My Creationist Challenge

[Doveaman]

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.

Interesting if true.

 

[TheReasoner]

Would you give me an example of one of those “claims” by answers in genesis please?

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics - all of it. Pretty much.
Let's consider the entropy argument for example. Pure nonsense. Conservation of angular momentum, another farce. Tired light, yet another one.

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.

ToE is not perfect. Nothing is. Of course there are holes. There always are. Your conclusion is false though. Evolution happens, even if we don't know every tiny minute detail.

It discredits Christianity as a whole? Nope

Yes, it does. You're telling people that it's demonstrably a false religion, indeed that it has been and is thoroughly falsified every day.

I don’t think defending what the Bible says discredits Christianity, I think compromising what the Bible says does though.

Ah. Yes. And of course YOUR interpretation is the perfect one, right? You know you're fallible to say your interpretation is infallible makes you infallible, thereby in effect usurping God.

The geocentrists said the same thing. Flat earthers even today say the same thing. They're both wrong. Yet of course you can't be. After all, you're you. Right?

Most of the church even disagrees with you. And yet you insist your view is 'the christian view'.

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.

If they cannot, then the bible is false. It's as simple as that. Perhaps you need to realize that you're human, Quin. And that you're wrong on this point.

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.)

Oh. Right. Genesis 1 or 2?
It's even inconsistent with itself. If you read it literally. It makes sense as a parable, and the bible maintains it's credibility and consistency. As a "literal" interpretation it is inconsistent and falsified.

The problem here Quin is that you tell people that the bible is PROVEN WRONG. You have no openness to your own interpretation possibly being incomplete or incorrect, despite the unavoidable fact that it disagrees with itself, let alone with science as a whole.
I have little problem with people believing the world is a cube. But I do have a problem when they become many and start yelling said nonsense loudly enough for people to listen

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.

To call it nonsense basically proves you have no idea what it is.
And yes, you are preaching anti-science. Physics, astronomy, chemistry even. None of those fields will even work if your viewpoint had any merit. And this really annoys me Quin. You come on boards and you yell on street corners how right you are, while even a simple GPS device or nuclear power plant by their very existence proves your point dead wrong. To mention two.

For your view to be right everything has to be wrong. I mean, even stuff like the insulin used by diabetics or even modern detergent should be impossible. Not to mention antibiotics resistance. And yes yes I know the argument micro vs. macro evolution. What a load of nonsense that is. It's just the same as saying "Yes, you can take ONE step. Sure. Even TEN, but a HUNDRED, that's IMPOSSIBLE!"

“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.

And it does. It does not at all support your sectarian views on creation though.

Out of curiosity where are you from? (asking because you said you are not from the states.)

I'm a missionary kid. Kind of hard to answer that question. I live in Norway. I'm a norwegian citizen and my genes are from a long nordic line. I'm tall blonde and blue eyed so I'm the stereotypical viking. Or would be had I had more muscles. And a beard.

Evolution is what is harmful to a society, and the mindset it brings about, not Christianity and Creation.

Ah. What mindset? Social darwinism?
That's not connected to evolution Quin. Don't make false connections. In fact the opposite can be derived. Species that survive tend to take care of their weaker members. Well, not always, but usually.

Please do show how evolution is 'harmful'? You're benefiting quite nicely from it right now I'd wager.

Anti-Science and anti-evolution are two different things, I am anti-evolution (also known as Pro-Bible)

Pro your interpretation of the bible. An interpretation held by a few people only.

but I am not anti-science, all major branches of science were started by creationists, not evolutionists.

Nonsense. If you're going to refer to people pre-Darwin you ought to know very very well your argument makes no sense at all, and that it's a pot shot at best. Not to mention intellectually dishonest through and through.

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.)

Tragic how you'd equate your own infallibility with the bible's infallibility.

The bible is accurate enough. It's not a science textbook and never intended to be read like you do.

“The mind of the educated” I love how you defined (or implied) the educated as the people who believe in evolution.

Look at the statistics. Very few educated people discard ToE. And for good reason.

“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 do I. But I know far far more who have rejected their faith due to it. And if I'm not mistaken from the path the one guy I know who converted because of you guys will soon take a nosedive into extreme anti-theism. He has behaved about as badly as any one person I know has. He took some form of "apologetics" course in the states as a recent convert and has spent a couple of years now trying to travel between the more charismatic congregations telling them about the evils of evolution by way of ad-hominem attacks, logical inconsistencies, outright lies and more. He was one extremely foul smearing campaign on two legs. I confronted him on several of those issues yet he didn't change. His faith has martensittic qualities. Hard as can be, but brittle. Hit that faith too hard and it will shatter.

Yeah, if you push hard enough or push the right buttons you can convert people to anything. I've met people who were converted from and to a lot of things for various reasons. One girl who became a devil worshipper, she used to be pentecostal. Catholics who used to be lutherans, atheists who used to be a lot of different stuff. Buddhists who used to be christians, christians who used to be buddhists and so on and so forth. There is some flux, and the more glibly you speak the more you'll gain followers. Of course. And at the same time you'll push all that many more people away at the same time.

so I will continue to support the infallible word of God and what it says in all areas.

But you're NOT. That's my whole point. You keep insisting that YOU are infallible. That somehow all before you and even contemporaries have made HUGE mistakes such as claiming the world was flat (just visit flat earth society), consider the earth the centre of the universe, and so on. But somehow YOU are correct. And not just CORRECT, PERFECTLY correct at that. You leave no room for possible mistakes in your own interpretation, completely forgetting all our forefathers and our own mistakes as well. And not only do you do that, not only do you claim a perfect interpretation which is logically impossible but you also claim that God's very creation is a lie, on all levels. From the subatomic to the intergalactic and universal whole. It must ALL be wrong for you to be right.

Does that quell you? No. Does most of the church not agreeing with your viewpoints quell you? No. Does the human sinful nature quell you? No. Does the human history and apparent affection for failure and mistakes quell you? Oh no.
You're right, aren't you? No matter what's presented. Even though your views aren't consistent with the bible, even though people leave your churches in droves you still keep those eyes covered telling yourselves that you're right, and perfectly right at that. Is that faith Quin? It isn't, is it? It's fanaticism isn't 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.

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.

Testable science? Hehe. No, it's what we'd call "luftslott" in Norway. Looks fancy, but is utter nonsense. You are quite good with nonsense. But no matter how much you whitewash a tomb Quin it will remain a tomb.
You haven't cited anything, Quin. You've made an empty claim which makes very little sense without any backing publications.

Now, I'm not sorry if I came across harshly. I intended to. You people nearly drove me from my faith and I have several friends who were driven wholly or partially from theirs because of you people. I used to be a creationist myself and if there's anything I regret in my life it's that period. I know I pushed people away from Christ and to be frank I have no patience with it (creationism) for that reason. I'm fine with most things, and I can respect most things. But fanatical pride in Jesus' name? That one I can't accept.

I can accept a belief in a certain interpretation. Even creationism. But a claim on interpretative infallibility? That really gets me. Not that I'm that important, I'm just some guy. One human. But I ask: Does any human have any claim to interpretative infallibility?

 

[Quin Friberg]

Let's consider the entropy argument for example. Pure nonsense. Conservation of angular momentum, another farce. Tired light, yet another one.[/QUOTE]

First off AIG only uses entropy on a universal level, which is a valid argument. Secondly conservation of angular momentum is used when talking about nebular theory and solar system formation (and is valid) third AIG does not promote “tired light.” Any other attempts?

ToE is not perfect. Nothing is. Of course there are holes. There always are. Your conclusion is false though. Evolution happens, even if we don't know every tiny minute detail.[/QUOTE]

I agree that Micro evolution happens, there are variations with in a species, but it has limits. That’s the scientific part of the theory (variations) and that’s what I accept.

Yes, it does. You're telling people that it's demonstrably a false religion, indeed that it has been and is thoroughly falsified every day.[/QUOTE]

No I’m telling people that the Bible is not fallible. If the word of God is fallible in one area than it can be fallible in others. You’re the one not supporting what the infallible word of God says.

The geocentrists said the same thing. Flat earthers even today say the same thing. They're both wrong. Yet of course you can't be. After all, you're you. Right?[/QUOTE]

Well neither of those positions ever had Biblical support to them, my position does.

Most of the church even disagrees with you. And yet you insist your view is 'the christian view'.[/QUOTE]

I actually have read the statistics on religions and how many accept evolution, and it would depend what you define as the church, the majority of evangelicals do not disagree with me.

If they cannot, then the bible is false. It's as simple as that. Perhaps you need to realize that you're human, Quin. And that you're wrong on this point.[/QUOTE]

Actually I acknowledge I’m human, and I acknowledge that scientists are humans (I don’t think you do that), but I also acknowledge that God is not human, and that he is the omniscience creator of the universe and if he says he did it a certain why (like he did) then he (being all knowing and non-fallible) is correct.

Oh. Right. Genesis 1 or 2?
It's even inconsistent with itself. If you read it literally. It makes sense as a parable, and the bible maintains it's credibility and consistency. As a "literal" interpretation it is inconsistent and falsified.[/QUOTE]

It’s not inconsistent, stop making blanket claims and back up you’re statements please.

The problem here Quin is that you tell people that the bible is PROVEN WRONG. You have no openness to your own interpretation possibly being incomplete or incorrect, despite the unavoidable fact that it disagrees with itself, let alone with science as a whole.
I have little problem with people believing the world is a cube. But I do have a problem when they become many and start yelling said nonsense loudly enough for people to listen[/QUOTE]

I am open to my opinion being wrong, but it has not been shown to be yet. The majority of Hebrew scholars will agree that Genesis 1 was written as historical narrative not as a metaphor.

To call it nonsense basically proves you have no idea what it is.
And yes, you are preaching anti-science. Physics, astronomy, chemistry even. None of those fields will even work if your viewpoint had any merit. And this really annoys me Quin. You come on boards and you yell on street corners how right you are, while even a simple GPS device or nuclear power plant by their very existence proves your point dead wrong. To mention two.[/QUOTE]

If you want to continue this conversation further I would be glad to, but not with the blanket statements you are making. If you would like to argue a point please do, but cut the blanket statements out. You have yet to show any evidence against the one thing I have said, which has to do with MtDNA and the Y Chromosome.

For your view to be right everything has to be wrong. I mean, even stuff like the insulin used by diabetics or even modern detergent should be impossible. Not to mention antibiotics resistance. And yes yes I know the argument micro vs. macro evolution. What a load of nonsense that is. It's just the same as saying "Yes, you can take ONE step. Sure. Even TEN, but a HUNDRED, that's IMPOSSIBLE!"[/QUOTE]

Well that analogy of micro Vs macro is missing one thing, yes you can take one step, even ten, but you are limited within a genetic box, so if you’re box is only 10 feet by 10 feet you cannot take 100 steps in the same direction.

I'm a missionary kid. Kind of hard to answer that question. I live in Norway.[/QUOTE]

alright cool

Ah. What mindset? Social darwinism?
That's not connected to evolution Quin. Don't make false connections. In fact the opposite can be derived. Species that survive tend to take care of their weaker members. Well, not always, but usually.[/QUOTE]

The mindset of natural selection and racism and a higher evolved race of humans. that mindset put forth by Darwin

Please do show how evolution is 'harmful'? You're benefiting quite nicely from it right now I'd wager.[/QUOTE]

Lol nope not benefiting at all - science would work fine without the theory of Macro-evolution (Show me how macro, not micro helps)

Nonsense. If you're going to refer to people pre-Darwin you ought to know very very well your argument makes no sense at all, and that it's a pot shot at best. Not to mention intellectually dishonest through and through.[/QUOTE]

My point is science worked fine under a creationist perspective before Darwin was around, thats how all the major branches were started. I can give you the list if you would like of the scientists.

Tragic how you'd equate your own infallibility with the bible's infallibility.[/QUOTE]

come again?

The bible is accurate enough. It's not a science textbook and never intended to be read like you do.[/QUOTE]

Its a darn good thing its not a science text-book, science text-books have to keep updating themselves because they find they were wrong, the Bible got it right the first time (including scientific areas)

Look at the statistics. Very few educated people discard ToE. And for good reason. [/QUOTE]

I have looked at the statistics, I disagree

So do I. But I know far far more who have rejected their faith due to it. And if I'm not mistaken from the path the one guy I know who converted because of you guys will soon take a nosedive into extreme anti-theism. He has behaved about as badly as any one person I know has. He took some form of "apologetics" course in the states as a recent convert and has spent a couple of years now trying to travel between the more charismatic congregations telling them about the evils of evolution by way of ad-hominem attacks, logical inconsistencies, outright lies and more. He was one extremely foul smearing campaign on two legs. I confronted him on several of those issues yet he didn't change. His faith has martensittic qualities. Hard as can be, but brittle. Hit that faith too hard and it will shatter.[/QUOTE]

You cant quantify the amount of people I have talked to.

Yeah, if you push hard enough or push the right buttons you can convert people to anything. I've met people who were converted from and to a lot of things for various reasons. One girl who became a devil worshipper, she used to be pentecostal. Catholics who used to be lutherans, atheists who used to be a lot of different stuff. Buddhists who used to be christians, christians who used to be buddhists and so on and so forth. There is some flux, and the more glibly you speak the more you'll gain followers. Of course. And at the same time you'll push all that many more people away at the same time.[/QUOTE]

I agree if you push enough buttons you can convert most people to believe anything, including evolution, even if its not true.

But you're NOT. That's my whole point. You keep insisting that YOU are infallible. That somehow all before you and even contemporaries have made HUGE mistakes such as claiming the world was flat (just visit flat earth society), consider the earth the centre of the universe, and so on. But somehow YOU are correct. And not just CORRECT, PERFECTLY correct at that. You leave no room for possible mistakes in your own interpretation, completely forgetting all our forefathers and our own mistakes as well. And not only do you do that, not only do you claim a perfect interpretation which is logically impossible but you also claim that God's very creation is a lie, on all levels. From the subatomic to the intergalactic and universal whole. It must ALL be wrong for you to be right.[/QUOTE]

I don't claim that I am infallible, quit twisting my position. I claim the Bible is infallible, and I believe the Bible. you seem to be more closed to opposing ideas than I am. "Logically impossible" Lol, the blanket statements are getting more entertaining as we go.

Does that quell you? No. Does most of the church not agreeing with your viewpoints quell you? No. Does the human sinful nature quell you? No. Does the human history and apparent affection for failure and mistakes quell you? Oh no. You're right, aren't you? No matter what's presented. Even though your views aren't consistent with the bible, even though people leave your churches in droves you still keep those eyes covered telling yourselves that you're right, and perfectly right at that. Is that faith Quin? It isn't, is it? It's fanaticism isn't it?[/QUOTE]

More and more blanket statements, the Bible supports my view, not yours. The Bible in Genesis chapter 1, exodus 20:11, and all the genesis chapters on genealogies support my view.

Testable science? Hehe. No, it's what we'd call "luftslott" in Norway. Looks fancy, but is utter nonsense. You are quite good with nonsense. But no matter how much you whitewash a tomb Quin it will remain a tomb.
You haven't cited anything, Quin. You've made an empty claim which makes very little sense without any backing publications.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is testable science, we can measure mutation rates. More blanket statements, I think you're making those due to lack of credible and logical evidence against my position. I actually did give you three sources, and offered to email you more, so quit with the false statements. you're the one who has not give any reason or sources against what I have said.

Ill be slow replying for these next few days, older brother is getting married and we are getting ready for a bunch of family to come. So i'm not ignoring you, unless you continue being rude and only making blanket statements.

 

[Cabal]

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

I don't know if this has been pointed out already, but you do know that "y-Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" are not regarded as the first humans, right? They're the most recent common ancestor of humans alive today. Call them equivalent to the Biblical Adam and Eve if you want (as USIncognito pointed out, you'd probably have some geographical discrepancies to get around), but I suspect you'd get quite a lot of opposition from the more literal YECs out there.

 

[Quin Friberg]

Oh goodness... I don't know why it won't let me quote normally, sorry for the complicated format. ([/QUOTE] is at the end of each of what you said) Ill get it right next time

 

[Quin Friberg]

I don't know if this has been pointed out already, but you do know that "y-Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" are not regarded as the first humans, right? They're the most recent common ancestor of humans alive today. Call them equivalent to the Biblical Adam and Eve if you want (as USIncognito pointed out, you'd probably have some geographical discrepancies to get around), but I suspect you'd get quite a lot of opposition from the more literal YECs out there.

Yes i'm aware of that (in the evolutionary model) But it is still support for the Bible if the dates indeed support the Bible.

 

[Cabal]

Yes i'm aware of that (in the evolutionary model) But it is still support for the Bible if the dates indeed support the Bible.

It depends on whether or not you consider Adam and Eve to be the first humans, seeing as y-Adam and mt-Eve were most certainly not the first humans.

 

[TheReasoner]

First off AIG only uses entropy on a universal level, which is a valid argument. Secondly conservation of angular momentum is used when talking about nebular theory and solar system formation (and is valid) third AIG does not promote “tired light.” Any other attempts?

No, it is not in this context. Looking at the whole universe you cannot say that an increase in overall entropy universally means a local decrease is impossible. The claim is horribly horribly wrong.
Conservation of angular momentum argument concerning solar system formation is laughable as your argument doesn't take the complexity into consideration.

I agree that Micro evolution happens, there are variations with in a species, but it has limits. That’s the scientific part of the theory (variations) and that’s what I accept.

One tree, two trees, a million trees, but no forest?

This distinction is nonsensical.

No I’m telling people that the Bible is not fallible. If the word of God is fallible in one area than it can be fallible in others. You’re the one not supporting what the infallible word of God says.

Nonsense Quin. I'm quite fallible and can be wrong in everything I say. The problem is that you're not making the same allowance for your own statement.

Well neither of those positions ever had Biblical support to them, my position does.

They say they do. And goodness gracious you can find plenty of support for it too. Do I have to start quoting?

I actually have read the statistics on religions and how many accept evolution, and it would depend what you define as the church, the majority of evangelicals do not disagree with me.

I suppose you confine that to the US?

Actually I acknowledge I’m human, and I acknowledge that scientists are humans (I don’t think you do that), but I also acknowledge that God is not human, and that he is the omniscience creator of the universe and if he says he did it a certain why (like he did) then he (being all knowing and non-fallible) is correct.

Of course I acknowledge that they are. The thing is, I also acknowledge that the universe was made by God, that God does not lie, and that therefore a contradiction between the scripture and creation must therefore be due to a misinterpretation either from the view of creation or the view of scripture. As nothing in the universe backs your viewpoint and consistent reading of the bible doesn't either well, then your view is duly rejected as false given the fallible nature of you as a human being.
Occham's razor. It's far simpler and logical for your interpretation to be wrong than everything else.
Especially given all the empirical evidence for an old earth.

It’s not inconsistent, stop making blanket claims and back up you’re statements please.

Deflection. Please, show how the two creation parables are consistent.

I am open to my opinion being wrong, but it has not been shown to be yet. The majority of Hebrew scholars will agree that Genesis 1 was written as historical narrative not as a metaphor.

Really? What hebrew scholars are those? The ones employed by creation institutes?
You say you're open to be proven wrong. I don't believe that Quin. There is overwhelming support for an old earth and evolution both.

If you want to continue this conversation further I would be glad to, but not with the blanket statements you are making. If you would like to argue a point please do, but cut the blanket statements out. You have yet to show any evidence against the one thing I have said, which has to do with MtDNA and the Y Chromosome.

Look, I don't believe you. I think you're likely lying here. You still haven't provided any sources for your claim. And the burden of proof is on you, you're the challenger. So put up.

Well that analogy of micro Vs macro is missing one thing, yes you can take one step, even ten, but you are limited within a genetic box, so if you’re box is only 10 feet by 10 feet you cannot take 100 steps in the same direction.

Ah, but the genetic "box" can certainly expand. By several means. Which is one thing we utilize all the time in my field.

alright cool

You're from the US I take it?

The mindset of natural selection and racism and a higher evolved race of humans. that mindset put forth by Darwin

Ehhhh... No, that's not right. I hope you don't actually believe that tripe?
Besides, Darwin was a man [theologian] of his time. The theory wouldn't be recognized by him today. To say ToE=Darwin is pretty much the same as saying Physics=Aristotle.

Lol nope not benefiting at all - science would work fine without the theory of Macro-evolution (Show me how macro, not micro helps)

Again. There's no real division like that. Please show me how it's harmful. A 'lol' is not something that qualifies as a rebuttal, Quin.

My point is science worked fine under a creationist perspective before Darwin was around, thats how all the major branches were started. I can give you the list if you would like of the scientists.

And it had a ptolemaic perspective before heliocentrism came about.

Tragic how you'd equate your own infallibility with the bible's infallibility.

come again?

You read it. Your supposition of a perfect interpretation requires a perfect interpreter.

The bible is accurate enough. It's not a science textbook and never intended to be read like you do.

Its a darn good thing its not a science text-book, science text-books have to keep updating themselves because they find they were wrong, the Bible got it right the first time (including scientific areas)

Look at the statistics. Very few educated people discard ToE. And for good reason.

I have looked at the statistics, I disagree

Sure you do. And I doubt you've looked at any such thing. I suppose you'll say 'there are lies, dirty lies and statistics'?

So do I. But I know far far more who have rejected their faith due to it. And if I'm not mistaken from the path the one guy I know who converted because of you guys will soon take a nosedive into extreme anti-theism. He has behaved about as badly as any one person I know has. He took some form of "apologetics" course in the states as a recent convert and has spent a couple of years now trying to travel between the more charismatic congregations telling them about the evils of evolution by way of ad-hominem attacks, logical inconsistencies, outright lies and more. He was one extremely foul smearing campaign on two legs. I confronted him on several of those issues yet he didn't change. His faith has martensittic qualities. Hard as can be, but brittle. Hit that faith too hard and it will shatter.

You cant quantify the amount of people I have talked to.

Nope. But this is ludicrous. Throwing personal experiences at each other? Let's either crack out the hard testable facts or can this part, eh?

Yeah, if you push hard enough or push the right buttons you can convert people to anything. I've met people who were converted from and to a lot of things for various reasons. One girl who became a devil worshipper, she used to be pentecostal. Catholics who used to be lutherans, atheists who used to be a lot of different stuff. Buddhists who used to be christians, christians who used to be buddhists and so on and so forth. There is some flux, and the more glibly you speak the more you'll gain followers. Of course. And at the same time you'll push all that many more people away at the same time.

I agree if you push enough buttons you can convert most people to believe anything, including evolution, even if its not true.

Ah. Yes. You fanatics like repetition. How is it not true? There are few better tested theories out there you know. We've observed and triggered speciation. We've seen it happen and we use it all the time.

But you're NOT. That's my whole point. You keep insisting that YOU are infallible. That somehow all before you and even contemporaries have made HUGE mistakes such as claiming the world was flat (just visit flat earth society), consider the earth the centre of the universe, and so on. But somehow YOU are correct. And not just CORRECT, PERFECTLY correct at that. You leave no room for possible mistakes in your own interpretation, completely forgetting all our forefathers and our own mistakes as well. And not only do you do that, not only do you claim a perfect interpretation which is logically impossible but you also claim that God's very creation is a lie, on all levels. From the subatomic to the intergalactic and universal whole. It must ALL be wrong for you to be right.

I don't claim that I am infallible, quit twisting my position. I claim the Bible is infallible, and I believe the Bible. you seem to be more closed to opposing ideas than I am. "Logically impossible" Lol, the blanket statements are getting more entertaining as we go.

No, Quin. You actually claim to be infallible. Come on, how can you possibly know that your way of reading the bible is correct?
Many many others read the bible differently and claim the same thing. There are capitalists who claim capitalism is a biblically proven societal system. Socialists and marxists who say the same. There are liberation theologians and prosperity movements. And most of them have one thing in common: They all claim to have biblical support for diametrically opposite claims. They can all show bible verses, too.

So, when nothing backs your outlandish claims, why should anyone in his or her right mind believe you?

You say you believe the bible. I do not believe you. You keep repeating that you believe your one interpretation as the crux of the bible, and upon this one thing you base your movement: That your interpretation of genesis is without flaw.

Does that quell you? No. Does most of the church not agreeing with your viewpoints quell you? No. Does the human sinful nature quell you? No. Does the human history and apparent affection for failure and mistakes quell you? Oh no. You're right, aren't you? No matter what's presented. Even though your views aren't consistent with the bible, even though people leave your churches in droves you still keep those eyes covered telling yourselves that you're right, and perfectly right at that. Is that faith Quin? It isn't, is it? It's fanaticism isn't it?

More and more blanket statements, the Bible supports my view, not yours. The Bible in Genesis chapter 1, exodus 20:11, and all the genesis chapters on genealogies support my view.

No. Your reading of them does. Just like a similar reading can be used to support a flat earth placed on immobile pillars with a hard dome above it.

Testable science? Hehe. No, it's what we'd call "luftslott" in Norway. Looks fancy, but is utter nonsense. You are quite good with nonsense. But no matter how much you whitewash a tomb Quin it will remain a tomb.
You haven't cited anything, Quin. You've made an empty claim which makes very little sense without any backing publications.

Yes it is testable science, we can measure mutation rates. More blanket statements, I think you're making those due to lack of credible and logical evidence against my position. I actually did give you three sources, and offered to email you more, so quit with the false statements. you're the one who has not give any reason or sources against what I have said.

Haha, come ON Quin. You're the one who's challenging the current paradigm, the burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.

Ill be slow replying for these next few days, older brother is getting married and we are getting ready for a bunch of family to come. So i'm not ignoring you, unless you continue being rude and only making blanket statements.

Put up your end, Quin. What have you done to deserve respect? You've come on here and made outlandish claims without any backing. Why should I respect anyone who does that? Doubly so, why should and how can I respect someone who does this in the name of Christ?
I'm fine with any non-christian behaving terribly badly. But when someone starts misrepresenting Christ with incredibly intellectually dishonest behavior I get seriously ticked off. Either put up your end, or I will afford you one iota of respect. Put up, back your challenge and you'll have my respect though.

 

[TheReasoner]

It depends on whether or not you consider Adam and Eve to be the first humans, seeing as y-Adam and mt-Eve were most certainly not the first humans.

Nor contemporaries.

Oh goodness... I don't know why it won't let me quote normally, sorry for the complicated format. ([ /QUOTE] is at the end of each of what you said) Ill get it right next time

It's okay. Like I said: If you put up with proper sources you'll have my respect as a person within the debate. It will likely not extend to your position though. I should add: Outside this convo you may have my respect. It depends on how you are as a person. But so far, in this conversation...
I'm very strict on that. Make a claim: Back it. No backing + controversial claim = not believed. Such will get you an F anywhere you go. And deservedly too.

Btw: For normal quotes, ou need to include

before the [/ quote]

 

[Cabal]

Nor contemporaries.

Oh, I'm sure there's a way the Fall (all-purpose plot insulation) can be invoked somehow here.

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh, I'm sure there's a way the Fall (all-purpose plot insulation) can be invoked somehow here.

Men fell harder and were therefore given an apparent shorter history back to y-adam?

You know, I really can't stand fanaticism.

 

[Cabal]

Men fell harder and were therefore given an apparent shorter history back to y-adam?

I was thinking more that there's a unspecified time between the creation of man and woman.

Of course, in that regard YECism is still a bit buggered seeing as mt-Eve lived BEFORE y-Adam, so that's another part of the creation order reality still disagrees with, no matter how one wants to mangle the science/literal Genesis account/both.

You know, I really can't stand fanaticism.

I'm sure creationists would make great comic book writers though - their ability to retcon and come up with the most fantastically implausible get-outs is uncanny.

 

[Split Rock]

The only thing we learn from being wrong is that we are wrong.
Only in science is being wrong a victory.

In Christianity faith is the victory.

In science wrong is the victory.

I think I'll stick with faith. You can stick with wrong.

No -- learning something new means you've been wrong all along.

How do you guys figure out when you're wrong again?

Oh yeah... you never do.

 

[TheReasoner]

I was thinking more that there's a unspecified time between the creation of man and woman.

measured in generations, no less And with the woman appearing before the man.

Of course, in that regard YECism is still a bit buggered seeing as mt-Eve lived BEFORE y-Adam, so that's another part of the creation order reality still disagrees with, no matter how one wants to mangle the science/literal Genesis account/both.

Sure. If you see it as something other than a parable.

I'm sure creationists would make great comic book writers though - their ability to retcon and come up with the most fantastically implausible get-outs is uncanny.

Quite. Wild creationist mental gymnastics skills=1337.

 

[Split Rock]

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

You can always force a round peg into a square hole. The reality is that those two accounts were written by different people at different times for different purposes. They can only be considered consistent if you assume they must be.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you guys figure out when you're wrong again?

Why should we? we've got you guys to do it for us.

 

[TheReasoner]

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

How?

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

Isn't that extremely arrogant, Doveaman? To assume you're not missing anything? I'd say all humans miss something. No matter how perfect, no man can do anything perfectly.

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?

Of course I was and I do. But I do think if someone who accepted Christ and well, is saved, without having had the time to do so he'll still be saved.

Yes, I've had my feet washed by my pastor. It's nice, and a nice gesture. But I do not approve of a focus on that above the message. The rituals aren't why we believe, they aren't magic by which we become saved. They are beautiful and important in their own way. But they are not how or why we're saved. Only Jesus can save us.

 

[Hespera]

How do you guys figure out when you're wrong again?

Oh yeah... you never do.

A few more data points to add to my theory that the creationist is constitutionally incapable of admitting that they are wrong once they have said something in an evo / cre discussion.

 

[Hespera]

I was thinking more that there's a unspecified time between the creation of man and woman.

Of course, in that regard YECism is still a bit buggered seeing as mt-Eve lived BEFORE y-Adam, so that's another part of the creation order reality still disagrees with, no matter how one wants to mangle the science/literal Genesis account/both.



I'm sure creationists would make great comic book writers though - their ability to retcon and come up with the most fantastically implausible get-outs is uncanny.

not all that good.

 

[Split Rock]

Why should we? we've got you guys to do it for us.

But you don't believe us.. do you? In fact, you guys tell us the more we point out your mistakes, the more you believe them. So, I'll ask again: How do you know when you are wrong?