Who is Joachim Schlick?

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Who is Joachim Schlick?

Postby Joachim Schlick » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:55 pm

I use the name Joachim Schlick on this board. As Ian Lowe discovered from his researches a few days after I joined this board, my real name is Anthony Bennett.

Joachim Schlick is an ancestor of mine on my mother's side. Born Joachim Andreas von Schlick on 9 September 1559 in Schlackenwerth (modern-day Ostrov in Bohemia/The Czech Repblic), he was the Count of Passau and Weisskirchen.

He was executed by beheading on 21 June 1621 in Prague for his part in the rebellion of the Protestant Bohemian nobles against Catholic/Austrian oppression in the 'Battle of the White Mountain' (Bila Hora), 1620-21. This was around the start of the Thirty Years War 1618-48.

His head was impaled on a spike on the Charles Bridge over the River Moldau in the centre of Prague as a warning to others.

Today his sacrifice is commemorated by a plaque on the edge of Jan Hus Square in the middle of Prague, and by one of 21 white crosses on the paved square nearby - he was the leader of the 21 nobles who all were executed.

He died for what he believed in - his Saviour, Christ.

So of course did Jan Hus himself, some 150 years earlier - burnt at the stake on the orders of the Pope after the Pope had falsely guaranteed him safe passage to and from an inquisitorial hearing at Constance.

As of course also did George, Patron Saint of England, in A.D. 305. After torturing him on and off for 2 years to get him to renounce his faith, he would not; the Roman rulers got fed up in the end and just killed him.

I believe the Bible to be God's Word for the rational reason that when it speaks of provable facts, it has a 100% record of accuracy. On another secular board I have challenged anyone to publish one fact stated in the Bible that has been satisfactorily proven to be inaccurate. To date, no-one has been able to do so. I issue the same challenge on this Forum.

Genesis is literal history; none of it is myth. Parts of the Bible e.g. Revelation are written entirely in symbolic language and are not meant to be taken literally; here indeed is where some errors have been made by mistaken zealots.

The entire edifice of assumed long ages for the universe and the earth has been constructed on the original, shaky, unscientific foumdations of Sir Charles Lyell and his notorious visit to Niagara Falls. Here he claimed to have proved - from the alleged rate of retreat of Niagara Falls - that the earth was at least 9.000 years old - older than the 6,000 years of the Bible.

But as the records show, he based his estimate on an unprovable and false assumption. From that unscientific beginning have been built all the other assumptions which have led so many people to believe as fact that the earth and the universe were formed billions of years ago.

Remove the constant assumption of great age and it soon becomes clear that there is no proof that the earth is any older than about 6.000 years.

Joachim Schlick, Jan Hus and St. George, who died for their faith, all drew their inspiration from Christ.

"Greater love hath no man than this..."

John 18 vv 37-38

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Who is Joachim Schlick?

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:26 pm

Joachim Schlick wrote:Joachim Schlick is an ancestor of mine on my mother's side. Born Joachim Andreas von Schlick on 9 September 1559 in Schlackenwerth (modern-day Ostrov in Bohemia/The Czech Repblic), he was the Count of Passau and Weisskirchen.

And I'm sure you are correct in saying that he came to a nasty end. However, it happened in those days - might was right.

I'm sorry to hear of your ancestor's demise. Maybe I could get the mormons to find some similar tale from my family history. But neither would have anything whatsoever to do with teaching creationism in school science classes. Nothing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/quote]
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Michael » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:41 pm

The vast age of the earth was well-known and demonstrated by many in the 1780s eg de Saussure, De Luc, Whitehurst, Buffon, Soulavie, Hamilton to name a few.

As Lyell was only born in 1798so geological time was not " constructed on the original, shaky, unscientific foumdations of Sir Charles Lyell "

Get your facts right and even I might listen!

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Who is Joachim Schlick?

Postby Mughi » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:12 pm

Joachim Schlick wrote:I believe the Bible to be God's Word for the rational reason that when it speaks of provable facts, it has a 100% record of accuracy. On another secular board I have challenged anyone to publish one fact stated in the Bible that has been satisfactorily proven to be inaccurate. To date, no-one has been able to do so. I issue the same challenge on this Forum.

Genesis is literal history; none of it is myth. Parts of the Bible e.g. Revelation are written entirely in symbolic language and are not meant to be taken literally; here indeed is where some errors have been made by mistaken zealots.



Do you consider Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Ezra and Jeremiah literal or symbolic?

Here are a few examples .....

Deuteronomy 14:6-7 wrote:You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.

Rabbits dont have split hooves and neither do they chew the cud.

Leviticus 11:13-19 wrote:And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind;
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


Bats arent birds.

Leviticus 11:20-22 wrote: All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

Insects do not have 4 legs.



Genesis 22:14 wrote:And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Exodus 6:3 wrote:And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.


Abraham called the place after jehovah, and yet this god claims that he didnt know to call him that ...

Ezra 1:9 - 11 wrote:And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives, Thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred


This totals 2499, not 5400.

Jeremiah 49:33 wrote:And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.


There are no dragons in Hazor, I would even hazard a guess that there have never been dragons there, just people....

This is just a few quotes I have pulled together, I cant find the exact reference for the quote I really wanted which was one about having your goats mate where they can see reeds and the offspring will have stripey coats.
Mughi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:47 pm

'Four Legs Good, Six Legs Bad'

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:12 am

Here is an answer to the point about whether or not insects have four legs - though as you will see from the extracts of this article that the word used in the Bblie is *feet* not *legs* - quite a difference:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four Legs Good, Six Legs Bad An Entomological Error? James Patrick Holding
www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

[edit: This is your LAST WARNING - if you continue to cut and past articles, your account will be deleted]
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Ezra and Jeremiah

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:22 am

re: "Do you consider Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Ezra and Jeremiah literal or symbolic?"

REPLY: In short:

Deuteronomy - Mainly history, with Moses giving rules for holy and healthy living, which applied to Israel/the Jewish nation until Christ came

Leviticus - mainly ceremonial rules, again until Christ came

Exodus - history - 15th century B.C. plus The Ten Commandments- valid for all time

Ezra - mainly history - 6th/5th century B.C.

Ezekiel - some history, a lot of prophecy, some of it personally enacted by Ezekiel in Jerusalem. A considerable amount of the prophecy is in symbolic language.

More detailed responses later

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

The total was certainly 5,400

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:43 am

re: Ezra 1: 9 - 11 wrote: And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives, Thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred

This totals 2499, not 5400.

REPLY:

These were the vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 587/586 B.C. to Babylon from the Jewish temple which was destroyed at that time, causing much weeping by the 'Rivers of Babylon' as in the Psalm [Psalm 137 v. 1] and the 1980s pop song.

The record says a total of 5,400 vessels and that will be correct. The author would know that the specific vessels he listed totalled 2,499; the usual explanation is that by 'other vessels' he meant medium-sized vessels and that the total of 5,400 includes much smaller vessels.

One commentary simply says: "It may be that only the larger and more valuable vessels were specified". The Assyrians and Babylonians both made very careful note of all goods seized by conquest

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Joachim Schlick on Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Dragons were real creatures

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:57 am

Mughi wrote: "Jeremiah 49:33 wrote: 'And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it'. There are no dragons in Hazor, I would even hazard a guess that there have never been dragons there, just people..."

REPLY:

On the subject of dragons, see for example this article published on the Answers in Genesis site (www.answersingenesis.org) - which I've heavily snipped:

Dragons: animals...not apparitions

by Timofey Alferov

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... ragons.asp

[edit: yet more cut and paste garbage removed...]
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Rabbits (and hares) chew the cud

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:26 am

re (Mughi): "Deuteronomy 14:6-7 wrote: 'You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney'. Rabbits dont have split hooves and neither do they chew the cud.

REPLY:

Here are some extracts from a long and very carefully-written and well-researched article. In order not to take up too much bandwidth, I shall confine my cut-and-paste to the barest minimum.

Bear in mind that the Authorised Version - universally acknowledged to be the best translation we have of the original Hebrew words, says 'hare' and not 'rabbit', though in practice it matters not. The AV also says quite clearly that the hare does *not* 'divide the hoof:'

http://www.eternalsalvation.org/Do%20Ha ... 0Cud~.html

[edit: 600 words is not "the bare minimum". Post the link, DO NOT CUT AND PASTE. ]
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Sir Charles Lyell's guesswork proved wrong

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:05 am

re (Michael): "The vast age of the earth was well-known and demonstrated by many in the 1780s eg de Saussure, De Luc, Whitehurst, Buffon, Soulavie, Hamilton to name a few. As Lyell was only born in 1798 so geological time was not "constructed on the original, shaky, unscientific foumdations of Sir Charles Lyell". Get your facts right and even I might listen!"

REPLY:

Well, leaving aside your phrase: 'vast age was well-known and demonstrated' and noting with a mild degree of scepticism your claim that 'Get your facts right and even I might listen!', I think I am right in saying that Sir Charles Lyell was the first to come up with a specific line of evidence which to him (and others at the time) provided absolute proof that the world was older than 6,000 years - whereas the others you mention were going more on their general powers of reasoning that the earth might be older than the Bible appeared to claim.

Lyell visited Niagara Falls in 1841 and claimed that because Niagara Falls retreated at the rate of 1 foot a year and had retreated some 7 miles from Lake Ontario back to Lake Erie, the earth must be at least 35,000 years old (7 miles = 356,960 feet).

Believe it or not, he arrived at this estimate by asking a local yokel how much it retreated and was told 'about 3 foot a year'. As if this was not enough bad science for one morning, he then went on to assume (and it's wise not to base too much on assumptions) that the man was exaggerating by a factor of at least three times. And so he added this vital piece of 'evidence' in his Principles of Geology (first published 1833, with 11 further editions thereafter). And they call him a great scientist!

In fact, rates of retreat have been proved to be significantly *faster* than 3 feet a year and the results of modern calculations are consistent with the retreat from Ontario having started 4,500 years ago - the approximate date creationists give for The Flood.

Ian T Taylor, in "In the Minds of Men" wrote: "Lyell's estimate, in the mid nineteenth century, had a most significant impact on the common man's beliefs, but his method can hardly be called scientific or even honest" (p. 82, ISBN 9 780969 178835).

Just to finish off, here is a rough summary of how old the earth is, according to the latest scientific thinking over recent times:

Below 25 million years until

1850 - 25 million years (Kelvin)

1897 - 40 million years (Kelvin)

1899 - 90 million years (J. Joly)

1921 - 1,000 million years (Rayleight) [NOTE: unscientific radiometric dating first introduced]

1932 - 1,600 million years (W.O. Hotchkiss)

1947 - 3,350 million years (A. Holmes)

1956 - 4,500 million years (A. Holmes)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/u][/b]
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Sheesh...

Postby Yargo » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:44 am

Me thinks the efforts of science education are safer from corruption than otherwise feared....

Rbt
User avatar
Yargo
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Manchester - UK / Laem Tanod - Thailand

Re: Sir Charles Lyell's guesswork proved wrong

Postby Michael » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:20 am

Joachim Schlick wrote:re (Michael): "The vast age of the earth was well-known and demonstrated by many in the 1780s eg de Saussure, De Luc, Whitehurst, Buffon, Soulavie, Hamilton to name a few. As Lyell was only born in 1798 so geological time was not "constructed on the original, shaky, unscientific foumdations of Sir Charles Lyell". Get your facts right and even I might listen!"

REPLY:

Well, leaving aside your phrase: 'vast age was well-known and demonstrated' and noting with a mild degree of scepticism your claim that 'Get your facts right and even I might listen!', I think I am right in saying that Sir Charles Lyell was the first to come up with a specific line of evidence which to him (and others at the time) provided absolute proof that the world was older than 6,000 years - whereas the others you mention were going more on their general powers of reasoning that the earth might be older than the Bible appeared to claim.

Lyell visited Niagara Falls in 1841 and claimed that because Niagara Falls retreated at the rate of 1 foot a year and had retreated some 7 miles from Lake Ontario back to Lake Erie, the earth must be at least 35,000 years old (7 miles = 356,960 feet).

Believe it or not, he arrived at this estimate by asking a local yokel how much it retreated and was told 'about 3 foot a year'. As if this was not enough bad science for one morning, he then went on to assume (and it's wise not to base too much on assumptions) that the man was exaggerating by a factor of at least three times. And so he added this vital piece of 'evidence' in his Principles of Geology (first published 1833, with 11 further editions thereafter). And they call him a great scientist!

In fact, rates of retreat have been proved to be significantly *faster* than 3 feet a year and the results of modern calculations are consistent with the retreat from Ontario having started 4,500 years ago - the approximate date creationists give for The Flood.

Ian T Taylor, in "In the Minds of Men" wrote: "Lyell's estimate, in the mid nineteenth century, had a most significant impact on the common man's beliefs, but his method can hardly be called scientific or even honest" (p. 82, ISBN 9 780969 178835).

Just to finish off, here is a rough summary of how old the earth is, according to the latest scientific thinking over recent times:

Below 25 million years until

1850 - 25 million years (Kelvin)

1897 - 40 million years (Kelvin)

1899 - 90 million years (J. Joly)

1921 - 1,000 million years (Rayleight) [NOTE: unscientific radiometric dating first introduced]

1932 - 1,600 million years (W.O. Hotchkiss)

1947 - 3,350 million years (A. Holmes)

1956 - 4,500 million years (A. Holmes)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/u][/b]



Sorry but you are plain wrong.
I 1860 the Rev Samuel Haughton of TCD an opponent of Darwin reckoned the base of the Cambrian to be 1800my whereas both Huxley and Phillips reckoned the earth to be c 100my .

Do some homework please

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Michael » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:25 am

My dear Anthony, you reduce the Bible to a pack of fairy tales , I prefer to follow its truth and authority.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Chris Sergeant » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:13 pm

When I read these biblical scholars nit picking over words in the text, I can see why I am Agnostic. However it is Christmas, so on reading the screeds above, I was reminded that:
The Duke of Burgundy butterfly has 6 legs in the female and 4 in the male. Not that I was planning to eat it.
Numbers in the Old Testament are not reliable. Mathematics was primitive. Didn't letters stand for some numbers early on, leading to confusion between captains and casualties?
Most YECs claim the earth is 6k years old. Hindu creationists think it is trillions of years old. Solipsists are not sure if it exists at all. So put them all together and take the average, to give the result arrived at by Science.
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Rabbits eating their own feces

Postby Peter M J Hess » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:06 pm

"The rabbit, instead, eats its own excrement (faecal pellets), and
thus redigests them. Usually this occurs during the daytime
underground as the rabbit is resting..."

How cunningly devised! Almost as intelligently designed as the
behavior of sexual suicide, in which the male of the praying mantis
(and other species) cannot ejaculate until his head is completely
chewed off by the female. The irreducible complexity in this
behaviour practically screams that it couldn't have evolved, but must
have been designed by a wise creator caring for his creation.

Peter Hess
Peter M. J. Hess, PhD
Faith Project Director
National Center for Science Education
http://www.ncseweb.org
Peter M J Hess
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Berkeley, California USA

Next

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron