... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham

 

series:
	Creation vs Evolution : thunderf00t ... did you actually say that? (part 1) thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2) Trivium, Quadrivium 7 cætera : Thunderf00t on futile questions Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham

First video commented on:

Thunderf00t : Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

On pretty late in video comment about feminists asked to invade wikipedia:

There is this male chauvinist, very conspicuous such since claming men are sexually mature from medium age 14 plus a few month and women already from age 12. He is also claiming ideal first childbirth for a woman is before age 30, while men can make children (including a first one) no problem when far older than that.

He happend to come across a wikipedia article he found inaccurate and change it.

Or two. Or three. Or ... but not on this subject. Ergo, wiki is invaded by male chauvinists and needs to be invaded by female chauvinists.

I seem to recall that tactic from some video where someone wanted viewers to balance some votebot.

Second video commented on:

Thunderf00t : Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 41, Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7i-dtMaWk

Introduction:

Article cited by Ham and Thnderf00t:

PLOS Genetics etc. [see link, I am giving it, not claiming I read it!]
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016

Apart from returning to one diagram from it, there is some back and forth again and again, the video is - not unlike my own blogs - somewhat rambling.

I

Bible falsified by claim about drinking poison? C'mon, I survived watching the feminists on your video, didn't I?

[See link with my comment above.]

But seriously:

Marc 16:[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.

Take up serpents, verified by St Paul after a shipwreck at Malta.*

Acts 28:[1] And when we had escaped, then we knew that the island was called Melita.* But the barbarians shewed us no small courtesy. [2] For kindling a fire, they refreshed us all, because of the present rain, and of the cold. [3] And when Paul had gathered together a bundle of sticks, and had laid them on the fire, a viper coming out of the heat, fastened on his hand. [4] And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging on his hand, they said one to another: Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, who though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance doth not suffer him to live. [5] And he indeed shaking off the beast into the fire, suffered no harm. [6] But they supposed that he would begin to swell up, and that he would suddenly fall down and die. But expecting long, and seeing that there came no harm to him, changing their minds, they said, that he was a god. [7] Now in these places were possessions of the chief man of the island, named Publius, who receiving us, for three days entertained us courteously.

Note "entertained us" - i e the author (St Luke) was with St Paul and witnessing all of it. Including the snake detail.

"Benedict was acquainted with the life and discipline of the monastery, and knew that "their manners were diverse from his and therefore that they would never agree together: yet, at length, overcome with their entreaty, he gave his consent" (ibid., 3). The experiment failed; the monks tried to poison him. The legend goes that they first tried to poison his drink. He prayed a blessing over the cup and the cup shattered. Then they tried to poison him with poisoned bread. When he prayed a blessing over the bread, a raven swept in and took the loaf away."

Wikipedia : St Benedict of Nursia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_of_Nursia

So what? He didn't actually drink it, right?

Some verb forms can denote inchoative action, an action that only starts. Ask a Greek expert if it is the case with

πιωσιν **
G4095
vs 2Aor Act 3 Pl
THEY-MAY-BE-DRINKING

As to the Latin, biberint***, I am not sure. It is not a form I use often myself or find often in Medieval Texts (I am not much into Ancient ones, and it is not very often in the Vulgate either). I would have to ask.

If it can be so used, then St Benedict by setting out to drink poison and surviving fulfilled the promise.

St Patrick was involved in both kinds of situation. He chased the snakes from Ireland.

Putting hands on sick and healing them is however so often occurring throughout Church History that it has been fulfilled in perhaps a quarter of the non-martyr saints and some martyr saints as well.

II

It has not crossed your mind that scientific estimates of how big bottlenecks were are meant to be in conflict with the Bible - as anyone likely to agree with the Bible is culled out from, not all, but very many faculties of natural science.

So, if evolutionists say the estimated bottleneck was 20.000 individuals, that may mean there were two of them.

Small populations = genes spreading faster through gene pool - well, that means that the speed between bottleneck and us you get from a big population during bottleneck is slower than that from a small population during bottleneck, right?

This means that a bottleneck longer ago and with greater population just after is equivalent to a more recent one with less population just after.

Btw, same goes for human variation after Flood.

Thank you for making my point again.

Sure you are not a very clever creationist under cover?

III

Golden Jackal.

Three scenarios more probably than your humourous quip.

• Diverged from dogs after Flood.
• Noah took it mistakenly for another kind than dog.
• Noah took it correctly for another kind than dog and the Evolutionist diagram is wrong.

Ken Ham said the diagrams were similar, not identical.

IV

Now, as to "iron chariots defeating God" ...

Search:° God was with them iron chariots

No verse contains all the words in the query: 'God was with them iron chariots' ... Hit #8 Deuteronomy 20:1 If thou go out to war against thy enemies, and see horsemen and chariots, and the numbers of the enemy' s army greater than thine, thou shalt not fear them: because the Lord thy God is with thee, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.

Now to Judges 1, verses 17-19:

Haydock Comment for Judges Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id565.html

17 And Juda went with Simeon, his brother, and they together defeated the Chanaanites that dwelt in Sephaath, and slew them. And the name of the city was called Horma, that is, Anathema.

18 And Juda took Gaza, with its confines, and Ascalon, and Accaron, with their confines.

19 And the Lord was with Juda, and he possessed the hill country: but was not able to destroy the inhabitants of the valley, because they had many chariots armed with scythes.

Now to the comment:

Ver. 17. Sephaath, near Maresa, where Asa defeated the king of Arabia, 2 Paralipomenon xiv. 9. It was also called Sephata, and afterwards Horma. (Calmet) --- Septuagint, "they anathematized it, and utterly destroyed it, and they called the city Exolethreusis, "utter ruin." (Haydock) --- Whether they had engaged themselves by vow to do so, or they treated the city in this manner in thanksgiving for the victory, is uncertain. (Menochius)

Ver. 18. Gaza, &c. These were three of the principal cities of the Philistines, famous both in sacred and profane history. They were taken at this time by the Israelites; but as they took no care to put garrisons in them, the Philistines soon recovered them again, (Challoner) or perhaps the villages and territory were only seized by Juda; the cities being too well defended. Josue had not attacked them, Josue xii. 3. Josephus says that only Ascalon and Azotus, in the plain, fell into the hands of the Israelites; and the Roman Septuagint reads with a negation, (Calmet) which is inserted by Grabe in his edition as an interpolation, or as a peculiarity of the Alexandrian manuscripts, "and Juda did [not] possess Gaza with its dependencies, and Ascalon....and Accaron....and Azotus, with its fields around." (Haydock) --- The situation of Gaza, Ascalon and Accaron in the plain, would seem to secure them from being captured, ver. 19. St. Augustine and Procopius admit the negation. But the original and all the versions reject it, so that the children of Juda must have had possession of these cities at least for a short time. (Calmet) See chap. xv., and xvi., and 1 Kings vi. 17. (Menochius)

Ver. 19. Was not able, &c. Through a cowardly fear of their chariots armed with hooks and scythes, and for want of confidence in God. (Challoner) --- Hebrew does not say expressly that Juda could not: quia non ad expellendum, &c. He had not the courage or the will. With God's assistance, what had he to fear? Were these Philistines with their chariots, more terrible than the giants in their fortresses? --- Scythes. Hebrew receb barzel, "chariots of iron." (Calmet) --- The Roman and Alexandrian Septuagint have "Rechab was opposed to them." (Haydock) --- The edition of Basil adds, "and they had chariots of iron," as St. Augustine (q. 5,) reads. A double translation is thus given. (Calmet) --- These chariots were calculated to cut down all that came in contact with them. (Curt. iv.) (Worthington)

Ah, saw those comments first after the signal Ver. 19? Could there be a reference to Deuteronomy 20:1?

V

Wrong size, time and (since local) place for Flood.

Sure, check out in ten years if Londoners have made a Flood legend that is GLOBAL out of the LOCAL flooding, will you!

Rather we take floodings like that one as evidence, by their being so numerous, that this is not what Genesis 7 talks about.

VI

Ah, you have noted that pre-Flood elephants and tigers had the sense to avoid dinosaur company?

Wow, what about drawing that conclusion then!

CMI : Modern Birds with Dinosaurs
http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs

Conclusion:

You know, the reason he throws out all those details which you simply have to notice at closer inspection is that if you went there you would notice the Bible is inconsistent with reality.

Little correction of detail.

It is evolution which on closer inspection°° is either at times found to be inconsistent with reality or with good logic.

Notes

* Melita is the ancient name for Malta.

** Marc 16 in Greek and interlinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf

*** DRBO : highlight for Marc 16:18 in DR/Vulg parallel texts
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=16&l=18#x

° A very good search engine on http://drbo.org

°° Creation vs Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for obsolete because disproven incorrect science
http://petitlien.com/creageo