Elisha

Nik, I've been good. Just going through my usual daily chores of posting, posting, and... erm... posting. I think we can escape the discussions on God's nature by simply concentrating on the impossibily of an actual infinite - something I don't think you'd disagree with. That is why an infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because to posit such a thing is to posit an actual infinite. I could swear you said otherwise at PW, but I'll trust you. Sorry for the strawman. All due respect that seems to be more of a Red Herring - escaping the question by bringing up a question for the theistic side. I've never stated such a thing. I'm questioning certain effects coming from certain causes. It's not a matter of cherry-picking, but simply a matter of intense incredulousness. You'll have to excuse me for being skeptical about a position parallel to a mother birthing a mechanistic, non-personal child. Though, I don't feel it a necessity to answer your questions, I'll do so: Rather than "explain" do you mean "cause". If so, then it's like asking "how can a personal man cause a nonpersonal computer". That's the joy of being personal and conscious - the man can freely choose to do so. I think that's the same with the theistic God. A mechanistic first cause, however, is not personal or conscious. So, the question "how can it cause conscious, personal beings to exist" is followed with an even more important question... why did it even create beings like us? I respect your discussion with the other poster, but me and you have already spent a lot of time discussing those issues. Why not just cut right to the end?

Scientific Atheist, Long time, no chat, Nik. How've you been, man? Is that not tied with the question "why can't an actual infinite actually exist in reality"? The last discussion I had with you, you posited a mechanistic first cause, yet you don't even hold that position? You hold the position that everything came into existence from and by absolute nothingness. Will you offer an elaboration of that position? As for a mechanistic first cause, this doesn't explain how personal can come from non-personal or consciousness from non-consciousness - it adds more questions than it answers. Also, I've given you reason as to how it doesn't pass theism in regards to the inference to best explanation.

sagz4Christ, If you're referring to my information as an article, then I'm sorry, but that's wrong. I didn't get any of that from an article, but from my own thinking on the issue. I'm not into copy/pasting other people's work. Of course it requires assuming. I gave a highly gracious figure, though, which you don't challenge. Heck, the figure I spent doesn't even amount to the time I spent with my cat when I got it. There's no reason to dispute that. So, if you were Adam, you wouldn't have taken time to admire (i.e. pet and get to know) each animal that God created and put before you? I based that off of common sense. I am speaking about before the fall... I've allowed this in my calculations. There's no mention of Adam having a perfect memory... not even a slight hinting. Why did he have to remember? Well, because he was a human like you and me. Of course Adam had to figure out that he needed a mate... he did, btw. You'll have to response to those conclusions directly and prove them fallacious. I've been highly gracious with my figures as you can see. You go on to type that there is evidence for/against both sides, but I'm yet to see some evidence for your side. All I've seen is evidence for my side (you've only responded to one that I gave), so I'm going to have to stick with whatever position is more likely. So far, it's mine.

sagz4Christ, I'm not sure if you've kept up with my replies, but if you want to see my replies to Lekcit's arguments, just read the last page and the one before it. Enjoy.

I agree. Lekcit, My discussion with you is over. I can only repeat myself so much until it gets tiring... I can answer a lot of your points with quotes from myself if I had the time.

Hello again, artsylady. I understand the fact that you'd rather discuss issues with unbelievers. A question such as this is better discussed by believers, though. I say this, because the Bible is involved and those whom are familiar with it and know God should be the ones taking part in the discussion. The important thing is to keep it just that - a discussion. I don't want to get into an argument with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. So far, me and you seem far away from an argument. Hopefully, we can keep it this peaceful. You asked: My answer may not be pleasing to you, but it's the best I can give. If mainstream modern science proved and believed in a young earth, then I would just remain confused concerning the creation account and I would be honest about that confusion. It's parallel to the story of Job. You guys have an amazing thread up on it, which I enjoyed reading, but it still confuses me. I don't see anything wrong (and am sure you won't either) with reasoning that God exists, yet putting faith in the confusing parts of His existence. I don't want you to think that I'm interpreting the Bible according to what mainstream scientists believe (that's what your question is pointing towards). I would in certain situations, though. Say, if I lived back when most Christians considered the earth flat and used biblical text to verify it and was given demonstrable evidence that it isn't flat.... well, then I'd have to realize my interpretation was obviously wrong. Science can be useful to us in situations like that. So, I think there's a question for you also: Nik has shown demonstrably true evidence for an old earth. He's challenged popular refutations of that evidence by e-mailing (I think) ICR, themselves, whom responded with personal attacks - He started a thread on it at PW, but I forgot the link. This shows the strength of his argument. OK, so now that you've seen the demonstrable evidence, do you believe your interpretation or other interpretations which have been shown just as possible (if not more possible)? -Tim

Lekcit, This is what turns discussions into arguments. You type nothing but ad hominems, strawman's, and red herrings. Congratsos! Read what I typed above. That remains to be justified. If a discussion gets you this mad, then you don't need to get into one with disbelievers (which is one of the things apologists are called to). If you reach a point of frustration, simply say you don't care to keep up with the discussion. Don't attempt to poison it into an argument by calling me names and re-stating arguments that have been responded to directly, please. I'm not frustrated at all, yet people around me won't agree with facts that are crystal-clear to me. If they continue to not agree and I feel I can't get anywhere, then I'll simply post a reply which would be the opposite of yours and leave this discussion behind. Artsylady, It's glad to see you're not being like Lekcit. This is a discussion on YEC and you seem to want to discuss it... hopefully, we can both keep that up. If it doesn't, then why does God even say it? God clearly states that "it isn't good for Adam to be alone". We can deduce, now, that Adam was in an alone-state. Also, from 2:23, some bibles interpret "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" to read "This is finally....". This points towards Adam waiting a good period of time for this to happen. Also, in 2:20, it reads "no suitable helper was found". Surely, it wasn't God looking for the helper, but it was Adam. This goes back to my question I typed: "Why didn't God create them both at the same time?". Obviously, God had something for Adam to learn. That had to be that he needed fellowship, friendship, and intimacy from a being closely related to himself. But teaching and learning entails a loss of time. In this case, a good deal of lost time. This has nothing to do with my argument. I went so far as to grant creationist numbers. I do disagree, though. 2:19 reads, "whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name". This comes right before the scripture you gave and values some attention, because it is clearly hinting towards Adam naming individual animals ("each living creature"). It also reads "its name" not "their name". The following verse (the one you quoted) is simply a summation. Remember that I granted all of this in my argument, though. I granted the most popular young earth creationist's figures. Notice the verse you're using starts out with "Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field". This verse clearly Adam gave name to "all" and "every" animal which was a cattle or beast. From reading the verse before this one, we can tell this is just a summation of what Adam is supposed to name - every single animal. Good day to you, -Tim

I know Nik doesn

Knowing the nature of humans, even if we had all of the answers, we'd argue about the answers, themselves.

I sent a response to them concerning Adam naming the animals. It's a popular fact that YEC's at such sites either don't respond or don't respond adequately. Nik (Scientific Atheist) got into an e-mail exchange with the Creationists at ICR (I believe)... even they didn't refute his arguments, but spent the entire response attacking Nik. I don't have my response; no need to keep it. Just as I don't keep my responses to Terry Watkins. If you want, I'll take the time to offer a point-by-point refutation of the article, but I'd rather not. I prefer discussing issues with someone who wants to give their own insight. Link wars can go on forever. The size of their ministry matters not. JP Holding has all sorts of things to do, yet he always gives me a response. Even the very busy chaps at LeadershipU respond to my questions. 1. The naming of the animals argument. "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day." So, God created man on the 6th day. Look at Gen. 2. It reads, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field." Not only was man created on the 6th day, but he also named the creatures on the sixth day, because the creatures of the land were created on the sixth day. The creation of birds did take place on the 5th day, but we've still got to wait for the creation of land animals, which took place on the 6th. So the 6th day is composed of: A. the creation of land animals B. the creation of Adam C. the creation of Eve after Adam names all of the animals Seems like a lot in one literal 24 hour day, methinks. [All you gave in response is a self-defeating article from AiG, yet you gave no response to Nik's calculations.] 2. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Is this an analogy or should it be interpreted with the calendar day interpretation? 3. The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4). 4. The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). 6. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long. Other Interpretations The Day-Age Interpretation - The six days of the Day-Age view are understood in the same sense as "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10-11

For other things Muslims don't know check out my post here

I've already outlined this... twice. I summed up my arguments in one post (either this page or the last page) and you cherry-picked one argument of mine to refute (a rather weak one), then offer your conclusions. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Yet you don't give a direct response, because I directly responded to you with: "Once again, I press with: "I gave scriptures from the creation account, which still value a response. Also, you're yet to respond to the other valid interpretations I gave. One of them actually keeps the literal language, but says it was pointing towards a different intention of the words." [You responded to one interpretation with the "both interpretations are the same" argument, but this ignores my other arguments which give reasoning to provide a distinction between the two.] In order for it to be "clear", then you have to be fair and respond to what I typed above. This is ironic coming from someone who just gave an unjustified accusation of closed-mindedness and intellectual dishonesty... Your responses thus far amount to cherry-picking. At best. As for your "other scripture" argument: I think your comparison is groundless and unparallel, because you are skipping around my arguments for the Creation account not being calendar days. To me there is an obvious distinction - i.e. there's reason to believe other scripture being calendar days and reason to not believe Creation being calendar days. I can tell you're enjoying such argumentation, though (cherry-picking which arguments of mine you want to respond to). You've picked a rather weak one from me. I'll grant you that I'm wrong just so you can respond to some of my stronger ones (sad that I have to do this)." Also, Lekcit, I've already read that article and responded to it in an e-mail to AiG, yet I received no response. Do you have anything to say for yourself or should I expect more untenable lengthy links from AiG? I can easily give a link-response, but I don't want a link war. A discussion is much better. So, do you have a direct refutation to SA's calculations or to my other arguments and other plausible interpretations?

Eh, that's the joys of skimming through what people type. I do that rather frequently. The nick is Elisha, btw. It's worth noting that the Arabic and Hebrew language are closely related, so starting off with an arabic definition wouldn't be too bad of an idea (which I won't do, though). Verse 5:16 of Song of Solomon reads something along the lines of "yea, he is altogether lovely". Some interpretations place "Muhammad-im" in the place of "altogether lovely", so that could help us out. Mahamaddim means "delights" "delightfulness", so maybe that's the word CLKAMG is attempting to use?

Muhammad means "the Praised One or the Praiseworthy". Some say "he who is glorified". Whatever it may be, it definitely comes down to "praise". This is shown in the fact that Muhammad has roughly 200 names which praise his character.