can test. Religious claims cannot fall under the scrutiny of science by the very fact of their 'otherworldlyness'. So, while believing in things such as gods, angels, demons, spirits, another world, and the like, is all fine and good, believing things about reality that are clearly not true simply because a book that makes outrageous claims says it to be true is a denial of the very logical and rational (supposedly) brain that said god is supposed to have given us.

I guess we see different things when we look at the earth while we try to determine what happened in the past.

it was one example of many.

problem is if we post the information, you wont answer and if you do its always "godidit"

I just said I believe the Bible. I see the same things and I have reached different conclusions than you.

Not really. Facts are cool like that.

I assume there is a God, you don't. I have the same facts you do, I just reached a different conclusion.

Which one?

Bible Version Chart

Sorry, that is off topic and is a whole other ocean.

So whose interpretation of the Bible do you prefer?

Mine.

It's hard to translate an ancient language, especially one's with what I call 'word-pictures', like Greek and Hebrew, into English. Hence, the reason why there are so many different English translations. Everyone thinks they can do it better than the other guy. If you are only using English versions, and are dedicated to just one at that, I think it's fair to say that it would be very difficult to try and understand exactly what the Bible is saying, without having at least a working understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew. And, on top of that, the fact that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is full of metaphor, hyperbole, allegory, poetry, and the like, makes it that much more difficult to try and pinpoint exactly what meaning the Bible is trying to convey.

Some things are pretty cut and dry, I think God gave us 2 excellent languages to give us his revelation.

If Noah did collect a pair of every animal and if he park his Ark on Mount Ararat, then you would expect to see signs of all sorts of Australian marsupials from there to Australia. Many should have die along the way, in the long and perilous trek. This serious absence of evidences debunk the Noah's Ark.

Not really. Not if most all the fossils were formed by the flood, and fossilization is rare, just like there used to be Lions in Israel until recently, yet there are no fossils of them there.

And the marine fossils found in the Himalaya were there, millions of years before Noah's supposed Flood (about 4400 years ago), and those mountains have been around millions of years, and they are still rising, every year. These facts also debunk creationists' claims.

Millions of years, long long ago in a land far away...

I am a Christian and that is not what I believe. Why do you think the Bible is inerrant?

That is off topic, but God promised to preserve his word for us in Psalm 12 and several other passages

How do you explain the contradictions?

I see no real contradictions that cannot be reconciled unless someone just refuses.

How do you explain the evidence provided by Bible Scholars that some parts of the Bible are forgeries and others are mistakes by scribes who hand copied older texts?

Satan has been trying to destroy and change God's Word since it was written, because he knows faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I believe we still have God's Word in certain Bibles and those which have been corrupted by Satan still are 90% correct and people can read even those and trust Christ for the free gift of eternal life.

That's something that has always interested me, is that the Christians who are so busy trying to prove the literal interpretation of the flood story are completely missing the point of the story.

I'm not trying to prove it, I just said I believe the Bible and that I believe it happened.

There is no evidemce that a "Noah" or an ark ever existed.

There is some, though its not conclusive. There are pictures taken by pilots and satelites and locals tell stories of what could be the Ark on the Mountains of Ararat. Turkey is not too cooperative. Also, the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Noah and his days as well as did Peter.

The geological record does not show a global flood.

Depends on who you ask.

The story of Noah and the ark was a hebraic adaptation of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.

Or vice-versa.

The bible should not be treated as a science reference book at all.

I agree, except when we are piecing together history as it contains references to real kings and kingdoms and events in history. While it does contain some scientifically accurate statements and medical practices the world did not adapt until the 1800's (like surgeons washing their hands between patients and stopping the practice of blood-letting; such as the earth is round, Isaiah 40:22, it is suspended on nothing, Job 26:7, the stars are countless, Genesis 15:5, the hydrologic cycle, sea currents, living things reproduce after their kind, the importance of blood, of washing in running water, of burying one's excrement outside the camp, quarantining the sick, and etc.

 

[Agnostic75]

I assume there is a God, you [Photonic] don't.

But millions of Christians, including many conservative Christians, do not accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

This is a science forum. As such, whatever you believe by faith does not have anything to do with science. Everyone already knows that creationists believe that creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are true, so you are wasting your time repeating yourself. Skeptics are just as committed to their opinions as you are to your opinions, but they do not feel any need to keep repeating that obvious fact since they already know that Christians know that.

What you need is detailed scientific evidence that supports your claims that creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are true. It would take you at least several months to even get started discussing those issues in detail.

Please reply to my most recent post in my thread on the global flood.

 

[javajo]

But millions of Christians, including many conservative Christians, do not accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

This is a science forum. As such, whatever you believe by faith does not have anything to do with science. Everyone already knows that creationists believe that creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are true, so you are wasting your time repeating yourself. Skeptics are just as committed to their opinions as you are to your opinions, but they do not feel any need to keep repeating that obvious fact since they already know that Christians know that.

What you need is detailed scientific evidence that supports your claims that creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are true. It would take you at least several months to even get started discussing those issues in detail.

Please reply to my most recent post in my thread on the global flood.

Hi. I was just trying to be polite and answer all the people who asked me stuff. I'm going back to work Monday, so I won't be able to get on here except for tomorrow and maybe Sunday for a while. Then its going to be few and far between.

 

[McBell]

So whose interpretation of the Bible do you prefer?

Mine.

What makes your personal interpretation so special?

 

[Matthew78]

I used to believe that the flood story of the Bible actually happened. I used to be a YEC. I grew up in a very conservative, fundamentalist household. I became interested in creationism in the summer before my junior year of high school and, like many young creationists, became mesmerized with the writings of Henry M Morris. Morris and Gish became heroes to me. I read books like Scientific Creationism, The Bible and Modern Science, Many Infallible Proofs, What is Creation Science?, and Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. I was thoroughly convinced that YEC was the best way to understand Genesis and provided a historical basis for the gospels.

What really got me to seriously rethink my belief that the flood was global was a book that I read by Don Stoner called A New Look At An Old Earth. It was his discussion of the Green River formation that really shook my belief that the flood of Noah could be global. I couldn't imagine accounting for it with a global flood scenario. This was only confirmed when I read Glenn Morton's book Foundation, Fall, and Flood. I considered Morton's arguments irrefutable and I accepted Morton's theory regarding the flood story as well as his "Days of Proclamation" interpretation.

However, I became a progressive creationist before reading anything by Morton. But it was Morton's work which confirmed my belief that the flood had to be local. I'm glad that I read Stoner and Morton's books. I might never have been opened to the possibility that the Bible was errant and the Christian faith was untrue if they hadn't written those books.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Matthew, same here. I was a conservative Christian for nearly 30 years.

 

[Matthew78]

Matthew, same here. I was a conservative Christian for nearly 30 years.

Nice! Have you written a story about why you left? I wrote a story but I haven't updated it in years.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I have something I work on every so often when I find the time, but it's nowhere near done yet

 

[Photonic]

I used to believe that the flood story of the Bible actually happened. I used to be a YEC. I grew up in a very conservative, fundamentalist household. I became interested in creationism in the summer before my junior year of high school and, like many young creationists, became mesmerized with the writings of Henry M Morris. Morris and Gish became heroes to me. I read books like Scientific Creationism, The Bible and Modern Science, Many Infallible Proofs, What is Creation Science?, and Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. I was thoroughly convinced that YEC was the best way to understand Genesis and provided a historical basis for the gospels.

What really got me to seriously rethink my belief that the flood was global was a book that I read by Don Stoner called A New Look At An Old Earth. It was his discussion of the Green River formation that really shook my belief that the flood of Noah could be global. I couldn't imagine accounting for it with a global flood scenario. This was only confirmed when I read Glenn Morton's book Foundation, Fall, and Flood. I considered Morton's arguments irrefutable and I accepted Morton's theory regarding the flood story as well as his "Days of Proclamation" interpretation.

However, I became a progressive creationist before reading anything by Morton. But it was Morton's work which confirmed my belief that the flood had to be local. I'm glad that I read Stoner and Morton's books. I might never have been opened to the possibility that the Bible was errant and the Christian faith was untrue if they hadn't written those books.

I used to when I was very, very young. But it was then and is still simply a story that only be historical in that; The people who told the store lived by a river that flooded annually.

It's all pretty simple to realize after you remember that.

 

[javajo]

What makes your personal interpretation so special?

It's mine.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to javajo: You still have that pesky thread on the global flood to deal with.

 

[javajo]

Message to javajo: You still have that pesky thread on the global flood to deal with.

That's your thread, not mine. I'm not here to 'prove' the flood like you are here to disprove it. Most people here already don't believe in it anyway. I just said I believe it happened, because I believe the Bible says it did. That is my faith, that's all.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That's your thread, not mine. I'm not here to 'prove' the flood like you are here to disprove it. Most people here already don't believe in it anyway. I just said I believe it happened, because I believe the Bible says it did. That is my faith, that's all.

Would it be greatly damaging to your faith to find out it didn't happen? Would it destroy your relationship with your God to know that no such thing ever occurred?

 

[Agnostic75]

That's your thread, not mine.

But you were happy to make several posts in that thread until you realized how difficult it would be for you to discuss certain issues, like my most recent post in that thread.

I'm not here to 'prove' the flood like you are here to disprove it.

Well, in that same thread, you were happy to discuss plate tectonics. In addition, you said "well, what about those polystrate fossils? Those sound pretty interesting." You simply became aware that the going was going to get a lot tougher and vacated the thread.

Most people here already don't believe in it anyway.

I obviously started that thread in order to try to get some Christian global flood advocates to change their minds, not skeptics. Most people here reject creationism, but you have had lots of discussions about creationism.

I just said I believe it happened, because I believe the Bible says it did. That is my faith, that's all.

But that is already a given since you have already made declarations of faith in many threads at this forum, and in some threads at the General Religious Debates forum.

 

[outhouse]

Ya he dates the flood to 4200 year ago. Thats when I pinned hin down asking why civilizations in australia and africa and china and egypt and sumerian and babylonian cultures show NO BREAK AT ALL in habitation during that time.

all he said was faith, when presented with facts and copped out

 

[javajo]

Would it be greatly damaging to your faith to find out it didn't happen?

No. But I do believe it did happen.

Would it destroy your relationship with your God to know that no such thing ever occurred?

No. But I do believe it did occur.

But you were happy to make several posts in that thread until you realized how difficult it would be for you to discuss certain issues, like my most recent post in that thread.

Which thread? What issues? I've slept since then and I have a limited amount of time. Quit trying to read my mind.

Well, in that same thread, you were happy to discuss plate tectonics. In addition, you said "well, what about those polystrate fossils? Those sound pretty interesting." You simply became aware that the going was going to get a lot tougher and vacated the thread.

Again, quit trying to read my mind. I enjoy discussing those things although I have reached different conclusions than you, that's all.

I obviously started that thread in order to try to get some Christian global flood advocates to change their minds, not skeptics.

Why???

Most people here reject creationism, but you have had lots of discussions about creationism.

Because I believe, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

But that is already a given since you have already made declarations of faith in many threads at this forum, and in some threads at the General Religious Debates forum.

Good, I'm glad you know I believe in God and that he created the heaven and the earth.

Ya he dates the flood to 4200 year ago. Thats when I pinned hin down asking why civilizations in australia and africa and china and egypt and sumerian and babylonian cultures show NO BREAK AT ALL in habitation during that time.

Did you?

all he said was faith, when presented with facts and copped out

Did I? Perhaps I did mention faith, I do not recall. Faith is certainly a big factor for me, whether people understand or tolerate it or not, it is my faith.

 

[outhouse]

Did I? Perhaps I did mention faith, I do not recall. Faith is certainly a big factor for me, whether people understand or tolerate it or not, it is my faith.

Dont you think its dangerous to hold beliefs you have been shown to be false with logic, reason and knowledge??? You then are in a debate section and trying to say, you believe 2 + 1 = 7 no matte how many times we show you the answer is 3