Taking Questions on the Creation

[agentorange20]

But attributing divine inspiration to one translation only? How could you ever tell?

AV seems lost in the facts in how and when inspired authors were rejected (some 14 books in total) and removed at the council of Nicaea. How on earth could mere fallible men know at that point some 400 years after the fact which passages were and weren't authoritative?

And pay no attention to how many times it has been edited, re-edited, re-translated, omitted and enhanced by men. Nope, no ability of error there.

Your literalism stance is abusrb as one can't reconcile and read the entire bible in this manner. When Jesus said he's a rock, he meant figuratively and metaphorically. But see no one takes that part literally, they apply their literalism in a cherry picking fashion only using those parts for which they deem must be interpreted literally.

 

[Cabal]

Please explain, in your own words, why you think death must be an integral part of evolution.

Besides, millions of organisms die each day without God taking any action, so why should he suddenly be concerned about it?

I find it interesting that Christians who oppose ToE are so against it because it generally involves death - yet if they're talking about something like, I dunno, an actual person dying, then they're all "it was God's will/it was their time to go". All of a sudden, far more amenable to the concept, when they're not taking on something that they have a bee in their bonnet about.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV seems lost in the facts in how and when inspired authors were rejected (some 14 books in total) and removed at the council of Nicaea. How on earth could mere fallible men know at that point some 400 years after the fact which passages were and weren't authoritative?

QV please.

 

[Tiberius]

I use Ussher's calculations just for simplicity.

So lemme get this straight....

You answer only ONE of the issues I raised and ignore the rest of them.

And the only response you provide isn't any kind of argument or evidence, merely a claim that you just arbitrarily decided to assume something.

You've gotta give me more than that if you want to actually answer my questions. You DO want to answer them, don't you?

 

[agentorange20]

The books themselves already carried the authorization; it was just a matter of separating them

Really, how do we know who wrote which ones? If they were so obvious in there authorization, why did it take nearly 400 years to finally canonize? Sorry, but you don't preach that the bible is entirely infallible and then 400 years later remove some 14 books which certain people find objectionable.

Suppose you were put in a room with all different denominations and told to separate the legal tender from the non-legal tender.

Could you do it? Sure you could:

• One-dollar bill --- legal --- goes here.
• Two-dollar bill --- legal --- goes here.
• Three-dollar bill --- non-legal --- goes there.
• Eight-dollar bill --- non-legal --- goes there.
• Ten-dollar bill --- legal --- goes here.

And this validates the bibles authority how? The reason we can objectively separate money denominations is b/c it is intrinsically obvious and logically coherent since they are....get this...numbered. The history record (US history and abroad) is documented independently on which denomination bills the US has in its history used as currency, this is how we can cross verify indeed which bills (eight dollar bill) are bunk and which are legit.

We can't do this with the bible, the only source of authority for the bible and its authors is the bible itself. Horrid logic. There are no documents outside the bible much less in the bible that a person named Mark penned Mark's Gospel, ditto for Luke, and others. We have no independent evidence on there accounts either, again, all we have is the bible as its own source.

In what logical way can one do this in respect to the multitude of different books written over a 1400+ years?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really, how do we know who wrote which ones?

First of all, every [secular] author is portrayed as a real 1st-century person. Second of all, their names are displayed at the top of each Gospel, in what Netiquette would consider 'yelling'. Thirdly, we know that the True Author is God, Himself, Who takes the credit for their penmanship, thus their secular authors are in a subordinate role in the first place --- more like what we call 'secretaries'.

So --- in short --- even though we weren't there --- we know which secular authors to give the credit to.

 

[Skaloop]

First of all, every [secular] author is portrayed as a real 1st-century person. Second of all, their names are displayed at the top of each Gospel, in what Netiquette would consider 'yelling'. Thirdly, we know that the True Author is God, Himself, Who takes the credit for their penmanship, thus their secular authors are in a subordinate role in the first place --- more like what we call 'secretaries'.

So --- in short --- even though we weren't there --- we know which secular authors to give the credit to.

The same sort of argument could be made for The Canterbury Tales. The people and their stories are presented as real, their names/titles are used to denote who is telling the story, and we know that the true author is Chaucer.

And since when does the choice of font signify veracity?

 

[agentorange20]

First of all, every [secular] author is portrayed as a real 1st-century person.

You're saying the bible had/used secular authors.....? Where does it reference them?

we know that the True Author is God,

How? How do we know? Objective evidence? All I hear is decries from fiat from you that it is b/c, well, it is. This is as illogical as a parent stating santa is real to their kid simply by they decry upon their high pedestal.

Himself,

Ditto...

Who takes the credit for their penmanship,

Ditto...

thus their secular authors are in a subordinate role in the first place ---

What secular authors? The bible doesn't use any secular authors, they were all 'men of God', right? And where does the bible ever use secular or independent sources other than itself for its own statements?

So --- in short --- even though we weren't there --- we know which secular authors to give the credit to.

Which ones?

 

[AV1611VET]

The same sort of argument could be made for The Canterbury Tales. The people and their stories are presented as real, their names/titles are used to denote who is telling the story, and we know that the true author is Chaucer.

Fair enough --- when the Canterbury Tales write a nation's history --- in adavace --- and fulfills it to a T --- then we'll talk.

And since when does the choice of font signify veracity?

It doesn't --- it signifies 'yelling' --- something its Author knew in advance. The [secular] Gospel writers literally shout out their names - (in the King James Bible, anyway).

 

[Breckmin]

Breckmin, please before you intimate that you may think my responses to AV are the product of a "lazy mind", do me the honor of at least looking back through my posts going back over a year now.

I will assume in that you are still on this line of reasoning that you haven't yet done your homework. That is ok. It is the actions of a "lazy mind". But please don't assume that you know the "history" of this thread and in totality the forum itself.

I will grant you I've lost all patience and most of my initial respect for AV1611VET but that is precisely because he has required that course of action.

You see, Breckmin, AV1611VET prides himself on his Biblical knowledge and often claims to "eat atheists for breakfast" and all manner of "bluster and bluff". He makes demonstrably false claims and when he is "corrected" he simply ignores it.

AV1611VET is a pharisee. He has read the KJV so closely he's seen every word but as we all know when we learn to read, often times just knowing what words are in the sentence does not equal the "meaning".

AV treats others stances as beneath consideration, while many of us go some extra limit to grant some of his points, even if we disagree with him. But you'll never see AV admit that "perhaps ebed could mean "slave" as was common among the Hebrews." This even after we all grant that indeed ebed could also mean "servant" but the context of the bible indicates something less pleasant than mere "hired servant". But no, AV will merely accuse us all of not understanding theology.

You see, AV confuses his "feelings" about what the Bible says with Absolute Truth. That frustrates people like me. I'm a scientist. My greatest fear is that I will make a mistake in presenting information or miss some subtelty. That is not a problem AV suffers from. He knows absolute truth and will gladly tell you absolute truth. Your points (if they happen to disagree with him) will be deemed something he can safely ignore.

So, by doing so, he has violated Luke 6:31. He's surely familiar with the words of his lord and savior, but I wonder if he's merely familiar with the "words" and missed the meaning.

In these discussions, AV's point, if you are following along, is that he will glady present information to you if you are willing to allow him to control exactly where the information comes from and if you agree with his "interpretation" of that information.

So hopefully you'll go do your homework and get the background. I assure you most of us scientists on this board, both atheist and christian, who disagree with AV aren't "lazy minds". Most of us know much more about both the larger picture of religion, Christianity, logic and science than AV.

That isn't to say AV's ignorance is bad. That is hardly the point. We are all ignorant of different things. I've even changed my debate strategy in regards to one of the Jesus Eschatologies based on something I learned from AV. But I sincerely doubt there has been an equal response from AV. It would indicate that his knowledge isn't of "absolute truth". That cannot stand.

The thing that annoys all of the folks who debate AV is that he seems to love his ignorance. That is his pride and joy, apparently. It is frustrating and what has resulted in my recent annoyance posts to him.

I've spent over a year doing this, going 'round and 'round with AV. It is kind of fun, but it's also kind of like picking on the "challenged". And that does sort of bother me.




His "position" is not one of evidence. That's the point. He isn't interested in "evidence". He's claimed as much. So what stance would you take in regards to AV?

(Oh, and if you can please provide such evidence for literal genesis, please do so, but be careful of the PRATT list.)

I will make a deal with you, that I will not make an argument for something
that I do not believe I can defend within an agreed set of assumptions
that I would be operating under.

I do not read creationist literature so I am not aware of any PRATT list.
Someone mentioned AIG. Ken Hamm is a good brother in the Lord, and
he has a tremendous ministry to Christians teaches them a little bit about
creationism, but there is a difference between ministering to the body
and being in the trenches debating and "identifying" the real areas of
disagreement between the two different systems of intepreting
evidence.

I did not see you name call, so I did not accuse anyone of a lazy
mind. I just generalized in noting that name calling is something I
would have fun with, just as in other uncensored forums where people
swear and constantly use curse words..."it is really nothing more than
a lazy mind trying to express itself."

Furthermore, sometimes knowing the larger picture instead of the
narrow way to truth can actually confuse you, especially if the
larger picture is filled with invalid assumptions based on inductions
that lead to error.

I am guilty, perhaps, of always jumping to the end of threads and
not reading the beginning of them because they are often over a
year and outdated. I also don't usually read the rules, but just
assume that the forum rules are the same as other forums I have
occasionally visited. Believe me, the rules here are far different
than the old Christianity forum rules on AOL back in the mid 90's.
Although other forums were censored we would request that only
vulgarity was censored and that all atheists and unbelievers were
welcome so we could speak with them and evangelize.

The problem was that most Christians learned that they were
not equipped and ready to defend the faith, and the number of
Christians who would be effective in evangelism actually left
and the Christian was often out numbered 10 to 1 and it became
less of a forum for Christianity, and more of a forum for unbelievers
to vent their frustrations about Christians and Christian theology
rather than a place for Christians to share with each other.

So, although, other apologists and myself would request no censorship
so we could actually defend the faith, the road to disorder and being
over run was paved with good intentions. So although a Jewish
person could debate Christianity in the Christianity section, the
Christian could not dare post in the Judaism Forum in 1995 or 1996
or they would be seen as a Christian proselytizer. (I'm straying)

Back to the point of this thread. I never intended on accusing
you, I was just explaining that there is a side in which you can
operate and answer with scientific criticism, and not strictly
biblical faith that is pure fidism. I know many who defend the
Genesis account as being consistent with current data and
they do it with scientific argument and not exegetically.

~Michael

 

[agentorange20]

Fair enough --- when the Canterbury Tales write a nation's history --- in adavace --- and fulfills it to a T --- then we'll talk.

AV, have you ever heard of the term 'self fulfilling prophecies'? It doesn't seem that you bothered to include that.

Right, and just completely ignore all those other for told prophecies which haven't or didn't come to pass.

The [secular] Gospel writers literally shout out their names - (in the King James Bible, anyway).

Again I ask, which secular gospel writers are you talking about? Which authors of any biblical books were non-religious? The Gospels were written by 'men of God', right? So they would hardly be secular.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fair enough --- when the Canterbury Tales write a nation's history --- in adavace --- and fulfills it to a T --- then we'll talk.

Will the Canterbury Tales be required to fulfill itself anywhere besides its own pages, or will we be holding it to the same low standards as the Bible?

 

[Split Rock]

Thirdly, we know that the True Author is God, Himself, Who takes the credit for their penmanship, thus their secular authors are in a subordinate role in the first place --- more like what we call 'secretaries'.

Where does it say this in the Bible?

 

[Breckmin]

I had to change my thinking as well --- as when I had to accept Abiogenesis as being apart from Evolution.

If by "evolution" you mean micro evolution and speciation then you
would need to change.

But if you mean "evolution" as a naturalistic matericalistic explanation
for the origin of species (IOW "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) then I
would say keep your old thinking because the first common ancestor
MUST be explained.

~Michael

 

[agentorange20]

If by "evolution" you mean micro evolution and speciation then you
would need to change.

Those darn details and definitions, tricky they can be.

But if you mean "evolution" as a naturalistic materialistic explanation
for the origin of species

As opposed to what, a supernatural explanation? If so, at what point and where is this evident and based on what evidence? Again, if we are to teach something as Science it requires that it uses the scientific methodology, which as you know can't use supernatural explanations, it can only refer to natural ones.

(IOW "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) then I
would say keep your old thinking because the first common ancestor
MUST be explained.

Why does it matter if all life is derived from a single ancestor or from very similar early microbes? This would have no bearing on the validity for common ancestry between extant apes and modern homo sapiens for instance.

Descent is descent, it makes no difference if it be by one single common ancestor or by a small group of ancestors.

 

[Split Rock]

I do not read creationist literature so I am not aware of any PRATT list.
Someone mentioned AIG. Ken Hamm is a good brother in the Lord, and
he has a tremendous ministry to Christians teaches them a little bit about
creationism, but there is a difference between ministering to the body
and being in the trenches debating and "identifying" the real areas of
disagreement between the two different systems of intepreting
evidence.

Ken Ham is a fraud, a liar, and ignorant of real science.

If by "evolution" you mean micro evolution and speciation then you would need to change.

Does that include the speciation of Homo sapiens? I didn't think so...

But if you mean "evolution" as a naturalistic matericalistic explanation for the origin of species (IOW "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) then I
would say keep your old thinking because the first common ancestor
MUST be explained.

Come now. We know what the "controversy" is really all about. The origin of only one species really matters to creationists, and that species is Man. Abiogenesis has little bearing on where Man came from. The one underlying dogma that all creationists agree to, is that Man was Specially Created, virtually as he is today, by an act of Divine Will. What has this to do with where the first microbe came from?

 

[Tomk80]

If by "evolution" you mean micro evolution and speciation then you
would need to change.

But if you mean "evolution" as a naturalistic matericalistic explanation
for the origin of species (IOW "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) then I
would say keep your old thinking because the first common ancestor
MUST be explained.

~Michael

Again derailing, but does chemistry need to explain how atoms came into existence? It doesn't. It only needs to explain how they change. Physics explains how atoms come into existence.

The same way, evolution only explains how life changes. It does not explain how life came into existence. For that, we need another field, most likely chemistry.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, have you ever heard of the term 'self fulfilling prophecies'?

Yes.

It doesn't seem that you bothered to include that.

And I don't plan to, either. The difference between a self-fulfilling prophecy and God's prophesy, is that God's prophecy cannot be prevented from happening, no matter how hard you try. Self-fulfilling prophecies are a dime-a-dozen, the trick is to prevent it from happening.

Right, and just completely ignore all those other for told prophecies which haven't or didn't come to pass.

Of the 333 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, He fulfilled 109 of them at His first advent, and will fulfill the other 224 at His second advent. Mathematically, 10[sup]50[/sup] constitutes an impossibility --- Jesus did the impossible at His first advent (109 x 108 x 107...), and will do it again with an even higher weight of impossibility (222 x 221 x 220...).

Again I ask, which secular gospel writers are you talking about?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Which authors of any biblical books were non-religious? The Gospels were written by 'men of God', right? So they would hardly be secular.

Fair enough --- use the word 'human' then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Will the Canterbury Tales be required to fulfill itself anywhere besides its own pages, or will we be holding it to the same low standards as the Bible?

Well, there is one major problem --- you need to explain why the author of the Canterbury Tales is a skeleton (or dust), but the Author of the Scriptures is still alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

If by "evolution" you mean micro evolution and speciation then you
would need to change.

But if you mean "evolution" as a naturalistic matericalistic explanation
for the origin of species (IOW "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) then I
would say keep your old thinking because the first common ancestor
MUST be explained.

~Michael

I agree with you (and, yes, I'm talking about micro-evolution).

I have made the point that, according to evolution, the first human woman would have had to have engaged in beastiality, since Adam supposedly didn't come along until thousands of years later.

They answer that by saying (if I get this story right), Eve's DNA, known as mtDNA, can be traced back further in time than Adam's DNA (Y-chromosome). [Evidently, mtDNA is easier to trace.]

To counter that, even if mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA were traced back to the same year, that means Adam and Eve were brother and sister.