Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

One Eyed Jack · Aug 7, 2003

Originally posted by ex_fundy
No, no, no. You're supposed to be the expert on this issue and creationists sites that support it.

I am?

I want links, I'm not going to spend hours on general search engines trying to find references you are claiming.

If you're not willing to put in the time to study the issue, you're in no position to refute it.

I want a link to the best creationist (or any other) site that provides "primary source" evidence for world-wide flood stories in various cultures.

What do you mean by "primary sources?" I gave you a link that details some of these legends and provides plenty of other links. You can follow them up and find what you're looking for.

One Eyed Jack · Aug 7, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Jack ONLY accepts evidence, no matter how tainted or ridiculous or impossible that supports his strange notions and rejects all contrary evidence as being tainted.

I've never rejected empirical evidence, and you know it.

Some people still honestly think the World is not round.. Jack is one of those sort of people..

This is simply not true. I know the Earth is round. Why must you constantly attribute to me beliefs I don't hold? Perhaps it's because you can't refute my actual position?

What I find VEREY odd is Jack even flies in the face of his own Christians.. the vast majority who DO not take the Bible literally or have a different interpretation from Jack.

The vast majority have been blinded by secular lies -- just as I once was. You know I used to believe in evolution and an old Earth.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 7, 2003

Jack,

I've never rejected empirical evidence, and you know it.

Umm I Know it.. here are just a few pieces of empirical evidence you reject:

1. The Geological Column (with over 29 proven sites in the world where it stacks up)
2. Fossil evidence showing a progression of fossils
3. Radiometric Dating
4. Red shift analysis of the universe age
5. Geological impossibility of the Global Flood
6. Genetic impossibility of animals regenerating after the Ark
7. Evolution impossibility of species “evolving” from the Ark
8. Impossibility of creatures survival on the Ark
9. Impossibility of creatures like Koalas/Wombats moving from ME to Australia once the Ark grounded

And those are just concerning the Flood story !

This is simply not true. I know the Earth is round. Why must you constantly attribute to me beliefs I don't hold? Perhaps it's because you can't refute my actual position?

I said you are that type of person Jack. I know you know the world is round.. but you are the type that would go on arguing it isn’t in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I could now use exactly the same type of argument YOU use to declare the Earth is not round. I simply reject every scientific argument and evidence you provide and say No.. that is wrong.. easy.

The vast majority have been blinded by secular lies -- just as I once was. You know I used to believe in evolution and an old Earth.

Jack you know when I hold something to be true (with no evidence) and the whole world including the scientific community think I am wrong.. I would start to doubt my belief.. Not You though.. 1 tape from the Charlatan Hovind (who BTW is even disowned by the IC mob) and you are hooked for life ?

I have to admire your tenacity but I feel for you if your belief in God is based on your own strange literal interpretation of the Bible !

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Umm I Know it.. here are just a few pieces of empirical evidence you reject:

1. The Geological Column (with over 29 proven sites in the world where it stacks up)
2. Fossil evidence showing a progression of fossils
3. Radiometric Dating
4. Red shift analysis of the universe age
5. Geological impossibility of the Global Flood
6. Genetic impossibility of animals regenerating after the Ark
7. Evolution impossibility of species “evolving” from the Ark
8. Impossibility of creatures survival on the Ark
9. Impossibility of creatures like Koalas/Wombats moving from ME to Australia once the Ark grounded

And those are just concerning the Flood story !

None of this is empirical evidence, although I tend to agree with red shift analysis. As for the geologic column and fossil progression, you know as well as I that these are interpretations of the evidence, and not the evidence itself (which are the sedimentary layers and the fossils). Radiometric dating is unreliable, as you know. As for the rest of it, they are nothing more than your personal doubts.

I said you are that type of person Jack. I know you know the world is round.. but you are the type that would go on arguing it isn’t in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Why would I do that if I know it's round? I never argue with the empirical evidence, as long as it's testable, observable, and repeatable. I'll argue with an interpretation of the evidence, but that's a far cry from the evidence itself.

I could now use exactly the same type of argument YOU use to declare the Earth is not round.

I've never made that argument, and I would appreciate it if you stopped attributing it to me.

Jack you know when I hold something to be true (with no evidence) and the whole world including the scientific community think I am wrong.. I would start to doubt my belief.

Do you doubt your disbelief in the supernatural? Most of the world would disagree with you on that issue.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 8, 2003

Jack…

I will say this SLOWLY..

I am making an ANALOGY between you declaring there was a WW flood and OTHERS declaring the world is flat…

I am not saying you say the world is flat.. I am saying your declaration about the WW Flood is LIKE saying the World is flat…

Surely you got that.. here is my quotes from the previous post…

I know you know the world is round

Have you ever heard the expression “Flat Earther” .. it does not literally mean people who believe in a flat Earth but those who hang on to an untenable belief in the face of all evidence and science.

I’ll give you an example of the way you argue.. I will argue like you (in your style) for a Flat Earth

Steve : The world is Flat

Jack : No it isn’t we have photos showing it is a sphere.

Steve : Where are those photos.

Jack : Produces Nasa website photos.

Steve : Those are photos doctored by secular scientists. It is well known man or machine has never left the planet.

Jack : Aircraft use mensuration and vector calculation based on a spherical earth to Navigate.

Steve : The mathematics used is distorted as you well know.

Jack : You can see the Moon is round and its phases show a sphere.

Steve : Ah ha.. the moon like the Earth is a Flat Plate. Hence we only ever see the same face. The “phases” are just when the sun (another plate) moves and we see the moon at different angles.

Jack : If I head East or West I for long enough I eventually end up back in the same place.

Steve : You effectively travel in a wide circle around the plate. Compasses and directions are aligned to a magnetic base under the plate of the Earth. So when ever you move your direction effectively moves with you.

Jack : If it is a plate then it should take much longer to circle in the Southern Hemisphere as the North.

Steve : It does

Jack : No it doesn’t a plane that circles in the Southern Hemisphere takes the same time as in the Northern..

Steve : No that is not true.. I don’t refute empirical evidence .. show me some !

Etc etc…

Jack .. that is EXACTLY how you sound to us.

Reasonable.. yes. Reasonably Idiotic !

ex_fundy · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack If you're not willing to put in the time to study the issue, you're in no position to refute it.

This is almost comical. You, not I, claimed there was a wealth of evidence for worldwide flood stories that support your interpretation of Genesis. When asked (if you want to be considered honest and trustworthy) you should eagerly make that evidence available. Telling me to go to google hardly supports the notion that you've thoroughly researched it before.

What do you mean by "primary sources?"

I'll give you a hint: It's what Genesis is not.

I gave you a link that details some of these legends and provides plenty of other links. You can follow them up and find what you're looking for.

As I already said, many of those links were merely YE sites linking to each other repeating the same story, but not giving the source of that story. Other links were dead. I finally found a decent link (secular) and commented that many of the stories are so different it would take a wild imagination to think they came from the same event that Noahs story did.

I dunno, my Bible is a word-for-word translation.

And the 15 versions I examined that said "mountain" are translated incorrectly? My you are a staunch defender of your version of truth aren't you.

Sure, as soon as you tell me exactly how many animals were taken aboard

You go first. Tell me how many animals were on the ark and then I'll work out the mathematics regarding the overcrowding problem. Since obviously, you've already determined that my estimate for the count would be way too high.

You have to learn to be able to differentiate between an idiom and a statement of fact.

And you need to distinguish between a legend and a primary source.

I'm very sure. I've studied this issue thoroughly. Have you?

Your level of certitude cracks me up. Let's see now, I think it was 1980 when I first read "The Genesis Flood" and heard Henry Morris speak in person. That was followed by more books and seminars than I can remember. So in answer to your question, yes I do believe that I have studied the issue thoroughly. So are our different conclusions because I'm a rebellious sinner and you love God or are you simply smarter than I? And before you answer that, don't forget how many of your Christian brothers agree with my position that it wasn't a global flood.

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by ex_fundy
This is almost comical. You, not I, claimed there was a wealth of evidence for worldwide flood stories that support your interpretation of Genesis. When asked (if you want to be considered honest and trustworthy) you should eagerly make that evidence available.

And I did. The link I provided was as good a place as any to start. I can't very well provide you with links to every site I've read over the last three years, nor should you expect me to.

Telling me to go to google hardly supports the notion that you've thoroughly researched it before.

Your refusal to do so certainly supports the notion that you're not willing to put any effort into the study of this issue.

I'll give you a hint: It's what Genesis is not.

You're not giving me much to go on here, so I can only assume you're being intentionally difficult. I'll ask you again -- what do you mean by "primary sources?"

As I already said, many of those links were merely YE sites linking to each other repeating the same story, but not giving the source of that story.

Some of them do give the source of the story, but you seem to be ignoring that.

Other links were dead. I finally found a decent link (secular) and commented that many of the stories are so different it would take a wild imagination to think they came from the same event that Noahs story did.

I never said that all the stories were the same, but they all deal with a flood that killed everybody except for a select few that were saved.

And the 15 versions I examined that said "mountain" are translated incorrectly? My you are a staunch defender of your version of truth aren't you.

I was just telling you what my Bible says. High hill, mountain -- what's the difference?

You go first. Tell me how many animals were on the ark and then I'll work out the mathematics regarding the overcrowding problem. Since obviously, you've already determined that my estimate for the count would be way too high.

I can only give you an estimate. Will that be good enough?

And you need to distinguish between a legend and a primary source.

You won't even tell me what you mean by "primary source."

Your level of certitude cracks me up.

I'm glad you're having a good laugh.

Let's see now, I think it was 1980 when I first read "The Genesis Flood" and heard Henry Morris speak in person. That was followed by more books and seminars than I can remember.

I find that hard to believe.

So in answer to your question, yes I do believe that I have studied the issue thoroughly.

I still don't believe you have.

So are our different conclusions because I'm a rebellious sinner and you love God or are you simply smarter than I?

Probably both.

And before you answer that, don't forget how many of your Christian brothers agree with my position that it wasn't a global flood.

Argumentum ad populum.

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I’ll give you an example of the way you argue.. I will argue like you (in your style) for a Flat Earth

Those arguments are nothing like any of the arguments I've ever made. It's simply another strawman, which you seem to be good at erecting and subsequently tackling. How about dealing with my actual arguments once in a while? I believe it's because you know you can't.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 8, 2003

Jack !!

Those arguments are nothing like any of the arguments I've ever made. It's simply another strawman, which you seem to be good at erecting and subsequently tackling. How about dealing with my actual arguments once in a while? I believe it's because you know you can't.

I have some new for you

YOU DON’T HAVE ANY REAL ARGUMENTS.

Your arguments consist of legend and myth and denial of science.

The way I argued for a flat Earth is EXACTLY how your arguments sound.

You think they are good arguments because they are difficult to argue against.. but they are only difficult to argue against because they are made of molasses.

They slip and they slide.. they invoke the supernatural, they deny science that totally refutes them, they use little pieces of science that support tiny facets of the myth, they involve outright Ostrich like “head in the sand” myopia…

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
YOU DON’T HAVE ANY REAL ARGUMENTS.

Your arguments consist of legend and myth and denial of science.

I've never denied science, and you know it. In fact, I use scientific evidence in my arguments.

The way I argued for a flat Earth is EXACTLY how your arguments sound.

It was a caricature, and nothing more.

You think they are good arguments because they are difficult to argue against.. but they are only difficult to argue against because they are made of molasses.

They're difficult to argue against because you know I'm right.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 8, 2003

Jack,

If I knew you were right why would I continue to say you are wrong.. just for the heck of it ?

The only reason I argue with you at all is that I am amazed the someone who actually has the ability to type an intelligible sentence can hold the views you do.

I am someone who considers the thought of God an amazing fantasy in itself but then you go and add in that these amazing ridiculous myths are reality !!!

You might as well argue the Apollo Flies his fiery chariot across the sky..

For modern humans to still cling to the Creation and Flood myths defies belief..

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Jack,

If I knew you were right why would I continue to say you are wrong.. just for the heck of it ?

My honest opinion? Yes. I think you get a kick out of it.

The only reason I argue with you at all is that I am amazed the someone who actually has the ability to type an intelligible sentence can hold the views you do.

You're well aware of my intelligence -- we took the same IQ test, remember? If I recall correctly, I scored higher than you did.

I am someone who considers the thought of God an amazing fantasy in itself but then you go and add in that these amazing ridiculous myths are reality !!!

The evidence supports the reality of them.

You might as well argue the Apollo Flies his fiery chariot across the sky..

That isn't a belief I hold, nor does the evidence support such a silly notion.

For modern humans to still cling to the Creation and Flood myths defies belief..

Believe it -- many of them do.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 8, 2003

Jack,

I said “intelligible”.. that does not make it Intelligent.

But I do think you are reasonably intelligent .. it makes it all the more frustrating that you are so stubbornly intractable on these issues.

As far as the IQ test Goes.. I don’t remember that..

Suffice to say.. (and I add in all modesty) I do extremely well on IQ Tests. In everyone I have ever done my scores have ranged from 140-160. Now as this supposedly puts me in the “genius” level I have to question how relevant IQ tests are.. I think perhaps I am just good at them.

Either that or I am still waiting for my genius to manifest itself !!! Doh !

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Jack,

I said “intelligible”.. that does not make it Intelligent.

But I do think you are reasonably intelligent .. it makes it all the more frustrating that you are so stubbornly intractable on these issues.

Why does it frustrate you so much? Does it make you question your doubts?

As far as the IQ test Goes.. I don’t remember that..

That's ok, I remember it. It was back when we were members of Newsmax.

Suffice to say.. (and I add in all modesty) I do extremely well on IQ Tests. In everyone I have ever done my scores have ranged from 140-160.

You didn't score quite that high on the one we took, although you did score close to it. I think you reported a score of 138.

Now as this supposedly puts me in the “genius” level I have to question how relevant IQ tests are.. I think perhaps I am just good at them.

Probably. The 'ultimate IQ test' isn't very hard. I've taken some that are much tougher.

Either that or I am still waiting for my genius to manifest itself !!! Doh !

You've yet to manifest it against any of my arguments, in any case.

Corky the Cat · Aug 8, 2003

Hi peeps,

As you can see I'm new here, although I've been lurking these boards for a while and feel that I know some of you.

Jack,

As someone who doesn't have a high IQ, doesn't read the bible much, knows very little about theology in general, I hope this isn't a dumb question:

I have it on good authority that the bible mentions nothing of dianasaurs. Why is this?

If the fossil evidence etc that they did exist and the age when they existed is true it makes a mockery out of the YE view.

The evidece that they were real seems overwhelming to the layman so, in your view, did the diansaurs appear before or after the flood?

Thanx.

Corky the Cat

Nineveh · Aug 8, 2003

Hi Corky

Job 40:15 is where behemoth begins and Job 41:1 about leviathan. I believe Job was a contemporary of Abraham, so this reference would have been after the flood.

Aussie Thinker · Aug 8, 2003

Corky,

You will be told that the Bible mentions a behemoth and a leviathan.

These are supposedly "dinosaurs" to fundies.

But it mentions them about twice.. yet of other dinos it says NOTHING.

It talks about lions, sheep, goats, etc etc.. But what about the most FREAKIN obvious thing that stalked the Earth...

Nada...

Well except for the most excrutiatingly fleet mention of the ambigious "behemoth".

But what about other cultures.... NO MENTION OF DINOS.. here you will be told about the recurring Dragon myths...

Dragon myths most likely sprung up from primitives finding Dino fossils.. what else would they have thought of those giant teeth etc.. but note well.. they gave the beast "wings" and fire breath...lol.

If dinos and man trurly co-existed the evidence would be OVERWHELMING.

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Corky the Cat
I have it on good authority that the bible mentions nothing of dianasaurs. Why is this?

Why would the Bible mention my ex-girlfriend? Just kidding. Actually the Bible does mention them, it just doesn't call them dinosaurs, which was first coined in the mid-1800s and means 'terrible lizard.' Obviously, when they were first translating the Bible into English, they couldn't use a word that didn't yet exist.

The evidece that they were real seems overwhelming to the layman

They were real -- there is no disputing that.

so, in your view, did the diansaurs appear before or after the flood?

Both.

One Eyed Jack · Aug 8, 2003

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Corky,

You will be told that the Bible mentions a behemoth and a leviathan.

These are supposedly "dinosaurs" to fundies.

Strictly speaking, leviathan, which is a marine creature, isn't a dinosaur, but is most likely a pliosaur.

But it mentions them about twice.. yet of other dinos it says NOTHING.

This isn't true, my friend. A quick search turned up no less than 23 references to dragons in the Bible.

But what about other cultures.... NO MENTION OF DINOS.. here you will be told about the recurring Dragon myths...

Dragon myths most likely sprung up from primitives finding Dino fossils.. what else would they have thought of those giant teeth etc.. but note well.. they gave the beast "wings" and fire breath...lol.

Actually, if you took care to read these legends carefully, you'd notice that many dragons had none of these features. For instance, the dragon that killed Beowulf was poisonous, but it couldn't fly and didn't breathe fire.

Corky the Cat · Aug 8, 2003

(PS "lurking for a while"? all of an hour? Funny man already!)

Hi TP,

I've been luking these boards for weeks. The Bob v Zak thing got me hucked.

Nineveh,

Hi. Thanx for that :up:

Aussie Thinker,

Hi, iv'e sent you mail.

Jack,

Hi. Thanx for your reply. However it leaves me with a cunumdrum. If the dinos where present BOTH before and after the flood.

Did they a) suvive the flood? or b) were they recreated by God after the flood? Is there a biblical explination for this?

Thanx

Corky

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

Merely Christian

BANNED

New member

New member

BANNED