Creationist Explanation for Bigfoot, Lochness, etc

[Byblos]

a false assertion.

Pointless discussing this with you, if you're unwilling (or unable) to back up your claims of "false assertions" with any detail or facts.

Really? Something like you asserting that the bible is fictitious without any sort of backup whatsoever in another thread? Care to tackle that assertion?

[ageofknowledge]

a false assertion.

Pointless discussing this with you, if you're unwilling (or unable) to back up your claims of "false assertions" with any detail or facts.

^a false assertion. You responded before I could finish editing my post. Like your belief system, you jumped to your conclusion to quickly.

[ManOfScience]

a false assertion. You responded before I could finish editing my post. Like your belief system, you jumped to your conclusion to quickly.

Is there a recommended time for which one should wait before responding to a post, in case the author is still editing their post?

[touchingcloth]

He is distinct from all other views of God, since there can only be one indivisible, infinite, necessary, absolutely perfect Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

Are you saying that there has to be such a thing, or that if it does exist that there can be only one?

[ageofknowledge]

a false assertion. You responded before I could finish editing my post. Like your belief system, you jumped to your conclusion to quickly.

Is there a recommended time for which one should wait before responding to a post, in case the author is still editing their post?

No the author has finished. I believe it took about 3 minutes.

[ageofknowledge]

He is distinct from all other views of God, since there can only be one indivisible, infinite, necessary, absolutely perfect Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

Are you saying that there has to be such a thing, or that if it does exist that there can be only one?

Yes that is what I am saying.

[ManOfScience]

Really? Something like you asserting that the bible is fictitious without any sort of backup whatsoever in another thread? Care to tackle that assertion?

I don't believe that's what I said. What I asked was, why is it necessary to spend so much more time and effort attempting to disprove God's existence than to disprove Nessie's? In other words: why is God given such a great deal more credibility, when the evidence for both is equal?

However, now that you've brought it up, would you like me to start a thread arguing why the Bible is fictitious? (For the record, I do believe that some of the characters and events container therein are based on fact -- but not the supernatural ones.) (Also, it won't be today, as I'm somewhat busy in work.)

[touchingcloth]

He is distinct from all other views of God, since there can only be one indivisible, infinite, necessary, absolutely perfect Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

Are you saying that there has to be such a thing, or that if it does exist that there can be only one?

Yes that is what I am saying.

Which one?

[ManOfScience]

Repeating there is zero evidence for God doesn't make your false assertion any more true.

True, true! The same is also true of the opposite point of view, however.

God's presence in the world is evidenced in a thousand different ways, and His divine voice speaks all the time in innumerable wys; however what is obvious to some is completely hidden from others. To unbelievers like yourself, for example, God seems nowhere... silent.

Ah, how fortunate. This is precisely the argument used by psychic mediums, ghost hunters, and other con artists, too. I presume you believe in these things?

No the author has finished. I believe it took about 3 minutes.

17, to be precise.

[ageofknowledge]

He is distinct from all other views of God, since there can only be one indivisible, infinite, necessary, absolutely perfect Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

Are you saying that there has to be such a thing, or that if it does exist that there can be only one?

Yes that is what I am saying.

Which one?

Both.

[touchingcloth]

Both.

Ok. How did you arrive at the conclusion that there has to be one?

[rare96ws6]

Since many different cultures have "bigfoot" myths, it is from campfire stories passed on since the days when Neandertals walked the earth side by side with us.

[David505]

As a Young Earth creationist believer, I've long been interested in what reputable creation scientists have to say to explain many of the mysterious creatures that conventional science has yet to embrace, or even study, such as Bigfoot (or it's cousins), the Lochness Monster, and other such creatures.

Regarding the Loch Ness Monster:

Giant eels and too much whiskey are the most popular explanations.

http://britannia.com/travel/luxury-scotland.html

http://www.drinkfinder.co.uk/ShowDetails.asp?id=3886

Loch Ness Scotch Whiskey.jpg (8.9 KiB) Viewed 4942 times

[Gman]

Nessy?

I believe it was spotted recently at the new Creation Museum in Kentucky..

[robyn hill]

Manofscience, Are you serious? This entire website is made of thousands of threads with suggested evidence of God. So really, the burden of proof lays with you. Choose evidence we have shown here and disprove it. Your move mate. Yes, I believe starting a thread proving the bible is fictitious is a marvelous idea. I look forward to reading it and having a real discussion on specific statements rather than reading generalized blanket statements stating evidence for the lochness monster and christianity are equal.