A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

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.

Several versions: In good translations, there is no significant differences. Does it matter if one version has soil and another had dirt and another has earth? Many Hebrew words have more than one meaning. God scholars can tell which meaning is best by the context. Personal opinions can creep in in interpretations, but not in translations by qualified scholars. Most of the Bible is not that hard to understand when it is literal. Some passages are very difficult. This causes different interpretations. In conservative, Bible believing denominations, there, there is no serious differences in the basic doctrines.

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 beginning. 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 version that have survived just as long.

Most of the debate, probably all of it, concerns if book A should be in the canon. If God did not inspire no only the whole Bible, but also the canon, religion is a waste of time. The books the Protestant rejected but are included in the Catholic canon are mostly history and do not affect doctrine. One of them mentions purgatory. Does purgatory exist? It really doesn't mater. Believing it does or believeing it does not will not keep anyone out of heaven.

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.

Changing word that has been wrongly defined, is not adding to. The KJ has "Thou shall not kill.: That was never in good translation because good scholars know the word means "murder, and to their credit then NKJ has made that correction. What was a good translation for its time, is now a better, more accurate translation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Several versions: In good translations, there is no significant differences. Does it matter if one version has soil and another had dirt and another has earth? Many Hebrew words have more than one meaning. God scholars can tell which meaning is best by the context. Personal opinions can creep in in interpretations, but not in translations by qualified scholars. Most of the Bible is not that hard to understand when it is literal. Some passages are very difficult. This causes different interpretations. In conservative, Bible believing denominations, there, there is no serious differences in the basic doctrines.

IT does matter when one of them has seven more books than the other.

Most of the debate, probably all of it, concerns if book A should be in the canon. If God did not inspire no only the whole Bible, but also the canon, religion is a waste of time. The books the Protestant rejected but are included in the Catholic canon are mostly history and do not affect doctrine. One of them mentions purgatory. Does purgatory exist? It really doesn't mater. Believing it does or believeing it does not will not keep anyone out of heaven.

What about the Quran or the Vedas? What of the Book of Mormon? What makes the bible any better than those?

Changing word that has been wrongly defined, is not adding to. The KJ has "Thou shall not kill.: That was never in good translation because good scholars know the word means "murder, and to their credit then NKJ has made that correction. What was a good translation for its time, is now a better, more accurate translation.

As far as I know the correct translation is that there should be nothing added and nothing taken away. And yet we see different denominations do just that with the books of the bible.

 

[gnostic]

I think he said Catholic, but that is irrelevant.

No, you haven't been following his replies.

Metis was brought up being Protestant, and was biased against Catholic, until his late teen, when he was in college, where he was able to open his eye and see the Roman Catholic is not as bad as his Protestant church make out the Catholic to be.

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.

It mean he had become more open-minded.

What I don't know, is which Protestant church that he grew up with, before going to college.

I don't know metis' current religious status.

But regardless of him being Christian or atheist or agnostic, in term of his knowledge on church history, I think that he is far more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter of the origins of bible translations and their canons.

Protestants certainly do not agree that our canon was determined by the Catholic canon.

Again, you are ignoring that all Protestants are not the same.

You are only talking of Presbyterianism, which is based on the earlier Calvinist Protestant church.

The other main group is Lutheran Protestants, and their German translation (Luther Bible) is clearly almost mirror image to Catholic Vulgate Bible, containing the same books, such as non-canonical Apocrypha books. The only differences between Latin and German bible are the ordering of those books.

We know that the most Protestant bibles (non-Lutheran bible), don't contain the Apocrypha, but the German Luther Bible do.

This is why Metis (and others) responded to your post regarding to the Protestant canon.

Regardless of whether you like or not, the Protestant canon has its root in the Roman Catholic canon.

 

[gnostic]

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

Anthropology is studies of history of human cultures and civilisations. And you can't study anthropology without learning about religion. Plus, with his anthropology, he took up subject on theology.

Plus you are ignoring Metis' own personal experience with Protestant teachings. You have your experience, so did he.

The only one being ignorant and bias is you, omega2xx.

You said it yourself. You have no interests in history of any other religion, other than your own Presbyterian Protestant.

Presbyterianism is not the total sum of Protestantism.

You should do your own homework and read up on Protestant history, how the different sects originated.

My problem with you, is that you are ignoring part of the Protestant history, and its tie to the Roman Catholic Church.

Metis has a long, broader view on religion, not just that of Christianity. Your view is a lot narrower. For you to say that metis is biased or ignorant, is really laughable.

Although, I tends to favour reading and researching ancient and medieval history over early modern history in Europe, even I can see you have a large gap in your education about church history.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

You didn't answer my first question. If you truly believe you have a solid scientific case against evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community?

That the earth is billions of years old is trivially easy to demonstrate. For example, the fact that isotopes that decay via completely different mechanisms give the same results is very compelling.

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

Because it is.

I forgot the question.

You claimed fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm asking how that is so (i.e., how did those fossils get there).

A mommy and a daddy that can produce an offspring.

So my parents are a different kind than I am?

The proof is in what can be repeated and observed----After their kind.

Well, given your definition of "kind" above, I'd say the evolution of new "kinds" is an observed fact (we've seen populations arise that are unable to interbreed with their parent populations).

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.

Wow. It's now obvious that you're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology. That you think eyes and bones arise in a single generation is clear evidence of that.

So now the question is, why would someone who knows so little about a subject nevertheless think themselves qualified to critique it?

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.

That you think "bacteria" is a species, when it is in fact a domain (the largest taxonomic category there is) is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of this subject.

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

So the sodium chloride in my body is different than the sodium chloride outside my body? What happens when I urinate? Do the chemicals in my urine die as they leave my body?

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.

And they're just too dumb to realize that they've been duped?

Do you think the creation scientist are just plain incompetent and don't understand science.

No, most creationists make it very clear how they came to their conclusions. For example, "AnswersinGenesis" has all their employees, scientists included, sign their Statement of Faith, which includes...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

So it's not a lack of understanding or incompetence, it's just that they operate under an anti-scientific framework that mandates only one set of conclusions.

In what way? It makes sense to me.

Then try rephrasing, because it makes no sense to me.

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?

The Genesis creation accounts aren't at all accurate, nor is the flood story.

 

[omega2xx]

No, you haven't been following his replies.

Metis was brought up being Protestant, and was biased against Catholic, until his late teen, when he was in college, where he was able to open his eye and see the Roman Catholic is not as bad as his Protestant church make out the Catholic to be.

Right, I missed that. Thanks

It mean he had become more open-minded.

What I don't know, is which Protestant church that he grew up with, before going to college.

I don't know metis' current religious status.

Me neither, and it would be helpful to know. IMO his original church is what many call "fundie." Although years ago many Protestant churches were anti-Catholic to varying degrees

But regardless of him being Christian or atheist or agnostic, in term of his knowledge on church history, I think that he is far more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter of the origins of bible translations and their canons.

I agree he is much more knowledgeable about church history. He is not more knowledgeable about the origin of of Bible translations and their canon. If you think he is, that is fine with me.

Again, you are ignoring that all Protestants are not the same.

You are ignoring that I agreed with that. It is irrelevant as to who influenced the canon.

You are only talking of Presbyterianism, which is based on the earlier Calvinist Protestant church.

Calvinism is about determining Biblical doctrines, not abut who established the canon.

The other main group is Lutheran Protestants, and their German translation (Luther Bible) is clearly almost mirror image to Catholic Vulgate Bible, containing the same books, such as non-canonical Apocrypha books. The only differences between Latin and German bible are the ordering of those books.

Luther did not establish the Protestant canon. In fact he wanted to reject the Book of James which was rejected by the scholars who were determining the Protestant canon, separate form those who determined the Catholic canon. Did those scholar consider the books in the Catholic canon? l Of course, but they were accepted/rejected by what was in them, not because they were in the Catholic canon, which includes books not in the Protestant canon. That should tell you something.

We know that the most Protestant bibles (non-Lutheran bible), don't contain the Apocrypha, but the German Luther Bible do.

Since the Protestant canon does not contain those books, that FACT points directly to the Catholic canon was use for Luther's Bible but NOT for the Protestant canon.

This is why Metis (and others) responded to your post regarding to the Protestant canon.

Regardless of whether you like or not, the Protestant canon has its root in the Roman Catholic canon.

You can believe what you want. Separate groups established the canon they use. /did teh all use the same books to make their final determination. Yes, but what one group accepte4d DID NOT influence what the other group accepted. That Luther had to make his own canon, confirms that.

 

[omega2xx]

You didn't answer my first question. If you truly believe you have a solid scientific case against evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community?

That the earth is billions of years old is trivially easy to demonstrate. For example, the fact that isotopes that decay via completely different mechanisms give the same results is very compelling.



Because it is.



You claimed fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm asking how that is so (i.e., how did those fossils get there).



So my parents are a different kind than I am?



Well, given your definition of "kind" above, I'd say the evolution of new "kinds" is an observed fact (we've seen populations arise that are unable to interbreed with their parent populations).



Wow. It's now obvious that you're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology. That you think eyes and bones arise in a single generation is clear evidence of that.

So now the question is, why would someone who knows so little about a subject nevertheless think themselves qualified to critique it?



That you think "bacteria" is a species, when it is in fact a domain (the largest taxonomic category there is) is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of this subject.



So the sodium chloride in my body is different than the sodium chloride outside my body? What happens when I urinate? Do the chemicals in my urine die as they leave my body?



And they're just too dumb to realize that they've been duped?



No, most creationists make it very clear how they came to their conclusions. For example, "AnswersinGenesis" has all their employees, scientists included, sign their Statement of Faith, which includes...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

So it's not a lack of understanding or incompetence, it's just that they operate under an anti-scientific framework that mandates only one set of conclusions.



Then try rephrasing, because it makes no sense to me.



The Genesis creation accounts aren't at all accurate, nor is the flood story.

Since these discussion always end up in a vicious circle, if you want to continue, I need some information.

Do you believe matter, energy and life are eternal, IOW have always existed? You say they have, give me the reason(s) your beilieve that.

What isotope(s) are you referring to and what element are you testing for and what method of testing was used to established the age?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you have any evidence God is not real can could not create the universe in 6 days? Do you have any evidence how matter, energy and life could be created without a source?



Do you have any evidence an omnipotent God can not cause animals to talk? BTW "serpent" is a metaphor for Satan.




Do you have any evidence the flood did not happen as described? Do you know how much water was available to cause such a flood?



Do you have any evidence they did not live at the same time? The description of leviathan is close to a description of a dino.



Do youhave any evidence that tdher was not one language at one time and many languages were not changed in an instant?




Irrelevant. The Bible does not address when they the became a nation.

Mt 19:26b - ...With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Get going.

 

[omega2xx]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Get going.

The evidence for a Creator is the universe, unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed. Otherwise, nothing can't be the source of something.

Now your turn. What is your evidence that supports what you believe?

 

[Shad]

The evidence for a Creator is the universe,

Assertion.

unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed.

Shifting burden of proof

Otherwise, nothing can't be the source of something.

Argument from ignorance

 

[omega2xx]

Assertion.

It is an assertion. Are you afraid to present your assertion?

Shifting burden of proof

You say my belief is an assertion, now it is your turn to show why it is, by presenting a better explanation.

Argument from ignorance

It is not from ignorance from youR say so. Prove it is ignorance or admit you can't, and you CAN'T.

 

[Shad]

It is an assertion. Are you afraid to present your assertion?

Irrelevant. You are dodging the issue by shifting the ground back to me

You say my belief is an assertion, now it is your turn to show why it is, by presenting a better explanation.

You present no evidence nor support which is the definition of assertion. Get a dictionary. I do not need to put forward a different model to point out your claim is fallacious.

It is not from ignorance from youR say so. Prove it is ignorance or admit you can't, and you CAN'T.

It is an argument from ignorance as you put forward a claim is true without support or because there isn't a model to replace your own. You claim nothing can not produce something. So lets see your study of the whole universe showing this. I will wait.

Argument from Ignorance

 

[gnostic]

The evidence for a Creator is the universe, unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed.

This part that I have highlighted in red, is absurd.

That statement is merely of personal opinion...of yours...that's not evidence.

Unless you can "observe" and "measure" god ("Creator") actually creating the universe, it is merely your wishful-thinking fantasy or deluded superstition.

I could swap your "Creator" with any other word(s), which also doesn't make it "evidence". For instance, I could swap the "Creator" with the "tooth fairy", and your statement like this:

The evidence for a Tooth Fairy is the universe...​

Or I could substitute "Creator" with others like: "Unicorn", "Leprechaun", Tinklebell", the "Big Bad Wolf", the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, your "Grandmother", "Harry Potter", "Abba", "Homer Simpson", the Mad Hatter", "Winnie-the-Pooh", "Doorknob", etc.

Your assertion that the "universe" is "evidence" for the "Creator", is just your declaration of your belief, nothing more. It is certainly not evidence, and it certainly doesn't make your Creator is real.

Until you have actual evidences for Creator or God, don't say you have "evidence".

 

[metis]

I don't know metis' current religious status.

How about "confused".


Please read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts and that'll give you an idea.

Essentially, I attend Jewish and Catholic services with my wife, and I do not look at religions and denominations in terms of right and wrong because there's simply no where near enough objective information to go by.

So, with me, whatever is, is-- and I can live with that.

 

[gnostic]

Since the Protestant canon does not contain those books, that FACT points directly to the Catholic canon was use for Luther's Bible but NOT for the Protestant canon.

Why do you persist in posting absurd claims, one after the other, when you don't have a single clue about history???

Martin Luther decided on what to be added to or subtract from, in his translation. So what he included in his German translation is the Protestant canon of one group - the Lutheran bible.

And if Luther wanted his bible to be translated from the Roman Catholic source, then Luther would have translated the Latin translation (the Vulgate Bible) into German bible. He didn't.

Instead, his translation of the New Testament, he translated into German from original language - Koine Greek, the Textus Receptus. And with the Old Testament translation, Luther used Hebrew (Masoretic Text) and Greek (Septuagint) sources.

 

[gnostic]

How about "confused".


Please read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts and that'll give you an idea.

Essentially, I attend Jewish and Catholic services with my wife, and I do not look at religions and denominations in terms of right and wrong because there's simply no where near enough objective information to go by.

So, with me, whatever is, is-- and I can live with that.

My own view, used to be influenced by Protestant interpretation, when I was younger, though I never did get baptised. I nearly join two different Protestant churches, the first one was my sister's church.

During my 15 years hiatus, where I haven't touched the bible or seek out other churches to join, because of other priorities. When I did touch the bible again, my view has completely changed.

I used to read the Old Testament with Christian view, but since re-reading 15 years later, I no longer have the Protestant bias. I read it as it is.

If my current view of Old Testament bears in resemblance to any religious view, it is now more aligned with Jewish view, which as it should be, considering that the Hebrew Scriptures were never written by Christians.

 

[metis]

My own view, used to be influenced by Protestant interpretation, when I was younger, though I never did get baptised. I nearly join two different Protestant churches, the first one was my sister's church.

During my 15 years hiatus, where I haven't touched the bible or seek out other churches to join, because of other priorities. When I did touch the bible again, my view has completely changed.

I used to read the Old Testament with Christian view, but since re-reading 15 years later, I no longer have the Protestant bias. I read it as it is.

If my current view of Old Testament bears in resemblance to any religious view, it is now more aligned with Jewish view, which as it should be, considering that the Hebrew Scriptures were never written by Christians.

Isn't it interesting how life often takes us in directions that we couldn't have predicted decades before. I spend a lot if time teaching this lesson to our grandkids, thus encouraging them to keep an open mind and also not to "burn bridges behind them", and that includes even in their love life. I learned that latter lesson from my own experience.

 

[McBell]

The evidence for a Creator is the universe, unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed. Otherwise, nothing can't be the source of something.

Now your turn. What is your evidence that supports what you believe?

The evidence for matter and energy being eternal is the fact they exist.
I mean, if that fuzzy "logic" is good enough for your god, it is good enough for the universe....

Interesting how you give your god a free pass from your standards for evidence.
Not the least bit surprising, but interesting none the less.

 

[omega2xx]

Irrelevant. You are dodging the issue by shifting the ground back to me

You present no evidence nor support which is the definition of assertion. Get a dictionary. I do not need to put forward a different model to point out your claim is fallacious.

I gave you what I believe. You don't accep it, fine. If you are not willing to tell me what you believe, fine.

Have a nice day .

It is an argument from ignorance as you put forward a claim is true without support or because there isn't a model to replace your own. You claim nothing can not produce something. So lets see your study of the whole universe showing this. I will wait.

Don't wait. Unless you are willing to present your belief, this discussion with you is over. If you want to criticize what I believe and can't disprove it, and are not willing to say what you believe, the ignorance is yours. At least I have enough intelligence to present a possibility.

Argument from Ignorance

Click on your own link and learn something.

 

[omega2xx]

This part that I have highlighted in red, is absurd.

That statement is merely of personal opinion...of yours...that's not evidence.

Unless you can "observe" and "measure" god ("Creator") actually creating the universe, it is merely your wishful-thinking fantasy or deluded superstition.

I could swap your "Creator" with any other word(s), which also doesn't make it "evidence". For instance, I could swap the "Creator" with the "tooth fairy", and your statement like this:

The evidence for a Tooth Fairy is the universe...​

Or I could substitute "Creator" with others like: "Unicorn", "Leprechaun", Tinklebell", the "Big Bad Wolf", the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, your "Grandmother", "Harry Potter", "Abba", "Homer Simpson", the Mad Hatter", "Winnie-the-Pooh", "Doorknob", etc.

Your assertion that the "universe" is "evidence" for the "Creator", is just your declaration of your belief, nothing more. It is certainly not evidence, and it certainly doesn't make your Creator is real.

Until you have actual evidences for Creator or God, don't say you have "evidence".

You and shad keep blowintg smoke. If you and he does not have the intelligence to offer a better explanation, and you know you don't, have a nice day. Going around in circles is for children on the merry-go-round.