Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:39 am

Natman wrote
I'm glad you don't believe in a global flood, it's a ridiculous story and I'm tired of refuting it.

Where did you get the idea I didn't believe in the global flood. Of course that happened.

If you want to talk about ridiculous stories try 'abiogenesis and 'evolution'.
What the scientists have is a hypothesis 'evolution', that demands another hypothesis 'abiogenesis', and that hypothesis has to be from non creation to support the first hypothesis. That is circular thinking and is not scientific. And with no proof or evidence.
How can this be tied to anything about science?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:12 am

Losing the debate on scripture, Mr. Dunday tries to switch the topic to another area I predict he will not be able to competently discuss.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:09 am

MrDunday wrote:Where did you get the idea I didn't believe in the global flood. Of course that happened.


Oh dear. I perhaps credited you with more sense than I should of. Perhaps you can tell me why an omnipotent God, capable of creating an entire universe in just 6 days, needed 40 days and night of rain and 6 months of flood just to rid the Earth of all living creatures, including totally innocent animals and babies. What's wrong with waving a hand and just making all the evil vanish? Could it be that the author read the almost identical 'Epic of Gilgamesh' and thought he'd make his own version?

If you want to talk about ridiculous stories try 'abiogenesis and 'evolution'.
What the scientists have is a hypothesis 'evolution', that demands another hypothesis 'abiogenesis', and that hypothesis has to be from non creation to support the first hypothesis. That is circular thinking and is not scientific. And with no proof or evidence.
How can this be tied to anything about science?


I'll keep this simple so we don't get bogged down (plus, we're straying into science and away from scripture).

Abiogenesis happened.

Now, whether you believe a God did it in a few days or it happened without a deity is irrelevant, we're here. At some point no life, a little later there was life.

It's entirely possible for evolution to occur after a supernatural abiogenesis, therefore the two subjects are entirely different. We can discuss evolution without any talk of abiogenesis at all.

Do you understand this concept?
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:23 am

MrDunday wrote:
Natman wrote
I'm glad you don't believe in a global flood, it's a ridiculous story and I'm tired of refuting it.

Where did you get the idea I didn't believe in the global flood. Of course that happened.

If you want to talk about ridiculous stories try 'abiogenesis and 'evolution'.
What the scientists have is a hypothesis 'evolution', that demands another hypothesis 'abiogenesis', and that hypothesis has to be from non creation to support the first hypothesis. That is circular thinking and is not scientific. And with no proof or evidence.
How can this be tied to anything about science?


Oh, I see. The global Noachian flood is an absolute fact because you believe it to be so and evolution is just a hypothesis because you don't believe it to be so.

Not much of an argument, is it?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:47 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:Losing the debate on scripture, Mr. Dunday tries to switch the topic to another area I predict he will not be able to competently discuss.


Yer, bait and switch. Standard creationist tactic that we've all seen gadzillions of times Gary.

Strange isn't it that the creationists and the likes of the ICR keep telling us and the courts, under oath, that their "creationism" is justified by science and science alone but the very first thing they all let us know is their religion.

So why were they lying under oath?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:24 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:Oh, I see. The global Noachian flood is an absolute fact because you believe it to be so and evolution is just a hypothesis because you don't believe it to be so.

Not much of an argument, is it?


Bet he doesn't accept moral relatavism quite so readily!
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:47 pm

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:Losing the debate on scripture, Mr. Dunday tries to switch the topic to another area I predict he will not be able to competently discuss.

Now don't be like the scientists assuming things again. The scientists made the stories up about the science. It their interpretations. So the important thing is to know what the science says. Because if you look at the science, creation and science are the same thing. That also means I also have to show where the scientists fail in this.
The very first failure is that they need 2 different hypotheses to explain the origins of life and the variety in life. That also is part of this. Though no one needs to know any science to have a solid belief in a creator.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:53 pm

MrDunday wrote:Now don't be like the scientists assuming things again. The scientists made the stories up about the science. It their interpretations. So the important thing is to know what the science says. Because if you look at the science, creation and science are the same thing. That also means I also have to show where the scientists fail in this.
The very first failure is that they need 2 different hypotheses to explain the origins of life and the variety in life. That also is part of this. Though no one needs to know any science to have a solid belief in a creator.


What scientific background do you have to so casually dismiss all the scientific evidence, or is it purely based on your rigid belief in the literalness of the bible?

You seem to be inferring that your creator God hypothesis is inherently superior to the disparate scientific theories as yours only requires one answer, as opposed to the two separate theories needed in science.

However, you're making a huge assumption that your postulated creator can only be the highly specific, monotheistic deity of your faith and not any of the several hundred other creator gods dreamed up by humanity. It's just as likely that this being is Cronos or Shiva than Elohim or Yahweh.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:53 pm

MrDunday wrote:
Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:Losing the debate on scripture, Mr. Dunday tries to switch the topic to another area I predict he will not be able to competently discuss.

Now don't be like the scientists assuming things again. The scientists made the stories up about the science. It their interpretations. So the important thing is to know what the science says. Because if you look at the science, creation and science are the same thing. That also means I also have to show where the scientists fail in this.
The very first failure is that they need 2 different hypotheses to explain the origins of life and the variety in life. That also is part of this. Though no one needs to know any science to have a solid belief in a creator.


Good grief, you talk utter bollox. "Scientists systematically make things up because they are stupid". Yer, sure. Electricity is just a made up story as there was no electric light in biblical times.

Mr Dunday - here is some advice. We all think you are a pilloch. Prove otherwise.


Yet again we find we have another bigot on our hands who thinks that being clever consists of argument by assertion.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:56 pm

MrDunday wrote:Now don't be like the scientists assuming things again.

Ever actually talked to, rather than hectored, a real scientist or actually paid attention at school?

MrDunday wrote:The scientists made the stories up about the science.

Massive citation needed. Take trialed drugs do we? And I really wouldn't want you to take the risk of having to go to Doctor they have all kinds of theories about how the human body works, it just not worth the risk.....
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:08 pm

natman wrote:
Oh dear. I perhaps credited you with more sense than I should of. Perhaps you can tell me why an omnipotent God, capable of creating an entire universe in just 6 days, needed 40 days and night of rain and 6 months of flood just to rid the Earth of all living creatures, including totally innocent animals and babies. What's wrong with waving a hand and just making all the evil vanish? Could it be that the author read the almost identical 'Epic of Gilgamesh' and thought he'd make his own version?


Maybe without realizing it you answered your own question. It does not make sense that God created the universe in 6 days and the flood took longer. The answer is, there is no time limit on the creative days. The bible says "In the beginning God created the earth" No mention of how long that took. In verse 2 is where the first 'day' started. The bible says a day for a year, also a day for 1000 years, the term 'day' is also used for how far you could travel in a day when they walked to places. Even today we say 'in the day' or it will take me a day to get there. We say 'In Noah's day' , these all are unknown number of years or hours. We also can call 'day' just the daylight hours. The bible calls all the creative days as 1 day. God is not ruled by our solar 'day'. What all of this means is that 'day' in the bible can mean the time it took to accomplish something. Each 'day' could have been different lengths of time.
So it is an assumption that many have, about the creative days.But there is no where in the bible that the creative days, were an absolute number, or that they were all the same length of time.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:16 pm

Natman wrote:
Abiogenesis happened.
Now, whether you believe a God did it in a few days or it happened without a deity is irrelevant, we're here. At some point no life, a little later there was life.
It's entirely possible for evolution to occur after a supernatural abiogenesis, therefore the two subjects are entirely different. We can discuss evolution without any talk of abiogenesis at all.
Do you understand this concept?


Do you realize what you wrote here?
You said 'abiogenesis happened. That is not scientific! What is your proof or evidence?
Why do you say it happened?

You also say 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' are different things why?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:28 pm

MrDunday wrote:
natman wrote:
Oh dear. I perhaps credited you with more sense than I should of. Perhaps you can tell me why an omnipotent God, capable of creating an entire universe in just 6 days, needed 40 days and night of rain and 6 months of flood just to rid the Earth of all living creatures, including totally innocent animals and babies. What's wrong with waving a hand and just making all the evil vanish? Could it be that the author read the almost identical 'Epic of Gilgamesh' and thought he'd make his own version?


Maybe without realizing it you answered your own question. It does not make sense that God created the universe in 6 days and the flood took longer. The answer is, there is no time limit on the creative days.


Oh, I see. This is a "fact" that all Christians believe because the Bible can't be wrong.

Yer, pigs can fly.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:32 pm

You said 'abiogenesis happened. That is not scientific! What is your proof or evidence?
Why do you say it happened?

Er cos life is here. You are the evidence and so am I. From the tiniest virus to elephants life exists therefore it must have originated somewhere. Why do you say abiogenesis didn't happen when you are surrounded by living things? That is just silly.

Whether it be by God waving a magic wand or chemistry either abiogenesis happened or we do not exist.

You also say 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' are different things why?

Because they are. Evolution is the theory of how things diversify from common ancestors via mutations, natural selection and so on. Abiogenesis is the process of getting from raw chemistry to living things. Whether by waving a magic wand or by a slow cumulative process of chemical progress here or elsewhere. You have yet to define what you mean by life? Scientists study the features and try to understand which features came first as nobody things they all appeared at once.

Why do you keep saying saying they are the same? The evidence is that the earliest life that we know of is simple photosynthesising bacteria. The very most you can say is your god waved his magic wand to magic those into existence. Unlikely, but the best you can claim with the scientific evidence we have.
Last edited by cathy on Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:33 pm

Natman wrote:

It's entirely possible for evolution to occur after a supernatural abiogenesis, therefore the two subjects are entirely different. We can discuss evolution without any talk of abiogenesis at all.

What you said here is that it is possible that God did the creating. Actually that is true. But 'evolution' demands that the start to life be from non creation. The reason is if a God started things off, how do you know he did not create that life using the DNA to get all the variety we have today? This means creation is also involved in the variety, not 'evolution'. So the 'evolution' the scientists are promoting, is a myth. Because they claim it has nothing to do with creation, but is governed by natural means only.
But then of course you would still have to find out who that Creator is. That is no different today with many religions.
That also means 'evolution' demands the origins of life be from non creation. That is circular thinking and not scientific. It also so means 'evolution' is the evidence, that everything has to fit, no matter what the science says.

The scientists have not thought this through.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests