44 Reasons Creationists Are Deceptive

Im not looking for your vivid imagination, Im looking for the facts. If you dont know its better to say you dont know.
What if they found a lion carcass did they feed the lion the other lion? And how did noah select which lion? And how did he gather all tthe animals in one spot? How did he get to the galapagos to get the only species there and how did he transport them back to his ark...a smaller ark?

 

According to Bible Chronology Noah live around Sumerian times. Sumerians used the septuagesimal number system (60), not the later Semetic decimal system (10). So if we divide 950 by 6 we get Noah's age at about 160.
Hmm.

 

Yes depends what theologist you ask.......160 is still in the finding bigfoot range.

 

I appreciate that you answered the question.

 

Good one! Yep, Jesus doesn't care about us enough to have, in 2000 years of being "alive", explained that at all. It's funny, but Jesus seems exactly as real as Zeus and Krishna and Thor and bigfoot.

 

Tuatara, when their cult makes no sense whatsoever the default explanation is ALWAYS "god did it, so I don't have to rationally think about this question anymore!!"

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the Bible is outdated, obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

.....demands the person reading his book with the talking donkey in it.....

 

Human pride is getting in the way of some people believing in science, and not being willing to let go of ancient legends.

 

Then the fairy-tale-like "resurrection/return" is also metaphorical, so best to enjoy this life as much as possible since "Jesus" is not going to magically return from the dead to give you "eternal life", I'm afraid.

 

God of gaps - science of gaps, no difference. Using your naturalism imagination is no better than using the supernatural imagination.

 

Yah for sure ! When logic and rational thought fails ... make up fairy tales

 

I believe Chimps are believed to be the most recent common ancestor but in general I think the Jury is still out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

Not so much imagination, but a series of experiments that will either dismiss or validate a series of hypothesiss'.

Which is better than religion that was wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually we did. Not sure if you have missed all of the evidence that suggests so.

 

These experiments do not provide enough support to the multitude of abiogenesis hypotheses for us to conclude with certainty the conditions and ingredients for life were not dependent on a Creator. Ultimately, all of the theories rely on a single belief, that over enough time and enough chances, the opportunity would come for life to form. That is not testable.

I subscribe more to the Stephen C. Meyer intelligent design theory than traditional creationists' strict Bible interpretation methods of examining and practicing science. I'll defend the integrity of both. Creationists do not lie. If they believe it, it's not a lie. Incidentally, what they do is no different than what many paleontologists do, which is to arrange the physical evidence in a manner that best suits their conclusions. The homo species is the best example. People see that ape to man evolution bumper sticker, and they actually believe scientists have so ordered that evolution of man. That's a crock.

 

We don't have an answer, so Jebuz did it.

 

And it is just as easy to continue with my vivid imagination as you were previously told. So, IMHO the better question to be answered is why do you continue presenting complex questions when you already know that I am exercising my 'vivid imagination'? You're not looking for vivid imagination yet you keep asking for facts that would be a set of information that has not been made available... and even that condition was made known to you. Loaded questions anyone?

 

Wrong! We do think 'rationally' however we use Theological expressions when dealing with Theological subject matter.

.

I asked for evidence and you proclaim that it would require you to read a particular book... that would be an admission that the particular book then is evidence. Thank you.

 

Oh you mean like this: "The only logical explanation ! Aliens did it !!

But Captain ..... I don't think that elephants going to fit ...."?

 

Not quite The logical and rational explanation for the Flood and Ark story is that it is a morality tale a not a literal event.

Sure we can make up fantastical explanations such as some alien race came and used a teleportation device to collect 2 of every land species but, even this does not explain how they would fit these creatures onto the ship.

We have to make up even more fantastical stuff such a your "honey I shrunk the kids" analogy.

Even then we are still at a loss to explain why there is no global flood layer. For this to be explained we would have to assume that these aliens (or God(s) as these aliens have power approaching that of a God) wanted to remove all traces of the flood.

Why on earth God would want to do something that would disprove the Bible story? This is quite odd and irrational. Why would God want the science of future generations to disprove the flood story and thus decrease the credibility of the Bible?

Some religious adherents in the midst of mind twisting denial claim "the Devil did it", as a last ditch attempt to avoid reality. This is equally humorous and illogical on many levels. Why would God allow such a thing ? If God did allow such a thing it would be absurd for that God to expect the logical and rational people who came later to believe such a story.

 

I told you if you dont know just say you dont know or better yet dont respond at all and let someone else answer.

 

Yes I assumed which is why I used the term "you seemed" and I gave my valid reasons as to why, which I noticed you completely ignored. You did not impress upon others because of what I assumed. You're line of arguing in their threads is what gave them the impression. Before we even started our argument Freedom Seeker said to you "You seem to smart to actually believe that the flood narrative in the bible is actually real." which means you gave him the impression also that you were arguing for the flood.

 

Why not have a little fun with the subject matter. As I pointed out.... the ark has never been discovered so there is no real knowing how big it was or what materials were used in fabricating it; and as you pointed out in your belief that it is just a lesson in morality and not a literal tale. If what you believe is true, then please explain what morality is involved in only saving two of every species of living things on the Earth except man in which case there were several members of the specie which were saved?

Like I said said previously ... show a BETTER explanation of the so-called lesson in morality.

How does it disprove the 'Bible' if in fact the story offered to you and your method of believing that lesson in morality? Even then the 'Bible' would have served its purpose regardless of how it was put into words.

Well, some non-theists also concoct some rather silly analogies such as Russell's Teapot or the FSM. The bottom line on such thinking is; who is right? The theists, the non-theists, or the aliens? You asked the question "why would God do such a thing as......" Well, according to you the answer was given by you... to provide a lesson in morality. And you having received that lesson shows that the 'Bible' has not been proven wrong.

 

You are asking me to abandon the discussion which I cannot do under the rules of debate. But of course we both know that those rules are not the Rules of this Forum... however, IMHO, the principle still applies under the rule of acquiescence.

"acquiescence - Legal Definition
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.41/images/dictionaries/law.jpg
n
Tacit or passive conduct that implies agreement or consent. For example, if one makes a statement and another is silent when an objection should be forthcoming, the second person’s acquiescence to the statement may be inferred.


Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/acquiescence#6DYyCB8A8aUUXZqz.99


http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
Rules of debate:
"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]2. Each team has two or three constructive speeches, and two to three rebuttal speeches. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate."[/FONT]

 

We don't have an answer, but something other than God did it.

 

We arent debating, this is an informal internet discussion forum. I asked you a question and you dont have an answer. Its ok to say you dont know

- - - Updated - - -

We arent debating, this is an informal internet discussion forum. I asked you a question and you dont have an answer. Its ok to say you dont know

 

It is also OK not to be redundant in your postings and in your requests. An answer was given and a rationale was given. Don't like what you receive.... Oh well.