Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Loudmouth]

Those high, gray mountain peaks are the top are the mountains in Turkey. The ark came to rest in the mountans of Ararat, in Turkey.

Do you have evidence for this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Geocentrism is not a part of Biblical teaching.

It was at one time. Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life because he dared to challenge those biblical teachings, and dared to challenge the authoritarians of the Church.

What are we seeing now? The same thing happening all over again. It is an exact repeat of the Galileo affair. Creationists have put themselves in the middle of the creation, and they act offended if anyone challenges their hubris.

I'm not Catholic. To me, a Cardinal is a bird.

You are a christian, as was Cardinal Bellarmine. You are interpretting the Bible so that it contradicts reality, just as Cardinal Bellarmine did. The comparisons are quite apt.

Jesus did not speak those words, nor is it written even in the earliest of books.

Jesus did not say that Noah's Flood was a real historical event. Jesus did not say that God put ERV's into our genomes. Jesus did not say that evolution is a lie. Jesus did not say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Need I go on?

Of course, Jesus later states that He is that rock. By the way. You DO know that foundations are not always physical, right?[

I am not the one claiming that the Bible is literal in all verses. I have no problem with allegory, parables, myths, and metaphors in religious texts. These things can still hold truths without needing to be literal historical events.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have evidence for this?

I don't ... I call it 'faith.'

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

If it was good enough for Noah to take action,* it's good enough for me to believe it.

* James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't ... I call it 'faith.'

I guess we have different definitions of faith. For me, faith is something that you believe when you have no evidence for something. Your version of faith is to believe in something in contradiction to the evidence. That isn't faith, at least not in my view.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

The problem for you is that we have seen transitional fossils and the mountains of evidence we have shown you.

 

[OllieFranz]

Here is a topographical map of the Middle East.

As you can see, it is NOT surrounded on all sides by mountains and there is no place where a torrential deluge would not drain into the sea. Therefore to disprove claims of a LOCAL flood, one has to merely look at a map. You cannot stack water over the mountains in one place without it simply washing away to the lowest ground. The only way you can flood land that opens to the sea is to raise the level of the sea as well.

As I said earlier, modern scholarship is leaning toward accepting that Noah's Flood occured when the Black Sea formed. In which case, the water did not drain immediately. In fact the flood waters are still there.

But if we assume that the Flood was in the T-E valley, thenthe flood waters would cover everything in that valley colored green. The ark would have wasd up inthe narrow orange region between the green flood and the grey mountaintops. Still "in" the mountains of Ararat, just as the Bible states, although not "on top of" Mount Ararat, as later tradition claims.

As far as draining right out again, well yeah, but. But it takes time to move that much water.It took forty days of rain andbackwash from the Sea to fill the valey with water. Two constant sources. Only one of them was available for the drainage. Plus, timber fromuprooted trees and demolished houses would collect in narrow spaces forming natural dams, slowing the progress of the retreating water. So a draining period much longer than the flooding period is to be expected. Look at the cleanup efforts in New Orleans after Katrina. Or more recently, even the less severe Sandy.

 

[verysincere]

Those high, gray mountain peaks are the top are the mountains in Turkey. The ark came to rest in the mountans of Ararat, in Turkey.

Face-palm.

Once again, TRADITION replaces the evidence. (KW probably thinks every tourist trap in the Holy Land is the ACTUAL location of various Biblical events. Sheesh!)

At least SIX different locations scattered around the Eastern Hemisphere have been associated with "mountains in Ararat". KWCrazy probably thinks the Bible states Turkey as the resting place of the ark. (He just hasn't bothered to go looking for the passage yet. Perhaps it is located in First Opinions 3:16.)

The Book of Proverbs said it best.........

 

[verysincere]

..... has more validity than molecules-to-man.

You are entitled to your opinion----but I happen to have no problem with Genesis 2:7 and its description of molecules to man.

To each his own. You've got your traditions and your favorite sect. I've got the Bible. That's fine.

 

[verysincere]

[/color]

To disprove a recent global flood, one has to merely look at geology.

Indeed, considering that the Hebrew Bible says nothing about a planet-wide flood and the evidence throughout creation tells us nothing about a planet-wide flood, why are we bothering to talk about it? Answer: Tradition. Tradition is driving everything here.

People love traditions, especially much cherished traditions favored by their particular peer-group. It is a powerful force. It doesn't care about evidence, scriptural or scientific. (That's why the mantra is "Evidence can take a hike!" Is it any surprise that the same person ranted, "Lexicons can take a hike!" The Bible says it well: They shall trade the truth for lies.)

 

[verysincere]

Hebrews 11:7 ......prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world....,

Here is an excellent example of how creationist avoid literal interpretation of their own Bible. The passage is written in GREEK and the word for "world" is KOSMOS, not GE.

And what does that tell us? KOSMOS means "the world of people" (such as we see in English words like "cosmopolitan".) If the intention had been the "world" of PLANET EARTH, the text would use the word GE, the Greek word for the rocks, minerals, and continents, etc. that makes up the planet and the study of GEology.

So yes, Noah's flood involved the ENTIRE WORLD OF PEOPLE which he knew in his time. As Genesis states, it involved the KOL ERETZ ("the whole land") ---everything Noah could see to the horizon. [ERETZ doesn't mean "planet earth", it means the ERETZ="land" which Noah saw under the dome of the sky, his view of his entire world. Even today nobody thinks that ERETZ ISRAEL means "planet Israel". It means "Land of Israel" or "Nation of Israel."]

Again and again we see that creationists defend TRADITIONS, not what the Bible actually and even LITERALLY says! How many more examples do I need to provide?! In each and every case they are introducing a TRADITION they love into the Bible in defiance of what the ancient language and culture was actually saying.

The best friend of adamant TRADITION is ignorance of the facts.

___________

P.S. I recently saw some documentary segments interviewing survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not fluent in Japanese but I trust the translations of their words. They said things like, "We were looking at the end of the world." and "Surely this meant the end of all life and the destruction of the world." Did they actually THINK at the time that the entire planet earth had been bombed and obliterated? Did they think it the end of all mankind? Did their words intend the meanings others might wish to impose on them OR the feelings and thoughts they had at the moment? We all know the honest answers to these questions. If words have real meanings, why not let them speak? Why are so many young earth creationists so afraid of literal, careful translation and interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Loudmouth]

People love traditions, especially much cherished traditions favored by their particular peer-group. It is a powerful force. It doesn't care about evidence, scriptural or scientific. (That's why the mantra is "Evidence can take a hike!")

With the upcoming season, it often makes me chuckle to hear people say that Jesus is the "reason for the season". Truth is, paganism is the reason for the season. This is why we have things like a decorated tree, yule logs, holly, etc. It doesn't take long for these types of traditions to become standard, and to forget the previous traditions they are actually based on. In fact, I think it would shock most creationists that modern creationism is a tradition from Seventh Day Adventism, and was pushed by a modern prophetess.

 

[verysincere]

In fact, I think it would shock most creationists that modern creationism is a tradition from Seventh Day Adventism, and was pushed by a modern prophetess.

True indeed. I was a young professor in those days and part of that early "creation science" movement, and knowing personally Morris and Whitcomb and often coordinating with Dr. Gish's team as well (such as on campus debate logistics at my university.) The scriptural evidence and the scientific evidence is what eventually led me out of the YEC movement---but it was the rampant dishonesty that got my attention. I just couldn't figure out [and couldn't get anywhere reasoning with my colleagues] why we should have to LIE if we indeed had the truth about the earth's history. Rarely did my colleagues want to talk carefully about the actually evidence. It was always "Tradition first; then make the data somehow fit." Yes, the presuppositionism was bad enough---but the lack of integrity was worse. And it was FAR less severe back in the 1960's and 1970's than it is today with the big $$$ mega-ministries having greatly expanded on those early foundations we created for the movement.

My involvement in educating Christians today is motivated in part by my personal culpability for reinforcing lies. Yes, at the time I truly believed that the leaders were telling me the truth about the evidence. But as I researched the facts for myself, I found I was aiding a conspiracy of lies.
I had to get out.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem for you is that we have seen transitional fossils and the mountains of evidence we have shown you.

If you would have shown Noah, do you think he would have stopped building the Ark?

If not, then your transitional fossils and mountains of evidence can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least SIX different locations scattered around the Eastern Hemisphere have been associated with "mountains in Ararat".

It's interesting that you said have been, and not are.

Equally interesting and ... ironic ... is that you ridicule me for believing the Ark started its journey elsewhere, but then you try and convince us it ended its journey elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got the Bible.

You've got the Bible, huh?

Is that why you're paraphrasing It?

Or by 'Bible,' do you mean your own paraphrased version?

Didn't Vernon Howell claim the same thing?

 

[verysincere]

Equally interesting and ... ironic ... is that you ridicule me for believing ............

No, if I were going to ridicule you, it would be for writing strings of words which make absolutely no sense. People tell you that on these forums on a daily basis. You only ridicule yourself by what you post, such as claiming the KJV of 1611 was the basis for the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the ark was waterproofed with pine pitch from New Jersey. The Biblical text of the Noah account is just a big joke to you and "the Hebrew text can take a hike!" and "Lexicons can take a hike!" It would be impossible for anyone else to ridicule you more than you ridicule yourself.

My main complaint is that you ignore and mock the scriptures. But yes, that's your right. And no rule of this forum says that you have to care about evidence nor have to make sense when you post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are so many young earth creationists so afraid of literal, careful translation and interpretation of the Bible?

They aren't afraid.

They just interpret God's Bible ... not yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why we have things like a decorated tree, yule logs, holly, etc. It doesn't take long for these types of traditions to become standard, and to forget the previous traditions they are actually based on.

My pastor says there was a radio station in WW2 that broadcast Nazi propaganda.

Today, it is a Christian radio station that propagates the Gospel.

 

[AV1611VET]

My involvement in educating Christians today is motivated in part by my personal culpability for reinforcing lies. Yes, at the time I truly believed that the leaders were telling me the truth about the evidence. But as I researched the facts for myself, I found I was aiding a conspiracy of lies.
I had to get out.

In other words, you got tired of parroting someone else's 'lies,' and now you're writing your own version of the Truth ... is that correct?

 

[CabVet]

In other words, you got tired of parroting someone else's 'lies,' and now you're writing your own version of the Truth ... is that correct?

Not unlike what every other creationist here does, really. I have yet to see two creationists agree in the same "version" of creation. Yet, every single one of them claims their version is "the truth".

 

[AV1611VET]

You only ridicule yourself by what you post, such as claiming the KJV of 1611 was the basis for the Hebrew text of the Old Testament...

This is twice you've accused me of saying this, VS.

The first time you said it, I requested a link; and I don't recall you responding.

Now you've said it again, and I'm not going to request a link, but I am going to request you cease and desist.

The next time you say it, I'll turn it over to administration.

Am I clear on this?