Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > An Educated Creationist!

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:13    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03) Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.   Thanks for your opinion. Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different: Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right? (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:14    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43) If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.  The idea that Christians should attempt to center themselves on their religious text is also far from wacko. Thank you, some common sense for a change, although you probably disagree with everything else.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:18    Hey RedDot, I'm still waiting to hear why anyone should pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to my pizza delivery boy's . . . .  . Is there soemthing about that simple question that you don't like answering . . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:25    RedDot wrote: Quote That being said, if no naturalistic answer is possible, we may have stumbled upon a previously undisclosed miracle. Well. that certainly is a satisfying explanation. Carry on. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:30    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21) I do know that mediums exist Oh, I missed this one before . . . Uh, RedDot, do you believe in . . . ghosts . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:17    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,22:51) Yeah, Lenny, you can't read.  If you go back and try again you'll see that I'm talking about perception.  Also, I observe here that Wes never discusses his religious beliefs.  Were he to do so you might find yourself in a different position, especially if you didn't know who he was.  Funny that you mention honesty, you might try examining that concept sometime. Wow. I've never met anyone before who has claimed to have read everything I've ever written. That takes dedication. Unfortunately, Skeptic was not paying attention when he did so. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:20    Lenny, take a breath, you're starting to foam.   k.e., you probably represent the worst of what comes from these debates.  If you could get past your hate and cookie-cutter mentality long enough to even pay attention who you were talking to that would be a start.  I've stated over and over again that you can not prove nor disprove the existence of God.  This is a question that is beyond science, period!  In fact, this is the only subject that really tweeks me because individuals continually attempt to use a scientific theory to make broad and sweeping statements about God.  Not only are they wrong but they cast dispersion upon a topic that I love: science.  Maybe if you kept your mouth shut for awhile and listened you might learn something or at least it would minimize the damage that you do. Louis, referencing our earlier discussion, this is the damage that radical atheists can do.  There is no reason for a rift between science and religion and to perpetuate the lie is damaging.  This in no means exonerates the religious who attempt to do the same thing but I hold science to a higher standard and you can not have an argument by yourself. Finally Paul, sorry to have derailed the discussion but we do have to be honest with ourselves.  We all know how much of a chance Reddot has of suppling acceptable evidence that the Earth is 6k yrs old so we can drop that pretense right now. Oh yeah, Lenny, again, you really make yourself look like a fool when you try to bring the Bible into the discussion.  You'd to better to stick to anti-ID case law and communist fantasies.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:34    Wes, thanks for the correction and I should amend my comments to say that I've never been involved in a discussion with in which you discussed your religious beliefs in the short time that I've been here.  That being said, in these links you take a stand as a Christian without really saying what that means to you.  I especially liked your coverage of the overlapping ideas but I would have enjoyed a deeper examination of the evolutionary creationist.  Don't get me wrong, you faith is not an issue here my contention is the less tolerant members here would find any discussion of the specifics of faith unreasonable no matter who's making the statement.  Then again, officially, that's not what we're here to discuss, it's just funny that we always end up back in the same conversation.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:40    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 05 2007,16:20) Oh yeah, Lenny, again, you really make yourself look like a fool when you try to bring the Bible into the discussion.  You'd to better to stick to anti-ID case law and communist fantasies. Skeptic, I care what you say. No, really I do. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:42    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 05 2007,16:34) my contention is the less tolerant members here would find any discussion of the specifics of faith unreasonable no matter who's making the statement. And your contention is bullshit. Just ask Wes. Wes, has anyone here ever attacked you because of your religious beliefs . . . . ? My goodness, that martyr complex that all fundies have is MASSIVE.  How one earth do you carry it around with you, Skeptic?  Do you use a wheelbarrow? I'd ask RedDot, but alas, he seems to have run away again. Perhaps he's asking his creationist pals how new alleles appeared.  (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,19:09    Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03) Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.   ------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for your opinion. Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different: Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right? (snicker)  (giggle) Besides, when did "fulfill" acquire the same meaning as "repeal"? ------------ Quote I do know that mediums exist In any department store, between the section for small sizes and the section for large sizes. (If a short psychic is on the run from police, is that a small medium at large?) Henry

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:46    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,13:38) Hey RedDot, since you yammer a lot about "Jesus" "God" and "The Bible", I want you to clear something up for me: When all those creationists testified in court, under oath, in Arkansas and Louisiana, that creationism was SCIENCE and did NOT depend on any religious belief or text, were they just lying to us about that? Your confusion again stems from your worldview.  While I know you all will have a field day with this, please try to understand what I'm trying to say here.  To a Christian, there can be no separation of who we are and what we believe, these concepts are intrinsically intertwined.  We see the world through the lens of Scripture.  The way we look at human interactions, the way we look at politics, the way we look at economics, and yes, the way we look at science is all filtered through Scripture.  Let me give you an example. I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science". This, of course, is only one tiny illustration, however I hope it shows you that to a creationist, science is discovering the world God made.  We believe He made it possible for us to discover, wonder, perform experiments, and use our rational minds as a way to find Him. Uniformitarians, on the other hand, see the world through the extremely laborious effects of time and tiny changes.  Your viewpoint is just as valid as ours.  You believe your viewpoint is the correct one, and I applaud your efforts to spread your beliefs.  However, we also believe our viewpoint is the correct one.  Which one is true, only time will tell. We believe that time will happen when Christ returns to Earth.  Most of you probably assume that Christianity will die off, as many old religions have, from the effects of time, and mankind's ever advancing achievements.  Christians hope that all mankind comes to and follows Christ before he comes back.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:56    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:32) Well, RedDot, since you seem to be so gungho about telling all of us mere mortals "what the Bible really means", that brings up another question for you: *ahem* What is the source of your religious authority?  What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?  Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible.  Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are?   It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.   Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than  your say-so? When speaking of Scripture, I do not wish to ever use my own words.  Scripture should stand for itself, it is God's Word.  I am, however, human, and I apologize for giving anyone the impression that I speak with my own authority, which is non-existant by comparison. It is my belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, useful for teaching and rebuking.  As far as my interprentations go, they are not my own, but those of both the ones who have instructed me, and those of the various professors of theology who wrote most of the available study Bibles. If you have an issue with one of my statements, we can discuss it.  I did not broach the subject however, there was someone else here who felt it necessary to bring my beliefs as a Christian to this forum.  I merely answered questions to the best of my ability.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:59    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46) I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science". And this is why you are not a geologist. You are not trained to identify any signs of what happened. Your opinion on the matter is about as valid as someone who looks at a computer and says "I can't see how it works, must be magic! Hur hur hur!" People who do know what they are doing have studied it, and reached a conclusion, that IS science. I don't think its even possible for you to have picked a worse example. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:04    "Everything is like equally valid, man"

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:07    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46) Your confusion again stems from your worldview. No, my confusion stems from creationists blathering all the time about Jeebus, and then testifying under oath that creationism has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. So, which is it.  Spare me your sermons and just answer my question.  Are they lying under oath when they testify to that, or aren't they. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:10    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56) When speaking of Scripture, I do not wish to ever use my own words.  Scripture should stand for itself, it is God's Word.   Um, if the Bible stands for itself, then, uh, what the hell does anyone need YOU for? Or are you so self-righteous and pride-filled that you think everyone needs YOU to tell them "what the Bible really means" . . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:11    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56)  As far as my interprentations go, they are not my own, but those of both the ones who have instructed me, and those of the various professors of theology who wrote most of the available study Bibles. That's nice. And their interpretations became infallible when, exactly . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:13    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46) I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science". This is always my favorite: the "different interpretations of the evidence" argument. Here's the problem, RedDot. Initially, perhaps, one could argue the chamber might have been carved slowly, by small amouns of water acting of millions of years, or rapidly, by large amounts of water acting all at once. Thing is, we don't have to be content with that ambiguity. We can use science to figure out which option is correct. We simply ask, "If it took millions of years, what should we expect to see now? Or, if it happened all at once, say ~ 4000 years ago, then what should we expect to see now?" Then we go out and actually look for the answers. And guess what? We see things that are consistent with the "slowly over millions of years" option, and inconsistent with the "all at once 4000 years ago" option. And we see that over, and over, and over again. What do you think we should conclude from that: A) It happened slowly over millions of years. B) It happened all at once 4000 years ago, but God made it look like it took millions of years. [edited to fix italics tags]

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:16    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:48) Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06) It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number. Hang on there, young Jedi ---- I thought creationists keep telling me that MUTATIONS CANNOT ADD GENETIC INFORMATION, that ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS, and that NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE. Make up your friggin mind, junior.  Can mutations produce new genetic information, or can't they. Which is it. I know of no mutation that can occur in multi-cellular organisms, which is capable of adding novel information which can be passed down to future generations.  Certainly no single-point mutation can do this.  To be sure, they can provide genomic changes in a population, most either deleterious or neutral, but no new structures.  The single-point mutations which have conferred some measure of improvement when faced with a particular environmental pressure always seem to turn out to be deleterious when the environmental pressure is removed (blind cave fish for example). Gene duplication does not add novel information, and is also usually bad for the organism (Huntington's desease is a good example).  Insertion mutations (from say a virus), phase shifts, or gene migration are the only way a chunk of new (to the organism) information can enter a genome, but so far as I know, that happens in single celled organisms or some parasites.  I believe that some insects have had experiments done on them which forced phase shifts, but I can't put my hand on that paper right now for the details.  I'm also fairly sure that when insertion mutations, or gene migrations happen in a single-celled organism, other information is discarded, resulting in at least a zero-sum gain to the overall base pair count.  However, these experiments are ongoing, so I could be wrong there. To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:17    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56) If you have an issue with one of my statements, we can discuss it. You miss the entire point, Junior.  I'm not interested in disputing any of "your" statements because (pay attention here, Junior) your statements don't matter a rat's ass to me. You're no more holy than anyone else, you don't know any more about God than anyone else, your religious opinions are no better than anyone else's, and your interpretations of the Bible (wherever you got them) aren't any better than anyone else's.  So there is simply no need to pay the slightest attention to any of your religious opinions.  They don't mean any more than those of the kid who delivers my pizzas. You are not God's Spokesman™©.  You're just another pride-filled arrogant self-righteous fundie prick who is full-of-himself enough to believe that he is, quite literally, holier than everyone else. And you're not.  (shrug) As I noted, all I'm interested in now is seeing just how nutty you really are. So . . . . When did the witches lose their supernatural powers. Answer that question for me, Mr High And Holy. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:18    Quote Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.   CA221: Were you there? Quote Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see. CA310: Scientists see what they want to see

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:20    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:16) To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool. That's nice. Then how the hell did humans go from 16 alleles to over 700 in just 4500 years? Did space aliens use DNA engineering to put them there? Did God ZAP them all there? Do tell, junior. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:22    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:16) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:48) Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06) It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number. Hang on there, young Jedi ---- I thought creationists keep telling me that MUTATIONS CANNOT ADD GENETIC INFORMATION, that ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS, and that NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE. Make up your friggin mind, junior.  Can mutations produce new genetic information, or can't they. Which is it. I know of no mutation that can occur in multi-cellular organisms, which is capable of adding novel information which can be passed down to future generations.  Certainly no single-point mutation can do this.  To be sure, they can provide genomic changes in a population, most either deleterious or neutral, but no new structures.  The single-point mutations which have conferred some measure of improvement when faced with a particular environmental pressure always seem to turn out to be deleterious when the environmental pressure is removed (blind cave fish for example). Gene duplication does not add novel information, and is also usually bad for the organism (Huntington's desease is a good example).  Insertion mutations (from say a virus), phase shifts, or gene migration are the only way a chunk of new (to the organism) information can enter a genome, but so far as I know, that happens in single celled organisms or some parasites.  I believe that some insects have had experiments done on them which forced phase shifts, but I can't put my hand on that paper right now for the details.  I'm also fairly sure that when insertion mutations, or gene migrations happen in a single-celled organism, other information is discarded, resulting in at least a zero-sum gain to the overall base pair count.  However, these experiments are ongoing, so I could be wrong there. To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool. Quote Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information. Source: AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp Response:   1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html If this guy's just going to repeat the four or five hundred old creationist claims, I'm outta here.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:24    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:51) Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21) I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore. Um, when did they STOP having supernatural powers . . . And how can you tell. I didn't say they did stop, I said I doubt they exist anymore.  Just a personal belief, not backed up by anything.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:25    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46) .  To a Christian, there can be no separation of who we are and what we believe, these concepts are intrinsically intertwined.  We see the world through the lens of Scripture.  The way we look at human interactions, the way we look at politics, the way we look at economics, and yes, the way we look at science is all filtered through Scripture.   Let me just make sure of something here, Junior ------ You **DO** understand the difference between "God" and "A Book About God", right? Right? You **DO** understand that they are , uh, not the same thing, right? Right? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:29    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:24) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:51) Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21) I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore. Um, when did they STOP having supernatural powers . . . And how can you tell. I didn't say they did stop, I said I doubt they exist anymore.  Just a personal belief, not backed up by anything. (sigh) Dude, this is a simple question. *I* asked you if supernatural witches exist, and if they should be killed. *YOU* answered that witches exist, but you doubt they possess supernatural powers anymore. *I* asked when they *stopped* having them. NOW you are saying their supernatural powers DIDN'T stop, right before you say you doubt they exist anymore. Sit down, take a deep breath, and answer my simple questions, junior. One more time: Do supernatural witches exist.  Yes or no. Did supernatural witches EVER exist.  Yes or no. If they did, do they still?  Yes or no. If they don't still, when did they stop? Take your time, junior. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:32    We could save time by replacing this guy with a perl script which prints an Index of Creationist Claims entry every few hours. Oh well. The search for a challenging creationist continues.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:35    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:59) Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:53) You have an incorrect translation. Says who? Until you've established your authority to interpret the Bible, and established that your interpretations are any better than my next door neighbor's or the kid who served me a Big Mac and fries for lunch this afternoon, there's simply no point in listening to any of your opinions about what the Bible says or doesn't say. (shrug) So go ahead and establish your authority, please. Who the hell are you? What makes you any holier than anyone else? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular religious opinions than they should to anyone else's? Other than your say-so? I didn't say I had any authority to interpret the Bible (or translate it for that matter).  I stated that the translations presented to me was incorrect according to the New International Version Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible which is available through AMG Publishers (ISBN 0-89957-701-6).  While there are numerous translations available, I also gave the orignial Hebrew word, and what all of it's potential meanings are.  Out of four possible uses for ra` in the contexts discussed, only two make any sense at all, which is why the NIV Study Bible translated it the way it did. The question posed was an attempt to trip me up with a trivial piece of minutae.  Are you suggesting I did not have the right to answer it?

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:35    Lenny, if you truly do not care what Reddot has to say concerning God, The Bible, et. al., then why do you keep asking him questions?  Please, a little honesty.  You really do look the fool here.

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard