steaknchips

Oh, god, arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a pig. (Lifted liberally from from Sir C G Krulak). forgive me for preparing to get dirty......

If you believe in the written word of the bible (heaven help us, quite literally!) can I ask why? I don't mean in terms of your beliefs, but what is it about the King James Bible written in er, 1644ad, that you find specifically convincing, over say, the other versions written previously. Given that the bible only contains iro 66 ish books, and I presume you include the Old Testament including Leviticus (and we can address THAT later, do you acknowledge that when the early christian church sat down to compile a "New Testament" "bible the council of Rome considered, and ejected something in the order of 350 other scripts, such as the Book of Enoch, and as such, the NT is not "the word of God" but a hugely edited and redrafted work of a comittee, 350 years after Jesus died. Given that printing was almost unheard of, and frankly, they didn't even have Amstrad Word Processors it was so long ago, and so much was "passed down" orally from generation do you think the "word of God" is credibly the final draft of King James 1300 years after the committee, and nearly 1700 years after Jesus was crucified?

Or is the Bible a work of man,written and edited by man, to reflect stories of wise men who wrote often many years after the event?

(and God help me for getting dragged into this brainwashed nutters delusions).

Oh, and one passing thought. If you had been born to Asian parents, in say, a poor part of Pakistan, or of poor parents in Thsiland, do you think you would still be a Christian, or might it credibly be your European upbringing that "introduced" you to Christinity? Is your faith nothing but a quirk of Geography? Do you really believe your choice is through free will, and did you "investigate"other faiths before deciding on GodMk II (Jews, are God MkI and Muslims God MkIII)?

And tell us your thoughts on Leviticus. Particularly the Shellfish thing. I'd love to hear you explain that. I mean, in fairness, at the Galilee docks circa BC500, sure they didn't have much in terms of refrigeration, so Shellfish out of season might have been a bit dodgy, but you'd eat a prawn cracker, if we went out for a Chinese, wouldn't you? I mean, I can see that women who menstruate are unclean, so we have something in common, but theres some pretty funky advice about buying slaves in there I find is always useful. Do you have many slaves yourself? (You *DO* Believe in slaves, as its in theBible?) I have one, who's an unchase daughter of a Priest, so I expect I shall have to kill her soon. Thats a shame, she's got a cracking pair on her.... Must go, I have animals to burn to anoint the Lord with their sweet smell. I suppose thats why he gave us Foot and Mouth in his wisdom.

AVFC,

Ive answered ALL Juju's points during the course of this thread..

The 1st part, comes under how reliable is the new testament which I answered in the early stages of this thread. You can find here;

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

The second part of Juju's post I answered many pages back, what does God do regarding people who do not know or hear about Christ etc.

http://carm.org/what-happens-those-who-have-never-heard-gospel

The last part which is focused on Leviticus law, Ive just answered..Jesus fulfilled the laws and regulations..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A23-25&version=KJV

Good post Juju.

Good point on shellfish etc as well.

Lot of stuff like with halal meat , kosher food etc was purely down to hygiene of the time. The bible in its way was trying to help ppl avoid stuff that was more likely to make you ill back then.

Would have been very easy to get food poisoning etc like you say back then.

Total lack of understanding of the bible again..

Especially the shellfish part.

How?

You also havent quite answered your take on Leviathan- which is it - biblical name for a sea dinosaur , beast demon or incarnation of Satan or all 3?

You seemed to be earlier implying dinosaurs were demons or something (?)

Leviathan could have been

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus

As for old testament law...Jesus fulfilled them..

Acts 13.And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Acts 14.But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Acts 15.And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Romans 14.I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

1 Timothy 4.For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Good post Juju.

Good point on shellfish etc as well.

Lot of stuff like with halal meat , kosher food etc was purely down to hygiene of the time. The bible in its way was trying to help ppl avoid stuff that was more likely to make you ill back then.

Would have been very easy to get food poisoning etc like you say back then.

Total lack of understanding of the bible again..

Especially the shellfish part.

Some were killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

....Good look eating a t **** rex.

Gonna be interesting trying to get into a stegosaurus too, anyone have a can opener?

Do you not see how dumb this idea is?

Rather than eating the nice soft animals, they went for the ones with **** armour.

lol...Have you seen some of the evolution theories to why dinosaurs became extinct?

What dinosaurs did go into the ark would have been small, eggs etc..Perfectly reasonable..Then as the water subsided and they went out on land, food, disease, the climate would have all been different than before the flood..The world would have changed..Many animals, not just the dinosaurs may have died out.

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible..

It mentions a global flood, the evidence is here of such...But scientists wont accept the easy answer written in scripture.

It also mentions that the earth will end in fire(would you back against it?).

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

The names for all the dinosaurs came in recent times..

You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

No, it's not.

It's easy.

First you go find some evidence, then you publish a scientific paper stating such evidence and put forward a theory based on it.

Yet no creationist ever goes for publication in a scientific journal because they never meet the criteria, that being, having evidence to back up their claims.

What it's hard to do is to put out claims based on pure fiction with no real evidence and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

You're talking like the scientific community is some closed group of atheists who constantly denounce god. It's not, it's open to anyone, even people who never want to university. You just have to be able to support your ideas.

And trust me here, there's nothing the scientific community loves more than the idea that someone will come along and provide evidence against a long established theory that has universal support, because that's what science is all about. It's not about a group of people that all believe the same thing getting together and patting each other on the back.

Kurt Wise nearly kicked out of Harvard, just for believing in creation...Proves Science dont like it...Gould was the one that wanted him to stay, as he was a very bright student.

Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing..

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

God that article is bad.

I especially like the section on entropy. One of creationists favourite weapons... except it's complete crap and is just based on a flawed understanding of what entropy is.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of ways a system can achieve a certain state.

For instance, if a throw a load of marbles onto my bed they're probably going to end up fairly evenly distributed across it in a fairly random pattern. That state has high entropy, that is, a high chance it'll occur.

There's also a chance that they'll land in a perfect image of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour, but there's not very many ways that can happen, so it has low entropy.

Systems tend towards having high entropy simply due to there being more chance of them occurring. If I pick up my marbles that formed the face of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour and threw them again, they'll probably land in a random pattern. But there's also a chance they'll land in a representation of the Virgin Mary holy mother of God, maybe even a more lifelike representation than the first, leading to a decrease in entropy.

That doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (that being that over time systems will tend towards high entropy) for a key reason, we're looking at a localised section of an open system. The second law of thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems, not localised events. To show that evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics you'd have to prove that the entropy of the entire universe decreased as a result of it. And it hasn't, because the events that need to occur for evolution result in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system. The overall effect will be an increase in entropy, despite the fact that on a local level entropy might have increased.

To see just how absurd the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is you only have to look as far as pregnancy.

In pregnancy there is a dramatic change from a high entropy to a low entropy system. Sperm and eggs are extremely high entropy. The early stages of cell division are extremely high entropy. Then entropy continuously decreases throughout the term of the pregnancy.

If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't be here today because pregnancy would as well.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you?

No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"...

Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth.

Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc..

Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough!

That's not what I asked for.

Show me one none-creationist who believes in a new earth theory.

You have to believe in creation 1st..

A creationist, is someone that believes in creation.

The scientists are just normal scientists that believe in creation rather than evolution..

A great example of a non creationist scientist thats become questionable over the scientific method(evolution) is Michael Denton..

You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

So what is the name of your branch of christianity?

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes.

Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally..

Ok, I'll run with this.

How then do you explain then that 4 gospels are flawed and contradictory accounts of the same events? That none can agree on who was present at the resurrection? That the Council of Nicea edited and agreed the versions of the Gospels that would ultimately appear in the Bible?

Do you throw your mother, wife, girlfriend out of the house once a month for 5 days whilst she is unclean? Do you condone the stoning of adulterers?

You don't.

I admire people of faith, and some of the values espoused by the Abrahamic religions are indeed noble and worthy. But I also believe you are just a pisstaker. Albeit a good one.

Any Christian apologetics site can answer all these questions you have..I suggest this one. Its fair and well researched.

http://carm.org/

Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you?

No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"...

Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth.

Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc..

Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough!

Eldredge, Niles; as quoted in: Sunday Mail, Brisbane, Australia, September 14, 1986.

Bicks,

http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html

No, I meant his original words in the scientific paper / journal and if you look at my edited post, you'll see that he didn't actually say that at all, that is some madcap nutters (Gary Parker) interpretation of Niles Eldredge using the term Special Creation (meaning something completely different to how said nutter interprets it)

So it wasn't said by him, you copied it from a website without first checking your facts and I've found where it originates from and proved it to be bollocks.

EDIT: Not only that but you didn't get it from that website, supreme failure on your behalf

Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing..

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Bicks,

http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html

Risso,

Yes they are both evolutionists, they are hard liners that the earth is billions of years old..Im getting quotes from the "non-creationists" tp prove they are stuck..

The dating is all "estimated" from years ago...Radiometric dating takes place on an "estimated" date..Its flawed!

I question everything. No one should ever accept anything that someone tells them without knowing the reasoning and the evidence behind it. I was one of the people going "hang on, lets wait for them to confirm it" when the "faster than light" neutrino was announced precisely for that reason. Understanding is the key to knowledge, not blind belief.

Your mind however is closed to anything that disagrees with the bible, by your own admission. That's frankly quite disturbing.

Niles Eldredge.

"As we have seen, the fossils of invertebrates, the most abundant by far of all fossils, do offer strong support for the concept of creation, specifically the Biblical concepts of Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ."

I question everything. No one should ever accept anything that someone tells them without knowing the reasoning and the evidence behind it. I was one of the people going "hang on, lets wait for them to confirm it" when the "faster than light" neutrino was announced precisely for that reason. Understanding is the key to knowledge, not blind belief.

Your mind however is closed to anything that disagrees with the bible, by your own admission. That's frankly quite disturbing.

David M Raup.

“most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”

“we still have a record which does show change, but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” In comparing fossil forms with modern forms, we do see change all right, but it’s not the kind of change associated with natural selection. It’s simply "variation" within the created kinds, plus decline and even extinction, reflecting corruption and catastrophe."

So would you believe in a young earth if it could be proved beyond any doubt that it simply isn't true?

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

You either believe, or you dont!

Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry!

You should be apologising to yourself.

I hope that when you grow up you'll realise how dumb this is and actually start looking at things with an open mind.

Have looked into it with an open mind? Have you questioned the method, or just merely accepted it?

So would you believe in a young earth if it could be proved beyond any doubt that it simply isn't true?

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

You either believe, or you dont!

Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry!

If you don't listen, then there is no point entering into debate with you.

I still listen and I take it in....Im still waiting for answers on(in English);

How polystrate fossils can stretch through strata layers?

And

why are they all over the Globe?

So what is the name of your branch of christianity?

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes.

Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally..

So would you believe in a young earth if it could be proved beyond any doubt that it simply isn't true?

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

You either believe, or you dont!

Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry!

well could you do a quick summery?

Dinosaurs lived with man. They were just called different names, amongst them was tanniyn, bahemowth and livyathan.

The earth is less than 10000 years old.(accurate age would be between 6000-7000 years old)..

After the global flood the earth has been populated by the contents of the seas and the Ark.

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs..

Are you Jewish?

No im a Christian and I believe in a young earth and the bible as it is.

When you say that do you mean you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?..

How do you explain the Sumerians (which a lot of old testament stories are based on their myths) and the place in Turkey Göbekli Tepe which seems to date as far back 10,000 BC.

Boring question - but how you explain the dinosaurs ? rock formations dating millions of years etc ?

The vast majority of Christians don't believe genesis literally or the idea the earth is young - so why do you cling onto it ?

are you a Jehovah witness?

Ive answered all this before mate earlier in the thread, ive also posted links to various web sites to explain it all.

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs..

Sorry if its upset some..

Talking of you standing by your beliefs I believe Laura is still waiting for an answer to a question she asked at least twice.

I don't believe for one minute you missed it which suggests you dodged it and that while you claim to stand by your beliefs you don't actually have the courage of your convictions.

Which question is that?

This one..asked at least 3 times previously,odd that you missed it.

Regarding S&C saying he genuinely doesn't think there are any flaws in the bible, how do, for example lets say, your strong views on homosexuals fit in to modern day life?

Still being ignored.

Its not being ignored at all. I dont see the relevance of such question..

Its like me asking you, how do religious people fit into a non believer's life?

My views on homosexuality dont cause any hindrance to my everyday life. Vice versa, your views on the bible wont cause you any hindrance to your everyday life.

In both cases...Not agreeing with something, dosnt mean ridicule, or hurt people.

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs..

Are you Jewish?

No im a Christian and I believe in a young earth and the bible as it is.