VenomFangX Debate
Posted on: March 15, 2009 - 10:40pm
Offline
VenomFangX Debate
Someone at www.venomfangxsite.com was banned for posting this.
Enjoy. 
Quote:
Kabane52: Hey. I'm not going to bug you about this any further, as I know you are busy. I just wanted to know if you were going to reply to my last message.
VenomFangX: i think i deleted it, but if u wanna chat here, we can
Kabane52: Okay
Kabane52: Did you read the message?
VenomFangX: yes
VenomFangX: and I disagree with you for the reasons already stated
VenomFangX: the sun was created on the 4th day.
Kabane52: I responded to those reasons in my last message.
VenomFangX: and I disagree with them becuase of a clear reading of scripture
Kabane52: It's clear that Genesis 1.16 is referring back to when light first came into being, or else we have chronological repetition that makes no sense.
(Genesis 1:14-15) And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
God said "Let there be". Remember "hayah"? How it usually refers to something already there? Note specifically the "And it was so". So it was accomplished. They had been made signs, because they had now become visible in the sky. Your point of view says that these verses describe the creation of these bodies. "And it was so". So the creation of these bodies would be complete, right? But look at the following verses:
(Genesis 1:16-18) And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Huh? I thought he had just created these bodies. Did he create them twice in your point of view? Once in verses 14-15 and once in verses 16-18? The chronology makes no sense in your interpretation of Genesis one.
Kabane52: Your interpretation creates a chronogical contradiction.
VenomFangX: no; you just think the separation of light and darkness prior to the sun's creation is attributed to the existence of the sun, and that's not so
Kabane52: That the separation of light and dark is the sun's job isn't an assumption.
Kabane52: It is stated quite explicitly
Kabane52: And then there is still the problem of hayah
VenomFangX: here's how I see it
VenomFangX: light was throughout the initial creation, and God separated light from darkness physically, as in there was no darkness prior to God allowing there to be, then there was darkness (no light) until God created the stars and sun.
VenomFangX: that fixes the problem nicely.
Kabane52: First, you say light was throughout the initial creation. Please support that
Kabane52: The only data we have regarding the earliest stages of creation is this:
Kabane52: (Genesis 1:1-2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
VenomFangX: well, there you have the darkness
VenomFangX: so, no sun
VenomFangX: but the earth
Kabane52: No, no, I explained this in my earlier message. The Book of Job attests to a thick cloud cover which blocked sunlight
Kabane52: It thinned a little bit, causing translucence when God said "Let there be light"
Kabane52: This is supported by the Hebrew hayah
Kabane52: And then it dissolved completely at day four. Also supported by the Hebrew hayah and the chronological contradiction your interpretation creates
VenomFangX: 16 God made two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning the fourth day.
VenomFangX: there is no way around it
Kabane52: I already explained this. The Hebrew hayah (which you have yet to acknowledge) is clear that these lights existed before day four
Kabane52: Second, verses 14-15, what do they describe according to your model?
Kabane52: It says (Genesis 1:14-15) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
VenomFangX: stars
Kabane52: Did God create the lights once in 14-15 and then recreate them in 16-18?
VenomFangX: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
VenomFangX: it's one sentence, the same lights
Kabane52: (Genesis 1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Kabane52: The creation of the stars is described there
Kabane52: All the heavenly lights are described in 16-18
Kabane52: And there it actually uses asah (made)
Kabane52: But in 14-15, it uses hayah
Kabane52: Which means that before verses 14-15 the lights already existed
Kabane52: You have yet to even acknowledge the implications of hayah
VenomFangX: i won't debate hebrew with you, i'll debate the english tho
VenomFangX: and the english makes it dead clear, day 4 the stars and sun were created
Kabane52: Friend. God wrote his scriptures in the original Hebrew.
VenomFangX: yes, but I don't know hebrew, and I trust God ordained translated to convey to me the message I need
Kabane52: I'm getting my info from Strongs Lexicon if you are wondering.
Kabane52: The original Hebrew would be clearly fuller and clearer than the English, as one language never matches up perfectly to another. And since we have the hayah problem in Hebrew, it's quite clear that 16-18 cannot be chronologically after 14-15 but rather before 14-15
VenomFangX: like I said, I'm not playing your game
VenomFangX: Bible says God made the sun on the 4th day, law of first mention
Kabane52: Venom, it isn't a game. God wrote his scriptures in Hebrew and therefore the nuances of Hebrew words are very important and relevant to the meaning of Genesis and the entire Old Testament.
Kabane52: I'm going to use another example to show this
Kabane52: Isaiah says that God creates evil.
Kabane52: Atheists say A-HAH! God is evil!
Kabane52: Now, I reply by saying that the Hebrew refers to natural disasters and such, not moral abominations.
Kabane52: But if they replied like you (the original Hebrew doesn't matter) , we would have a morally inept God.
Kabane52: So I hate to put it this way, but either the Hebrew matters and the sun was created before day four. Or it doesn't and God is morally inept.
VenomFangX: do you think there was death before man
Kabane52: Animal death. Scripture NEVER specified any death other than human death as a result of sin
VenomFangX: so your 'god' created death and intended death and suffering.
VenomFangX: nice.
VenomFangX: not my God.
Kabane52: Can you tell me why animal death is always inherently a moral abomination?
VenomFangX: yes; death of any kind is the opposite of life
Kabane52: God used animal death to reverse moral abomination
VenomFangX: God is a God of life not death
Kabane52: That is, atonement
VenomFangX: yes agreed, and so did God use the death of Jesus
Kabane52: Yes, he did. Death for humans was a punishment for us.
Kabane52: But death can't be used in a theistic evolution model to say that God is evil
Kabane52: All things work together for good.
VenomFangX: I disagree with you.
Kabane52: Why? I've shown that scripture never states animal death to be a result of sin.
Kabane52: Paul goes out of his way to state this
Kabane52: (Romans 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Kabane52: Death passed upon all men
Kabane52: Why not just say "and death happened as a result"
Kabane52: He says death for man
VenomFangX: because Paul is speaking about men
Kabane52: He's speaking of the original fall, and the results of said fall
VenomFangX: the bible says that thorns grew on the plants
VenomFangX: but paul didn't mention that either
Kabane52: I'm not denying that it says this, but where does it say that?
VenomFangX: ill show you
VenomFangX:
<< Genesis 3:18 >>Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;
Kabane52: Ah, here's the problem
Kabane52: God had put Adam specifically in the Garden of Eden.
Kabane52: And then he was kicked out
Kabane52: Outside of the Garden, there were these thorny plants
VenomFangX: i've never seen a Christian twist scripture quite like you.
Kabane52: It wasn't a twisting. At all. There's no other indication of why exactly Adam had to deal with thorns.
Kabane52: Let's change to the science topic then...
Kabane52: What is your rationale for neanderthal fossils?
VenomFangX: fully man, or fully ape
VenomFangX: not a transition
Kabane52: Hmm, then let me ask you why it had such a huge brow ridge?
Kabane52: brb
Kabane52: Back
Kabane52: So, why do you think it had such a large brow ridge?
VenomFangX: there are humans with the same size brow ridge today
Kabane52: Where?
VenomFangX: ever heard of the aborigines?
Kabane52: Yes. Their brow ridge is smaller.
Kabane52: Especially in childhood, but we have neandertal children with large brow ridges
VenomFangX: yes, just an extinct human more than likely
Kabane52: What caused them to develop such large brow ridges? And why is their genome so different?
VenomFangX: how do you know their genome is different?
Kabane52: The fossils are young enough that we can sequence mitochondrial DNA
Kabane52: And they lived in Europe only.
VenomFangX: well, i'll trust the bible over scientists who want to validate the evolution theory, they've been known to lie and make up evidence before
VenomFangX: many say the neanderthals are just humans, or apes, and i agree.
Kabane52: Which scientists say such a thing?
VenomFangX: creationist scientists.
Kabane52: Which compose about 128.
Kabane52: There are historians who say the holocaust never happened.
VenomFangX: Jesus said narrow is the way and few find it
Kabane52: Yes, and I wholeheartedly agree. But he's speaking of salvation, not genetic science.
Kabane52: If you applied your interpretation of that passage consistently, flat earthism and geocentrism would be true
Kabane52: Because very few scientists support those theories. And narrow is the way
Kabane52: So I think the salvation interpretation works better
Kabane52: What about ERVs?
VenomFangX: I happen to think geocentricity is very likely
VenomFangX: ERV's are explained a few ways
Kabane52: You might just be typing an explanation, but if you aren't, which ways? And by geocentricity do you mean that the Earth Solar System is the central solar system or that the sun revolves around the Earth
VenomFangX: the earth
VenomFangX: I happen to think geocentricity is very likely
VenomFangX: I think its possible
VenomFangX: http://stationaryearth.org/?page_id=7
VenomFangX: that video convinced me
Kabane52: I recommend that you take a look at mainstream science rather than one video.
VenomFangX: that video shows you 4 scientific experiments that have been censored from the public
Kabane52: Yeah, I'm extremely skeptical of such findings.
Kabane52: But let's get back to ERVs.
Kabane52: What is your explanation for ERVs?
VenomFangX: sorry was busy
VenomFangX: well, we were all on an ark together (all the animals that is)
VenomFangX: likely caught the same virus
VenomFangX: or, we were designed with them to begin with
VenomFangX: and they aren't what we think they are
Kabane52: Same virus? In the same place?
Kabane52: Extraordinarily improbable.
Kabane52: As for us being designed with them in us, they harm us.
Kabane52: Some ERVs cause caner
Kabane52: cancer*
VenomFangX: well remember God cursed the universe when we sinned
Kabane52: So then the ERVs that we were created with suddenly became harmful?
Kabane52: That's an ad hoc fallacy.
Kabane52: Furthermore, most ERVs are just junk. Parts of ERVs cause cancer, but most of the ERV is junk, and does nothing.
VenomFangX: I don't have much trust in our modern understanding of genetics, if we were as smart as you think we are, we could cure a lot more disease than we can.
Kabane52: Knowing what composes a disease doesn't automatically make it possible to eradicate it.
Kabane52: And I don't think you appreciate how much disease has been destroyed.
Kabane52: The odds of two pairs of ERVs being in the same place in chimps and humans are one in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
VenomFangX: not necessarily, im sure you believe that tho
Kabane52: No, it's actually very simple math
VenomFangX: i don't think we understand enough about ervs or genetics to make a conclusion like that
Kabane52: You could do it with a basic algebra equation
VenomFangX: we dont know how or when we got the ERV
VenomFangX: we could have been made with it
Kabane52: Actually, pre al. Yes, we do. We have done controlled labtests. ERV's infect, they don't come built in. They are junk or harmful
And he never replied back
http://www.freewebs.com/theisticevoluti … mfangx.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX0TEnRPbP4
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
I'm glad I left that site, there was several intelligent Christians on that site, but unfortunatly even they over run by the creationist mods.
In fact, the pic in my sig was from that site, but any evolutionary Theist was put on a short leash.
VenomFangX: I don't have much trust in our modern understanding of genetics
Well of course he doesn't. Modern genetics produces findings that aren't compatable with a 6,000-10,000 year old universe; so it must be wrong. If anything ever suggests that the universe is older than a few thousand years or that humans descended from non-human animals, it is wrong. I used to watch his videos on youtube. In a (sad, pathetic) way he is a funny guy. Though he did like to plagiarize a lot for his videos.
I get deists. I was one for a few years and can see why they believe in a creator deity. What I don't get is VenomFangX style young earth creationists. 90%+ of all modern science contradicts VenomFangX's beliefs; so he has come to the conclusion that science is wrong on virtually all matters. He is the kind of theist that no one can relate to. He honestly doesn't believe in the same universe that we do. He lives in a fantasy universe that is very different from the real one. It is only a few thousands of years old and evolution simply does not happen in it. I feel that many theists believe in the same universe that I do, just they also believe in a god in addition to our universe. VenomFangX on the other hand fundamentally disbelieves in the real universe and instead thinks we live in some kind of a fantasy land universe in which Genesis is 100% literal (none of that figurative interpretation for him).
If anyone here wants to watch some comedy gold, go see VenomFangX's youtube videos. They are worth a chuckle.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I only made it about half way through the OP before both sides of the argument had aggravated me too much to continue, though it was quite clear as of the unwillingness to discuss Hebrew that the YEC got owned. Craziness.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Pathetic.
And why is it that he can't or hasn't come here? I cannot imagine he's afraid of being pwned; certainly his dignity and humility cannot be at further risk.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
He did come here a while ago. He plagiarized some other arguments and then left.
Here is a bit of his handywork:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15619
He tried a bit more bullshit like that and then turned tail and left for good.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
The "experiments" in that video that Venomfang was so convinced by are about "luminiferous ether," a concept that was disproven at least 100 years ago. For awhile, it was hypothesized that there was an invisible substance that was in space and transmitted light, but then we figured out that light doesn't need a medium to propagate it because of its dual nature. No competent scientist has accepted the ether theory since the 19th century. But what do competent scientists know?
Honestly, the current situation at venomfangxsite is pretty funny. Atheists, theistic evolutionists, and anyone with some form of scientific understanding have virtually taken over the "Creationism vs. Evolution" sub-forum. Of course, we don't actually have control over the forum, VFX does, and we're still a minority on the website, but every time the fireworks starts, the Creationists start getting their asses handed to them, with their shockingly ignorant, "If I evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?" arguments. Then, every discussion ends with the Creationist in question suddenly disappearing from the thread before we can make any legitimate progress.
In case anyone missed that.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hmm... I'm not surprised that I missed his vist...
Dig deeper. The next video is about the decaying speed of light. Even my least favorite web site answers in genesis (you did know that I don't much care for them, right?) lists c-decay as an argument that should never be used. Even other fundies hate that one.
=