My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Speedwell]

Of course it does. The Bible thoroughly explains creationism and creationists in Luke 18:10-14.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Should it?

 

[LostMarbels]

Oh good you're on, are we ever going to finish our conversation? Not going to lie I've been looking forward to getting a response for about a week now. But it seems all that anybody wants to talk about is rabbit poop.

Nope, you're Wrong. "Not True" and "False" aren't synonymous. Next thing you'll be trying to say is that not believing in God existing is the same as believing God doesn't exist...

 

[Skreeper]

Should it?

Some Christians sure seem to enjoy the idea of unbelievers burning in hell. You tell me if you're one of them.

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course it does. The Bible thoroughly explains creationism and creationists in Luke 18:10-14.

So there are two men;
The first says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth." The second says, "No, He didn't."
The first says, "The evening and the morning was the first day." The second says, "No, it wasn't."
The first says, "God formed man from the dust of the earth." The second says, "No, He didn't."
The first says, "God caused man to fall into a deep sleep and from his rib, formed woman." The second says, "No, He didn't."
The first says, "The serpent convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit." The second says, "No, he didn't."
The first says, "Because of Adam's disobedience, sin and death came into the world." The second says, "No, it didn't."
The first says, "Why are you denying the word of God?" The second says, "I'm not, I'm denying you. You're a creationist."
The first says, "But Jesus believed in the Bible as written and taught that it was the inspired word of God." The second says, "Yeah, but what did a carpenter know about evolution? He only believed what He was told."

And thus said, the deniers of the Scriptures believe themselves to be more enlightened about the creation than the Lord, who was actually there at the time.

 

[Speedwell]

The first says, "Why are you denying the word of God?" The second says, "I'm not, I'm denying you. You're a creationist."
The first says, "But Jesus believed in the Bible as written and taught that it was the inspired word of God." The second says, "Yeah, but what did a carpenter know about evolution? He only believed what He was told."

And thus said, the deniers of the Scriptures believe themselves to be more enlightened about the creation than the Lord, who was actually there at the time.

LOL! I believe the Bible as written, too, and in its divine inspiration. But Jesus did not teach that the Garden story was 100 % accurate literal history. He taught that it was the true and authoritative word of God.

 

[bhsmte]

Some Christians sure seem to enjoy the idea of unbelievers burning in hell. You tell me if you're one of them.

You noticed that too, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

You noticed that too, huh?

Please don't harp to me about enjoying someone going to Hell, when I'm as vociferous as I am about Charles Darwin getting saved on his deathbed.

If anything, it's you guys who place your own rabboni there by denying the Lady Hope Story

 

[LostMarbels]

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

and cud is a word of Germanic origin that was not even in existence at the time the Torah was written. For that matter, I wonder what era ruminants even became a classification? Do you somehow suppose that the writers of the Bible understood the nomenclature of taxon's? Or maybe what a light bulb was? Because that's kind of what's going on here. You are somehow trying to prove the Bible errant by using a word that was not in existence and a concept of classification that was not even yet known.

A direct translation of the word means to scrape the throat. And since that makes no literary sense the meaning of the word was transliterated into cud. because they did not have the scientific knowledge nor even the understanding of classification yet of a ruminant. The only think that they had to go on is the knowledge that all of these animals mentioned re ate partially digested food.

Please forgive me if any of the wording or whatnot is wrong I'm trying to do this on my phone and auto correct is killing me.

 

[Speedwell]

You are somehow trying to prove the Bible errant by using a word that was not in existence and a concept of classification that was not even yet known.

Excuses which you will not tolerate when it comes to the interpreting the creation stories of Genesis. Nobody is trying to prove the Bible "errant," just to point out that the scriptural interpretations of biblical creationists are selective and self-serving.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh good you're on, are we ever going to finish our conversation? Not going to lie I've been looking forward to getting a response for about a week now. But it seems all that anybody wants to talk about is rabbit poop.

Yes! I've taken to editing in a text editor because I tend to spend days editing and/or have to edit in amongst other real life priorities.... the amount of times I've lost pages of articulate (for me, that is) responses beggars belief...!

-_-

I'm in the middle of a response to yours, if only work would stop putting things in my way!

 

[LostMarbels]

Excuses which you will not tolerate when it comes to the interpreting the creation stories of Genesis. Nobody is trying to prove the Bible "errant," just to point out that the scriptural interpretations of biblical creationists are selective and self-serving.

there are no excuses being presented. The only reason you bring this up is because you actually believe you have a point. But ignorance it's just that, ignorance. I also find it hilarious that the naysayers do not feel they have any burden of proof. Any subjective opinion is somehow fact without any substantiation of what is stated being needed.

The only recourse left is to reiterate the constant reteric of opion, not having substantiated evidence of you statement.

You cannot disprove the meaning of the original text stating that certain animals were unclean due to re eating partially digested food. Nor do you even intend to. You just want to put it out there that it is incorrect without any basis to your statement. Now how scientific is that?

 

[Speedwell]

there are no excuses being presented. The only reason you bring this up is because you actually believe you have a point. But ignorance it's just that, ignorance. I also find it hilarious that the naysayers do not feel they have any burden of proof. Any subjective opinion is somehow fact without any substantiation of what is stated being needed.

The only recourse left is to reiterate the constant reteric of opion, not having substantiated evidence of you statement.

You cannot disprove the meaning of the original text stating that certain animals were unclean due to re eating partially digested food. Nor do you even intend to. You just want to put it out there that it is incorrect without any basis to your statement. Now how scientific is that?

And you are perfectly willing to allow for ancient ways of understanding the natural world unless it has to do with evolution. The rule seems to be that if a passage taken literally can be used as a proof-text against evolution then it must be taken literally; otherwise it doesn't matter.

 

[LostMarbels]

And you are perfectly willing to allow for ancient ways of understanding the natural world unless it has to do with evolution. The rule seems to be that if a passage taken literally can be used as a proof-text against evolution then it must be taken literally; otherwise it doesn't matter.

well before I chase that rabbit, let's finish talking about this rabbit. Can you substantiate your claim that the original writers are incorrect In stating that all said animals were unclean because they re ate partially digested food?

 

[Speedwell]

well before I chase that rabbit, let's finish talking about this rabbit. Can you substantiate your claim that the original writers are incorrect In stating that all said animals were unclean because they re ate partially digested food?

I didn't make that claim--I don't think it constitutes an "error."

 

[LostMarbels]

I didn't make that claim--I don't think it constitutes an "error."

okay so it's not an error, meaning that they are not incorrect, so what are you getting at?

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes! I've taken to editing in a text editor because I tend to spend days editing and/or have to edit in amongst other real life priorities.... the amount of times I've lost pages of articulate (for me, that is) responses beggars belief...!

-_-

I'm in the middle of a response to yours, if only work would stop putting things in my way!

oh good to hear. I am genuinely looking forward to continuing our conversation. As far as work goes I get you. I am quite literally on the side of a road, in a tent, in Tampa selling Mother's Day flowers. And my phone is not exactly a smartphone. So I might not be able to do the research to adequately respond until I get home around Monday Tuesday.

 

[dad]

Excuses which you will not tolerate when it comes to the interpreting the creation stories of Genesis. Nobody is trying to prove the Bible "errant," just to point out that the scriptural interpretations of biblical creationists are selective and self-serving.

Excuses like believing Adam was a real created man, eh?

 

[Motherofkittens]

Imagine how much more ignorant [the writers of the bible] were about "how the heavens go." If they can't even know rabbits don't eat their own cud why should we think they would know about the origins of the universe and earth? The Bible is (allegedly) the Word of God, I've heard his concerned about people's souls and not about the Bible being accurate science. Most Christians have no problem believing in Yawah and accepting evolution.

I used to be a creationist and I understand how hard it is to be taught if evolution is true than the Bible is false. But that is a false dichotomy. It's okay to accept science and indeed religious people should because that is how they find out about their (alleged) gods.

 

[dad]

LOL! I believe the Bible as written, too, and in its divine inspiration. But Jesus did not teach that the Garden story was 100 % accurate literal history. He taught that it was the true and authoritative word of God.

So do you believe in a created man, from which a bone was taken and woman created?