Mageth

I see Magus floundering in this thread in defense of the historicity of the flood myth, grasping at any straw in a desperate attempt to defend his position, and I'm reminded of a toddler floundering in his loving, merciful God's floodwaters, grasping at any straw to keep its little head afloat.

An ugly thought, I admit, but one that Magus defends as being history...

Doubting Didymus

Yeah, but it would have been an evil toddler. Does it help to picture the little guy with beady little red eyes?

Joe Meert

JM: Actually that's not true. It comes from Usshers insert into the bible and his interpretation of events. Nowhere does the bible give an age of 6000 years. Furthermore, the range cited is typically 6000-10000 years (that's a huge error).

Cheers

Joe Meert

Spenser

You actually have the nerve to claim that Chinese (or Eygpt's) written history is fallible??? You claim that there are a lot of Atheist's that don't particularly like you, think about the extra 1.2 billion Chinese (not to mention the numbers of Chinese decent that don't live in China) that you have just insulted with such a preposterous comment voiding their entire history and culture, which you seem to know squat about, cause of ignorant belief in a completely fallible book.

I'm beginning to doubt you are even being real, either you are a stubborn twelve year old or you get a kick out of stirring up the folks of this site with the most off the wall claims I've seen some one make here. If these are truly your beliefs and you are completely secure with them, then why are you here daily fruitlessly arguing with everyone? You aren't learning from them and they're not learning from you, you've just become the local punching bag...

:banghead:

Magus55

And how do you know whether that presupposition is the correct one? Were you around at the Earth's beginning to test if the Laws of Physics applied the same as they do today, and no supernatural intervention took place?

I never said it should belong in science classes. Creation is based on theology. However, I don't think macroevolution should be taught as fact either.

Magus55

Yet scientists just dated the "first" homo sapien human between 130k and 160k years, and the universe is anywhere from 13 to 16 billion years old. Or how about the austrailian sandstone that was originally dated at over 100 million years old, and later found to be only 30,000 years old. 4k years doesn't compare to the error in scientific datings.

Wyz_sub10

But it is, because it is.

Magus55

Evolution of one species to another ( or goo-to -you) is not fact. Scientists may think it is, but its not.

winstonjen

When a single species is separated into two groups due to earthquakes, plate techtonics, etc., and the two breed for several generations, and come back together, they may not be able to interbreed, because - surprise - they've formed a new species.

RufusAtticus

Well considering that scientists have observed the evolution of new species, they have good reason to consider it a fact. What reasons do you have to think that such experts are in fact wrong?