Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[AV1611VET]

There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

That's what's wrong with it.

 

[pat34lee]

Hmmm.... Evolution, as such, IS a fact - even the more educated and sensible creationists admit that. But this is different in character than you implication - that evolutionists are hoodwinking the public.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​

I just realized I hadn't dealt with this sufficiently.
I never mentioned "scientific proofs", just proof or prove.
There is quite a difference between the two.

Proof is: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

If you want a different word, then evolution cannot be corroborated.

 

[USincognito]

I just realized I hadn't dealt with this sufficiently.
I never mentioned "scientific proofs", just proof or prove.
There is quite a difference between the two.

Proof is: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

If you want a different word, then evolution cannot be corroborated.

That's the colloquial use of the word. We having a scientific discussion about a scientific subject. Best to use proper verbiage.

 

[lesliedellow]

Most likely parts of it have been tampered with
and altered. Like the fact that the NT was written
in Hebrew, not Greek, as most people think today.

So we have had Justatruthseeker, the famous astrophysicist, and now we have pat34lee, the eminent Greek and Hebrew scholar.

Not only that, but one peddling the atheist line that we can’t know what the New Testament originally said.

 

[TCassidy]

Like the fact that the NT was written
in Hebrew, not Greek, as most people think today.

Except the Jews of the early 1st century AD did not speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic/Chaldean, which they brought back from Captivity with them, which was written using Hebrew orthography.

 

[lesliedellow]

Except the Jews of the early 1st century AD did not speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic/Chaldean, which the brought back from Captivity with them, which was written using Hebrew orthography.

Not to mention the fact that Paul is unlikely to have adrressed Greek speaking Corinthians/Philippians/Thessalonians/Romans in Hebrew.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to mention the fact that Paul is unlikely to have adrressed Greek speaking Corinthians/Philippians/Thessalonians/Romans in Hebrew.

Paul could have addressed them in Swahili for all we should care.

Ever read Acts 2?

 

[pat34lee]

So we have had Justatruthseeker, the famous astrophysicist, and now we have pat34lee, the eminent Greek and Hebrew scholar.

Not only that, but one peddling the atheist line that we can’t know what the New Testament originally said.

Actually, we can know. That is how we know it was written
in Hebrew. Ever heard of Hebrewisms? The NT is full of them.
They are phrases that only make sense in Hebrew, not in Greek.

 

[pat34lee]

Not to mention the fact that Paul is unlikely to have adrressed Greek speaking Corinthians/Philippians/Thessalonians/Romans in Hebrew.

That depends on if the leaders of the churches
were Jews or Gentiles. The custom of the time
was clear. Anything dealing with spiritual matters
by Jews was written in Hebrew. Even in early
Greek manuscripts, the name YHWH was written
in paleo-Hebrew.

 

[pat34lee]

That's the colloquial use of the word. We having a scientific discussion about a scientific subject. Best to use proper verbiage.

No, I was discussing how evolution is not science,
but philosophy, religion, pseudoscience or hoax.

 

[USincognito]

No, I was discussing how evolution is not science,
but philosophy, religion, pseudoscience or hoax.

Except it is a science. Just because pat34lee has an incorrect opinion does not change that fact.

Tell you what, how about in two sentences for each of those you explain how evolution is not a science and is the other four.

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually, we can know. That is how we know it was written
in Hebrew. Ever heard of Hebrewisms? The NT is full of them.
They are phrases that only make sense in Hebrew, not in Greek.

Is that a fact? Then:

1.) How come just about every New Testament scholar seems to be ignorant of the fact.

2.) What exactly would Paul have thought he was about, writing to his Greek speaking converts in Hebrew?

3.) How is it that Luke’s GREEK prose is considered to be on a par with any of the Greek prose of classical antiquity?

4.) Why would any of the New Testament authors have written in a language which was no longer widely spoken in the first century AD?

5.) Why, whenever the NT authors quote the OT, do they quote from the Greek Septuagint?

 

[lesliedellow]

That depends on if the leaders of the churches
were Jews or Gentiles. The custom of the time
was clear. Anything dealing with spiritual matters
by Jews was written in Hebrew. Even in early
Greek manuscripts, the name YHWH was written
in paleo-Hebrew.

YHWH is impossible to transliterate into Greek, which has no equivalent to the ‘Y’, no equivalent to the ‘H’ and no equivalent to the ‘W’.

 

[TCassidy]

That is how we know it was written
in Hebrew.

LOL! ROFLOL! Paul wrote to the Romans in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Galatians in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Ephesians in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Philippians in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Collossians in Hebrew! LOL!

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in Hebrew! LOL!

I'll say this for you pat34lee, you certainly are entertaining! ROFLOL!

 

[Astrophile]

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Astrophile]

In response to this:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​

This is true; in principle any scientific theory can be disproved by new observations. However, in practice it is very unlikely that, for example, new observations will show that the theory of thermodynamics is so completely wrong that it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine, or that the theory of atomic structure is wrong and that it is possible to turn lead into gold (or vice versa) by chemical reactions, or that the theory of gravitation is wrong and that planets and binary stars can move in square orbits. Furthermore, if any of these well-established scientific theories were to be disproved, they would be replaced by another naturalistic theory.​

You replied:

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course, in principle new facts might be discovered that disprove evolution. However, so far as I know, the only non-evolutionary scientific hypothesis for the diversity of living things is spontaneous generation, which was supposedly disproved more than a hundred years ago. Any non-evolutionary hypothesis has to explain all the biological facts that are now explained by the theory of evolution, and, like any other scientific hypothesis, it has to make testable predictions.

Creationists are, consciously or unconsciously, equivocating. They are not saying that the theory of evolution may be disproved and be replaced by a naturalistic non-evolutionary explanation for the diversity of living things; indeed, any such naturalistic hypothesis that explained the facts better than evolution would be fatal to their cause. What they are advocating is the belief in a supernatural creation, and this is not a scientific hypothesis since it cannot make testable predictions and no conceivable observation could disprove it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So we have had Justatruthseeker, the famous astrophysicist, and now we have pat34lee, the eminent Greek and Hebrew scholar.

Not only that, but one peddling the atheist line that we can’t know what the New Testament originally said.

And then we got hacks that can't ever seem to actually present any evidence, just make claims......

 

[lesliedellow]

And then we got hacks that can't ever seem to actually present any evidence, just make claims......

You really shouldn’t speak of yourself in that way (even if it is no more than the unvarnished truth).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really shouldn’t speak of yourself in that way (even if it is no more than the unvarnished truth).

Speaking of you specifically. Your posts never present anything but claims you can never back up scientifically.... In fact they rarely contain anything but ad-hominem remarks, which is why I rarely bother to even answer any of your posts because you are a disrespectful child.....

 

[lesliedellow]

which is why I rarely bother to even answer any of your posts

Oh gee, you wouldn't break a promise like that, would you?

Your posts never present anything but claims you can never back up scientifically....

I passed my physics exams. How about you? I don’t think you can have taken a science class in your life, and understood what was being said.