Azathoth

Tell you what,ex_libres,why don't you post that in the Evolution/Creation forum?I'm sure there'd be more than a few people that might want to discuss this with you...

Most of them don't post or even look here,but with such an argument,the likes of which I'm sure they've never heard before,you shouldn't have any trouble making your point

SecularFuture

Vinnie
Why should I believe you? Why should you believe you? Because you think and believe so? Not good enough. No amount of belief can turn something into a fact.

Hundreds of texts have also made claims for the existence of Big Foot, Dracula, and Leprechauns. Does that make them real? Nope.

If the so-called supernatural exists outside of the natural, how can anything supernatural be detected? If the so-called supernatural realm is outside of the natural realm, there is no way for you to logically label anything as being of a supernatural nature.

It *assumes*.

Why do you believe in the supernatural?

And how do you know? This is a belief. This is not a fact, nor is it a theory. It is nothing more than a notion that was developed through your blind-faith in supernatural concepts.

Only in your world. Only in your deluded imagination. If you go to any major (the more popular) scientific magazines, you will not see anything about young Earth Creationism.

I went to NASA’s website (one of the biggest companies dedicated to science) and looked up the age of the universe…. And guess what I found?
http://ethics-www.jpl.nasa.gov/relea...e_2002_97.html

You think Earthquakes are evil? They’re just moving land plates, man! Do you think rain and wind is evil to? Do you know anything about meteorology or the components that make up our planet?

None. And you don’t have any evidence -- aside from blind faith -- to support the existence of a “spiritual reality”. So, therefore, there is no reason to believe in such concepts. You either believe in them, or you don’t.

100 myths + 100 myths does not equal a fact.
100 myths + 100 myths = 200 myths.

But usually they’re false.

And you haven’t demonstrated that the Noah’s Ark story is a fact. All you’ve given us is text from a book that you believe has lungs to it, and a bunch of other blind – biased -- religious assumptions.

(EDITED TO ADD MORE)

SecularFuture

ex_libres
And will you please, without any reason or evidence, stop assuming that a god exists? What evidence do you have for the existence of a god? The only thing that you have is blind faith in the assumption that the unexplained requires an explanation through supernatural concepts. You’re making the same mistake that our ancestors made. They believed that the things like rain and earthquakes were caused by supernatural agents because they were incapable of giving a naturalistic explanation. Today --- we know better.

Common sense tells you that a boat that is the size of three football fields wouldn’t be able to float! Oh – I forgot – Maybe the supernatural superman help to keep the boat afloat, right?

Like I told Vinnie earlier:
Your bible is just text, and that text could have been written by anyone with a little spare time and imagination. Unlike real history books that refer to events within a real world, your bible tries to justify the existence of a supernatural world that can only be believed, and not seen. Your blind faith in supernatural concepts came before the evidence.

SecularFuture

Grown adults believing in fairy tales for their own personal confort! Is reality really that terrifying?

SecularFuture

Many creationists don't realize that Earth dating isn't the only way we measure the age of things. There is also cosmic dating! Two completely different fields of study, coming up with similar answers, and each of those answers in favor of an old universe (14 billion years of age). And what do most of them do when they realize this? "Errr... Umm... Theres something... uhh... wrong with cosmic dating also! Yeah! My bible HAS TO BE RIGHT!"

:boohoo:

Vinnie

Kosh, I am just having fun messing around. I think Hovind is an idiot and the flood is a myth. I accept a 4.6 billion year old earth, evolution and the whole nine yards. Anyone familiar with my views or my website knows this

Notice my posts as well:

I said "Calcium dating" as oposed to "carbon dating"
I said "Alfred Einstein" as opposed to "Albert Einstein"
I said Special relativity came from from Alun Guth rather than Einstein. Guth is famous for inflation

Vinnie

keyser_soze

I thought I was losing my mind! Vinnie, that shit isn't funny! If one failed to read carefully, one would have dead reckoned a YEC nutter, and coming from one of the few rational theists....Man, you guys are in short supply, don't do that to us again. I actually found my jaw dropping, and since I read you regularly, I thought you had flipped out.

Llyricist

I thought somebody had hacked Vinnie's login LOL

Secular Pinoy

Whatta coincidence, I had the same eerie feeling! I thought Magus or Badfish hacked into Vinnie's account. I can't see if the post is satirical without smilies (the nuances of the english language can be bewildering).

Mageth

ex_libres:

It's Mageth, of course. I don't have time to answer your whole post right now, but I'll try to get to it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did Vennie hurt you so now you want to give me a try. It would be my pleasure seeing from what you put in your reply to my post is just as sad and weak as any of your other attempts at arguing. It seems you do more talking than listening because Vinnie’s point went right by you as anyone can see from your comments. With no further ado, lets dance.

Well, if that's an example of your approach to discussion on this board, I'd just as soon not dance with you. If you're coming here as a Christian, let me say that your initial witness strikes me as most Unchristian.

Wow! You got me there. I am convinced now after your wonderful display of support; charts, graphs, quotes where does it end.

Umm, I was talking about the lack of evidence for any global Noahic flood. Here's my chart and graph for the lack of evidence:





Convinced now?

Oh yeah, guess what shape this boat uses.

You're referring to an aircraft carrier (the Nimitz, I believe). Well, for the hull, it doesn't use the rectangular shape described for the ark, which is apparently what you think. You're apparently thinking about the flight deck (which isn't purely "rectangular" either); look below that, at the hull, the waterline.

Here's an image: