Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Malrix

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flood
« on: March 09, 2006, 07:47:46 AM »
Quote from: "I are a believer"
Yeah unluckily all the unicorns died....Noah took two males...he figured they both looked somewhat girly. Yes I wanted to add comedy into your serious conversation...Dont hate me.


No I don't think he took 2 males, I think he never found them in the first place, because, you know, they were blonds and ran off the edge of the Earth. :lol:

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 09, 2006, 07:43:51 AM »
In your arguments you make a lot of assumptions and build on them.
Just some of them:
You assume preflood people weren't as intelligent. Incorrect assumption considering that each one lived at least 800 years. How much stuff can you learn in 800 years? how far can you travel?

You assume there was Africa, America, Asia and so on, again assumption you cannot prove.

Main Ocean was not connected to the Great Deep, you should really check out halos.com and watch "The Young Age of the Earth" video, closer to the middle it explains how flood started and why we have ocean ridges and why main mountain ranges are parallel to them.

And then of course, there is the formation of Great Canyon, or do you still believe Colorado River did it?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 08, 2006, 05:35:52 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Absolutely.  So far I think I have it pretty much planned out with my arguments.  The problem is that I have to do it in 5-6 pages so it will have to be short and sweet.  I'm confident though.


Is it something you have to do for school?
What are your arguments?

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 08, 2006, 02:14:12 PM »
Hey, Knight, are you still writing that paper about how flood didn't happened?

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Well obviously...
« on: March 08, 2006, 09:52:15 AM »
Quote from: "I are a believer"
How can you morons think the earth is a sphere? I mean if it was and we are rotating at over 200 mph then how come when we jump we dont end over 123 feet away?


How come when you jump on the a moving train or plane you don't end up crashing into the back wall of it?

Quote from: "I are a believer"
and also if the world was always orbiting the sun  then how come we havent stopped from no momentum yet?

Earth is slowing down (leap year is the proof).
You stop from momentum because of the opposing force. Space has very little opposing force, and it hasn't been too much time from the creation to make any noticeable difference in Earth's orbital speed.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 08, 2006, 07:08:12 AM »
Quote from: "Believer"
woot candy!!

We got a sucker

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 07, 2006, 07:54:13 PM »
One picture is worth a thousand words



This is the basic idea.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / What convinced you of the Earth's flatness?
« on: March 07, 2006, 10:36:17 AM »
According to my poll there is only one Flat Earthiner circulating in this forum, we may have to wait untill he gets to this topic to answer the question.

Great A'Tuin, if you really want to know the motives of FE, it would probably be better and faster if you search thru some other topics on this site, especially the FAQ.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 07, 2006, 08:37:04 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"


Malrix: any disagreements with my presentation?  This is just what I got out of that video.

-Erasmus


Your pictures are good, only a little adjustment.
Remember the elevations of the banks of the river?
Origination: 9010 ft
Before it enters Canyon: 3110ft
Highest point of the Canyon: 8900ft
point where river exits the canyon: 2200 ft

Here is what probably happened:
The lake was in the valley between the Origination and the Highest point of the canyon, so the highest point of the canyon was like a dam. At some point water started to go over the dam and since the rock was still soft from the flood, water washed out that dam very rapidly with the help of a process called hydraulic plucking. After the initial trench was washed out by the process, the walls kept eroding until they harden, and Colorado river has done some damage to the bottom and the walls as well.

Same thing happened after Mt. St-Helens and then one of the lakes overflowed. The canyon that was formed is a lot smaller, but the same basic idea

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 07, 2006, 07:53:57 AM »
Quote from: "Knight"
I just want to make sure that this poll doesn't mean that a round earth evolutionist implies "Godless."  But good idea for this poll if people actually do it.


Doesn't imply anything, just pick the one that fits you best.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 07, 2006, 07:52:15 AM »
We got one!!!

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 06, 2006, 03:34:53 PM »
Are there any Flat-Earthiner around this Flat-Earth Society forum?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 06, 2006, 03:30:32 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I'd like to add a third, namely that granite cooled with something in it that wasn't polonium when it cooled, but eventually decayed to polonium.  The question here is, can polonium decay form halos in solid granite?  It's certainly the case that radiation can discolor solid materials; that's how photography works, after all.


Wouldn't that something leave it's halo as well? And what else can decay into Po other than U? I don't know enough about rocks and radioactivity to answer these questions, as well as the ones about granite being produced by something that is non-granite.
In any case it is the matter of faith. You may believe that there was some other element that decayed into Po and granite was formed by non-granite, and I believe that it is one of the proofs of creation.

Quote

I might conclude from that that we have no way of knowing that an hour was the same length six thousand years ago as it is today; maybe one day, back then, was really 240 million years (as we measure time today), instead of 24 hours (as we measure it today).  Furthermore, perhaps plants during Creation Week could survive indefinitely without the sun (perhaps they were, like Adam and Eve, immortal).


You are right an hour wasn't the same amount of time it is now, it was probably shorter. I'm sure you know that Earth is slowing down in it's revolution around sun (that's why we have leap year), and also slowing down the speed of revolutions around it's axes (it's what they call leap second). So as light, it also is slowing down. Even Big Bang theorizes that light travalled a lot faster at time zero. So if light was a lot faster, why couldn't the half-lifes?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 06, 2006, 02:45:26 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"

2.  The top edge of the Grand Canyon (where the CR enters) is approximately 8,000 feet


Wrong. It's 3110ft. River doesn't enter at the highest point of the Canyon. Read my post carefully.

Elevation of the banks of the Colorado River are as follows:
Origination: 9010 ft
Before it enters Canyon: 3110ft
Hightest point of the Canyon: 8900ft
point where river exits the canyon: 2200 ft

try again.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 06, 2006, 09:04:59 AM »
Just want to know some statistics

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 06, 2006, 08:33:03 AM »
Thank you for welcoming me back. I'll be checking things out from time to time, but not as often as before.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Anyway, I guess we're still not clear on the Grand Canyon issue.  Does the Colorado River *currently* flow from 3110 ft. to 8900 ft. to 2200 ft.?  Or are you saying that asserting that the river carved the canyon in the past entails that it must have flowed in said pattern at some point in the past?


No, now it flows from 3110ft to 2200 thru the canyon with a constant drop, but at some point when there was no canyon it would have been problematic for it to climb to 8900ft and then drop to 2200ft.

I'm glad you checked the halos out.

In my opinion, based on the information we know now, there are 2 ways how Po halos appeared in the granite:
1. U decayed into Po while the rock was molten (erasing any evidence of U halos), as soon as Po was formed the rock was cooled completely in time that is less than the half life of Po-214 (which is 200 microseconds), because Po-214 halo is present in the granite.
2. Granite was created very rapidly with Po already in it.

That they are trying to challenge in the Uniformitarian Principle (the one that says the way things are now is the way they were alwas been) that science is built on. They showed that if you melt a piece of granite and cool you will not get the same granite piece, but instead it will have a lot smaller crystal size than the original. As of yet no one was able to reproduce the crystal sizes that we see in nature's granite (some crystals get up to several feet in size) by melting the rock and cooling it slowly. And again, in my opinion there are 2 ways to explain the fact:
1. Granite did not cool down for millions of years like evolution teaches, but rather was formed some other yet undiscovered way.
2. Uniformitarian Principle is wrong.

Since Uniformitarian Principle was written by man (that were not inspired by God) it could very well be wrong, which makes any dating method completely useless.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 05, 2006, 11:43:33 PM »
Quote from: "Cinlef"

You comments on the Grand Canyon have been dealt with well by Erasmus; so I'll just add you may want to look into the concept of erosion (which is High School level geography class material here in Canada).


Really?
From http://www.kaibab.org/misc/gc_coriv.htm
"The headwaters of the Colorado River are located in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. From here, at an altitude of 9,010 feet, the Colorado begins it's flow southwestward toward the Gulf o f California and the Pacific Ocean. By the time the river enters the Grand Canyon, at Lee's Ferry, its altitude has fallen to 3,110 feet, dropping over one mile since its beginning. The river will drop another 2,200 feet before it reaches the other end of the Grand Canyon, the Grand Wash Cliffs, 277 miles away."

So, again, back when it just started eroding Grand Canyon (no canyon exists yet, just the river) It originates at 9010ft flows downhill to 3110ft until the place it starts eroding (future beginning of Grand Canyon), then it flows uphill to 8900ft (top part of canyon) and drops to 2200ft (at the place where canyon ends). So it goes from 3110ft to 8900ft to 2200ft in just 277 miles.

How many ignorance points does this worth?

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 05, 2006, 11:25:34 PM »
To the defence of 6 literal days of creation:

Exodus 20
9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here, we see a direct correlation between a 6-day working week, 1-day rest that God told to keep for the people and 6-day creation, 1-day rest of God during the creation week.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 02, 2006, 07:29:39 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
QED.


Not quite QED yet, you forgot that insects were created on day 4 that are supposed to polonaise plants.

Quote

What exactly do you mean by the "top" of the Grand Canyon, and what do you mean by "higher"?  Higher in absolute elevation, or higher up from the bottom of the Canyon?

Also, about the Grand Canyon gives its length as 277 miles.  You're suggesting that a point at the end of the river (or, 3 miles away the end) is 0.8 miles higher than that end?  Sounds a little fishy to me.  And how would this imply that the river (which is inside the canyon) is flowing uphill?


The river has to flow downhill and slowly make the canyon deeper and deeper, right? So if you look at the elevation where river originates (2800 ft) and the elevation of the delta (1800 ft), there should be constant drop over the whole duration of the river (1,450 mi). So, if Colorado River formed that canyon, there has to the time where there was no canyon, but just a river, flowing on dirt (at the same elevation as the top of the Canyon now) right? So back in the times when Colorado river was just a river and just started to make Grand Canyon you would be able to float downstream all the way from the beginning to the end and your elevation will always drop. But it doesn't. Top of the Canyon has elevation of around 8,200 ft. So, back when there was no canyon yet, your Colorado river originates at 2800 ft flows thru elevation of 8200 ft and drops back to 1800 ft. Some river!


Quote
What? Adam had a writing system?


Adam could walk, talk, name all the animals, and get married in one day, I'm sure he could write too.

Quote
It doesn't say anything about writing Genesis 1 or 2! Did God create writing systems, or did Adam make it up himself? How do you know, if the Bible doesn't say so?

I'd like some references to the Bible account for the creation of writing please.


Bible doesn't say that he knew how to breathe and go to the bathroom too; would you like some evidence that he could in writing for that as well?

Quote
Wait a second. Isn't this just your interpretation?

It's obvious that these events happened *after* the rest of creation:


There are at least 3 different descriptions of live of Jesus Christ in the Bible, one goes after another, is it obvious that where 3 Jesus Christs too?


You can pick at the Bible all you want, it wouldn't make much difference to me or to any Christian, it makes sense for us when we read it. I tried to show you how it makes sense from my point of view you refuse. And that's understandable; no one wants to be converted away from their religion to a different one.
I do the same thing when I read something about evolution; I question everything to the tiniest detail, whereas you will take it on faith. The difference is that I admit mine is a religion but you will argue that yours is not.

I'm really getting tired of posting on serious subjects, especially by myself. This is supposed to be Flat-Earth Creationists forum, but all they do is defend their stupid Flat/Round Earth theory like it makes a difference in the long run. God wouldn’t care what shape of the world you believe in, what should matter is weather you accept Jesus or not.

So, I think I'm done here.

Erasmus you were interesting person to talk to. When you get a chance download those videos from drdino.com and halos.com I told you about, and I hope they will change your opinion, if not than at least you’d know everything there is to know about creationists, and why they think the way they do.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 02, 2006, 05:27:12 PM »
Look, Knight, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you WILL do it. Just because you can go buy a gun and shoot first person you meet, it doesn't mean that you'll actually do it. Just because you CAN take the stairs to the 57-floor dosn't mean that you will actually DO it.
And what God DID do is written in the BIBLE.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 02, 2006, 10:54:08 AM »
Quote
The point, Malrix, is that you believe in an all-powerful God.  Therefore you cannot use as evidence the scientific law that plants need sunshine and that they need insects.  Your very own belief contradicts this argument and makes it useless.


How does that make sense? The difference in my belief and yours in that I believe plants were created and not evolved. After they are here in full form they obey all the laws (that plants need sunshine and that they need insects) apply to both cases. I can use any law of nature to prove my point. Plants and all living thing were created based on the set laws of nature. How does that contradict my believe?

Quote
What is that not possible with the all-powerful God?  In fact, what makes you think that he needed the insects to pollenize the plants at all?  Do plants absolutely need pollen to reproduce?  Because apparently humans don't need sperm to reproduce (see the birth of Jesus).  


First of all, plants do need pollen to reproduce (most of them do), You should have learned that in your bonanics class.

Second: Jesus was no ordinary man, he was son of God (special case). Are there any other humans you know of that reproduce asexually?

Quote
Once again, your argument is defeated by your very own beliefs.

 ..here is that strange statement again, are you sure you read my post?

Quote
Glad to see you're comparing the Old Testament to a research paper...


I am comparing the styles of writing.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 02, 2006, 08:51:26 AM »
Why, all of the sudden, such a big interest to the Bible? When I said post the facts I meant the ones like Jurassic layer is 270 (or whatever it ) mil years old because of such and such... You know stuff like that.

Not that I mind explaining Bible to you or anything...

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 02, 2006, 08:44:34 AM »
Quote
The 24-hour day... before days were even measured to be 24 hours. Anyway, I disagree with your analysis. If God could have light and plants before the sun, don't you think he could sustain those plants? That's just speaking in terms of don't you think God is more powerful than to be held to a wimpy scientific law that you're talking about?


And He did sustain them, by making sun on the next day. And yes He is more powerful; He could just make the sun on the next day instead of waiting for a thousand years. The word used in the chapter means one 24-hour day even if you go back to the original scriptures.
And I guess He polonaise them plants himself for another bunch of years before He created birds and insects.

Quote
Er, we have plants *after* light. Plants don't need sunlight necessarily, they just need an energy source. For many plants, that comes in the form of light of a certain frequency, but any white light will have some energy in that band. Furthermore, there are plants growing deep underwater where no sunlight reaches. So, yeah, not really an objection to the "not-really-24-hour-days" theory.


There was light until day 4, there was no light source, but there was light, God is light (this mentions all over the place in scripture)
Quote

Quote

Now we have close time-sensitive relationship between days 3, 4, and 5, and since the word "day" is used for all of those periods of time it is save to assume that days 1,2, and 6 are the same periods of time as 2,3, and 4.
So you see, that day actually means 1 literal 24-hour day.

Hrm, worst proof ever? Perhaps!

And I guess, when a whole lot of nothing exploded and made everything is a much better one...

Quote
The Colorado river? Dug it?


What's with the question marks? You are not sure?
Did you know that the top of the Grand canyon about 280 miles after the place river originates from is higher than in both ends by at least 4000 ft? Did you know that river cannot flow uphill? And where in the delta of that river? Where is all the dirt that was washed out by it?


Quote
Genesis 1:11-13,21-23 discusses days three and five, in which God creates plants on day 3 (including those in the field) and water beasts and fowl on day 5. On day 6, God creates the beasts of the field, and then he creates man (Gen 1:24-26).

Now. Genesis 2 starts by saying that God finished the heavens and the earth on the seventh day. Then it rained, and then the plants of the field grew (Gen 2:5), and only then (Gen 2:7) was man made from the dust of the earth. Then (Gen 2:19) God created beasts of the field and birds of the air, etc. for man to have dominion over. This quite clearly happens in a certain order, and quite clearly *after* the sixth day.

So, which is it? How do you resolve this and still read the Bible literally?


Genesis 2:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

"These are the Generations of ..." - this phrase is found in Genesis 10 times, and after each one the style of writing changes - it simply means that different people wrote this part.
So from Genesis 2:4 different author (probably Adam himself) writes in detail what happened the in the first week. BTW there was no rain in the original creation Genesis 2.5-6 says:
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Mist went up and watered everything.
And notice how in second chapter after "the generations of..." and all the way to the end of chapter God is referred to as "LORD God" instead of just God, meaning there was a different author to it.

So back to Adam's story, Adam describe his own creation and creation of things around him and for him: Genesis 2:7 tells us how God made man and put him in the garden that He planted for man (still day 6) and then it describes rivers in that garden (still day 6) and some other things, but then God made all the animals in that garden (the same ones God originally made on day 5 and 4), God brought them to Adam so he could name them (still day 6). And then God made Eve. (still day 6).

So you see, Genesis 1 is a summary of what happened first week, Genesis 2 describes the same week, but in more detail, especially day 6, when the man was created and also things that immediately surround him were created. It's kind of like an abstract before the main texts, all research papers are written this way. First, you have an abstract that explains everything briefly and then you have details.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 09:55:04 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote
If you have any facts that you think don't fit creation story, please post them here


I'm not sure I have any facts to dispute the story at this time.  However, I believe that it could be interpreted that the "six days" did not actually equate to be 144 hours.  It could be a story which symbolizes the creation over a period of time which represents what might have really occurred.


Good observation. Lets follow the sequence of events that took place in Genesis 1:

Day 1: creation of light
Day 2: creation of Earth, it's atmosphere and ocean
Day 3: creation of Land and plants
Day 4: creation of Sun, Moon and stars
Day 5: creation of living things that swim and living things that fly.
Day 6: creation of land animals and men.

So, we have plants before sun - how long can a plant survive without sun?
Next, we have insects/birds that polonaise plants on day 5, and plants on day 3.

Now we have close time-sensitive relationship between days 3, 4, and 5, and since the word "day" is used for all of those periods of time it is save to assume that days 1,2, and 6 are the same periods of time as 2,3, and 4.
So you see, that day actually means 1 literal 24-hour day.

I would like to ask those people who think flood didn't happen, how the Grand canyon was formed?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: March 01, 2006, 09:01:47 PM »
Quote from: "flyingleaf"


No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?


My dad spent 2 years in Deputatski (little settlement beyond the arctic circle in Russia) He sais it is dark for half a year and light for half a year. Would that count?

And, I, myself, spent 2.5 years in Saint-Petersburg (Russia) where, around May for a month or so, never gets completely dark (it will dim for about 2 hours and will be light again it is called "White Nights"). How does you model explain such phenomenon?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 08:13:17 PM »
You people keep saying "interpret the Bible" it's not that complicated, you can just read it, just open Genesis and start reading:
Genesis 1
"1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Hmm.. I wonder what that could mean? Maybe, just maybe, it means that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? or do you need some kind of a guru to explain that to you?

Lets keep going then:
Genesis 1
"11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13. And the evening and the morning were the third day."

That probably means that land plants were created on the third day of creation, what do you think?

...and it goes on and starts explaining what happens next, in the same type of a language.
So, again, I stand by my previous posts that Bible and evolution are not combatable. And why is it so hard for you to accept?

Probably each fact and observation can be interpreted to fit both evolution and creation; I picked creation because I like it better. If you have any facts that you think don't fit creation story, please post them here and I will try to explain them from creation point of view. One request: no links please, because I'll start linking too and the topic will die (happened before).

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 01:58:25 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Maybe God set them; that's fine with me for the purposes of this argument.  My point was to show that God "set the mechanism in motion", and that you don't have any reason to say that speciation / macroevolution *isn't* part of the mechanism he intended.


First: The intention of God was to create a paradise where all kinds of animals, including humans, live without need and death (making any kind of evolution impossible because it requires a lot of things to die before a new kind forms), which He did. Nothing died until the fall of men. After Adam's sin, the laws were rearranged (by God or natural processes). So the world we live in now is a junkyard compared to the original creation.

Second: If macroevolution was "intended process" why bother with all the pairs of animals and Noah's family, just flood everything and let it "evolve on it's own".
So no, in my view macroevolution was not intended.

Quote
Yeah, I don't know what it means "preserve his word".  Does that mean he makes sure it's always true?


Yes, makes sure that it stays true and doesn't become changed or corrupt. That doesn't mean that all versions of Bible are not corrupt, but at least one of them will keep all the intended meanings without too much of distortions. And, obviously, it is the one I am using. :D

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 01:34:22 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"


And this makes my God different from yours how?  


I mentioned that earlier.

Quote
So it is your belief that adaptation to the environment does occur, but that it somehow must stop occurring at some point so the species doesn't change too much and become...more advanced.  As far as I can tell, adaptation to the environment over time would yield evolution.  But maybe there's a passage in the Old Testament which says something about evolution not existing.  Which takes us to the next point.


There are limits to adaptation. You can change by turning on or off all of the millions of genes you already have in your DNA, but there is no way you will add more genetic information. Natural selection select it does not create. And so far, where were not a whole lot of positive mutation been found, if there are any.

Quote
Logic is not your game, don't try to ruin it by making outlandish statements like this.  You're basing your own (or perhaps somebody else's) interpretation of the Bible as the only way to interpret it.  Perhaps Genesis is...a story.  Something that isn't factual but that gets a point across.  Something that attempts to figure out God's motives--when in fact this isn't possible.  
Bible:  Written by man.


Bible:  Written by men inspired by God.
Like I said before I believe in God from the Bible, therefore the Bible for me true.
Genesis describes everything in the plainest language possible; it describes what was created when. You don't need the interpreter to read that Earth was created before sun. You may not believe it, for those people who do believe the Bible – evolution is not possible because of the contradictions I mentioned earlier.

And like I said before, you may believe whatever you wish, but if it contradicts the Bible, it is not the God of the Bible you believe in, but rather something else.

Quote
Zero.  I have never seen nor heard Grizzly bears razing cities.  But I have seen Godzilla razing cities.


Me too, that was one nice movie. :)
[/quote]

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 09:52:47 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"

That still makes his just as valid as yours.


I never said mine was valid, and his wasn't. All it is, is mine is scriptural and his isn't, unless he will write his own Scripture.

Quote
Some people believe that God created evolution, and although this is not supported by the bible, it's not any less likely to be true.


Again, they can belive anything they want, but it is not sciptural.

Quote

Could you tell me where in the bible is condones gays?


Bible verse Leviticus 18:22

KJV: (King James Version):
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination

LB: (Living Bible):
Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin

NIV: (New International Version)
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

NLT: (New Living Translation):
Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin

RSV: (Revised Standard Version):
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model
« on: March 01, 2006, 08:55:16 AM »
Knight, like I said before, we believe in a different God. You created your God in your imagination; I get mine from the Bible.

I am not a catholic, and I don't care what they do or say. They did many things that are not biblical including gay priests and accepting evolution, it has become very corrupt because they set their own doctrines instead of taking them from the Bible. I don't even think they use the same version of Bible as me.

Quote
Which version of creation do you believe in? Genesis or Adam and Eve. Cause if you look closely, you'll see that there are two separate stories.


Please, enlighten me further.

Quote
Maybe God *intended* evolution by natural selection, because he saw a Universe that ran entirely on its own and didn't require his constant intervention to be more beautiful, elegant, and efficient. Do you believe that God needs to push the planets?


He did intend natural selection, he did intend adaptation to the environment - within a kind. That is why creation was over in 6 days, and there was no creation after that, only adaptation.
Gravity pushes planets, not God. But, explain this to me: Why does gravity exists?, for that matter why any of the physics laws exists? who/what set them?

Quote

Quote

If he is powerful enough to create life (in any form) wouldn't He be powerful enough to preserver His word?



I don't really know what this means.


It means that if He has power to create life, He certainly has enough power to preserve the Bible (His word means Bible).

Quote
Plenty of legends mention dragons... how come they aren't regularly seen today devouring ships or razing cities to the ground?

How many times have you seen or heard that Grizzly bears razing cities? Just a couple weeks ago there was a story on CNN about the "lost world" somewhere in Asia, where scientists discovered new species of birds, how come those birds were not seen regularly? And there are a lot more places like that. Africa has a swamp the size of Texas that is completely unexplored, and where there was a lot of citing. People who saw something like that would think twice before going around and telling the story, because of the fear of being laughed at (after all those creatures died 70 mil years ago). Crypto-zoology is the name of the field, check it out.

And for those of you who think Evolution and creation can be true consider this:

Bible: Earth before sun            
Evolution: Sun before earth
Bible: Oceans before land                  
Evolution: Land before oceans
Bible: Light before sun                          
Evolution: Sun before light
Bible: Land plants first                          
Evolution: Marine life first
Bible: Fruit trees before fish                  
Evolution: Fish before fruit trees
Bible: Fish before insects                        
Evolution: Insects before fish
Bible: Plants before sun                        
Evolution: Sun before plants
Bible: Marine mammals before land mammals                
Evolution: Land mammals before marine mammals
Bible: Birds before reptiles                  
Evolution: Reptiles before birds
Bible: Atmosphere between 2 layers of water        
Evolution: Atmosphere above water

As you can see everything about evolution is backward compared to the Bible. So, no, one cannot logically believe both, It's one or the other.

Pages: [1] 2