Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 06-05-2002, 10:30 AM

No--I'm not getting into translations, since it also use covey the next passage. There is NO translation error there. The only error is in the original error.

Oh, and the definition of species as being able to produce fertile offspring--that is the evolutionists definition.

randman · 06-05-2002, 10:42 AM

Care to prove there was no error in the original texts?

The word "hare" appears twice in the KJV, and is translated from a word with an uncertain root. Look it up.

RufusAtticus · 06-05-2002, 10:48 AM

Randman, just answer this simple question.

How do you determine what groups of creatures belong constute immutable kinds?

Follow up questions:

How do you determine where one kind ends and another begins?

Are dogs and wolves in the same kind?

What about dogs and cats?

Are horses and gorillas part of the same kind?

Are humans and chimps the same kind?

Are all creatures of the same kind related by common descent?

Are bats and birds in the same kind?

How many plant kinds are there?

If accuracy of YEC doesn't depend on bitching about evolution, then you should be able to stop complaining for one post and answer these questions. You have the freedom to ask ICR or AiG for the answers.

~~RvFvS~~

RufusAtticus · 06-05-2002, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The word "hare" appears twice in the KJV, and is translated from a word with an uncertain root. Look it up.

And that has what to do with the meaning of the Hebrew?

~~RvFvS~~

lpetrich · 06-05-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

Maybe you should answer how normal taxonomy relates to "kind" since the idea of "kind" predated and actually played a big part in the development of taxonomy. If it is too difficult for you to do, that has little to do with the veracity of the idea of "kind". It is a pretty simple and well-defined concept.

That's like asking where earth, air, fire, and water fit on the Periodic Table of Elements.

And Randman, what do you mean by "kind"? And how does one determine what is and is not in some "kind"?

randman · 06-05-2002, 10:53 AM

Rufos, since you are familiar with AIG and other scientific research on this, I suggest you look up their arguments and post on it.
I defined "kind". If you don't like it, then fine.

Tell you what though. While you are at, please list the taxonomic characteristics for the first "kind" everything descended from, and show us how to prove its existence, and exactly what it was. Take your time now. You can go and look up other web-sites on the matter if you want to.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 06-05-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Care to prove there was no error in the original texts?

The word "hare" appears twice in the KJV, and is translated from a word with an uncertain root. Look it up.

I think that's my point. There IS error in the original texts. Which means (cue scary music) IT IS SUSPECT IN ALL OTHER AREAS.

randman · 06-05-2002, 11:05 AM

Maybe I should rephrase. Could there be some copyists errors? Sure, but that hardly makes the whole thing suspect as you state. The available research, say comparing the dead Sea scrolls of Isaiah, suggests that any errors are infinitismal and inconsequential.

As far as translations, obviously the translation is not as pure as the original lanquage. By the way, have ever considered how English words have chanegd meaning over the past few hundred years. To categorically blast the Bible because a very obscure word appears to have either changed and/or have been mistranslated hardly is a reasoned argument.

But hey, this is the same crowd that blasts the Bible since Hebrew catoegorized bats and birds together.

RufusAtticus · 06-05-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Rufos [sic], since you are familiar with AIG and other scientific research on this, I suggest you look up their arguments and post on it.

It's not my job to do your homework.

Quote:

I defined "kind". If you don't like it, then fine.

You defined kind. Okay. Can you show that it is a usable component to the study of biology?

Quote:

Tell you what though. While you are at, please list the taxonomic characteristics for the first "kind" everything descended from, and show us how to prove its existence, and exactly what it was. Take your time now. You can go and look up other web-sites on the matter if you want to.

Ahh yes. I didn't think you would be able to respond without attacking evolution. Do you have any positive claims or does your entire position rest on biting the ankles of evolution?

I will answer your question. Current research indicates that the original replicator was an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing its own replication.

Now are you going to be a gentleman and stop ankle-biting?

~~RvFvS~~

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

RufusAtticus · 06-05-2002, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
But hey, this is the same crowd that blasts the Bible since Hebrew catoegorized bats and birds together.

No, we blast its use as a modern science text for putting bats and birds together.

Attacks on creationism are not attacks on Christianity, despite the emotional claims of creationists.

~~RvFvS~~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2002, 10:30 AM	#81
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	No--I'm not getting into translations, since it also use covey the next passage. There is NO translation error there. The only error is in the original error. Oh, and the definition of species as being able to produce fertile offspring--that is the evolutionists definition.

06-05-2002, 10:42 AM	#82
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Care to prove there was no error in the original texts? The word "hare" appears twice in the KJV, and is translated from a word with an uncertain root. Look it up.

06-05-2002, 10:48 AM	#83
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Randman, just answer this simple question. How do you determine what groups of creatures belong constute immutable kinds? Follow up questions: How do you determine where one kind ends and another begins? Are dogs and wolves in the same kind? What about dogs and cats? Are horses and gorillas part of the same kind? Are humans and chimps the same kind? Are all creatures of the same kind related by common descent? Are bats and birds in the same kind? How many plant kinds are there? If accuracy of YEC doesn't depend on bitching about evolution, then you should be able to stop complaining for one post and answer these questions. You have the freedom to ask ICR or AiG for the answers. ~~RvFvS~~

06-05-2002, 10:53 AM	#86
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Rufos, since you are familiar with AIG and other scientific research on this, I suggest you look up their arguments and post on it. I defined "kind". If you don't like it, then fine. Tell you what though. While you are at, please list the taxonomic characteristics for the first "kind" everything descended from, and show us how to prove its existence, and exactly what it was. Take your time now. You can go and look up other web-sites on the matter if you want to.

06-05-2002, 11:05 AM	#88
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Maybe I should rephrase. Could there be some copyists errors? Sure, but that hardly makes the whole thing suspect as you state. The available research, say comparing the dead Sea scrolls of Isaiah, suggests that any errors are infinitismal and inconsequential. As far as translations, obviously the translation is not as pure as the original lanquage. By the way, have ever considered how English words have chanegd meaning over the past few hundred years. To categorically blast the Bible because a very obscure word appears to have either changed and/or have been mistranslated hardly is a reasoned argument. But hey, this is the same crowd that blasts the Bible since Hebrew catoegorized bats and birds together.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.