• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Allow me to illustrate --



"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================







Irrefutable posts that you find "inconvenient" do not vanish each time you fail to refute them.

This may come as a surprise to some evolutionists.

In this case it is Your own diehard atheist evolutionist scientist - giving the "evidence" that you find "inconvenient".

IN blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" and when you find something that is not good news - and you can't refute it ... shoot the messenger??


See what I mean????? The guy just keeps reposting the same straw man. Bob is constitutionally incapable of addressing why there is NO evidence of a singular YEC event. To the contrary, the earth contains with it the evidence of a very long past with many kinds of plants and animals.

This is why they say that "the internet is where religions go to die."
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
As already pointed out - Gen 1:2-2:4 is a time-boxed chronological account of creation - but Gen 2:5-end merely adds details that fit into that existing framework.

Gen 1 - day six mankind is created. And Adam names animals that were formed prior to God creating Eve - on that same day - day 6.

In Genesis 2, clearly God sets about to make a companion suitable for Adam. As a prelude to the creation of Eve, God creates the animals and brings them to Adam for naming. This clearly means, literally, the animals are made after Adam. You choose to interpret scripture non-literally, in order to preserve inerrancy, as we all know you must; but we all can call you out on your non-literal interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,247
52,665
Guam
✟5,156,452.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you saying you merely have exactly the same reasons all the other people have fore being KJV? Well that makes it easy, now I know its because you are a member of a group that uses the KJV only doctrine as a key identification factor to be able to tell members of the group apart from outsiders to the group. A very useful item, and having that usage explains why its there, but . . . . that doesn't mean its true, you know.
And here I thought research was supposed to turn you guys on.

Aren't you guys supposed to investigate before you communicate?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Credit where credit is due for Colte -

Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In Genesis 2, clearly God sets about to make a companion suitable for Adam. As a prelude to the creation of Eve, God creates the animals and brings them to Adam for naming. .

True - but as we see in Genesis 1 - God creates the animals - -then man. And in Gen 2 God has the animals that he had created come before Adam to be named - just before creating Eve -- all on day 6.

the Hebrew verb translated “formed” is correctly translated “had formed. as stated in Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold:

NIV - Gen 2:19 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
1. Shall we play the game that evolutionism is to be disbelieved until all questions are answered - not a single one remains as you seem to want to do for the Bible?
2. Shall we remind ourselves that stories from the fossil record about how one thing came from another "are not science" even by your own atheist scientist's POV? (Because when you start telling those stories "easy enough to make up" as Patterson said - you get to wild claims about fictions that "never happened in nature" as has been confirmed in the case of the horse series example.



3. And why in the world would rapid deposition in flood and mud of a single generation of animals going through mass extinction at the flood - not produce a vast amount of fossil remains?

YEC is to wear blinders and put fingers in ears, call everyone atheist who disagrees with you.

The rapid deposition of mud in a singular flood with all the fossils living at the same time is nowhere to be found other than AIG's "blind faith" amusement park!:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,247
52,665
Guam
✟5,156,452.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Credit where credit is due for Colte -

Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.
Have you ever had anyone ask you why God didn't just snap His fingers and the entire universe be up and running in a split second?

I tell them that God took six days on purpose so as to use it as a template for the workweek, incorporated into the Ten Commandments that they want out of view from public property.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Credit where credit is due for Colte -

Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.
Moses was a leader and reformer, he set down the new rules for the slaves he lead out of Egypt. The were the laws of Moses, not the Laws of God. Later writers toke what came from Moses and remodeled it for their miraculous people claim.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

================================

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.



Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because your Urantia preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.

Lets get it straight what happened with the horse series. There was no disproof of evolution with further fossil finds. Rather, we found so many fossils that tracing an exact path for evolution between them was difficult

False.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


Your fictional revisionism claims that Eldredge thinks it is 'lamentable" that "so many proofs of horse evolution are now known"
- as IF that was the case with Othaniel Marsh's fraudulent horse series.

The fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.

It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.

Thus even the atheist evolutionist can admit "it was LAMENTABLE"

Meanwhile the T.E. is stuck at "all news is good news! err... umm... right?"

The revisionist history your are attempting with this confirmed fraud does not hold up.

And what is more - junk-science should be expected to employ many decades long frauds to tell it's stories and then continue with that same story after it was exposed - simply for 'emotional effect' - a pleasing sequence to view.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Moses was a leader and reformer, he set down the new rules for the slaves he lead out of Egypt. The were the laws of Moses, not the Laws of God. Later writers toke what came from Moses and remodeled it for their miraculous people claim.

How can you know anything at all about Moses while rejecting the Bible?

Christ said that it is the Law of God in Mark 7:6-13 -- but since you freely reject both OT and NT texts as it becomes convenient this may not mean that much in the model you use.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
See what I mean????? The guy just keeps reposting the same straw man.

All the claims made in that post are irrefutable - you merely post that you do not "like them" -- that is not the same as proving the post to be a "straw man". To do that you would need to address an actual detail in the post.

Details matter.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,404
11,943
Georgia
✟1,100,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
This post overlaid an older one instead of getting added at the end --

Colter said:
Bob is constitutionally incapable of addressing why there is NO evidence of a singular YEC event. To the contrary, the earth contains with it the evidence of a very long past with many kinds of plants and animals.

Christians do expect the flood to have produced a lot of fossils -- as it turns out.

And as for the stories 'easy enough to make up' being told about the fossil record --

Patterson said:
I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

3. And why in the world would rapid deposition in flood and mud of a single generation of animals going through mass extinction at the flood - not produce a vast amount of fossil remains?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
True - but as we see in Genesis 1 - God creates the animals - -then man. And in Gen 2 God has the animals that he had created come before Adam to be named - just before creating Eve -- all on day 6.

the Hebrew verb translated “formed” is correctly translated “had formed. as stated in Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold:

NIV - Gen 2:19 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name

Only the NIV translates it that way, it is a "rescue translation", it is not a valid translation. You will no doubt find some people with doctorates after their name that will support this translation; they are a minority, they are doing damage to the plain literal wording of the Hebrew text, for exactly the same reasons you do it. You might ask such a professor how the Genesis writer would have to write the text to mean "formed" instead of "had formed" . . . . and discover the writing would be exactly as it is. So how does he know to translate it "had formed"? Because it rescues inerrancy.

Which is why most honest, scholarly translators including those of the revered King James translation don't take that route.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
3. And why in the world would rapid deposition in flood and mud of a single generation of animals going through mass extinction at the flood - not produce a vast amount of fossil remains?

Such a flood based set of fossils would not be in orderly progressive layers but would be a random jumble. We have orderly progressive layers. Therefore they were not from a single world wide flood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colter
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
This post overlaid an older one instead of getting added at the end --



Christians do expect the flood to have produced a lot of fossils -- as it turns out.

And as for the stories 'easy enough to make up' being told about the fossil record --



3. And why in the world would rapid deposition in flood and mud of a single generation of animals going through mass extinction at the flood - not produce a vast amount of fossil remains?

They would, but that's not what we find. Nowhere in the world have we ever found dinosaurs with humans (or all the predecessors of humans) together in ANY stratum.

Besides, the Noah flood is a silly myth, but it does provide a very, very flimsy avenue of escape for the remaining Bible worshiping generations which will become extinct themselves in the future.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And here I thought research was supposed to turn you guys on.

Aren't you guys supposed to investigate before you communicate?

Well I did a little checking around.

One guy said KJV is true because really, it hasn't been altered since it was first printed. I must confess, I don't see why that's an argument for it being true.

One guy said KJV is true because God's word says His word shall be preserved. I must confess, I don't see why that's an argument for KJV over other translations.

One guy said KJV is true because its based on the Textus Receptus. I must confess, I don't see why the edited text by Erasmus is to be chosen over the edited text by others; nor do I see in this why such other translations also based on the the Textus Receptus are to be rejected (such as the New King James).

In other words, all those reasons don't make any sense to me. Do you have a reason that would make actual sense?
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟98,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Only the NIV translates it that way, it is a "rescue translation", it is not a valid translation.
You say that because it doesn't agree with what you've chosen to believe.
To ensure maximum accuracy and readability, the NIV went through perhaps the most rigorous translation process in history. First, each book of the Bible was assigned to a translation team consisting of:
• Two lead translators
• Two translation consultants
• One English style consultant (if necessary)

Then another team of five Bible scholars reviewed their work, carefully comparing it to the original biblical text and assessing its readability. From there, each book went to a general committee of 8 to 12 scholars. As part of the final review, outside critics gave feedback. Samples were tested with pastors, students, and laypeople. Perhaps no other Bible translation has gone through a more thorough process to ensure accuracy and readability....

The original mandate, given in 1965, was to continue the work of Bible translation, ensuring that the NIV always reflects the very best of biblical scholarship and contemporary English.

The Committee on Bible Translation still meets every year, reviewing the work in painstaking detail. source

REAL Biblical scholars; not internet ones; have worked and continue to work to assure that the NIV reflects the most accurate translation available. Your statement is patently false.

The only problem with the King James Bible is that we do not speak in Old English. There are differences in the languages and the translators must decide between which words to use based on their accuracy and the ease of understanding. The KJV reads at a 12th grade level while the NIV reads at a 7th grade level. The ease of readability was desired so that more young people would read it; not so that some people who spend their time looking for new ways to attack the Scriptures can find incongruities. Ultimately, there is a very easy way to discover the meaning of a particular passage. Get on your knees and ask the Author.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,709
9,274
65
✟439,074.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
See? A non-literal explanation. "God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals". That's not what it says! It says

Gen 2:18-20 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
NASU

So you re-interpret scripture to suit your own ideas of what it really must mean. We watch you do it here before our very eyes. You deny the literal meaning of the words.

Hey, how come you guys critisize ME for doing exactly that when I try to do it? After all, I have merely extended my ideas of what God has communicated to us to include what He made in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, and those are truly direct words from God.
I think it may help to go over some of the proper principles of scriptural exegises. First and foremost it must be understood that one has to grasp the thought of the inerrancy of scripture. If you don't believe that the the rest of what I am about to say won't be understood. So just for a moment understand that we believe in the inerrancy of scripture. With that essential foundation in mind here are the principles.

1. The scriptures must be taken literally first.
2. If it does not make,sense literally then look,for another meaning
3. Context is king. The verses context comes first, then the surrounding scriptures, then the chapter, book then other scriptures.
4. The bible does not contradict itself. If it seems to then look again at context. Let scripture interpret scripture.

These of course are simple principles but are helpful.

Since scripture does not contradict and the literal understanding
If Gen 2 vs 1 is in play it becomes context issue.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0