Jump to content


Photo

Designed Or Not Designed...


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#61 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 July 2009 - 09:28 PM

Hi Java,

I don't think I've actually responded to any of your posts yet, so welcome and nice to meet you ;)

You raise a good point by bringing up Genesis. This would then suggest eternal life has less to do with a lack of sin, and more to do with 'eating from God's table'. In other words being in the presence of God. And I guess to eat at God's table you would need to be free of sin.

I think that answers my original question. Eternal life is only possible through God. So even if we were to purge sin from this world it would not grant eternal life unless God made it so.

Is this a reasonable summary? Anyone got anything else to add?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


B) HI ARCH!!!!

Sorry I've enjoyed reading your posts. Unfortunately we lost our chance at that point in Genesis to live forever. It's a shame really because I would really love to see how technology will make life easier, and how cool the video games will be in say 100 years!

But seriously, thanks for the welcome!

#62 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 July 2009 - 10:20 PM

Your whole point here, in an attempt to skirt the issue of not researching the contextual application of your statement, has nothing to do with my calling you on it. But, rather, it’s more to the fact that you do not want to accept your mistake.

No one sent you on a wild goose chase Javabean. You were, in fact, busted on your inability to follow through on your misunderstanding of contextual literacy. And, if you “honestly” went back and checked your post, you’d soon realize that you weren’t making and “honest” inquiry, but a mistaken statement (you may want to check it again). 
 
So, no matter how you attempt to spin this Javabean, you are running from the truth in both of your last responses to me.

View Post


Ron Ron Ron, I think we are having 2 different conversations here. I have not skirted any issues as far as I knew, so I re-read all my posts and the posts that they were referring to.

I can only guess that you are referring to my post asking about 1 day and thousand years. If I made a mistake, please explain it to me. If you don't I can only assume that I didn't make a mistake. So please enlighten me

As far as the Hebrew text you pointed me towards I asked for some help in finding the info you wished me to find. When you attacked me on this and, I guess you assumed I didn't use the most powerful information gathering tool known to all mankind, I called you on it. This then sent you into a literal rage at my audacity.

This is fine, it really is, but you still haven't supplied any more info. This tells me more than I really need to know about you.

So do you wish to prove you intellect and actually try to explain your point here? Or do you think that I am just skirting the issue, by trying to figure out what you want me to find?

Thanks

#63 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 11:54 PM

:D HI ARCH!!!!

View Post

;) The enthusiasm!

Sorry I've enjoyed reading your posts.  Unfortunately we lost our chance at that point in Genesis to live forever.  It's a shame really because I would really love to see how technology will make life easier, and how cool the video games will be in say 100 years!

But seriously, thanks for the welcome!

View Post


I concur. One of the things that upsets me more than anything about death is we'll miss out on seeing all sorts of new technological developments. I do hope I'm still around when we discover alien life, or start building on the moon. I'm sure I could live for hundreds of years just to read books.

Aha, and you're a gamer by the sounds of it. Seems we have a few things in common B)

Regards,

Arch.

#64 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 July 2009 - 10:45 AM

:P The enthusiasm!
I concur. One of the things that upsets me more than anything about death is we'll miss out on seeing all sorts of new technological developments. I do hope I'm still around when we discover alien life, or start building on the moon. I'm sure I could live for hundreds of years just to read books.

Aha, and you're a gamer by the sounds of it. Seems we have a few things in common ;)

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Why yes I am a gamer! I'm an xbox 360 user currently. Well technically since it came out.

Yeah for me the desire to be able to live forever (or at least a very long time) comes from my desire to see how everything pans out. Sorry if I startled you with my enthusiasm! It was just ment to be a warm welcome!

lol

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 July 2009 - 02:45 AM

Ron Ron Ron, I think we are having 2 different conversations here.  I have not skirted any issues as far as I knew, so I re-read all my posts and the posts that they were referring to. 

I can only guess that you are referring to my post asking about 1 day and thousand years.  If I made a mistake, please explain it to me.  If you don't I can only assume that I didn't make a mistake. So please enlighten me

As far as the Hebrew text you pointed me towards I asked for some help in finding the info you wished me to find.  When you attacked me on this and, I guess you assumed I didn't use the most powerful information gathering tool known to all mankind, I called you on it.  This then sent you into a literal rage at my audacity.

This is fine, it really is, but you still haven't supplied any more info.  This tells me more than I really need to know about you.

So do you wish to prove you intellect and actually try to explain your point here?  Or do you think that I am just skirting the issue, by trying to figure out what you want me to find?

Thanks

View Post


Javabean, no one can force you to learn. Nor can anyone make you go back and revisit where you erred to correct it and move on. Nor can anyone entice you to cease in your misuse of linguistic tools. These are things you have to want to do.

#66 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 July 2009 - 05:47 AM

Javabean, no one can force you to learn. Nor can anyone make you go back and revisit where you erred to correct it and move on. Nor can anyone entice you to cease in your misuse of linguistic tools. These are things you have to want to do.

View Post


Once Again Ron, you have failed me.

You set me on a path to find something and when I tried and failed I asked for some more help. I am actually asking for help on this task.

You don't seem to understand that I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WERE ASKING ME TO LOOK UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't think you even know now. So when I get a chance I am going to start a thread looking for the answer. This is how badly I want to know what you are talking about. Heck it will be a good learning experience for me to learn some Hebrew characters.

#67 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 26 July 2009 - 03:20 AM

Am I the only one who thinks it is unbelievably arrogant to claim anything in biology is a bad design? Just wondering.
To me it is the same kind of arrogance that would allow the calling of any DNA with a currently unknown function as JUNK.

I build websites for a living and have just gone through the source for this page. I understand what most of the code is doing but I see a few things I can't immediately see a purpose for. I have decided these bits are junk and the web developer should not have put them in. :lol:

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 05:41 AM

Once Again Ron, you have failed me.

You set me on a path to find something and when I tried and failed I asked for some more help.  I am actually asking for help on this task.

You don't seem to understand that I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WERE ASKING ME TO LOOK UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't think you even know now.  So when I get a chance I am going to start a thread looking for the answer.  This is how badly I want to know what you are talking about.  Heck it will be a good learning experience for me to learn some Hebrew characters.

View Post


I see you’re still attempting to play the innocent “I can’t find the reference”, or woe is me because “I’m just trying to learn” gambit Javabean. But when you make statements like:

It's also good to see that you realize that part of the bible where it says 1 day is but a thousand years and a thousands years is but a day is metaphor saying that god is timeless.

Now knowing this, you obviously don't take the entire bible literally.  But why do you take the creation story as literal testament to how things were done as opposed to metaphor stating that God created everything regardless of the how and why's?

View Post


In making matter of fact statements like the one above, you have to take ownership for your own words (as Adam makes a point if in his signature “words mean things”). You make the statement as if you know what you’re talking about. As if you knew what God was thinking when He created all of this. But you obviously didn’t, because you don’t understand the difference between what Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 3:8, and the meaning of a day or “YOM” in Genesis chapters one and two. Instead you rip, out of context, the meaning of one, to fit your objection of the other.

So, let me ask you Javabean; what does the YOM mean in the Genesis chapters of one and two? What I mean is, what it the literal translation of the word YOM, within the context of the chapters, in those verses?

You can pretend that you cannot find the meanings, and want everyone to do the leg work for you. You can even pretend that you’re “only trying to learn”. But given your previous postings on this matter, the discerning eye can see the scam in it.

#69 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 26 July 2009 - 09:17 AM

So, let me ask you Javabean; what does the YOM mean in the Genesis chapters of one and two? What I mean is, what it the literal translation of the word YOM, within the context of the chapters, in those verses?

View Post


I put YOM Definition into a well known search engine and these were the top three links.

Yom - definition of Yom by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were NOT 24 Hours

Creation science belief systems

You've got to admit, the information out there is pretty confusing. I'm sure that a biblical scholar such as yourself should be able to shed some light on this.

#70 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 10:11 AM

I put YOM Definition into a well known search engine and these were the top three links.

Yom - definition of Yom by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were NOT 24 Hours

Creation science belief systems

You've got to admit, the information out there is pretty confusing.  I'm sure that a biblical scholar such as yourself should be able to shed some light on this.

View Post


And, amazingly enough I typed in "what does the word 'Yom' mean. And her are some of the responses:

http://www.creationi...brewWordYOM.pdf

http://helives.blogs...at-does-ym.html

http://www.answersin...ted-in-six-days

And that was just the first three replies. I guess it wasn't so hard after all :lol:

Here’s another easy to find, on line tool for translation:

http://translation.babylon.com/#


It’s not confusing at all Jason, especially when you consider that Javabean was presenting himself as an authority of sorts in his attempt to grill Ikester. It isn’t hard to realize what’s going on here. But the main issue here wasn’t the translation of the word Yom, it was the contextual rape that was being done. And it was an illogical argument on Javabeans part anyway.

Were he truly trying to learn, he wouldn’t have posted such a standard atheistic baited questioning technique like: “Now knowing this, you obviously don't take the entire bible literally. But why do you take the creation story as literal testament to how things were done as opposed to metaphor stating that God created everything regardless of the how and why's?” You and I both know this line of questioning is easily refuted, and is only used as a last resort.

And when I called him on it, he continued in his attempt to squirm out of it.

#71 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 26 July 2009 - 11:59 AM

Here’s another easy to find, on line tool for translation:

http://translation.babylon.com/#

View Post


I'm not sure if I totally trust that translation tool.

I set From to Hebrew, and To to English.

I put in:

ום

And got back:

And were

#72 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 July 2009 - 07:45 PM

I'm not sure if I totally trust that translation tool.

I set From to Hebrew, and To to English.

I put in:

ום

And got back:

And were

View Post


Interesting.

I put in יום and got back:Day


Check your spelling next time.

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:19 AM

Interesting.

I put in  יום and got back:Day
Check your spelling next time.

View Post


As did I (once again)

But when I translated it into Greek I got Ημέρα ! And when I translated it back to English it was "Day" again!!! Its just amazing how that works ;)

#74 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:41 PM

Where are we going with all of this? ;)

#75 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 August 2009 - 03:45 AM

Hi everyone! Sorry for disappearing like that. Life for me unfortunately has a way of getting "busy" for me lol.

Anyways to answer Adam's question of "Where are we going with this?" is simple. Ron was trying to point out to me that in Genesis it uses the same word for day as in Peter where it talks about 1 day is like a 1000 years and so on.

But here is my problem with all of this. In 2 Peter 3:8 it specifically states that this is when you are in the pressance of the Lord, it does not say that this is how God views time. To read that into these verses once again shows that YECs do not take the bible "literally".

If you don't take the entire Bible literally the entire way through, then you have no ground to stand on when you say you have to take the Creation story literally. Yes you can say that you are just interpretting it differently, or comprehending it "better" but in reality you are adding additional meaning to what is written. And I say that is not taking it literally once again.

#76 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 05 August 2009 - 05:58 AM

If you don't take the entire Bible literally the entire way through, then you have no ground to stand on when you say you have to take the Creation story literally.  Yes you can say that you are just interpretting it differently, or comprehending it "better" but in reality you are adding additional meaning to what is written.  And I say that is not taking it literally once again.

View Post


So we don’t have to take you literally at all? Using the logic you just provided, no one has to take you seriously (or literally) at all, because at that point they would have to take you seriously ALL the time (even when you are joking, or using figurative speech).

Where the Bible is to be taken literally, it is literally descriptive. Where it is to be taken allegorically, it posits symbolically and metaphorically. To understand the Bible (as well as any other literature) you need to understand that. The only “additional interpretation” going on here is in the quoted text above.

#77 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:58 AM

Where the Bible is to be taken literally, it is literally descriptive. Where it is to be taken allegorically, it posits symbolically and metaphorically. To understand the Bible (as well as any other literature) you need to understand that. The only “additional interpretation” going on here is in the quoted text above.

View Post

If people could learn how important this is.

When ordinary rules of speech apply all day long every day and people commonly and quickly detect a shift between literal speech and figurative speech, without getting confused, it always makes me scratch my head when people can't get past their pedantic ways when reading scripture.

I guess modern day Christians haven't helped matters much by stuffing the plain speech of Genesis into an allegory for what they perceive as a pragmatic benefit. ;)

knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



#78 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 05 August 2009 - 07:14 PM

LOL okay i have to recant on a few things so I apologize. I've been seriously thinking about 2 Peter 3:8, and the surrounding verses. As opposed to what-ever I was thinking before.

1. For me to say this is not how God views time was misleading, but not purposely so. I was misleading because 2 Peter 3:8 really is saying that God is timeless. He can view any detail to such an extent or fast forward to any point, I'm thinking about God right now with the ultimate Tivo controller just flipping between channels constantly studying what we are doing.

2. I had also stated that as bare bones it meant that when you are with the Lord you will be having so much fun that time flies...obviously this isn't the case.

The surrounding verses are referring to when the end will come. God is patient, and he can wait till ending everything.

So please accept my apology for my mistakes! :) And please let me know if I have erred in my final assessment of 2 Peter 3:8 as it pertains to itself.

#79 winner

winner

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Japan

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:06 PM

In another thread we were talking about the design of an arch and I have to say that it got me to thinking because there are certainly arches that aren't designed. I believe the question of design is necessarily a contextual issue because there are aspects of everything that are designed but in comparative contexts other things that are not designed. The secret weapon of the naturalist (conscious or sub-conscious) is to throw the opponent into a mismatched context or comparison to declare victory based on a seemingly successful example of confused design.

A simple example would be the aforementioned arch:

Sample one:

Posted Image

Sample two:

Posted Image

Now in this context we can easily pick out design versus non-design but how would an evolutionist confuse the issue here relative to how they do it regarding living systems? Simple. While the obvious, is what it is, all the evolutionist must do is pick out some aspect of the Roman Aqueduct that is not designed like a time worn and misshape block or a collapsed section and plead for a state of confusion. This usually throws the conversation into a tailspin and allows the evolutionist to ignore the obvious.

View Post


I think there is a very wrong misconception on how science and ordinary person uses and tests intelligence.

In science, we test the intelligence by experiment, by actual calculating the boundaries of universal law of intelligence ULI or just make an experiment to test the system.

Like the arch above, the best way to differentiate the two is that why the two arches exist? If the roman aqueduct is good for water carriage, then, that is the goal. Then, let us put water on the weathered arch and see its function. Then, we can see the back-up.

#80 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:49 PM

I think there is a very wrong misconception on how science and ordinary person uses and tests intelligence.

In science, we test the intelligence by experiment, by actual calculating the boundaries of universal law of intelligence ULI or  just make an experiment to test the system.

Like the arch above, the best way to differentiate the two is that why the two arches exist? If the roman aqueduct is good for water carriage, then, that is the goal. Then, let us put water on the weathered arch and see its function. Then, we can see the back-up.

View Post

It sounds to me that you are supporting my claim to how important design and namely intelligent design is as a contextual issue.

I don't see the test you are referring to or this misconception either. Would you care to be more specific and use an example?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users