Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Pangea ?

Cataclysm From Space 2800 BC..

http://realityzone.com/catfromspac.html

See the video it will show you that there is another side.. for the unbelievers and doubters its the last thing they want you to see.. they would have to rewrite all of the history books and.. it would destroy the religion of evolution..

tob
 
If you can give me 1 good reason to take this video seriously, I will try watching it with a open mind honestly, even if the flood has tons of inconsistencies and logical fails to begin with.
 
Religion of evolution? What? Evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or string theory.

Some have the definition reversed. The same people who think science is religion, will tell you that "Intelligent Design" is science.
 
Cataclysm From Space 2800 BC..

http://realityzone.com/catfromspac.html

See the video it will show you that there is another side.. for the unbelievers and doubters its the last thing they want you to see.. they would have to rewrite all of the history books and.. it would destroy the religion of evolution..

tob
This is a DISCUSSION forum, where we DISCUSS issues related to Christianity and science. If you cannot discuss the contents of the video, then it will be disregarded. Many people here don't think watching creationist propaganda for an hour is worth their time, you'll have to convince us with "facts" from the video.

Care to share any?
 
One good reason to watch the video it will give you proof there is a different side to the doctrine of evolution unless you don't care then that's something else entirely.. like i said much earlier a teacher said that he would probably lose his job if he showed it to his classroom.. 1/2 an hour is all it takes.. what seems to be the issue here don't you want to see the evidence?

tob
 
One good reason to watch the video it will give you proof there is a different side to the doctrine of evolution unless you don't care then that's something else entirely.. like i said much earlier a teacher said that he would probably lose his job if he showed it to his classroom.. 1/2 an hour is all it takes.. what seems to be the issue here don't you want to see the evidence?

tob
Perhaps he would lose his job for how terrible the science is. Or more likely, he told people that in an attempt to grab their attention.

What really seems to be the issue here is that you are unwilling to present even one point of the evidence here to be discussed. I've watched plenty of creationist propaganda, spending another hour is not in my best interest.

Present one argument please.
 
You may have watched what the evolutionists wanted you to watch so why not give this a chance or is it the truth that your happy not knowing the other side exists?

tob
 
You may have watched what the evolutionists wanted you to watch so why not give this a chance or is it the truth that your happy not knowing the other side exists?

tob
The evolutionists made me sit through creationist presentations at a Christian conference? Or how about debates between creationists and evolutionists, where both are given an equal opportunity to present a case for their position.

Care to provide any arguments from the video?
 
If i were a smart man you bet i would but i prefer to let an expert explain it.. you see i don't use those great swelling words your little group uses having men's persons in admiration i do things the simple way so that a child can understand it.. just watch the video you'll be glad you did..

tob
 
If i were a smart man you bet i would but i prefer to let an expert explain it..
1) I don't buy the excuse, it appears you are more so unwilling rather than unable. This is the first time you brought up this excuse after being asked several times.
2) I doubt the person giving the presentation is an "expert."

you see i don't use those great swelling words your little group uses having men's persons in admiration i do things the simple way so that a child can understand it..
Ignoring the quib... why don't you explain one of the arguments as you would to a child.

just watch the video you'll be glad you did..
No thanks, how about you share just one of the arguments from the video. This is a discussion thread, not a "watch a video for my argument," thread.
 
Sorry about that my wheel chair bottom fell out so I've got it Jerry rigged..:) When i talked to Donald some 40 years ago he told me in order to get a better understanding of the filmstrip that i should read his book "The Biblical Flood And The Ice Epoch" I'm not much when it comes to reading scientific stuff so i just stuck to showing the video.. Here's a portion from that book..


WHY write a book on the Biblical Flood? Has not this subject been largely relegated to academic limbo? Has not the Biblical Flood been considered by some authorities to be an event which never occurred--except perhaps in the imaginations of the ancients? Haven't other authorities considered it to be a historical fact but yet a strictly localized phenomenon? And yet has it not been considered by some others to have been a global cataclysm? While some have considered the Flood to have occurred around 10,000 or 20,000 B.C., have not others placed it at about 2,500 B.C.? Of what significance is this variation of 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 years? Which of these views, if any, is correct, and what are the implications contained therein?

One hundred and fifty years ago, numerous controversies clouded the academic horizon, controversies which involved the leading scholars of that day. Fossils were being found in every country in Europe. Some were discovered high in the Alps, and others were unearthed below sea level, deep in German or Welsh coal mines. The fossils included remains of marine animals, mammoths, bison, giant birds, dinosaurs, exotic vegetation, and many other hard-to-classify forms. Some were tiny; many were huge. There were so many different forms and sizes of fossils that their classification became quite an art. Some were being found practically in the back yards of the leading academic figures of that day.

These abundant fossil finds demanded an explanation. Many, such as Cuvier, felt that some sort of gigantic, watery cataclysm or cataclysms had indeed engulfed the past. This possibility immediately suggested the Biblical Flood. Yet others cast about for an alternative explanation. Modern humanists, increasingly anti-Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti-spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti-Christian and anti-Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general, and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind. Yet during his lifetime, most natural scientists leaned toward catastrophism. They mostly revered the Judeo-Christian heritage.

But anti-spiritual humanists, like Voltaire or Kant, usually applauded anything which tended to discredit the Genesis record of catastrophes. Thus, the doctrine of uniformitarianism was born and nurtured from the mother principle of humanism, as was the daughter principle of evolution--merely biological uniformitarianism. Evolution and uniformitarianism practically required agnosticism, and they made atheism increasingly respectable, even virile. The viewpoints of the early catastrophists became outmoded and were gradually discarded, and then they were all but forgotten. Thus our century has received an almost pure heritage of uniformitarianism, and as a consequence, is leaving a legacy of anti-spiritual humanism in various forms.1

Modern uniformitarianism was conceived 200 years ago, and about 100 years ago it became the dominant theory of Earth history. Its advocates maintained that our planet and our solar system have had a serene past in terms of multiplied millions of years. No great, sudden cataclysms ever occurred. But is this theory defensible in the light of new evidence? Was it ever really defensible in the light of former evidence?

There are abundant evidences of a watery, global cataclysm -- evidences which are not easily refuted. They are so universal, so astounding, and so inter-related that they require re-examination. How is it explained, for instance, that ancient peoples, from six separate continents, almost invariably had a Flood tradition? Why is it that ancient peoples almost always had a pantheon of sky-gods and traditions of celestial chaos? Why is it that ancient peoples all over the world, in diverse cultures possessing independent traditions, yet possessed similar traditions of cataclysms containing similar motifs? And if the ancients simply happened to have comparable or corresponding hallucinations, why, then, does our solar system also contain abundant evidences of historical astral chaos? And is it possible that our Earth could have escaped this? Re-examination of these universal evidences and their implications leads to a serious and careful consideration of the Flood catastrophe.

The evidences of a global Flood are sound and they increasingly demonstrate with drama that worldwide catastrophes have occurred. However, the Biblical Flood is far from a fully developed subject. Newer circumstances and additional evidence requires a more comprehensive review. Renewed analysis and synthesis are needed. Uniformitarianism needs to be thoroughly questioned.

Today, humanism--the adoration of homo sapiens--remains largely the attitude of our scholarly classes. This spirit of our age is reflected in our philosophies, our principles, our values and our deeds. We are asking if the humanistic viewpoint is really mature. Therefore, the objective of this work is to achieve the most critical, penetrating, systematic, analytical, and synthetical examination of the uniformitarianism which has been accomplished to date. The objective is to bring this modern hypothesis, almost a sacred cow, into the arena of test and trial; your writer is the matador and you, the reader, are the spectator.

This labor has been dedicated to young scholars. Dare to think, and to re-think. Have the courage to cheerfully challenge the current generation in its disappointing crescendo of turmoil and trouble. To use an old Latin phrase--sapere aude. Investigate the history of our solar system during the last 10,000 years, especially that of our fragile sphere. Examine the many traditions of the ancients. Review the magnificent job of engraving and etching that has occurred upon the surface of our swirling sphere.2 Examine these evidences carefully. Prepare to draw conclusions that may seem at first somewhat amazing.

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/PattenBiblFlood01.htm

tob
 
If i were a smart man you bet i would but i prefer to let an expert explain it..

If you don't understand it well enough to tell us what it is, what makes you think it's right? The section you quoted is long on talk and short on evidence. Why would that make any thinking person abandon reason?
 
That's why i said watch the video when you see it you'll understand it.. that teacher knew it was the answer people had been looking for that's why he was afraid of losing his job. How many universities want to admit they are wrong.. and I'm talking to you and your afraid to watch it because then you'd have to admit it as well...:yes

tob
 
That's the same pitch multilevel marketing schemes make. "We can't tell you what's in it; you have to watch the video. But from the description of his followers, it's just recycled Velikovskian myth.

Unless you have something of substance to show us.
 
I've debated you in the past when i asked how Jesus fit into your doctrine of evolution then you made a statement.. i quoted the statement exactly as you had written it.. and then you denied ever hearing such a statement and you were the one that made the statement.. adding anything else at this time would be mocking God and his creation which I'm beginning to think you enjoy

tob
 
Back
Top