@ Vasily

There are two creation stories in Genesis and two Flood stories. You claim some authority for Theological study...apparently not for christianity nor the bible.
As for the Council at Nicaea it wasnt convened because of persecution of christians but because of violent disageement among christians over the nature of their god's essence. And nothing was resolved. The disputes continued for decades after, caused the split between the Holy Roman Chuch and the Greek orthodox and led to massacres of christians against christians when they werent killing jews and pagans.
Theres much you do not know yourself. Why not take a break, read up on some history etc and come back to try again. I will re-read some Augustine Origen Justin Martyr and my favourite Pseudo "ineffable"Dionysis.

I actually made an account just so I could reply to this.

You ask, Why do Christians Insist they are correct? Well, why do you insist that you are correct? it is because we both believe we are correct.
Now, you say that we have zero proof aside from our Bible and I believe a previous reply highlighted the notion that what Christians are doing when using the bible as proof for their beliefs commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. While it does appear that way I would argue that it actually isn't.
The reason we don't give any other "proof" is that the Bible is our ultimate authority. It is the ultimate truth. If we were to provide you with proof from another source then that would become our ultimate authority. Then you could naturally and rightly ask us to prove that source of authority. It's turtles all the way down, you must, at some point chose your ultimate authority.
This questioning of ultimate proof can also be applied to Aiethists as well. I ask you,"Why do you believe that there is no God?" You will probably give me some scientific evidence. After that, I would have to ask, "How do you know that fact is true? How can you prove science?" you could reply with "because it is logic, and we can test it. we can visually observe this occurrence." Well, I'm afraid I would have to ask you "where does logic come from? how can you know for certain that you can trust what your eyes see and what your fingers touch?"
At some point in your argument, you have to put a stick in the ground and claim an ultimate authority to which there is no more proof to justify that ultimate authority. it simply is.
Also, on the thought of logic, And if you decide to declare that your ultimate authority I would have to respond to you that the only reason you have logic, to begin with, is because God gave it to you. You have no scientific evidence that logic exists nor do you have any proof of the validity of logic besides the fact that it makes logical sense.

My apologies if this is rambly or is in any way incoherent.
Thank you for reading.

Oh this thread is becoming quite the comedy goldmine.

Let's start with this, shall we?

In order for the universe to exist, it needs a beginning, everyone here can agree right?

No. But that's because I'm aware of the output of tenured cosmological physicists, who are very careful about the postulates they present. One of those postulates being that the universe in its current form had a beginning, which says nothing about entities or interactions might have been present beforehand. Indeed, much of the scientific literature in the field of cosmological physics, is now devoted to the business of devising a consistent pre-Big-Bang physics, complete with entities and interactions therein that could have led to the emergence of the current observable universe via testable natural processes alone.

But then, your confusion about this arises from you thinking that apologetics is something other than made up shit, a topic I'll return to in due course.

Well in order for it to exist something that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, moral, and personal had to create it.

Bullshit. This is nothing more than a rectally extracted assertion.There's no reason why testable natural processes, involving well defined entities and interactions, could not have performed the task. As I stated above, cosmological physicists have been developing relevant hypotheses in this vein, and furthermore, seeking methods of testing those hypotheses. A particularly interesting example thereof arising from the work of Paul Steinhardt & Neil Turok in 2011, when they published two papers from the world of M-theory, presenting a mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe that possesses the following elegant features:

[1] It provides a mechanism for donating the initial energy to the observable universe, to fuel matter synthesis;

[2] It provides a mechanism for eliminating the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

[3] It provides a testable and observable consequence of its operation, that can be searched for in the observable universe, to determine if this mechanism was in operation.

It's game over for mythology fanboys.

Now, moving on to this:

Instead of finding one person to bash on how about you look into how many great theologians and apologetics content there is out there and not trying to find one thing.

Oh, please, this is another rectally extracted assertion on your part, and one that is manifestly false. This has much to do with the demonstrable fact, that apologetics is nothing more than the fabrication of convoluted discoursive elisions, for the purpose of pretending to provide evidence for unsupported mythological assertions. In short, it's made up shit pretending to be fact.

I'll provide a hilariously illustrative example, courtesy of the fatuously named "Institute for Creation Research", which I won't link to, because I don't want to give these professional liars for doctrine any Internet traffic if I can help it, especially any Internet traffic that adds to their funds via click-through adverts. However, for those who, in the interests of diligence, want to see the original text, the URL is (in non clickable format)

www dot icr dot org slash article slash 1844

Here's the text in question ... the regulars here will enjoy laughing at the infantile level of discourse contained therein ...

After my recent university lecture on scientific creationism, a student referenced a Bible passage in Leviticus regarding insects to imply that the Bible contained errors and that Christianity and creation thinking are false. The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.

First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10). Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.

In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs. Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping."

Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!

It was interesting that when the student made the claim of the Bible's error, it followed my 90-minute lecture on the scientific evidence for creation. I had not directly mentioned the Bible. The question, as were several others, was a smoke screen, an effort to sidestep the issue. But even if the Bible has an error (which it doesn't), that still doesn't produce transitional fossils, or identify beneficial mutations, or account for the exquisite design in living things. Such diversionary tactics are really a futile attempt to avoid the personal implications of creation. For if creation is true and the Bible is trustworthy, then the Creator has authority over our lives and lifestyles, and someday we must stand before our Maker and give account for our actions and choices. And that is the real issue. No smoke screen can cancel that appointment.

Yes, this is the level of bullshit that I routinely see emanating from the world of apologetics. Let's dismantle this piece by piece, shall we? In accordance with conventions I have applied elsewhere, when dealing with bullshit of this sort, personal pronouns during this dismantling, are to be understood as directed to the original author of the bilge in question. Let's start the Arclight raid, shall we?

After my recent university lecture on scientific creationism, a student referenced a Bible passage in Leviticus regarding insects to imply that the Bible contained errors and that Christianity and creation thinking are false.

That's the least of your worries regarding the bullshit that is creationism. Though having your 3,000 year old book of myths, the same one you want us all to believe is the last word in knowledge, exposed as being unable to display competence with respect to elementary fact, doesn't help your propagandising for your masturbation fantasy of a doctrine one bit. We have the scientific papers, we have the evidence, we have the data, all of which says your book of fairy tales is a crock of shit.

The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.

Yes, why don't we look closely? And see how much of a crock this really is?

First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind."

So how IS biblical "kind" defined then? Ever going to tell us? Only we've been waiting for creationists to answer this one ever since they began asserting that "kind" was a valid biological term. I'll remember this reference that "kind" is not related to any modern scientific taxonomic classification next time another creationist tries using "kind" as a discoursive elision to distract from his or her rampant scientific ignorance. Bet you didn't expect to hand me that gift on a plate did you?

Though anyone who peruses the requisite output from the usual suspects, will note that the anti-consilience on display within the output of assorted creationists on this matter, is truly cosmic in scale. Indeed, the whole exercise of pretending that mythological assertion contains valid scientific concepts, and erecting the farcical edifice known as "baraminology" on the basis of this pretence, is a comedy goldmine all on its own, though the comedy in question is very much an acquired taste.

In the meantime, I want everyone reading this to bookmark that above assertion. Let's call this Bookmark #1.

But there's more to deal with ... back to our author of apologetic bullshit:

Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).

And on what actual evidence is this assertion based? Especially as the above passage in Leviticus explicitly mentions insects?

Plus, it mentions locusts and grasshoppers, which manifestly have six legs. Seems the Ancient Greeks were better at counting legs than the Bronze Age nomads who wrote your book of fairy tales.

Plus, "beetle" is cited as being a "kind" in the relevant passage. Rather inconsistent with the above assertion that "kind" does not correspond to any modern taxonomic designation, given that beetles So this is starting to degenerate into utter farce before we're even halfway through this turgid nonsense. And I haven't even reached the dénouement.

So already, we have another rectaly extracted assertion, this time directly contradictory to the rectally extracted assertion contained in Bookmark #1.

Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19).

Except that the part about "flying creeping thing" in 11:22 is immediately followed by a list of insects in 11:23. The birds were mentioned before 11:22 and covered separately.

Your attempt at apologetic obfuscation is starting to look seriously ridiculous. If you can't even reference your own mythology sitting in front of you without error, then it shouldn't be difficult for those of us who paid attention in class to see where this is going ...

Moving on (it gets more hilarious with each new section) ...

Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification

As opposed to the actual scientific facts taking precedence. In other words, once again, we have a creationist telling everyone than when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. Why does this not surprise me in the least? Oh, this might have something to do with the fact that this is a routinely observed aspect of the creationist aetiology.

and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.

Which again corresponds to a well defined taxonomic Order, in this case the Orthoptera. So that's twice you've contradicted yourself in this failed attempt at apologetic justification for your nonsense. See Bookmark #1 again, everyone!

Now let's move on ...

In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla

And, once again, this idiot cannot even present elementary facts correctly.

Actually, that should be phylum. There is only one Phylum Arthropoda. Now if you had mentioned subphyla or classes at this stage, then these would be plural, because the Phylum Arthropoda contains a number of these, viz:

Subphylum Crustacea
Class Branchipoda
Class Cephalocarida
Class Malacostraca
Class Remipedia
Class Maxillopoda
Class Ostracoda (note: may not be monophyletic)
Infraclass Cirripedia (may be reassigned to full Class status once the phylogeny of the Crustacea is resolved)

Subphylum Hexapoda
Class Insecta
Class Entognatha

Subphylym Myriapoda
Class Chilopoda
Class Diplopoda
Class Pauropoda
Class Symphyla

Subphylum Chelicerata
Class Arachnida
Class Xiphosura
Class Pycnogonida
Class Chasmatspididia (extinct)
Class Eurypterida (extinct)

Strange how you never mentioned any of these taxonomic groupings. Perhaps because doing so might lead some of your readers to ask how they were constructed, and as a corollary start asking the sort of questions that would lead them to answers that provide evidence that creationism is a crock? Indeed, I've written much here and elsewhere, on the matter of how Linnaeus' work, constructing the taxonomic system, pisses all over creationist pretensions wholesale, and did so 112 years before Darwin presented any substantive material on evolution. But I digress. Let's move on, and see what other drivel awaits us from this professional liar for doctrine, shall we?

which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs.

Oh, by the way, here's one that your so-called "last word in knowledge" mythology missed ... the Symphyla are unusual in that they have six pairs of legs (12 in all) upon hatching, but with each moult (ecdysis), they add another body segment and another pair of legs, so that in the adult instars they end up with 24 legs (12 pairs). Funny how it took scientists to alight upon these creatures when they started taking notice of observational reality instead of the pontifications of a doctrine. Though I've remarked both here and elsewhere, how the authors of this turgid mythology were, all too often, incapable of even fantasising about vast classes of entities and interactions, that were instead alighted upon by scientists, and placed by said scientists into usefully predictive, quantitative frameworks of knowledge. Though you, as a professional liar for doctrine, are hoping no one who paid attention in class will embarrass you by pointing this out.

Moving on, we have ...

Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.

You don't say? Exactly what level of audience are you pitching this apologetic screed at, and with what literacy level? Is this aimed at the segment of the public with an IQ below 70? The functionally illiterate? Because only that segment would regard your apologetics as anything other than a joke, and would need to be told something as obvious to those of us with functioning brain cells as this.

But I've noticed the manner in which apologetics is frequently grounded in the inane and the infantile.

Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs.

Which still makes a total of six legs. FAIL. But wait for it, boys and girls, the part of this that is truly pants-wttingly funny, is about to appear ...

Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping."

I don't even need to be an invertebrate zoologist to look at this, and laugh so hard that I'm not only in danger of pissing my pants, but suffering a prolapse. This is truly infantile, feculent dreck of the most steamingly coprolitic order. Because, wait for it, anyone who has actually observed members of the Orthoptera walking, as I have myself frequently during biological recording, will know that, wait for it, they use all six legs for walking.

When I first dealt with this drivel some years back, I found a nice series of YouTube videos illustrating the point, that Orthopterans use all six legs for walking. One of those videos has ceased to exist, but the rest are still available. Here's a nice selection of video illustrations of Orthopteran locomotion for everyone to enjoy ...

Very loud stridulating Orthopteran that uses all six legs to walk;

Katydid from Thailand, again demonstrating the use of all six legs;

Another Katydid from Thailand, again demonstrating the use of all six legs;

Grasshopper from Germany, again demonstrating the use of all six legs for walking ... you can all see where this is going, can't you?

More Orthopteran locomotion, including a 6 legged wall climbing sequence;

Predatory Orthopteran from Mexico

So I think once again, the evidence from the real world would suggest that this nonsense that somehow the rear legs aren't used for normal locomotion is more apologetic wankery.

But of course, there's more to deal with here. Namely, the fact that the Orthoptera is but one Order of insects, and that the Hexapoda (the clade containing the insects) contains over twenty other Orders, containing something like 1½ million species, the vast majority of which are NOT jumping insects, and for which this apologetics utterly, utterly fails. Indeed, one Family of Coleoptera I'm aware, of, the Elateridae or Click Beetles, happens to contain insects that propel themselves away from danger explosively when threatened, but these insects don't use their legs at all for this! Instead, they have a completely separate appendage, consisting of a spine on the prosternum, which can be snapped into a corresponding notch on the mesosternum. Indeed, some nuce scanning electron micrographs of the structure in question, can be found in this paper, covering an extensive biomechanical analysis of the operation thereof, complete with some nice, intimidating second order differential equations and their solutions.

Quite simply, that someone even thought this excremental apologetic brainfart was worth concocting, let alone disseminating to a global audience on the Internet, merely demonstrates yet again, the palsying and neurotoxic effects of supernaturalism.

But there is, of course, more to cover. Let's do that now ...

Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle.

Really? Once again everyone ... citation to support this?

Now of course, professional liars for doctrine like you, sunshine, have a habit of tossing shit like this into your vomitings, because you know damn well that people with access to in-depth knowledge of ancient Hebrew are few and far between, and as a corollary, anyone can toss in an assertion of this sort, safe in the knowledge that the gullible rubes in the BuyBull Belt will be too stupid even to think of fact checking this. But, lo and behold, it turns out that there exists, online, the Hebrew and English text of Leviticus 11 side by side, which everyone can examine here. Of course, the structure of Semitic languages makes it difficult for non-specialist scholars to check this, courtesy of the fact that Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic etc) have a totally different system of operation to Indo-European languages. Indo-European languages have well-defined verbs and nouns, with separate, well-defined rules of declension associated therewith, whilst Semitic languages have "root words", from which nouns, verbs and other classes of word can be derived, involving the use of prefixes as well as suffixes. Then you throw in to the mix, that Semitic languages are written right to left, adding to the difficulties for the non-specialist to check. However, if there IS someone out there with the requisite specialist knowledge, do please point us all at the relevant parts of that text, and tell us if the above assertion by our creationist liar for doctrine, is something other than the product of his rectal passage.

Thus, we move on ...

Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct.

Wrong. See those YouTube video clips above? They've just made a nonsense of your 3,000 year old book of fairytale nonsense. Along with your apologetic nonsense trying to prop up this crap.

Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture.

Wrong. It bears eloquent testimony to the fact that whoever wrote that passage was too stupid to count the number of legs on an insect correctly. It's not as if those YouTube video clips make it difficult to count the number of legs an Orthopteran insect has. I would have been pointing and laughing at you peddling this drivel at the age of 11, let alone now.

As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong

Wrong. See those YouTube video clips above? They've just flushed your nonsense down the toilet. As has every entomological observation made since the days of Linnaeus.

and the Bible still stands!

The only "standing" it's doing here is standing as an example of doctrine-inspired fuckwittery when compared to the real world.

It was interesting that when the student made the claim of the Bible's error, it followed my 90-minute lecture on the scientific evidence for creation.

You actually managed to stretch out a sequence of blind assertions in support of your doctrinal masturbation fantasy for 90 minutes? Wow, that deserves some kind of award. Oh, and "scientific evidence for creationism"? Please, don't make me laugh, I hate having to wash all the extra underwear that results when I see farcical tripe such as this.

I had not directly mentioned the Bible.

We only have your word for it. And the evidence once again suggests that creationists are to be trusted in this regard, about as much as most of us would trust a convicted paedophile to supervise a kindergarten. Though funnily enough, it's now not only Catholic priests we have to worry about in this regard, but an increasing number of fundagelicals like you, as numerous news items about persons of your ilk being arrested on relevant charges demonstrate. I won't bother bringing all of the instances I know of into this post, as it's starting to become a 10,000 word dissertation as it is.

The question, as were several others, was a smoke screen, an effort to sidestep the issue.

Well as a creationist, you'd know a lot about erecting those. Indeed, "smokescreen to sidestep the issue" pretty much sums up a lot of creationist apologetics.

But even if the Bible has an error

It has several. Genesis alone is replete with these. "Global flood", anyone?

(which it doesn't)

Those Orthopterans in those YouTube video clips are laughing at you at this point. As are my tropical fish. Which are laughing because they would have been exterminated wholesale thousands of years ago, if the fantasy "global flood" was something other than a bad mythological assertion, instead of happily swimming and breeding in my aquarium.

that still doesn't produce transitional fossils

The real world does that. Oh wait, there's an entire series of these in the tetrapod lineage alone. The ones I can remember off the top of my head, include Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, and they're just the ones I'm familiar with from several peer reviewed scientific papers. I suspect that the authors thereof, including Jennifer Clack, Neil Shubin and Per Ahlberg, are aware of at least a dozen more. Again, exposition of those papers would turn this post into a 100,000 word dissertation, so I'll spare everyone having to wade through that for another post.

or identify beneficial mutations

or account for the exquisite design in living things.

Actually, what you are seeing is the illusion of design, which you as a propagandist for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine assume is "design" because you're too stupid to devise a notion other than "invisible magic man did it". Oh, and by the way, do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion, into something other than the product of your rectal passage? I've never met a supernaturalist who even understands the question, let alone has what it takes to provide the answer. Here's a clue for you, "it looks 'designed' to me, therefore my magic man did it" will simply result in those of us who paid attention in class pointing and laughing at your stupidity. Indeed, I can provide a nice little test, which points to the farcically, dribblingly encephalitic nature of "design" apologetics, which no supernaturalist has ever passed. I'll enjoy watching you join the list of failures in this respect if you want to try.

Real scientists diligently observing the real world do that. Oh, wait, there's a few papers I could bring here on this subject too, including Richard Lenski's landmark work.

Such diversionary tactics are really a futile attempt to avoid the personal implications of creation.

No, they're pointing out that your masturbation fantasy of a doctrine is founded upon manifest error. But then I wouldn't expect a creationist to understand this. But since your fantasy "creation" never happened, no one needs to worry about any blindly asserted "implications" thereof. Oh, and I've already explained elsewhere in detail, why the whole "fall" drivel in Genesis is a crock of shit from start to finish. Go here to read more on this.

For if creation is true and the Bible is trustworthy, then the Creator has authority over our lives and lifestyles

A huge "if" that is completely unsupported by evidence, and in the case of your 3,000 year old book of fairy tales, flatly contradicted by observational reality. Those Orthopterans in the YouTube video clips are laughing at you again. Oh, and when was your imaginary magic man anything other than a merely asserted entity, existing only in your mythology and the minds of the fanboys thereof?

and someday we must stand before our Maker and give account for our actions and choices.

Blind assertion on your part. Since you apparently prefer to give credence to a 3,000 year old book of fairy tales rather than the real world, which as those YouTube video clips demonstrate, makes a mockery of your fantasies here, we can dismiss your assertions fom this point on forthwith.

And that is the real issue. No smoke screen can cancel that appointment.

Well this presumes on your part that your invisible magic man in the sky actually exists. Unfortunately for you, we can see that those Orthopterans have six legs, and use them all for walking, which flushes your nonsense apologetics down the toilet.

I think this example demonstrates the total fucking vacuity of apologetics, don't you, boys and girls? If this is the level of infantile made up shit that you have to peddle, in order to continue your adherence to pre-scientific mythology written by piss-stained Bronze Age incels, then you might want to consider spending your time on an enterprise involving actual knowledge, instead of the peddling of made up shit.