Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A repository of creationist stupidity

Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:44:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

You crack me up.
Catapulted from mount Ararat to Australia?!

Why did they choose a) Australia, and b) only Australia, and c) no fossils were ever found between Ararat and Australia?

Thanks for continuing the long ancient tradition of dumbness with another pearl of Forest Gump level of stupidity.
newgleugg
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:03:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:44:19 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

You crack me up.
Catapulted from mount Ararat to Australia?!

Why did they choose a) Australia, and b) only Australia, and c) no fossils were ever found between Ararat and Australia?

Thanks for continuing the long ancient tradition of dumbness with another pearl of Forest Gump level of stupidity.

Also, how did the animals survive their flight?
Just giving you my 50 cents
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:19:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:03:04 PM, newgleugg wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:44:19 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

You crack me up.
Catapulted from mount Ararat to Australia?!

Why did they choose a) Australia, and b) only Australia, and c) no fossils were ever found between Ararat and Australia?

Thanks for continuing the long ancient tradition of dumbness with another pearl of Forest Gump level of stupidity.

Also, how did the animals survive their flight?

Indeed.
Two words:
Hot
Lava

The volcano hypothesis is one of the most batshit crazy conjectures these folks have conjured. As expected, they have no evidence whatsoever to support this lunacy.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:24:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

This reasoning here is so obviously specious that I'm surprised anyone can say it with a straight face. Let's walk through it step-by-step.

1. Volcanoes wipe out life around them.
2. The life eventually comes back.
3. Therefore volcanoes are a mechanism for spreading life.

The eruption of Krakatoa did not spread life to other places. It wiped out life. The life eventually returned by means unrelated to volcanic activity, such as drifting on the wind, flying, floating and swimming. The notion that volcanoes can "transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking" is utterly unfounded. Do the animals ride the lava? Get borne through the air by the thousand-degree ash cloud? The writers of the article offer no explanation.

So in order to explain a global flood for which there is no evidence, creationists postulate a series of massive volcanoes for which there is no evidence. The hole they are digging themselves into keeps getting deeper and deeper.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:34:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

I just realized that might have been sarcasm.
If so, my bad.
If not, rebuttal reiterated.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:44:19 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:37:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

The dilemma of how kangaroos got to Australia from the Ark landing site has already been solved:

"Explanation for spread of animals:
The events of the Great Flood would kill all land-dwelling life on earth save for a 'seed' population at a single location - the landing point of the ark. The land area today is discontiguous - this presents a problem for the flood account, as there is no apparent means by which animals may migrate to disconnected land.

Creationists have found possible solution to these apparent problems.

Volcanoes:

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

http://www.conservapedia.com...

Done. Move along, now.

You crack me up.
Catapulted from mount Ararat to Australia?!

Why did they choose a) Australia, and b) only Australia, and c) no fossils were ever found between Ararat and Australia?

Thanks for continuing the long ancient tradition of dumbness with another pearl of Forest Gump level of stupidity.

Let's check it out.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:09:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.

So you stand by the statement that the flood was a global catastrophic event and that all species that wouldn't survive it went inside the Ark that eventually landed on mount Ararat?

Please explain, among other things, how the Kangaroos ended up in Australia, in Australia alone and how they got there without leaving a trace behind.

Obliged.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:12:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:09:35 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.

So you stand by the statement that the flood was a global catastrophic event and that all species that wouldn't survive it went inside the Ark that eventually landed on mount Ararat?

Please explain, among other things, how the Kangaroos ended up in Australia, in Australia alone and how they got there without leaving a trace behind.

Obliged.

It looks like you missed my post above. I don't take things literally in the OT because Jesus never once told a literal story. You are welcome to show that He did.

Let's check out another one.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:13:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'
Matthew 19:4

"and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"?
(Matthew 19:5)

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
(Matthew 19:6)

He never declares this literal either.

In Hebrew Adam is the word for "man".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:18:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

Let's look at yet another.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:19:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
(Matthew 12:39)

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth and rise again.
(Matthew 12:40)

He seems to find an interest in putting His old parabals with His new ones.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:21:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:12:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:09:35 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.

So you stand by the statement that the flood was a global catastrophic event and that all species that wouldn't survive it went inside the Ark that eventually landed on mount Ararat?

Please explain, among other things, how the Kangaroos ended up in Australia, in Australia alone and how they got there without leaving a trace behind.

Obliged.

It looks like you missed my post above. I don't take things literally in the OT because Jesus never once told a literal story. You are welcome to show that He did.

Let's check out another one.

I asked you before, if you think the account of the Flood was not meant to be taken literally,

A ) Jesus compared his second coming to those days. If those days aren't meant to be taken as historical, does this mean that the second coming is also not meant to be taken as an historical event to happen in the future?

B ) Juses says in
Luke 17:27
"People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
"
This strongly suggests he thought the Flood was a historical event all right. If you believe it was not, how do you account for the son of God's equivocation?

Stop fumbling. Come clean. Do you or do you not believe the Flood account is historical? In either case, answer the follow-up questions associated with each answer.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:25:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:21:36 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:12:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:09:35 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.

So you stand by the statement that the flood was a global catastrophic event and that all species that wouldn't survive it went inside the Ark that eventually landed on mount Ararat?

Please explain, among other things, how the Kangaroos ended up in Australia, in Australia alone and how they got there without leaving a trace behind.

Obliged.

It looks like you missed my post above. I don't take things literally in the OT because Jesus never once told a literal story. You are welcome to show that He did.

Let's check out another one.


I asked you before, if you think the account of the Flood was not meant to be taken literally,

A ) Jesus compared his second coming to those days. If those days aren't meant to be taken as historical, does this mean that the second coming is also not meant to be taken as an historical event to happen in the future?

B ) Juses says in
Luke 17:27
"People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
"
This strongly suggests he thought the Flood was a historical event all right. If you believe it was not, how do you account for the son of God's equivocation?

Stop fumbling. Come clean. Do you or do you not believe the Flood account is historical? In either case, answer the follow-up questions associated with each answer.

It will be just like it was eith Luke Skywalker when he faced Darth Vader.

Do I literally believe in Darth Vader? Nope.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:26:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

Let's look at another.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:26:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Likewise, just as it was with Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building;
(Luke 17:28)

But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
(Luke 17:29)

It will be just LIKE that on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
(Luke 17:30)
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:28:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:26:40 PM, Athomos wrote:
In homage to Bronto, I have decided to start a thread on creationist stupidity, which knows no bounds.

This video is brought to you courtesy of what, surely, is one of the dumbest demographics on the Western hemisphere.

I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

https://www.youtube.com...

I encourage fellow members to share their favourite pearls of creationist cuckooness.

I'm glad to have helped you out today Athomos.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:31:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:28:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

I'm glad to have helped you out today Athomos.

Since you finally conceded that the Flood account is allegorical, in all fairness, I'd say it was I who helped you the most.

Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:31:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:21:36 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:12:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:09:35 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:03:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:00:56 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:50:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

So now you're backpedalling and the story is just figurative?

That's interesting because:

Matthew 24:37
[ Christ speaking ]
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

This seems to suggest that Christ thought the Noah's days and so by extension the Flood had been a real historical event. If you concede that it might have been just allegory how would you explain the son of God's equivocation?

And if it was merely an allegory, does this mean the second coming, which is said to be like it, will also just be allegorical?

I'm not back peddling. You have presented someone else's argument, not mine.

So you stand by the statement that the flood was a global catastrophic event and that all species that wouldn't survive it went inside the Ark that eventually landed on mount Ararat?

Please explain, among other things, how the Kangaroos ended up in Australia, in Australia alone and how they got there without leaving a trace behind.

Obliged.

It looks like you missed my post above. I don't take things literally in the OT because Jesus never once told a literal story. You are welcome to show that He did.

Let's check out another one.


I asked you before, if you think the account of the Flood was not meant to be taken literally,

A ) Jesus compared his second coming to those days. If those days aren't meant to be taken as historical, does this mean that the second coming is also not meant to be taken as an historical event to happen in the future?

B ) Juses says in
Luke 17:27
"People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
"
This strongly suggests he thought the Flood was a historical event all right. If you believe it was not, how do you account for the son of God's equivocation?

Stop fumbling. Come clean. Do you or do you not believe the Flood account is historical? In either case, answer the follow-up questions associated with each answer.

A)We know what the second coming will be LIKE. You are welcome to read it and give me your literal translation.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:34:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Athomos:
"Do you or do you not believe the Flood account is historical?"

I believe something LIKE that hsppened and something LIKE that will happen again.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:36:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:34:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Athomos:
"Do you or do you not believe the Flood account is historical?"

I believe something LIKE that hsppened and something LIKE that will happen again.

Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:41:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:31:38 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:28:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

I'm glad to have helped you out today Athomos.

Since you finally conceded that the Flood account is allegorical, in all fairness, I'd say it was I who helped you the most.

Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?

I didn't have to concede. I've allready stated this in a debate before this thread. Check it out.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:42:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:41:32 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:31:38 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:28:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

I'm glad to have helped you out today Athomos.

Since you finally conceded that the Flood account is allegorical, in all fairness, I'd say it was I who helped you the most.

Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?

I didn't have to concede. I've allready stated this in a debate before this thread. Check it out.

Please answer the questions.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:47:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Athomos:
Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?

No telling. Here's whst we know for sure. God answers prayers in Jesus' name, and knew the future.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:50:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:47:57 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Athomos:
Is the entirety of Genesis allegorical or just parts of it?
How can you tell which parts are and which aren't?

No telling. Here's whst we know for sure. God answers prayers in Jesus' name, and knew the future.

Ah, that's what I thought.
You cherry pick the parts which suit your needs of the moment.

Thanks for clearing that up.