Can you point to the original source for this claim?
I checked the icr website and some recent issues and cannot find it. I am pretty sure it was in icr’s magazine. I will get back to you if I find it. I am sure I read it in the last month sometime but cannot find it right now.
St. Augustine was a pretty strong proponent of Faith. And he disasgrees with your statement completely.
Then there probably isn’t anything more to discuss. No evidence will ever change your mind.
You can’t use any old sample to date a volcanic eruption. If the rock contains unmelted crust materials, called xenoliths, then that sample can not be used for dating the volcanic eruption. It doesn’t matter how well respected the lab is, if you take them a bad sample you will get bad results.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:221, topic:36748”]
Although Christians, or anyone for that matter, can get overzealous and make claims they cannot back up to prove their point, I generally find that the people who believe that God said, “thou shall not lie”, are more honest than those who do not believe that.
If you start digging into creationist arguments you will find just the opposite. Using improper samples for radiometric dating is just one example.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:221, topic:36748”]
Biological production is just one function the ‘complex machine’ performs after it has already been built. The dna is already assembled in the cells and God has designed such a marvelous machine that it can reproduce itself. So you weren’t randomly assembled. Everything was already assembled with the capability to reproduce.
Where is the evidence for these claims?
You misunderstand the point that was being made. You said that you being born was evidence of something putting itself together. That is incorrect. The reason you were able to be born is that your parents were given the ability to form a cell with your dna and that is how you grew. You did not evolve from a hydrogen molecule. The dna, cell structure, and your mother’s womb were already put together to form you. You did not come into being by having molecules randomly assembling themselves. That is not how we ever see complex things form, just like my example with pickup sticks. If you drop them they do not form a log cabin. We have no example of complex things putting themselves together. All of our observations of complex things that WE KNOW HOW THEY CAME TOGETHER have a designer. That is science. Assuming things came together by themselves(evolution) is not science. It is nonsense. (Yes, theistic evolution says God did it and that is possible because then you have the designer you need, but he has told us plainly that is not how he did it and the evidence in the world shows it did not happen that way.)
I have volunteered to keep count of the number of YEC’s that have come onto these pages and contradicted all the dictionaries and encyclopedias regarding the definition of Science and/or the definition of Evolution.
You will be proud to know that you are the 1,740th such YEC… since 3 weeks ago.
I said that biological reproduction was a natural process. Do you disagree?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:232, topic:36748”]
The reason you were able to be born is that your parents were given the ability to form a cell with your dna and that is how you grew. You did not evolve from a hydrogen molecule. The dna, cell structure, and your mother’s womb were already put together to form you. You did not come into being by having molecules randomly assembling themselves.
Nowhere in the process of evolution are organisms evolving from a hydrogen molecule, so I don’t understand why you are making this argument. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate, just as we are still a primate. That primate was not a hydrogen molecule.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:232, topic:36748”]
All of our observations of complex things that WE KNOW HOW THEY CAME TOGETHER have a designer.
Where is the evidence for a designer putting together organisms? When have we observed a supernatural deity creating a life form?
Sounding a little like Ken "Were you there?"Ham.
I was using @Bill_Smith criteria:
" All of our observations of complex things that WE KNOW HOW THEY CAME TOGETHER have a designer."
I would also accept evidence found in the present for claims of what happened in the past, just for the record.
You said biological reproduction was a natural process in response to me saying, "It is utter nonsense to believe that things just put themselves together. If you drop a bunch of pickup sticks they do not form a log cabin on their own."
You said, "Have you not heard of biological reproduction? I didn’t form by things just putting themselves together, and I also wasn’t created supernaturally. My parents made me through very natural processes, at least the way they tell it."
The point you are missing is that things do not put themselves together as evolution requires. Biological reproduction is not an example of something putting itself together. It is already put together. The dna, the womb, etc. are already put together. The ‘complex machine’ has already been assembled that performs biological reproduction. It is a natural process, but it is a process being executed by something that is already assembled. An example of something putting itself together would be a hydrogen atom just randomly joining with other atoms to form a person or going out to the desert and waiting for the sand to form a new car for you.
The evidence is that we have never seen anything complex THAT WE KNOW HOW IT CAME TO BE formed without a designer. You can go against all of our experience(our science) and have blind faith that living things came about by a process that we have never seen operate, but I choose to believe that our uniform experience is correct and living things did not randomly assemble, there must have been a designer, just like everything else that is complex had to have.
An even greater evidence is that God has said he is the designer who made it all in 6 days. As I said above, the case for the Bible and Christianity being true is unbeatable.
I don’t think you have an accurate definition of faith. I hear this a lot. Everyone uses faith all the time. You are taking it on faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You cannot prove conclusively that there will not be some catastrophe tomorrow that will wipe out the sun which was undetected by any of our instruments. You just take it on faith that it will come up. Now, you have pretty good reasons for putting your faith in the sun coming up and can probably predict within a nanosecond when it will appear where you live if you take the time to do so and find the right website. It is still faith. Reasonable faith, but still faith. I believe that Christianity has all the reasons behind it and so it is a reasonable faith and that evolution has no reasons behind it and so it requires blind faith to believe it.
Maybe the problem is that he doesn’t have your definition of faith.
You may have read this or known it already, but they pointed to a good article on the Hittites (pointed to by this website).
Here is the address in case you have not seen it.
Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?
You are going to be arguing this forever if you don’t specifically state which Biblical references are for the Anatolian Hittites and which ones are for another group that is commonly (and erroneously) labeled as Hittites.
From the article linked by you yourself we read this very articulate discussion:
"There was a time when historians scoffed at the name Hittite(s) in the OT since it was not
known outside the Bible.[FN 4: For convenience, I shall use Hittite(s) to represent both
Hethite(s) and Hittite(s) in our English translations, until the end of the article when I shall
separate the two.]
Archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey and
Syria from the early nineteenth century on, however, have revealed an Indo-European
group scholars have dubbed “Hittites” (as opposed to “Hethites”), who established an
empire in Anatolia that became a major power in the ancient Near East. But a serious
" The Biblical references to Hittites living in Canaan appear to be
unhistorical since there is no evidence—linguistic, historical, or archaeological—for a Hittite
presence in Canaan. Kempinsky attempted to establish an early twelfth-century migration of
Hittites to Canaan, requiring Abraham to be placed in the thirteenth-twelfth century BC,
but this scenario finds little support in the archaeological record.
Singer recently reviewed the finds and concluded:
the archaeological evidence seems hardly sufficient to prove a presence of northern
Hittites in Palestine. After a century of intensive excavations, all that has surfaced is a
handful of Hittite seals and about a dozen pottery vessels that exhibit some northern
artistic influences. The seals may have belonged to Hittite citizens who passed through
Canaan, and the vessels may have filtered gradually into Palestine through various Syrian
intermediaries. The paucity of tangible evidence becomes even more conspicuous in the
face of the absence of two salient features of Hittite culture—the hieroglyphic script and
the cremation burial—both of which seem to have extended only as far south as the
region of Hama in central Syria.
As for the Biblical use of the term Hittite(s) for residents of Canaan, Singer subscribes to an
anachronistic explanation. He believes the name came from the Assyrian period when the
term Ḫattiwas used for Anatolia, Syria, and Israel.
The difficulty, which Gelb said was “a historical enigma,” has been described succinctly by
Ishida: “although the Hebrew Bible often mentions the Hittites among the original
inhabitants of the Promised Land, we have had so far no definite evidence of a Hittite
presence in Palestine in the second millennium B.C. Therefore recent studies are reluctant to
regard biblical references to the Hittites in Palestine as historical.”
The purposes of this paper are to clear up the confusion by sorting out the non-Hittites from
the genuine Hittites, and offer a means to distinguish between the two."
@Bill_Smith, what is a shame is the author wrote this perfect sentence for you:
“There was a time when historians scoffed at the name Hittite(s) in the OT since it was not
known outside the Bible.”
And then he didn’t give us any examples of who these historians were. I suppose it doesn’t
matter - - if they were wrong.
At this point in the discussion on Hittites, I’m not sure if either one of you would be willing to agree with the author’s very persuasive conclusion:
Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum
Nov 08, 2011 - by Bryant G. Wood, PhD
"The problem is one of semantics and terminology. As the term Hittites for the Indo-
Europeans of Anatolia and north Syria is firmly embedded in the scholarly and popular
literature, that name cannot be changed. Because the Bible writers
distinguished between the two groups, this should be reflected in our English
translations. I suggest an ecumenical solution to the problem. Since the
demonyms ~yTixi (ḥittîm) and tYOTixi (ḥittîyōt) refer to the Indo-Europeans
of Anatolia and northern Syria, I propose retaining the
Protestant term “Hittites” for those entities."
"For the ethnonyms yTixi (ḥittî) and tyTixi (ḥittît), on the other hand, the
Roman Catholic term Hethite(s) is the correct choice, since yTixi (ḥittî) is
synonymous with txe-ynEB. (be nê ḥēt) and tyTixih; (haḥittît) is synonymous
with txetAnB. (be nôt ḥēt). "
"If these changes were incorporated into future translations of our English
Bibles, it would clearly distinguish the indigenous descendants of txe (ḥēt)
from the people of Ḫatti and alleviate present misunderstandings."
Yes, I saw that when I read the article. I have also read others who say the same thing. I suppose that I could go back and dig up quotes by Graf and Wellhausen and others to prove my point but I didn’t think it was worth the time. The position given by Singer also bolsters my argument(Singer subscribes to ananachronistic explanation). It is well known, as evidenced by the quote I gave from Albright, that historians have said the Bible is wrong and then they were later proved wrong and the Bible right as more information came to light. I have also witnessed the ridicule of the Bible by those who do not believe it, including by scholars. As far as the different theories on the Hittites, the article may be correct which is why I repeated the link that someone, maybe you(I forget), had posted… As I mentioned in a previous post I had read or thought of some of the possibilities long ago when I was looking into the question. I actually found a short discussion by Yamauchi from 1972 in a book I bought back then that mentions the possibilities that are also discussed in the article by Bryant Wood. It is also discussed in some of my other books.
Bryant’s position may be right. It sounds reasonable to me. There could also be a relationship that traces the both the Hittites and Hethites back to Heth, one of Canaan’s descendants. It could be just a coincidIence that the names are similar, but maybe not. It can get a little tricky when delving into tracing the genealogies and following the historical record for the correlation. Some parts are obvious and others less certain. I would have to look into it again to see what I think.
As I just now posted, it may very well be right. It makes a lot of sense although there could be more to it also as I said in my previous post.
Awwww… now you ruined it. You are going to try to make both types of Hittites tie ultimately to the same references in the Table of Nations?
The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 is hardly historical. It is based on geographical knowledge circa 600’s BCE. And I would hazard a guess that I don’t think there is anything in the Bible that is truly about the Anatolian Hittites … so really, the original critics of the term in the Bible were right for the wrong reasons - - the Hittites that Bible refers to are not the Anatolian type at all.
You assume too much.