"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Subduction Zone]

So you say, doesn't prove a thing, All your showing is your lack of knowledge of even knowing about the first earth age of the dinosaurs.
Had you any knowledge about the first earth age, you could explain it.

I may have over step myself back, but that does not take away the fact of the first earth age.
I went on what I knew and saw back years ago, which since then, things have changed bringing new things about.o,

But the human footprints and the dinosaurs footprints are still in question, from what I have gathered.

But I leave that, until either side has prove them to be false or true.

Whether they are false or true, does not take away the fact of the first earth age.

No, there is no doubt about the footprints you mentioned. They are fake. And sorry, but you have merely reinterpreted the Bible to suit your fancy.

Remember, I don't just say. Unlike you I know. Knowledge is demonstrable and I can explain how we know that you are wrong. You make up nonsense and have a rather strange idea that you proved something. My side can prove your ideas to be false. But if you refuse to learn no one can help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe then, you can explain about the Earth's history about the first earth age.

Since you come across like you know so much about the Earth's history.

You have no concept about what I'm saying about the first earth age. If you did, then you would explain it.

I already explained this to you. If your idea of a "first age" is false then there is nothing to explain. You have merely made a bad interpretation of the Bible. A book that you do not appear to understand since you rely on the KJV and won't consider more recent and more accurate translations, nor do you seem to wish to look back at the Hebrew texts that the Old Testament came from. Even if you did since the accuracy of those in regard to the distant past are worthless there are other ways to study the history of the Earth. I did start you out on a geology lesson in that other thread, and you disappeared.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

While God doesn't speak to me

I'm sorry to hear that. That must be frustrating as a theist.

ook evolutionist like creationists the first thing they run to, to either to prove their case, is to the book of Genesis.

I don't recall seeing lawsuits to teach the Hindu or Native or Aboriginal or Taoist or Buddhist or etc in science class.

Look it still doesn't take away from the fact about the first earth age.

What age? There is only one, from the earth's "creation" until it blows up later on down the line. We humans label such things as ages, but they are all arbitrary.

 

[sealchan]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

.

My best one liner is based on my own faith and goes something like this...

If you truly believe that God is the creator of the Universe and you know that humans have had their hands in the writing of the Bible and the establishment of its various churches as a political power on Earth, then how can you not be open to what the evidence of God's good creation shows us and not be fundamentally concerned that His good creation might be co-opted by the limited mind of humans, their spoken or written teachings or the temptations of political power?

 

[sealchan]

Evolution does not prove the story of Genesis wrong. So I don't know why people get all butt hurt over the discussion. Personally I think both are true. God created everything, evolution is his natural process for life. There is nothing preventing this from being true.

I have been impressed with the Genesis creation story. Of all creation stories from many cultures, I think that the Genesis creation story requires the fewest alterations to be updated to reflect today's science. Without adding length to the description, much could be achieved (in terms of cosmology and order of events) by changing the order of creation a little bit. It walks out the process of creation much like a linear progression or evolution. If the author(s) of that era did not have the scientific language we have today, that is to their credit that this story is so "down to earth" and compatible with common sense today.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I am a "Creationist" and I have never been taught, nor do I believe that everything started with Adam and Eve.

I would argue that the Genesis account clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were not present at the beginning of this world.

The idea that the Creation took a week comprised of seven 24-hour periods is not supported by the original Hebrew, which describe the "days" mentioned in the English translations of the Genesis account as indeterminate "periods of time."

Not all "Creationists" take issue with the existence of dinosaurs.

You seem to be painting with a very large brush.

I to am a creationists, That Adam and Eve only came to be, after all things were created, then Adam and Eve came to be of flesh and blood human beings.

I believe that the dinosaurs were not here, when God created all things, at the beginning of this earth age.

But that the dinosaurs only existed in the first earth age.

There is no where in the Genesis account of creation, that makes any reference that the dinosaurs as being created in the creation week.
That's because the dinosaurs only existed in the first earth age and not this second earth age.

 

[sealchan]

I am not claiming anything. Talk to the Guardian if you wish to dispute it. I don't think it's become a alt-right rag just yet.

I think the article overstates things a bit.

But it will be an on-going process for all men to better understand the woman's perspective. Even stating it like this is somewhat biased...as if there was a "woman's perspective" and that all women have the same attitude or opinion.

Dawkins resorts to a harsh, emotionality and seems to really enjoy the final sword thrust of strong condemnation when he makes his argument. That is a very masculine attitude. But it underlies the basic masculine style of consciousness' greatest fear, that if one isn't more powerful than everyone else, then one's opinion will be discarded. The feminine style of consciousness "understands" that contributing ideas to a pool without having to be the center of attention allows everyone to consider and reflect and eventually out of that may come a consensus integrating several perspectives.

Both women and men partake in what I call the "separative" and the "cooperative" style of ego-development. Separative ego wants to draw all power and energy to itself and maintain a separation of identity from others. Cooperative ego wants to share power as part of a group and does not want energy focused upon itself. It is, in a sense, the difference between focusing on yourself vs focusing on your group as the basis for the integrity of your personality.

As often happens with people coming from different personality types or styles of personality, they argue until they resort, in frustration, to name calling. They don't understand the different, yet equally valid perspective the sincere other is coming from.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, there is no doubt about the footprints you mentioned. They are fake. And sorry, but you have merely reinterpreted the Bible to suit your fancy.

Remember, I don't just say. Unlike you I know. Knowledge is demonstrable and I can explain how we know that you are wrong. You make up nonsense and have a rather strange idea that you proved something. My side can prove your ideas to be false. But if you refuse to learn no one can help you.

From what I have found, there has not been no determination as the footprints as being true or false. That it's still under investigation to be determined.Until it's determine, I can not say one way or the other.
What I said before, I should haved investigated it.before i stuck my foot in my mouth, but it's still yet to be determined.

But whether they are real or not, has no effect on the dinosaurs themselves in the first earth age.

The bible itself proves, there was a first earth age, before this earth age came into being.

You like the young earth creationists, jump to Genesis, but can not see anything pass Genesis. To a time before the Genesis account.

You say I'm refusing to learn, but yet your refusing to learn, So what's up with all that

 

[Prestor John]

I to am a creationists, That Adam and Eve only came to be, after all things were created, then Adam and Eve came to be of flesh and blood human beings.

I believe that the dinosaurs were not here, when God created all things, at the beginning of this earth age.

But that the dinosaurs only existed in the first earth age.

There is no where in the Genesis account of creation, that makes any reference that the dinosaurs as being created in the creation week.
That's because the dinosaurs only existed in the first earth age and not this second earth age.

I also believe that Adam and Eve did not live with the dinosaurs.

I believe that the dinosaurs and many other lifeforms lived on the Earth and the Lord caused mass extinctions from time to time to prepare the planet for Adam and Eve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I have found, there has not been no determination as the footprints as being true or false. That it's still under investigation to be determined.Until it's determine, I can not say one way or the other.
What I said before, I should haved investigated it.before i stuck my foot in my mouth, but it's still yet to be determined.

But whether they are real or not, has no effect on the dinosaurs themselves in the first earth age.

The bible itself proves, there was a first earth age, before this earth age came into being.

You like the young earth creationists, jump to Genesis, but can not see anything pass Genesis. To a time before the Genesis account.

You say I'm refusing to learn, but yet your refusing to learn, So what's up with all that

You tend to use bogus sources, that is why you did not find anything that showed them to be false. And no, the Bible cannot "prove" anything by itself. In fact if you want to use that as a resource the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is reliable. With its countless self contradictions, bad morals, incredibly wrong science, and of course failed prophesies I don't see how anyone could use it as a resource.

And when I am debating creationists of course we jump to the mythical book of Genesis. You on the other hand are cherry picking verses out of context to support a rather strange belief. You will not get support from either those that accept reality or creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also believe that Adam and Eve did not live with the dinosaurs.

I believe that the dinosaurs and many other lifeforms lived on the Earth and the Lord caused mass extinctions from time to time to prepare the planet for Adam and Eve.

Do you realize that in no time of man's history that there were only two human beings? How do you explain Adam and Eve in light of that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

.

​

The very fact that someone would ask for "one fact" to refute creationism is indicative of intellectual laziness.

 

[sealchan]

The uncritical belief in the literal truth of the Bible is, perhaps, the greatest misunderstanding in the Christian faith. There are so many, many reasons to reasonably see where human limitations come into play. Given these limitations we can better understand the author and his/her audience. This can bring us closer to understanding and even excusing some claims. Appreciating the literary qualities of the Bible is necessary before an adequate understanding of its spiritual message can be had. Otherwise you miss the context of qualifications latent in the stories and the text and you realize that the rules down exist in a vacuum but come with a humble recognition of the "reluctant necessity" for them. This is the great irony of those who miss the literary in favor of the literal. They weaponize their misreading and create the Christian culture of division and xenophobia they should be healing.

It is not meekness and it is using the Lord's name in vain.

 

[jonathan180iq]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

One thing that is too often overlooked by the pious creationist is that these hardline stances on pseudoscience aren't helping their faith; they are hindering it.

Their book tells them to have an answer when people ask why they're faithful. Cool.
It also tells them not to lie, be boastful, unwilling to listen, or hard of heart...

The Creationist Christian is a contradiction.

 

[dfnj]

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

Sorry dude, you are absolutely wrong. An omnipotent is not bounded by the laws of physics or logic like you are assuming. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. You cannot define omnipotence as partial omnipotence.

For a moment, consider what an omnipotent Creator God is doing or capable of doing. Do you think bringing energy into existence from nothingness is easy work? Certainly being able to create any energy at all an omnipotent GO is capable of creating energy in certain particular pattern imaginable. That is kind of the point of what it means to be God. That is, the ability to realize reality the moment you imagine it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I already explained this to you. If your idea of a "first age" is false then there is nothing to explain. You have merely made a bad interpretation of the Bible. A book that you do not appear to understand since you rely on the KJV and won't consider more recent and more accurate translations, nor do you seem to wish to look back at the Hebrew texts that the Old Testament came from. Even if you did since the accuracy of those in regard to the distant past are worthless there are other ways to study the history of the Earth. I did start you out on a geology lesson in that other thread, and you disappeared.

Look I explained to you, that I have the Bullinger Companion bible that has the manual Scripts of the Hebrew and Greek language into English. And the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek language into English.

Throughout the bible speaks all about the first earth age and what happened to it, that brought us to be here in this second earth age.
Back in the first earth age, there were no flesh and blood human beings. Only spirit beings.
If you go to the book of Genesis in Chapter 1 Verse 1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
There is no mentioning when the heaven and the earth as being created, only in the beginning. So when was the beginning ?

Note that in verse 2 that the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. So the waters were already here.and so was the earth.
Can you show as to where in Genesis where the atmosphere ( air ) as being created, so where did the air come from, seeing there's no mentioning of the air as being created.

The air and the earth were already here, from the first earth age.
this is why there is record of them as being created.

All we have is --->In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It does not say when, only, in the beginning, when ever that was, there's nothing recorded that says when the beginning was.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I'm sorry to hear that. That must be frustrating as a theist.


I don't recall seeing lawsuits to teach the Hindu or Native or Aboriginal or Taoist or Buddhist or etc in science class.


What age? There is only one, from the earth's "creation" until it blows up later on down the line. We humans label such things as ages, but they are all arbitrary.

You ask, What age? You only show, that you as well as others, know nothing about the first earth age of the dinosaurs.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I also believe that Adam and Eve did not live with the dinosaurs.

I believe that the dinosaurs and many other lifeforms lived on the Earth and the Lord caused mass extinctions from time to time to prepare the planet for Adam and Eve.

That's right, Adam and Eve never lived with the dinosaurs,

The dinosaurs were here long before Adam and Eve ever came to be.

The question is, What caused God to destroy that world of the dinosaurs. Something happened that caused God to destroy that first earth age of the dinosaurs, The Prophets of the old testament wrote about it, As did disciples Peter and Paul wrote about it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You tend to use bogus sources, that is why you did not find anything that showed them to be false. And no, the Bible cannot "prove" anything by itself. In fact if you want to use that as a resource the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is reliable. With its countless self contradictions, bad morals, incredibly wrong science, and of course failed prophesies I don't see how anyone could use it as a resource.

And when I am debating creationists of course we jump to the mythical book of Genesis. You on the other hand are cherry picking verses out of context to support a rather strange belief. You will not get support from either those that accept reality or creationists.

The only reason you say as to what you say, is because you have no knowledge or understanding about the bible.
There is no contradictions. Nor is any failed prophecies as you say.

But you are fulfilling Prophecy as you speak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look I explained to you, that I have the Bullinger Companion bible that has the manual Scripts of the Hebrew and Greek language into English. And the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek language into English.

Throughout the bible speaks all about the first earth age and what happened to it, that brought us to be here in this second earth age.
Back in the first earth age, there were no flesh and blood human beings. Only spirit beings.
If you go to the book of Genesis in Chapter 1 Verse 1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
There is no mentioning when the heaven and the earth as being created, only in the beginning. So when was the beginning ?

Note that in verse 2 that the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. So the waters were already here.and so was the earth.
Can you show as to where in Genesis where the atmosphere ( air ) as being created, so where did the air come from, seeing there's no mentioning of the air as being created.

The air and the earth were already here, from the first earth age.
this is why there is record of them as being created.

All we have is --->In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It does not say when, only, in the beginning, when ever that was, there's nothing recorded that says when the beginning was.

And those claims were refuted. You ignored more modern more accurate interpretations so that you have an excuse to correct the KJV on your own. That simply makes no sense. And the Bible does not support your claims. You have to wildly reinterpret the book to have your own special version of Christianity.