Some Help from the Creationist

I don't think I ever believed at any point in my life that the earth, or the human race could be just 5000-6000 years old. If you read into Genesis, the story of creation, it can allow for the whole evolution thing. I have heard Priests say that the world was created in 7 days, period, but I have always disagreed. The bible says one day can be like a thousand to God, so who knows just how long it took. Learning how is relative to what we know. Just look at our history, and how we do things based on what we know. It is garaunteed, that we will learn more, and we may even be wrong about things. But the bible seems to be timeless.It's still very possible, that we were created just the way we are.

"The bible says one day can be like a thousand to God, so who knows just how long it took."As I read this I am reminded of the Sumerian concept of "Sars". This is the "year" of the Nephilim/Annunaki which is about 1000 years. I wonder if the bible co opted that concept?I have to watch myself here, I keep wanting to Falsify the bible."It is garaunteed, that we will learn more, and we may even be wrong about things. But the bible seems to be timeless."It is not timeless, there was a time when evidence shows we did not exists on this planet. Humans wrote the bible so no humans, no bible. The bible may be a cracking read, but what does it say about the nature of reality? Nothing that has not been said by countless other religions. As I recall the bible has been translated from Hebrew to English. Any copy of information is goning to have transcription errors.An idea! The bible could evolve with every transcription (100 minute bible anyone?) by the same process as biological evolution.

Adam and Eve didn't have one either. Quite a bit actually, you just need to be taught it in the right light, and not all this religious BS. Even worse, it was Aramic before that, and there is no direct translation available, but I believe you would find God's word there. To me the OT isn't as important as the NT when trying to understand it at first, but eventually you need to see how things got to where they are.Do you refute anything Jesus had to say?

Well I would disagree with his baseless claimes that he was the son of a god and that he was born without human intervention (was Joseph not the least bit sceptical when Mary said...."Your not gonna believe this but no man has touched me and er....well I'm up the duff...."?I suppose to refute his words is quite hards but then if the hypothesis is that he was all he claimed the task of gathering evidence is on your shoulders (if you contend that he was all that). You also still have the task of giving some stand up in court response to the OP.Btw if the OT is is not as important as the NT does that mean it is less inerrant or less applicable to the world today?This message has been edited by Larni, 09-26-2005 07:20 AM

Matthew 1:20
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.As far as saying that you do not believe Jesus was the son of God, then nothing he said should be of any importance to you. He either was the son of God or not, and if he wasn't, then he was a liar, and therefor not a good teacher of anything.If he was the son of God, then there was a flood.The OT is important, but you should learn the NT before the OT, generally speaking, since it would be more relevent to you, Since it relates to how God wants us to be today. When you learn the NT, there will be questions that arise, that you will eventually have to refer to the OT to understand.

"If he was the son of God, then there was a flood."Then, if there was a worldwide flood covering the highest peaks Jesus was the son of god?Can you supply evidence of a world wide flood to back up the claim of Jesus's divinity?Btw Jesus is the son of god according to christianty, not judaism or islam (also from the line of Abraham from the line of Noah i.e. you can ahve a flood with out deified Jesus).While you are looking for evidence see if you can address the OP.

Well the 2 would go hand in hand wouldn't they? If one is false, then we have a big problem with the bible, and Jesus. No, I am not a scientist, or do I look for evidence. But like I said, when I look at a topographical map of the world, I see all the rivers, and streams, that could have been formed by a flood, if the earth is not as old as we think it is, or even if it is. I know this sounds ridiculus, based on what we think we know, but hey, it's what I see.
There is also the seashell thing on top of the mountains, but I think there is an explanation for that? I am sure it is not concrete. Or do I think carbon dating is concrete past 30,000 years. So what do we really know.Evidence of Jesus divinity is:
Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."I have felt the Holy Spirit, and continue to feel it on a daily basis now, so I have my own subjective evidence of Jesus's divinity. either that, or I am crazy.

You know, the biggest problem with finding evidence for a world wide flood? Or how it came about?Scientist are looking for a natural explanation, when it was clearly a supernatural event, brought on by the Al-mighty himself. Why wouldn't a guy who could breath the universe into existance, have problem with flooding the earth in such a way, that Noah would survive, and the earth would not yeild the results we expect to see with today's technology?I know this sounds like a fairy tale, and a technical person would giggle, but if God exist's, then it is entirely plausable.

So, if 'goddunit' is a plausible explanation, in your opinion, then would you say that we should stop all scientific endeavors right now and proceed to use 'goddunit' for everything? Why spend all those years studying scientific theories if I can get a phd in the 'goddunit' field?You see what I'm trying to get at? The moment we introduce the 'goddunit' explanation to anything, we go back to the dark ages. Heck, since you're a mechanic, you should know what I'm talking about. Rather than fixing up those machines, just say 'god doesn't want us to use it anymore... that's why it's broken.' and you get paid.Just curious. Do you use a car or ever flown in an airplane before? You do realize that the people that invented those things didn't just pray to god pops out those machineries? Years of SCIENTIFIC research made those things possible. Even your computer screen was a result of SCIENTIFIC endeavors. One just doesn't say 'wow, I don't know how the computer works, therefore god must have made this computer to work. And since Bill Gates created this system, Gates must be god!'

Well, there's lots of problems with this idea.First, not all rivers have been where they are currently since the beginning of time. Rivers meander.Second, some areas that now have rivers may have once been deserts / vice versa. How can you measure the amount of sediment laid if the river may not have been flowing at all for hundreds of years.Third, seasonal variations in moisture. Sure, by inch seems like a reasonable way to determine ppm coming out of a river, but think about it like this. If 1 inch of rain falls, you get X amount of silt in the water. If 99 inches of rain fall, you don;t get 99x, you get much much more. The erosion accumulates. Once enough water falls to wipe out the plants holding the dirt down, you get a massive jump in out put.Fourth, some areas used to be under water entirely, so no rivers flowing there.Fifth, does this account for time while water was locked up in glaciers?Sixth, does this account for flow once water started coming out of glaciers?Seventh, how do you determine the ppm of, say sand from sand stone if the source of that material was completely eroded away hundreds of years ago, leaving only harder (less likely to erode) materials behind?Eighth, how do you determine how much material has been depostied? For example, the Lousiana Delta (before we built a city on it) was marshland. How do we know what material under the marsh was washed down from the river, versus washed up from the shore, versus laid down by rotting plant material?Ninth, what about materials which are consumed? Soil erosion would put a lot of minerals which various life forms could absorb into the water stream but sandstone erosion would result in vast areas of unused materials filtering to the bottom.I'll stop at 9.My point is this. When we hear these kind of quotes from Creationists trying to disprove science, they smack of being blantantly false, and more importantly, completely unthought out.

So conversely, if there was no flood, then Jesus wasn't the son of God.And, since it's been pretty soundly proven that there was no flood...You might want to rethink your position on literal truth versus figurative truth.Btw, on the whole Virgin Mary thing - two questions.1) How long were Mary and Joseph married before she got knocked up? I mean, aren't they supposed to consumate?2) This ties in with translations - Aramaic -> Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English...My understanding is that in the old Greek, there is no seperation between "young lady" and "virgin". It's the same word. Sort of like "Maiden". That means that someone, during translation, said "Hrmm, either she was a virgin or she wasn't. I'm gonna vote for was." and wrote it that way.

I believe all that was taken into account, and the minerals they were looking at were extremely rare minerals that would have only come from those rivers.

I do not believe that there was a literal flood of global proportions. My belief is based on the evidence of many respected scientists who have had convincing arguments backed by facts which "creation science' cannot disprove. There was more than a flip of a coin involved. The virgin birth was and is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Aside from my personal experiences in this matter, I have met many fine people who are not whacko right wing fakes and who have also had their lives transformed by this spirituality. After all, it had to have took more than a good P.R. campaign to keep Christ in the exalted reverence which has endured many cultural changes.

No it hasn't been proven, only no evidence of. Yet. Jesus said there was a flood.Matthew 24:38-4038 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.So obviously we have a problem, either something else was really meant by the word flood, and the translations are wrong.Jesus was wrong, and not the son of God.Or we haven't found the evidence we need yet, and or it happened loonger ago than the bible would indicate.To me it would have been no doubt a supernatural event, not taking place like your typical flood, or leaving behind the same kind of evidence. The amount of storm that would have taken place would have cooked Noah, or drowned them, and broke apart the ark. But if it was a slow filling, and relatively calm, then what evidence would we find?A sediment layer around the earth ??? at a given depth??? mmmm sounds familiar. Just a thought. I had always thought that was a possibility.

Jesus was expressing the common belief of that time, mistaken as that was.If Jesus was fully human, as we are taught, then he was fallible.If you want to say that Jesus was infallible, omniscient, then you are denying that he could be tempted as are ordinary humans.