Questions for creationists

[Ethelred]

Some parts are good. Much is posturing.

Also, they have never shown that cephalopods actually see better. On the contrary, their eyes merely ‘approach some of the lower vertebrate eyes in efficiency’[47] and they are probably colour blind.[48]

Squid are awfully colorful for a colorblind animal. They even change colors to match their background. An error this obvious is not a good sign.

Even evolutionists concede that the inverted retina serves those creatures that possess it, very well;41 it affords them superb visual acuity. We have reviewed the necessity for this arrangement which turns on the nature of the photoreceptors.

They have the done the usual snow job. Its not a neccessity. It serves us well because it has been refined by 200 million or more years of evolution. That can make up for a bad start.

Light at various wavelengths is capable of very damaging effects on biological machinery

Of course. And it does so. Thats why we get cataracts. The UV light is absorbered in the cornea and lens.

The retina, besides being an extremely sophisticated transducer and image processor, is clearly designed to withstand the toxic and heating effects of light.

Yes it clearly did evolve that way except for the many defects that happen anyway. Like cataracts, myopia, retinitis pigmentosa, and good ole macular degeneration. Very well done Jehova. Sure you wouldn't rather the Bible admited to evolution?

Besides the almost complete exclusion of ultraviolet radiation by the cornea and the lens together, the retina itself is endowed with a number of additional mechanisms to protect against such damage:

Didn't he just say the cornea and lens did the job. The rest is uneeded then. Indeed it is counter productive. Our eyes work well most of the time. A different layout would be better and all this obfuscation won't change that.

If the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way around (the verted configuration), as evolutionists such as Dawkins propose,2 these two opaque layers would have to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors which would leave them in darkness!

Utterly fraudulent claim. They would never have evolved that way. The octupus don't have this alleged problem. Neither would we.

Thus I suggest that the need for protection against light-induced damage, which a verted retina in our natural environment could not provide to the same degree, is a major, if not the major reason for the existence of the inverted configuration of the retina.

I suggest that its because it started that way with creatures that didn't need excellent vision. Since that bad start evolution has done a decent job of working around that bad start.

He suggests all that because he feels the need to invent something to cover up reality.

He did go to a lot of work though. To bad it was just to obfuscate.

[Ethelred]

Wisdom teeth may have been helpful before fire to help eat meat?

There is nothing wrong with wisdom teeth. Till we started useing forks. Take a look at older skulls. You will see the teeth meet edge on edge. Few people have that anymore. I am not talking ancient fossil skulls either. Just stuff a thousand or two years old.

Well except for my brother. He has edge on edge dentition. I think its the Irish coming out in him. His wisdom teeth are fine. Mine didn't come out right.

Think of it as underbite being due to forks. Its the underbite that is making problems for wisdom teeth.

That happens to evidence that men have still been evolving even recently.

[Logical Realist]

As for most of these post: they are a waste of my time. A lot of them consisted of philosophical pipsqueeks calling me a troll, probably because they could not refute my argument. So I won't bother answering them point for point, as they don;t seem on really answering me. Especially Lincoln's post, which are not "hard empirical evidence" like I asked for. All he does is make things up and quote the Bible, anyone can do that, and such arguments count for absolutely nothing. As they are all very weak since their premises are so questionable.

Lincoln tries to avoid this by saying "evolution has no empirical backing either", this even if true (it most definatlely isn't)has nothing to do with the issue at hand and in no way makes up for his lack of empirical evidence. We are talking about the merits of creationism here....not the flaws of evolution. Poking holes in the former does nothing to establish the later. On Lincoln's comment of him being a "logical realist", if he's a realist then I'm a altar boy. His beliefs are based on 100 percent faith not logic. His existology is third person solipsism (Godism) like that of Berekley, that's not realism. I say that in regards to realism Lincoln is a pretender...a fake.

Now onto more intelligent commentary:

MacTBone: I bet LR will call Descartes a solipsist. As it stands, I may just do it for him...

Descartes is of the opinion that our only source of knowledge is our own mind. If we accept this, then, yes, all science is based on our perceptions. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody tis there to see it, then, it wouldn't make a sound.

Well yes I would call the guy a solipsist, though I doubt he would want to be called one. More of a third person solipsist like Lincoln, and yes, such a position has been refuted, and is well known to be contradictory.

Descartes main problem lies in his denial of logical principles then his claim that he can know this with certainty "I think therefore I am".

If you really examine his statement though it doesn't hold water. His whole argument of " I think therefore I am" is that, "if I wasn't and I thought", it would be contradictory, for a non-existent thing cannot think, Descartes imagined that an "evil God" capable of decieving his senses and logic, still couldn't decieve Descartes about his own existence, for to decieve someone, that person must exist.So even if there was an evil God, Descartes could know of one things with certainty: that he exists.

But lets go back a bit and examine whether or not he could be certain of that. Descartes whole point is based on the idea that a non-existent thing cannot think i.e. cannot be decieved. Why not? The answer is because a non-existent thing that thought or was decieved would be contradictory. But Descartes already said he wasn't sure of logic, that an evil God could even decieve him of that. And if logic does not hold contradictions can exist. Non-existent things can think and be decieved. Without logic, absolutely anything is possible. In fact the word "impossible" stems from logic, it implies a violation of logic. Without logic nothing is impossible. So Descartes, if he was consistent, would be still stuck in universal skepticism.

The whole problem lies in Descartes notion that he can jettison logic, including the law of non-contradiction, and then arbitrarily call upon it to uphold his statement. This does not work. In order to combat skepticism like that, the only possible path is to recognize the self-evident nature of logic and recognize that universal skepticism, is illogical and therefore itself a sort of faith. In the words of the Skeptic's Society

Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins of the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

It is thus by logic that one defeats such skepticism, not by arbitrary dictums.

As for Descartes realist positions, his argument for that was basically that "God exists" (which he tried to establish via traditional theist 'proofs') and that since God exists, he would not decieve Descartes' senses, so what Descartes is seeing must be real.(An interesting note lies in the fact that Descartes likewise established logic's truth via God's existence....amusing since he proved God exists using logic) A rather weak argument seeing as any "proof" for God does not last through five minutes of serious logical criticism. Again here, like in other areas of philosophy, the realist position must be established as a self-evident truth in-itself, by hypothtico-deductive method or by sound logical argument via showing that subjectivism is absurd "reductio ad absurdum".

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

You shall not see my face! Moses saw Him, but not His face.

Then I will take my hand away and you will see My back; but my face shall not be seen

- Ex. 33:23

[Ethelred]

You shall not see my face! Moses saw Him, but not His face.

Two mistakes there. One is that Jehovah did not just say face. He said no one shall see him and live.

Other verses don't even mention face in passing.

The other is your idea that Moses is the only one in the Bible that saw any part of Jehovah. Abraham saw him. Face to face.

Jacob claims to have seen him but that could be called a delusion unlike the Abraham incident. That one comes just before the Sodom an Gomorah story.

Which is too bad or your Moses story would make a better joke.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Two mistakes there. One is that Jehovah did not just say face. He said no one shall see him and live.

Depends on the translation.

Jacob claims to have seen him but that could be called a delusion unlike the Abraham incident. That one comes just before the Sodom an Gomorah story.

I looked - it says "The Lord appeared to Abraham" but it never says Abraham saw Him - he saw 3 visitors.

[Logical Realist]

Depends on the translation.

Its interesting how theists always go by the translation which serves them best.

[Ethelred]

Depends on the translation.

Well then how about we look at the original?

'amar
yakol
ra'ah
paniym - the key word
'adam
ra'ah
chayay

06440 paniym {paw-neem'} pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused
noun [paneh{paw-neh'}

from 06437; TWOT - 1782a; n m

AV - before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40,
countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, ...me 18,
against 17, ...him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195; 2109


As you can see there its not merely "face" its more like the face and presence.

Pleading traslation problems is mere evasion unless you actually check the original. Its readily available.

I looked - it says "The Lord appeared to Abraham" but it never says Abraham saw Him - he saw 3 visitors.

One of which was Jehovah. Abraham fed him. Washed his feet. Had a long conversation. Are you claiming he did all this without opening his eyes?


2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 - And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Thats pretty clear that he saw Jehovah. It says Jehovah not the Lord in Hebrew.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Logical Realist


Its interesting how theists always go by the translation which serves them best.

Easily handled.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html

Best site on the net for this. However it doesn't have all the English versions of the Bible because of copyright problems.

For the New King James and other copyrighted versions I use this link.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV

But they don't have the excelent concordance that Blue Letter does.

Its kind of nice to check what the original says especially with the Old Testament. For instand when the KJV uses the word Lord its usually Jehovah in the Hebrew and God is usually 'elohiym which is not god but GODS plural. It is gods that did the first creation story the one taking six days. The second story with a different order of creation and Adam created before the animals its not gods it Jehova.

Funny about how the two descriptions contradict each other and are so close together. Chapter one is contradicted by chapter two. Yet people say it has no contradictions.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Well then how about we look at the original?

'amar
yakol
ra'ah
paniym - the key word
'adam
ra'ah
chayay

06440 paniym {paw-neem'} pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused
noun [paneh{paw-neh'}

from 06437; TWOT - 1782a; n m

AV - before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40,
countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, ...me 18,
against 17, ...him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195; 2109


As you can see there its not merely "face" its more like the face and presence.

It's more like your own personal oppinion, bud. I think your oppinion is a little biased in one little point: God can tke the human form if he want's to; He's not solely spirit. I don't agree with you, and neither would the jews or the first christians.

Pleading traslation problems is mere evasion unless you actually check the original. Its readily available.

I completely agree with you. Could you provide us a link, please?

One of which was Jehovah. Abraham fed him. Washed his feet. Had a long conversation. Are you claiming he did all this without opening his eyes?

Where is it written anywhere that one of them was God? See how your lookingat those versicles ina narrowpointof view?

2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 - And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Thats pretty clear that he saw Jehovah. It says Jehovah not the Lord in Hebrew.

No, it absolutely doesn't. In point 3, what you read is Abraham praizing to Jehova (yes, it's true that in the original is the tetragram where most of you read Lord in capital letters), but like praying, not speaking directly to Him.

[Ethelred]

It's more like your own personal oppinion, bud.

You are mistaken. Its from a christian site. I allready posted the URL. I only copied it.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

God can tke the human form if he want's to; He's not solely spirit.

I never said otherwise. I only pointed out that the Bible says no one has seen god but Abraham did see god. Sorry you don't like what the Bible says.

I don't agree with you, and neither would the jews or the first christians.

You aren't disagreeing with anything I said. You are disagreeing with the Bible and a purely christian site.

I completely agree with you. Could you provide us a link, please?

Well I allready did in my post following that one but I have it here as well. Of course you didn't like the quotes from it and called it my oppinion. So perhaps you don't want really want to see whats at Blue Letter.

Where is it written anywhere that one of them was God? See how your lookingat those versicles ina narrowpointof view?

It was exceedingly clear that one of them was Jehovah. You would have to be blind to miss that. Read the rest of the passage to see the conversation.

No, it absolutely doesn't. In point 3, what you read is Abraham praizing to Jehova

No he is speaking DIRECTLY to Jehovah who is standing right there.

Like I said, just read the whole passage. Its very clear that Jehovah and Abraham are having a conversation. Only by the most obdurate refusal to accept what the Bible actualy says can you force it to mean anything else.

Here is the chapter in the KJV at Blue Letter. I can provide other vesions at other sites if you would like.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen018.html#top

If you refuse to accept what it says perhaps you should give up on fundamentalism. There are many christians that don't think the Bible is without error. I have some more contradictions I could post if you like. They aren't the silly ones that many other agnostics use. They are as significant as this one.

[Goingonit]

God saw him - but god is omniscient. And those three are, according to Rabbi Plaut, who wrote the commentary which I have:

Angels

The three "men" of whom the story speaks belong, according to the biblical setting, to a category of superior beings with special powers. They appearin a variety of forms, sometimes as men and sometimes in other shapes (such as cherubim)

And the idea is that they appeared to Abraham as ordinary men: if he beholds the Divine presence, of course he's going to feed it.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Ethelred


You are mistaken. Its from a christian site. I allready posted the URL. I only copied it.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Gee, how to put this without shocking you?
There are several factions of so-called cristians as there are evolutionists! And that link is just pointing to the home page.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I never said otherwise. I only pointed out that the Bible says no one has seen god but Abraham did see god. Sorry you don't like what the Bible says.

No, I love what the Bible says. It's my only defence against those who like to make up on their own, and create their own religion, and defend it like everyone else is a hypocrit! Gee, guess what, like what you're doing right now!

Originally posted by Ethelred
You aren't disagreeing with anything I said. You are disagreeing with the Bible and a purely christian site.

Crap

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well I allready did in my post following that one but I have it here as well. Of course you didn't like the quotes from it and called it my oppinion. So perhaps you don't want really want to see whats at Blue Letter.

I did, I just didn't look at the C square, which is the hebrew version, right away. Since I was on Interactive television back there, meaning I can only have one browser window opened at a time and that it's slow as hell, I reserve myself the right to not look at everything you post. I did now.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It was exceedingly clear that one of them was Jehovah. You would have to be blind to miss that. Read the rest of the passage to see the conversation.

crap

Originally posted by Ethelred
No he is speaking DIRECTLY to Jehovah who is standing right there.

crap

Originally posted by Ethelred
Like I said, just read the whole passage. Its very clear that Jehovah and Abraham are having a conversation. Only by the most obdurate refusal to accept what the Bible actualy says can you force it to mean anything else.

crap

Originally posted by Ethelred

Here is the chapter in the KJV at Blue Letter. I can provide other vesions at other sites if you would like.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen018.html#top

If you refuse to accept what it says perhaps you should give up on fundamentalism. There are many christians that don't think the Bible is without error. I have some more contradictions I could post if you like. They aren't the silly ones that many other agnostics use. They are as significant as this one.

I mean, long live your religion!
I hope you're happy with it! I'm sorry for the lack of patience to stand up with you, but I just can't be patient with those who acuse others of fundamentalism, when you can read something no one else can.

Not believing is one thing; making up is another.

So preach all you want, you have just become the first Apolytoner to deserve to get into my ignore list
And believe me, I tolerate[d] all religious points of view up to now!

[Thrawn05]

Well this seems to be a very lively thread.

Let me opine here.

I meld both Big Bang/Evolution with creationism.

God created the universe, and all the laws that run it. Then came earth several billion years later, God sparked life. Then when monkeys come around with Apolyton bananas in their hands, God, using His finger as "gun", shot intellegence into the monkey's head and behold the evolution of man started. Millions of years later, the glory of man kind has now reached its hight, which is spending countless hours sitting in front a glowing box debating how we came to be. Such irony in that IMHO.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Goingonit
God saw him - but god is omniscient. And those three are, according to Rabbi Plaut, who wrote the commentary which I have:



And the idea is that they appeared to Abraham as ordinary men: if he beholds the Divine presence, of course he's going to feed it.

Adding to the Bible is a no-no. You and the Rabbi just did that. The passage is very clear. Abraham was talking to Jehovah. Jehovah had no need to send Angels or go himself if he was omniscent. The fact is the story was added in to justify the slaughter of everyone in Sodom and Gomorah by someone that noticed the Jehovah came off as a raging psychopath. It was a patch job and a bad one. Nevertheless the patch has Abraham talking to Jehovah. Not three angels either and you can tell that because only TWO go to Lots house.

Devine prescense is not mentioned at all by Jehovah. He said no one can see him and live. He made no caveats or limitations in any way whatsoever. So again that is adding to the Bible. It takes a lot of brass to put words in the mouth of Jehovah.

Oh yes Jehovah also appears to Abraham in the preceeding chapter 17.

However as a punishment for adding to the Bible I will inflict you with the curse of knowledge. Another contradiction. This one is all in one chapter.


Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where (is) Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: (Am) I my brother's keeper?

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Gen 4:11 And now (art) thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment (is) greater than I can bear.

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


So there is Cain being cursed to be vagabond to wonder with no limitations on the punishment and even a mark on him so he will not be killed. Everyone would know the evil of Cain.

Where everyone came from is another question. The Bible has an awfull lot of people wandering around that seem completely unrelated to Adam and Eve. Well accuracy and credibility isn't the Bible's strong suit.

Now on to the contradiction. Same chapter.


Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Some vagabond. Couldn't even wait till the next chapter to found a city and have children. Thats not wandering. Its not the actions of a vagabond.

If you try to make this go away please try not to add to the Bible this time around. Unless you are a prophet that is. If you are a prophet remember the punishment for making even one mistake.