Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Question about flood
I always liked this chart for its ability to demonstrate just how batshit crazy some of these YECs really are...

[Image: pophist.gif]

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Question about flood
(08-04-2015 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  1. Noah built a boat and took 2 of every animal on board to make sure they survived the flood.
2. The dimensions of the boat are known from scripture.
3. We know that 2 of every animoke is a fucken shit ton of manure + animals.
4. Ergo they must have been small animals. Also we're gonna assert some kinda piss-poor mockery of evolution based on this business of "kinds" to exponentially decrease the number of animals that needed to be on board the boat.

It's ass-backward. He STARTS from the fucken ridiculous legend and tries to force everything to fit. Rolleyes

Hey asshat, I just thought of something. If your kinds shit is correct, then e.g. every fucken wallaby and kangaroo etc was derived from some prototypical kangaroo "kind" that sailed on board the Ark, correct? Now quite apart from having to do a fucken olympic sprint/swim from somewhere in Europe to Australia and not leave *any* fucken kangaroos or kangaroo remains or even a fucken *coprolith* behind on the way, these things then had to fuck like mad and speciate within the past 6000 years right?

So you, who's been bitching about macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and how macro evolution allegedly can't occur because you say so, are actually asserting that speciation can occur *much* faster - as in within humanly observable timescales...


Check your math ignorant heathen.

god Wrote:Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,





Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like H4ym4n's post
08-04-2015, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 04:13 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 11:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:52 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will debate you, again, anytime you wish...here. Feel free to issue a challenge in the boxing ring, and I will endeavor to educate you some more. Wish to discuss incarnation and atonement theory, sure, mythical resurrection? sure, historicity of the bible? sure, historicity, or rather lack of..for jesus? sure, fabrication of the OT? Sure, case against moses? sure...whenever you think you have watched enough youtube videos, come get some. Be ready to cite your assertions, if not, then you are just bloviating your opinion. "I think god exists" is fine to say, because that is your belief in the transcendental fairy world, but any actual attempt to discredit history, better have your citations ready....because I will Smile

As an added bonus, I will use ONLY Christian textbooks and scholarly works to prove my points, not atheists books/websites Smartass

How about we just continue our debate from the first time...You made an opening statement, I made a rebuttal...and what happened after that, I don't know...we can just pick it up after my rebuttal, and take it from there.

hmmmm you have your hands full with phoenix in the ring right now, if you still got some wind left in you after that, maybe we can try to actually have a civil debate. I wouldnt want you to be overwhelmed. Big Grin

The only problem I have with debating you again is, you seem extremely close-minded, and uneducated in theology/Christian doctrine. As that is the basis of Christian faith, and easy for someone with my level of knowledge in that field to discredit, it comes down to you saying what you believe, and me asserting what I can prove based upon preponderous of known evidence to the contrary. You don't seem open to reading, and acknowledging the evidence accepted by the Christian universities, biblical scholars and historical experts, of which I am very well versed in. Me explaining to you for the 15th time that the synoptic gospels were written by anonymous groups, with specific dates, that goes against christian "tradition", but not known Christian history, is a waste of time if your response is "unh uh, I don't believe that...."

Now opinions are great, and can be articulated to great length, explained to great detail, and even foster interesting intellectual discourse....the dance down the trail of philosophical musings is always a fun thought exercise. However, you say you want to debate basic Christian principles like the resurrection etc...but you seem to validate your assertions with opinion and emotion, not evidence and historical data analyzed with reason and logic. No offense, but I don't think you are able or willing at this point to do so.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
08-04-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Question about flood
Speaking of "kinds," the usual definition, such as it is, that I get from theists (including CotW, if memory serves) is that animals breed after their own kind, and where they cannot interbreed, they are distinct kinds. Doesn't the concept of ring species falsify the entire claim, in that case?

I was watching a youtube video the other day which explained ring species using a type of salamander, I think, as an example, where each population of salamander can breed with the one preceding it, but the population at the end, despite both being a salamander and being descended from the first population, cannot breed with the first population of salamander. Essentially, you've got a direct line of descent that shows the same kind all the way down, but at the end of the line you have a population that cannot be the same kind as the first population, despite having been "brought forth" from them.

This is the central weakness of "kind" as an argument; each and every detail is easily falsified, and a lack of details makes the argument worthless. So you either aren't saying anything, or are saying something wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Esquilax's post
11-04-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: Question about flood
(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  hmmmm you have your hands full with phoenix in the ring right now, if you still got some wind left in you after that, maybe we can try to actually have a civil debate. I wouldnt want you to be overwhelmed. Big Grin

Fighting a battle on two different fronts? Alexander the Great did it...and Alexander the Great is no Call_of_the_Wild.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The only problem I have with debating you again is, you seem extremely close-minded

So do you.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , and uneducated in theology/Christian doctrine.

Based on what?

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As that is the basis of Christian faith, and easy for someone with my level of knowledge in that field to discredit, it comes down to you saying what you believe, and me asserting what I can prove based upon preponderous of known evidence to the contrary. You don't seem open to reading, and acknowledging the evidence accepted by the Christian universities, biblical scholars and historical experts, of which I am very well versed in.

See, this is the problem I have with you. First of all, you make it seem as if historical evidence is the same as mathematical or scientific evidence, or "proofs". It isn't. It is a very subjective discipline. You make it seem as if what you say is, or has been written in stone, but it isn't. Now sure, there are some things in history that the bulk of all historians agree upon. But then again, there are other things that the majority of historians disagree on. You make it seem as if this little "sub-topics" regarding the Resurrection is a consensus, all in favor of YOUR side of things...and that is JUST NOT THE CASE.

And you need to get it through you skull that there is no consensus on your side of things, ESPECIALLY when it comes to these sub-topics regarding the Resurrection. Sure, there will be people that agree with you, but there are also people that disagree with you...so for you to continually sit there day after day, discussion after discussion, and act as if what you are presenting is the 100%, God-honest (pun intended), brute fact...that is just as painfully mistaken as it is disingenuous.

For every person that you "cite", I can also cite one that disagrees with you and your assessment. So really, you need to cut that shit out.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Me explaining to you for the 15th time that the synoptic gospels were written by anonymous groups

Look, no one is denying that the gospels are anonymous...so that is a straw man if I've ever seen one. By "anonymous", that just means that the authors are not identified...that doesn't mean that we don't have reasons to believe that person A or person B wrote it, and that is the point, we have REASONS to believe that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them.

Now, whether you accept these reasons is a different story, but we have reasons, nevertheless.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , with specific dates, that goes against christian "tradition", but not known Christian history, is a waste of time if your response is "unh uh, I don't believe that...."

Dude, I don't have to believe your subjective reasons any more than you have to believe mines.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Now opinions are great, and can be articulated to great length, explained to great detail, and even foster interesting intellectual discourse....the dance down the trail of philosophical musings is always a fun thought exercise.

Um, dude...a good percentage of historical inquiry is based off of opinion, bro.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  However, you say you want to debate basic Christian principles like the resurrection etc...but you seem to validate your assertions with opinion and emotion, not evidence and historical data analyzed with reason and logic. No offense, but I don't think you are able or willing at this point to do so.

Mannn, please. Either you want to debate, or not? If you want to, set it up and get on with your response to my first rebuttal to your opening argument.

If not, leave me alone until you grow some balls and is able to take some mid-1980's Mike Tyson punching that will undoubtedly come your way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
(11-04-2015 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  hmmmm you have your hands full with phoenix in the ring right now, if you still got some wind left in you after that, maybe we can try to actually have a civil debate. I wouldnt want you to be overwhelmed. Big Grin

Fighting a battle on two different fronts? Alexander the Great did it...and Alexander the Great is no Call_of_the_Wild.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The only problem I have with debating you again is, you seem extremely close-minded

So do you.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , and uneducated in theology/Christian doctrine.

Based on what?

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As that is the basis of Christian faith, and easy for someone with my level of knowledge in that field to discredit, it comes down to you saying what you believe, and me asserting what I can prove based upon preponderous of known evidence to the contrary. You don't seem open to reading, and acknowledging the evidence accepted by the Christian universities, biblical scholars and historical experts, of which I am very well versed in.

See, this is the problem I have with you. First of all, you make it seem as if historical evidence is the same as mathematical or scientific evidence, or "proofs". It isn't. It is a very subjective discipline. You make it seem as if what you say is, or has been written in stone, but it isn't. Now sure, there are some things in history that the bulk of all historians agree upon. But then again, there are other things that the majority of historians disagree on. You make it seem as if this little "sub-topics" regarding the Resurrection is a consensus, all in favor of YOUR side of things...and that is JUST NOT THE CASE.

And you need to get it through you skull that there is no consensus on your side of things, ESPECIALLY when it comes to these sub-topics regarding the Resurrection. Sure, there will be people that agree with you, but there are also people that disagree with you...so for you to continually sit there day after day, discussion after discussion, and act as if what you are presenting is the 100%, God-honest (pun intended), brute fact...that is just as painfully mistaken as it is disingenuous.

For every person that you "cite", I can also cite one that disagrees with you and your assessment. So really, you need to cut that shit out.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Me explaining to you for the 15th time that the synoptic gospels were written by anonymous groups

Look, no one is denying that the gospels are anonymous...so that is a straw man if I've ever seen one. By "anonymous", that just means that the authors are not identified...that doesn't mean that we don't have reasons to believe that person A or person B wrote it, and that is the point, we have REASONS to believe that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them.

Now, whether you accept these reasons is a different story, but we have reasons, nevertheless.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , with specific dates, that goes against christian "tradition", but not known Christian history, is a waste of time if your response is "unh uh, I don't believe that...."

Dude, I don't have to believe your subjective reasons any more than you have to believe mines.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Now opinions are great, and can be articulated to great length, explained to great detail, and even foster interesting intellectual discourse....the dance down the trail of philosophical musings is always a fun thought exercise.

Um, dude...a good percentage of historical inquiry is based off of opinion, bro.

(08-04-2015 02:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  However, you say you want to debate basic Christian principles like the resurrection etc...but you seem to validate your assertions with opinion and emotion, not evidence and historical data analyzed with reason and logic. No offense, but I don't think you are able or willing at this point to do so.

Mannn, please. Either you want to debate, or not? If you want to, set it up and get on with your response to my first rebuttal to your opening argument.

If not, leave me alone until you grow some balls and is able to take some mid-1980's Mike Tyson punching that will undoubtedly come your way.

"Look, no one is denying that the gospels are anonymous...so that is a straw man if I've ever seen one. By "anonymous", that just means that the authors are not identified...that doesn't mean that we don't have reasons to believe that person A or person B wrote it, and that is the point, we have REASONS to believe that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them."

No, actually, the men that wrote these under the names of others (pseudepigrapha) are absolutely not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, those fellas were lonnnng dead by the time these were written and that is the basic point you seem incapable of comprehending...and I do believe YOU denied that fact several times...you continue your debate with phoenix, perhaps go actually read the bible, and do some research outside of answersingenesis, and perhaps then I will drag you around the schoolyard again while beating you with the knowledge stick. Educating you continuously gets tiring. Go train for awhile before you ask the champ for another go, k sweety? That's a good boy *pats on head*

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No, actually, the men that wrote these under the names of others (pseudepigrapha) are absolutely not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, those fellas were lonnnng dead by the time these were written and that is the basic point you seem incapable of comprehending

Yeah, "those fellas were lonnnng dead by the time the Gospels were written" <-----is true if and only if it can be established that they were written any time post 80 AD. If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree.

However, that isn't necessarily the case. A case can be made that all Gospels were written prior to 70 AD...with the earliest 59 AD, which would be still within the lifetime of the disciples, and Paul.

It is funny, because when it comes to dating the Gospels, despite all of the mumbo you like to paste on here, I've never seen as to why the post 70 dates are given. Yet, it is quite easy for me to make my case for the pre-70 AD dating, which I've done on more than one occasion, even to you.

And with that being said, what is the case for your interpretation? What are the reasons? And these questions lead me to my next point that again, you are giving YOUR opinion of who wrote the Gospels. Your opinion is not a fact, bro...and the sooner you realize that, the better. There are historians and Biblical scholars out there right now that disagree with the folks that you like to cite. The question of who wrote the Gospels isn't one of those things in history that is sketched or engraved in stone..yet you continuously come on here and present it as if it is a 100% brute fact, when it isn't.

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...and I do believe YOU denied that fact several times...

No, I didn't deny the fact, I denied that it is a fact. You are smart enough to know the difference, one can only assume Big Grin.

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  you continue your debate with phoenix

Phoenix doesn't have an iceberg's chance in hell...he is about to find out the hard way that you can't rebuttal the truth.

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , perhaps go actually read the bible

I do. I am in the process of reading the entire Bible, and now I am on the book of 1 Samuel.

Oh, and btw...you may want to place the "b" in "bible" with a capital "B". Show some respect for the Word of the Living God...if not, that will make me very angry...and you won't like me when I'm angry Angry

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , and do some research outside of answersingenesis

I never once used answersingenesis as a source...ever.

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  , and perhaps then I will drag you around the schoolyard again while beating you with the knowledge stick.

Laugh out load

(11-04-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Educating you continuously gets tiring. Go train for awhile before you ask the champ for another go, k sweety? That's a good boy *pats on head*

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

I see the debate aint set up yet tho.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 09:00 AM
Question about flood
Events contained within the gospels (like the burning of the temple) indicate that they could not have been written earlier that 70 CE.

The gospels were written down decades after Jesus supposedly lived.


You ever read those texts on evolution you asked for?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Question about flood
(12-04-2015 09:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Events contained within the gospels (like the burning of the temple) indicate that they could not have been written earlier that 70 CE.

The gospels were written down decades after Jesus supposedly lived.

Thumbsup

(12-04-2015 09:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You ever read those texts on evolution you asked for?

No.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: Question about flood
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: