My Creationist Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Focusing on the ritual instead of the intent behind it, AV?

Focusing on whether or not it even exists (in your church, that is).

 

[TheReasoner]

Focusing on whether or not it even exists (in your church, that is).

And why would you do that?

Look to the heart, AV. Not the presence or absence of fancy clothes - or rituals.

 

[Jazer]

the bit about girlfriends is gratuitous and weird

Really? Ok, now I know how much you know about Buddhism.

 

[Doveaman]

And ignore genesis 2?

From our perspective Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1. It's unfortunate you don't see it that way.

I actually agree. But I think your interpretation is way off. Not that others aren't worse off target, but I do think you're missing the core message while focusing too much on the wording of a parable and not enough on it's intention.

We can still get the core message while interpreting Genesis 1 literally. Nothing is being missed by us, only by you.

Focusing on the ritual instead of the intent behind it, AV?

Jesus encourages His followers to focus on both:

"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." - John 13:14-15.

Are you baptized in water? Do you partake in the bread and wine? Or do you just focus on the intent of those rituals too?

 

[Hespera]

Really? Ok, now I know how much you know about Buddhism.

troops with or without girlfriends has zero to do with buddhism, but perhaps you'd like to teach me all about china? do try.

 

[Hespera]

From our perspective Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1. It's unfortunate you don't see it that way.
We can still get the core message while interpreting Genesis 1 literally. Nothing is being missed by us, only by you.
Jesus encourages His followers to focus on both:

"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." - John 13:14-15.

Are you baptized in water? Do you partake in the bread and wine? Or do you just focus on the intent of those rituals too?

so you see it that even if it says two different things, it says the same thing.

 

[Doveaman]

so you see it that even if it says two different things, it says the same thing.

I see it that your interpretation is different to mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

troops with or without girlfriends has zero to do with buddhism, but perhaps you'd like to teach me all about china? do try.

Let's start here:

 

[Hespera]

I see it that your interpretation is different to mine.

It doesnt matter if they are different, they are both wrong. like noahs ark, unicorns, pi=3 and so on.

 

[Jazer]

perhaps you'd like to teach me all about china?

My wife worked in Hong Kong for 9 years. We had a foreign exchange student from China. We have been active in a organization here that helps the Chinese students that have come here to study at the university. I have studied the news reports extensively about the Buddism in the Himalayan mountains of china. The clash between the old and the new. For now I will assume that when you say Buddism you are refering to some sort of a new age westernized version because you do not seem to have any knowledge of traditional Buddism that goes back thousands of years. I do not claim to know anything about it, I just wanted to know what you were refering to when you were talking about Buddism. It use to be very difficult to get up into these mountains. That gave them some seperation from the modern world. Now China has built a super train to get in to take the minerals out. This has created a real clash. The Buddist Monks do not want modern trains, and a modern world decending on them. Only their rebellion makes it worse. The China government brings in the soldiers. The girls follow and now the village girls are being influenced by a modern world that is decending on them. It use to be they talked about a white snow lepard that was so rare it was almost mystical. Now that same lepard is part of a magic act in Vegas.

 

[USincognito]

That is what makes the Bible the Bible. 3500 years and the Bible has proven to be true over and over again. Perhaps the Book of Enoch was not included in the cannon of the Bible. But a lot of what we learn from Moses actually comes from Enoch and his book. Enoch was 7 generations from Adam and 3 generations before Noah. So from Adam to Noah you have 10 generations. What evidence do you have for this? All of the geneologys that we find in our Bible are being backed up by the research on DNA. In this case the Hebrews are the J haplogroup. What does science tell us? That the J Haplogroup was associated with the spread of farming. What does the Bible tell us? Adam was a farmer. Science shows us the Bible is true and Enoch was a real person. Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

This is why I have a hard time taking Creationists seriously. "The emergence of the J Haplogroup 30-50,000 years ago from a much older worldwide population is evidence that Enoch was a real person".

 

[TheReasoner]

This is why I have a hard time taking Creationists seriously. "The emergence of the J Haplogroup 30-50,000 years ago from a much older worldwide population is evidence that Enoch was a real person".

Meh. Nothing new under the sun. They spout the lingo but miss the target. It sounds more and more impressive the less you know, which is why they get more recruits. It's the same with all fanatical beliefs: they thrive on ignorance.

 

[SharpSolaris]

I think (IMHO),
neither a creationist cannot be so smart,
so that to guess - to get acquainted with the theory,
and only then - agree or disagree.

 

[Quin Friberg]

This is why I have a hard time taking Creationists seriously. "The emergence of the J Haplogroup 30-50,000 years ago from a much older worldwide population is evidence that Enoch was a real person".

Actually he is correct saying science is starting to support the Biblical genealogies - The Y Chromosomes and MtDNA mutation rates when measured in real time agree with the population starting about 6000 years ago like the Biblical genealogies say. The evolutionist assume common ancestry between humans and chimps in order to make their calculations (how much genetic difference there is and how long ago the evolutionary model says they had a common ancestor) their date for Mitochondrial Eve (first women) about 200 thousand years ago only because they assume mutation rates based on common ancestry long ago, when you take real time measurements of mutation rates in the MtDNA (or Y Chromosome) you get an age matching the Biblical ages. I don't know if that was very on topic but I was skimming through and saw that post so I decided to address it.

God Bless
Quin Friberg
Answers on Creation

 

[TheReasoner]

I think (IMHO),
neither a creationist cannot be so smart,
so that to guess - to get acquainted with the theory,
and only then - agree or disagree.

Smart? Sure creationists can be smart. Just deluded. Fanatics can be intelligent, just blinded to their view being wrong. Most probably are not, because smart people tend to be critical thinkers, and fanatics don't usually (ever?) share that trait. Quite a few are glib though.

Observe if you will Quin Friberg's most recent post here. Sorry Quin, but that's nonsense. Glib enough, but wrong.

 

[Quin Friberg]

Observe if you will Quin Friberg's most recent post here. Sorry Quin, but that's nonsense. Glib enough, but wrong.

Typical response from someone who disagrees: "Thats nonsense" with no scientific support or reasoning behind their statement. I suggest studying the topic a little more.

 

[TheReasoner]

Typical response from someone who disagrees: "Thats nonsense" with no scientific support or reasoning behind their statement. I suggest studying the topic a little more.

Rrrright. Nanobiotechnology is not 'good enough' for creationists I suppose?

You may suggest 'studying the topic a little more', why okay, I will. I'm getting a related MS as we speak ftr. This isn't about labelling stuff I disagree with as nonsense, Quin. It's about some people, like the ones at answersingenesis, making claims that are utter nonsense, and that is not OK. It discredits christianity as a whole, and that is something I am not and cannot be okay with. At all. We're not supposed to bare false witness you know, but those people... Oooohoohoho do they ever bring false witnessing to a new "artform". It's disgusting how they make christianity into an anti-science religion and not what it's supposed to be: Compassion, love, mercy, cooperation and fellowship. Tell me this, Quin: Your (creationist) constant talk about how science is wrong on so many counts, and given how easily most of your claims can be proven wrong - and given Jesus' teachings do you REALLY feel it's worth to keep on making those claims? Does it make it easier for people to consider Jesus a viable part of their lives? No. It makes it harder. Even though creationism is bigger in the states than here (far bigger) it still leaks across and many academics consider christianity to be harmful to society and abhor it precisely because you create an image of christianity as anti-science. And how does that jive with Jesus' command to go out and make all people His disciples. Tell me, did HE make science related statements or did He show love to all around Him? The latter, right? So why do you people de-emphasize that and focus so much effort on what is essentially proving Christianity wrong in the minds of the educated Quin? How do you justify that? More so, if you believe in hell, how do you justify making salvation inaccessible for so many just because you don't understand or fear science yourself? Pardon me, but I find that abhorrent. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Well, for one I was taught creationism in an american school back when I was a kid. Then I joined a charismatic movement with strong influences from the US so I became a creationist. And if it hadn't been for some strong and good christians in my life that would have cost me my faith. And I know others, quite a few in fact, who have either almost or completely rejected their faith because of creationism and it's teachings.
Archbishop Lazaar has a very good video concerning this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6Y-HMOPXs
I suggest you watch it.

May I suggest you take your own advice and study the topic Quin?
And by the way: Natural sciences are NOT like philosophy and other parts of the 'humanities'. It's not about OPINIONS, it's about testable theories, data, calculations, hard facts in other words. Not opinions and wishful thinking. You can't overthrow reality by wishful thinking and glib, hollow claims. You CAN employ such sophism in philosophy, but not natural sciences.

 

[USincognito]

Actually he is correct saying science is starting to support the Biblical genealogies

Well, except for the time frame, the named individuals, the genetic evidence and all the missing ethnicities the pre-date or are geographically distant those existing in and around Bronze Age Israel.

- The Y Chromosomes and MtDNA mutation rates when measured in real time agree with the population starting about 6000 years ago like the Biblical genealogies say.

Do you have a citation for this (and I don't mind if it's a Creationist source - I like to check the actual papers Creationists spin and twist in their articles)?

The evolutionist assume common ancestry between humans and chimps in order to make their calculations (how much genetic difference there is and how long ago the evolutionary model says they had a common ancestor) their date for Mitochondrial Eve (first women) about 200 thousand years ago only because they assume mutation rates based on common ancestry long ago,

No, there's no "assumption" or "model" or any of that sort of Creationist verbiage involved. Chimp human common ancestry is well established by numerous lines of evidence including the results of the genome project, anatomic comparisions, transitional hominid fossils, ERVs, Human chromosome 2, etc. etc. And the mutation rates aren't "assumed", they're concluded from genomic studies and comparisons.

...when you take real time measurements of mutation rates in the MtDNA (or Y Chromosome) you get an age matching the Biblical ages. I don't know if that was very on topic but I was skimming through and saw that post so I decided to address it.

Feel free to glibly assert whatever you want, but I'd rather see a citation than take your word for it.

 

[Quin Friberg]

Rrrright. Nanobiotechnology is not 'good enough' for creationists I suppose?

I love Nanobiotechnology and seeing how God has designed everything.

You may suggest 'studying the topic a little more', why okay, I will. I'm getting a related MS as we speak ftr. This isn't about labelling stuff I disagree with as nonsense, Quin. It's about some people, like the ones at answersingenesis, making claims that are utter nonsense, and that is not OK. It discredits christianity as a whole, and that is something I am not and cannot be okay with. At all. We're not supposed to bare false witness you know, but those people... Oooohoohoho do they ever bring false witnessing to a new "artform". It's disgusting how they make christianity into an anti-science religion and not what it's supposed to be: Compassion, love, mercy, cooperation and fellowship. Tell me this, Quin: Your (creationist) constant talk about how science is wrong on so many counts, and given how easily most of your claims can be proven wrong - and given Jesus' teachings do you REALLY feel it's worth to keep on making those claims? Does it make it easier for people to consider Jesus a viable part of their lives? No. It makes it harder. Even though creationism is bigger in the states than here (far bigger) it still leaks across and many academics consider christianity to be harmful to society and abhor it precisely because you create an image of christianity as anti-science. And how does that jive with Jesus' command to go out and make all people His disciples. Tell me, did HE make science related statements or did He show love to all around Him? The latter, right? So why do you people de-emphasize that and focus so much effort on what is essentially proving Christianity wrong in the minds of the educated Quin? How do you justify that? More so, if you believe in hell, how do you justify making salvation inaccessible for so many just because you don't understand or fear science yourself? Pardon me, but I find that abhorrent. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Well, for one I was taught creationism in an american school back when I was a kid. Then I joined a charismatic movement with strong influences from the US so I became a creationist. And if it hadn't been for some strong and good christians in my life that would have cost me my faith. And I know others, quite a few in fact, who have either almost or completely rejected their faith because of creationism and it's teachings.

Would you give me an example of one of those “claims” by answers in genesis please? And it’s not just them that have a problem with evolution, and its not just creation organizations that have problems with it, many secular scientists also have issues and are beginning to see the problems with the theory that AIG has been pointing out for a long time. It discredits Christianity as a whole? Nope I don’t think defending what the Bible says discredits Christianity, I think compromising what the Bible says does though. I agree we are not to bare false witness, which is why I have an issue with all the problem who try to claim that the Bible and Evolution can go together, and people who claim evolution is true. I agree that Jesus Christ is the number one most important part of the Bible, but I have talked to hundreds of people who have told me that they will not believe the Bible until the book as a whole can be proven to be credible (which include Genesis and what it says about creation.) Creationists do not think that science is wrong, we think they evolution is wrong, I love science it-self, just not nonsense mixed in with the science like evolution. “Does it make it easier for people to consider Jesus a viable part of their lives? No. It makes it harder.” Wrong, I have talked to many people about that question and it makes it easier once the truth is revealed to them and they can see how science supports what the Bible says. Out of curiosity where are you from? (asking because you said you are not from the states.) Evolution is what is harmful to a society, and the mindset it brings about, not Christianity and Creation. Anti-Science and anti-evolution are two different things, I am anti-evolution (also known as Pro-Bible) but I am not anti-science, all major branches of science were started by creationists, not evolutionists. The Bible says to go and make disciples, and showing the Biblical scientific accuracy of creation has brought many millions of people to the belief in Christ Jesus (which is the ultimate goal.) “The mind of the educated” I love how you defined (or implied) the educated as the people who believe in evolution. “If I believe in hell” yes I do believe what the Bible says, including that there is a hell. And I know people who have accepted faith because of creationists and their teachings, so I will continue to support the infallible word of God and what it says in all areas.


May I suggest you take your own advice and study the topic Quin?
And by the way: Natural sciences are NOT like philosophy and other parts of the 'humanities'. It's not about OPINIONS, it's about testable theories, data, calculations, hard facts in other words. Not opinions and wishful thinking. You can't overthrow reality by wishful thinking and glib, hollow claims. You CAN employ such sophism in philosophy, but not natural sciences.[/QUOTE]

All I did in this thread was say that the observed measurements of mutation rates within the Y chromosome and MtDNA support the Biblical age for Adam/Eve. That is testable science - I have yet to hear any from you supporting your view.

 

[Quin Friberg]

Well, except for the time frame, the named individuals, the genetic evidence and all the missing ethnicities the pre-date or are geographically distant those existing in and around Bronze Age Israel.

I would love some examples… Instead of says there are many and not naming any. (plus I’d like to see citations to support them so I can see methods of determining when they lived.

Do you have a citation for this (and I don't mind if it's a Creationist source - I like to check the actual papers Creationists spin and twist in their articles)?

Yes I have quite a few, but it does not let me post links on here… If you give me an email I can send them to you. Some of the authors are Brian Thomas (M.S, ICR) Dr. Walt Brown, Dr. Carl Wieland

No, there's no "assumption" or "model" or any of that sort of Creationist verbiage involved. Chimp human common ancestry is well established by numerous lines of evidence including the results of the genome project, anatomic comparisions, transitional hominid fossils, ERVs, Human chromosome 2, etc. etc. And the mutation rates aren't "assumed", they're concluded from genomic studies and comparisons.

Yes there are assumptions of common ancestry involved in evolutionist’s dates on the MtDNA. Here we go… Which one of your “proofs” of common ancestry would you like to talk about first? We can go down the list. And yes… again the dates are based on assumptions of common ancestry. Now I’ll ask you the most popular question from a creationists, would you give me an example of a beneficial mutation that can be observed to increase the genetic complexity and information of an organism?

Feel free to glibly assert whatever you want, but I'd rather see a citation than take your word for it.

(Reference what I said earlier)