Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Handmaided]

Either that, or you need a course in hermeneutics.

What versus is that?

 

[AV1611VET]

and the bible says plants existed before the sun...

For how long?

...that a guy killed a thosand people with an asses jawbone...

Ya --- I heard that a bomb was dropped that killed thousands --- can you believe that?

...and that covering animals with sticks will cause them to be striped...

Nope --- you didn't read that --- not from an authorized Bible, anyway.

willful ignorance and adament belief in something doesn't make it true

That's true --- but in the Bible --- the reality preceded the belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

No... you don't. If you can use the argument that science is invalid because no one was there to observe it first hand then that argument applies to you as well. Claiming a deity was there is fun and all, but it's not a reasonable response.

Ya --- well --- I hold science to a higher standard than you guys do, as I claim God is the Author of science.

 

[Cannonflare]

God is not an author he is an entity that makes people feel better, you know like warm milk.

 

[AV1611VET]

What versus is that?

He's talking about Joshua 10:13 ---

[bible]Joshua 10:13[/bible]

--- and not using what's known as "the language of the observer".

 

[AV1611VET]

God is not an author he is an entity that makes people feel better, you know like warm milk.

Tell that to the Syrians.

[bible]1 Kings 20:28[/bible]

 

[Cannonflare]

You haven't proved me wrong yet. What is so good about the hills anyways?

 

[Ondoher]

Nope --- you didn't read that --- not from an authorized Bible, anyway.

Actually, he did. Or pretty close. Apparently by placing sticks in front of goats while they copulate it will cause them to produce offspring that are "ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."

See Genesis 30:27-29 for more details.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I’ve gotten every excuse from “I don’t have time” (even though they are here every day) to prophesizing about how their opponent will conduct themselves (even though they have never tried). Since every reason they give, from A to Z is obviously false then what could the real reason be? The only difference is that they are going to be held accountable for backing up their claims and can’t run away. Is that enough to being the entire creationist argument to it’s knees?

I should be very glad to debate formally, with any evolutionist, as long as the particular subject is one I am familiar with.

For instance--If I was shown that the Bible was highly fallible in many other points than I would be wary of trusting it in this issue. I do not think the Bible is fallible, but if it were I should not want to continue in my mistake.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently by placing sticks in front of goats while they copulate it will cause them to produce offspring that are "ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."

No, it didn't --- you're attributing cause-and-effect to this where cause-and-effect didn't exist.

Here's the passage in question, along with the notes from by Bible:

[bible]Genesis 30:37-39[/bible]

• These terms, apart from God's intervention, would have enormously favored Laban. Jacob did know from long experience as a shepherd and stock breeder, that some "heterozygous" animals would be in the flock even though all appeared to be "homozygous", so that at least a few animals would be born spotted and speckled, even from Laban's solid-colored animals. He trusted the Lord to determine how many.
• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

[bible]Genesis 31:10[/bible]

• God revealed to Jacob in this dream that even though the cattle all seemed to be of the dominantly solid colors, those which actually were mating were genetically heterozygous, this producing an abnormal proportion of spotted offspring to augment Jacob's flock. God thus providentially honored Jacob's faith and punished Laban's cupidity.

 

[Psudopod]

These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

I don't see anything in the passage that backs up what you are saying. From a stricktly literal, not-adding-anything point of view the passage says mating flocks in front of stripy poles makes stripy sheep.

Is there anything in a later or earlier verse? Because it sounds like you are trying to explain something the Bibles says happens that goes against what we know happens in reality.

 

[shernren]

The highly ironic thing is that in these passages, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible to fit science is an adequate defense and even marks greater spirituality and intellectuality.

But when it comes to Genesis 1, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible to fit science is un-Christian, exalting man over God, and destroys the foundation of the gospel.

Am I supposed to understand why?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Am I supposed to understand why?

No! The Bible says it, and that settles it. Blind faith isn't called blind for nothing

 

[sonfleur]

But if you can't, there are plenty more proofs for avian evolution among dinosaurs that I would be happy to show you.

I'd be happy to hear your proofs.

Note also that the Archaeopteryx fossils are the quintessential transitional species Creationists often clamour for.

Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a reptile or a half-bird, half-reptile. (If you question this, than you question the majority of scientists who specialize in bird evolution who met at the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference.) Some may think that the presence of teeth prove its relation to reptiles. This is not the only fossil bird to have teeth and many reptiles don't have teeth. (Crocodiles are the only reptilian group to consistently have well-developed teeth.)

An evolutionist, Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution has called evolution of birds from theropods 'one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.'

Also, what is this 'lab test'? Another abstract pseudo-science?

Dr David Menton (retired), was Associate Professor of Anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri. He tested feathers and scales, finding their lack of similarity (see earlier post).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a reptile or a half-bird, half-reptile. (If you question this, than you question the majority of scientists who specialize in bird evolution who met at the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference.) Some may think that the presence of teeth prove its relation to reptiles. This is not the only fossil bird to have teeth and many reptiles don't have teeth. (Crocodiles are the only reptilian group to consistently have well-developed teeth.)

Archaeopteryx is the earliest and most 'primative' uncovered avian, and has many saurian characteristics, not least of which is a bony tail, three-clawed wings, and a toothed beak. I'd like to point out that I do not go against the scientific consensus when I say that the Archaeopteryx fossils are not birds in the modern sense.
From Wikipedia:
The Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, with features clearly intermediate between those of modern reptiles and birds.
From Talk Origins:
[Archaeopteryx] retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition.

I'll grant that Archaeopteryx is technically a bird simply because it has feathers. But it is nevertheless still a transitional species.
Question: do you deny that birds evolved from dinosaurs (or, technically, are dinosaurs)?

 

[Schroeder]

Yes really. Genesis didn't exist before 600 BCE. But the very grandparents of the Biblical authors wrote a series of books in which the serpent can be found. The most profound one is the epic of Gilgamesh which was written at 1700 before the first archaeological evidence of the Bible. Its a fascinating paradox that I'd love to discuss with you, but I'm sure you're not interested in the real story of the serpent, and certainly don't want to find out who she really was.

why should we think this version is the correct one. just because it was dated before the other. you do this just because it fits your thinking. BUT you have no proof what so ever to make this claim. FUNNY how you do this when it comes to the bible.

 

[Schroeder]

No sir. I remain objective. But after studying in-depth before and after my college class taught by a Ph.D Bible scholar, I am only repeating what all the experts are saying: There is little support for any of the gospels at all, especially since they conflict with each other. There is less support for most of the Bible than for most elements of what we consider history, and none of it is remotely reliable. I've never tried to "dismantle" scripture, but I have examined it critically and found that several scholars of scripture had already noted too many flaws and failures in it to possibly consider it literal history.

your so full of it when it comes to the bible. what you say is almost a flat lie. there is no since in even trying to talk scripture with you when you are so obviously biased toward it. it proves right when you give a post like this and write it SO vaguely. i can say the same post dealing with the theory of evolution. i have watched a lot of PBS and history channel and science ect shows to know what you say is wrong. and even in there very biased opinion of it and frankely poor understanding of basics shows it did happen. and if what evidence we havce doesnt confirm the scriptures then it is clear as i said there is NO clear evidnece for most of history. that is a FACT.

 

[Loudmouth]

your so full of it when it comes to the bible. what you say is almost a flat lie. there is no since in even trying to talk scripture with you when you are so obviously biased toward it.

And I would assume that you are biased with regards to the Bible as well. Do you no view it as the infallible inspired words of a deity? How is that not bias?

 

[Schroeder]

And I would assume that you are biased with regards to the Bible as well. Do you no view it as the infallible inspired words of a deity? How is that not bias?

i suppose i would be. but this does not remove the fact that he is clearly wrong. what he says just isnt true no matter what your view is or your bias.

 

[OdwinOddball]

i suppose i would be. but this does not remove the fact that he is clearly wrong. what he says just isnt true no matter what your view is or your bias.

He is not clearly wrong. His views are consistent with what I have read concerining the history of the Bible and the mythology that precedes it.