YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

[infamouspoo]

I also disagree with your primary assumptions. What you call the OT is a bunch of badly translated myths written by a desert tribe. It contradicts inself in many places. Many words have no agreed translation because the biblical hebrew used no vowel pointers (one example is the hebrew for milk and fat is the same without the voewels so the command not to boil a kid in its mothers milk could be read as 'fat'. So those who seperate milk and meat could be totally wrong) and loads of Aramaiac is also chucked in.
Hardly the perfect word of god is it.

[BestValue]

"I'll live with it."

But you'll also get reported so you might end up living with it off Mumsnet. Just sayin'.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

You can just say what you like, you can report what you like, but MN makes the rules, and swearing is allowed.

[BestValue]

Thanks for coming back, infamous.

We covered the part about the primary assumptions extensively on the first thread. I would disagree with YOUR primary assumptions which lead you to conclude that evolution is true and God doesn't exist. But for the sake of the discussion, I can put that aside, step into your shoes and see the world as you see it. I'm just asking for the same courtesy. Do you at least acknowledge that the OT, as wrong as it may be, teaches a young earth? Is that not what the writers and the first readers would have understood the text to mean?

Regarding Aramaic in the OT, I've never heard that before. Not saying you're wrong but a quick Google search turned up this site.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1707-aramaic-language-among-the-jews

It says, "How long this process of Aramaization lasted is not known. About the year 300 B.C. Aramaic makes its appearance in Jewish literature."

The OT was completed by about 400 B.C. so that would preclude any Aramaic from creeping in. But I'm open to your evidence, infamous, and also why Aramaic in the OT would pose a problem for its reliability.

[BestValue]

"You can just say what you like, you can report what you like, but MN makes the rules, and swearing is allowed."

Swear at someone else if you like but I don't have to tolerate it if it's directed at me and I won't.

[infamouspoo]

Aramaic in the OT would suggest that the entire OT wasnt given to Moshe on Sinai as one perfect book, no? Which is the assumption of Christian and ultra-orthodox jews. Surely god wouldnt pop in a different language plus contradictions?
And no, I dont see any evidence for a young earth in the Torah. I see the mythological stories of the beginnings of the jewish people, an attempt to explain where we all came from, mixed up with the history of the jewish people. I see a primitive guess at the wonders of the universe by bronze age desert tribes people. Thats what I see. And I am truly puzzled that anyone would take it as fact rather than a glimpse into how an ancient people thought and lived.

[infamouspoo]

As for swearing, far as I know, MNHQ dont delete for swearing, just for personal attacks. Its in the guidelines. If they banned for swearing it would be a very empry forum of 'insane mommies'

[BestValue]

"MNHQ dont delete for swearing,"

Just my luck.

"'insane mommies'"

You DO realize I never used that expression, right? You're just (to use a Britishism) taking the piss out of me?

[BestValue]

"I see a primitive guess at the wonders of the universe by bronze age desert tribes people. Thats what I see. And I am truly puzzled that anyone would take it as fact rather than a glimpse into how an ancient people thought and lived."

I see the Word of God. But I am completely open to re-evaluating those three primary assumptions. I want to see it how you see it. If you have links or books to recommend, you can send them to me privately and I promise I will read them.

[infamouspoo]

Maybe tomorrow cos here in the UK its time for Game of Thrones

[SolidGoldBrass]

Best, guess what: you are not in charge and nor is your imaginary friend. Stay, and make yourself look even sillier, or trot off back to your likeminded playmates and carry on looking collectively silly. For all your big words, you're not actually capable of rational argument, because you are starting from a postion of complete and utter irrationality - that there is a god of some sort and that it's a prankster.

[infamouspoo]

www.liberaljudaism.org/images/pdf/leaflets/lj_values_biblical_criticism.pdf

[LizzyDay]

Best - bit of social media info for you in case it's helpful - Mumsnet's official Twitter tagline is:

"Oh you know, that website, for parents. No, not that one, the other one. With the biscuits. And the swearing."

[BestValue]

"Best, guess what: you are not in charge and nor is your imaginary friend."

Guess what, SGB? I am in charge of myself and I simply will not respond to anyone's abuse.

Mumsnet's official Twitter tagline is: "Oh you know, that website, for parents. No, not that one, the other one. With the biscuits. And the swearing."

Is it really, Lizzie? LOL! No, I was not aware of that. There are different types of swearing and I can't believe some are actually defending the right to do it. But if it is directed at me I will not respond. So I just recommend not spending time writing a long message with a bunch of questions, then tossing in some cure words at the end because you'll be wasting everyone's time.

Thanks for the link, Infamous. It's only 4 pages so I can read it tonight. Would you like a response?

[Emmamumsy]

Yay, best is back! I'll be following along and might pop in periodically with a question or two. I just wanted you to know that not all atheists are as rude, condescending and irrational as those on Mumsnet. Stay strong.

[BestValue]

Thanks, Emma. I will. I look forward to engaging with another person who agrees to abide by the rules of logic and reason - even if we disagree about the conclusions we reach.

[BestValue]

Infamous, that PDF was much shorter than I thought so I just read it. I had concerns from the start when I saw it was called LIBERAL Judaism. To me that means they have taken God's Word and watered it down to mix in man's fallible ideas to suit their own agenda. (It's the same thing that happened to the Catholic Church and is what lead to the Protestant Reformation.)

I'm all for biblical criticism as long as it's employed to better understand the meaning of the text. The first paragraph of the PDF you referenced admits that my view was the view held for most of Jewish history. Paragraph 3 says that although it is not an entirely new phenomenon, the liberal view took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries. I believe this is because Hutton, Lyell and Darwin had seemingly done away with the need for an old earth, a global flood and a creator so the elite thought it necessary to re-interpret the Bible in light of modern science. They, in effect, put man's fallible opinion above God's infallible Word.

Paragraph 4 mentions the Epic of Gilgamesh. I believe that, while this Babylonian myth was written down BEFORE Moses' account of the flood, the Genesis story is much more accurate (eg. the dimensions of the boat). It would be fallacious to conclude that just because one writing was recorded first, later writings must have copied from it. There are actually very few similarities between the two stories and where they differ, the Genesis account has the hallmarks of recorded history whereas the EoG seems to be a human invention.

Let me recommend an approach to you that might persuade me. Starting with the text itself of Genesis 1 and 2, if you could show me that, what seems to me is obviously explaining a creation of the world and the universe in six-literal days, is more reasonably interpreted as teaching long eras of time and evolution, I will consider it.

The question it would raise for me is how intelligent can this God be if he can't even inspire authors to get some of the simplest things right. The entire issue is one of biblical authority. Jesus said, "How can you trust me when I speak of heavenly things if you do not believe me when I speak of earthly things?" If Jesus is God in human flesh, then he inspired the Bible (and is in fact our Creator.) His question is valid. Why should we trust what Jesus says about his ability to save us from sin, the future resurrection, heaven and hell, life and death if we can't trust what he tells us about how he created the world?

[AgeofReason]

Oh, my. Are you sure about this Best? Do you really want to debate the divine inspiration of the Bible?? Here? You realize that as the one making the claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence? Perhaps you should go with something a little safer... like your thoughts on objective morality, or tap dancing in a minefield. Just sayin'. You've yet to provide credible evidence of divine creation, which was sorta the point to these threads, so maybe some more on that? But if this is what you want, so be it. You know I'm up for it. I'll even make a concession right here - the original authors of the Bible meant 6 literal days in Genesis. Ok, so what??

[BestValue]

"You've yet to provide credible evidence of divine creation, which was sorta the point to these threads, so maybe some more on that?"

No, that wasn't the point of these threads. It was young earth creationism. I really should be avoiding this topic like I said I would but I like Infamous. She's being nice.

"I'll even make a concession right here - the original authors of the Bible meant 6 literal days in Genesis. Ok, so what??"

Good. That was what I asked for in my second post on Thread #1. Now, read this - 101 scientific evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Refute 50% of them and then we'll talk. :^)

creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[AgeofReason]

Oh good grief! Let's simplify this a little, shall we? Show me one of those 101, just one, that's has passed peer review in its related branch of science. I'll wait...

[BestValue]

"Show me one of those 101, just one, that's has passed peer review in its related branch of science. I'll wait..."

They've ALL passed peer-review, Age. (See the corresponding articles and their foot notes.) Besides, peer-review is kind of a myth anyway. The Bible is much more peer-reviewed than any experiment found in the literature today. And peer-review doesn't determine truth. So that's three strikes . . . and you know what that means.

[Januarymadness]

hello again Age. Having read Bests link like a good girl) I agree with you. There is just no peer reviewed reseach wich backs that up. Not to mention that some of the arguments still make the earth millions, not thousands, of years old. i.e the mountain range one. Also the mt eve one has been consistantly refuted by every study.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Best - who is it you want to debate with here?

I applaud the posters that did engage with you on the other thread - they did it very well - and obviously either took issue with your assumptions in their posts, or just laid out the arguments for evolutionary biology regardless.

But posters who are atheists, agnostics, even many christians - are simply unable to accept your 3 assumptions. A lot of christians do not believe that the bible can be taken literally. If you only want to engage with people who accept your 3 assumptions, you're limiting your audience very much - pretty much to others who are likeminded to yourself.

[BestValue]

To those of you who might still be wanting me to provide a grounding for my first three assumptions, here's something I worked out a while back. As I mentioned before, I am a very linear thinker. (It's practically evolutionary - one small step at a time.)

First, we start off with the idea that children are predisposed to believe in God. We are not born atheists as the New Atheists like to claim. Here's evidence for that:

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

So that's our stating point. There is enough evidence for design in the natural world that it is at least reasonable to conclude that a Designer might exist. But can we know anything about Him/Her/Them?

STEP #1: The truth about God can be known. (To claim it cannot is to make a truth-claim about God and is thus self-refuting.)

But what role does empirical science play in providing evidence for such a being?

STEP #2: The existence of God cannot be either proved or disproved using the scientific method (because it limits itself to studying only natural phenomena and has no access to a supernatural entity such as God).

But if a Creator/Creators really made the universe, shouldn't we be able to see evidence of Him/Her/Them?

STEP #3: However, if a God (or gods) exist which can periodically interact with the natural world, we could study such points of interaction.

But can we PROVE such a Creator exists using science? What role does faith play?

STEP #4: The scientific method itself does not (and cannot) provide absolute proof for anything. Therefore all worldviews, whether theistic or atheistic, must rely on faith based on evidence which is apprehended through our five senses.

What evidence for a Creator do we find?

STEP #5: At least three lines of argument supported by such evidence - the Kalam Cosmological Argument (the beginning of time, space and matter) the fine-tuning of the universe and the information encoded in DNA - seem to demand the existence of an intelligent designer (or designers).

See details on this evidence here:

Why not many gods?

STEP #6: The Principle of Parsimony (Occam's Razor) indicates that only one God is necessary to explain the aforementioned features of the universe (effectively ruling out the gods of Hinduism and other false gods).

But what is this God like?

STEP #7: The Moral Argument (the existence of objective morality) dictates that this Intelligent Designer must be personal, moral, loving and just.

But which of the many gods of history fits the evidence best?

STEP #8: The Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible is the only proposed God who seems to fit the observable evidence best.

How would we find out more about this God?

STEP #9: The Bible appears to be the only accurate, reliable and historically-verifiable account of God's interactions with His creation. The Bible tells us about Jesus Christ.

But who is this Jesus person and why should we trust anything he says?

STEP #10: Jesus Christ appears to be exactly whom He claimed to be - an accurate representation of God manifest in the flesh (John 14:9).

What evidence did Jesus provide?

STEP #11. Jesus gave us evidence of His claim to divinity by taking the punishment for our sins, dying on the cross and rising from the dead on the third day.

Now that we know God exists, what should we do about it?

STEP #12. Thus, we have logical and rational grounds for putting our faith in Jesus Christ and following His command to repent of our sins and enter into a relationship with Him.

There you have it. A 12-Step program for those who need to kick the habit of atheism and turn their lives around. I realize it won't convince you but rational arguments rarely convince everyone. This is a heart issue, not an evidential one. You might have had dozens of good solid, logical reasons why you married your spouse but ultimately it came down to an emotional choice - and of course to LOVE.

[Januarymadness]

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOju_lpqa6Ug

I have a good video for you. If anyone knows how I can make it clickable from the android app I will happilly oblige.