What creationists know

Carico said:
"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical.
Click to expand...
where does anyone besides CRETINISTS claim thats how humans evolved?

lay off the buyBULL and learn the facts of life
here
www.talkorigins.org


Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere. So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination.
Click to expand...
YOU sure do..:D
and here

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
 
You have proven nothing with this statement other than there's a lot of water. And you've done so quoting well known scientific observation, rather than anything in the bible.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's not scientists who are using these observations. It's scientists who are ignoring them just like they ignore the accounts of over 200 cultures and the bible which says there was a global flood. That's why they make up their own version of the past that no one in history can document. Again, that's the definition of fairy tales. ;)
 
It's ironic that this thread is entitled "What creationists know", but when I ask a creationist what creationists know he is unable to tell me.
 
A ;) means I'm right & you're wrong so just capitulate. ;)
Resistance is futile. ;)

This line would have been 8 winking smileys but it wouldn't allow that.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
A ;) means I'm right & you're wrong so just capitulate. ;)
Resistance is futile. ;)

This line would have been 8 winking smileys but it wouldn't allow that.
Click to expand...



shaman_ said:
No, it's annoying.

Some people think using smilies a lot makes up for the lack of a coherent argument.
Click to expand...


I think your both right maybe, a little from A a little from B. Thank god for the 3 smileys a post rule.

All I know is the winks are annoying.

peaace.
 
Some people think using smilies a lot makes up for the lack of a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

And personal attacks don't refute my posts. So you cannot prove I don't have a coherent argument, smilies or not. ;)
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Does his constant use of winking smileys after a statement annoy anybody else or is it just me?.


peace.
Click to expand...
It's Sarah Palin in disguise.


Carico said:
There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.
Click to expand...
So why can't you answer the questions that were asked about your OP?

And do you really think the author's of the bible would have written what they did write if they had the ability to actually study and investigate facts like evolution, the birth of starts and planets, etc?

Let me ask you a question. When you are ill.. have a bacterial infection for a example. Do you pray it away? Or do you rely on the science you are currently mocking to get some antibiotics to treat said infection? How about when you have a headache?

While you might believe the world is a few thousand years of age, that God created everything, blah creationist babble, blah, it is all well and good for you. That you prefer to ignore direct scientific evidence, many of which you can actually still observe, about the birth of our universe, the birth of stars, etc, that you choose to ignore DNA evidence that links us to primates... well.. that is your choice. More power to you man..
 
Pandaemoni said:
The gospel authors, most scholars agree, were not witnesses. So what we have is not "witnesses" it's "hearsay" we know a guy who claims he knows a guy who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion.
*************
M*W: I just wanted to throw in a few comments on your post.

As you know, I like to put an astro-theological slant on some of your statements (all good).

These "witnesses" who were said to have told others, who were said they saw Jesus (the sun-son) after the crucifixion, were observing the astrological movements of the zodiac. The crucifix refers to the two crossed imaginary lines to the four seasons of the year as the earth moves around the sun. I had expanded on the details of this, but it was too long, and I am too tired.

That is evidence of His having risen, it's just not very compelling.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: You're right. These lines forming a cross were viewed as the four seasons of the year which includes (March-April-May)(June-July-August)(Sept. Oct. Nov.)(Dec.-Jan.-Feb.) This entire reference to the crucifixion was totally astro-theological. As I've said many times before, it was a hidden message in the NT which is the message of the zodiac. I hope I haven't lost you yet.

That is even true of asexual reproducers, but it is obvious enough that you are not an identical clone of either of your parents.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Glad you brought that up as an aside. A clone is not a clone in not a clone. A clone isn't truly identical to it's host either. Maybe their are slight variations, but they are not exactly identical. I read this in scientific literature when I was teaching Stem Cells in Biomedicine.

But carpenters who can turn water into wine and convert bread into his own flesh, you're cool with that? That's all true?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: There is metaphor for
carpenter
Click to expand...
, and as I recall, it referred to the builder, it means the creator (aka God-the-Sun/Son of God) of the zodiac. Especially since there is not much evidence for an appreciably amount of usable wood in the vacinity. Joseph the carpenter was a NT metaphor for vizier (an Egyptian title for something like mayor or protector). He was the son of Heli (the sun aka known as Jesus).

How many Israelites wandered in the Sinai? You know we can find archaeological evidence of small encampments of groups as small as 10-20 travelers in that desert, and there is no serious physical evidence of a group as large as the Bible supposes ever having wandered there, let alone for 40 years.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: The ancestors of the Israelites were known as the Habiru/Apiru who became the Hebrews. The habiru/apiru came out of Egypt, but S.A.M. will try to refute that. I've studied this a lot.

Your statement is correct that there were small encampments, but for god's sake, they were nomadic shepherds after all. That's why they did what they did. It was their lifestyle. They wandered in the cool of the night creating stories (i.e. myths) about the stars and constellations and named them. This was for their entertainment purposes only. They rested during the heat of the day.

The habiru/apiru were not slaves but simple shepherds (another metaphor for Jesus aka the sun). These nomads had the idea that to get close to these gods in the sky, they had to climb mountains and worship the zodiac way up there during the heat of the day.

If there was a Moses, he was the Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. His given name at birth was Aminadab. When he was taken by his sister-mother (not a problem in those days), and the legend of pharaoh's daughter finding him and took him out of the water (definition of Moses), he was raised as pharaoh's son and was given the name after his real father, Tuthmosis IV. He also became to be known as Amenhotep IV when he became pharaoh himself, and renamed himself, Aknenaten. All one and the same.

He got into some trouble because of his fanatical religious belief in Aten, the sun god disk, and fled into the desert, because his subjects got tired of Moses's bullshit. He didn't take anyone with him, but they may have chased his ass into the Sinai. He may have camped in some of the small camps, but he led nobody nowhere. In fact, it wasn't even this guy who wrote the Torah. The Torah was written by some three anonymous authors who wrote of the death of Moses, so how could he have?

In the heat of the desert, I can understand how a dry bush would catch fire. I've seen it happen in my lifetime in the East USA as a child and to this very day in the West USA.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: I wanted to previously mention metaphors for the resurrection. The sun was believed by these nomads to go behind the earth and die, but then the sun was resurrected in the morning in the East, so god was seen to come alive again, and these nomads believed they witnessed it.

Also, there were no golden chariots found on the floor of the Red Sea nor the Sea of Reeds. These people didn't have to travel very far from where they shepherded. It was only about 30 miles from the promiscuous land. The parting of the whichever sea the myth refers to probably had a sand bank or was extremely salty, I would think.

Sorry for the long post. I got ahead of myself.
 
And do you really think the author's of the bible would have written what they did write if they had the ability to actually study and investigate facts like evolution, the birth of starts and planets, etc?
Click to expand...

Considering that apes haven't given birth to human descendants since man has walked the earth, then the bible's claims are based on observation unlike the claims of evolutionists. So sorry, investigation doesn't lead to evolution. Only the imaginations of men can lead to evolution.

So when were scientists around when the first stars came int the sky?:eek: They weren't. So they can only guess how they got there. But God doesn't have to guess since he put them there to begin with. ;)
 
Carico said:
There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.;)
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: I really, really wanted to answer your post, but it's not worth my time.
 
Carico said:
Considering that apes haven't given birth to human descendants since man has walked the earth, then the bible's claims are based on observation unlike the claims of evolutionists. So sorry, investigation doesn't lead to evolution. Only the imaginations of men can lead to evolution.
Click to expand...
Of course. And saying that some great daddy in the sky made man from clay is so much more believable. How wrong I have been.

One little question though. Who observed God creating the universe, Earth, man, animals and all that comes in between? Don't forget, no one was around at the time to observe all of this. So how exactly are the claims in the bible based on observation?

Oh, and by the way. Man did not descend from the apes that you see in zoos or on wildlife documentaries. We share DNA with them, which points to a common ancestor. Therefore, you won't see apes of today giving birth to humans.


So when were scientists around when the first stars came int the sky?:eek: They weren't. So they can only guess how they got there. But God doesn't have to guess since he put them there to begin with. ;)
Click to expand...
Visit a planetarium. We can still observe stars being created today through things called telescopes. So we don't exactly have to "guess".
 
Hercules Rockefeller: Can the moderators PLEASE be pro-active for once and do us all a real solid. Yeah?

Unfortunately proactive moderation is censorship.

There should always be a transgression first, and hopefully at least some period of warning/education, before a moderator acts percipitously.
 
Carico:
Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

You are mistaken. You "know" these things only as being found in your holy book. But for you to know them about the earth and universe you would need to demonstrate how the claims of your book actually correspond with reality.

This you haven't done and when people have attempted this they find the facts of the situation contradict your claims. Which is not surprising when you are relying on the myths of bronze age sheep herders for your foundational assumptions about reality.

Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so.

Actually scientists are constantly exploring because its terribly interesting and a whole lot of fun, besides occasionally paying the bills. What do you gain from constantly failing to explore?
 
Carico: Sorry but logic isn't claiming that apes can turn into humans.

No one claims apes turn into humans. The claim is that apes and humans both share common ancestors. Just like you and your cousins can’t turn into each other, but share common ancestors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top