Who believes what is rather important. For example, 6days regularly labels ideas he dislikes as “silly.” Yet he believes the absolute epitome of truthful tomes is the one that includes both snakes and donkeys conversing with humans in human language, it tells of a mountaintop from where all the nations of the earth can be seen, and it says there is a really big fish that a guy can live inside for days at a time. With that as the most truthful of all literature, I can see why “silly” is such a frequent part of the YEC lexicon. Do you join with 6days in his absolutist acceptance of what those ancient nomadic creation legends say?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution is a falsehood
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Who believes what is rather important. For example, 6days regularly labels ideas he dislikes as “silly.” Yet he believes the absolute epitome of truthful tomes is the one that includes both snakes and donkeys conversing with humans in human language, it tells of a mountaintop from where all the nations of the earth can be seen, and it says there is a really big fish that a guy can live inside for days at a time. With that as the most truthful of all literature, I can see why “silly” is such a frequent part of the YEC lexicon. Do you join with 6days in his absolutist acceptance of what those ancient nomadic creation legends say?
Utterly irrelevant.
We prefer evidence. :up:
I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it. :up:
And you think that counting the number of people who believe otherwise is going to be a convincing argument? :AMR:
This thread is about how silly Darwinism is. You're only helping its case with these silly posts.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I thought 6days’ belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was relevant. But if you disagree, that’s fine with me.
I do too. You know, like even one snake or donkey with the anatomy needed to form human words. And if you say it is real, then it should be a breeze supplying the latitude and longitude of that neato mountain.
Nah, I just keep in mind whether I am conversing with a real Christian, or with a YEC fanatic.
Too bad I didn’t say that.
I see you are also one of the fanatics.
No you don't.
Because an angel needs to have a voice box to speak... :mock:
Because the God and Creator of the universe allowing part of his creation to do something miraculous totally requires it to have the correct anatomy... :mock:
Which one?
And this is why I say you don't prefer evidence.
Because if you did, instead of interpreting everything through your preferred dogma, you'd be a YEC too. But that would require humbling yourself, now, wouldn't it? And redfern is too high and mighty for that, he's too proud. :mock:
What you did do is appeal to popularity AND appeal to authority, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.
#metoo! :mock:
The evidence is the universe is older than 13 billion years, yet you don't "believe" that. Why do you not accept that?
The evidence is the universe is around 7000 years old, yet you don't "believe" that. Why will you not accept that?
Au contraire. I directly asked for evidence. If it isn’t forthcoming, it’s not my fault.
Your comment turned out to be interesting.
I used the Bible Gateway on the net to look at 51 translations of Gen 3:1, to see what the wording really was. Some of the 51 translations seemed to be just updated versions of others in the list, and were almost verbatim in their wording of the earlier versions (for example, the NRVSA, the NRSVACE, and the NRSVCE are probably slight derivatives of the NRSV). These are probably minor revisions on whichever one came first, and their wording of Gen 3.1 was essentially identical. So when I saw several translations like that that seemed to have a very close ancestral relationship I lumped them all into just one for that group, to preclude biasing that would occur if I counted each variant as a completely new translation. When that was done, I was left with 41 translations that seemed to be quite independent of each other.
Of the 41 translations, 29 used the word “serpent” (or the Hebrew equivalent), 11 used the word “snake”, and one used the term “Shining One”. In one case the word “Satan” was included in parenthesis immediately after “serpent”, and in another “snake” was included in parenthesis immediately after “serpent”.
In the NKJV we see this phrasing: “… the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” Other translations use similar words to express a similar idea, but there is one point of disagreement. Was this “serpent” itself one of the “beasts of the field” created by God, or was it not? The NKJV phrasing says the serpent was “more cunning than any beast of the field that God had created”. A beast can’t be more cunning than itself, so it necessarily follows that it was not included in the group of beasts of the field that God had created. 25 of the translations follow suit in describing the serpent as more clever than any of the created beasts.
But in the remaining 16 translations we see phrasing like this:
The serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals …more crafty than any other …the most intelligent of all …the most clever of all …sneakier than any of the other … shrewdest of all …Of all the wild creatures the Eternal God had created, the serpent was the craftiest.
Take your pick, was the serpent more clever than all of the creatures God had created, or was he the most clever among the creatures God had created?
In this case, thank you for the admission that “Godditit”, which is purely theological, very different from 6days’ claim that “science supports the Bible”
Matt 4:8
Just did a quick count. I’ve got more than 2000 issues of the primary science magazines on my shelves, going back several decades. Typically each issue has at least a half-dozen technical peer-reviewed articles pertinent to subjects we discuss.
Have you no shame?
Darwinists think that their assertions are evidence.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Asking for evidence does not inherently mean that one prefers evidence...
Unless I missed your initial point (which is admittedly possible...), what does ANY of that have to do whether an angel in the form of a snake/serpent requires a voice box to speak?
Miracles are not things that can be tested by science. What point would there be in using science to explain one?
What's wrong with that mountain? Unless you're referring to being able to "see all the kingdoms of the world..."
Ya know, figurative language IS used in the Bible....
"All the kingdoms of the world" is referring to all the kingdoms that are visible.
Good for you.
"Let God be true and every man a liar."
Of what, exactly?
Maybe you ask for evidence and really don’t want it. I often see people with religious views that they want to keep insulated from evidence that would call into question their beliefs. But in science attacking an idea (like old earth) and seeing it stands up to that attack strengthens the conviction the idea is correct. Bring it on.
It was not directed primarily at the animals talking question, but rather noting a chink in any pretense that Biblical scholars agree on what the original texts say. 6days talks of his using God’s Word as the “ultimate truth” he believes in. “Ultimate truth” based on an uncertain text is an oxymoron.
It is becoming clear that you are distinctly less absolutist about science and the Bible than 6days is (and that stands to your credit).
From my stance as an atheist, I believe there are no such things as miracles. There are (and always have been, and probably will be) gaps in our current understanding of nature. You and I routinely use technology that would be viewed as miracles to the Old and New Testament people.
Yeahhh – that is what it says in my Bible. Borrowing a common YEC argument I have seen lately – “Why not accept what it clearly says”?
That’s not what it says.
Sound like a pretty crappy piece of advice. I would hope for a much more uplifting attitude towards others.
6days
New member
Haha...you 'articulated' what I thought was an ambiguous and a dishonest question. You suggested that experts agree with your belief system, and scientists who disagree with your belief are not real scientists. if that isn't what you are suggesting then explain why you put the word 'scientist' (those who disagree with your beliefs) in quote marks.Redfern said:
Redfern.... I think you are the one that avoided answering an unambiguous question. Why do you think your bandwagon argument is so compelling? Your response so far seems to indicate that we should believe in human evolution because the majority do.
Also....you asked for scientific evidence why 'fish to philosopher' is silly. I gave you 1 strong piece of evidence so far .....which you have ignored.Your beliefs in common ancestry are inspite of the evidence against it.
I’m not sure I could have worded it any simpler than what I did. Are really saying you could not understand what I asked?
As to dishonesty – I asked you about going to those who are recognized as experts for their opinion on a disputed question. The only criteria I specified was that they be known as experts in biology. What is dishonest about that? As I asked earlier, if you object to the experts I mentioned, then who do recommend going to that would be more scientifically qualified to ask an important biology question to?
Are you bereft of experts that agree with your belief system?
If you take offense at my quote marks, then please feel free to remove them. Is that really why you have refused to give a straightforward answer?
“Seems to indicate” shows you are projecting something I have not said. And again you are either sloppy or deceitful for repeatedly using the unqualified word “majority”. I have consistently been careful to specify biological experts, expressly because simply saying “majority” (or popular opinion, or equivalent term) refers to people who are seldom experts. As to what you are wont to call “bandwagon”, I would hope that you are conversant enough with the technical reasons the experts put forward to either agree with them or to offer substantive scientific reasons for why you differ with them.
And for the immediate future, I will probably continue to ignore. For me to meaningfully engage the question of mutations beyond just quote mining, I would have to understand the details of molecular genetics far beyond what I do now. I will venture my opinion that your arguments on the subject are primarily just quote mines that you have collected that seem to say you are right. But feel free to correct me – do you feel confident that you could stand your ground against an “expert” from my side who has an in-depth understanding of the biology of mutations and the requisite mathematics?
Then please show us that your understanding of the subject is deep enough for you to defend it at a technical level commensurate with the data and analysis that our experts relied on.
Last edited:
ah, missed that, what specific evidence is that?
Stripey thinks that religion is "evidence".
Nope.
Physics, anthropology, archaeology, genetics, volcanology, philosophy, astronomy...
Take your pick, line up the facts, present your data, support your assertion and be willing to see it falsified.
You know: Science.
Oh, wait. You don't.
You think your assertions are science.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
You first, since you claimed billions of years first.
What specific evidence do you have that the universe is billions of years old?
Right Divider
Body part
UNEQUIVOCAL evidence.
6days
New member
You were dishonest in suggesting that all experts in biology only believe in common ancestry.Redfern said:
If you aren't dishonest, then you certainly would be willfully ignorant.Redfern said:
I agree with the experts in biology who state that common ancestry (fish to philosopher is impossible). You asked for one scientific reason from me why that belief system is silly and I have already offered you one which you ignored.Redfern said:
I'm "standing my ground" against your challenge. Your response seems to be 'I don't understand genetics but I will believe the experts from my side'. (BTW... Even the experts from your side can only answer the mutation problem with hypothetical answers).Redfern said: