Thread: When Will Christ Return?

Noah's ark! its really interesting there are 100s of stories from history and other traditions about a huge flood that happened thousands of years ago. I mean a huge flood probably happened.

But the noah's ark story isn't about a boat. Its about if it actually happened what does that make God? How many ppl did god murder in this holocaust? How many small children and babies drowned? Hitler can't even compare to this God guy. im always confused for the love ppl have for this god thing? he doesnt seem very friendly. well I guess there was a rainbow...

well, most Christians will tell you that God is okay because he changed to a loving god in the new testament. Thats no excuse for some of the stuff he suposedly did. Such a being would never just change his mind on a whim. Such a being would never think like a human.

The real question is "Why do Christians PRETEND to love God?"

Christians pretend to love God for the same reason Iraqis pretended to love Saddam.

This article explains is pretty well:

God as Abuser: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses
From Austin Cline,

God and Spousal Abuse:
It's common for Christians to compare the relationship between humanity and God to that between husband and wife. God is the "man" of the house to whom humanity owes obedience, respect, and honor. Usually this relationship is portrayed as one of love, but in far too many ways, God is more like an abusive spouse who only knows how to love through intimidation and violence. A review of classic signs and symptoms of spousal abuse reveals how abusive the "relationship" people have with God is.

Victims are Afraid of the Abuser:
Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God. Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence. Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God. Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God's wrath and eventual punishment.

Abusers Use of Threats and Intimidation to Force Compliance:
Violence is a primary means by which abusers communicate, even with their spouses whom they are supposed to love. Abusers aren't just violent towards their spouses — they also use violence against objects, pets, and other things to instill more fear and to force compliance with their wishes. God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.

Abusers Withholds Resources from Victims:
In order to exercise greater control over a victim, abusers will withhold important resources in order to make the victim more dependent. Resources used like this include money, credit cards, access to transportation, medications, or even food. God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient, for example, God may cause crops to fail or water to turn bad. The basic necessities of living are conditioned on obeying God.

Abusers Instill Feelings of Inadequacy in Victims:
A further means of exercising control over a victim is instilling feelings of inadequacy in them. By getting them to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.

Victims Feel they Deserve to be Punished by Abusers:
Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse they are suffering. If the abuser is justified in punishing the victim, then the victim can hardly complain, can she? God is also described as being justified in punishing humanity — all people are so sinful and depraved that they deserve an eternity in hell (created by God). Their only hope is that God will take pity on them and save them.

Victims are Not Trusted by Abusers:
Another part of the process of making the victim feel inadequate is ensuring that they know how little the abuser trusts them. The victim is not trusted to make her own decisions, dress herself, buy things on her own, or anything else. She is also isolated from her family so that she can't find help. God, too, is depicted as treating people as if they were unable to do anything right or make their own decisions (like on moral issues, for example).

Emotional Dependency of the Abuser on the Victim:
Although abusers encourage victims to feel inadequate, it is the abuser who really has problems with self-confidence. Abusers encourage emotional dependency because they are emotionally dependent themselves — this produces extreme jealousy and controlling behavior. God, too, is depicted as dependent upon human worship and love. God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away. God is all-powerful, but unable to prevent the smallest problems.

Blaming the Victim for the Abuser's Actions:
Victims are typically made to feel responsible for all of an abuser's actions, not just deserving of the punishments inflicted. Thus victims are told that it's their fault when an abuser gets angry, feels suicidal, or indeed when anything at all goes wrong. Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong — although God created humanity and can stop any unwanted actions, all responsibility for all evil in the world is laid entirely at the feet of human beings.

Why Do Abused People Stay With Their Abusers?:
Why do women stay with violent, abusive spouses? Why don't they just pack up and leave, making a new life for themselves elsewhere and with people who actually respect and honor them as equal, independent human beings? The signs of abuse described above should help in answering these questions: women are so emotionally and psychologically beaten down that they lack the mental strength to do what is necessary. They don't have enough confidence to believe that they can make it without the man who keeps telling them that only he could possibly love such an ugly and worthless person such as they.

Perhaps some insight on this can be gained by rephrasing the question and asking why people don't abandon the emotionally and psychologically abusive relationship they are expected to develop with God? The existence of God isn't relevant here — what matters is how people are taught to perceive themselves, their world, and what will happen to them if they make the mistake of trying to leave the relationship in order to make a better life for themselves elsewhere.

Women who are abused are told that they can't make it on their own and if they try, their spouse will come after them to punish or even kill them. Believers are told that they can't accomplish anything of value without God, that they are so worthless that only because God is infinitely loving does he love them at all; if they turn their backs on God, they will be punished for all eternity in hell. The sort of "love" which God has for humanity is the "love" of an abuser who threatens, attacks, and commits violence in order to get his own way.

Religions like Christianity are abusive insofar as they encourage people to feel inadequate, worthless, dependent, and deserving of harsh punishment. Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behavior.[/b]

Oh...and, Ne-yo...I hope you are joking.

You take the story of Noah's Ark as being LITERAL, and at the same time think that dinosaurs never roamed the Earth? COME ON, MAN!
Who are you trying to fool? What a joke.


Proof of dinosaurs: Fossils, footprints, mounds and mounds of remains.
Proof of bible flood: None. Absolutely none. IN fact, most evidence points out that a worldwide flood is impossible.

The bible flood story was stolen from the Sumerians(The epic of Galgamesh). Along with he Tower of Babel and many other sstories. They took them and changed the names and dates. Look into it.

In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.

The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).

The hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat

The ark would be sealed with pitch.

The ark would have with many internal compartments

It would have a single door

It would have at least one window.

The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.

A great rain covered the land with water.

The mountains were initially covered with water.

The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.

The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.

The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.

The hero was blessed.

The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.[/b]

Originally Posted by YourImaginaryFriend

The real question is "Why do Christians PRETEND to love God?"

Christians pretend to love God for the same reason Iraqis pretended to love Saddam.

[/b]

Very comprehensive description about the enslavement of the believers by their own imaginary god.
Good post. I agree with.

A worldwide flood must be impossible. Water doesn't just come out of nowhere does it? It gets recycled, evaporating and falling as rain. More likely the flood covered the whole of their known world imo.

Also someone who lives in a dry desert region is going to have a different concept of 'flood' to someone living on a floodplain, are they not.

Originally Posted by Jess

A worldwide flood must be impossible. Water doesn't just come out of nowhere does it? It gets recycled, evaporating and falling as rain. More likely the flood covered the whole of their known world imo.

Also someone who lives in a dry desert region is going to have a different concept of 'flood' to someone living on a floodplain, are they not.
[/b]

Not only that, but what the people back then considered "the world" was just the middle east.
There is geological proof that the black sea broke through a barrier and spread out to its current size. There were definitely people living where it expanded. Case solved. The black sea flooded into the area where a large population lived. They thought the world was flooding.

he might, but its not likely, last time he arrived he was dishonoured and crucified by the people then came back to say his goodbyes, i dont think that he wants to go through that again, and now instead of some people believing him and others questioning him, people would probably ignore him if he says he is the son of god so what is the point of him coming back...

Originally Posted by the

he might, but its not likely, last time he arrived he was dishonoured and crucified by the people then came back to say his goodbyes, i dont think that he wants to go through that again, and now instead of some people believing him and others questioning him, people would probably ignore him if he says he is the son of god so what is the point of him coming back...
[/b]

He never said he was the Son of God. People implied that looooong after his death.

The 'first' jesus was from the middle-east, he wasn't a white man like centries of (medival) propaganda tells you. Christians can't even accept That.

Christians would only accept a copy of what they want to see in Jesus. In other words, even if god was real, Alot of Christians wouldn't even accept a negro-jesus.

Originally Posted by Neruo

The 'first' jesus was from the middle-east, he wasn't a white man like centries of (medival) propaganda tells you. Christians can't even accept That.

Christians would only accept a copy of what they want to see in Jesus. In other words, even if god was real, Alot of Christians wouldn't even accept a negro-jesus.
[/b]

I have no problim exepting Jesus as He is and was: a Jew.

I know is is a Jew, and so do most of my friends.

However, what does that have to do with His message?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I have no problim exepting Jesus as He is and was: a Jew.

I know is is a Jew, and so do most of my friends.

However, what does that have to do with His message?
[/b]

It has to do with the hippocracy of most Christians, that see jesus as a white, tall male instead of the small arab-llking person he, like everyone from that area in 0 A.D., was.

Seriously, jesus 'can't' come back to earth, because Christians would never accept any jesus that still had powers but looked different from their idea's. Seriously, if an albino-negro-Christ would show up and do some magic tricks, most Christians especially the American fundamentalists would just say satan send him.

Also, on the topic of mircales: How can you believe in such stuff. Alot of 'sources' tell about it happening with jesus and saints all the time, healing the sick and stuff. Where are the miracles been the last 100/200 years?

Jesus = toothfairy3000 XP-edition.

My thought on this is "Why does it matter?"

Live your life as if he was going to return in the next 30 seconds, plan you life as if he is never going to return.

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It has to do with the hippocracy of most Christians, that see jesus as a white, tall male instead of the small arab-llking person he, like everyone from that area in 0 A.D., was.

Seriously, jesus 'can't' come back to earth, because Christians would never accept any jesus that still had powers but looked different from their idea's. Seriously, if an albino-negro-Christ would show up and do some magic tricks, most Christians especially the American fundamentalists would just say satan send him.

Also, on the topic of mircales: How can you believe in such stuff. Alot of 'sources' tell about it happening with jesus and saints all the time, healing the sick and stuff. Where are the miracles been the last 100/200 years?

Jesus = toothfairy3000 XP-edition.
[/b]

Franckly, I dont care about the hypocrits exept that they give the rest of us a bad name, as do many hypocrits in all fields (as I recall, Darwin was caught tampering with bones)

Now, it is writin that Jesus wont "come back" in the litteral sence, and that He wont set foot on the Earth. He comes back at the very, very end.

Oh, and Jesus wont look "human" (persa) when He comes back. And its not about the Hypocrits exepting Jesus. If you think that you have completly mist the point.

Now, well you ask how I can beleive the Bible and the Miricals it speeks of, how can you beleive evolution? You have no "proof" of evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory, would it? What makes your beleif more credable then mine? And those miricals havn't disapeard, and dont start with your clame they havn't, because if you do, I'll have to ask you why you even asked.

Originally Posted by Ne

LOL...Actually that was rhetorical, because it's pretty much self explanitory.
This is exactly what I'm getting at Spoon. I quote 'Sir Keeper'

spoon, read the rest of the passage. He was giving signs about what the generation who will see it will expreience so that they would know.[/b]

[/b]

You say it is self explanatory that he is talking about the current generation (current being the one he is addressing, as in the people standing in front of him ~30c.e), yet then you immediately follow that up by denying that it is actually that generation?

Keeper you are right, he is giving signs so the people who will experience it know... except that he's clearly addressing the people there at the time. I don't see how a clear reading of the text can give you any other meaning. He is constantly telling them that "you will see, you should do".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("keeper")</div>

and tell me, do you know the actual word used? Tell us what its litteral translation is.[/b]

Genea? The literal translation would depend on the context, and how the author used it throughout the text. The standard definition of generation fits both of those.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("ne&#045;yo")</div>

And I hope you&#39;re not including Dino and his friends from a so called "Palaeozaic and Mesozaic Era" because it&#39;s comman sense that Dinosaurs never roamed the Earth.[/b]

That&#39;s one of the funniest things I&#39;ve heard in a while, thank you. I can just see you frantically air-quoting when you say "Palaeozaic and Mesozaic Era". Unfortunately, as sarcastically as you might say it, the dinosaurs certainly did exist - long before humans ever roamed the earth. As for the rest of the ark rant you went on, why not start a thread with some proof that it actually happened? Don&#39;t start with the story and work back; try to start with something observed in the real world and get "global flood" out of it.

Originally Posted by Ne

Now, well you ask how I can beleive the Bible and the Miricals it speeks of, how can you beleive evolution? [/b]

Well, it might just be me - but the multiple streams of corroborating evidence, coupled with its predictive power, seems to give evolution the edge over miracles. It&#39;s probably just me.

You have no "proof" of evolution, otherwise it wouldn&#39;t be a theory, would it? What makes your beleif more credable then mine?[/b]

For someone who started one thread about why evolution is wrong, and is currently researching to start another - you seem to be lacking some basic knowledge on the subject. A &#39;scientific theory&#39; is not the same as &#39;a theory you thought up while drunk last night&#39;.

A scientific theory is a group of propositions used to explain observed phenomena. These observed phenomena are facts. The &#39;theory of evolution&#39; attempts to explain the following observed phenomena (among many others) :

- Life is over 2 billion years old
- Life has changed over this 2 billion year history
- Species are related to eachother via common descent
- etc etc

None of these things are theories, they are observed phenomena backed up by a large body of cross referenced evidence. As far as the &#39;theory&#39; itself goes - evolution has been proved to work, in practice, time and time again in areas ranging from computer science to agriculture to drug research.

If you discard the &#39;theory of evolution&#39; as just a theory, then you should discard all the other scientific theories - gravity, atomism, germs.

Originally Posted by YourImaginaryFriend

He never said he was the Son of God. People implied that looooong after his death.
[/b]

Wrong&#33; Have you even read the Bible? Because if you have, then that statement would never even come into your mind. Let me show you what I mean. The disciples viewed Jesus as the "one mediator between God and men. So it was pretty clear that they viewed Jesus as the Son of God (1 Timothy 2:5) Even the demons, who "believe there is one God," knew from their experience in the spirit realm that Jesus was not God but was the Son of God. So, correctly, they addressed Jesus as the separate "Son of God." (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29)

Originally Posted by YourImaginaryFriend

The &#39;first&#39; jesus was from the middle-east, he wasn&#39;t a white man like centries of (medival) propaganda tells you. Christians can&#39;t even accept That.

Wrong again&#33; I never believed nor has my family ever believed that Jesus Christ was a Caucasian Man with Blonde Hair and Blue eyes. You&#39;ll be a fool to think he looked other than Middle Eastern

Christians would only accept a copy of what they want to see in Jesus. In other words, even if god was real, Alot of Christians wouldn&#39;t even accept a negro-jesus.[/b]

How do you figure? Please tell me you are not Foreal?

Originally Posted by Ne

How do you figure? Please tell me you are not Foreal?
[/b]

Lol I cant tell if you&#39;re joking or not, but if you aren&#39;t, we know because he&#39;s from the Middle-east&#33;&#33; Palestine and Israel are next-door neighbours with Iraq, Egypt and Arabia&#33;

Yeah wtf, wasn&#39;t he like born in Bethlehem?? Or is that another myth and he was actually Canadian.

Originally Posted by spoon

You say it is self explanatory that he is talking about the current generation (current being the one he is addressing, as in the people standing in front of him ~30c.e), yet then you immediately follow that up by denying that it is actually that generation?[/b]

I’m talking about the “Current Generation.” Just as I mentioned, I don’t recall stuttering. I cannot even fathom how you don’t see what I mean? Here let me help you. I’ll take it to a more elementary state for you. Read carefully –
cur•rent (kûr&#39;-ent, kŭr&#39
adj.

• Belonging to the present time: current events; current leaders.
• Being in progress now: current negotiations.
• Prevalent, especially at the present time: current fashions.

Originally Posted by spoon

That&#39;s one of the funniest things I&#39;ve heard in a while, thank you. I can just see you frantically air-quoting when you say "Palaeozaic and Mesozaic Era". Unfortunately, as sarcastically as you might say it, the dinosaurs certainly did exist - long before humans ever roamed the earth. As for the rest of the ark rant you went on, why not start a thread with some proof that it actually happened? Don&#39;t start with the story and work back; try to start with something observed in the real world and get "global flood" out of it.[/b]

I’ve already talked about the Flood and I’ve given proof but I guess you’re not reading all of my post. It’s cool I ain’t mad at you. Now I’m pretty sure you’re not ready for me to Debunk that Dinosaur theory. You’re not ready for that. Let me put it this way. The only reason why this theory even surfaced is due to obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Bible and the existence of the Almighty God, trying to disprove the young-earth theory, and trying to disprove creationism. Yes, there are major political and religious ramifications.

Originally Posted by spoon

A scientific theory is a group of propositions used to explain observed phenomena. These observed phenomena are facts. The &#39;theory of evolution&#39; attempts to explain the following observed phenomena (among many others)[/b]

You’re throwing out “Observed Phenomena” like that supposed to make a grand difference. Who exactly is this Observant? Bring him fourth to me&#33; And that’s your definition of what a scientific theory is? Here is a wake up call for you.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science." This was quoted by one of you own. The famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson,
In other words it is impossible to observe evolution in action, therefore it is impossible to establish it, not only as fact, but impossible to establish it even as a theory&#33; Straight and simple: To believe in evolution you need blind, rabid, faith in something that is not only impossible to prove, but in which true scientific facts are found to not even remotely support&#33; Remember, to be true scientifically it must be observed&#33;

Originally Posted by spoon

Lol I cant tell if you&#39;re joking or not, but if you aren&#39;t, we know because he&#39;s from the Middle-east&#33;&#33; Palestine and Israel are next-door neighbours with Iraq, Egypt and Arabia&#33;
[/b]

LOL… you took that way out of context. I said “please tell me you are not foreal” Because he has it in his mind that A White Jesus with Blonde hair and blue eyes is a Universal perception among Christians. I for one knows that He is far from looking anything like a Caucasian.

Originally Posted by spoon

Yeah wtf, wasn&#39;t he like born in Bethlehem?? Or is that another myth and he was actually Canadian.
[/b]

-Follower-

Originally Posted by spoon

[/b]

I got one word for this. Photoshop

What do you mean by -Follower-? That photo may be Photoshop&#39;d up but its pretty funny.

Originally Posted by Jess

[/b]

This picture solves this entire topic.

-

And it might be photoshopped, but it is possible it is not.

Originally Posted by Ne

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("spoon")

As for the rest of the ark rant you went on, why not start a thread with some proof that it actually happened? Don&#39;t start with the story and work back; try to start with something observed in the real world and get "global flood" out of it.[/b]

I’ve already talked about the Flood and I’ve given proof but I guess you’re not reading all of my post.[/b][/quote]You did no such thing. What you did give was a bunch of numbers which you think helped proved the ark a sensible story. You&#39;ve started at a conclusion (the ark existed) and worked backwards to find evidence to support it. This is the opposite of the scientific method.

Instead, what I asked you to do was to find some phenomena that is best explained by a flood model. That&#39;s how science works. For example: if you were to look at the fossil record and see no ordering, or humans in the same strata as dinosaurs - these might be things best explained by a flood.

You see, it&#39;s quite easy to start from &#39;global flood&#39;, cherry picking evidence to support it. The other way around is impossible (I&#39;d say, you might prove me wrong) - as none of the observations from biology, archaeology, paleontology, linguistics, anthropology or geology point towards a global flood of recent (<10000) years that wiped out all the earth.

It’s cool I ain’t mad at you. Now I’m pretty sure you’re not ready for me to Debunk that Dinosaur theory. You’re not ready for that. Let me put it this way. The only reason why this theory even surfaced is due to obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Bible and the existence of the Almighty God, trying to disprove the young-earth theory, and trying to disprove creationism. Yes, there are major political and religious ramifications.[/b]

I&#39;m really at a loss here - it is evidence from every stream of science involved that dinosaurs existed and did so millions of years ago. If you actually pull your head out of fundamentalism for a second and look around you might notice this.

You’re throwing out “Observed Phenomena” like that supposed to make a grand difference. Who exactly is this Observant? Bring him fourth to me&#33;[/b]

Scientists? We&#39;ve established a rigorous scientific method to try and make as objective observations as possible. Sure, it&#39;s not always right - but it is always corrected upon discovery of mistakes.

An example of observed phenomena as fact vs a theory might be needed : Gravity. We observe that things are attracted down towards the ground. We observe the influence on orbiting bodies on planets/suns. These things are facts, insofar as our observations are correct. We have a theory of gravity that explains these things.

And that’s your definition of what a scientific theory is? Here is a wake up call for you.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science." This was quoted by one of you own. The famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson,[/b]

You know, you really shouldn&#39;t trust quotes with elipses in them. From this article

Compare these two versions with what Simpson actually wrote:

"It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything -- or at the very least they are not science."

In the first place, Simpson was discussing armchair speculation about life on other planets and, in this context, his statement is perfectly reasonable. This context was carefully removed. However, note how the CEC quote has omitted the word "acceptable" and changed the hyphen to ellipses, normally used to denote missing text <snip>[/b]

In fact, you should probably just disregard all quotes from creationists. They have a history of this sort of quote mining.

In other words it is impossible to observe evolution in action, therefore it is impossible to establish it, not only as fact, but impossible to establish it even as a theory&#33; [/b]

The facts that evolution attempts to explain, some of which I&#39;ve already told you, are just that - facts. There&#39;s no getting around the fact that life is around 2 billion years old, or that all life is related via common descent. The mechanism by which this occurs though, you are quite welcome to challenge that. Evolution is currently the best apporximation of that mechanism (nothing is ever 100%) that explains all of these facts, although it is evolving . And we&#39;ve seen in many fields that evolutionary methods give a very fast convergence.

And your statement that we&#39;ve never observed evolution is quite odd. We observe evolution all of the time. Diseases evolve resistance to drugs, we have domesticated animals through utilising evolution to select for desirable traits. We&#39;ve observed evolution countless times in plant and animal species adapting to suit some new environment or predator.

On top of that, as I&#39;ve already mentioned, we have applied evolutionary theory in many fields with great results.

Straight and simple: To believe in evolution you need blind, rabid, faith in something that is not only impossible to prove, but in which true scientific facts are found to not even remotely support&#33; Remember, to be true scientifically it must be observed&#33;[/b]

You would really benefit from some reading on the topic. A short list of evidence for evolution. A long, but really interesting, piece on 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Seriously, if you&#39;re going to object to evolution make sure that you&#39;re objecting to what it actually is - not a creationist straw man version.

And again, if you&#39;re discarding evolution for being &#39;just a theory&#39; you will also have to discard gravity, germs and atomic theory. All rely on the same scientific methods as evolution, and all have just as much proof (actually evolution has more independent streams of evidence than gravity).

It says in the Revelation that no one, not even the angles in heaven will know the exact date Christ comes back but it says you can figure out when it comes near by paying attention to the signs.

Originally Posted by spoon

What you did give was a bunch of numbers which you think helped proved the ark a sensible story. You&#39;ve started at a conclusion (the ark existed) and worked backwards to find evidence to support it. This is the opposite of the scientific method.

Instead, what I asked you to do was to find some phenomena that is best explained by a flood model. That&#39;s how science works. For example: if you were to look at the fossil record and see no ordering, or humans in the same strata as dinosaurs - these might be things best explained by a flood.

You see, it&#39;s quite easy to start from &#39;global flood&#39;, cherry picking evidence to support it. The other way around is impossible (I&#39;d say, you might prove me wrong) - as none of the observations from biology, archaeology, paleontology, linguistics, anthropology or geology point towards a global flood of recent (<10000) years that wiped out all the earth.
I&#39;m really at a loss here - it is evidence from every stream of science involved that dinosaurs existed and did so millions of years ago. If you actually pull your head out of fundamentalism for a second and look around you might notice this.[/b]

Well you and I do agree on something. We both dislike Religious fundamentalist. You stated, what I gave was a bunch of numbers? Well doesn&#39;t scientist support that? Hard Facts, in numbers? However I posted that in response to Universal Minds Post He asked "How was Noah able to house 30 to 100 million animals, care for them and thier waste. The numbers indicated there of course doesn&#39;t explain how the Flood started but supports how he was able to care for them and fit them into the Ark. Now in regards to the great flood you have to understand that there are about 360 cultures around the world have stories of a massive flood, you think that just shear coincidence? Even the Aztecs has a flood story of where only a man and his family survived.
They range from Europe to Africa to Asia to Austrailia to the Pacific Islands to the Americas.
There are some difference in the story but the common essence is true. Here are some of the similarities.

95% of stories are worldwide floods
88% of stories favor one family
66% of legends say the family was forwarned
66% of stories says a flood was the result of the sinfulness of man
70% of stories say the survival was on a boat
67% of legends have animals saved
57% of stories have survivors landing on a mountain
35% of legends also say that birds were sent out.

Putting all the legends together, it would read like this:

God sent a world wide flood to judge the sinfulness of man. One righteous family, who was forewarned. Was saved. They built a boat and took animals on board and survived the flood. At the end of the flood, their boat came to rest on a high mountain. They came down repopulated the whole earth. Some Anthropologists say that a myth is often the "faded memory: of a true incident. In the retelling of these stories, details may have been lost, added or muddled, but the essence of the truth remains the same.
Now you want some evidence where here you go. the approximate age of Niagara Falls, the Mississippi delta etc. Neither Niagra falls nor the Mississippi delta started at he same time as the world was created. Could you provide a reference that says there was never a great food? There is geology in Alaska that shows three major inundations with ocean floor debris on high mountains. How do you assume that took place?

Originally Posted by spoon

Scientists? We&#39;ve established a rigorous scientific method to try and make as objective observations as possible. Sure, it&#39;s not always right - but it is always corrected upon discovery of mistakes.[/b]

No I said "Observant" I didn&#39;t say bring fourth a group of people. How about a Scientist? <---Singular/ Also you are right about your above statement and I agree 100% with you. Sure, It&#39;s not always right. Now that&#39;s classic.

Originally Posted by spoon

An example of observed phenomena as fact vs a theory might be needed : Gravity. We observe that things are attracted down towards the ground. We observe the influence on orbiting bodies on planets/suns. These things are facts, insofar as our observations are correct. We have a theory of gravity that explains these things.[/b]

Yeah yeah I&#39;ve heard it before. Scientist understanding of Gravity is flawed on a level that is highly questionalble. By the way if you cannot see gravity so how do you believe in it? you&#39;re telling me that you have faith that something is there that you cannot see? Anyway The Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory to me. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

Originally Posted by spoon

In fact, you should probably just disregard all quotes from creationists. They have a history of this sort of quote mining.[/b]

Nope&#33; I&#39;m going to always use them, they are your people and your so called "pioneers."

Originally Posted by spoon

The facts that evolution attempts to explain, some of which I&#39;ve already told you, are just that - facts. There&#39;s no getting around the fact that life is around 2 billion years old, or that all life is related via common descent. The mechanism by which this occurs though, you are quite welcome to challenge that. Evolution is currently the best apporximation of that mechanism (nothing is ever 100%) that explains all of these facts, although it is evolving . And we&#39;ve seen in many fields that evolutionary methods give a very fast convergence.[/b]

Okay then it&#39;s go time&#33; So what about you? Give me a source of exactly how did life start. And I don&#39;t want a full summary I just want a reference. Mine is the Almighty God what&#39;s your?

Originally Posted by spoon

And your statement that we&#39;ve never observed evolution is quite odd. We observe evolution all of the time. Diseases evolve resistance to drugs, we have domesticated animals through utilising evolution to select for desirable traits. We&#39;ve observed evolution countless times in plant and animal species adapting to suit some new environment or predator.[/b]

That&#39;s not observing evolution. That&#39;s call tampering and Mutation.

On top of that, as I&#39;ve already mentioned, we have applied evolutionary theory in many fields with great results.

Originally Posted by spoon

And again, if you&#39;re discarding evolution for being &#39;just a theory&#39; you will also have to discard gravity, germs and atomic theory. All rely on the same scientific methods as evolution, and all have just as much proof (actually evolution has more independent streams of evidence than gravity).[/b]

I definately discard the scientific theory of gravity because just like all other scientific theories, it&#39;s inconclusive.