Creationist child abusers close doors

Professor Baxter said:
No, it is not just about how it affected Noah. That has nothing at all to do with the context of the discussions.

The biblical account is more than just a tale about Noah. It has been brought up in these discussions based on it as a supposed worldwide event and in reference to its supposed impact on the diversity of life. It's only after this notion of it as a worldwide event has been trashed that pmp has vaguely rejected the biblical account. But if you are going to question the accuracy of the bible's claim that it was worldwide then why not reject the bible's claim that it ever actually happened?

It does not matter how big Noah thought the world was. He did not write Genesis.

I am having no problem in demonstrating how irrelevant your question is or how your suggestion does not agree with the Bible, and creates continuity problems. You are having a problem digesting those facts.
Click to expand...

But it does have context, in regards to the discussion of Noah.

How do you know it was intended to reference a "worldwide event" and instead was just referencing Noah's world?
Since it speaks of Noah and no one else, what do you have to show that it was more then "Noah's world"?

I never said anything about Noah writing Genesis.

If you have no problem in "demonstrating" this; then please do so. :chesh:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But it does have context, in regards to the discussion of Noah.

How do you know it was intended to reference a "worldwide event" and instead was just referencing Noah's world?
Since it speaks of Noah and no one else, what do you have to show that it was more then "Noah's world"?

I never said anything about Noah writing Genesis.

If you have no problem in "demonstrating" this; then please do so. :chesh:
Click to expand...

I already told you. The bible says "all flesh"... "face of the earth"... and god makes a covenant never to flood the world again. If it were a localized flood then the covenant has been broken as we have certainly had localized floods. There are also supposed comments from Christ referencing the flood that don't work unless it is worldwide.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I already told you. The bible says "all flesh"... "face of the earth"... and god makes a covenant never to flood the world again. If it were a localized flood then the covenant has been broken as we have certainly had localized floods. There are also supposed comments from Christ referencing the flood that don't work unless it is worldwide.
Click to expand...

And once again, how can you be certain that the references aren't to the world that Noah knew?
Noah's world was probably from horizon to horizon and if there were mountains surrounding Noah's world, then it wouldn't really be a "localized" flood, as you keep trying to center this on.

You keep trying to use today's knowledge of the world and make it appear that the same knowledge was available, at the time this occurred and was written.

What I find interesting; is that you're so set on making this fit your parameters, that you can't even consider anything else.
How sad. :(
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, you did not.

You keep claiming that this is MY theory. I have asked you how anything I have stated diverges from the commonly accepted theory. You have failed to answer or substantiate your claim.

The commonly accepted theory of evolution is not creation.

You are just spinning and trolling. You can't make your case.
Click to expand...

as you define it there is no commonly accepted theory of evolution.....15% does not achieve "common acceptance"......
 
Professor Baxter said:
I have cited it numerous times.
Click to expand...

no, you've claimed it numerous times......you've never presented anything that actually amounts to evidence.....all you've done is shout "fossils, fossils", as if a tree is proof of lumbermills or a stone proof of quarrying.....fossils don't prove your claim any more than they prove mine.....
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
No, it is not just about how it affected Noah. That has nothing at all to do with the context of the discussions.
Click to expand...

true....its about how big a demand an atheist can make in an effort to create the illusion that belief in the Bible is an impossibility........

the problem with such "impossibilities" is that you forget they only exist in your illusions......
 
lol.....and the "professer" starts another atheist panties in a wad thread on the same topic but bans me.......I guess he needs a thread where he can spout the same idiocy without someone pointing out his idiocy.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And once again, how can you be certain that the references aren't to the world that Noah knew?
Noah's world was probably from horizon to horizon and if there were mountains surrounding Noah's world, then it wouldn't really be a "localized" flood, as you keep trying to center this on.

You keep trying to use today's knowledge of the world and make it appear that the same knowledge was available, at the time this occurred and was written.

What I find interesting; is that you're so set on making this fit your parameters, that you can't even consider anything else.
How sad. :(
Click to expand...

Once again, because there are no references to it as the world that Noah knew and it causes serious problems of continuity.

You are arguing for a localized flood. Feel free to suggest an alternative word, that means localized, though.

So you are saying the Bible was not divinely transcribed or the writers did not have the truth revealed to them? It is just a book written by a bunch of ignorant desert people? I agree, but then that makes the whole thing less credible and / or authoritative.

The parameters are those of the Bible. I find it a crappy and worthless source. If you and pmp want to just make it up as you go then feel free, but it's going reduce your credibility even further.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as you define it there is no commonly accepted theory of evolution.....15% does not achieve "common acceptance"......
Click to expand...

You are attempting to shift gears to run away from the fact that you are not able to point to anything I have said that diverges from the theory.

As for your new argument, do you have a source?

Obviously, I was referring to what is the "commonly accepted theory of evolution" in the scientific community. Of course, what I am saying diverges from what someone who rejects science and evolution, like you do, accepts.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, you've claimed it numerous times......you've never presented anything that actually amounts to evidence.....all you've done is shout "fossils, fossils", as if a tree is proof of lumbermills or a stone proof of quarrying.....fossils don't prove your claim any more than they prove mine.....
Click to expand...

The fossil record and genetic data is evidence that supports evolution and discredits the creation myths. Your retrofitted cult is not science, does not agree with or explain the facts and discredits your own worthless source, of the bible.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
true....its about how big a demand an atheist can make in an effort to create the illusion that belief in the Bible is an impossibility........

the problem with such "impossibilities" is that you forget they only exist in your illusions......
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was impossible to believe in the Bible. I said it was impossible to believe Genesis factually true without rejecting science. You reject science and the bible. I know there are some that see genesis as allegorical and accept science and some that reject science and treat genesis as factual.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....and the "professer" starts another atheist panties in a wad thread on the same topic but bans me.......I guess he needs a thread where he can spout the same idiocy without someone pointing out his idiocy.....
Click to expand...

Where did I start a thread on the same topic? I started a thread on a lawsuit in Kansas. This one was about a school in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

I am tired of you trolling my threads to pull them off topic until you have another fresh round of your games of evasion and lies. Even once you troll a thread you continue to run in circles evading your errors. In just the last couple pages of this one we have you clearly attempting to slither away from your baseless assertion that I am expressing soemthing different from the common theory of evolution by trying to change the subject to whether most people accept evolution.
 
Professor Baxter said:
the fact that you are not able to point to anything I have said that diverges from the theory.
Click to expand...
you mean apart from the things already pointed out that you continue to ignore?.....

As for your new argument, do you have a source?
Click to expand...

certainly you're familiar with it.....I believe you've even quoted from it......

Obviously, I was referring to what is the "commonly accepted theory of evolution" in the scientific community.
Click to expand...

so you would say the 15% who believe it are all in the scientific community?......
 
Baxter is quick to haul out the troll label. He did it to me when he found himself lacking and now he's doing it to PMP. Is everybody who thinks differently than Baxter become a troll now?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you mean apart from the things already pointed out that you continue to ignore?.....

certainly you're familiar with it.....I believe you've even quoted from it......

so you would say the 15% who believe it are all in the scientific community?......
Click to expand...

"Common descent" is the only point you made and it IS a part of the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Please, show the alternative evolutionary theories where that is absent? You can cite none.

What is the source for your claim of 15%. I am not going to guess. If you lack the courage to present a source then we can just assume you made it up. It seems quite doubtful that it supports your claim that it is MY theory of evolution. You are the one with the cultish ideas on science and religion. The ones I have argued for are mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top