Jump to content


Some Questions


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#61 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:42 PM

One verse says the universe was created with age, the other says the universe existed long ago--why can't it be both?

#62 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:36 PM

One verse says the universe was created with age, the other says the universe existed long ago--why can't it be both?

View Post


We are talking only about one verse...not two. 2 Peter 3:5

Peace

#63 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 28 February 2010 - 05:21 PM

Oh, my bad.

I apologize, but we do not have anyone here who can read Greek, do we?
We can't say anything about which verse is right since we are not the ones who translated it.

I just checked the Romanian translation, and according to Google translator, one of the Romanian versions of the Bible says this:

For that purpose so are unaware that once were a heaven and earth removed from the water by the Word of God and in the water,


I read it (the Romanian version) and I understand it that says something akin to that.
There's a lot of variance with the translation of the verse. I've checked other languages and they are all split as much as the English translations.

You are interpreting your KJV as saying the heavens were already old, when it is actually saying that the heavens existed long ago (indicating a place in time...not age)


Have you read the original? Can you say that for sure or is it just because the ones you quote agree with you, so you accept them?

#64 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 05:38 PM

I apologize, but we do not have anyone here who can read Greek, do we?

Have you read the original?


From the greek for 2 Peter 3:5...

...οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι ...
"ouranos (the heavens) esan (were) ekpalai (from long ago)"

Peace

#65 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 February 2010 - 05:41 PM

I am not changing scripture...

NIV: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

NASB: "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water.."

ESV: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water..."

You are interpreting your KJV as saying the heavens were already old, when it is actually saying that the heavens existed long ago (indicating a place in time...not age).

Peace

View Post


So any translation that agrees with your belief of how things work is the correct translation, and any translation that does not go along with it is wrong, correct?

And I ask the question again:

And your answer about God being a deciever is what evos use. You are going to have to prove how God would be a deciever and liar by doing this.

One cannot be a deceiver if one says what he has done, and exactly how he did it.

Now why would God say: By the word of God the heavens were of old? It's because God knew the laws of physics. He was relaying that what He did does not go along with the laws of physics as we know. Now since God told us what He did, what part of what he did becomes a deception and why?



#66 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 06:09 PM

So any translation that agrees with your belief of how things work is the correct translation, and any translation that does not go along with it is wrong, correct?


From the greek for 2 Peter 3:5...

...οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι ...
"ouranos (the heavens) esan (were) ekpalai (from long ago)"

...the heavens were from long ago.

One cannot be a deceiver if one says what he has done, and exactly how he did it.


Where does he say this?

Now why would God say: By the word of God the heavens were of old? It's because God knew the laws of physics. He was relaying that what He did does not go along with the laws of physics as we know. Now since God told us what He did, what part of what he did becomes a deception and why?


Your question is still based on a misunderstanding of 'from of old'...you think it indicates age whe it actually designates a place in time.

Peace

#67 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:35 PM

http://www.westover....cgi?number=1597

It has two definitions, it seems.
Thank you for being honest and only giving us one.

Where does he say this?


Read Genesis 1.

#68 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:45 PM

It has two definitions, it seems.
Thank you for being honest and only giving us one.


Are you saying that I was being dishonest?

I obtained this from my Greek Interlinear scripture analyzer...with Strongs.

If I were to say that knights were from the days of old...would you take that to mean that the knights were old? or that the days were old?...or would it mean that the days took place a long time ago?

Read Genesis 1.


God says that he created...it doesn't say how.

Peace

#69 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:58 PM

Are you saying that I was being dishonest?

I obtained this from my Greek Interlinear scripture analyzer...with Strongs.


I see, my apologies. But still, according to the site I posted it has two meanings.

I'm not sure about the meaning, but either way it wouldn't support evolution.


If I were to say that knights were from the days of old...would you take that to mean that the knights were old? or that the days were old?...or would it mean that the days took place a long time ago?


Words can have multiple meanings. For example, the word firm can mean strong, or it can mean a business organization.

God says that he created...it doesn't say how.


In 6 days...

#70 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 08:13 PM

I'm not sure about the meaning, but either way it wouldn't support evolution.


I don't believe that this was a point concerning evolution, but one concerning the age of the universe.

In 6 days...


Because of the physical evidence to the contrary, I am forced to interpret the 6 days as a form of figurative poetic story-telling...and by story-telling, I am not saying that it is fictitious, but that there was some cultural poetic license taken.

Peace

#71 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 March 2010 - 02:35 AM

From the greek for 2 Peter 3:5...

...οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι ...
"ouranos (the heavens) esan (were) ekpalai (from long ago)"

...the heavens were from long ago.
Where does he say this?
Your question is still based on a misunderstanding of 'from of old'...you think it indicates age whe it actually designates a place in time.

Peace

View Post


KJV was translated from the greek. Anyone can change it to make it say what they want. The kjv translators did not have any personal agenda with this issue because old earth and evolution did not exist back then. But the translation you refer to was after these two things cam about. So to make it fit, they changed it. Why else have a second greek translation about something that was not even known in the time of the KJV tramslation, unless the goal also has an agenda which was why a second one was needed?

#72 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 March 2010 - 02:40 AM

Are you saying that I was being dishonest?

I obtained this from my Greek Interlinear scripture analyzer...with Strongs.

If I were to say that knights were from the days of old...would you take that to mean that the knights were old? or that the days were old?...or would it mean that the days took place a long time ago?


Withholding information is a deception. And is it honest to do so?

God says that he created...it doesn't say how.

Peace

View Post


Yes He does. There are three types of creation God used.

1) Spoken creation. Which is speaking what does not exist into being.
2) Bring forth creation. Where God commands what is already created to bring forth life.
3) Formed creation. The creation of man.

#73 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:38 AM

Yes He does. There are three types of creation God used.

1) Spoken creation. Which is speaking what does not exist into being.
2) Bring forth creation. Where God commands what is already created to bring forth life.
3) Formed creation. The creation of man.

View Post

<_< This would not pass any scientific peer review.

If I say that I can create Life in a test-tube by the spoken creation method, does that actually say HOW it is done.

In a scientific sense I would have to describe the method in such detail that any of my peers can repeat the process.
God does not describe it to this extent which is one reason why creationism IS NOT SCIENCE.

#74 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 02 March 2010 - 05:38 AM

KJV was translated from the greek. Anyone can change it to make it say what they want. The kjv translators did not have any personal agenda with this issue because old earth and evolution did not exist back then. But the translation you refer to was after these two things cam about. So to make it fit, they changed it. Why else have a second greek translation about something that was not even known in the time of the KJV tramslation, unless the goal also has an agenda which was why a second one was needed?

View Post


There is no difference in the greek that this particular verse was translated from between the KJV and the NIV.

You are misinterpreting the 'old english' vernacular.

'From of old' still means a long time ago...not how old something is.

Peace

#75 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 02 March 2010 - 06:33 AM

This is not a 2nd law problem.

View Post

So directed energy is free as in beer? Or you don't understand how the second law affects directed energy?

Perhaps you can first respond to these claims: All information is carried on information carrying media. (is this true?)

For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. (perhaps it is built with no energy at all?)

For the information to change, additional heat must be used.(as is obvious, right?)

And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used.(here is where you need to object, offering us an alternative or a reason why this might not be true)

Unfortunately, without a system in place to direct this energy, the energy will disperse in the path of least resistance; either destroying the system that directs it or building the information media in a place unlikely to follow the specified course required by evolution.(or do you think undirected energy can build DNA?)

#76 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:59 PM

Perhaps you can first respond to these claims: All information is carried on information carrying media. (is this true?)

View Post


Yes

For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. (perhaps it is built with no energy at all?)

View Post


Is heat the only energy available???

For the information to change, additional heat must be used.(as is obvious, right?)

View Post


Why?? This is an awfully broad(and vague) generalization.

And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used.(here is where you need to object, offering us an alternative or a reason why this might not be true)

View Post


See above.

Now that we're beyond that. Energy is an integral part of chemical reactions. UV light can separate a chlorine molecule into two chlorine free radicals which then go hunting for methyl groups where they're substituted giving you a chloromethyl hydrocarbon and hydrochloric acid. The energy isn't directed. All you have is chemistry. BTW, I'm sorry to all you chemists out there for mangling organic chemistry so badly.

All the formation of DNA is is chemistry. It's been explain by chemistry multiple times.

Now how is this a 2nd law problem??? The 2nd law governs energy and how much of it can be used for work or lost as heat. There are mathematical formalisms in place here. Can you apply them to evolution???

#77 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 March 2010 - 02:46 AM

:) This would not pass any scientific peer review.

If I say that I can create Life in a test-tube by the spoken creation method, does that actually say HOW it is done.

In a scientific sense I would have to describe the method in such detail that any of my peers can repeat the process.
God does not describe it to this extent which is one reason why creationism IS NOT SCIENCE.

View Post


Hell does not pass peer review either, but being an atheist means you will......

Peer reviews does not determine reality or truth. If they do, would not that be a group of people with a God complex? :lol:

Peer review group: We determine truth and reality, send your ideas to us and if it supports current accepted theories we will approve it. If not we will destroy you and your idea. If we approve it, you will become famous and so will your idea.

If you think about it, the peer reveiw is like the Christian God's judgement. For they are judge and jury of whether an idea, and the person, is accpeted or not. And the results is either "scientific heaven" of status, respect and power. Or "scientific hell" which includes no respect, no status, and no power. Basically, as several atheists often relay to me, it's academia and scientific suicide in "scientific hell" to not go along with the majority view of the scientific community.

So I find it ironic that evos often complain about having God's judgment thrown in their face. But then turn around and use their own form of the same type of judgment and the fear of it to keep their own followers in line. and to also relay to those who do not go along, that their views and way of life are not accepted. And therefore of they dare voice them, be destroyed along with them.

Example:
Christian...If you don't go along with the ways of the Bible, recieve salvation etc... You will end up in Hell.
Evos...If your ideas do not conform to the science of naturalism, humanism, and the scientific method. You will end up in "scientific hell", where your idea and reputation will be destroyed if you do not conform to current accepted views.

In the Christian judgment in front of the throne. The unsaved which happens to include atheists, will be separated and judged according to what is written in the Bible. Then for rejection of God thrown into a eternal Hell.

In the peer review, in front of the scientific community. Where creationists and evos stand before. The creationists, and anyone else who disagrees with current accepted views. is separated, judged, and reputation destroyed. And they are thrown into a scientific hell of disgrace that which can never be returned from (a type of eternal punishment).

Education and degrees are also thrown into our face as to the way to be accepted and have your views heard. Which is proven time after time as not being true. Case and point is Ben Stein. Who has several degrees from some of the best schools around. Did that make a difference? Did it make the scientific community listen? Nope. And we all know what happened. Ben Stein could not be disgraced for his education. So he was accused of lying, sterotyped, belittled, etc... Which is the scientific judgment of eternal mortal hell the he will never recover from because he had the gall to disagree with the almighty evos.

So keep throwing your judgment peer reviews in our face, it only makes you a hypocrite for complaining about the same type of judgment from your debate opponent. And then doing the very samething to them. And it also reveals another part of science that acts just like religion. Because like evos often say: Christians use fear to convert and make their own stay inline. When they themselves have set up the same type of control that is cloak to look like science and reason. But actually is a counter for the Christian judgment. That has the same two types of outcome. Both, with their types of heaven and hell.

To some it up, Christianity and science (through evolution) have the same message: Conform or be damned.

#78 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:02 AM

There is no difference in the greek that this particular verse was translated from between the KJV and the NIV.

You are misinterpreting the 'old english' vernacular.

'From of old' still means a long time ago...not how old something is.

Peace

View Post


I believe your argument on semantics is your attempt to derail the thread because you personally disagree. And to push that your interpretation as the "only true alternative" in which to translate any meaning (as if you are an expert with several degrees). You have made your point, and so have the ones who disagree with you. So to continue will be considered derailing this thread. And, on purpose derails warrant suspension or ban.

What I consider a "on purpose derail" is when a subject becomes stuck because two sides cannot agree to disagree. So the debate gets stuck on one subject for several pages and the actual debate subject of the thread gets lost in the process.

So move on. It's become a dead horse.

And that goes for everyone else in here as well. The points were made, move on.

#79 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:56 AM

Yes

Then it all gets there, physically, somehow.

Is heat the only energy available???

It's all we need to worry about. Energy = heat.

Why??  This is an awfully broad(and vague) generalization.

Things change. When they do, we can account for the energy it takes to change. Even moreso, when things change in a specific way, it takes even more energy because more work is being done. For instance, when we find a granite rock sticking out of the desert sand where there was not a rock previously, it took a certain amount of energy to get it there. However, if we find an obelisk of the same size in the desert, it would have taken more energy to get it there because it would have required machines in order to be.

Now that we're beyond that.  Energy is an integral part of chemical reactions.  UV light can separate a chlorine molecule into two chlorine free radicals which then go hunting for methyl groups where they're substituted giving you a chloromethyl hydrocarbon and hydrochloric acid.  The energy isn't directed.  All you have is chemistry.  BTW, I'm sorry to all you chemists out there for mangling organic chemistry so badly. 

All the formation of DNA is is chemistry.  It's been explain by chemistry multiple times. 

Now how is this a 2nd law problem???  The 2nd law governs energy and how much of it can be used for work or lost as heat.  There are mathematical formalisms in place here.  Can you apply them to evolution???

View Post

Your first example of undirected energy is a granite rock in the desert. The second example of the formation of DNA is the obelisk (machines are a tip-off).

If all there were, were natural processes, all we would have is the first example because there is no energy to spare for the second example.

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

#80 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 03 March 2010 - 11:37 PM

Peer review group: We determine truth and reality, send your ideas to us and if it supports current accepted theories we will approve it. If not we will destroy you and your idea. If we approve it, you will become famous and so will your idea.

This is not correct. Firstly it should read "if it is repeatable and supported by accepted methodology (not theories, huge difference) we will accept your ideas for publication. This DOES NOT necessarily mean it is accepted by the scientific community. There are disputes within the scientific community regarding how to INTERPRET the published scientific data. In this aspect science and religion is similar. Religious people sometimes even kill each other over such disputes, while the scientific disputes seldom starts wars.

To some it up, Christianity and science (through evolution) have the same message: Conform or be damned.

View Post

Bad analogy. The conformance is NOT on the theories, but on the process of establishing the theories.

Creation science is like a soccer player using his hands, not understanding why he is expelled from the game.

Your analogy would hold more water if it was used to support that you need to have A RELIGIOUS FAITH, but not necessarily THE RELIGIOUS FAITH.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users