26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstorm"In Genesis 6:19-20 the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the "clean" animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs were represented on the Ark."
I apologize in advance to anyone who is offended by this discussuon. I am not ridiculing anyone's faith. All of my Q and A are taken from genuine creationist literature. I take no responsability for other people's contributions.
Q: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?
A: Yes, and some of them could breathe fire.
Answers in Genesis, Were Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?
"In fact, various creation scientists have proposed very interesting and distinctly plausible mechanisms by which a dragon or dinosaur-like creature might actually have been able to breathe fire."
CreationWiki, Fire-breathing Dragon
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wonder about this.
I am pretty sure you are. And I think it is a good thing. I just wish more people were willing to do the same for all religious people, not just creationists.
Seriously, fire breathing dinosaurs on the ark are no more ridiculous than virgin births or rising from the dead - or gods in general.
Ridicule: the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior. (First google search result)
It's not so clear where the ridicule is coming from. If cat posts an actual creationist statement about something, or accurately paraphrases it, without distorting it by its removal from context, and you (say, or I) react with "that creationist idea is ridiculous" is it cat doing the ridiculing?
However if cat and others in the thread are is constructing and putting over-the-top statements in the mouth of an imaginary creationist,without any basis in fact, it is ridicule by him or them.
But it would be fair play to the degree it matches up with things creationists have said, even more so if the speaker has followers and supporters.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstorm"From each of Noah's sons came the three divisions of the "races". Anthropologists divide all the world's peoples into three races, Caucasian (white), Mongoloid (yellow) and Negroid (black). Further within each of the sons was the potential to produce all the variation that is evident within the three races of men."
Q: Where did the races of man come from?
A: Noah had a black son, a white son, and a Chinese son.
Q : Does the Bible say that?
A: No.
The Descendants of Noah, Cooper P. Abrams III
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstorm"Let us remember there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Q: Does Intelligent Design maintain that the Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
A: No. Pastafarians have read far too much into this. ID has merely said that the Creator "may have been" the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson
I apologize again for being unclear about this. Intelligent Design is not a monolithic movement. There are therefore conflicting opinions within the movement as to the identity of the Creator,
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstormFire breathing dragons would have represented a major safety hazard on the Ark, as it was presumably made of wood.
"In Genesis 6:19-20 the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the "clean" animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs were represented on the Ark."
Answers in Genesis, Were Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?
"In fact, various creation scientists have proposed very interesting and distinctly plausible m ...[text shortened]... ht actually have been able to breathe fire."
CreationWiki, Fire-breathing Dragon
26 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by catstormSo your initial claim that you were not, was in error, a lie, or a fib?
Thank you for your comment. I am not ridiculing the Christian religion, of which I am a follower. I am ridiculing the clown show that has become attached to it.
Do you have a problem with atheists such as I, ridiculing the clown show that is Christianity (of which you are a part)? If you do, why so? Do you believe your beliefs are more rational or less worthy of ridicule? If so, why?
26 Jan 15
I am not ridiculing the teachings of Jesus. I am ridiculing the bad science of creationism. I have no problem with your pointing out the irrational beliefs I may have, which I admit I cannot defend, but may be able to some day. I respect atheists and agree with much of what they say. However I was raised (indoctrinated) in the Christian faith and what is in my head is in my head. I may reject it all some day. My main point is that all beliefs should be examined, as I am doing, and not merely swallowed because "the priest/rabbi/minister says so."
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstormQ: Why did God create the universe as it is?
Q: Why are polar bears and baby seals white?
A: God made the seals white so they could hide in the snow from the bears. He made the bears white so they could sneak up on the seals.
Q: Why do female hormones stop a woman's facial hair from growing?
A: Because God knew they would look better without it.
Q: Then why did God put the hair there in the first place?
A: Because He just did, that's why.
A: Because God is omniscient.
Q: Why does man deny the existence of God?
A: Because man thinks he knows everything.
Q: Why does man think he knows everything?
A: Because he doesn't believe God.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwI don't think that the first of your answers answers the question of why God should create the universe. Omniscience is the knowledge of all things. To do something as a necessary condition I require the knowledge of how to do it. This however is not a sufficient condition, as to do something I require the will to do it. Saying that God created the universe because he willed it is also not sufficient as it does not explain the motive. So I don't think that you've answered the question.
Q: Why did God create the universe as it is?
A: Because God is omniscient.
Q: Why does man deny the existence of God?
A: Because man thinks he knows everything.
Q: Why does man think he knows everything?
A: Because he doesn't believe God.
The second question and answer first presupposes that God exists, which you have no proof for, at least that will satisfy a skeptical audience. The answer is simply not true. "All I know is that I know nothing." goes back to Socrates who certainly didn't believe in the Christian God. Amazingly the skeptics of this world are, in general, aware of their limitations.
The third question is faulty because it assumes that atheists think that they know everything, but the answer is even sillier. Really a lack of belief in God simply does not imply arrogance in the way you'd like it to.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by catstormAnd why not? Some of his teachings are worthy of ridicule.
I am not ridiculing the teachings of Jesus.
I am ridiculing the bad science of creationism.
There is no such thing as 'science of creationism.' Rather say that you are ridiculing the claims of creationists that they make due to their beliefs.
I have no problem with your pointing out the irrational beliefs I may have, which I admit I cannot defend, but may be able to some day.
Do you think the creationists may be able to defend their beliefs some day? If not, why not?
My main point is that all beliefs should be examined, as I am doing, and not merely swallowed because "the priest/rabbi/minister says so."
You seem to have said that you did exactly that (you were indoctrinated and swallowed it).
Are you examining your beliefs, or only those of creationists?
26 Jan 15
I have no answer for the first question. Which teachings do you mean?
Yes, you are right. I refer to it as a science because they do, which is playing their game.
They may prove their claims some day, but have not done so yet .
Yes, I am examining my own beliefs too.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlso birds ARE dinosaurs [even if they don't breath fire].
I am pretty sure you are. And I think it is a good thing. I just wish more people were willing to do the same for all religious people, not just creationists.
Seriously, fire breathing dinosaurs on the ark are no more ridiculous than virgin births or rising from the dead - or gods in general.
As the bible DOES mention birds as being on the Ark, it's perfectly
canonical to say that their were dinosaurs on the Ark.
Saying that a T-Rex was on the Ark is where you start getting into
trouble...
But I agree with your point.
I had a flat-mate in university who believed in [some version of] Christianity
and was perfectly OK with god talking to Moses in the form of a burning
bush and giving him commandments that way...
But thought that the idea that god might leave new commandments to be
found in the new world was ridiculous... [Mormons? I forget who they were
making fun of]
Everyone else there [we were all atheists] thought this a tad hypocritical.
Both sets of beliefs were equally [un]believable, but of course to the adherents
it's always everyone else's beliefs that are unbelievable, never their own.