|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 5, 2019 15:17:01 GMT -5
"Who was it that "peer reviewed word of God" in Genesis 1:1?" Answer - The peer reviewed word of God was ALL peer reviewed (not just Genesis 1:1) by His only peers -- i.e., the One living God Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be precise. That's right. I saw Jesus in the church basement late one night making corrections to the text.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 5, 2019 15:18:58 GMT -5
Rational faith - an oxymoron. "Rational" robs "faith" of its power.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 5, 2019 15:19:31 GMT -5
"Who was it that "peer reviewed word of God" in Genesis 1:1?" Answer - The peer reviewed word of God was ALL peer reviewed (not just Genesis 1:1) by His only peers -- i.e., the One living God Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be precise. Gratu, do you consider that The Vedas were also been written by a God?
The Vedas were the texts of Hinduism which were considered coeval with the universe meaning that they coexisted and were concurrent with the universe so they would have been written by a god. "The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally committed to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C. The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead,* -the Enuma Elish,** -the I Ching,*** and the Avesta,**** - they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago.
The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics."
- other ancient sacred books-
<excerpts>
*Book of the Dead,* ancient Egyptian collection of mortuary texts made up of spells or magic formulas, placed in tombs and believed to protect and aid the deceased in the hereafter. Probably compiled and reedited during the 16th century bce, the collection included Coffin Texts dating from c. 2000 bce, Pyramid Texts dating from c. 2400 bce, and other writings Later compilations included hymns to Re, the sun god. Numerous authors, compilers, and sources contributed to the work.
The Enûma Eliš ,** is the Babylonian creation myth '
.Over the seven tablets it describes the creation of the world, a battle between gods focused on supremacy of Marduk, the creation of man destined for the service of the Mesopotamian deities, and ends with a long passage praising Marduk.
Its primary original purpose is unknown, although a version is known to have been used for certain festivals, there may also have been a political element to the myth, centered on the legitimization or primacy of Mesopotamia over Assyria.
The composition of the text probably dates to the late second-millennium BCE, or even earlier, to the time of Hammurabi during the Old Babylonian Period (1900 – 1600 BCE).
The I Ching or Yi Jing*** is an ancient Chinese divination text and the oldest of the Chinese classics. Possessing a history of more than two and a half millennia of commentary and interpretation, the I Ching is an influential text read throughout the world, providing inspiration to the worlds of religion, psychoanalysis, literature, and art.
Originally a divination manual in the Western Zhou period (1000–750 BC), over the course of the Warring States period and early imperial period (500–200 BC) it was transformed into a cosmological text with a series of philosophical commentaries
The Avesta**** is the primary collection of religious texts of Zoroastrianism, composed in the otherwise unrecorded Avestan language. The Avesta texts fall into several different categories, arranged either by dialect, or by usage The principal text in the liturgical group is the Yasna, which takes its name from the Yasna ceremony, Zoroastrianism's primary act of worship, and at which the Yasna text is recited.
The most important portion of the Yasna texts are the five Gathas, consisting of seventeen hymns attributed to Zoroaster himself. These hymns, together with five other short Old Avestan texts that are also part of the Yasna, are in the Old (or 'Gathic') Avestan language.
So one can see that there are many ancient sacred texts, -some even older than the Bible
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 5, 2019 15:21:26 GMT -5
Biblical science - another oxymoron. Having a nightmare in the middle of the night does not qualify as a scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 5, 2019 15:33:29 GMT -5
Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience Posted on May 6, 2016 by Duane Caldwell Duane Caldwell hardly has the qualifications to be an expert on the life sciences concerning the evolution. His degree is in Aeronautic. and his other degree is from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 5, 2019 15:42:42 GMT -5
What Does “Day” Mean? by Dr. Lisle | Aug 16, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/what-does-day-mean/Excerpt Deep Time Since our youth, most of us have been utterly brainwashed with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. We are told that science has demonstrated this, particularly by the method of radiometric dating of rocks. Of course, the scientific method by its very nature could never establish such a thing, and is in fact predicated upon biblical creation. But not many people realize this. Hence, even many Christians have fallen into the trap of “deep time.” For this reason, many Christians are strongly motivated to read the Bible in such a way as to accommodate the hypothetical vast ages proposed by the secularists. And one of the most common proposed mechanisms is to assume that the days of Genesis chapter 1 are not really days at all, but vast ages millions of years long. The idea is often called the “day-age theory.” Like Craig, many professing Christians think that when God said He created in six days, He really meant “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each.” Well some Christians would have to interpret a DAY as meaning “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each” wouldn't they?
Since we have positive history of the earth being much older than six days!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 5, 2019 18:41:10 GMT -5
A while ago there was a discusson about Palm Trees. Despite various forum members giving evidence that a Palm tree was not a tree but a grass, you said something to the effect that it,s been known as a tree for centuries and is referred to as a tree in the bible therefore you were going to consider it still a tree. The evidence that it is a grass is because scientists study such things and have devised a plant classification system. Despite that you still know best which suggests to me that conversation with you is a waste of my breath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:19:25 GMT -5
Maybe re-read this post you made @gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !! “Maybe re-read this post you made gratu then my question which you missed the first time will make sense !! “ “The answer to your first question requires that you first clarify who or what my knowledge of the Bible is being compared to by you. “ Your above quoted response is not clarification of who or what you are comparing my Bible knowledge to- even with its double exclamation marks. What you suggest that I “re-read” shows either your Biblical ignorance or YOUR OWN opinion of your own knowledge of the Bible. I really don't care if you continue to hide behind ambiguity in reply to my request for your clarification, because in just two posts you have shown your own 'knowledge' of the Bible. And the non-2x2 (never 2x2) believing audience will now have a pretty good idea WHERE workers get their blanket accusation of "bitter" against all former 2x2s - thanks for your response on their behalf. I've heard that the more you call someone bitter, the greater the likelihood you'll eventually be right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:24:32 GMT -5
A while ago there was a discusson about Palm Trees. Despite various forum members giving evidence that a Palm tree was not a tree but a grass, you said something to the effect that it,s been known as a tree for centuries and is referred to as a tree in the bible therefore you were going to consider it still a tree. The evidence that it is a grass is because scientists study such things and have devised a plant classification system. Despite that you still know best which suggests to me that conversation with you is a waste of my breath. well, it reminds me what a precious commodity rational thought is, at any rate. Thankfully, people who form conclusions first based on the sacred texts rather than the scientific method don't pass my entry level courses. They merely reap the benefits to well-being the scientific method affords, while telling anyone who will listen how flawed "man's knowledge" is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 22:23:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 23:04:15 GMT -5
His first assertion is (naturally) misleading. His claim is based on the supposed lack of "transitional forms". Never mind the fact that the fossil record has a plethora of examples of this very thing, it's a losing effort to point even this out. All that's required, upon finding the transitional form between (to use one of hundreds of examples) fish with skeletal body symmetry and the flatfish (a flat fish with one eye pointing downward, once required as evidence by creationists, now found and ignored) is to say that the transition is merely one of God's special creations that went extinct. Furthermore, every time a connecting fossil is found, it simultaneously creates two gaps on either side of it. Couple this with the fact that fossilized soft body organisms are relatively scarce, (as is funding for science to find them) and you have an argument which is championed in proportion to the ignorance of the champions. The above is the absolute bare minimum of responses, and terribly inadequate. A proper response would include a lot more data, which would be even more of a waste of time than this response.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 6, 2019 0:38:27 GMT -5
His first assertion is (naturally) misleading. His claim is based on the supposed lack of "transitional forms". Never mind the fact that the fossil record has a plethora of examples of this very thing, it's a losing effort to point even this out. All that's required, upon finding the transitional form between (to use one of hundreds of examples) fish with skeletal body symmetry and the flatfish (a flat fish with one eye pointing downward, once required as evidence by creationists, now found and ignored) is to say that the transition is merely one of God's special creations that went extinct. Furthermore, every time a connecting fossil is found, it simultaneously creates two gaps on either side of it. Couple this with the fact that fossilized soft body organisms are relatively scarce, (as is funding for science to find them) and you have an argument which is championed in proportion to the ignorance of the champions. The above is the absolute bare minimum of responses, and terribly inadequate. A proper response would include a lot more data, which would be even more of a waste of time than this response. Don't waste your breath on Gratu. Time is precious and can better be used reading something like "Brief Answers to the Big Questions.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Sept 6, 2019 0:46:59 GMT -5
What Does “Day” Mean? by Dr. Lisle | Aug 16, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/what-does-day-mean/Excerpt Deep Time Since our youth, most of us have been utterly brainwashed with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. We are told that science has demonstrated this, particularly by the method of radiometric dating of rocks. Of course, the scientific method by its very nature could never establish such a thing, and is in fact predicated upon biblical creation. But not many people realize this. Hence, even many Christians have fallen into the trap of “deep time.” For this reason, many Christians are strongly motivated to read the Bible in such a way as to accommodate the hypothetical vast ages proposed by the secularists. And one of the most common proposed mechanisms is to assume that the days of Genesis chapter 1 are not really days at all, but vast ages millions of years long. The idea is often called the “day-age theory.” Like Craig, many professing Christians think that when God said He created in six days, He really meant “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each.” Well some Christians would have to interpret a DAY as meaning “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each” wouldn't they?
Since we have positive history of the earth being much older than six days! Absolutely correct
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 2:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 6, 2019 8:20:10 GMT -5
His first assertion is (naturally) misleading. His claim is based on the supposed lack of "transitional forms". Never mind the fact that the fossil record has a plethora of examples of this very thing, it's a losing effort to point even this out. All that's required, upon finding the transitional form between (to use one of hundreds of examples) fish with skeletal body symmetry and the flatfish (a flat fish with one eye pointing downward, once required as evidence by creationists, now found and ignored) is to say that the transition is merely one of God's special creations that went extinct. Furthermore, every time a connecting fossil is found, it simultaneously creates two gaps on either side of it. Couple this with the fact that fossilized soft body organisms are relatively scarce, (as is funding for science to find them) and you have an argument which is championed in proportion to the ignorance of the champions. The above is the absolute bare minimum of responses, and terribly inadequate. A proper response would include a lot more data, which would be even more of a waste of time than this response. This is the sad effect of the Gish Gallop. Multiple postings can be thrown against the wall without the need for any verification. For example, this youtube posts claims "Scientist" in its title. Who is the "scientist"? Where are the references that support the claims? After reading the transcript it is clear that this is just another compilation of the same creationist claims that have been proved to be false many many times in the past.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 6, 2019 8:42:21 GMT -5
Another try from Daniel Skupien at Creation Astronomy.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 6, 2019 8:54:02 GMT -5
“Posted by someone who mistook Hezekiah as a biblical book... “ Still being posted months later by the one who posted Hezekiah as a biblical book – yup, that trickster, “rational,” still trying to assert his intended result of trickery that failed months ago. “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” adolf hitler Sounds like you are still upset that you took the quote to be in a real book of the bible. It is sometimes said that when Hitler enters the debate someone has run out of supportable arguments.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 6, 2019 9:02:12 GMT -5
"Yes, we do know who needs to claim the data sent back is false. To scientists the existence doesn't matter. The data will be used to check the existing theory. In this case it confirmed the theory. But the creationists - they need to deny the data because they have no theory. Just a claim there should be no comets in a young universe. But the confirmation of the multitude of icy objects brings the comet excuse to a full stop." So, assuming that NASA has 'proven' an Oort cloud etc. your conclusion could well be true that creationists need to disbelieve NASA's 'proof' in order to continue using ONE argument that supports creation. If that were the ONLY argument, it would be critically important to disprove NASA's proof. But that is NOT the only argument that supports creation better than evolution. So I am not desperate to hang onto the lack of observation of an Oort cloud that is still not observed. NASA is not God by any stretch of imagination. It is really interesting to observe that every argument I make is YOU manipulate in order to turn it back upon me, just as some workers always did to me - what a waste of my time YOU and they have been. It is not turning arguments back on you. It is refuting what you have claimed with verifiable references instead of empty claims of unnamed 'scientists'. When you make a claim you should be willing to support those claims. Reposting the claim is not supporting it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 6, 2019 9:37:01 GMT -5
Rational faith - an oxymoron. "Rational" robs "faith" of its power. Not at all. Faith can be more rational, or less. Not a binary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 10:34:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 6, 2019 12:18:18 GMT -5
Thank you all kindly for the great 2x2 style responses to the videos that are linked - click by your own choice. I suppose there is a danger that the evolutionist sees that non-posting visitors might click those links and learn of the present foibles within the secular religion of evolution, so like good 2x2s do in 2x2ism, this page alone shows mere gainsaying and/or naysaying of whole videos. Former 2x2s were well practiced at doing the same in opposition to all churches save 2x2ism. What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. II (Our Created Stars and Galaxies) www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66409i-yn4The problem is that many of these videos are well crafted and filled with half-truths that are also presented without any references. Without some response pointing out the inaccuracies and misrepresentations being made there is the danger that the general knowledge of the reader will be misled by the presenter who is in many cases presented outdated information, the creationists incorrect presentation of the current theories, or simply blatant lies. Consider the Lisle video regarding the ASC explanation of the speed of light and the age of he universe. A theory so poorly designed and supported that its author would not present it for any sort of review at all and instead self-published it on "Answers in Genesis". The author's lack of belief in his own work speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 6, 2019 14:04:09 GMT -5
“So one can see that there are many ancient sacred texts, -some even older than the Bible “ Did you get writer's crap – why did you stop there without including your sacred text? No, -I didn't get writer's "crap" nor writers "cramp."
I made the point that I intended. That was why do you, gratu, -follow one particular ancient text over any other?
As for any "sacred" do I have?
I don't have need any "sacred"* text . But I do find it fascinating that most peoples of the world have created such stories. I think that the fact that they exist tells us a lot about the fact that people have always wanted to know why & how events happened in their world.
But not knowing why, -they created a scenario that they thought would give them an answer. What I find incredible is that some people STILL believe in such events as the resurrection of the dead. (as in the Jesus)
The only reason that I think that some people STILL entertain such an impossible belief is because they can't accept the fact that like all other life on this planet, -we are just a part of all that life which begins at birth, grows, matures and then dies! Period!
But instead of understanding and accepting that, they have created numerous scenarios that allowed them to think that they could elude "death" and live forever.
It wasn't a "god" who created that scenario, - it was mankind! That is one reason why there are so many different stories.
footnote * dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 6, 2019 14:14:31 GMT -5
Rational faith - an oxymoron. "Rational" robs "faith" of its power. Not at all. Faith can be more rational, or less. Not a binary. Lee, how can you define "Faith" as being "more or less rational?"
Faith, -by it's very definition, - is a belief in something for which there is no proof.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 6, 2019 14:19:51 GMT -5
Sure there is. Your fiance buys you flowers. Point up. Your fiance blows off a planned weekend together for a bachelor party. Point down.
( Respecting the decision to marry)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 14:27:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 6, 2019 14:47:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 15:25:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 6, 2019 15:25:57 GMT -5
Gratu, -do you honestly think that we are going to keep on checking out those "creationist" sites the you keep posting?
|
|