Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Dan From Smithville]

I was in the process of doing it as you were posting. Get out of my brain!

Great minds etc!!!

 

[McBell]

You listed verse 19 of Leviticus from 32 different translations that all show that the Bible tells us that bats are birds. Thank you for posting that evidence of this clear error. The number of different translations supports that it isn't definitively a translation error and must be from the source material.

What are you doing to do now?

I feel slightly slighted.
Post #172 is mine, not SavedByTheLord's

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was in the process of doing it as you were posting. Get out of my brain!

I am everywhere!! Muah Ha ha!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand your confusion. So many threads with similar titles. It's all getting too much so I've moved on to insulting people I respect in the joke forums to regain my sanity.

It is of course my own failure to properly review what I'm responding to, but to be fair @SavedByTheLord's posts are so huge and often full of needless and extraneous volume that the post of @McBell was practically swallowed up and obscured from view.

I've noticed another pattern. Sudden disappearance in the face of overwhelming opposition. I wonder why.

 

[McBell]

It is of course my own failure to properly review what I'm responding to, but to be fair @SavedByTheLord's posts are so huge and often full of needless and extraneous volume that the post of @McBell was practically swallowed up and obscured from view.

I've noticed another pattern. Sudden disappearance in the face of overwhelming opposition. I wonder why.

No worries.

As to the pattern, I suspect they are combing their creationist sites for a reply and failing to find one they will simply repeat the gish gallop claiming victory that no one refuted them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I feel slightly slighted.
Post #172 is mine, not SavedByTheLord's

Did I do that to you twice? My sincere apologies. Good grief to me. Maybe I need a break. I apparently failed to review what I was responding to with great gusto. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll clean up associated posts by deletion shortly.

Nice work by the way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No worries.

As to the pattern, I suspect they are combing their creationist sites for a reply and failing to find one they will simply repeat the gish gallop claiming victory that no one refuted them.

Thanks. Other than leaving my old post in your response on #182, I think I have it cleaned up. The fact that I perceived the opposition was supplying the evidence to refute their own claim, should have been a dead give away cluing me in, but I suppose I wasn't interested in buying a clue at that moment.

If you notice anything I missed, please let me know.

Still, I think that so many different translations saying the same thing minimizes the possibility of using translation error as an excuse to wave it away. Not that excuses seem to be a requirement for that action.

 

[McBell]

Thanks. Other than leaving my old post in your response on #182, I think I have it cleaned up. The fact that I perceived the opposition was supplying the evidence to refute their own claim, should have been a dead give away cluing me in, but I suppose I wasn't interested in buying a clue at that moment.

If you notice anything I missed, please let me know.

Still, I think that so many different translations saying the same thing minimizes the possibility of using translation error as an excuse to wave it away. Not that excuses seem to be a requirement for that action.

I understand shi... doo doo happens.
So no worries.

As for translations, there will always be differences in translations, even in the multitude of KJVs

So for so many versions to say the same thing, one would think they got it right.
Right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are some simple tests that show if one is being an honest interlocutor in Bible debates. The bats birds case is one of them. Does it prove that the Bible is wrong? Not even close. But if one cannot even own up to one basic error in the Bible then it is clear that they will not be honest elsewhere where it matters.

That's a good test.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand shi... doo doo happens.

Clearly it does and sometimes more than once.

So no worries.

Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.

As for translations, there will always be differences in translations, even in the multitude of KJVs

So for so many versions to say the same thing, one would think they got it right.
Right?

That is the reasoning I'm following. If multiple different translators repeat the same error, it is likely in the original text being translated and much less likely to be an error of the translation.

 

[John53]

It is of course my own failure to properly review what I'm responding to, but to be fair @SavedByTheLord's posts are so huge and often full of needless and extraneous volume that the post of @McBell was practically swallowed up and obscured from view.

I've noticed another pattern. Sudden disappearance in the face of overwhelming opposition. I wonder why.

I'm going to guess planning a new user name for the next barrage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are some simple tests that show if one is being an honest interlocutor in Bible debates. The bats birds case is one of them. Does it prove that the Bible is wrong? Not even close. But if one cannot even own up to one basic error in the Bible then it is clear that they will not be honest elsewhere where it matters.

Reading further on this, due to the differences in language, it is strongly indicated that a literal translation has some severe limitations and shouldn't be used wholesale as the sole means of interpretation.

 

[John53]

Did I do that to you twice? My sincere apologies. Good grief to me. Maybe I need a break. I apparently failed to review what I was responding to with great gusto. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll clean up associated posts by deletion shortly.

Nice work by the way.

You're drunk on my radishes

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm going to guess planning a new user name for the next barrage.

All I can say is that I have seen it happen on forums like this and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're drunk on my radishes

Radishes are awesome, but they go straight to my head. I'm pretty sure it's the erythorbic acid. Multisyllabic acids have that effect on me.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

All of these creationist apologetic (bash evolution) threads with similar titles have confused me too.

It's hard for me to keep track of them. There are at least 6 or 7 of them, aren't there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know which thread I'm on.

I'm just going to have to declare victory over them all.

I win. All claims against science, including the real science of origins of living things, evolution, cosmology, dating and the ages of the Earth and the universe remain solid, sound and supported science and all the gish gallop, burden of proof swapping false claims of victory are refuted.

I win again!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NIV. Are you saying it's wrong?



13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The NIV gives the modern interpretation of fowl which is bird.

I wanted to point out one very important point in all of this. The Bible clearly indicates that a person can eat all the ducks they want to.

Duck Season!

 

[John53]

I wanted to point out one very important point in all of this. The Bible clearly indicates that a person can eat all the ducks they want to.

Duck Season!

Good news. You made the unclean list.

4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of these creationist apologetic (bash evolution) threads with similar titles have confused me too.

It's hard for me to keep track of them. There are at least 6 or 7 of them, aren't there?

I think the sixth one is for humor and what appears to be a 7th deals with what a "creationist" is appears to be in a functional sense in the context of these debates.

But I agree. It is hard to keep track. Especially given that the same reasoning, answers and declarations of victory are the same in all of the first five and two of those have the same title.