*Dinosaurs And Jesus Walked The Planet At Same Time: Pre-Flood*

[Missileman]

Can you tell me when man first stood erect?

Heh...that's a no-brainer! Man first stood erect when he first saw woman nekkid!

[darin]

Like I said, once a scam artist, always a scam artist. If I want to read fiction, I'll buy a Harry Potter novel.

Translation - I'll assume what he wrote is bad, or false because I don't like him.

Logical Fallacy.

[Missileman]

Translation - I'll assume what he wrote is bad, or false because I don't like him.

Logical Fallacy.

I assume that Hilary is about to spout a pile of nonsense when she opens her mouth because she's a liberal. I can safely make the same assumptions about creationists because if they could ACTUALLY back up any of their pseudo-scientific crapola with REAL science, it would be accepted by REAL scientists.

[-Cp]

I assume that Hilary is about to spout a pile of nonsense when she opens her mouth because she's a liberal. I can safely make the same assumptions about creationists because if they could ACTUALLY back up any of their pseudo-scientific crapola with REAL science, it would be accepted by REAL scientists.

What defines a "real" scientist?

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But here's *Part* of what happened.
2. The Dino's were killed during the flood, Jesus is Gawd and was on Earth before he was born to Mother Mary, Mother of Gawd.
3. The Dino's were here before the flood, and were in areas where man usually wasn't.
4. They had special needs, and their food stayed in certain areas, and people as it were, were in the *Garden of Eden* at the time.
5. Which was protected from Dino's.
6. There were Gawd given protectors, all around, *The Garden of Eden*.
7. Later on after man populated the world, from Eve's womb.
8. You know the story, man was corrupted, and needed to be drowned out.
9. At this time the Dino's were not offered a place on-board *The Ark*, or spoken to by Gawd to follow Noah.
10. Who Noah being a faithful man built *The Ark*, even though it had never rained yet on the face of the Earth, Gawd told Noah that it was going to rain and flood the Earth.
11. Which up till now, it would only make dew on the Earth, and this is how everything got its water.
12. And man drew his water from springs.
13. Also at the time, this is very interesting, there was no mountains, just high hills.
14. When *The Great Flood*, came, and washed everything on the surface to their deaths.
15. At the same time, the mountains were formed.
16. The waters from the deep fractured the land, all over the planet, and all the waters weight pushing down on these fractures created the mountains.
17. Before *The Great Flood*, Oceans were more or less large lakes, smooth as glass, there wasn't even that many rivers.
18. The rivers that were, were formed from springs, not rain.
19. It wasn't till, *The Great Flood* that mountains, rivers as we know them, and rain came into existence.
20. This Earth isn't anywhere as old as *The Scientists* think it is.
21. *The Great CWN* would estimate this Earth is no older than 5~6,000 years old.
22. Some animals and insects survived during the flood by clinging to tree stumps.
23. Most Dinosaurs were washed into the Oceans, unless they got snagged behind a rock or huge tree.
24. As the Oceans were churned up, the Ocean fish who are used to salt water submerged some 300 feet to maintain normal salt levels.
25. While fresh water fish remained on the top, and when the land popped up through the new Ocean levels, the fresh water fish pooled on land and in lakes on the new land masses.
26. While the salt water fish etc. stayed in deep waters where it was salty.
27. There is more much more, this is my first installment.
28. I know you can't wait for my next.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Missileman]

What defines a "real" scientist?

One who subscribes to scientific method.

[-Cp]

One who subscribes to scientific method.

The PHD's who write many of the Creationist views DO subscribe to Scientific methods...

[darin]

I assume that Hilary is about to spout a pile of nonsense when she opens her mouth because she's a liberal. I can safely make the same assumptions about creationists because if they could ACTUALLY back up any of their pseudo-scientific crapola with REAL science, it would be accepted by REAL scientists.

That's beside the point. Not liking the messenger doesn't make the message invalid.

One who subscribes to scientific method.

Macro evolution doesn't stand up to the scientific method.

[PostmodernProphet]

Second, the person we know as "Noah," "Gilgamesh," "Xisuthrus," "Yima," etc., probably is based on a real person who rode-out a flood with a few animals at some point in history.

well, that's certainly what Genesis says....so we're on the same track....

by the way, I have often heard the argument that Gilgamesh predates the Genesis account of Noah and that therefore the Hebrews borrowed the tale.....however, early copies of the Gilgamesh saga have been discovered which do not contain the details that the story shares with Genesis.....details which suddenly appear in copies generated AFTER the Babylonian captivity of Israel....

interestingly then, it appears that the Gilgamesh story, at least the parts which parallel Genesis, is actually a copy of the Noah story.......

[Missileman]

The PHD's who write many of the Creationist views DO subscribe to Scientific methods...

The entire premise of creationism is unscientific, so any creationists who claim that they are following scientific method are lying about one or the other.

[-Cp]

The entire premise of creationism is unscientific, so any creationists who claim that they are following scientific method are lying about one or the other.

If you would actually READ what they write - you'd see what they're doing is NOT saying that the story of Creation is Science, however, they're providing STRONG evidence of how Science backs up the Creation account..

[Missileman]

That's beside the point. Not liking the messenger doesn't make the message invalid.

It's got nothing to do with liking or disliking the messenger. If it's been proven time and again that liberals come up with screwed up ideas, assuming that a liberal is going to propose one makes sense. Same with creationists.

Macro evolution doesn't stand up to the scientific method.

According to who?

[Missileman]

If you would actually READ what they write - you'd see what they're doing is NOT saying that the story of Creation is Science, however, they're providing STRONG evidence of how Science backs up the Creation account..

You see, I actually did READ what they write and consider the following:

The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

This is a pile of steaming, unscientific, bullshit.

[-Cp]

You see, I actually did READ what they write and consider the following:



This is a pile of steaming, unscientific, bullshit.

If you don't like the answers - keep downplaying it.. that's what liberals do..

Anywho.. if you don't like how he framed that one, try this one:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...1&postcount=29

[PostmodernProphet]

The entire premise of creationism is unscientific, so any creationists who claim that they are following scientific method are lying about one or the other.

I think I understand what you are saying....since Creation cannot be tested by the scientific method, then the premise of creationsim is unscientific.....

then, using that same approach, the spontaneous origin of the universe and, for that matter, the spontaneous origin of life, since they cannot be tested by the scientific method, are both also unscientific.....