A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ouroboros]

Where did He say that?

Mark 16:15 isn't part of your Bible? Interesting. I guess you have your own Bible then.

All Christians are witnesses(Acts 1:8). We make better witnesses by what we do, than by what we say. Non-Christians can't understand what we say, but they can understand what we do, if it exhibiting what Jesus taught us to do and not do.

And what you do, specifically you is witnessing about the Jesus you believe in personally, and it's not pretty. You consider the fight between evolution and creationism to be more important than winning souls. There are a lot of Christians who have no problem understanding evolution and accepting it and still be wholehearted Christians. For some reason, this is a problem to you, and not only that, it is your mission and Gospel to the world. Not salvation, but anti-evolution.

Here's an interesting impasse. You claim that you're not a witness and not called to be one, yet you quote one where you say that you are. Make up your mind. I'm becoming quite convinced that you're just another troll and not real Christian at all. You're just out for lulz. Also, I find it interesting that a 64 year old salesman talks like he's a 14 year old angry adolescent.

Who died and made you the final authority on what is logical and what is misrepresenting something. You have enough to be concerned about your witness to be concerned about mine. I am responsible to God, not to you.

And if I was your God, you'd be fired.

 

[metis]

All you need to know is that Luther was not in charge of determining the canon. What he did played on part in establishing the Protestant canon. He did wan to not include he book of James, but those in charge overruled him.

No, you need to know a lot more than that or, as we've seen with you, all you end up with an incomplete picture that distorts the reality, and that reality is that the canon you use originated with the Catholic Church, and that is historically well-established.

One thing that stops you from accepting this is your anti-Catholic bigotry, and that is matched by the fact you don't do your "homework". I was brought up to be anti-Catholic, and that was until I began to actually study theology in college, and then I realized that I was being fed garbage by the church I grew up in.

Anyhow, I guess I'll just have to let you wallow in the distortions you prefer to believe. It's no wonder you supported Trump-- "two peas in a pod".

 

[Jose Fly]

I attack evolution on a scientific basis, not on religion.

So to be clear, you feel you have a valid, purely scientific case against evolutionary theory, correct? If so, I have to wonder why you haven't written it up and presented it to the scientific community, rather than limit it to anonymous postings on internet religious forums.

Irrelevant. The Bible does not give the age of the earth.

Young-earth creationists seem to be under the impression that the Bible is fairly clear that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Are they wrong?

Ther eis absolutly no scientific reason to conclude the earth is billions of years old.

None at all? There isn't a single data point that is supportive of the earth being billions of years old?

Fish fossils found on mountain tops.

How did they get up there?

After its kind, which and be proved by observation and by being repeated and can't be falsified, proves groups of organism were created separately.

First, what exactly is a "kind"? Second, can you expand on this proof and observation that "groups of organisms were created separately"?

Genetics prove one life form cannot evolve into a different species.

Well that's odd, given that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

There is absolutely no scientific reason to conclude the first life form created itself out of lifeless elements.

So what other elements are we made of?

There is absolutely no scientific reason to conclude humans are related to any other organism except homo sapian.

Really? So do you believe the multitude of scientists who have concluded otherwise for the last 100+ years are just plain incompetent, or are perpetrating a massive fraud?

DNA separates ever living life form, animal, plans and HUMANS. DNA can not only separated each category, it will tell the dogs from the cats. It certainly will not link a dog-like land animal to sea Creature and genetics will keep a nose from becoming a blowhole.

The above doesn't really make sense.

The Bible is not a science book. Keep the discussion on science, not on religion.

So the Bible is unreliable when it comes to things like the age of the earth and the history of life on earth?

 

[omega2xx]

Mark 16:15 isn't part of your Bible? Interesting. I guess you have your own Bible then.

At least you recognize it is only YOUR guess. It seems that your very own Bible does not include Acts.

And what you do, specifically you is witnessing about the Jesus you believe in personally, and it's not pretty. You consider the fight between evolution and creationism to be more important than winning souls. There are a lot of Christians who have no problem understanding evolution and accepting it and still be wholehearted Christians. For some reason, this is a problem to you, and not only that, it is your mission and Gospel to the world. Not salvation, but anti-evolution.

First of all, you do not get to determine what is not pretty in what I do. I answer to God not to you. Your OPINION is just that---YOUR OPINION. Second, your OPINION about what I consider important is just another of YO9UR OPINIONS. Have I said it is more important? NO! I can discuss both and IMO, any Christians who does not accept Genesis 1 and 2 as being literal, their God is to small.
Your also don't get to determine what my mission is. The first mission of all Christians is to glorify God, and that can be done in many different ways. One is to show His omnipotence and love by accepting Genesis as literal----The heavens are declaring the GLORY OF GOD. If Genesis is only an allegory, it does not do that. It will also help you to KNOW that all Biblical allegories are based on a literal.

Here's an interesting impasse. You claim that you're not a witness and not called to be one, yet you quote one where you say that you are. Make up your mind. I'm becoming quite convinced that you're just another troll and not real Christian at all. You're just out for lulz. Also, I find it interesting that a 64 year old salesman talks like he's a 14 year old angry adolescent.

I have not said I am not a witness. I said just the opposite. That is clear from the book evidently not in your Bible---Acts.

Your post is full of your OPINIONS. Evidently your Bible also does not include Jesus command not to judge. How sad. BTW I am 84 and can still out think you. Your OPINION that I am angry is just another ignorant opinion. What you have just posted seems more angry than anything I have posted.

And if I was your God, you'd be fired.

If you were my god, I would never have taken the job.

 

[omega2xx]

No, you need to know a lot more than that or, as we've seen with you, all you end up with an incomplete picture that distorts the reality, and that reality is that the canon you use originated with the Catholic Church, and that is historically well-established.

One thing that stops you from accepting this is your anti-Catholic bigotry, and that is matched by the fact you don't do your "homework". I was brought up to be anti-Catholic, and that was until I began to actually study theology in college, and then I realized that I was being fed garbage by the church I grew up in.

Anyhow, I guess I'll just have to let you wallow in the distortions you prefer to believe. It's no wonder you supported Trump-- "two peas in a pod".

You don't even know the definition of bigotry. You know even less about the establishment of the Protestant canon.

I am very glad to be a Trump supporter. He will make a much better president that anyone who thinks they are above the law., and lied over the casket to the parents of the man killed in Bengazi.

This is my last response about the canon. Continue on in your ignorance without me.

 

[omega2xx]

So to be clear, you feel you have a valid, purely scientific case against evolutionary theory, correct? If so, I have to wonder why you haven't written it up and presented it to the scientific community, rather than limit it to anonymous postings on internet religious forums.

Don't be silly. The so-called scientific community is full of evolutionists. They would NEVER accept anything that contradicted their preaching. Creation scientist will never have anything published in a peer review by evolutionists. IMO, they are afraid that some will see the real science about creation and recognized that the TOE is not even quasi science.
QUOTE]Young-earth creationists seem to be under the impression that the Bible is fairly clear that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Are they wrong?

Some are and some admit we don't know. Too bad you wont admit you can't prove the earth is billions of years old. The age of the earth is irrelevant. How it originated is the only important thing to know. What is your best guess? I promised not to laugh. Well at least I will try not to.

None at all? There isn't a single data point that is supportive of the earth being billions of years old?

So why do evolutionists keep saying it is billion of years old?

How did they get up there?

I forgot the question.

First, what exactly is a "kind"?

A mommy and a daddy that can produce an offspring.

Second, can you expand on this proof and observation that "groups of organisms were created separately"?

The proof is in what can be repeated and observed----After their kind. Can you expand how what evolution says is the first life form, which had no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones ever produced a kid with bones? That is hared enough but when you try to explain how something without an eye produced a kid with an eye, you are over your head to explain it scientifically.

Well that's odd, given that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

Wonderful. l Then it should be easy to provide an example that can be checked. Let me pre-empt you here. Bacteria remaining bacteria is not evidence of evolution no more than the offspring of a poodle and bull dog being a different species.

So what other elements are we made of?

I don't know the full list, but all of them are living and none came from lifeless elements..

Really? So do you believe the multitude of scientists who have concluded otherwise for the last 100+ years are just plain incompetent, or are perpetrating a massive fraud?

Absolutely not. They are well educated in their fields and honestly believe what they say. However they were educated by evolutionist and were convinced at an early age that evolution has been scientifically proved. Do you think the creation scientist are just plain incompetent and don't understand science.

The above doesn't really make sense.

In what way? It makes sense to me.

So the Bible is unreliable when it comes to things like the age of the earth and the history of life on earth?

The Bible does not mention the age of the earth. It is reliable about the history of life on earth.l Where do you find it not accurate about life on earth?

 

[gnostic]

You don't even know the definition of bigotry. You know even less about the establishment of the Protestant canon.

You are not paying attention to what Metis had replied to you.

It is my understanding that Metis was brought up as a Protestant (correct, if I wrong, Metis). So he had experiences in what Protestant environment is like.

The differences between you and Metis, is that Metis is far more well-versed than you in regarding the history between Protestants and Catholics, including about the canons from both parties.

If anyone is ignorance on the subject of canons of the two camps, is you omega2xx.

Furthermore Metis has far more experiences than you, because he is a retired anthropologist, which would included studies of history, civilisations and cultures...and that would include the studies of religion.

He did state that he took theology in college, which would including knowing what scriptures (originals and translations) were available at those days, and about canons.

You don't even understand that the canons among the Protestant churches are not all the same. You are arguing only from your own experience in your church, the Presbyterian, but the Presbyterianism were clearly influenced by the Calvinism. The Presbyterian canon is based on the Calvinist canon.

But you are refusing to recognise the earlier Protestant group - the Lutheranism have the same canon as that of the Roman Catholic Church.

That you would ignore that part of Protestant history, only demonstrates your ignorance, not metis'.

You keep telling us that you don't need to study up the history, because you find anyone disagree with your opinion as irrelevant, and unsourced find church history to be irrelevant. That tell me that you are not only ignorant on the subject, you are also biased and a bigot.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First of all I am not totally ignorant of church history. I know the history of the canon. How the Bible was used for years is irrelevant. Some still use it incorrectly. How it should be used is the only thing that matters. There is a good chance some calling them selves Christians did use it in a pagan, mythos way. Now how do you know those wh did were Christians?

Right now I'm not talking about how it was used but how it was created. That is very important.

I am not Catholic. You need a little lesson on church history. Catholics do not use the KJ, they have adoped one of their own, and the errors of the KY have been corrected in the NKJ.

This is false. What was corrected was topographical and superficial errors. The content is the same. The majority of the changes is simply updating the English used since English as a language has evolved over the last three and a half centuries.

There is little evidence if any that KJ was translated for political reasons. .

This is false.

You need a lesson on Bible translation. They are not made up by anyone, let alone con-artist. Good Bibles are translated from over 23,000 mss by teams of experts in Hebrew and Greek.

The con artist was the mormon church. The cathoics were the murderers and the protestants were the politically charged translations and cannon. The bible was not simply translated strait over. It was not an unmanaged process. They even changed the books of the bible that they were using. Prior to the KVJ everyone had the same latin bible of the Catholic Church. They created a new bible. Out of what? Who gave the translators the permision to remove the seven books that are in the Catholic Cannon?

I use the NASB, and its history is irrelevant. It is considered by experts as one of the most accurate translation available. Some consider it the most accurate. When studying the Bible, that is all that matters.

The origins and creation of not only the NASB but the articles that it was derived from are always important. If you don't think of it as so then that is up to you.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

.



MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.​

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

Try and construct a computer model of any aspect of the material world by randomly typing letters into the computer.
eg: A solar system would be a good and simple place to start.
Even if you wrote a program that itself wrote other programs with random letters, you could speed up the process
by more than a million times easily.

Then using Aquinas notion of 'argument from design', try to build the software by deliberately creating/designing it.

Now: Compare the two processes statistically.
Which one has the greater degree of success?

 

[omega2xx]

You are not paying attention to what Metis had replied to you.

It is my understanding that Metis was brought up as a Protestant (correct, if I wrong, Metis). So he had experiences in what Protestant environment is like.

The differences between you and Metis, is that Metis is far more well-versed than you in regarding the history between Protestants and Catholics, including about the canons from both parties.

If anyone is ignorance on the subject of canons of the two camps, is you omega2xx.

Furthermore Metis has far more experiences than you, because he is a retired anthropologist, which would included studies of history, civilisations and cultures...and that would include the studies of religion.

He did state that he took theology in college, which would including knowing what scriptures (originals and translations) were available at those days, and about canons.

You don't even understand that the canons among the Protestant churches are not all the same. You are arguing only from your own experience in your church, the Presbyterian, but the Presbyterianism were clearly influenced by the Calvinism. The Presbyterian canon is based on the Calvinist canon.

But you are refusing to recognise the earlier Protestant group - the Lutheranism have the same canon as that of the Roman Catholic Church.

That you would ignore that part of Protestant history, only demonstrates your ignorance, not metis'.

You keep telling us that you don't need to study up the history, because you find anyone disagree with your opinion as irrelevant, and unsourced find church history to be irrelevant. That tell me that you are not only ignorant on the subject, you are also biased and a bigot.

 

[omega2xx]

You are not paying attention to what Metis had replied to you.

It is my understanding that Metis was brought up as a Protestant (correct, if I wrong, Metis). So he had experiences in what Protestant environment is like.

I think he said Catholic, but that is irrelevant. Protestants certainly do not agree that our canon was determined by the Catholic canon.

The differences between you and Metis, is that Metis is far more well-versed than you in regarding the history between Protestants and Catholics, including about the canons from both parties.

That may be, but hat does not mean everything he thinks this is true, is actually true.

]If anyone is ignorance on the subject of canons of the two camps, is you omega2xx.

Or you.

Furthermore Metis has far more experiences than you, because he is a retired anthropologist, which would included studies of history, civilisations and cultures...and that would include the studies of religion.

Are you serious. Knowing about anthropology is not even in the same ball park with the canon.

He did state that he took theology in college, which would including knowing what scriptures (originals and translations) were available at those days, and about canons.

Taking a course in theology is limited to the theology of the teacher. It does not guarantee the teachers is right.

You don't even understand that the canons among the Protestant churches are not all the same. You are arguing only from your own experience in your church, the Presbyterian, but the Presbyterianism were clearly influenced by the Calvinism. The Presbyterian canon is based on the Calvinist canon.<<

The fact is that it is irrelevant if some Protestant canons are not the same--The accepted Protestant canon WAS NOT based on the Catholic canon.

But you are refusing to recognise the earlier Protestant group - the Lutheranism have the same canon as that of the Roman Catholic Church.

You need to do some study on the subject yourself. The Missouri synod canon is the same as the Protestant canon. What liberal Lutherans accept may be different, but even is that is true, it is not evidence the Protestant is based ion the Catholic canon. Do you and Mets really not know that the Protestant canon is different that the Catholic canon? Why is that/

That you would ignore that part of Protestant history, only demonstrates your ignorance, not metis'.

You keep telling us that you don't need to study up the history, because you find anyone disagree with your opinion as irrelevant, and unsourced find church history to be irrelevant. That tell me that you are not only ignorant on the subject, you are also biased and a bigot.

If you are going to quote someone learn to quote them right. Here is what I said: knowing church history will not help understand the Bible. Through study and prayer and the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, I can learn what the Bible says and not know one single thing about church history or the canon.

 

[omega2xx]

Right now I'm not talking about how it was used but how it was created. That is very important.

It is the most important thing.

This is false. What was corrected was topographical and superficial errors. The content is the same. The majority of the changes is simply updating the English used since English as a language has evolved over the last three and a half centuries.

It was more than scribal errors in the KJ. Some words were mistranslated because their knowledge of Hebrew and reek, was not a advanced as it is today. You are right, the NKJ correct the earlier mistakes.

This is false.

I don't remember the comment.

The con artist was the mormon church. The cathoics were the murderers and the protestants were the politically charged translations and cannon. The bible was not simply translated strait over. It was not an unmanaged process. They even changed the books of the bible that they were using. Prior to the KVJ everyone had the same latin bible of the Catholic Church. They created a new bible. Out of what? Who gave the translators the permision to remove the seven books that are in the Catholic Cannon?

Who gave them permission to put them in?

The origins and creation of not only the NASB but the articles that it was derived from are always important. If you don't think of it as so then that is up to you.

All good Bibles are translated from the same available mss. Their accuracy depends on the skill of the teams that translate them from the mss.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is the most important thing.

I agree. You seem to have made comments that made it seem as though you disagreed with that.

It was more than scribal errors in the KJ. Some words were mistranslated because their knowledge of Hebrew and reek, was not a advanced as it is today. You are right, the NKJ correct the earlier mistakes.

Nothing changed in the bible withe NKJ as it was mostly translated from the KJ however. Just to be clear we are on the same page.

Who gave them permission to put them in?

The first offical Christian Cannon bible? The bible that was used for more than a thousand years before the KJV ratified their own version? I mean by what authority did they change the bible that clearly states within itself that it should not be changed. Which I found strange since that was in a text that was not part of a larger group of text that was then put together in a cannon bible which makes that quote from the bible rather sketchy to begin with.

All good Bibles are translated from the same available mss. Their accuracy depends on the skill of the teams that translate them from the mss.

What do you mean "mss"? I'm coming up blank on what you mean here.

 

[McBell]

What do you mean "mss"? I'm coming up blank on what you mean here.

an abbreviation for hand written manuscripts

 

[Monk Of Reason]

an abbreviation for hand written manuscripts

Thankyou.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have not said I am not a witness. I said just the opposite. That is clear from the book evidently not in your Bible---Acts.

I said, "I don't have God's command on me to be a witness, as you, as I assume, believe that you do. Jesus told you to be a good witness, it's a command from your God,"

You said, "I do not have a command from God to convert anyone."

I said, "Our church saw it as a command to all Christians and that we all were witnesses."

You questioned it by asking, "Where did He say that?"

I gave you the Bible verse Mark 16:15. It says, "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." That's the Great Commission.

I took your responses to be relating to witnessing, not just converting people, so I guess you're saying that you're a witness and commanded to preach the Gospel, but not commanded to convert, am I right? If that's so, you could have made that clear since the context was about witnessing.

 

[omega2xx]

I agree. You seem to have made comments that made it seem as though you disagreed with that.

If I did, my fingers got ahead of my mind. If All of the Bible was not inspired by God, it is just man's opinions and of no spiritual value.

Nothing changed in the bible withe NKJ as it was mostly translated from the KJ however. Just to be clear we are on the same page.

Several words were corrected. "kill" was corrected to "murder;" "Charity" was changed to "love." There are several more , but those are the only 2 I can remember.


The first offical Christian Cannon bible? The bible that was used for more than a thousand years before the KJV ratified their own version? I mean by what authority did they change the bible that clearly states within itself that it should not be changed. Which I found strange since that was in a text that was not part of a larger group of text that was then put together in a cannon bible which makes that quote from the bible rather sketchy to begin with.

The Bible does not say not to change it. It says not to add to or take away from. When the scholars better understood Hebrew and Greek, they realized some words were not translated properly. That is the basic reason for the NKJ.

What do you mean "mss"? I'm coming up blank on what you mean here.

That is the abbreviation for "manuscript."

 

[Skwim]

Try and construct a computer model of any aspect of the material world by randomly typing letters into the computer.
eg: A solar system would be a good and simple place to start.
Even if you wrote a program that itself wrote other programs with random letters, you could speed up the process
by more than a million times easily.

Then using Aquinas notion of 'argument from design', try to build the software by deliberately creating/designing it.

Now: Compare the two processes statistically.
Which one has the greater degree of success?

Sorry, but I fail to see your point, which is, as far as I'm concerned, just another failure to make a convincing case for creationism without referencing evolution.


.

.

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry, but I fail to see your point, which is, as far as I'm concerned, just another failure to make a convincing case for creationism without referencing evolution.
.

Get real. There is no case that will convince you that God did it.

Can you make a convincing case for evolution without mentioning God?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

this part is missing for some reason

Don't know what happened last quote but it got funky so I"ll just respond like this.

Here is the issue. There are several versions of the bible. Then there are several different religions out there other than the Christian religion. The bible has been in flux as to what is considered cannon over time and across different denominatinos. If the bible purely was inspired by god with no personal opinion of the men who physically wrote and compiled it then it means that the majority of which are fake. And that your specific version as it is currently written is the only divinely inspired version of this specific holy test which is only one of many found in the world who all claim to be divinley inspired by their god. Your version isn't even the most recent not is it the oldest.

The problems we get into with this is that even the manuscripts are translations. We have no original copies of any text. And even then how we know what is cannon for the bible has been subject to debate since the begining. How do we know that your specific compiled list is the actual word of god? IT isn't that it has simply survived all this time because we have other versiosn that have survived just as long.

And as far as not changing vs not taking away or adding then that still doesn't make sense because we have seen exactly that done to the bible for nearly 1800 years. The most recent additions and subtractions have come about even this decade.