My YEC Evidence Challenge

[LostMarbels]

Thanks @LostMarbels, So after reading your post, could I ask what reason would anyone need to believe in a being that isn't apparent, to begin with?

First off to be apparent the object, media, being, or what have you; would have to be clearly visible or understood. There is no need to use the scientific method in a means of experimentation if the subject is already proven, or readily known. As pointed out before experimentation is: a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown.

So by the use of experimentation, testing of results, and by the observance of said results, certain traits become apparent; That would otherwise remain unknown without experimentation.

So by the same standard you set in your question, why ask questions at all? Why does science ask questions about anything that is not physically apparent right in front of our faces? Because we are intelligent beings and want understanding concerning unknown issues. You cannot find the cure for cancer begun on the precept there is no cure.

The same is with God. You will never find answers if you have already provided yourself with the answers. No research. No testing. No proof.

Again, I'm not being facetious, I was never brought up in a religious environment and much of the country I live in is in the same boat. We have a great standard of education which includes a healthy dose of science, so the superstitious phenomenon that engulfs the US isn't experienced at anywhere near those levels over here. We still get the extreme fundamentalists, but they are few & far between.

Superstitions also occur due to a lack of real proof and understanding. For the most part, superstition is founded in illogical belief. Sometimes it is founded on indoctrination or even fear. Let's take for example someone being deathly afraid of spiders. So as a test we take 3-foot thick bullet resistant glass that will stop multiple .50 cal bullets, and make a terrarium containing a tarantula. There are some with such a fear they would not even be able to enter the room containing the spider. There is absolutely nothing logical about their fear, but without the ability to test, reason, and observe the result that, in fact, the spider cannot touch them; They are held by fear and their irrational thought process. Said individual may even be completely unwilling to even try and see reason, even tho the spider is behind 3-feet of bulletproof glass. Some people can not be reasoned with concerning certain topics.

That being said, if you are looking into a superstition one needs to look into context, related information, and reasoning behind the superstition. To come to a true conclusion that a topic is, in fact, a superstition one would have to study the topic instead of being dismissive outright.

So, by your writings, I guess that frames me exactly where you were hoping I wouldn't be. This aside for a moment though, can we carry on as if I had some kind of hole in my life that needs filling anyway?

I honestly do not know how to respond to this. I do not 'frame' you in any way. I only hope I can somehow convey my own point of view in a way that you can understand. Can you further elaborate this point, please? Maybe offer more direction and/or clarity?

Is the Faith you have so strong that anything that contradicts your faith ignored? or Do you confront things that go against your faith rather than ignore them?

I 'belive' my own belief system needs to be challenged in order for it to be proven to me. If I remain in my own echo chamber, only accepting what I already agree with, I have no way of learning the validity of me beliefs or understanding of said beliefs. My own beliefs need to be shot in the head like a zombie before they bite someone else. Instead, I try to live and present myself as has been revealed to me by my pursuit of knowledge, and truth in Jesus the Christ. If you are always correct, you cannot be taught, instead, you have become the master.

Do you believe that we all have the same facts about reality in general, i.e. is an observed fact about this universe the same for you as it is for me?

No. The revelations a creation gleams by observing the creation, are not the wisdom received by the creator of all creation. We physicalaly can only understand what we can present to our own understanding. We can only test or question what we are aware of, or try to gain understanding about. But the creator already knows everything we are asking questions about and also knows the answers to questions we have not even thought to ask. Since this is God's creation, he knows far more than we can ever hope to understand by observation. So by having a relationship with God, and by being able to ask God questions, you can get an entirely different understanding altogether.

I'd like to know how someone like me could accept that faith is actually a reliable pathway to truth, especially given the amount of people who have faith in all the different religions all over the world that are often mutually exclusive with your faith. Do you have faith in a different way than a Muslim has faith, or Sihk, or Hindu, etc.?

Problem is, the faith proposition you offer here is exactly the same proposition any number of religions and cults offer for their beliefs. What makes yours different?

I felt as if these are the same line of questioning so I will answer them together.

Firstly, since my faith, and any Christians faith is a result of their own walk with Jesus, and is a relationship, no one's faith is the same. Faith is exclusive to their own individual walk with God. However, I feel as if faith and belief are separate entities, as I had previously stated.

For me I have found in my own walk, that mere belief is not enough. I can believe I will jump in my car and go to work tomorrow, but that is not fact. I could die tomorrow before I even make it to work. I could be absolutely convinced my favorite team was the best out there, and truly believe they will win the Super Bowl this year. And I mean with true conviction. But it is not a certain fact that they will even make it to the game or win if they get there.

As far as a cult is concerned, this goes back to testing and observance of your belief system again. If you believe Yorzzburt of the Interstellar Galactica is going to take you to a different planet for murdering your family, You might want to attempt some reasoning of your belief system. Even secularly speaking, poisoning your entire family in a murder-suicide is flawed logic. Something is wrong here, and if that is not apparent I don't know how someone can reason that within themselves.

As for other religions, I know and believe there are other god's out there. Note: little 'g'. I was searching for the God of all creation. In my research, I found it interesting that most major religions in the world believe in Jesus in one way shape or form. The major difference in these religions was whether or not he was God/divine, and did he die on a cross for man's sins. I noticed these religions did not dispute that Jesus exists/existed tho. Jesus is a historical if not religious fact to all of these religions. Even in Wicca, Jesus was viewed as highly advanced and spiritual person, a great sage, and 'saint'. Some Buddhist thru out Inda believes Jesus was a reincarnation of the Budha. Jesus is even in the Quran. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and will come back to condemn Christianity, call his crucifixion a lie, and fight for Islam.

So I had to ask: "What is up with this dude Jesus that he is in almost every major religion in the world?" That lead me to ask him on the assumption that if he was God he would be able to answer. And he did answer.

Just so we're clear, if there is a God, I certainly want to know about it.

Then ask him.

 

[LostMarbels]

Not personally. But what does that have to do with the fact that the Bible DOES say that Rabbits chew cud?

I am sorry, but I am reading through this thread and I am trying to understand the point you are trying to convey.

Lev 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

A coney is, in fact, an old English name for a rabbit. This usage is addressing specifically what was known as a rock rabbit... a hyrax.

It's not the same as a rabbit seeing that in the very next verse a rabbit is brought up.
Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

A coney rabbit, on the other hand, is a mythical creature that is part seal and part hare.

Here is a quick image search Conies in the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am sorry, but I am reading through this thread and I am trying to understand the point you are trying to convey.

Lev 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

A coney is, in fact, an old English name for a rabbit. This usage is addressing specifically what was known as a rock rabbit... a hyrax.

It's not the same as a rabbit seeing that in the very next verse a rabbit is brought up.
Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

A coney rabbit, on the other hand, is a mythical creature that is part seal and part hare.

Here is a quick image search Conies in the Bible.

I know what I wrote and I know what I meant.

 

[LostMarbels]

I know what I wrote and I know what I meant.

Rabbits and hares, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. They eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. The efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

So rabbits quite literally re-eat their food. Instead of regurgitation, they eat their excrement.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Rabbits and hares, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. They eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. The efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

So rabbits quite literally re-eat their food. Instead of regurgitation, they eat their excrement.

But it's not cud.

 

[LostMarbels]

But it's not cud.

Ok... I see now. It is a matter of semantics. Sorry, I see you already debunked this terminology.


Most people would understand the point being conveyed is they re-eat partially digested food. I think even a layman sheep herder would understand the rabbits are unclean because they eat their own poop, and camels because eat their own barf. It doesn't even take a stretch of the imagination to understand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok... I see now. It is a matter of semantics. Sorry, I see you already debunked this terminology.


Most people would understand the point being conveyed is they re-eat partially digested food. I think even a layman sheep herder would understand the rabbits are unclean because they eat their own poop, and camels because eat their own barf. It doesn't even take a stretch of the imagination to understand.

That's whole point of people arguing that point. The Bible says that conies and hares chew cuds. Let alone that the coney is simply a rabbit by another name, neither chew cud only dung. Two different things.

 

[LostMarbels]

and?

 

[tas8831]

Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with what you were talking about.

The laws of science only go so far.

Which laws, and how far?

But the Person of Jesus (the TRUTH) is not bound by physics or even logic.

This seems like mere belief to me, an assertion devoid of substance.

You may well believe it, but I do not and I have seen no reason TO believe such a claim.

 

[tas8831]

Ok... I see now. It is a matter of semantics. Sorry, I see you already debunked this terminology.


Most people would understand the point being conveyed is they re-eat partially digested food.

Not semantics at all. Cud is regurgitated, cecotropes are defecated.

 

[KWCrazy]

Not semantics at all. Cud is regurgitated, cecotropes are defecated.

That's today's definition.
The attempts by the unsaved to discredit the Bible on this topic have fallen short. Repeating their argument is futile. The mention of a cud chewing covey does not discredit the admonition to the Jews not to eat it just because you want to argue about the modern definition of cud.

 

[Speedwell]

That's today's definition.
The attempts by the unsaved to discredit the Bible on this topic have fallen short. Repeating their argument is futile. The mention of a cud chewing covey does not discredit the admonition to the Jews not to eat it just because you want to argue about the modern definition of cud.

Nobody is trying to discredit the Bible. What we are trying to show you is that your interpretation of the Bible is discredited. Nobody thinks that the classification of coneys with ruminants by the ancient Hebrews for reasons which seemed good to them at the time "discredits the Bible" itself; it only discredits literal inerrancy.

 

[KWCrazy]

Or it shows that they used different terms.
Cud could well have meant anything that already passed through the body, which would make sense. We still see differences in the language today. Go tell an Englishman your wife has a bonnet on her head and he's think she's crazy for wearing a car hood.

 

[Speedwell]

Or it shows that they used different terms.
Cud could well have meant anything that already passed through the body, which would make sense. We still see differences in the language today. Go tell an Englishman your wife has a bonnet on her head and he's think she's crazy for wearing a car hood.

And literal inerrancy--but not scripture--fails for the same reason.

 

[dad]

Nobody is trying to discredit the Bible. What we are trying to show you is that your interpretation of the Bible is discredited. Nobody thinks that the classification of coneys with ruminants by the ancient Hebrews for reasons which seemed good to them at the time "discredits the Bible" itself; it only discredits literal inerrancy.

? I think you are assuming the ancients referred to what you think of a coney when they used the word.

I am not certain of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you are assuming the ancients referred to what you think of a coney when they used the word.

That's called uniformitarian thinking.

 

[dad]

That's called uniformitarian thinking.

"In paleontology, not all big finds happen out in the field. A new species of ancient mammal has been discovered—in the fossil collection of the National Museum of Natural History in La Paz, Bolivia. The animal, which has been assigned the tongue-twisting name Hemihegetotherium trilobus, is a member of an extinct group called notoungulates, a term that means "southern hoofed mammals." The creature resembles a cross between a dog and a hare. It was about the size of a beagle, weighing between 20 and 25 pounds (9 and 11 kilograms), and probably looked something like a capybara, the largest modern-day rodent. Specimens of the creature's bones—including almost complete skulls and jaws and parts of the skeleton—have been in collections in various museums for more than 30 years. "Normally, you think of finding these in the field," said Darin A. Croft, an assistant professor of anatomy at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. "But for this animal, no one who specialized on this group had taken a close look. No one had had the time or the expertise to look at the detailed anatomy." Croft found the bones in a sample drawer while visiting the museum during a 1999 paleontology conference in Bolivia. He noticed at the time that the molars had three lobes, whereas other notoungulates' teeth had only two, so he decided to study the remains further. "

Evolution - New discoveries of fossil mammals fill in the blanks

Whatever this thing was..it chewed cud. Who knows what may have been referred to?

 

[tas8831]

That's today's definition.

No, that is THE definition.

If you want to use such wishy-washy word usage to defend the bible writers' error on something like this, can we use the same criterion to argue against a young earth, or miracles?

The attempts by the unsaved to discredit the Bible on this topic have fallen short.

The apologetics of the self-righteous are not impressive.


Spare me your condescension, please.

 

[Speedwell]

? I think you are assuming the ancients referred to what you think of a coney when they used the word.

I am not certain of that.

Neither am I, and it doesn't matter--the hypocrisy of the literalists remains.

 

[dad]

Neither am I, and it doesn't matter--the hypocrisy of the literalists remains.

To say one thing and do another is hypocrisy. To say there were now extinct creatures that better fit the bill of Scripture is faith in God. One way of the other He was right. We do not need you to know how every time. The motto of old earth christians seems to be more like 'One way or the other God and Scripture were wrong'! Maybe God put a few things in there to give some people the excuse to not believe?