Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

GCThomas, I am not sure how we got off track, but I wouldn't mind if you continued your creation story. You started off where nothing went BOOM and exploded. I didn't hear an explanation of how the matter that appeared clumped, or why it exploded instead of collapsing in on itself, or how ordered star systems and galaxies formed, some clockwise, others counterclockwise, but if we can skip past that to Earth just now existing I'd like to hear what comes next. You know, the "follow it through" procedure that might have been skipped so far.

 

[gcthomas]

You think that myths of dragons meets the extraordinary evidence requirements for such extraordinary claims? And the top stegosaurus claim, crikey. It looks more lke a hippo or rhinoceros against a leaf background. The 'spines' seem to be behind the animal, while the creature itself has a large head and long ears/horns. Have you ever looked at the relative proportions of stegosaurus head/neck, and its shape? Looking vaguely like a dinosaur is not really good evidence. Stylised artwork is a poor effort, Ros. How about art from the realism camp, where lifelike details are the vogue? Less of the impressionist stuff.

One last thing: right below the alleged stegosaurus are other fantastical animals — do you think they must have existed in human history as well?

View attachment 24575

Notice how all the leafy/flowery bits around the whole carving look just like what you claim to be the spine plates?

 

[Jose Fly]

Apparently creationist logic goes something like, "If people make images of something, then that something existed".

I guess then leprechauns, fairies, and ogres are real.

 

[Cross Reference]

In order for anything of planet life to have come into existence and survive, all of both plant and animal life had to have come into existence together and in a most complete adult way for reproduction and nutrition to ever happen. End of story.

 

[gcthomas]

Do you have any sort of rationale for that rather extravagant claim? This is certainly the first time I have heard anyone claim such a nonsensical thing.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is amazing that you feel no shame in making such an dishonest claim. And combined with the Red Herring and Straw Man at the same time. Your spurious logic skills are indeed finely honed.

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You really, REALLY need to check out your logical fallacies beforehand, the ones you claim don't exist in my statement.

But, to answer the fool according to his folly,http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Really? The best you could come up with is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? You do understand that there is a fundamental difference between what that says concerning biblical inerrancy and saying the bible contains no contradictions? Of the main signers, I think that only one has ANY qualifications to be called a "biblical scholar", in fact the document calls them "evangelical scholars".

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy isn't a statement of fact, it is a statement of faith, and speaks to the inerrancy of the original autographs, not your preferred KJV. The signers are christian APOLOGISTS, meaning that they are aware that difficulties exist and the go through linguistic gymnastics to try to explain those "difficulties" away.

 

[patrick jane]

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You really, REALLY need to check out your logical fallacies beforehand, the ones you claim don't exist in my statement.Really? The best you could come up with is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? You do understand that there is a fundamental difference between what that says concerning biblical inerrancy and saying the bible contains no contradictions? Of the main signers, I think that only one has ANY qualifications to be called a "biblical scholar", in fact the document calls them "evangelical scholars".

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy isn't a statement of fact, it is a statement of faith, and speaks to the inerrancy of the original autographs, not your preferred KJV. The signers are christian APOLOGISTS, meaning that they are aware that difficulties exist and the go through linguistic gymnastics to try to explain those "difficulties" away.

The Silent Fart claims another victim -

 

[Silent Hunter]

....the challenge was contradictions in the Bible that effect doctrine. The challenge was for you to come up with even one Bible contradiction that changes any doctrine or belief.

If there are no contradictions in the bible that "changes any doctrine or belief", why there are 30,000+ (and growing) sects of christianity all with differing doctrines and beliefs?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Cross Reference]

Do you have any sort of rationale for that rather extravagant claim? This is certainly the first time I have heard anyone claim such a nonsensical thing.

Who are you addressing? If me, you are OTL!

 

[gcthomas]

Who are you addressing? If me, you are OTL!

I was addressing you, CR. :thumb:

 

[Rosenritter]

If there are no contradictions in the bible that "changes any doctrine or belief", why there are 30,000+ (and growing) sects of christianity all with differing doctrines and beliefs?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Money, power, pride, hardness of heart. Don't tell me you are going to argue that also?

 

[Rosenritter]

You think that myths of dragons meets the extraordinary evidence requirements for such extraordinary claims? And the top stegosaurus claim, crikey. It looks more lke a hippo or rhinoceros against a leaf background. The 'spines' seem to be behind the animal, while the creature itself has a large head and long ears/horns. Have you ever looked at the relative proportions of stegosaurus head/neck, and its shape? Looking vaguely like a dinosaur is not really good evidence. Stylised artwork is a poor effort, Ros. How about art from the realism camp, where lifelike details are the vogue? Less of the impressionist stuff.

One last thing: right below the alleged stegosaurus are other fantastical animals — do you think they must have existed in human history as well?

View attachment 24575

Notice how all the leafy/flowery bits around the whole carving look just like what you claim to be the spine plates?

So it doesn't look like a Stegosaurus? i didn't say Stegosaurus. You did. I said Bhuddist temple.

Gotcha.

 

[Cross Reference]

I was addressing you, CR. :thumb:

Well, what I stated as factual, is. It is "self proving". Try it out in the lab and be convinced.

 

[Silent Hunter]

If there are no contradictions in the bible that "changes any doctrine or belief", why there are 30,000+ (and growing) sects of christianity all with differing doctrines and beliefs?

Money, power, pride, hardness of heart. Don't tell me you are going to argue that also?

And you know without doubt that you follow the correct "doctrines or beliefs" because...?

 

[gcthomas]

Well, what I stated as factual, is. It is "self proving". Try it out in the lab and be convinced.

Self proving? Er, OK. Why don't you just carry on with that, and, um, I'll start walking away slowly ….

 

[gcthomas]

So it doesn't look like a Stegosaurus? i didn't say Stegosaurus. You did. I said Bhuddist temple.

Gotcha.

I searched for the origin of the image, and found umpteen creationist websites claiming it was a stegosaurus, and since you seem to frequent these sites given your naïve reposting of their theories I assumed you'd concur.

Do you think all those other fantastical creatures on the same display also exist? If not, why not?

 

[patrick jane]

God's Not Dead, He's Surely Alive !!!

 

[Cross Reference]

Doctrines? Religious beliefs? What has that to do with the god of evolution who persuades you to ask such silly questions? Maybe a better question would to ask why you hate God?

 

[Rosenritter]

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You really, REALLY need to check out your logical fallacies beforehand, the ones you claim don't exist in my statement.Really? The best you could come up with is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? You do understand that there is a fundamental difference between what that says concerning biblical inerrancy and saying the bible contains no contradictions? Of the main signers, I think that only one has ANY qualifications to be called a "biblical scholar", in fact the document calls them "evangelical scholars".

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy isn't a statement of fact, it is a statement of faith, and speaks to the inerrancy of the original autographs, not your preferred KJV. The signers are christian APOLOGISTS, meaning that they are aware that difficulties exist and the go through linguistic gymnastics to try to explain those "difficulties" away.

And you, of course, are an elitist "biblical scholar" which is qualified to determine who else counts as a "biblical scholar" and who does not? The reason I only gave three hundred is because it is so easy. Three hundred out of Chicago at that one place and time, many more besides in other cities and other times. You issued an absolute that "not one living or dead."

I think that you don't actually care about this topic at all, but just want to argue about something. Which is why you are inventing positions and hoping someone will rush to fill them, so you will have something new to argue about. But, if you are legitimately concerned about discerning between English translations of scripture, please say so, plainly and clearly, and state what research you've done to date that you're bringing to the table. Perhaps a biblical scholar on this thread will talk to you then.

 

[Rosenritter]

I searched for the origin of the image, and found umpteen creationist websites claiming it was a stegosaurus, and since you seem to frequent these sites given your naïve reposting of their theories I assumed you'd concur.

Do you think all those other fantastical creatures on the same display also exist? If not, why not?

Show that picture to a child, and he will say "Stegosaurus." Show it to an evolutionist, and he says "Not Stegosaurus its a hippo!" I rest my case.