GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[mzungu]

I won't spoil your point by disagreeing with your eye-of-the-needle example --

By all means do my friend. After all by sincere debate we may all learn from each other and possibly agree too. After all Jesus never said "shut up listen and if you don't like what I am saying then go fly a kite"!

Deep down we all believe that our views are for the good.

 

[AV1611VET]

By all means do my friend. After all by sincere debate we may all learn from each other and possibly agree too. After all Jesus never said "shut up listen and if you don't like what I am saying then go fly a kite"!

Deep down we all believe that our views are for the good.

Fair enough.

You said this:

I am sure that Jesus did not mean it literally when he said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven".

The eye of the needle was a small access door on the main gates, used just for human traffic.

When the gates were shut on the Sabbath, those who were caught outside the gate, and didn't make it in in time, would have to try and force their camels through this access gate.

They could do it, but it wasn't easy.

The eye-of-the-needle is also a popular rock formation.

 

[mzungu]

Fair enough.

You said this:
The eye of the needle was a small access door on the main gates, used just for human traffic.

When the gates were shut on the Sabbath, those who were caught outside the gate, and didn't make it in in time, would have to try and force their camels through this access gate.

They could do it, but it wasn't easy.

The eye-of-the-needle is also a popular rock formation.

I found this explanation on a Bible studies site and it makes sense. I as many Christians also understand it the way it is explained below. Your explanation however has no reference in the Bible itself:

This is a quotation of Jesus which is found in Matthew 19:24 (parallel passages in Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The camel was the largest animal that most of the people Jesus was speaking to would have known about. The eye of a needle is the tiny hole through which the thread goes.
The saying can be understood quite literally. It is as hard for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom as it would be for a camel to go through the tiny eye of a needle. In other words, it is almost impossible. There are at least three reasons why having money can make it difficult to be a Christian.

1. Riches can make you feel that you can deal with any situation that may arise. They encourage a false independence. Jesus referred to this in Rev 3:17.
2. Riches can take your attention away from God. Jesus said “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). You can be so focussed on maintaining what you have, that you neglect to pay attention to the things of God.
3. Riches can make you selfish. It is a paradox that the more you have, the more you want. Rich people can fall into the trap of worrying about protecting their possessions, and to collect even more for security. Jesus mentioned this danger in a parable in Luke 12:16-19.

When the apostles heard this saying of Jesus, they were amazed because they mistakenly thought that riches were a sign of righteousness. They said “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). Jesus replied “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). So with God’s help, the rich can overcome the dangers of wealth and enter God’s kingdom. But it is much easier not to have the problem in the first place.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I won't spoil your point by disagreeing with your eye-of-the-needle example --

You're right -- you won't spoil anything by disagreeing with it.

 

[TheReasoner]

I found this explanation on a Bible studies site and it makes sense. I as many Christians also understand it the way it is explained below. Your explanation however has no reference in the Bible itself:

This is a quotation of Jesus which is found in Matthew 19:24 (parallel passages in Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The camel was the largest animal that most of the people Jesus was speaking to would have known about. The eye of a needle is the tiny hole through which the thread goes.
The saying can be understood quite literally. It is as hard for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom as it would be for a camel to go through the tiny eye of a needle. In other words, it is almost impossible. There are at least three reasons why having money can make it difficult to be a Christian.

1. Riches can make you feel that you can deal with any situation that may arise. They encourage a false independence. Jesus referred to this in Rev 3:17.
2. Riches can take your attention away from God. Jesus said “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). You can be so focussed on maintaining what you have, that you neglect to pay attention to the things of God.
3. Riches can make you selfish. It is a paradox that the more you have, the more you want. Rich people can fall into the trap of worrying about protecting their possessions, and to collect even more for security. Jesus mentioned this danger in a parable in Luke 12:16-19.

When the apostles heard this saying of Jesus, they were amazed because they mistakenly thought that riches were a sign of righteousness. They said “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). Jesus replied “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). So with God’s help, the rich can overcome the dangers of wealth and enter God’s kingdom. But it is much easier not to have the problem in the first place.

Very true, Mzungu. I've seen AV's interpretation before (Usually from people following the "prosperity" "school" of thought), but cannot seem to find much basis for it when looking at the message of Christ as a whole. And by much I mean any.


That said, I'm sure there have been misinterpretations before:

 

[createdtoworship]

Answers in Genesis???????? These people are not qualified to delve in any scientific matters.
You want scientific answers then go to a site that has answers given by scientists: An Index to Creationist Claims

Answers in Genesis is a joke!
BBC report on Creationist Museum - YouTube

there is sufficient evidence to believe that the tiktaalik did not support itself upright in the article I posted. So it was a fish.

 

[TheReasoner]

there is sufficient evidence to believe that the tiktaalik did not support itself upright in the article I posted. So it was a fish.

Source criticism, Grady. Answersingenesis is not a credible source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Source criticism, Grady. Answersingenesis is not a credible source.

Are you a credible critic?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you a credible critic?

How difficult could it be to spot obvious frauds like Answeres in Genesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

How difficult could it be to spot obvious frauds like Answeres in Genesis?

I may be wrong with this, but I don't think you have the education to spot them.

You probably just mimic others, who are mimicking others, who are getting it off the Internet.

In any event, even if I am wrong, I seriously doubt you even have an inkling what their rebuttals to their critics are.

It's ironic that "ape" is a homonym for "mimicking", isn't it?

 

[TheReasoner]

Are you a credible critic?

Depends on the subject. But as far as Answers in Genesis Poe said it well. It doesn't take much to spot that one. It's sort of like another of my favorite laughter sources: Conservapedia. That one's actually worse though. About as bad as they come, in fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on the subject. But as far as Answers in Genesis Poe said it well. It doesn't take much to spot that one. It's sort of like another of my favorite laughter sources: Conservapedia. That one's actually worse though.

Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?

Sure. But not the way you do it.

 

[Jazer]

we critique one another's work at times.

Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?

 

[TheReasoner]

Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?

Nope.

If that was a poorly made attempt at saying that's what's done to AiG try again. Those guys manage fine doing that on their own. Goodness, have you even read some of the work that comes out from their 'top dogs'?
They are all too often terrible parodies of themselves.

Just listen to what Kent Hovind opened his "thesis" with:

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.

And boy, he keeps going at it with the same quality level. That opening alone is not worth a passing grade in high-school. Much less a university degree. Least of all a PhD!

His thesis is floating around the web here and there, and I have it saved to my hard-drive on the other computer. You can read it all here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind's_doctoral_dissertation/OCR

So... Well, it says something about the quality level of creationism when someone as prominent as "Dr." Hovind gets his fake degree upon which he built a huge career with such a junky piece of "work" and despite his evident incompetence manages to rise to such incredible heights among creationists. What's more, he's not alone in creationist high ranks with fake degrees. There are lists where you can go through several prominent creationists and look at their credentials, the validity and origin of these. It's not a pretty sight.

So... If you're asking why we're so mean and ruin AiG's reputation, why don't you ask THEM. Fake degrees and so much junk that comes forth from that place/those people does not build a good reputation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?

Nothing higher about it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?

No, it means to point out when they do it to themselves.

AiG and Conservapedia have nobody to blame but themselves for their useless reputations.

 

[createdtoworship]

Source criticism, Grady. Answersingenesis is not a credible source.

and you tube is a credible source? because that was what was used to relay the information about tiktaalik. Besides like I stated already they provided sufficient evidence that tiktaalik could not be supported under the so called digits that it has on land. So it's a straw-man unless you can reveal that the argument about digits is false.

 

[TheReasoner]

and you tube is a credible source? because that was what was used to relay the information about tiktaalik.

Did I link you YouTube? No. So... Straw man much? I don't know anything about tiktaalik, Grady. And I did not see that video, so I can't say if it's good or not. But I do know enough about AiG to dismiss what is said on that site. It is not a credible source. If you want to lend any credence to your claim you need something much more substantial insofar as sources go.

Furthermore while YouTube in itself is a service operated by anyone who wants in, and as such necessitates thinking users - some of the videos are decent. You need to see where they are from. For example you can find videos of Walter Lewin physics lectures on YouTube. Those are definitely worth the time spent on them, and are quite good study supplements which could conceivably be used as decent sources. So, it depends, doesn't it? Saying "YouTube is not a credible source" is in a sense true, but it is a little like saying "Videos are not credible sources". It's true for most, I suppose. But some - if you know where to look - are quite good.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did I link you YouTube? No. So... Straw man much?

Furthermore while YouTube in itself is a service operated by anyone who wants in, and as such necessitates thinking users - some of the videos are decent. You need to see where they are from. For example you can find videos of Walter Lewin physics lectures on YouTube. Those are definitely worth the time spent on them, and are quite good study supplements which could conceivably be used as decent sources. So, it depends, doesn't it? Saying "YouTube is not a credible source" is in a sense true, but it is a little like saying "Videos are not credible sources". It's true for most, I suppose. But some - if you know where to look - are quite good.

you are the one using a strawman fallacy- attacking a source without attacking the information in the link, because your too lazy. There could be legitimate information in the excerpt from answers in genesis. So strawman yourself.