Hitchen's Challange

[DNB]

You are the one who spoke of 3500 years.

It's pertinence relates to many facets of its teachings, not just what was implemented in times past, remains as such. It has historical value, and helps to gain an understanding of who God is, who the Patriarchs are, and how the Messiah evolved from that pedigree. It does not demand that all that happened in the past, remains binding, obviously!

 

[DNB]

You font need to say more, I already get the idea how you process info

How did you manage to write on one line this time?

 

[ppp]

Unless you equally are a scientist, and can understand the dialogue either in defense of, or against the assertion of a global flood, such an endeavour is futile.

Well, I am and I can. But no, its not futile. For instance, any one with a high school diploma can understand that:

• There are not enough water molecules in the biosphere to create a flood as described.
• There were civilizations that lived and did not go away during when the flood was supposed to have occurred.
• All of the plant life would be dead by drowning.
• All of the salt water fishes would be dead because of fresh water.
• A petunia is not a marigold.
• I see four lights!
• Sloths are slow.

 

[ppp]

The advent of Christ as Messiah, seated at the right-hand of God.
After he fulfilled the Law, he qualified to be the final sacrifice, allowing God to abolish the Law's enactment.
It was only after that, that he reigns as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

I just quoted your scripture, devil that I am. You just said hollow words.

BTW, do you follow the 15 -- pause -- I mean the 10 commandments? Cause those are kinda in the OT.

 

[DNB]

Cannot even identify the most blatant
Intellectual dishonesty.
Enough.

Like I said, lack of insight and wisdom.
I obviously can't speak for Dr. Wise. But, clearly, he does not hold the same sentiment for all Christians, at least the grounds for his views.
For most problematic issues in the Bible, my views are as I described in the last post. Certain areas are accepted by an acquired faith.
...it's an absolute shame that you do not understand that extremely common principle, that is held and employed by the majority of people around the world. Everyone has faith in something, but always based on prior evidence. Otherwise, it's credulity.

 

[DNB]

Well, I am and I can. But no, its not futile. For instance, any one with a high school diploma can understand that:

• There are not enough water molecules in the biosphere to create a flood as described.
• There were civilizations that lived and did not go away during when the flood was supposed to have occurred.
• All of the plant life would be dead by drowning.
• All of the salt water fishes would be dead because of fresh water.
• A petunia is not a marigold.
• I see four lights!
• Sloths are slow.

I can't verify all yor statements, but some have merit. I've heard many other contentions also about certain animals only a being able to eat plant life indigenous to specific areas of the globe. How could the carnivores not eat the herbivores. What do you feed carnivores if the only available meat are the flesh that you're trying to preserve.
I forgot half of them.


It's problematic to a layman like myself, and I'm no challenge to anyone who's well versed in such studies. I have an acquired faith in the Bible due to the fact that I have found more reasons to believe in it, rather than not to. So, such obstacles do not undermine my faith, as I feel that an explanation is available, but beyond my grasp at the moment.

 

[lukethethird]

Like I said, lack of insight and wisdom.
I obviously can't speak for Dr. Wise. But, clearly, he does not hold the same sentiment for all Christians, at least the grounds for his views.
For most problematic issues in the Bible, my views are as I described in the last post. Certain areas are accepted by an acquired faith.
...it's an absolute shame that you do not understand that extremely common principle, that is held and employed by the majority of people around the world. Everyone has faith in something, but always based on prior evidence. Otherwise, it's credulity.

It's credulity.

 

[Audie]

It's credulity.

And super tiresome.

 

[ppp]

I can't verify all yor statements, but some have merit. I've heard many other contentions also about certain animals only a being able to eat plant life indigenous to specific areas of the globe. How could the carnivores not eat the herbivores. What do you feed carnivores if the only available meat are the flesh that you're trying to preserve.
I forgot half of them.

I think that the first one is enough. It drops the the whole idea of a global flood of a cliff to be dashed to bits on the jagged rocks below.

It's problematic to a layman like myself, and I'm no challenge to anyone who's well versed in such studies. I have an acquired faith in the Bible due to the fact that I have found more reasons to believe in it, rather than not to. So, such obstacles do not undermine my faith, as I feel that an explanation is available, but beyond my grasp at the moment.

I have no idea why believing a global flood cannot happen, or believing that the biological theory of evolution is correct, is such a problem for half the US pop of Christians. Neither issue vaguely touched on my faith when I was a Christian, and it does not bother the vast majority of Christians outside the US.

I think that y'all are just in the habit and won't let it go for pride's sake.

 

[Audie]

I think that the first one is enough. It drops the the whole idea of a global flood of a cliff to be dashed to bits on the jagged rocks below.


I have no idea why believing a global flood cannot happen, or believing that the biological theory of evolution is correct, is such a problem for half the US pop of Christians. Neither issue vaguely touched on my faith when I was a Christian, and it does not bother the vast majority of Christians outside the US.

I think that y'all are just in the habit and won't let it go for pride's sake.

They all take pride in knowing zero
about science

Dunno whose qupte it is but it goes like
"The height of stuoidity is to dismiss something you know nothing about".

 

[Sheldon]

It's called perception and insight. The capability to read between the lines, and draw accurate inductions.

They're words Jim, but not as we know them...

This was my favourite, you owe me a mouthful of Shiraz..

Faith is tantamount to wisdom, and antithetical to credulity.

Atheists lack faith, because they lack wisdom.

Stephen Hawking was an atheist, and Einstein claimed the bible was a collection of childish myths, did they lack wisdom then? That's the trouble with sweeping generalisation, they're too easily disproved.

 

[Sheldon]

Like I said in another post, certain scientists have concluded that there was a global flood. So, now we have academia against academia. Stale mate,

That is preposterously false, but by all means cite these "scientists", and their peer reviewed work, lets all take a look. Unless it was bs you just made up of course.

 

[Audie]

They're words Jim, but not as we know them...

This was my favourite, you owe me a mouthful of Shiraz..





Stephen Hawking was an atheist, and Einstein claimed the bible was a collection of childish myths, did they lack wisdom then? That's the trouble with sweeping generalisation, they're too easily disproved.

But they sure serve to fluff the ego of the
self proclaimed wise ones

Somehow not wise enough to grasp
that Noah's ark is as Einstein said.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok, you're not following, I guess?
According to the Bible, the Mosaic Law was abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ.

So a deity with limitless knowledge and power that is purportedly perfectly moral not only thought slavery was perfectly moral, and advocated it specifically in the bible, it then changed its mind?

 

[Audie]

That is preposterously false, but by all means cite these "scientists", and their peer reviewed work, lets all take a look. Unless it was bs you just made up of course.

Names and data.

One might be Dr K Wise, PhD paleontology,
who says would be yec if all the evidence in the world went against yec. Because of what tge bible seems to say.

For Dr Wise, that is intellectual dishonesty

For the uneducated, its lazy.

 

[Sheldon]

It's problematic to a layman like myself, and I'm no challenge to anyone who's well versed in such studies. I have an acquired faith in the Bible due to the fact that I have found more reasons to believe in it, rather than not to. So, such obstacles do not undermine my faith, as I feel that an explanation is available, but beyond my grasp at the moment.

Oh good grief man, you've gone from claiming scientific evidence for the global flood myth, to waving away basic facts that demonstrate it did not happen, based on nothing but closed minded appeals to faith.

How many species do you imagine Noah and his family would need to collect? How much food? All stored for almost a year on a wooden boat, made entirely by hand. It's time to stop making vague claims for wisdom, and actually look at obvious facts. Like the fact there simply isn't enough water in the earth's atmosphere to cause such a flood, if there was where did it go, what happened to fresh water creatures exactly? How many species of plant and fauna would be irrevocably destroyed in such a flood, and on and on it goes. Most importantly the geological record shows no evidence of a global flood.

 

[Sheldon]

Names and data.

One might be Dr K Wise, PhD paleontology,
who says would be yec if all the evidence in the world went against yec. Because of what tge bible seems to say.

For Dr Wise, that is intellectual dishonesty

For the uneducated, its lazy.

He gets a mention in Professor Dawkins's book The God Delusion, Dawkins didn't pull his punches either, ouch.

 

[Audie]

He gets a mention in Professor Dawkins's book The God Delusion, Dawkins didn't pull his punches either, ouch.

He gets a mention in Professor Dawkins's book The God Delusion, Dawkins didn't pull his punches either, ouch.

The only way a qualified scientist or
other educated person could say theres
evidence for noahs flood is thro' intellectual
dishonesty

 

[DNB]

They're words Jim, but not as we know them...

This was my favourite, you owe me a mouthful of Shiraz..





Stephen Hawking was an atheist, and Einstein claimed the bible was a collection of childish myths, did they lack wisdom then? That's the trouble with sweeping generalisation, they're too easily disproved.

Look up wisdom, it's not the same as knowledge. ...but then, how would you know?

 

[DNB]

That is preposterously false, but by all means cite these "scientists", and their peer reviewed work, lets all take a look. Unless it was bs you just made up of course.

Only you would make such a credulous remark.

https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/plate-tectonics.pdf
Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
New book explores Noah’s Flood; says Bible and science can get along