Illuminati vs. Jesus [a debate about evolution]

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

She can also fight back or call for help, while an egg is passive. A small animal that could break through the shell of a "human egg" and eat the contents would find itself smashed with the nearest heavy object if it tried that with a pregnant woman.

I think I saw this on "The Big Bang Theory".

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by reef shark

If you dont believe me, translate the KJV back into greek and then hebrew yourself. The proof is there, dont believe anybody based on word of mouth alone.

I tried that. It turns out Jesus is a super karate monkey death car.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I tried that. It turns out Jesus is a super karate monkey death car.

Is that the prequel to Robo Geisha?

[Bryan Ekers]

I dunno, but he kept saying "All your cross are belong to us."

[John DiFool]

Welp, he hasn't been on since 1pm today folks-draw your own conclusions.

[kaylasdad99]

He went extinct?

[Wendell Wagner]

O.K., reef shark, so you know that the King James Version is always a more accurate translation than any other English-language translation. Great! So you know Greek and Hebrew. Quote for us a dozen Biblical passages in the original language that demonstrate the greater accuracy of the King James Version. Make sure some are from the Old Testament and some are from the New Testament, so we can check on the quality of both the Hebrew and Greek translations. Since most of us don't know Greek or Hebrew, then explain to us precisely what each passage means in English, being careful to explain what makes the passage hard to precisely translate into English. Then quote for us the same passages in all the following translations:

God's Word Translation
Contemporary English Version
New Century Version
Today's English Version
New American Standard
New International Version
Living Bible
Revised Standard Version
Jerusalem Bible
New King James Version
New Revised Standard Version
Revised English Bible
New American Bible
Confraternity Version
New English Bible
Knox's Version
New Living Translation

I have all those versions, so I can check your references. Alas, I don't know Greek or Hebrew and don't own Bibles in those languages. You do know those languages though, so you can tell us all about the fine details of translating from Greek and Hebrew to English. So where did you learn Greek and Hebrew? Anyway, explain for each of the dozen passages and each of the eighteen English-language versions why the King James Version is the best of those eighteen. Golly, I'm honored to be in the presence of a scholar like yourself.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Do you believe in the big bang, or what the bible teaches? Those are the only two options, unless you think youre in the matrix.

Reef said, "There's just three options. Ho, ho.
Bible, Matrix, or the Big Bang. Go, go!"

Just so,
Just so.
Now everybody know

We gots--
Hindus in the Matrix. Yo, yo.
Buddhists in the Matrix. Yo, yo.
Shintos in the Matrix. Yo, yo.
Baha'i in the Matrix. Yo, yo.
Zoroastrians in the Matrix. Yo, yo.

Ain't no Christians in the Matrix. No, no.
Ain't no Christians in the Matrix. No, no.

'Cause they have read the Bible. Whoa, whoa.
Yeah, they have read the Bible. Whoa, whoa.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

He went extinct?

He evolved.

[Astral Rejection]

Clevah girl...

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Welp, he hasn't been on since 1pm today folks-draw your own conclusions.

He intelligently resigned?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Im asking anybody to provide evidence for evolution (not natural selection, or 'micro-evolution'). Thats the opposite of saying I dont need evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

"Thing's don't exist just because you believe in them. THUS SAYETH THE ALMIGHTY CREATURE IN THE SKY!!!"

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

1Qlsa(aka "The Isaiah Scroll") only contains the Book of Isaiah...and there are numerous discrepancies between that scroll and the King James version of that book.

Wrong, the Isaiah Scroll emerged as the precursor to the whole hebrew Old Testament, 2000 years after the first bibles were written. This alone should convince a lot of people if they researched it.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

On evolution- one of the most interesting, and relatively recent, evolutionary stories (in my opinion) is the origin of birds. When I grew up, dinosaurs were reptiles, and cold-blooded. I recall inklings of the birds = dinosaurs idea, but it was not widely accepted.

But now, it is. There are lots and lots of feathered dinosaur fossils- and even four-winged varieties!

If God made everything without evolution, he made it in such a way that fossils and DNA tell a really fascinating (and IMO far more fascinating then the bible) story of life on earth.

So you think reptiles turned into birds??? Scales to feathers???? Is this observable? Thanks anyway.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

It's not the first version in English. Not even the first CoE sanctioned English version. And King James was pretty clear that accuracy wasn't the only concern in the translation. Here's the wiki link, for all that it matters.

The copyright thing also doesn't stand up. Several other English versions are based on direct and often more modern translations. For example, the New American Bible features direct translations from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, rather than an adaptation of the KJV.

The "accurate" translation of any text from any other language is a rather subjective thing at best, anyway. Direct, literal translation of many phrases often don't make sense in other languages, so translators need to have some freedom to interpret intent as well, which is itself dependent on social and cultural norms.

Of all the older English versions of the Bible, the history of the KJV may be the best known, so it boggles the mind how a devotee can get so many of the facts about it wrong.

You posted a link about the KJV, thanks! The NAB came after.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by CurtC

This is dodging my question by changing the subject. The question I asked is:

I'm really curious and would like your answer, because, it seems to me, it's such an obvious flaw in the creationist view. By the way, I appreciate that you're trying to answer the flood of questions here. Very impressive.

You completely ignored my whole post about fossils and the flood, huh?

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after 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 the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

How do you explain the fossilized clams on top of Everest?

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'll cop to being annoyed for about five minutes, but the main point of my objection to the "are there apes in your ancestry?" thing is that one, it's wrong; two, it's a stupid thing to say for several different reasons; and three, if reef shark is going to blame evolution for an increase in crime, being 'un-Christian' about it contradicts his point even though he was also wrong about crime statistics and the start date for the teaching of evolution in schools, not to mention the logic behind the entire proposition.

But your DNA is 50% the same as a banana, right? I didnt make this up.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Latro

That doesn't answer the question.
Why did he have to wait for a genius to come along?
Why are earlier translations, like the Wycliff bible, or later translations, not perfect?

IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The catholic bible isnt the same as the KJV.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Astral Rejection

reef shark, I'm going to take a stab at demonstrating evolution in a fairly visible way, because you seem unmoved by genetic evidence. I expect you'll dismiss this as you did the evidence for whales and horses earlier, but I'm talking about something that interests me, so it'll be fun to try to persuade you.

Back in the Cenezoic, there were a group of birds called the Phorusrhacids, which are more awesomely known as "Terror Birds." These large, carnivorous birds stood about 10 feet tall and lived somewhere between 30 and 1.8 million years ago, with some evidence suggesting they may have lived even longer. One such Terror Bird had an eagle-shaped skull and is possibly the largest bird ever discovered. They represent an extinct class of birds, and are most closely related to Falcons, Parrots, and Passerines (song birds).

These Terror Birds, and especially Titanus Walleri, were the apex predators of their time. The fossil record shows the Phorusrhacids increasing in size as the years tick on, with new off-shoot species appearing. I trust you know enough about how animals work to realize that between most species, interbreeding isn't possible. As new Phorusrhacids appear in the fossil record over the millions of years, we've finally arrived at my question to you: without evolution, where did all of these new, distinct, increasingly-massive bird species come from?

Did these birds change into a different animal? Do condors, albatross, eagles change into something different? Or are they always birds??

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Once again, it is marked as a transitional creature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

And once again, it is not only that one, it is clear that you still think there are no transitional fossils so I think you are not here to see the evidence but only to proselytize.

Please post your best one. Thank you.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

Ah, hell no. This thread would be up to 48 pages by now and 98% of that would be them two going back and forth.

Besides the people responding here have done a great job explaining evolution to reef shark he is just refusing to listen or learn.

Thanks for your input. Why didnt you post your best evidence? Its a recurring theme here "there are tons of examples', 'endless lists', 'mainstream scientists agree'... Majority opinion doesnt mean anything. Are you guys still proud you voted for bush and his dad?

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

He's thinking of snakes. In whales, those tiny bones are undetectable unless one dissects a dead whale- there is no protuberance in the skin. But it's exactly what one would expect had whales evolved from four-legged mammals.

Again, ambulocetus was a 4 legged land mammal with hooves. Not a whale. If youre an expert, how do whales mate? How do they attach to one another? .......

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I doubt he's coming back, but he only has one cite anyway:

http://www.godandscience.org/

it's in there somewhere.

Thats the only link i posted? Now youre just lying. Dont bear false witness.

[Latro]

Reef

I appreciate very much that you continue to respond.

But I do have to say that you are only responding. Not actually answering or engaging in debate.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Sure, but he's also wrong about any function for whale's hip bones- and I think it's important to point out the many facts he's got wrong.

Again, please be specific. We can talk in generalities forever.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I tried that. It turns out Jesus is a super karate monkey death car.

I knew you were lurking! Thanks for the appearance! Any comment on how Pearl Harbor and 9/11 werent false flag ops?

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

O.K., reef shark, so you know that the King James Version is always a more accurate translation than any other English-language translation. Great! So you know Greek and Hebrew. Quote for us a dozen Biblical passages in the original language that demonstrate the greater accuracy of the King James Version. Make sure some are from the Old Testament and some are from the New Testament, so we can check on the quality of both the Hebrew and Greek translations. Since most of us don't know Greek or Hebrew, then explain to us precisely what each passage means in English, being careful to explain what makes the passage hard to precisely translate into English. Then quote for us the same passages in all the following translations:

God's Word Translation
Contemporary English Version
New Century Version
Today's English Version
New American Standard
New International Version
Living Bible
Revised Standard Version
Jerusalem Bible
New King James Version
New Revised Standard Version
Revised English Bible
New American Bible
Confraternity Version
New English Bible
Knox's Version
New Living Translation

I have all those versions, so I can check your references. Alas, I don't know Greek or Hebrew and don't own Bibles in those languages. You do know those languages though, so you can tell us all about the fine details of translating from Greek and Hebrew to English. So where did you learn Greek and Hebrew? Anyway, explain for each of the dozen passages and each of the eighteen English-language versions why the King James Version is the best of those eighteen. Golly, I'm honored to be in the presence of a scholar like yourself.

Post the dates they were written please. Again, the Wycliffe/vulgate/catholic bible is not the one im recommending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif%27s_Bible

'Although Wycliffe's Bible circulated widely in the later Middle Ages, it had very little influence on the first English biblical translations of the reformation era such as those of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, as it had been translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek and Hebrew; and consequently it was generally ignored in later English Protestant biblical scholarship. The earliest printed edition, of the New Testament only, was by John Lewis in 1731. However, due to the common misattribution of surviving manuscripts of Wycliffe's Bible as works of an unknown Catholic translator, this version continued to circulate amongst 16th century English Catholics, and many of its renderings of the Vulgate into English were adopted by the translators of the Rheims New Testament. Since the Rheims version was itself to be consulted by the translators working for King James a number of readings from Wycliffe's Bible did find their way into the Authorized King James Version of the Bible at second hand.'

[Latro]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Did these birds change into a different animal? Do condors, albatross, eagles change into something different? Or are they always birds??

There are no such things as MACRO evolution or MICRO evolution.
There's just evolution.

But why don't you give us an example of an animal that was created?
One that has no fossils of it nor its entire species before, say 10.000 years ago.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by reef shark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The catholic bible isnt the same as the KJV.

Originally Posted by reef shark

Post the dates they were written please. Again, the Wycliffe/vulgate/catholic bible is not the one im recommending.

We don't care what you are recommending.
We want you to explain why God couldn't write clearly what he means before the writing of the KJV nor after
WHY isn't the Catholic bible the same as the KJV?

[Latro]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, ambulocetus was a 4 legged land mammal with hooves. Not a whale. .

A transitional animal. Thanks for your input.

[EVIL COW PIE]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, Genesis answers your question.

So you are afraid to answer this question. I find it ironic that you have spent this entire thread asking for specifics yet you continue to spout generalities and second hand sources.

How long, in years, do you believe the earth has existed? In your own words please.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by Latro

A transitional animal. Thanks for your input.

Youve obviously never seen a cow or horse before...Those arent whales.

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by EVIL COW PIE

So you are afraid to answer this question. I find it ironic that you have spent this entire thread asking for specifics yet you continue to spout generalities and second hand sources.

How long, in years, do you believe the earth has existed? In your own words please.

Again, the burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove their theory worthy of being in public science books as fact. Why are you asking me to prove the bible to you? Im not asking for God to be put in the books. The fact that you dont get this concept is very troubling to me.

[EVIL COW PIE]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, the burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove their theory worthy of being in public science books as fact. Why are you asking me to prove the bible to you? Im not asking for God to be put in the books. The fact that you dont get this concept is very troubling to me.

You are "debating" dishonestly.

I'm not asking you to prove the bible.

Let's try this. If you won't answer this directly and honestly, then answer one of the following:

A. Why won't you answer the question?

or...

B. Please cite the passage (exactly) so I can look up the age of the earth, in years, for myself.




^{For your sake I'll overlook the childish and laughable tactic of you being "troubled" by my question. You did open this as a debate, right?}

[reef shark]

Originally Posted by EVIL COW PIE

You are "debating" dishonestly.

I'm not asking you to prove the bible.

Let's try this. If you won't answer this directly and honestly, then answer one of the following:

A. Why won't you answer the question?

or...

B. Please cite the passage (exactly) so I can look up the age of the earth, in years, for myself.




^{For your sake I'll overlook the childish and laughable tactic of you being "troubled" by my question. You did open this as a debate, right?}

Read the first 8-10 chapters of Genesis (from the kjv). I cant explain it any better.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

All the best to you.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Youve obviously never seen a cow or horse before...Those arent whales.

Ambulocetus does not have hooves.

Why do you state it has?

[EVIL COW PIE]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Read the first 8-10 chapters of Genesis (from the kjv).

Hmm. I read the link you provided (thanks) and it did not say one word about how old reef shark thinks the earth is. Maybe you're not understanding the question. I shall restate:

reef shark, I want to know how old you think the earth is in years, in your own words. I'm not asking how old the KJV says it is. However, if you agree with the KJV please free to re-state in your own words.

I cant explain it any better.

Sure you can! Fill in this blank:

The earth is _________ years old.

It's easy really.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by reef shark

So you think reptiles turned into birds??? Scales to feathers???? Is this observable? Thanks anyway.

I suspect you have an unworkable definition of 'observe', at least as applies to your opponents in this discussion. Is Noah's flood observable?

[coremelt]

I am guessing reef shark is getting his bullet points from articles like this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

But he's doing a pretty bad job and mixing up a lot of the counter arguments. Can't you even keep your creationist talking points straight? you need to go back and brush up a bit.

The article by Harun Yaha does seem to actually have some good points against the claimed transitional fossil sequence from Ambulocetus to Whales, any one want to explain if its got any merit or not?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, please be specific. We can talk in generalities forever.

We've noticed that about your posts.

Your inability to actually engage in a discussion, simply throwing out Creationist tripe and running away, accompanied by a lot of utterly silly mixtures of politics, poor theology, and distorted history are not actually persuading anyone to do anything but point at your posts and laugh.

Why don't you pick a single topic and make the effort to engage other posters at an intellectual level? Posting bumper sticker canards is really failing in whatever effort you think you are making.

[Wendell Wagner]

reef shark writes:

> Post the dates they were written please.

But you claim to know that each of them isn't as good a translation as the King James Version. You have said that the King James Version is the best translation. That means that you have looked at all the other translations into English. (And the list I made doesn't include any obscure versions, just the reasonably well-known versions that can easily be found in bookstores.) How can you not know about these versions? Didn't you read them to check your claim that the King James Version is the best one? Furthermore, why are you asking me to look up the dates they are written? They each have Wikipedia entries. You could look all of them up in a few minutes. Don't you know how to use Wikipedia? Furthermore, you claim to be able to tell what the best translation is. That means that you know Greek and Hebrew, right?

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, ambulocetus was a 4 legged land mammal with hooves. Not a whale. If youre an expert, how do whales mate? How do they attach to one another? .......

When mating, whales swim belly-to-belly, and the male has an extraordinarily long and prehensile penis to facilitate coitus. They do not "attach" to each other.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Read the first 8-10 chapters of Genesis (from the kjv). I cant explain it any better.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

All the best to you.

I read it, and it is not in there. The fact that you asked me to read the first 8 to 10 chapters, instead of answering my question directly, shows that you probably haven't read those chapters yourself because you don't know where in there the answer might be-you only believe some Creationist jive about what that section of the Bible "really" means. Are you afraid that if you post the number that your religionist leaders told you to believe is the date when life began you would look foolish? If this is your best, you are failing massively. Either you can directly answer this question, or you can't:
How long ago do you think life began on this planet?
If you don't know, have the guts to say so.

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, ambulocetus was a 4 legged land mammal with hooves. Not a whale. If youre an expert, how do whales mate? How do they attach to one another? .......

Oh, and ambulocetus had a very long skull and big, carnivore teeth. Very much like a whale's skull.

Now, it is unlikely that modern whales are directly descended from the populations of ambulocetus from which we happen to have found the remains. This is much less relevant than it may sound, as we do not have examples of specimens from every population of related animals which ever existed.
Ambulocetus shows clearly that there existed semi-aquatic animals with whale-like features in a time earlier than fully aquatic whales. That is what "transitional" means.
Also, the question of what "whale-like features" are significant and which are trivial gets very technical and boring, and (and I mean this with no intention of disrespecting you) you do not have the background to understand the arguments or conclusions.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by reef shark

How do you explain the fossilized clams on top of Everest?

Like this.

Yay! Now we can add plate tectonics to the muddle too!

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by reef shark

So you think reptiles turned into birds??? Scales to feathers???? Is this observable? Thanks anyway.

Yes, dinosaurs turned into birds. We don't know for sure if feathers evolved from scales, but that's one idea. But we know they did evolve- and on dinosaurs (which, in a way, are a "transitional form" between reptiles and birds). We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs that didn't fly- like Pedopenna and the Troodontidae family.

Originally Posted by reef shark

Again, ambulocetus was a 4 legged land mammal with hooves. Not a whale. If youre an expert, how do whales mate? How do they attach to one another? .......

Ambulocetus certainly spent a lot of time in the water. Here are some more transitional cetaceans: Rodhocetus, and Protocetus- Protocetus was a whale that had toes (why does a whale have toes?). You can even see the "transition" in the fossil record from legs that are gradually changing shape into fins, and the rear fins get smaller and smaller until the only remnant are the floating, unattached tiny hip bones in modern whales.

Whales mate side-to-side, or belly-to-belly, with a very large and agile phallus. The tiny hip bone remnants do nothing and are truly vestigial- you can't even feel them along the whale's skin.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by reef shark

How do you explain the fossilized clams on top of Everest?

How do you account for the fact that they are fossilized and quite a bit older than any biblical flood?

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by reef shark

Read the first 8-10 chapters of Genesis (from the kjv). I cant explain it any better.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

All the best to you.

I read it all, and I still can't find the age of the earth. Where is it? Do you even know? Can you give us a hint? You're not being very helpful here...

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

How do you account for the fact that they are fossilized and quite a bit older than any biblical flood?

And what about that evidence of ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams?

[Rubixcube]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I read it all, and I still can't find the age of the earth. Where is it? Do you even know? Can you give us a hint? You're not being very helpful here...

I think that reef shark is referencing Genesis 5 which lists the ages of biblical characters from their first born and then again at their death, as well as the time frames mentioned in the next few chapters. If you crunch all the numbers you get 2006 years from the birth of Adam to the death of Noah. However this doesn't actually say how old the earth is.