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

[46AND2]

I never said anything about major changes. Interpolations were usually pretty small, but it doesn't take much to significantly change the meaning of a segment. And if that change is found in a particularly popular manuscript, it will be more likely to be passed on, while a more correct, but less popular manuscript meets a dead end.

All of this is why we place more value on the older manuscripts than the vastly more plentiful newer ones. The quantity does not always overcome the lack of antiquity.

And we just don't have enough old manuscripts to ascertain what the autographs said.

 

[Radagast]

Sure, fragments. That hardly contributes to finding the common ancestor of the manuscripts. That one is like the size of a credit card.

Because it's consistent with later mss (see P52), it is evidence against massive changes to John in the three centuries or so after 130 AD.

The date suggests that the common ancestor for John can't have been any later than about 100 AD or so, not all that long after the presumed date of the autograph.

All of this is why we place more value on the older manuscripts than the vastly more plentiful newer ones.

What we place value on is the pattern of relationships between mss, and the most likely common ancestor inferred from that pattern.

The weight on newer mss is reduced, not because of their age per se, but because of their lack of independence from each other.

 

[46AND2]

Because it's consistent with later mss (see P52), it is evidence against massive changes to John in the three centuries or so after 130 AD.

Like I said, I have not said anything about massive changes. Even so, it is only evidence for no changes in that segment, not for John as a whole.

This is also, easily, the best case scenario you have for any book of the New Testament, as far as I know.

 

[mzungu]

In the Book of Rev John only recognized 7 churches. They all received a copy of his letter. Jesus use to preach in the synagogues. There was no record of Him carrying the Scriptures around with him. If he wanted something read he would call for the Scrolls and they would bring it to Him so He could read what He wanted to read. If they were outside of a synagogue then they would usually quote or paraphrase from memory.

The scriptures of the new testament did not exist during Jesus' life. Also every Synagogue had and has a copy of the OT. So you are right that Jesus had no reason to carry a copy with him. Also, Christianity came to be after Jesus died for Jesus was a Jew and the religion he abided by was Judaism. After all he did warn people to keep to the scriptures till the end times and all is accomplished. Lastly by adding the new testament, Christians in essence broke this commandment by adding new scriptures; Namely the NT.

I can see that even religions evolve (pun intended)

 

[Radagast]

Even so, it is only evidence for no changes in that segment, not for John as a whole.

It provides evidence for little change on that leaf as a whole (or at least, any changes did not affect the amount of text on each line). Now it's possible that every other leaf in John got changed except this one, but that's very unlikely.

Like I said, I have not said anything about massive changes.

You implied it by suggesting that we don't know what the autographs said. In fact, the most likely hypothesis is that the autographs were very close to the inferred common ancestor of the known mss.

But, given your hostility to Christianity, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[46AND2]

It provides evidence for little change on that leaf as a whole (or at least, any changes did not affect the amount of text on each line). Now it's possible that every other leaf in John got changed except this one, but that's very unlikely.

Ugh, will you please stop trying to embellish my claims? Yes, it is unlikely that EVERY other leaf got changed. But it cannot be said that NO other leafs are changed, either.

You implied it by suggesting that we don't know what the autographs said. In fact, the most likely hypothesis is that the autographs were very close to the inferred common ancestor.

No I didn't. I specifically stated in the beginning that I thought what we have is very close to the autographs. I was objecting to your claim that we know 99.9% of what the autographs say.

 

[46AND2]

But, given your hostility to Christianity, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

What? Hostility? I'm just trying to have a discussion here. I wasn't attacking you.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of this is why we place more value on the older manuscripts than the vastly more plentiful newer ones. The quantity does not always overcome the lack of antiquity.

And we just don't have enough old manuscripts to ascertain what the autographs said.

Do you know why they're always finding "older" manuscripts? or finding "better manuscripts"? or "newer manuscripts"?

It's because they were never really used in the first place.

I've seen people, including my wife, use their Bibles until It falls apart; but an NIV in our house will sit on the shelf in pristine condition forever.

 

[46AND2]

Do you know why they're always finding "older" manuscripts? or finding "better manuscripts"? or "newer manuscripts"?

It's because they were never really used in the first place.

I've seen people, including my wife, use their Bibles until It falls apart; but an NIV in our house will sit on the shelf in pristine condition forever.

Surprised you'd even let one inside your doors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Surprised you'd even let one inside your doors.

They were from my earlier days as a Christian.

Only KJVs here now.

I even pitched my Layman's Parallel Bible.

 

[FrozenOne]

Well here is a couple interesting articles from AIG.

Can creationists be "real" scientists?

The main difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature.

Chapter 14: Can Creationists Be “Real” Scientists? - Answers in Genesis

Hasn't evolution been proven true?
Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True? - Answers in Genesis

12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

 

[Skarl]

Well here is a couple interesting articles from AIG.

Can creationists be "real" scientists?

Chapter 14: Can Creationists Be “Real” Scientists? - Answers in Genesis

Hasn't evolution been proven true?
Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True? - Answers in Genesis

12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

*bored*

Feel free to give us a single "creation science" article that has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[Split Rock]

Well here is a couple interesting articles from AIG.

Can creationists be "real" scientists?

Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature.

False. Creationists draw no conlcusions from observation and experimentation. They only cherry-pick through such things to find whatever they can to prop up their dogma. "The bible says it, that settles it."

 

[Skarl]

False. Creationists draw no conlcusions from observation and experimentation. They only cherry-pick through such things to find whatever they can to prop up their dogma. "The bible says it, that settles it."

I've never even heard of "creation scientists" actually doing lab research or running experiments either. I very much doubt their so-called "institutes" even have labs.

 

[Split Rock]

I've never even heard of "creation scientists" actually doing lab research or running experiments either. I very much doubt their so-called "institutes" even have labs.

They have occasional done so like the infamous "RATE" project. Most of the time, however, it is other peoples' data they cherry-pick through.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never even heard of "creation scientists" actually doing lab research or running experiments either.

Really? then where did the following come from?

• Antiseptic Surgery
• Bacteriology
• Calculus
• Celestial Mechanics
• Chemistry
• Comparative Anatomy
• Computer Science
• Dimensional Analysis
• Dynamics
• Electrodynamics
• Electromagnetics
• Electronics
• Energetics
• Entomology of Living Insects
• Field Theory
• Fluid Mechanics
• Galactic Astronomy
• Gas Dynamics
• Genetics
• Glacial Geology
• Gynecology
• Hydraulics
• Hydrography
• Hydrostatics
• Ichthyology
• Isotopic Chemistry
• Model Analysis
• Natural History
• Non-Euclidean Geometry
• Oceanography
• Optical Mineralogy
• Paleontology
• Pathology
• Physical Astronomy
• Reversible Thermodynamics
• Statistical Thermodynamics
• Stratigraphy
• Systematic Biology
• Thermodynamics
• Thermokinetics
• Vertebrate Paleontology

As well as:

• Absolute Temperature Scale
• Actuarial Tables
• Barometer
• Biogenesis Law
• Calculating Machine
• Chloroform
• Classification System
• Double Stars
• Electric Generator
• Electric Motor
• Ephemeris Tables
• Fermentation Control
• Galvanometer
• Global Star Catalog
• Inert Gas
• Kaleidoscope
• Law of Gravity
• Mine Safety Lamp
• Pasteurization
• Reflecting Telescope
• Scientific Method
• Self-Induction
• Telegraph
• Thermionic Valve
• Trans-Atlantic Cable
• Vaccination & Immunization

 

[46AND2]

Really? then where did the following come from?

• Antiseptic Surgery
• Bacteriology
• Calculus
• Celestial Mechanics
• Chemistry
• Comparative Anatomy
• Computer Science
• Dimensional Analysis
• Dynamics
• Electrodynamics
• Electromagnetics
• Electronics
• Energetics
• Entomology of Living Insects
• Field Theory
• Fluid Mechanics
• Galactic Astronomy
• Gas Dynamics
• Genetics
• Glacial Geology
• Gynecology
• Hydraulics
• Hydrography
• Hydrostatics
• Ichthyology
• Isotopic Chemistry
• Model Analysis
• Natural History
• Non-Euclidean Geometry
• Oceanography
• Optical Mineralogy
• Paleontology
• Pathology
• Physical Astronomy
• Reversible Thermodynamics
• Statistical Thermodynamics
• Stratigraphy
• Systematic Biology
• Thermodynamics
• Thermokinetics
• Vertebrate Paleontology

As well as:

• Absolute Temperature Scale
• Actuarial Tables
• Barometer
• Biogenesis Law
• Calculating Machine
• Chloroform
• Classification System
• Double Stars
• Electric Generator
• Electric Motor
• Ephemeris Tables
• Fermentation Control
• Galvanometer
• Global Star Catalog
• Inert Gas
• Kaleidoscope
• Law of Gravity
• Mine Safety Lamp
• Pasteurization
• Reflecting Telescope
• Scientific Method
• Self-Induction
• Telegraph
• Thermionic Valve
• Trans-Atlantic Cable
• Vaccination & Immunization

Bzzzz.

"What is...NOT Christian Science, Alex?"

"We were looking for Science, but our judges will accept your answer. Please select the next category."

 

[RickG]

Really? then where did the following come from?

• Antiseptic Surgery
• Bacteriology /snip................

I don't think Skarl meant that there were were not any scientists that were creationists. I think what he mean, and what is very true, is that no creationist or group of creationists, scientists or not, have ever presented any original research to a scientific journal about creationism. As pointed out by Split Rock, they only cherry pick things from the existing literature that appears to support their position and ignore everything that shows their position to be false. In other words they misrepresent the scientific literature and in some cases, just make stuff up.

 

[Jamin4422]

Can creationists be "real" scientists?

Of course they can. There is no conflict between science and religion. In fact I say use science to verify your religion to know for sure what is and what is not true. Of course there is a lot in the Bible that Science has no way to verify or falsify. Neil Degrasse Tyson says to leave it alone because Science has nothing to say about it one way or the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bzzzz.

"What is...NOT Christian Science, Alex?"

"We were looking for Science, but our judges will accept your answer. Please select the next category."

"Arab Phone" for 46 please, Alex.

I've never even heard of "creation scientists" actually doing lab research or running experiments either. I very much doubt their so-called "institutes" even have labs.