Comments |
 |
Comments
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
Vote Here
Loading ...
Comments |
|
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
Loading ...
I wonder if it would be possible to get the photographer Robert Vavra involved. He has taken many marvelous photos of horses as well as the alleged cousins unicorns. You can see some of his unicorn photos at http://www.robertvavra.com/stock_unicorns1.html. (No, I am not related to, do not work for and have never met Mr. Vavra. Just a fan of his work.)
Unicorn is used to translate the Hebrew word meaning some species of wild bull - a powerful, not easily tamed creature:
Whatever helps you sleep at night… But unicorn means unicorn!
Believe it or not, the Jewish scriptures were nto written in middle ages English:
“So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is ראם (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.
It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/re’em were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).
The real re’em or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle.”
That’s rich:
So this god figure decides to inspire a group of folks but figures there is no need to inspire translators and be accurate in other languages. Now that’s “intelligent design” for ya,
Can you tell me more about your explanation for the unicorn based in Assyrian art? On the face of it, it cofuses me. Whether the Assyrian’s depicted animals from one side or not, don’t most mammals with horns have pairs which are symetrical? Wouldn’t people who lived with many of these animals understand that the depicted animals have two horns? If the second horn was hidden by the profile angle of the Assysyrian drawings, wouldn’t these same people then assume that the animal had only one eye and ear? I think a cycloptic animal would be much more notable than one horned animal. Thanks.
Remember that the Hebrew word is re’em; the Assyrian word is rimu. This is the creature that the Greeks, translated into monokeros, which means “one horn”, as does the word, “unicorn”.
People often describe things, based on their appearance. As I said some time ago, the creatures we call “millipedes” don’t really have 1,000 feet; they just look as though they do.
If the only reference to the re’em/rimu, due to its extinction is a shot of it, with only one horn, then it’s not hard to see how the Greeks would translate that.
The point, that has been made time and time again, is that this creature is NOT the horsey-like critter we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
I (and a number of posters here) have repeatedly the folks here, who are yucking it up and claiming that Christians believe that unicorns exists, to actually show that the ancient Hebrews (Moses, David, Isaiah, etc.) were referring to the critter, depicted on this site.
To this day, no one has done so.
The same art depicted here could be shown to describe another possible creationist theory. Halos were used to show the holistic presence in many of the religious media paintings. If taken from a 2-dimensional viewpoint these halos could be construed as globes, or space helmets.
Thus giving more strength that the Egyptians were visited by aliens and we transcended from there.
Relate that.
What are you saying, Rob? Are you really saying that God has made the text infallible in Hebrew that at times is very hard to decipher but yet has not made sure translator get it right as well? Where’s your belief and trust in God? Of course he makes sure translations are correct too. There would be no point making the original infallible is the translations are not. Besides, we do not have a sinlge original Biblical text so if He does not make sure translations are also correct we could never know the Bible.
OK, see you at the Unicorn Musuem next summer!
What Rob appears to be saying (as I have said) is that the re’em creature is NOT the horsey-looking critter that we’ve come to know as a “unicorn”.
Again, the whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
Month after month has passed by; but, we’ve yet to see anyone show that when David, Moses, Isaiah, and the other authors of the books, containing those nine verses that used the word, re’em, they (in fact) were making reference to the creature depicted on this site.
//Believe it or not, the Jewish scriptures were nto written in middle ages English://
And, believe it or not, there ARE people who SWEAR that the King James Version is the literal word of god.
These people deserve to be mocked for many, many reasons: but that one especially.
what do you mean by that?
The whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
On several occassions, the explanation has been given that the Hebrew word in those verses is re’em. Archaeological research has pointed to an extinct creature, a form of wild ox, as being the actual creature being reference.
The Assyrian word for this creature is rimu, similar to the Hebrew word, re’em. Add to that, the fact that this creature is described as having brute strength and is often compared with cattle in the Bible. The KJV Bible was translated from the Septuagint (in Greek), and apparently, their only reference to this creature was ancient artifacts, displaying (in profile) one horn. Hence the re’em got the name, “monokeros”, which means one horn.
Therefore, the challenge was made to our friendly neighborhood atheists, Bible skeptics, and agnostics to show that when the ancient Hebrews (King David, Moses, Isaiah, etc.) penned their verses and used the word, re’em, that they were, indeed, referring to the creature depicted on this site, that we’ve come to call a “unicorn”.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE has done to to this day.
Actually unicorn means “one horn”. I believe the problem lies in translation. I believe that they were describing a one horned animal using the word unicorn. The KJV was translated from the Septuagint which used the word monokeros, which also means one horn. The other problem is that people today want to take everything at face value. Oh, it said unicorn and they do not exist. Huh, huh, that means the Bible isn’t true. My comment to that is, as you said, “Whatever helps you sleep at night.” You can choose to believe or not. But I will say this. If there is no God, then even as a believer I am still better off. Because if there is a God and his son Jesus Christ came, then I am going to heaven. And unfortunately you might not (unless you one day choose to believe). But your probably a really good person, and you are apparently a real smarty pants. Hopefully you’ll be OK.
You might want to try forgetting all you know, or think you know, and try putting yourself in a position of translating one language to another. You might find that it is not as easy as it would probably seem. Also, words that we use today were not common place for that time. It’s like physics. Physicists have known about forces for quite some time. But they did not always qualify them into four groups: gravitational; weak nuclear force, string nuclear force, electromagnetic force. If I were like you — I guess I could just pick fun and label that physicists that did not name things the way I know them as idiots. That would not be fair. And it is incorrect to do so. Humans have come a long way in language. And to a large extent we use it incorrectly everyday. Anyway, I will leave you to chew on that for awhile.
What would you call an unknown one horned animal? Oh, and you have to only use Latin to come up with the word to describe it. Would you maybe choose unicorn.
And it turned out that the word always thought to mean “virgin” actually meant “young girl” but you don’t see Christian groups recalling their bibles and changing their dogma.
At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.
“At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.”
Or they were–gasp–sneaky and didn’t let on that they’d Done It because they knew they’d be shunned or stoned to death. Further, are we to believe that there was *no word* for “virgin” in ancient Hebrew that the writer couldn’t’ have used if he had really meant to say “virgin” instead of “young woman”? Please.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched. To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely. Alot of fathers and family would take advantage of young girls (BTW you were married long before 21 and most likely around 14-17) who were about of age. The first born in some cultrures was slain and thought to be the son of man fathers, as they thought that the male seed could last forever in a woman, as long as she has not given birth, and that multiple men could potentially father a single baby. The catholic church changed the meaning long ago to say that a “virgin” was an untouched woman to control the population of some peoples and to have definitive proof that the sons and daughters of a notable person was, indeed the son/daughter OF that person. The punishment that went with new law was stoning (no pot involved, unfortunately) if caught or showed signs (broken heimlen (sp?), bleeding, or bruseing) of having sex.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched.
That makes no sense. Women who were unmarried, yet sexually active, were/are called a lot of things. But, “virgin” ain’t one of them.
The mention of marital status implies that unmarried women were expected to be “untouched”.
To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely.
And what society was this? It wasn’t those in the Middle East, especially the Jewish or Arab ones.
As far as the Bible goes, did you happen to notice that many of the verses that use the word “virgin” state, in the surrounding context, that the woman hadn’t been sexually involved with anyone? A few examples:
Lev. 21:14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could marry: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, [or] an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Now, if they couldn’t take a widow, divorcee, harlot, or profane woman, that left only one type of woman: a virgin, one who has never had sex.
Gen 21:14 describes Isaac bride-to-be, Rebekah, And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Young unmarried women were expected to be virgins and were deemed as such, unless there was evidence to the contrary. That title certainly DID NOT go to a unmarried woman, known to be sexually active.
You, like Whitecat, make the gross assumption that, in ancient Hebrew times, the terms were mutually exclusive. Again, check out Leviticus 21:13-14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could and could not marry.
And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
A young unmarried woman was a virgin, a harlot, or profane (read “defiled”, aka slut).
A once-married woman (young or otherwise) was either a divorcee or a widow.
So, from the looks of things, there’s plenty of context to suggest that the word, translated as “virgin”, referred to a woman was known to be sexually pure. And, similarly, to get back on topic, there’s plenty of context in those 9 verses to suggest that the re’em creature, that the Greeks translated as “monokeros” is NOT the horsey-looking critter, we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
Don’t tell American Evangelicals this. The Bible was written in modern English two thousand years ago and has remained unchanged and unedited since then.
Ha! Ha! Yeah, but I bet the thumpers wish they could manipulate it at will to strike their current fancy. As when one of their number is caught diddling little boys they could zip in some quickie Jesus quote about boy diddling being okey-dokey so long as the diddler goes to rehab and apologizes.
Ooh, I get it. When it says “unicorn”, it doesn’t actually mean unicorn. It means something entirely different.
See, it might say unicorn right there in black and white. But it doesn’t actually mean what it says. It means something else. And you’d never think of it unless someone told you.
It’s good to know that when I read something that seems plain wrong, it doesn’t mean what it says. That certainly helps give me confidence!
( PS - can someone clarify what “lion” means? Just feel like I need to double-check. A picture would help. )
thanks for the translation!!……. :D :D
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-unicorn-video-ap.html
While you’re at it, you could also compile a list of possible “real” unicorns. For example, the one that is most likely is an extinct animal called the aurochs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs), which, as you can see, has two horns. However, its horns are symmetrical and thus could be viewed in profile as one. This is most likely what was meant by the Assyrian “rimu”, which is similar to the Hebrew “re’em” (which was translated into the Septuagint as “monokeros”, perhaps as the proper understanding of the Hebrew word, which has also been translated as “wild ox”). There has also been thought that it is really an oryx (also a symmetrically-horned animal that is translated into Modern Hebrew as “re’em” which is also similar to the Arabic “raim”, a lightly colored gazelle), but its goat size may be a problem. But yeah, if you’re gonna do this, first emphasize the medieval notion of the unicorn before delving into what was really meant prior to mistranslations from the Septuagint.
So last week I was at a bar hanging out with my friends when this guy in a cloak wouldn’t shut up about “re’em’s.” Wild ox this, rimu that, over and over with the auroch skit. . .give it a rest already!
Turns out his name was Joshura. That’s right Josh, you’re about as fun as a stick. A stick with a cloak and the voice of “comic book guy” from the Simpsons. Maybe we could make a list of “real” unicorns. . .or we could make a list of pet names for our toenails? Anyway, good luck and P.S. it’s not cool to drink lemonade mixed with sprite while sitting at the bar.
Just a few things:
1. Yes, I am a scientist, currently advancing to Ph.D candidacy in Molecular Genetics/Biochemistry.
2. Yes, I enjoy the TWIS podcast and enjoy it regularly.
3. However, I will not have my religion or, for the matter, the field of Biblical archeology disparaged in the way you just did, Andrew. I was just saying that this site needs a page on the origins of the unicorn/wild-ox/whatever, and you turn it into a form of bashing religion (you don’t think I can read between the words?). Shame on you.
Josh!
I’m sure that Kir and whatshisname will include lots of stuff on whatever the original unicorn might have been when they get the museum going. If you post info on the possible origins of the unicorn myth, I’m sure they’ll list your website. I think, right now, they are just interested in a billboard that makes a statement leading nowhere.
Leading nowhere? That’s your opinion. The statement seems pretty clear to me: “The Bible is full of fantastical stuff that no clear-minded adult would ever believe were it not encased in the pages of a mystical handbook.” Where does it lead? To logic, rational analysis, and skeptical inquiry, all things sadly missing in American life these days.
Ph.D. candidate? Where? Oral Roberts U?
Heh, no. Bob Jones University. ;)
Try the University of Pittsburgh. And no, I wouldn’t have anything to do with ORU, BJU, Regent, Liberty, Pepperdine, etc., for a few reasons:
1. I’m Jewish (that’s probably the biggest reason right there)
2. I’m a Democrat
3. I’m a scientist
Contrary to your belief, faith in G-d and faith in science are not mutually exclusive. That’s one of the bases behind Bibilcal archeology (oh, and that’s the American spelling, for some Brit out there who doesn’t understand how we spell things in the states). Additionally, science may give us the “how”, but not necessarily the “why”. And sometimes, we may never be able to understand the “how”. For example: the Big Bang. Where did all the matter come from, if nothing existed prior? Or if another universe did exist prior, but contracted into the dense ball, well all the matter still needed to come from somewhere in the first place, rather than in an infinite a priori loop. I’m not saying there will never be a scientific explanation for the first appearance of matter in the dense ball, but the general problem will always come down to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in which all the energy+mass that exists in the universe remains constant from Day One. That is where I take a leap of faith, because based on that, I don’t think there will ever be a good explanation that follows this first essential law.
Amen to that! Have you heard about the “artificial life” they are coming out with now. They will begin form “Scratch” just like it would have been with the big bang. The big bang apparantly began with nothing. How do they know what was there. And if evolution does not take place they will implant the things that it will need to take place. They say this will completely prove evolution. Load of crap.
As I said to another poster, all these guys are doing is validating a principle that Louis Pasteur demonstrated long ago, when he basically hacked down the “spontaneous generation” tenet of evolution nearly two centuries ago: Life comes only from life. It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
This proves that “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution occured how?
It took God less than a week to create life, and He made far more complex creatures : )
Funny… you just kinda shot yourself in the foot MCWAY.
If “Life comes only from life.” that means god is ‘alive’ if god is alive… where did his life come from?
You must believe that ‘life’ can be spontaneously generated - otherwise who made your god?
Let me guess, the rules don’t apply to your god… you know because he told you so… he’s outside the bounds of reason…
Generally YE creationists spout a load of nonsense, claiming that they apply science and reason to their arguments - but wait! “How dare you apply logic to my beliefs… you can’t do that… ” blah blah.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear - but then expect people to believe a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
It’s idiotic.
First of all, I never claimed that a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
To the contrary, the short answer would be that God is, as the Bible describes Him, “from everlasting to everlasting”; He has always existed. That concept isn’t hard to grasp.
Of course, “from everlasting to everlasting” isn’t a problem for followers of “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution either. They simply refer to it as “matter”; hence, we end up with the dogma known as materialism (or naturalism), the paradigm on which evolution is based (as Rob pointed out earlier).
You have no origin for matter and no explanation for it. So, your griping about my not being to do the same with God is downright silly.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear.
That part of your statement is correct, for one simple reason, the one I mentioned in my earlier post: It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
If that “simple” life took that much DELIBERATE effort and intent, there is no way that such “simple” life can randomly form with no guidance, no intent, and no design, whatsoever.
In short, the major difference between your beliefs and mine is what we hold to be “from everlasting to everlasting”. For me, it’s the living, sentient, supernatural God; for you, it’s non-living, non-sentient, inexplicable (for lack of a better term) “goo”.
You truly are a man of science McWay. ‘I believe God is “from everlasting to everlasting”, so there. Yep, end of. That’s the way it is. My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him. Oh no, this isn’t base on faith - my beliefs are scientific.’
Then, I’m in good company, with guys like Pasteur, Newton, etc. Although I’m not a scientist, they were and they believed in the same God that I do.
No logic can reach your sacred 5-billion-year-old, inexplicably (but not supernaturally derived) blob of “goo”, either.
But, that hasn’t stopped you from adhering to the dogma that you are the product of series of “accidents” and random occurence with no sentient guidance.
How about I stick with my “sky daddy”; you stick with your “goo”; and we’ll call it even.
MCWAY you have no reasoned argument to offer… I’d leave it to Rob if I were you.
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
Either Newton believed in Creation or he didn’t. And from all appearances, he did. So squashed the atheists’ claims of believing in Creation being a hindrance to scientific progress.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
I thought the latest “Goo-to-you…..” flavor of the month was named Dawkins. Whatever his name is, he won’t be the first and he certainly won’t be the last atheist to have his blustering, blown by the wayside, as Christianity is and will remain.
Logic had little to do with how the theory of evolution came to be. It’s the result of a naturalistic mindset, with a deliberate intent for a godless explanation for life on earth. Evolutionists, past and present (including Darwin himself) have admitted such.
Science isn’t dogmatic; materialism/naturalism, the philosophic engine that drives evolution, is. That point repeatedly escapes you.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
I’m sorry!! You referred to God as a “sky fairy”. BTW, how’s the search for your standard or measuring stick for morality?
Was there a point to your last post? I think I missed it.
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.
Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?
As for the point that “repeatedly escapes” me; the “engine” the drives evolution is the same “engine” that drives all science.
Again… social morality I thought we’d covered this MCWAY how long can you ignore the point? Try this [Robin Allott. 1991. Journal of Social and Biological Structures. 14(4) 455-471.] An online version which is publicly accessible is here… http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm
So to finish… How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
“My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him.”
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
“I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.”
***the point is belief in the need or existence of a prime creator, not any particular specific belief of this beings intent.
“Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?”
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
Rob, don’t be silly - why uncreated?
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
A good old fashioned false dichotomy.
why uncreated? simple logic - how can a first cause be created?
a dichotomy? what are you talking about????
So how does something that is “Uncreated” exist?
The false dichotomy is…
“you are either purposely evil .[snip]. or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.”
interestingly enough the “scientist” shwunie must believe in both spontaneous generation and lamarckian evolution!
Biblical Archaeology? Are you kidding? No, come on, seriously, you are kidding, aren’t you? I mean, if you were serious you’d probably be able to spell “archaeology”, right?
please list for us the archaeological finds that refute any biblical history (then I will list the thousands that confirm it):
*cough
Evolutionary fossil record anyone?
and before you even think about telling everyone there are gaps, stick your head in a toilet. The thing is, every time a fossil fills a gap, you are delighted to say there are two gaps now: either side of it.
Here’s some news for you: one fossil in the wrong place or of the wrong age would completely decimate evolutionary theory.
Go fucking find one. There are millions out there
I don’t think Rob was talking about Creationism. Or if he was, I certainly didn’t read that into what he said. Biblical archeology is a different field, relating to the cultures and religious practices of the ancient Middle East. If you had taken the time to take your head out of your ass, you would have realized that.
please look up the words “archaeology” and “paleontology”, then get back to me……..
oh, by the way, there are thousands of “out of place” fossils - they are all dismissed as intrusions or something else since they do not fit the dominant paradigm. Though this has nothing to do with me beliefs about science or Christ….in my opinion, the language of the bible allows for yom to mean either a day or an era, and does not disallow death of animals befor eman. On purely scientific and historic evidence, I believe darwinian evolution to be very poorly supported, and only still extant because it is the best PURELY NATURALISTIC theory going, not the best theory that fits the evidence.
One thousand archaeological finds can not confirm any biblical history because examples can never prove something true. However, a single example to the contrary can DISPROVE something. Still, though, I’d be interested in seeing what you believe to be historical evidence supporting any of the fantastical claims in the bible.
Please define what you mean by “any of the fantastical claims in the bible.” There are thopusands if not hundreds of thousands of bits of archaeological, inscriptional and manuscriptual evidences for the accuracy of the histories and accounts of the Bible, so I am assuming you mean something else?
As with all great stories, the background story on which the primary narrative sits is generally factual. It’s true the bible has a good track record in some regards.
However, for example, just because I read a James Bond story that’s set in England, London, with Queen Elizabeth II ruling as queen, Brown as Prime Minister in 2007… doesn’t mean that I believe any of Bond’s exploits are true.
Although this isn’t strictly ‘archaeological’ example… we can find some rather dodgy chronology in the bible. The census called which required Joseph to return to Bethlehem is, well, a little premature.
This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth.
This is one example of bible errancy, there are of course many more.
Well, first, skeptics used to claim the romans conducted NO such censuses where people wer required to return to their ancestral city. they don’t any more.
there are a number of ways to reconcile the census in Luke (one of the best sources extant for roman history in this area and time) with other hisotrical acocunts (which you assume to be accurate on a far more flimsy basis than the account of Luke, I believe becaus it supports your skepticism).
—-Luke 2:2: Making Sense of the Date of Jesus’ Birth
John M. Rist
Cambridge
—-The suggestion made in this note is that in Luke 2:2 we should read ‘Quintilius’ instead of ‘Quirinius’. The evidence is primarily that of Tertullian, and the conclusion is that Luke 2:2 as emended confirms that the evangelist or his source held that Jesus was born not in AD 6, but in 7 or 6 BC, in line with other evidence in Luke himself and in Matthew. Further textual suggestions as to how we could make sense of the census are appended.
For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child.
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?
2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings in his ABC Special “The Search for Jesus,” and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi told me:
Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee. And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem. One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that he didn’t have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.
An Empire-wide census?
Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.
Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.
But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: “Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12.” This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.
Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.
So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.
The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, “…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions.”
But what about Luke’s reference, “this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?” When Luke says this was the “first” census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated “first,” according to some Greek scholars can also be translated “prior.” If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
—-Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, “It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census.” This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.
I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?
—–Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?
This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.
Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.
Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.
Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.
So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
This is all conjecture… there’s no proof of the census… you take it on faith because it’s mentioned in the bible. Pure and simple.
well, now you change the argument. i was answering a challenge to provide any historicla evidence supporting th ebiblicla account. first, please define “proof” in a historical context. second, actually read the post. it mentions many non-biblical sources, and non-biblical reasons why something in luke makes sense.
it is also not proper to use standards that you do nto apply to toher historical documents. the likelihood of like being correct from a purely historical standards view is very high.
I didn’t bother really reading your post - as I’ve already read previously - as you stole it from Dr John Ankerberg. So please shut up!
‘You’ haven’t done anything.
Ankerberg’s work is not worthy of publishing anywhere… including this page.
then you ahve read it..so either refut eit factually or give your evidence for claiming “This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth. “
So you’re not ashamed that you attempted to pass off someone else’s work as your own?
Why would I waste my time? If Ankerberg can get it published then it would be proven as worthy of note. A previously unknown census would be big news.
You need to prove that it’s true, not me.
sorry, that snot the way history and textual criticism works. hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood. simple lack of verifiability in other surviving documents is not reason to deny an event occured. there is a long oist of such claims that have gone by the wayside when new manuscriptural or inscriptional evidence has been found.
most casual critics such as you have no real concept of how few surviving documents there are from this era, and how reliable the biblical acocunts (minus the resurrection and such) are viewed by secular historians.
So I’m a “casual critic”. What are you Rob?
Are you saying as a “casual critic” I would have to prove that the following as presented in Luke didn’t happen?
Luke 1: 11-12 (also 28) ?Sky fairies appearing
The whole virgin birth thing?
Chapter 4:
The whole devil temptation thing?
Quote “What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!”
Various healing stuff?
Chapter 5
Magic Fishing?
Curing leprosy?
Curing a paralytic?
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
I’m sorry. I thought this little blurb was about the accuracy of Luke’s census.
Rob stated that hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.
So, instead of attempting to show that Luke’s census was false, to support your earlier claim of the census being a gospel invention, you start yapping about the supernatural accounts within Luke’s gospel.
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
No more foolish than you are. The miracles were “hugely rare events”. Certainly, you don’t have a problem with “hugely rare events”. Oh the irony!!! Someone who believes that life came from non-life dismissing claims of resurrected dead (and other supernatural events).
shaunie
no, please try to follow a line of communication. i clearly stated what it is up to you - to prove falsehood concerning THE CENSUS. no it is not up to you when it comes to a miraculous event, but that is not what you made the claim o ffalsehood concerning - it was the census.
now how about getting back on track?
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did.
What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 08:56:09
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did. ”
***no, it simply is not. over the past couple of hundred years, skeptics ahve sued this argument, simply changing the argument from silence from one subject to another as their previous arguments are shot down by new archaeologicall or manuscript evidence. it si never ending. when, in every instance where luke can be verified or falsified by such evidence, he is verified, it is correct to assume he is also correct in other areas unless shwon otherwise. the hdefault position when judging historicity of manuscripts is not that they are false.
“What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.”
***what utter nonsense. find an actual historian, especially one specializing in ancient roman or judean history. ask them. luke is considered a very important historical source, and very reliable. it appears you ahve not read it to make such claims. does he record the statements of eyewitnesses to miraculous events? of course….but the vast majority of luke - and i would include acts as well….is simple history. here is how it begins:
So many others have tried their hand at putting together a story of the wonderful harvest of Scripture and history that took place among us, using reports handed down by the original eyewitnesses who served this Word with their very lives. Since I have investigated all the reports in close detail, starting from the story’s beginning, I decided to write it all out for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can know beyond the shadow of a doubt the reliability of what you were taught.
During the rule of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest assigned service in the regiment of Abijah. His name was Zachariah. His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron. Her name was Elizabeth. Together they lived honorably before God, careful in keeping to the ways of the commandments and enjoying a clear conscience before God. But they were childless because Elizabeth could never conceive, and now they were quite old.
Rob this is idiocy…. Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.
That’s funny!!
“Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental. A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.” - F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
“The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At this point we are describing what reasons and arguments changed the mind of one who began under the impression that the history was written long after the events and that it was untrustworthy as a whole.” - Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
And when Rob produces more sources, citing Luke’s accuracy, your excuse will be…….
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!
It’s the old skeptic “He don’t count” game……I see!!!
You claimed that no historian claimed that Luke’s gospel account has verifiable facts.
I produced two. Rob, should he feel like doing so, will produce some more.
Plus, what makes you think the work of Ramsay or Bruce wasn’t “peer-reviewed”?
And, of course, you have YET to show that Luke’s census was fabricated, as you claimed.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-22 06:58:49
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!”
***you really gotta use that phrase more judiciously - why would experts commenting on luke’s accuracy be “peer-reviewed”??? you really are talking off the top of your head. your game is never ending - as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.
tell me now how many confirmations of luke’s accuracy is enough, and i will provide them.
—Dr. William F. Albright:
“The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details.”
—Sir Frederic Kenyon says:”… the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge.”
—He [Ramsay] was trained in the German historical school of the mid-Nineteenth Century. As a result he was taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-Second Century A.D. He was firmly convinced of this belief and set out to prove its teaching. However, he was compelled to a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the readers. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a Second Century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for First Century condition, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.”
Ramsay also maintained nothing but the highest regard for Luke’s abilities as a historian: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historical sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the (progression) of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatests of historians.”
—The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay’s work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted
—Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.
— Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.
—Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.
It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
—Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity. But he wanted above all to eliminate doubt as to the accuracy of the things that had been fulfilled, that is, the saving work of Christ, and desired to give assurance to Theophilus and his other readers regarding events in Christ’s life.[9]Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” BSac 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71.
Well, Shaunie.
Start with the excuses. Or, if you prefer, you can actually show your support for your claim that no historian believes that Luke’s gospel is full of verifiable facts and that the whole thing was fabricated.
sherwin-white, ramsay, albright, kenyon…….how many more would you like shaunie? or will you finally admit this: “Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.” was pulled from the same dark region as most of your other claims of fact?
Oh my you’ve busy nicking little bits of info from various websites.
Again, I can only go back to what I said earlier… the point of which you totally ignored.
Most fictional stories have elements of truth… the Da Vinci Code is full of ‘historically proven facts’. That does make the whole book true. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, the fact is you don’t have any.
I like this quote “as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.”. Although this isn’t true, (most skeptics have issue with the supernatural parts of the bible… where are the discoveries to falsify this?) it is ironic… sounds a bit like ID!
Anyway…
Dr. William F. Albright - A brief look on wiki shows how his research has been surpassed. It’s not generally accepted.
Sir Frederic Kenyon - His research is over 100 years old! Is that quote about Luke, or Genesis perhaps?
Who’s Ramsay?
A.N. Sherwin-White. I think we missed a bit of his quote…
“For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.
Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions.” So as I said… there are elements of truth, but ultimately just ‘propaganda’.
Oh wow… ‘district’! Jesus must be God! I’m sure some other words and descriptions are accurate, some places, leaders etc…
All these things don’t make the extraordinary claims in Luke true. It’s this type of clever framing that makes stories believable… which is probably why people actually believe the nonsense in the Da Vinci Code.
Luke is a story… it does of course have verifiable facts in it (that I made clear) however it’s not ‘full’ of facts it’s a fictional story, based in the real world. I wouldn’t describe Luke as full of ‘facts’ anymore than the Da Vinci Code? Or would you describe that book as such, because Brown mentions historically accurate places, names etc…?
As I said… what Luke is full of is “magical claims and narrative - nothing more.” You’ve not answered my previous posts regarding this?
What you claimed is that NO historian considered Luke to be filled with verifiable facts. When Rob and I gave examples of historians who did such, you did what you do best: make excuses, change the arguments, and resort to insults to cover your behind.
MCWAY do actually read the threads before writing the rubbish you do?
This started from “This is all conjecture… there’s no proof of the census… you take it on faith because it’s mentioned in the bible. Pure and simple.”
Then Rob tried to make out Luke is some kind of totally accurate historical document…
I pointed out that “Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.”
Meaning that although there will be historicity to the document, primarily historians realise that Luke is a story. (A point I’m trying to demonstrate with the Da Vinci Code story).
If you can’t understand that, then you clearly are not trying.
Where’s your evidence for demons by the way? You’re still strangely quiet about it?
Bite me Joshua. And oh by the way, stop being such a sniveling bitch. You and every other self righteous, soul destroying, mind numbing, bile spewing religious right asshole ought to be chain whipped for the damage you’ve done to this country. LOL and finally, your god blows!
I just stumbled into this forum, and I may not know anyone here or be able to plaster my opinion about who is “right” and “wrong”. However, I can not in good conscience pass up the above comment without defending my God.
If we are attempting to debate what He has done to this country, let’s start by talking about why this country exists. The idea of “America” was created by the colonies citing 27 BIBLICAL immoralities being enforced against them. 52 of the 55 fathers of the US constitution were active in their church (the people and the cause, not the building); these are the same men who claimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of the American system.
If we are to debate what type of person or religion is “self-righteous” or “soul destroying”, let us compare motives. Atheists would battle their point to what end? To be “right”? There is no personal advantage to “witnessing” atheism. Meanwhile, the motif for Christians is the love of another human being (although admittedly, most do this very poorly). I would speak that message to Hitler himself, solely for the sake of saving a single soul from death.
And finally, if you are looking for a cheesy punchline from all of us “sniveling bitches” to try and put you in your place, tough luck. It takes a bigger man to look into an opposing belief with an open mind and decide afterward than it does to mock anything that isn’t tangibly in front of us. I ask that you don’t publicly disrespect other people with your personal business. Even if this Joshua isn’t your kind of guy, the better thing to do would be to look into what he’s really talking about (if you care so much); then, take it up with him.
(Also, even though I seriously doubt I will influence your beliefs, I encourage you to pick up a Bible and do a little reading - even if it’s just for a night alone at home. I think you’ll be surprised by some of the things written in those pages. The Gospel of John from the New Testament is a good place to start if you’re interested.)
I’m sorry, but I take issue with your comment that “there is no personal advantage to ‘witnessing’ atheism.”
First of all: why does there have to be a personal advantage to make it worthwhile? Why can’t it be an advantage for someone else?
Second: I think people would be spared a lot of guilt and anxiety (about hell), arbitrarily defined “sins” (like homosexuality) that should not be called sins, hatred, intolerance, and holy wars to name a few things, by giving up religion. Not that religion is the sole cause of these things, but it’s a major one.
It’s hardly a new or original point, either. Surely you’ve heard this argument in favor of atheism before. Most Christians and other monotheists I know respond that “not all religious people are like that.” This is very true: many religious people are not like that. But most religions are.
Third: I would say many atheists argue not to be “right” but to find truth. I believe you’ve put an unkind spin on this motivation out of misunderstanding or some other ill feeling. It’s not very Christian of you to do so, either. Besides, question your own motivations. You come across as rather self-righteous even as you try to prove otherwise. Is it neighborly kindness and charity for its own sake, or for some heavenly reward, or feeling proud of yourself?
Can anyone who’s not Christian have pure motives? You seem to say we can’t.
Anyway, seeing as this is only the internet, I’m going off now to get a little sunshine and fresh air. Cheers.
First of all, I’d like to apologize for the way I came off to you (or anyone else reading); it was not my intent to sound self righteous at all, or attack anyone’s motivation for their beliefs. My goal, in writing what I did, was to place my frustration in strong, simple words for Bill. He seems very cynical and condescending, based on his post. I only wanted to try and deter him from being so blunt and hateful in the future.
Secondly, “personal advantage” was a bad way to phrase that thought. I agree with you almost entirely. It is a search for truth, and what every person believes is their own prerogative. However, I also take issue with a comment of yours. Your second point seems to be a very overly stereotypical view of the term “Religion”. And actually, you have the concepts wrong (as per true Christianity anyway). No sin is arbitrary, and two of the greatest sins ever mentioned by Christ himself were Hate and Indifference (a more passive form of intolerance).
Either way, my interest doesn’t lie in winning any debate. I’m not here to fight. The goal of living as we do is to find the truth, and I hope we do someday.
We as human beings should be more interested in seeing people’s faces and not their affiliations. I’ll be the first to admit that I do this horribly, but I try. Along with that, focus on the things that matter, such as poverty (mentioned repeatedly in many books of the Bible) as opposed to homosexuality (mentioned only a couple times throughout the entirety of the text).
Oh, and for the record…the reason I call myself a “Christian” and not a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc is because I am sick of the same things you seem to be. I left my church some time ago in search of more real Christians who are more open and honest, and will objectively look for the truth. Not to try and judge, mind you; however, I became uncomfortable with the feeling of hypocrisy all around me. Thought you might be interested, for the sake of seeing my face through the affiliations.
The thing that is so unpleasant about religious indoctrination is that it sets you up for a life of searching for something that is not there. You say you left your church and now aim to “objectively look for the truth”. The problem is that you’ve already set yourself up for failure by only looking for “real Christians”. I hate to break it to you - and I doubt you want to hear it - but some day perhaps you will realize that there are lots of people out there who “objectively look for the truth”. These people are called scientists. If you really take the time to dig into geology, anthropology, biology, chemistry and physics, etc… well you will find all the answers you really ever need. Some of those answers may not make you happy - but that doesn’t invalidate their validity. No one said the universe existed to make you feel good about yourself.
Happily, after sifting through that information, you will discover that it is possible to create an entire world view that is entirely self-consistent. There are excellent reasons why people should and do cooperate and live in relative harmony and happiness - no religion required. Honest.
That “hypocrisy” you mention… a big chunk of that is something we might call congnitive dissonance. Basically, when you realize that you “believe” several contradictory facts, your brain has to pick one belief or find some accomodation between those beliefs. Generally, this process will make you uncomfortable and/or upset. No one likes to believe they aren’t thinking clearly. It isn’t your fault a lot of bad facts were stuffed into your head as a kid. When an entire belief structure - the religious indoctrination you received as a child - is called into question… Well there are two responses. The cowardly way is to stick your head into the sand and pretend that all those precious “truths” you learned in Sunday school *must be true*. The brave way, the adult way, is to own up to the fact that your caregivers were imperfect and they taught you some shit that doesn’t, on reflection, make a lot of sense. Move on, learn for yourself. And for god’s sake, don’t try to learn anything from “real Christians”. Those people are probably just as confused as you are.
…not to try and be a jerk, but now that sounds self-righteous.
Please do not assume that my beliefs are just force fed from my parents - they are not. Do not assume that only scientists are objective - many are not (and many others are). And for crying out loud, do not use the phrase “For God’s Sake” in an anti-religious argument! I’ve worked long and hard over the years to figure out just what I can and can’t believe. I believe the scriptures as history, just as you believed your high school textbooks about WW2. Call me cowardly and childish if you will, but first give me a single error in the Bible, with scriptural and historical context for its disproof. This would only require a second grade critical reading ability and a lot of elbow grease. Trust me, this is not my parents’ religion…
Now, I would like to end my part of this thread gracefully. I don’t frequent this forum, and I keep forgetting to keep checking back here. Sorry.
First of all, look up the word “hypocrisy”. I’m not sure where you were trying to go with “cognitive dissonance”. Nice, fancy term - but it doesn’t really relate.
And secondly, when was it stated that I was confused in my beliefs?
I do happen to be unhappy with “Sunday Christians”, but that is not in any way to assume that I don’t stand 100% behind my convictions. I have done all the research I can get my hands on, and I continue to research whatever new information I find. The fact of the matter is that I believe a man named Jesus (far and away, the most historically documented man of his time), (as written) the son of God, died to save the world from sin and death.
That being said, this is an eternally pointless debate. To “prove” one side over the other (if we are truly debating religion vs. science) is not possible; and honestly, I think the truth lies somewhere in both. Science and religion cover a lot of similar ground. To separate them, I believe, is counterproductive.
Finally (for the record), when I search for truth in my life, it’s in the little things. I no longer ask “Is there a God?”. I challenge myself to find God’s will in everything I do. I felt saying “objectively searching for the truth” was a more clear-cut, secular phrase that would elaborate for me without making people uncomfortable. Apparently I was mistaken, and I apologize. Unfortunately, choosing words carefully has never been my strong suit.
Anywho… I wish you all the best of luck with the unicorn project!!!
By the way, most founding fathers where deist, not christians, which is why you have a separation of church and state in the US. America is not a christian nation, it is a secular one.
Untrue. Actually the terms ‘deism’ and ‘Christianity’ cover the same territory in this case.
This proves both our points, however, just using different wording. Although the US is a secular nation, it was founded in principles of deism, or the finding of God (or truth, if using “God” is uncomfortable for you) in reason and personal experience. The majority of America’s founding fathers did this by way of Christianity. I beat around the bush, but anyway yes, you have a good point that I neglected- America is free to all beliefs, not only a choice few.
* I have read the Bible…
* It’s poorly written…
* Needs editing…
* Much can be accomplished with bullet points…
* And what’s up with Job offering his daughters to be raped by the horny mob?
* And what’s with them raping him later?
I think you meant to say Lot, not Job.
Thsi si one of the reasons I decided, in my 40’s, that Christianity and its claims deserved an honest assessment……..the Christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the anti-christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks. This observation was so consistent, it finally gave me pause to wonder why……..
“…the Christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the anti-christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks.”
Umm, you mixed that up. Change it to “…the anti-christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the Christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks.”
Unless you were using irony?
no, no irony. you can begin your own sampling right here.
What do you mean, “I will not have my religion disparaged”? What are you going to do, file a frivolous lawsuit? Unleash a virus? Track the guy down and beat him up?
People need to lighten up and toughen up as well. This is freedom of speech. If you were really secure in your beliefs, would it bother you so much?
I realize religion is a deeply held belief that invokes powerful emotions in a lot of people. So does any mention of Santa Claus in a typical American five-year-old.
But, okay, this is the internet. Everything else aside - it’s the INTERNET, people.
As for the guy who says someone would be surprised by some of the things written in the pages of the Bible- I’ve read most of those. And the verses are surprising, indeed, I won’t argue there.
I recommend starting with Leviticus, Numbers, and Revelations.
What I meant by that is I wasn’t going to go down without a fight. And no, not frivolous lawsuits, but I guess since you want a flame war, you got one. While I am somewhat religious (I regularly go to Hillel and Chabad House at Pitt), I am by no means on the Religious Right. If you must ask, I find this stuff so upsetting because it’s coming from people who should know better, but instead resort to the same tactics as the Literalists, making them no better than the Religious Right. You would be surprised to see the degree to which the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is interpreted by the Tzadikim (sages) in order to find the hidden meanings. The Tanach is often described in Jewish circles as the “Cliffs Notes” version of the Law and history, and by no means the be all and end all.
And how does this relate to the unicorn? Let’s look at the writings of the great sage Rashi:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=27&letter=U
The aurochs is mentioned in the Talmud under the name “shur chever” (= “ox of the plain”), in explanation of “torbala”, the rendering of “to’u” (Deut. xiv. 5) by the Targum, which Rashi (Ḥul. 80a) explains as the “ox of the Lebanon.”
As an atheistic agnostic I certainly don’t believe, but I can respect a faith accepted as pure faith. Judaism is a pretty simple religion (theologically) despite all the interpretation, and I can see it as one comfortable for someone scientifically oriented. What I don’t get, especially from someone studying science is a confustion of fact with faith. The Chabad folks tend to be fundamentalist and therefore I wouldn’t trust them.
You are right that there are likely many things we’ll ever know or understand, but the inference that there is a deity as consequence is unwarranted.
I recommend starting with Luke and Acts written in a language you speak.
You will not have your religion disparaged [by us non-believers]? No problem, you believers have had 2,000 years of doing way more efficiently than we ever could. Enjoy your outmoded make-believe lifestyle.
outmoded? what does the year have to do with truth?
and “make-believe lifestyle”? it is a REAL lifestyle……now you could claim it is a real lifestyle of make-believe, but not a make-believe lifestyle.
This is rad.
This is the best idea ever.
If it is mentioned 9 times in the bible please list the other 8 instances. As my bible in Jobs 39, 9-12 Says wild ox.
“If it is mentioned 9 times in the bible please list the other 8 instances”
The King James Bible mentions unicorns by name on the following pages:
Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7
Well, Job also mentions “behemoth” (Job 40:15 KJV) as well as “Leviathan” (Job 3:8, Job 41:1, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, Isaiah 27:1 KJV), and where are these creatures today. It is possible they were real and have become extinct, or continue to exist but the translation from the original language to english at the time the KJV was written was the best they had.
Also, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1261.asp
Wait…….so, the Bible ISN’T supposed to be taken literally??
I’m really confused here.
On the Answers in Genesis website, they have already addressed the use of the word “unicorn”.
The articale addressing it is even from 15 years ago!http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
Since the King James was written 400 years ago, I can see the valid point of languages evolving (pun!) and the translators using the wrong word. After all, no Christian believes that the King James bible is the word of God. They all believe its a translation of the word of God.
Can you put a rebuttal of their argument on your site please? Open minds like to weigh arguments. Especially since your site is supposedly on the “science” side, I think it would bolster your case.
“After all, no Christian believes that the King James bible is the word of God. They all believe its a translation of the word of God.”
This couldn’t be further from the truth. Many, many Christians believe that the King James Version is the literal, inerrant word of God (just look up the King James only movement or even google “King James Bible errors” and see what comes up).
Second that. Almost every person in my family, in my family’s church, in my family’s church’s town believes that the King James bible in the word of God. The reasoning goes something like “G-d wouldn’t have made it so popular if it weren’t true”.
That’s funny, John; I was raised in a Baptist chuch where we were taught that the KJV was, in fact, the inerrant Word of God, indisputable and Holy in all manners. Thank Whoever is actually running this gymkhana (assuming of course that Someone actually is in charge. . .) That I got to grow up and reason and learn and choose to be my own person with my own beliefs; many are not.
The better part of half of Christians in the south USA believe that the KJV of the bible is the official translation of the bible by God and is 99.9% correct. Any comments saying otherwise is argued until you give up. While there is tons of old ways of saying things that mean completely different things now, most of the denominations of Christianity will fight to death over the littlest things. For example the Baptists skip the book of Acts almost completely, the Methodists pick parts from it at times, but the whole of penticostals is based on that one book and not much else.
The baptists believe that the “holy spirit” comes to you when you are baptized and is like Jimminey cricket or you other conscience. Otherwise it is like God’s email or the messenger.
Methodists and most prodistants hold a similar view but to more degree.
Pent.s believe that the “holy spirit” comes into you during church on Sunday and you jump around, have full body seizures and speak boobley-boobley because the “holy spirit” is in you and talking to people.
To add to the point, these different churches will argue, civily, about just these few passages in an otherwise lengthly book. The church actually split from prodistants to all of the different denominations just because they could not agree on the actual TRANSLATION or MEANING to the black and white words in front of them.
Why can’t people read a book, get their message from it, live a good life and quit fighting over who has the biggest group of friends to meet up on Sunday to compare how much we are better than “those people” who say that our message is wrong and their’s is right.
Amen:)
why? because if christianity is not true, it is the most useless thing for mankind. if it is true, it is the most important thing for mankind. truth is the issue.
by the way, without a sentient creator lawgiver, how does one know what a good life is?
I did a google search and found a discussion of biblical quotes in the “Designed Universe” which includes the following six for Unicorn references in the Bible,
http://www.designeduniverse.com/webthink/index.php?showtopic=58&st=0.
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Ed Dyer
Thanks Ed. Here are the final three:
Deuteronomy 33:17 - His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Psalms 22:21 - Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Isaiah 34:7 - And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Has anyone else noticed that, in the verses that mention “unicorn(s)” in the KJV, the “unicorns” are compared with bulls/cattle or with other animals of great strength and ferocity (i.e. lions)?
Last time I checked, great strength and ferocity weren’t exactly hallmark traits of the “unicorns”, as presented in this site, for purposes of mocking the Creation Museum and creationists, in general.
I’ve also heard arguments that, at least in Psalms 22, that the word “unicorns” is better translated “unicorn”, thus making the statement to read, “…for thou hast heard me from the horns of the [b]unicorn.[/b]
In Job 39:10, God asks if Job can bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow. The mystical unicorn that we’ve come to know are always presented as docile creatures, hardly in need of binding. A wild bull or ox, on the other hand, would definitely need some restraints.
“The mystical unicorn that we’ve come to know are always presented as docile creatures”
Um…where? Even in The Last Unicorn (which is referenced on the front page) the Unicorn is anything but docile - only the virgin (in this case the young boy) can touch her without her freaking out. The ferocity of unicorns is where that whole “only-a-virgin-can-tame” story came from…if they were docile than *anyone* could tame them.
That leads us right back to square one, an invitiation made several times, by several people, yet left unanswered: provide the evidence that the re’em> creature being referenced, that the Greeks (when writing the Septuagint) translated as “monokeros”, is indeed the horsey-type creature depicted on this site and in this movie of which you speak.
Others have shown the evidence, supporting the re’em as some sort of ox or wild bull, which explain why every other translation of the bible has “wild ox” as its translation for that word.
Hill Troll Animatronics…AHH!
Unicorns suck!
I think the billboard should have a hill troll on it!
That’s all I got…
Can that hill troll be a picture of Andrew?
I think this is one of the most brilliant ideas that has ever had the privilege of gracing my ears. I’m not a graphic artist nor a marketing consultant, but I think the ideal billboard would be to have images of Justin and Kirsten with superimposed (or actual if we can locate a couple) unicorn horns coming out of their foreheads, looking dreamily into the great beyond, resting their weary heads upon their cupped hands, laying on a round white bed resting in the clouds ,with the phrase, “Keep The Dream Alive… The Unicorn Museum. It’s Not Science, It’s A Way Of Life,” tucked neatly below dragon setting the bottom of the billboard on fire.
Should the truth elude you,
let the Bible delude you.
This is great, I have been following the podcasts and was delighted to hear about this project. Right on!
I made my donation! Please keep us updated…. I might donate more if needed. I really want to see this billboard up near the museum. Also, would there be a way to place a small minicam there to see peoples reactions? just a thought.
This is hysterical! I love it. I live about 20 minutes from the creation museum (ggrrr!). And yes, there is ‘an across the street’. Just a field, perfect place to erect a billboard promoting the upcoming unicorn museum. I will be checking back!
I live right there and billboards arent allowed in that part of kentucky… bad for you. good for me!
King James Version
Numbers 23:22
“God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
Unicorns therefore have the strength of a god!
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.
psalm 91:11. But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn: and my old age in plentiful mercy.
UNICORNIS, the Unicorn, which is also called Rhinoceros by the Greeks, is of the following nature. He is a very small animal like a kid, excessively swift, with one horn in the middle of his forehead, and no hunter can catch him. But he can be trapped by the following stratagem.
A virgin girl is led to where he lurks, and there she is sent off by herself into the wood. He soon leaps into her lap when he sees her, and embraces her, and hence he gets caught. …. The Unicorn often fights with elephants, and conquers them by wounding them in the belly.
This is an excerpt from “The Book of Beasts”, a translation from a 12th century Latin manuscript, edited by T.H. White. Since the Church has accepted quite a number of inventions from the 12th century as dogma, why shouldn’t the Unicorn Museum? I would love to see Unicorns conquering Elephants.
By the way, the article about Elephants in the afore mentioned book begins like this: “There is an animal called an ELEPHANT, which has no desire to copulate.”
Great site and great show, as well!
Can you also include an exhibit of dragons in their pleasant palaces?
Isa.13:22
Read in context, that verse is a reference to the desolation that would befall Babylon after her destruction. Moreover, that is not “dragons” per se, but rather “wild-dogs”. The proper translation of dragon is “tannin”. In the context of the era, it was understood that “dragons”, much like the Leviathan (”livyatan” in Hebrew, a word which has actually taken to mean “whale” in Modern Hebrew), were a metaphor for chaos and the threat to B’nei Yisrael, which is why In eschatological understanding, the Leviathan will be defeated in the End of Days.
But as to finding the physical basis behind the Leviathan or dragon, it’s believed that from descriptions made in Job 40 that it refers to the Nile crocodile.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=275&letter=L&search=leviathan
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=894&letter=C&search=leviathan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
Please remove the text on the main page saying it’s a parody!
It will work much better without that. Smart people will figure it out especially if you push things a bit, with subtlety. For the non-smart people, you will be having an even bigger impact.
1. I second the previous poster and suggest you remove all references to the site being a parody from the front page.
2. Develop an educational brochure to be handed out to people entering the Creation Museum. It would point out that, although unicorns are in the Bible, no unicorn fossils have ever been found and unicorns are not represented in the CM. Ditto for other fantastic animals in the Bible. Suggest that museum goers ask the staff why these animals have been left out of the CM.
3. Maybe there could be a protest held in front of the CM, demanding that unicorns be added to the exhibits.
4. Please don’t stop with only a billboard! This is a great idea! Can you collaborate with the Flying Spaghetti Monster people?
Nice job, but you really need to take down all the references to satire - all the best satire never acknowledges its satirical nature. Like the “Colbert Report”, the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, and “Shelly the Republican”.
You guys are doing great =)
Ok I get it! :)
I’ve removed all reference to parody from the front page and replaced it with a truly bizarre bit about fantasy creature labor union disputes and those ’scabs’ the angels and devils.
Sorry Mark, don’t do subtle too well.
For all intents and purposes, why can’t the unicorn be a long extinct creature. You don’t question the existence of dinosaurs, but they don’t walk the earth anymore. BTW, the commenter Aristotle mentioned that there are no unicorn fossils; there are also no “missing link” fossils, and yet the THEORY of evolution is taught in school as a scientific LAW. If it was a LAW it wouldn’t be a THEORY.
Andrew, there ARE many fossils once known as missing links. If you believe the contrary you have been misinformed.
There are no unicorn fossils known.
Yes, evolution is a theory and a fact, like atoms.
Evolution is one model of what happened in the past to explain the present diversity of life and the existence of multiple layers of sediment filled with fossils. The Creation/Flood model is another. They are both views about the past, attempting to explain the present.
Atom theory is a model of what exists in the present.
To call either evolution or creation a “theory”, in the scientific sense, is absurd.
Evoultion is demonstrated in laboratories every day, evolution through man-controlled selection is the origin of all domestic races that have evolved from a previous common ancenstor. The definition of species is usually that two individuals can reproduce together, some dogs are not far from breaking this barrier.
So yes, Evolution is a scientific theory, tested, tried, and still not falsified.
Creationism can never be proved nor falsified, and therefore has no value as scientific theory.
My personal belief is that the world was created in 1976, on may 7, 9:03 local time. The creation was so perfect that my life before that glides seamlessly into my life after the world was created. Only a truly great God can do that!
Listen to what you just said, “evolution through man-controlled selection…… ”
If someone has to control the process for the process to glean the results, that ain’t evolution. At best, it’s super-strict speciation. And, it’s certainly no demonstration of man developing from “lower” life-form, through a series of concidences and accidents with no direction.
Dogs will produce nothing but dogs; they won’t produce cats, horses, or bunny rabbits. And, no matter how much “man-controlled selections” is involved, when you breed two dogs together, the end result is….DOGS, which sound strangely similar to something the book of Genesis mentioned about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
As I said before, show an observation of a dog “evolving” from a non-dog creature and business will pick up.
“If someone has to control the process for the process to glean the results, that ain’t evolution. At best, it’s super-strict speciation.”
That’s not wholly correct; speciation is an outcome of evolution. It’s an evolutionary process, an instance of evolution at work. Evolution (as defined in biology) is merely referring to a change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, specifically to instances where heritable differences become either more or less frequent in a population.
In other words, speciation — natural or artificial — is itself evidence of evolution. At least in terms of biology, “evolution” doesn’t immediately translate into “human beings descended from apes,” which is what I find people react negatively to when discussing evolution.
“Dogs will produce nothing but dogs; they won’t produce cats, horses, or bunny rabbits.”
This is not a factually correct statement. Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) descended from mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild sheep native to southwest Asia, but sheep cannot produce viable offspring with mouflons anymore, as they have evolved to a degree where they are a different species than their progenitors; speciation — the outcome of evolution — has occurred. It’s possible that a population of dogs might, many years down the road, produce a species of non-dog animal (through any combination of evolutionary mechanisms) that, despite whatever superficial resemblance to dogs it may have, remains unable to breed with dogs.
This is also not meant to imply that “evolution” translates into human beings descended from apes.”
This is not a factually correct statement. Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) descended from mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild sheep native to southwest Asia, but sheep cannot produce viable offspring with mouflons anymore, as they have evolved to a degree where they are a different species than their progenitors; speciation — the outcome of evolution — has occurred.
In other words, sheep produce sheep (i.e. creatures reproducing after their own kind). Wild or tame, they’re still sheep, not dogs, cats, or birds.
The claim was that evolution has been “observed”. So, the request was to give an example of someone observing a creature “evolving” from another creature completely unlike itself. Wild sheep producing tame sheep ain’t that example.
um….no it isn’t. when you breed dogs with scales and wings, THAT would demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of darwinian evolution (though it would still be guided by intelligence, not random mutation). Dog breeding depends on genetic information ALREADY present in the original canine population, and the specialized breeds have LESS diversity of infoprmation. Speciation oftne happens naturally this way, for instance camels and llamas, ,lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
One who does not even understand the claims of evolution should not be arguing the case.
For instance camels and llamas, lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
This is a pretty amazing claim. Of course, you have proof for this, as amazing claims requiring amazing proof. You know, evidence. You do have evidence? Or at least some scientific articles and papers that explain how it was deducted that there was some super-ancestor who, for some reason or another, carried within it all the molecular information necessary to bake a Tigers, Lions, Housecats, Ocelots, Fishercats, Bobcats, Leopards, Panthers, Snow Leopards, Mountain Lions, Lynxs, and my mother-in-law. You can also show the molecular pathway by which this super-ancestor was able to split itself - a la voltron - into all these cats in such a way that lions generally produce lions, and not maine coons; panthers, panthers, and so on.
It’s funny, because, generally, the proof that exists tends to support a genome that is flexible, capable of some innovation, and seems to have given rise to life through common descent and the natural modification of previous lifeforms over vast swaths of time.
But I don’t know, maybe you know something other people don’t know. Maybe you have special powers. I guess we should all defer to them. I mean, because you’re special and all.
Um…. yes there is. Just because you have never bothered to acquaint yourself with the evidence, doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. The most recent evidence has to do with genome research. The sequencing of DNA has demonstrated that various species of organism have particular sequences of DNA. The more closely related the species, the more alike the DNA. The research has progressed to the point where biologists can point to specific sequences of genes in DNA and state categorically where various species diverged from one another.
Before we were sequencing DNA, bones and fossils were very strong evidence for evolution. More recently, the fact that you need a new flu shot or need a different antibiotic every year is a demonstration that viruses and bacteria can evolve in a time frame of months, rather than centuries.
Do us all a favor, though. Prove your faith the next time you get sick. Demand that the doctor give you no antibiotics more recent than penicillin. After all, according to you, evolution doesn’t happen, so why should you need any more recent antibiotics?
that also is not evolution, it is selective breeding, and it happens nearly instantly to some extent.
The proof is everywhere, you just need to stop assuming that evolution is true to see it. First of all, no spontaneous increase in genetic information has ever been observed. Mutations, for example, can only decrease the amount of genetic information, or sometimes produce neutral changes (such as an extra copy of existing information). Genetic changes are always “downhill.” Also, several species have been successfully bred together: tigers with lions, goats with sheep, whales with dolphins, and even donkeys with zebras. If this isn’t evidence of original kinds, then what would be?
For instance camels and llamas, lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
This is a pretty amazing claim. Of course, you have proof for this, as amazing claims requiring amazing proof. You know, evidence. You do have evidence? Or at least some scientific articles and papers that explain how it was deducted that there was some super-ancestor who, for some reason or another, carried within it all the molecular information necessary to bake a Tigers, Lions, Housecats, Ocelots, Fishercats, Bobcats, Leopards, Panthers, Snow Leopards, Mountain Lions, Lynxs, and my mother-in-law. You can also show the molecular pathway by which this super-ancestor was able to split itself - a la voltron - into all these cats in such a way that lions generally produce lions, and not maine coons; panthers, panthers, and so on.
***first, i said lions and tigers. you made up the rest.
Second, they can still interbreed. do you think that is best explained by a common ancestor or coincidence?
It’s funny, because, generally, the proof that exists tends to support a genome that is flexible, capable of some innovation, and seems to have given rise to life through common descent and the natural modification of previous lifeforms over vast swaths of time.
***define “vast swaths of time”. Explain how genomes “innovate”.
But I don’t know, maybe you know something other people don’t know. Maybe you have special powers. I guess we should all defer to them. I mean, because you’re special and all.
***thanks!
Wow Andrew, seriously??? Unicorns were made up as a mystical creature in fairy tales, like the bible. Comparing unicorns to dinosuars because “they dont walk the earth anymore” is as lame as the “no missing link” statement. If you could kindly pull your head out of the dark, stinky place it is in you might do some research and see all the “missing link” fossils that have been found. And to a possible reply of “those arent missing links, they are different species” well then you just added more animals that had to hightail it over to Noahs arc. But of course the devil could have planted them there to trick man, right. For all intents and purposes, check out were unicorns came from before you presume they could have been real or else you might have to start explaining why you dont believe in the other mystical creatures that were invented in the same stories.
Perhaps, if you followed your own advice (regarding the pulling of the head thing), you would notice the point being made: The creatures being described as “unicorns” in those nine verses (in the KJV of the Bible) are NOT the docile horsey-like critters like the one depicted on this webpage.
Again, the Hebrew word is re’em, similar to the Sumerian word, rimu. And the creatures described by these two words in those two languages are closer to cattle (bulls, oxen, etc.) than to horses. As stated earlier, they are compared with cattle in the Bible and described as strong and wild, adjectives that are hardly associated with the horsey-looking “unicorn”.
1) There is less “truth” and knowledge about the “law” of gravity than there is about the “theory” of evolution. Much more is known about evolution than is known about gravity. We say that gravity pulls us down. This is simply a short explanation of a really complex set of scientific theories that involve fantasy creatures such as “quarks” and “stuff too small to see”. Science really screwed-up when it postulated the difference between “laws” and “theories”…Ain’t really none. Science is a process. Consequently, by the way, one cannot “believe” in science. And, “Truth” exists only in beliefs.
2) Everybody agrees on the definitions of “plausible and implausible” as well as “possible and impossible”. Scientists should use those terms. Scientists should never use the word “Truth”. They should leave that word for the creationists and bible thumpers.
There can’t be any missing link fossils. If we found the fossils the link wouldn’t be missing anymore.
Andrew, you’re clearly rather confused about the idea of a missing link. Technically, ALL fossils are links in a chain of evolutionary evidence. Thus, unless you have the bones of every single creature in that chain that died over millions of years, you will always have “missing” links. What you want is for everybody who ever lived to have died lying right on top of his parents all in a neat pile, and even then you probably wouldn’t be satisfied. And yet, you feel you need no evidence whatsoever to back up the Bible’s claims. Rather a double standard, don’t you think?
Oh but I forgot - “Truth” doesn’t need evidence. We’re just supposed to believe it. With our gut. Yeah.
So basically what your saying is: no matter what kind of fossils we find, evolution is proven no matter what. That’s funny, I thought scientific theories were falsifiable.
Kind of. Think about gravity instead of evolution.
Suppose that gravity stopped working tomorrow, or suppose we found evidence that gravity didn’t work at some time in the past. We’d have to modify our theory of gravity, but only a silly person would claim that gravity had never existed at all!
We know that gravity exists, because we’re observing it today. And we know it’s existed for almost all of the past several billion years…if gravity had been turned off for any significant length of time, the Earth would have left its orbit around the Sun and moved off into interstellar space.
It’s the same with evolution. We can directly observe it today, and we can make indirect observations that shows it’s been functioning the same way for billions of years. If somebody discovers an angel fossil, then we’ll have to modify parts of evolutionary theory, but the old theory will still be valid as a special case.
This is actually a point that I make all the time. Debating fossils is pointless if evolution has or has not been proven true. Science studies only the present because the past is not observable or testable. But you claim that evolution has been observed today. Can you give me an example? But please keep in mind that evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, and don’t give me an example of generic “change” in an organism.
Why does evolution require the addition of ‘new’ genetic information? Please don’t cite that ‘information theory’ nonsense. Its applicability to evolution has never been demonstrated by anyone, ever. And would that genetic material be nuclear or mitochondiral?
Why is debating fossils futile? I mean, they exist, right? Animals that are not found extant now, are in the fossil record, and modern animals are not found in the past, right? You only have two choices to explain this. The animals popped up, fully formed in a manner that they existed one day, one minute one second, and before that, they didn’t; or the animals and plants changed over tiime.
The first is called magic, the second is named evolution. So your theory, you know, an all encompassing explanation that takes into account ALL observation known at the time, and accounts for all of it (thats falsifiability), is EXACTLY what?
“You only have two choices to explain this. The animals popped up, fully formed in a manner that they existed one day, one minute one second, and before that, they didn’t; or the animals and plants changed over tiime.”
***Actually, this is precisely what the fossil record shows!
But please keep in mind that evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, and don’t give me an example of generic “change” in an organism.
I’m not sure what you mean by “new information”. One common type of mutation is called a “gene duplication”, and it gives you two copies of the same gene. If one of those genes gets any non-lethal mutation later on, then you wind up with all the original genes plus a brand-new one. That seems like it fits the common-sense definition of “new information”.
I do understand that creationists use their own private definition of “new information”. That’s OK, but the problem is that they don’t want to tell anyone what their definition is!
Would you be willing to break the silence? What we need is the formula that you’re using to measure the “information content” of a strand of DNA. Once you’ve given us that, we ought to be able to give you example of mutations that have increased information content. Thanks in advance!
Thank you. So much clearer than my post, with added directness!
DNA must be a bit of a problem for the fundamental spinners. I just watched an interview on the Colbert Report. The person interviewed had just been released from prison after 23 years because his DNA didn’t match that of the perpetrator of the crime. Colbert asked him if he believed in either science or democracy! He stated that the belief in scince’s DNA had usurped the power of the 12 jurors who had voted him into jail, and this belief constituted a basic threat to the jury system of justice.
mutations that result in coding for new organs or new biological processes that did not exist in the genetic code prior to the mutation.
awaiting my list…………
Evolution states that all organisms on this developed from one (or perhaps a few) simple single-celled organisms. These organisms obviously would not have contained all the genetic information for say, a human being. Therefore, evolution must have somehow produced this “new” genetic information.
Natural selection cannot explain it, because (by definition) it can only select from existing information. Mutations have only ever been demonstrated to destroy and reduce genetic information. Yes, a mutation can result in an additional copy of a gene, but this is not new information, does not produce new and helpful structures, and is actually harmful to the organism (like the vast majority of mutations).
You really should read this stuff at www.answersingenesis.org, they’ve answered these kinds of questions hundreds of times.
For Goodness Sakes! You ignore the question and refer to an authority not recognised in any scientific realm. Chaos Engineer, above, gave an adequate and simple explanation of how new forms of DNA are created. Creationism is not science–it’s belief. “Belief” uses such concepts as “Truth”, and nothing is testable. Stop the scientific posing. Stop positing your beliefs as scientific “facts”. The only reason I worry about your type, is that, given political power, you destroy scientific progress, you start wars, you hurt people. You are the Taliban, the NeoCons, the Sheites, and the Sunnis. Your rightiousness is validated by your God, and only Hell will satisfy Him as punishment for those who don’t agree. So, it’s okay to do just about anything to save us “ignorant and unwashed” from this fate that we don’t recognise…Including faking science to gain adherents.
Shucks, I’m at work and the building owner walked in when I was on this site. “Yeah, a 27 million dollar unicorn museum,” I said. I told him I didn’t know where they’re building it. Then I kept reading and sort of can’t get over that it’s a joke. I sort of don’t want to tell the guy that it’s scheduled build date is a hundred years away on a different planet! I’m not sure I’m going to tell him and leave him with a sense of wonder. He mentioned “They’re probably building it in [my town name]” so perhaps he was keener than me to catch a joke. Had a laugh except now I must get back on track and watch my blind spot for you tricks as now the building owner probably thinks I’m a idiot.
wow - maybe greg gutfeld from Fox’s Redeye could do some art. I understand he has a real knack for rendering unicorns!
Which Bible translation are you using? ‘cos non I can find say unicorn…
The KJV says “unicorn” and the Septuagint uses “monokeros”. However, “monokeros” is not a direct translation of the Hebrew “re’em”, which exegetically could be linked to the Sumerian “rimu”, or wild-ox (which, btw, has two horns, but when seen in profile, seems to have only one). Oh, and the JPS translation uses “wild-ox”. This is why there needs to be an exegesis page on this website. But some people here want to poo-poo Bibilcal archeology and comparative analysis.
You keep saying this. Was that wild ox only ever seen in profile? If not, why would anyone be silly enough to claim it had only one horn?
People in profile seem to have just one eye. Does that make you a Cyclops?
Hey Dave, why don’t you actually read the comments already posted. Someone has already given a link to a 15-year-old AiG article answering your question.
“You keep saying this. Was that wild ox only ever seen in profile? If not, why would anyone be silly enough to claim it had only one horn?”
Perhaps, it’s for the same reason that millipedes got their name, even though they don’t have 1,000 feet.
Gentlemen ~ as a couple of earlier commenters have already observed, a simple web search brings this whole issue to nought. (At least the issue at
the surface.)
The King James version of the Bible is widely regarded among discerning Bible Scholars as being less accurate in such uses of lexicon. Further, a
short visit to two web sites BibleGateway.com & Dictionary.com, quickly yield sufficient information to satisfy concerns about the
King James’ use of the word ‘unicorn’, by leading the reader to a sound understanding of the original author’s intent. This is a part of what is called exegesis, the surest method by which the Truth of Scripture is accurately gleaned.
I would expect Opponents of the Truth to use one of the most antiquated
English translations of Scripture to get their “beat on.” Find a different hide, fellas; this one just ain’t tight enough.
By the by: You may find it interesting to note that you, too, are mentioned in the
Scriptures.
Indebted,
ibcarlos
Well, yes, but “discerning Bible scholars” are also aware that the Universe is billions of years old and that the opening chapters of Genesis aren’t an accurate time table; they’re just a poetic way of saying that God is the creator of all things.
The Unicorn Museum isn’t targetted at discerning Bible scholars. It’s targetted at the sort of people who support the Creation Museum. They don’t need any of your fancy-schmancy New York “exegesis”; they just believe what it says in the Bible.
If you’re a discerning Bible scholar, I’d think you’d support the Unicorn Museum. When Creationists spout nonsense and call it Christianity, all they’re doing is to make Christianity look bad. More people ought to call them on their nonsense instead of just letting it slide. Don’t you agree?
Have you even seen what the Creation Museum says? Have you looked at the web site www.answersingenesis.org which is linked to the Creation Museum? They give scientific explanation, geological explanation, and sometimes just plain common sense explanation to back up what the Bible says. They give these explanations at four different levels, which you can choose to view depending on your technical expertise. So how can you say that they just plainly believe the Bible, in a way that suggests they ignore the science? They don’t just present the Bible, they present the scientific facts too.
See this extensive and detailed review of the “Creation Museum” (The Anti-Museum) at the National Center for Science Education website: http://www.ncseweb.org (July 10). It upset AIG so bad they did a really lame reply in late July.
Also, has anyone thought of claiming Nautiloid Cephalopod fossils (the genus “Orthoceras”) are actually fossil unicorn horns? A small display of these fossils would give the Unicorn Museum a big advantage over the Creation “Museum”, as the CM has very few local fossils.
I read NCSE’s review of the Creation Museum. Not much for a creationist supportor to respond to. The review talks about the museum’s “absurd” claims without explaining why they are absurd. Apparently not the review of an “open mind.” Yes, many Creationist claims are very different “interpretations” of the same evidence than evolutionist claims. But absurd? Not until proven wrong. And this review did not do that.
The NCSE page review actually points the reader to the _Counter Creationism Handbook_ by Mark Isaaks, 2004, University of California Press for refutations of standard creationist arguments such as those presented in hte “Anti-Museum”. If I recall, the review also links to a website that has much of the book’s content on line.
Can you prove that Santa is or is not living in his magical invisible castle on the North Pole? Of course you can’t, but that doesnt prove that Santa is living in his magical invisible castle on the north pole, does it? And no, many creationist claims are not different “interpretations” of the same evidence compared to evolutionist claims, they are wishfull believes only serving to ridicule the Christian faith. Period!
Proof positive that you wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the arse…
Possibly a Biblical Scholar could explain to me why Christianity is the only religion on the planet that needs Apologism to explain why their published dogma is so self contradictory?
The explanation would be that Christianity is the one religion that is so doggedly attacked (far more than any other) with such accusations, which apologetics have a neat tendency to rendering false.
Well perhaps we can discuss the Pauline Heresies then? The accusations are internal to the religion. No need for outsiders there. Paul says you can be saved, without following Jewish Law. Peter says Paul was crazy. Peter, with Christ for a year. Paul (Saul), one day. Of course, it didnt end with the Bible, did it? Clement I, the ordained disciple of Peter, called the Gospel of Paul what it is, heresy. Of course, considering Clement I founded the Christian church in Europe, what does he know? These attacks are internal, not external. The point I am making is that Christianity is so internally inconsistant, that it need apologetics to defend the faith from the faithful themselves! The point I am making is that IT IS THE ONLY RELIGION ON THE PLANET THAT HAS TO DO SO. Your “truth”, isn’t so truthy when your own documents are internally inconsistant. ‘Splain that buddy. Render the statements of Clement I false for me, would ya?
So, you are saying that, from your perspective, apologetics is a defense to outside critisism, not internal inconsistanties. Methinks you know not what the heck you are talking about.
And you really, really think that Christians are more persecuted than the Jews, than the Roma? Both currently and historically? Hitler killed more Jews in a day than the Romans killed in a yer! Give me a break!
Apparently you don’t read very well. I did not say that Christians are more persecuted than Jews. My comments were with regards to CHRISTIANITY, the religion.
Paul said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, Paul goes out of his way to state that the grace of Jesus Christ is no license for breaking the law.
Romans 6:14-15, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
The point Paul made was that Christians should follow the law, not to be saved, but because they are saved.
So Christians follow Jewish law? Their salvation depends on it?
According to Peter, yes. According to Paul, not so much.
I assume you’re Christian. What did you have for Kosher breakfast today?
because it makes claims that are particular and specific, and historically defensible. it is not “once upon a time”, but “in the ___ year of the reign of ____ in the district of ___, AND it goes on to say that if these things are not true, then none of it is. apologia merely means defense or exposition, and that it can exist with a “religion” in an dof itself says much to seperate those claims from other religious claims. it is nto a weakness but a strength.
Hi,
i love this,
but you should display the quotes from the bible
on your home page !
You should at least list the King James Bible verses referring to unicorns.
But here’s an additional comment. Because I’ve been an editor since the late 1970s, my eye readily caught the grammatical error in your proposed “Unicorn Skeleton” billboard. Part of the headline reads: “Prepare to Believe (what your told).” But that should be corrected to “what you’re told.” The meaning is “what you are told,” so the second-person possessive “your” is the wrong word.
I don’t say this to be nit picky, mind you. This is a BILLBOARD we’re talking about. (Though I voted for the Noah’s Ark billboard, anyway.)
– Fred
I think you should put which version these bible verses are coming from, if we are going to make the point. My husband looked up the Job verse in the NIV and it says oxen. I did an internet search for KJV and came up with the unicorn. I think the website should have it read Job 39: 9-12 KJV so there’s no confusion.
Well said Heather Cary. Indeed, providing transparency is crucial to preventing confusion. (That is, if doing so is of more importance to one than supporting feeble claims.)
Sorry, chaos engineer, but I simply can’t agree…on either point. (But creds to you for the biting sarcasm. (c;)
It all boils down to a fella’s (or fellarette’s) presuppositions.
You see, I happen to come from that school of thought which actually buys all that “malarkey” about the Scriptures being Divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible. (Yes, even the “debatable” creation narrative of Genesis 1-11.) And, though I’ve never personally lived in New York, I do know of people in every area of the country who hold the same convictions. From Doctors, lawyers and judges, all the way to small-town five-and-dime owners and single, inner-city mothers.
Broski, I could certainly chase down all the various, debate-worthy “issues” that come to mind when I happen upon a fanciful blog like this, but all that would likely amount to idle babble to the ears of one whose mind is already made up.
Only God can change such a mind.
And, though I know from personal experience that scoffing can be quite the enjoyable activity, those here actually wanting to discuss matters of Biblical veracity are warmly invited to bring your questions (and good-natured sarcasm) on over to a most excellent blog. Lot goin’ on ovah theah…and in 50 words or less, these days…how novel (or, un-novel, as the case may be).
But yah betta bring ya game on, homies! (c:
(BTW: the blog isn’t mine.)
What are you, Fred Thompson? All the aw shucks in the world isn’t going to change the fact that all the is comes from the Great Mother and that we knew that for thousands of years before the hebrew men figured out they could keep track of their boys by only doing it with virgins. And if you don’t care for evolution, then I would suggest you not bother with modern medicine at all, because it is certainly the fruit of that tree. But, I suspect your actual hypocrisy will jump up when it gets close to quitting time and you’ll take all the science you can get to stave off your judgement day.
But that Fred Thompson patois is just pathetic. Do you also have the trophy wife?
To build a site like this, with no scientific disputing of what the creation museum says, just goes to show how much you’re losing this debate. You’re clearly rattled by this! I’d rather believe what the creation museum says about the origins of the earth than you do, because they have looked at both sides of the story, whereas, you have only looked at one side. You’ve obviously never looked at the Bible, because the Bible doesn’t say anything about Unicorns. As for Job 39:9 to 12, these verses talk about an Ox! So you lie and fabricate to get your view across, as you can’t defeat the creation museum scientifically! When you resort to this, to mocking instead of realistic arguments, then you’ve clearly lost the debate! Whereas, the creation museum make their case for creation with scientific evidence, geological evidence, and sometimes, just plain common sense! I understand why you’re rattled, because you have probably devoted your life to the Evolution cause, and your career probably depends on it, as does you’re research funding. But if a science is flawed, then what good is that to the world, and the science of the Evolutionists is very flawed and the creation museum is exposing that. Evolution theory is on its last legs, dying out, just like the dinosaurs!
I wasn’t aware it was the job of satire to disprove anything. I’d always thought satire’s job was to make light of a subject through the use of irony.
Besides, the burden of proof is 100% on the creationist to prove creationism. Of course, creationism can never be proven because it is essentially based on faith. Evolution is not an alternative to creationism because they are not even in the same league. Evolution is science fact. Creationism is belief. Oil and water doesn’t mix, and neither do these sets of ideas.
This website is hilarious! It’s always humorous to see people making fun of creationists instead of actually being able to prove them wrong. These people probably don’t even know the meaning of the word “replenish” in the KJV either.
When you’ve got two COMPETING theories and one can be proven right, it generally follows that the other one is wrong.
Evolution can be proven right? Wow, you saying that without any evidence at all is entirely convincing!
Anyone who thinks there is no evidence supporting evolution at this point in time is beyond help.
So basically what you’re saying is: “Evolution is so well proven that we don’t have to prove it!” I have seen plenty of “evidence” for evolution, and it is very weak. I was just hoping that if you actually provided some evidence, then I could refute it for you.
Basically what you’re saying is: “Evolution is so well proven that we don’t have to prove it!” I have seen plenty of “evidence” for evolution, and it is all very weak. I was hoping that you would actually provide some of it so that I might be able to refute it for you.
This is so dumb it really is worthy of the creation museum. Just learn about biology and genetic. Evolution as been proven in numerous ways by numerous people, you just don’t have the knowledge to understand it.
who says that?
i say there is evidence, much of whcih is obejective, and can be used to either support or refute evolution. much supports or is best predicted by it, but far more is best predicted by a creation theory. i also will claim that evolution in the snese of all life from one common ancsetor can only not be demonstrated, but attempts fairly consistently only result in finding more difficulties for the theory.
Mocking and scoffing are so juvenile. They are usually the last emotional resort of those who wish to deny an unshakeable truth opposed to their unfounded presumptions. Yet, only the truth can set anyone free. Jesus Christ said so: “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (New Testament, John 8:32.)
There are actually only two kinds of people in this world; pro-Christs and anti-Christs. It is that simple. Eternal consequences ride on whichever position you choose. But God, in His infinite mercy, extends forgiveness and the gift of everlasting life to anyone who will repent of their anti-God ways. The Bible, in 2Peter 3:9, says that God does not wish anyone to perish but that all should reach repentance.
As for scoffers and mockers, here is what Christians have known for the last 2007 years, in the words of 2Peter 3:3-18
“3. First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions 4. and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5. They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6. through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 11. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12. waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! 13. But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 14. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16. speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. “
I recommend you come up with your own quotes instaed of quoting a book known to be full of idiocies.
I wish you well with your museum. I find it far more difficult to believe that “chance” and “time” create and organize from nothing than that unicorns ever existed.
I’m not inclined to believe the Hebrew word in Job 39 refers to unicorns. Scholars honestly don’t know what this Hebrew word refers to. It is only used once in the Bible - I don’t know which Hebrew word is used in the other eight places you reference) - and probably reflected the beliefs of the King James translators rather than the actual text.
But although there is no physical evidence extant that unicorns existed, neither was there any physical evidence for the existance of entire civilizations mentioned in the Bible - like Hittites - ever existing until the the mid 19th century. Many people mocked the Bible because of that and their mocking now stands as a monument to man’s ignorance and arrogance in contrast to the Bible’s transcendent truth.
Your museum will be less of an insult to reason than the typical Natural “Science” museum (or is that Natural History or Natural Philosophy).
“…and probably reflected the beliefs of the King James translators rather than the actual text.”
Lets see, what are the odds that a bunch of medieval translators perhaps injected many more of their beliefs into their version of the Bible than just this one instance…
Evolution is the very opposite of blind chance…
please defend that claim! what do you believe the mechanism of evolution is?
Natural selection.
ah. so you believe lamarck was correct?
i suspect you will not find much support for your belief.
Don’t be a fool.
please tell me then how natural selection can cause bacteria to become bactrian camels…..the bacteria with the biggest humps reproduce more until they become camels?
by the way, darwin really did beleive somethign similar….he was unaware of DNA or the genetic limits within kinds. that is why francis crick chose to believe in aleins as the source of life on earth.
seriously, do you REALLY claim natural selectin is the mechanism of evolution?
Again you’re just being silly Rob.
Do you want be to mention genetic drift? Is that where you’re trying to get to?
Stop the nonsense and get on with it!
genetic drift is the effect chance has on the ALREADY EXISTING ALLELES within a population. in other words, it is a method of analyzing how diversity in appearance can occur within isolate dpopulaitons that all have common progenitors i.e. how adam and eve could have descendants that appear as distinct in appearance.
genetic drift in no manner attempts to explain bacteria to camels.
what i am “trying to get to” is that apparently you ahve no real conception of even the claims of evolutionary theory and at least so far appear to be taking it entirely on authority, with only a vague concept of what you have faith in. neither natural selection nor genetic drift explains evolutionary theory, and anyone familiar with it knows this. darwin thought natural selection did, but the discovery of DNA ble wthat out of the water, hence the proposition that evolution is driven by random genetic mutation preserved by natural selection.
Excellent Rob, thanks again for explaining genetic drift.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have faith in evolution. Faith is what you have when you say you believe in God; as you have no evidence for God.
Um, thanks for clearing up the whole evolution thing. Um, when you asked for the mechanics of evolution I assumed we both understood the theory. The mechanics of evolution are known to me and you clearly.
I dont think you were trying to expose my understanding of evolution. Anyone can go to any encyclopedia and read the mechanisms of evolution.
Why would you ask me to explain bateria to camels? How this would happen in evolution theory is well understood. Why would you ask me to explain that?
“neither natural selection nor genetic drift explains evolutionary theory”. What do you mean by that? Both are essential mechanics of the theory.
“at least so far appear to be taking it entirely on authority”. Well obviously we can’t all be as intelligent you Rob. I’m not sure what you mean by the statement though. Do you mean I rely on the work of others? Do you believe I have no understanding of the science?
Excellent Rob, thanks again for explaining genetic drift.
***then how about adressing why you bring it up in relation to macroevolution?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have faith in evolution. Faith is what you have when you say you believe in God; as you have no evidence for God.
***what is it called when you believe something without knowing what the actual claims and evidence are?
Um, thanks for clearing up the whole evolution thing. Um, when you asked for the mechanics of evolution I assumed we both understood the theory. The mechanics of evolution are known to me and you clearly.
***then in your own words tell me your understanding of it?
I dont think you were trying to expose my understanding of evolution. Anyone can go to any encyclopedia and read the mechanisms of evolution.
***now you are also a mind reader? i believe i am a better authority on my goal than you.
Why would you ask me to explain bateria to camels? How this would happen in evolution theory is well understood. Why would you ask me to explain that?
* **because i both do not think you know what the actual claims are, and because i think most of the evidence can be exposed as speculative and not science based, or able to be applied to both creation and evolution. i understood this was a discussion, but it appears when anyone asks for specifics from a defender of evolution here, there is a similar backpedaling.
“neither natural selection nor genetic drift explains evolutionary theory”. What do you mean by that? Both are essential mechanics of the theory.
***see. this is what i was trying to tell you - NO THEY ARE NOT both “essential mechanics of the theory”. genetic drift attempts to explain statistically how ALREADY EXISTING ALLELES within apopulation are expressed and distributed, i.e. why ther eare more people with blue eyes in certian populations. that is irrelevant to evolutionary claims.
“at least so far appear to be taking it entirely on authority”. Well obviously we can’t all be as intelligent you Rob. I’m not sure what you mean by the statement though. Do you mean I rely on the work of others? Do you ibelieve I have no understanding of the science?
***i do not think you are relying on th ework of others. i think you are relying on what you vaguely heard ABOUT the work of others. so far, it appears you have very little understanding of the science involved.
addition:
-you call the emergence of life a “hugely rare event”
-you can not reproduce it
-you can not give me a specific theory as to how it even could occur
-dna, which is necessary for life, does not and could not occur psontaneously. we can not create it on purpose
-dna is the most incredibly efficient method of storing information known, many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything our technology can reproduce. the info to create and run every species that has ever lived on earth could be fit into a couple of tablespoons
-projects such as seti claim that the presence of encoded informaiton is conclusive evidence of intelligent life
-yet you assume life was created by some unknown, undescribed, unevidencede process. THAT is blind faith, not science.
Rob, both natural selection and genetic drift play a part in evolutionary mechanics. This was of course the question you started with….what’s the “mechanism of evolution”.
“i think you are relying on what you vaguely heard ABOUT the work of others. so far, it appears you have very little understanding of the science involved.”
Are you saying you’re a mind reader now? (Oh how mature am I!)
It’s nice to see that you think I’ve little understanding of the science. Personally, I’m happy with my understanding of the science.
I’m still unsure as to the point of your questioning, you can read various descriptions of evolutionary mechanics online - if you disagree with them let’s see your peer reviewed published evidence. You’re trying to make out you that you’ve a better understanding of the science… so where is your science?
Personally I’d still love to see the evidence for demon possession. You clearly reject evolution because you don’t trust the evidence… but you’re not telling me you believe in demon possession because of just one book?
YOUR ADDITION (in order)
- Yes life starting must be rare - or it’d be everywhere.
- Correct I can’t reproduce life.
- There are many theories, I shouldn’t need to give you them, they’re easy to find… (don’t assume I agree with them all) here’s one to get you started… please assume from the start you understand the science better than me http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.B31B0993F
- Reason for the link above
- Cool isn’t it - I only wish my understanding was as deep as yours.
- Yep
- Rob it’s a bit stupid to say I have “faith” in some unknown, undescribed, unevidencede process. Perhaps you could say, “Life started and you don’t know how”.
What I can say is “You’ve no scientific proof that your God created anything or indeed even exists… that’s certainly not science.”
“Rob, both natural selection and genetic drift play a part in evolutionary mechanics. This was of course the question you started with….what’s the “mechanism of evolution”.”
***let me be more clear - by what mechanisms do organisms gain dna coding for new abilities, new organs, new biological processes? by what specific mechsnism(s) does bacteria eventually give rise to mammals?
“THEN - what peer reviewed published articles demonstrate these mechanisms giving rise to more complex organisms with ne wgenetic information not previously present in the species?
“i think you are relying on what you vaguely heard ABOUT the work of others. so far, it appears you have very little understanding of the science involved.”
Are you saying you’re a mind reader now? (Oh how mature am I!)”
***nope. i am saying you are taking the words of others about the science and the claims and abilitie sof science, mixing them with your beliefs and/or desires, and believing the end result is “science”. whenever i ask specific questions about science, your replies are either “look it up” or an ad hominem atatck.
“It’s nice to see that you think I’ve little understanding of the science. Personally, I’m happy with my understanding of the science. ”
***what does oyur happiness have to do with your knowledge or understanding? the above sounds an awful lot like a statement of blind faith.
“I’m still unsure as to the point of your questioning, you can read various descriptions of evolutionary mechanics online - if you disagree with them let’s see your peer reviewed published evidence. You’re trying to make out you that you’ve a better understanding of the science… so where is your science? ”
***in what specific area?
“Personally I’d still love to see the evidence for demon possession. You clearly reject evolution because you don’t trust the evidence”
***no, because i think the evidence is better expalined and predicted by special creation. because the claimed mechanisms can not be demonstrated to produce anyhting remotely like the claims made for evolution.
“… but you’re not telling me you believe in demon possession because of just one book?”
***no, i am not.
“YOUR ADDITION (in order)
- Yes life starting must be rare - or it’d be everywhere.”
***that is inductive reasoning, not science. it does not ecplain why it would be arre, only that, because if ti was not, my theory would be weakened.
“- Correct I can’t reproduce life.”
***why not?
“- There are many theories, I shouldn’t need to give you them, they’re easy to find… (don’t assume I agree with them all) here’s one to get you started… please assume from the start you understand the science better than me http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.B31B0993F”
***”there are many theories” indicates it is FAITH, not science. even the best fo these theories are extremely vague, and some DO claim life started more than once to better fit what we actually see.
“- Reason for the link above
- Cool isn’t it - I only wish my understanding was as deep as yours.
- Yep
- Rob it’s a bit stupid to say I have “faith” in some unknown, undescribed, unevidencede process. Perhaps you could say, “Life started and you don’t know how”. ”
***except that is not the extent of your claims. you do have faith that it started by some naturalistic, unguided process. you ahven’t the remotest idea how this could happen, you ahve no evidence it did happen, yet you beleive it did. if that is not faith, what is it?
“What I can say is “You’ve no scientific proof that your God created anything or indeed even exists… that’s certainly not science.””
***but you are wrong. i DO have evidence, in the realm of science, that there HAS to be an intellignet creator (prime cause) for the universe. einstein, hawking and many others agree, by the way.
Rob your getting more idiotic as time goes by - maybe the demons are messing with your brain!
I can’t really explain it all to you Rob, as I’m no expert… here’s some reading on the subject you requested… it’s quite easy to find…
Tamura, K., and M. Nei. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:512-526. [4]
Genetics, Vol. 176, 513-526, May 2007, Copyright © 2007
Evolution of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair by Gene Conversion: Coevolution Between a Phage and a Restriction-Modification System
Probability Models for DNA Sequence Evolution
Journal of the American Statistical Association, June, 2004 by Noah A. Rosenberg
Although directed this one shows possible method….
Directed Evolution of DNA Polymerase, RNA Polymerase and Reverse Transcriptase Activity in a Single Polypeptide
Journal of Molecular Biology
Volume 361, Issue 3, 18 August 2006, Pages 537-550
This one was interesting…
DNA Sequence Evolution with Neighbor-Dependent Mutation
Peter F. Arndt, Christopher B. Burge, Terence Hwa. Journal of Computational Biology. 2003, 10(3-4): 313-322. doi:10.1089/10665270360688039.
Rob you really are desperate to say I have faith…
“except that is not the extent of your claims. you do have faith that it started by some naturalistic, unguided process.”
You can’t say that… it’s idiotic… it’s like the Russel’s Teapot thing…
“hawking and many others agree”…. Hawking is a pantheist. He doesn’t agree with you.
Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 15:38:16
Rob your getting more idiotic as time goes by - maybe the demons are messing with your brain!
I can’t really explain it all to you Rob, as I’m no expert… here’s some reading on the subject you requested… it’s quite easy to find…
Tamura, K., and M. Nei. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:512-526. [4]”
***from his opwn website-Koichiro Tamura: Drosophila melanogaster has been a canonical model organism to study genetics, development, behavior, physiology, evolution, and population genetics for nearly a century. ++Despite this emphasis and the completion of its nuclear genome sequence, the timings of major speciation events leading to the origin of this fruit fly +++remain elusive+++ because of the paucity of extensive fossil records and biogeographic data.++
The number of nucleotide substitutions between DNA sequences is one of the most important parameters in the study of molecular evolution. This measure of evolutionary distance is ++routinely used to +++infer+++ phylogenetic trees ++
in other words, beginning with an ASSUMPTION that evolution happened, evidence that is neutral is used as if it occured because of evolution, an dgives x results.
“Genetics, Vol. 176, 513-526, May 2007, Copyright © 2007
Evolution of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair by Gene Conversion: Coevolution Between a Phage and a Restriction-Modification System”
***again, a neutral observation. genetic repair mechanisms cna be explained by evolution or by design. all we KNOW is that repair mechanisms exist. again, from the article itself:
The +++necessity+++ to repair genome damage has been considered to be an immediate factor responsible for the origin of sex. Indeed, attack by a cellular restriction enzyme of invading DNA from several bacteriophages initiates recombinational repair by gene conversion if there is homologous DNA. In this work, +++we modeled+++ the interaction between a bacteriophage and a bacterium carrying a restriction enzyme as antagonistic coevolution. +++We assume+++ a locus on the bacteriophage genome has either a restriction-sensitive or a restriction-resistant allele, and another locus determines whether it is recombination/repair proficient or defective.
i.e. a computer model based on admitted assumptions gives x result.
“Probability Models for DNA Sequence Evolution
Journal of the American Statistical Association, June, 2004 by Noah A. Rosenberg”
***The DNA sequences of living organisms represent the outcome of a complicated stochastic process. +++(begins with an unevidenced assertion)+++Probabilistic models of this stochastic evolution, along with statistical methods for hypothesis testing and parameter estimation, are + ++used to infer+++ the nature of the history that gave rise to those DNA sequences. +++DNA sequence evolution is generally a tree-like genealogical process, in which new variants arise, reproduce, and then either go extinct or reach fixation, the state in which individuals all descend +++(unevidenced assumption)
i.e. beginning with an assumption evolution is true, can we create statistical equations that fit our assumptions?
“Although directed this one shows possible method….
Directed Evolution of DNA Polymerase, RNA Polymerase and Reverse Transcriptase Activity in a Single Polypeptide
Journal of Molecular Biology
Volume 361, Issue 3, 18 August 2006, Pages 537-550″
***DNA polymerases enable key technologies in modern biology but for many applications, native polymerases are limited by their stringent substrate recognition. Here we describe short-patch compartmentalized self-replication (spCSR), a novel strategy to expand the substrate spectrum of polymerases in a targeted way. spCSR is based on the previously described CSR, but unlike CSR only a short region (a “patch”) of the gene under investigation is diversified and replicated. This allows the selection of polymerases under conditions where catalytic activity and processivity are compromised to the extent that full self-replication is inefficient. We targeted two specific motifs involved in substrate recognition in the active site of DNA polymerase I from Thermus aquaticus (Taq) and selected for incorporation of both ribonucleotide- (NTP) and deoxyribonucleotide-triphosphates (dNTPs) using spCSR. This allowed the isolation of multiple variants of Taq with apparent dual substrate specificity. They were able to synthesize RNA, while still retaining essentially wild-type (wt) DNA polymerase activity as judged by PCR. One such mutant (AA40: E602V, A608V, I614M, E615G) was able to incorporate both NTPs and dNTPs with the same catalytic efficiency as the wt enzyme incorporates dNTPs. AA40 allowed the generation of mixed RNA-DNA amplification products in PCR demonstrating DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase as well as reverse transcriptase activity within the same polypeptide. Furthermore, AA40 displayed an expanded substrate spectrum towards other 2′-substituted nucleotides and was able to synthesize nucleic acid polymers in which each base bore a different 2′-substituent. Our results suggest that spCSR will be a powerful strategy for the generation of polymerases with altered substrate specificity for applications in nano- and biotechnology and in the enzymatic synthesis of antisense and RNAi probes.
hey shaunie, how ’bout summarizing that for me and explaining how it is evidence for drawinian evolution- as far as i can tell, it is not even claimed to be?
“This one was interesting…
DNA Sequence Evolution with Neighbor-Dependent Mutation
Peter F. Arndt, Christopher B. Burge, Terence Hwa. Journal of Computational Biology. 2003, 10(3-4): 313-322. doi:10.1089/10665270360688039.”
***DNA Sequence Evolution with Neighbor-Dependent Mutation
Peter F Arndt, Terence Hwa (Dept. of Physics, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093)
Models of DNA sequence evolution have generally treated sequences as collections of independently evolving sites. For all vertebrates including humans, +++this assumption+++ is violated because the fastest mutation process, the CpG-methylation-deamination, is a neighbor-dependent process and makes sequence evolution a non-equilibrium dynamical process. While +++the problem defies an exact solution+++, we find a first order cluster approximation to provide a very accurate description. Taking neighbor-dependent mutation effects into account we are able to predict the nucleotide frequencies for a given set of rates (Arndt, Burge, Hwa, to appear in RECOMB2002). We also developed a tool which deduces the (neighbor-dependent) mutation rates given the pair of ancestor/daughter sequences. We applied our method to study the mutation pattern in different organisms. Using a large number of repetitive elements, we analyzed the mutation patterns systematically for genomic regions with different GC-contents. +++Very interesting correspondence+++ between the mutations rates and the GC-content of the region is found.
shaunie, again please summarize this for us. it certainly appears you are taking someone ele’s authority on blind faith. if you are unable to explain how these articles demonstrate whatever it is you are attempting to demonstrate, you ahve proven this is what you are doing.
Rob you really are desperate to say I have faith…
“except that is not the extent of your claims. you do have faith that it started by some naturalistic, unguided process.”
You can’t say that… it’s idiotic… it’s like the Russel’s Teapot thing…
“hawking and many others agree”…. Hawking is a pantheist. He doesn’t agree with you.
oh, by the way, hawking is no pantheist. that is the belief that the universe=god. i will use his own words to show you to be wrong again.
Your little comments are mostly idiotic - I explained why the one that confused you is there.
Oh no… Rob’s going to prove me wrong… AGAIN?! What will the demons say?!
I suppose you could argue that he other beliefs - but does have many pantheist views - as shown by his ‘then we will know the mind of God’ quote…
He doesn’t believe in a personal God at all… that’s what you believe in isn’t it?
the point was not whether he believed in a personal god, it was whether he believed the universe had a beginning, and that the universe needed a cause, and what characteristics that cause must have. that quote was not pantheist at all - he said if we came too understand why we and the universe exist, we would know the mind of god. that is the exact opposite of pantheism. why do you keep wildly making stuff up?
hey, try this for evidence men did not make up the bible:
O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
How precious to [b] me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
Why do you keep wildly making stuff up?
It’s not the opposite of pantheism!
What do you think the ‘mind of God’ is to Hawkins? A personal God with a mind? Or perhaps the law’s that govern the universe (like a pantheist).
You attempted to discredit the research above… you’ve not even read the reports and checked the references, otherwise you wouldn’t of written some of your comments. It’s really idiotic!
Then you start quoting Psalms!? What a joke! Come on then… how does this provide “evidence men did not make up the bible”
I don’t know what is funnier, this site or the offended Christian Supremacists with their passive aggressive whining, it’s win-win! Good work guys.
BTW: The horse anus is a nice touch.
Hey guys what’s it like being mentally retarded?
I have always wanted to know what it was like to never look into anything and to make foolish assumptions about things I have know knowledge of.
A: Your definition of “mentally retarded” is incorrect.
B: When you have a better handle on the English language, please come back and comment. Until then, please refrain from attempting to pose as anyone’s intellectual superior.
C:The founders of the Unicorn Museum have obviously done quite a bit of research into Christian mythology. Of course, if you exhibited a capacity for higher thought, you would have realized this.
“You who uses the ad hominem argument is a fool, and a fool for life”
You’re a bunch of idiots.
To the “creators” of this site -
While I can understand your perspective, the belief in Unicorns is not the same as a belief in the Bible. The Bible is actually proven to contain many accurate records of history. Unicorns, incidentally, are not mentioned in the Bible!
You have a right to protest the Creation Museum (which I have not visited) but I would challenge you to be a bit more openminded as to its worth.
Sincerely,
Rob
The Bible is proven to be a book of ancient Jewish myths, if it was a book of accurate historical record, there wouldn’t be a need for endless debates. Think why for instance there is no archaelogical evidence of a Jewish exodus whatsover, or no primary sources that provide proof of a historical jesus. None its a collection of tall tales used to control your mind by the people who start wars and genocides all over the planet.
And what would these “primary” sources be, other than:
- Tacitus
- Josephus
- Pliny
- Eusebius
……….just to name a few.
As for your claims about Exodus, the last time I checked, there was a National Geographic special about this, in which folks were trying to explain away the plagues as mere natural phenomena that had no supernatural guidance.
At one point, Biblical skeptics claimed that Israel was never in Egypt at all. When archaeologial evidence shot that to pieces, then they tried to marginalize the account by claiming that they weren’t as many Israelites in Egypt as cited in the book of Exodus. Now, we have this whole plague thing.
Of course, this certainly wouldn’t be the first time skeptics claimed that certain accounts in the Bible weren’t true, only to be royally embarrased when the evidence backed Scripture quite neatly.
And it certainly won’t be the last.
“The Bible is proven to be a book of ancient Jewish myths,”
***source?
” if it was a book of accurate historical record, there wouldn’t be a need for endless debates.”
***really? is that the standard for accurate manuscriptional information?
” Think why for instance there is no archaelogical evidence of a Jewish exodus whatsover, ”
***there is
“or no primary sources that provide proof of a historical jesus.”
***ther eis almost no extant manuscripts about anyhting anywhere in that time period, and there should not be about a particular judean who the distant jews were arguing about whether he was alive or not - but there is. ignorance is no basis for wild claims.
” None its a collection of tall tales used to control your mind by the people who start wars and genocides all over the planet.”
***really? in what way is my mind controlled by anyone “starting genocides”?
I stand corrected - I did find the references to the Unicorn in the King James Version only. I don’t usually read that translation.
I still challenge the creators of this site to be more open-minded when it comes to the Bible.
Don’t hold your breath. We’ve yet to get any statements from these folks that, when the ancient Hebrews penned the word, re’em, in those nine verses, that they were referring to this horsey-type critter, which we identify as “unicorn”.
A Unicorn is simply a one horned animal. Why is it so hard to believe that there have been 1 horned animals? My husband, nephew, and I visited the Creation Museum in June and we thought that it was very interesting. It had displays that presented the evolution theory and the creation theory. I especially liked the Planetarium. It seems to me that people should be open to looking at all sides of an issue. We learn more by being open minded. Even if we don’t agree with a position, we can often learn from it.
You thought it was very interesting? J.R.R. Tolkien’s books are “very interesting”. Dr. Seuss is “very interesting”. The Creation Museum would be more interesting if they presented it as fiction…
Great site.
And some fascinating comments. I don’t know why some Christians don’t know about the KJV’s mention of unicorns, or seem to be in denial that there are a substantial number of Creationists who think the KJV, and only the KJV, is completely accurate.
I still find it hard to believe that there are people who call themselves Christians who believe in a god so evil that he would punish anyone who doesn’t believe in him. What kind of omnipotent being coud be that insecure, that self-centred?
G.Moore seems to have missed the point entirely about this site. It isn’t an attempt to prove that evolution is correct, there are a lot of web sites that do that.
The Creation Museum is just another version of the Big Lie. It lies about what evolutionary theory actually has to say (just read a book written by a real biologist with some expertise in the field and compare), it lies about science.
What a wonderful idea! I’d like to make a special trip to Ohio just to bring my granddaughter to see your wonderful museum! However, you have not listed your admission prices, nor your hours, and whether you’re open on Holidays, such as Christmas and Summer Solstice…
What an ingenious enterprise! And no, evolution is not “on its last legs,” because truth doesn’t die. There was a time when they had nice, comfortable homes for the deluded, but I believe the Reagan administration wiped those out, presumably to have a wider voter base…
Oops - Kentucky… (Should have known.)
Hey! I have an idea. Go visit the creation museum first! If you still feel like you need a billboard after your visit - by all means do what your heart tells you do (if you can trust it - since you apparantly have no other basis for your beliefs). The trip may save you a lot of money - and perhaps even more than that!
Whatever happened to tolerance of other view points and the open honest exchange of ideas? Truth cannot be discovered through derisive sacasm and hateful mudslinging. I would rather discuss the facts with an open mind and follow them to thier logical conclusion than to stubbornly defend my own ideological views. Truth before my own presuppositions. I believe truth is not so elusive if we seek it sincerely and humbly.
Then what are the facts?
What are the logical conclusions?
Somthing bogous someone wrote almost 2000 year’s ago?
Then how can you say any religion is wrong?
If you can use simple solutions without scientific facts to explain something,
I guess I can state that humans were flying and that the reason why you don’t find the wings is because they lost the wings around the age of 10.
Then I coult teach your children to beleive in it.
That would be perfectly allright for you I suppose?
In response to Doug, let me start with the least important of his comments.
1. The reason some Christians don’t know about the KJV’s mention of unicorns is that they have used one of the other numerous English translations (including the New King James, which does not have “unicorn”).
2. While there are a “substantial” (subjectively defined) number of Creationists who think the KJV–and only the KJV–is completely accurate, that is not a major focus in the regular practice of most English-speaking Christians today. Likewise, racism is not a major focus today for evolutionists, though many important early evolutionists (including Darwin) were racist. This is tangential to the main point of either of these museums.
3. The heart of the issue for you, Doug, is not Creationism per say: it is Christianity itself, with or without Genesis 1-11. I heartily agreed with your position growing up, because my parents taught me to distrust “organized religion.” It was not until I actually began dialoguing with college friends who were evangelical that I began to lose my unfair stereotypes of Christianity. While I had naively assumed that God must be insecure and self-centered, I was actually ignorant of what most of the Bible and Christians had to say about the Omnipotent One. Unlike the President of the United States, God does not depend on our votes for His existence! If God really wanted to punish you for not beleiving in Him, do you think you would still be alive after stating your rejection of Him? Do you think anyone stay alive after doubting or rejecting Him? The fact that God allowed Madeleine Murray O-Haire to live comfortably to 79 shows that God is very secure in His existence and that He laughs at our scoffing of Him (Psalm 2, any translation) instead of “punishing” us for it. The fact that the Lord gives sunshine and rain to the evil and the good (Matthew 5, any translation) does not to me indicate that he is evil; evil to me is what Stalin and Hitler did and genocides like in Rwanda. That you
Unfortunately, a lack of votes will not make Dubya cease to exist, just cease to be President. Although that too may depend on who counts the votes.
Nice try, however. Tell me: does Zeus exist then since he no longer “gets the votes?” I know Thor beat him a while back, but I’m confused who the incumbent Thunder God is at the moment.
Um….so the fact that God does nothing proves he’s a nice guy, not that he’s not there?
Very nice.
Incidentally, I don’t see any lack of “tolerance of other viewpoints” here. Is the previous poster suggesting that this site cease operation? That the Unicorn Museum billboard not be allowed to stand near the Creation Museum billboard? If so, sounds like he is the one failing to tolerate.
And what of the Creation Museum’s failure to tolerate the scientific view? Presenting an opinion necessarily implies a rejection of the opposing opinion, I’m afraid, but that’s not a good reason to stop expressing opinions.
My husband (then-fiancee) and I went to the Creation museum recently. If anyone is interested in an atheist/agnostic perspective of what’s inside, please visit my review.
THIS IS GOD! BE SILENT! LET THOSE POOR UNICORNS ALONE!
Funny thing, ‘God’ has an IP address from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London. Apparently God is himself a scientist.
If it wasn’t for that cursed proxy server, it would be pretty convincing, don’t you think? However some people over here definitely think they are God! Good luck with your site. It’s quite hilarious.
1. The statement that issues have more than one side is correct. The idea that all sides are equally important and should be equally reported, represented, and respected is not. This is not Fox News. The science is in, and with more recent theories like M-Theory, “God” as “The Creator” is pushed way back, even beyond the singularity (Creation or Big Bang), and the idea of finiteness (a beginning and an end of time) is up for serious debate. But for me, even the ‘verging-on-SciFi’ thought of other pre-existing universes colliding, causing a big bang and creating ‘our’ universe in the process, is theoretically superior and scientifically more sound than the scant evidence underlying the theories of the bible, whose status is far from undebatable, even among its supporters, let alone other religious groups.
2. I always wonder why believers and non-believers submit to the idea of having a discussion or debate, let alone a rational one. It is impossible to have a rational debate between groups that do not share common ground, and I mean ‘ground’ as the most basic fundament to a world view. One group looks one way, pointing to the factual correctness and infallibility of a book (refusing to move on any issue), the other group looks the other way (180 degrees) and points to the validity of scientific reasoning and research (and sees no factual evidence or theoretical inevitability to move closer to views supported by the other group). With both groups (and there are more than two groups in these highly factionalized quarters) trying to convince the other with their backs turned to one another, it turns into a shouting match. It is a thoroughly pointless and unrewarding exercise, turning both groups into an evangelical direction and/or mutual ridicule. If one cannot even agree on what constitutes fact, all bets are off.
3. Science and scientific progress speak volumes; they can find their own way out. It is what prompts religious fundamentalists to emulate science and create a museum. The Creation Museum is only one step away of waving a white flag and giving up.
I don’t believe that you are correct in assuming for a scientific “win” in the long run over fundamental religion. Science is not comforting, and it is too hard to understand. Most people simply ignore it. Fundamental religion is rapidly growing, not receding. I believe there has been significant backsliding since the 60’s toward a less analytical, knowledgeable populace. The election of George Bush II speaks volumes.
Misrepresentation of facts appropriately opens one to logical or scientific analysis. If one bottles flavored alcohol and sells it as Merlot, or if one sells flavored soy and calls it hamburger, a scientific analysis will show error or fraud. If one sells life insurance but socks the premiums away, that’s fraud. Where money changes hands, the penalties are usually jail and restitution. But, if one bilks $25 million from numerous folk by convincing them that they are supporting a scientific enterprise called “Creationism”, that’s at least subject to mockery or scorn. By opening this museum, they have provided an unusual opportunity for their detractors to show them as fraudulent or worse. They have antied $25 mil in the peer journal of American opinion. It would be a major mistake for the scientific community to not join the debate.
Have to agree with everything you say Chuckie, it is no time for US scientists to be passive regarding the threat to reason that is posed by Fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. Here you have two cultures that really believe that we are better off keeping our mind in the 14th century. Years ago the priesthood was certain that illness was caused by demons, bad thinking, or irreverent behavior. Like the modern theory of disease, science has encroached inch by inch into the magisteria of organized religion, and boy they don’t like it. As the purview of their faith, and what it can be used to control, is narrowed from the explanation of everything, to the current status of religion, being only a circular explanation for itself, Fundamentalists have been kicking back, hard, to try to regain control of areas that they have controlled for years. The Bush War on Science is a perfect example of that. As science keeps getting closer to the origins, religion keeps getting more vociferous. I expect it to get worse from their side, it must be really difficult to have your entire worldview shattered by facts. Two years ago a virus was made from scratch. Science just put a hook in life itself. Kinda F’s up any Creation Myth doesn’t it?
Also, you point out something that scientists, and those that trust science, must acknowledge; faith will never disappear. Science does nothing to comfort man that there really may not be a reason for it all. In order for the average person not to be crushed by the futility and pain of much of what we call life, they need a reason to live. They need a God. They take that giant step, make that unsupported assumption, that if you feel empty there is something designed to fill that void, they assume that there must be a purpose. If there is a purpose, there must be a ‘purpose creator’. They found their God. He sprung whole from myth and superstition, sprung whole from self-awareness. Right after the animal becomes self aware, it starts to ponder why. Science will never change that, nor will it. Sentinet life questions, always.
So now that the very complete, very versatile, theory of evolution has been able to use what we observe in the present to explain the records of the past, now that it becomes a tool to actually predict biological futures for humans in the doctors office, without a single prayer being offered!, it must be attacked by the minions. The same world view that burned witches, murdered “possessed” epileptics, and made a ruling class out of priests wants to overturn 500 years of observation. Its funny, most of Christianity and Islam ‘evolved’ to recognize that faith can never be destroyed by science, but the Fundamentalist community refuses to adapt. It will probably take longer than my lifetime, but what happens, what has been observed to happen, to every animal community that can’t adapt to changes in the environment? Yup Chuckie, they go extinct.
I’d recommend caution with the prediction that fundamentalism is about to go extinct. It might be tru, but fundalmentalists are very capable and willing to take any being who doesn’t agree with them down. They’ll blow a hole in their own lifeboat with us aboard!
Have to agree with everything you say Chuckie, it is no time for US scientists to be passive regarding the threat to reason that is posed by Fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. Here you have two cultures that really believe that we are better off keeping our mind in the 14th century.
A broad-brushsed, grossly inaccurate statement, to say the least. Perhaps, it hasn’t quite dawned on you that many of the early scientific advances were made by Bible-believing Christians. But, why let such a fact stand in the way of a good anti-religious rant.
Years ago the priesthood was certain that illness was caused by demons, bad thinking, or irreverent behavior. Like the modern theory of disease, science has encroached inch by inch into the magisteria of organized religion, and boy they don’t like it. As the purview of their faith, and what it can be used to control, is narrowed from the explanation of everything, to the current status of religion, being only a circular explanation for itself, Fundamentalists have been kicking back, hard, to try to regain control of areas that they have controlled for years.
Big deal!! The Bible didn’t attribute all sicknesses to demons, a fact I explained to Shaunie not too long ago.
The Bush War on Science is a perfect example of that. As science keeps getting closer to the origins, religion keeps getting more vociferous. I expect it to get worse from their side, it must be really difficult to have your entire worldview shattered by facts. Two years ago a virus was made from scratch. Science just put a hook in life itself. Kinda F’s up any Creation Myth doesn’t it?
What “War on Science”? How many labs has Bush closed down? How many university science curriculum has he upended? My guess is you’re blubbering about stem cell research. Of course, it slipped your mind that President Bush is the FIRST president to ever fund stem cell research and he is in favor of such, as are many Christians….with ONE SOLE EXCEPTION: embryonic stem cell research.
This would be the kind that has the most amount of controversy and, to date, has led to the cure of absolutely ZERO diseases. Meanwhile other forms of stem cell research (adult, placenta, baby teeth, aminotic, etc.) have helped cure lots of diseases and have the FULL support of the President and millions of Christians nationwide.
Please remember that, before you continue making such bone-headed statements.
Religion gets vociferous, alright. And, the message is “WE TOLD YOU SO!!! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
I expect it to get worse from their side, it must be really difficult to have your entire worldview shattered by facts. Two years ago a virus was made from scratch. Science just put a hook in life itself. Kinda F’s up any Creation Myth doesn’t it?
It took scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts…..all to make a lowly virus. And this is the grandiose breakthrough that “F’s up any Creation Myth”?
This is supposed to prove that we are the product of 5-billion-year old “goo” that inexplicably, with no divine aid whatsoever, appeared on Earth and “evolved” in to this critter, that critter, another critter, and ultimately man?
Basically, what “science” has done is something old Louie Pasteur did nearly 200 years ago, the last time Team “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” came with the spontaneous generation flap: Show that life only comes from LIFE. Several living scientists had to DELIBERATELY assembled materials (BTW, who created the stuff from which the virus came) to get that virus. It was no accident.
If there’s any “war”, it’s between a Godly worldview and a godless one. It’s certainly not one against science.
All this confusion about monokeros, wild bulls and Unicorns… I wonder - If this almighty God has divinely inspired the original version of the bible, why didn’t he simply divinely inspire all the translations as well? Should have been a piece of cake for an almighty being, and it would have saved his puzzled believers from having to figure out which translation of the book to believe in which passage…
Exactly…I love how when there are questions about biblical innacuracies and inconsistancies Christians immediately claim it’s due to bad translation or a misunderstanding of historical or cultural context, so how come there is no cultural, translational or historical apologetics when it comes to passages about, say, homosexuality, or women’s roles in ministry?
If I’m expected believe Christians when they say that there is a “mistranslation” of those particular passages (re: unicorns) why should I believe in the translational integrity of the REST of Scripture? Or more importantly why DO they?
If there’s any question, regarding translation, all you got to do is check out the context and the original Hebrew and examine it for yourself.
As far as homosexuality goes, name one instance in Scripture where such is blessed and sanctioned by God and you have a case to build. Good luck!!!
Ironically enough, the Creation account in Genesis sets the whole foundation for this whole issue, something to the tune of “For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his (hold on to your hats, folks) WIFE and the two shall become one flesh.”
If you misunderstand that (or any other reference to marital/sexual relations), no amount of translation is going to help.
That’s man and wife, male and female, not two guys and not two girls.
As for women’s roles in ministry, perhaps, Heidi, you forgot about the fact that there were female judges (i.e. Deborah) and prophetesses (i.e. Anna).
Again, if you have any doubt as to the integrity of Scripture, ain’t nothing stopping you from doing a little research and seeing for yourself, which any Christian worth his salt would encourage you to do.
But, the issue here isn’t doing that research regarding whether the creature, that the KJV describes as “unicorn”, is the horsey-type creature or not. It’s about your not liking what the Bible has to say on certain subjects.
And name one good reason why any gay (or otherwise inclined person) ought to care one whit about what the bible says about sex. Get a life and stop worrying about what other people are doing with their private parts!
Why don’t you ask the numerous amount of gay people, trying to get clergy to “marry them”, or those who are trying to construct certain Bible verses as speaking out against specific forms of homosexual behavior, as opposed to homosexual behavior, in general.
Perhaps, if you’re weren’t so busy ranting, you would notice that someone else brought up the issue of homosexuality, in the context of “cultural, translational, or or historical apologetics”. She asked the question; I answered it, pure and simple. Doing such hardly deems me (or anyone else) as being void of a life.
And all of this stems from the simple fact that, for all of the Biblical skeptics snickering and claims, regarding this unicorn issue, they have yet, TO THIS VERY DAY, shown that the Hebrew re’em creature (that the Greeks deemed as “monokeros”, when translating the Septuaging) is anywhere near the horsey-type creature that we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
I’ll give credit where it’s due. You make a lucid argument there McWay!
We shouldn’t put up a Unicorn Museum billboard, we need to put up a Noah’s Ark Billboard! I can see the marquee now..(rubbing chin)
See every animal that ever lived on Earth, Ever!
Just like they were then, Just like they are now! Evolution Free!
Walk with real Dinosaurs, just like Methusula!
See how Noah collected billions of species of Nematodes, soil bacteria, etc and the leashes he used to walk them to the Ark!
Wish you stuck with unicorns McWay? If you want to argue against evolution, you don’t get to just use Genesis. Ready to use the whole ‘literal’ book? Any language you want. But how many Gosples should we confine ourselves to? Old and New testament? Catholic stuff? You choose.
“See every animal that ever lived on Earth, Ever!
Just like they were then, Just like they are now! Evolution Free!
Walk with real Dinosaurs, just like Methusula!
See how Noah collected billions of species of Nematodes, soil bacteria, etc and the leashes he used to walk them to the Ark!”
***please demonstrate where any one of those things is claimed anywhere in the bible
Haha!
Great Work!
Fredrik.
Archaeologist
Norway.
The American Museum of Natural History has a model of a unicorn, 10 feet
long, as part of it’s Mythical Creatures exhibit.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythiccreatures/land/
From the AMNH site:
“The Christian Unicorn”
“Art historians have long considered the unicorn to be a symbol for Christ,
a link seen most clearly in the story of a maiden capturing a unicorn (told
above). For instance, the unicorn’s placing his head in the lap of the young
maiden, or virgin, recalls baby Jesus lying in the lap of the Virgin Mary.
In other stories and artworks, the unicorn dips its horn into poisoned water to
purify it for the other animals to drink, a reference to the story of
Christ’s sacrifice to cleanse the sins of mankind.”
right next to the mythical “lucy”?
Interesting. Numbers often speak more loudly than words.
If you look on the Creation Museum’s home page, under “What people are saying”, you will see “One visitor’s review of the new Creation Museum” - the key word being “one”; in the same section at this site, you will see “View Comments Page” - for the undiscerning reader, please note the plural.
And you really should visit the Creation Museum Commenter’s blog: it is truly hilarious.
Also, please note, on the Creation Museum’s home page, the picture of the little boy screaming when he realized that Mom bought him a Season Pass!
Little Boy Screaming
So the folks at TWiS are concerned about the youth of America and they are going to help them out by holding a design contest for a unicorn billboard. Well, that should give us all hope for America’s youth. Instead of teaching our youth to examine all sides of an issue, think critically with an open mind, and decide for themselves, lets simply teach them to mock those we disagree with. That’s clearly the less intellectually lazy way to approach life.
Joseph! You’re being silly. TWIS is simply encouraging a belief in unicorns. You are being intellectually lazy by not logically explaining your belief that unicorns, trolls, demons, dragons, angels and similar mythical creatures are not real. Get off your lazy duff and explain the difference between the process of scientific verification and belief.
Thanks Chuckie.
The scientific method is based on observation, measurement, and repetition. Evolution, from molecules-to-man is not open to observation, measurement, or repetition since it allegedly happened over millions of years. Conclusion: Evolution is a belief about the past that is unverifiable by the scientific method.
Evolution is a process which has been observed and recreated many times. Of course we don’t have billions of years to recreate evolution from molecules to people.
I notice you fail to hold your own beliefs to the same standards you hold to scientific facts. Or does the CM’s staff of “scientists” somehow manage to “observe, measure, and repeat” Divine Creation in a lab?
You people would amuse the hell out of me were you not so dangerous. Believe what you choose to believe, but please stop trying to make everyone else follow your rules. Then again, if you really do want to live in a patriarchical theocracy, I hear that Iraq is looking for a few good men….
Creationists never claimed that they have observed Creation. So, your claim of Joseph’s not applying the same standards doesn’t make sense.
You don’t even have to go as far as molecules or billions of years (which, of course, you don’t have). Where are the observations of birds evolving from non-birds, fish evolving from non-fish, or people evolving from non-people?
Virtually all of the so-called examples of evolution are nothing but certain types of creatures, displaying visibly different characteristics than their ancestors, characteristics that such creatures possess all the while, which fits right the the Genesis account of creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Then, there are those “living fossils”, creatures that evolutionists thought to be extinct and thus all manner of characteristics were assigned to them as part of the evolutionary process (i.e. the coelacanth fish). When those creatures were found to still be alive, they had virtually NONE of the things that Team “Goo-to-you….” claimed.
Let’s see some observed examples of evolutions, and I don’t mean birds with small beaks producing birds with large ones (aka speciation). That doesn’t work for one simple but obvious reason: they are still….BIRDS.
Naw, I got a better idea. You explain the transitional forms observed in the fossil record using Creationism (don’t split hairs either Creationism=ID). The observations are in the fossil record, are they not? Thats right, you see, we have our theory, and it explains both the observations in the fossil record, all of them, and the modern observations of speciation, every single blessed one of them. What it doesn’t explain, is any creation myth. Yup! I’ll admit it! Current evolutionary theory can’t explain any religion or dogma.
So screw your strawman. Explain what we have observed. Animals in the fossil record that obviously are not dogs or cats, and no dogs or cats present either, and we have dogs and cats today. Explain to me how we can find extinct fauna, globally, but no dogs or cats, until a few millions of years ago.
Did dogs and cats just pop in out of thin air? If they did, where are the new animal forms popping fully formed into the present day? Oh? They all popped in at the same time, you say? Like in Genesis?
Also do it as well as current evolutionary theory does. I mean explain everything. Everthing from why bird species will allow cowbirds to lay eggs in a nest, to dino fossils with beaks and teeth, feathers and scales (they DO exist ya know). Make sure not to leave out all of those humanoids we find all over the planet, selective breeding, and human birth defects, and race. Explain the duck billed platypus to me using ID/Creationism, or any other theory you want, but explain it ALL, just like the current theory does. Explain why the Dodo is extinct, God didn’t need it anymore?
Your first (of several mistakes) is assuming that the book of Genesis states that dogs and cats today were exactly as they were in the past. That is categorically FALSE. We expect creatures to reproduce after their own kind, as per the book of Genesis. And, they do. Said another way, the ancient ancestor of a cat was a….CAT (likely with varying features, like size, strength, length of fur, claws, leaping ability, etc.).
That fits right in line with the account in Genesis, just like your cracked reference to cowbirds: Birds laying eggs in the nest of other BIRDS. Imagine that!!!! As for the dino fossils with “beaks and teeth, feathers and scales”, they have ranged from frauds (Archaeoraptor) to full-blown birds (Archaeopteryx) and a host of other misreads.
What you called my “strawman” is, in reality, evolution’s biggest weaknesses, hence your eagerness to avoid it. Your talk about the fossil record does you no favors either. All a fossil says is that something got buried in rock, which scientific evidence has shown that such must occur RAPIDLY, not over millions of years.
And speaking of “millions of years”, that would lead me to the lovely tendency of rock-dating methods, namely the trend to date rocks of historically-known age (decades or centuries old) as being milllion of years old.
The “fossil record” said (or at least, evolutionists claimed it said) that the coelacanth fish was extinct some 70 million years ago and was an ancestor of modern man; hence man didn’t live during the time of the coelacanth. Well, much to their chagrin, those fish still exist AND they co-exist with people (actual people, not our so-called “unga-munga” caveman ancestors) during the same time period. To top it all off, virtually ALL of the evolutionary characteristics attributed to that fish were as wrong as two left shoes.
So, that pretty much takes care of your position of certain types of creatures not existing with other types of creatures, if fossils of both aren’t found in the precious “fossil record”.
As far as the platypus goes (From “AnswersinGenesis.org”)
What about the history of the platypus? Where did it come from? Why is it only found in Australia? All fossils found of it are essentially the same as today’s living creatures. It certainly shows no signs of evolution. Its only significant change seems to have been to lose some teeth and shrink in size. Indeed, evolutionary scientists are baffled about the ancestry of the platypus. They openly admit that nothing is known about its history that can explain its geographical distribution. But then, all they had to go on until 1984 were two teeth, a jaw fragment, a hip-bone from the deserts of north-eastern South Australia, and a skull from north-western Queensland, over 1,200 kilometres away. Evolutionists said these fossil platypus fragments weren’t useful, since they were merely 15 million years old.
In 1984, however, a platypus jaw with three large teeth was found among a collection of opalised bones at Lightning Ridge in northern New South Wales and pronounced to be at least 110 million years old. Naturally, evolutionist scientists were excited. It seemed they had now established the platypus’s great antiquity. Before that discovery, they believed no land mammal had been found in Australia in sediments dated older than 23 million years.
But this platypus jaw did not help the evolutionists discover how the platypus had evolved. The new jaw was bigger than that of the present-day platypus and had larger teeth. If anything, it showed that today’s platypus has degenerated since the time of its ancestor. But evolutionists can never say anything so straight-forward. Their pronouncements based on the skull included claims such as the platypus must have undergone such a relatively rapid period of specialisation during the past 15 million years that it has climbed too far out on a long, thin evolutionary limb and so well may be headed for ‘evolutionary oblivion’. In other words, there is no evidence that platypuses have evolved, but there is abundant evidence they have degenerated - which fits the Genesis record precisely.
You would think that “110 million years” would be plenty of time for these critters to evolve into some other type of critter, especially if the platypus is already allegedly in the process of “evolving” into another creature. But, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!! The alleged multi-million year old platypus and its modern descendant quite similar, another classic case of creatures reproducing after their own kind.
The point is this: Creatures with changes in already-existing characteristics is FAR different than creatures obtaining attributes that its ancestors never had. “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution maintains that creatures procure new characteristics. An observation of such would be nice. But, such has yet to be displayed.
Well, I wont go into all that, just teh fact that you didn’t explain anything. First, I said nothing about what Genisis says, reread my post, I was simply talking about the FACT that when we look at Ordovician Strata (I won’t use date, ’cause you don’t like dating) There are no dogs and cats in Ordovician strata, none. So they either evolved, or popped into existance.
You have proved one thing, spectaculaly by the way, you don’t know what the teroy of evoluton purports to state. Lets take the Platypus example. Nothing about a smaller jaw implies that evolution worked backwards. This is often the case with creationists, you seem to think that evolution is always shown by increasing complexity. The theory states nothing of the sort. It says that organisms adapt to enhance the ability to procreate, the ones that do better, stay extant longer. Thats it. That’s why your coelacanth example is off too. The coelacanth didn’t need to evolve to survive in its niche.
By the way, anybody in your Church get a flu shot this year? Why, if you got one thats all you ever need right, because nothing evolves to environmental pressures.
I really like how you subjectively USE the fossil record one moment, and then deny its utility the next. That’s called crazy.
One thing is for sure, your ignorance is self imposed.
Of course, you won’t go into all that, because for all of your blubbering, you have YET to demonstrate any observation of a creature evolving from another creature, completely unlike itself. That’s what you (and several others) were asked to demonstrate, NOT the adaptative ability of animals, which I’ve never denied but have repeatedly been in agreement.
Organisms adapt……DUH!!!! That was never the issue. The issue is the allegations of birds “evolving” from non-birds, dogs from non-dogs, cats from non-cats, etc. being observed. For a bird to to have come from a non-bird (i.e. reptile), that would mean either the reptile had bird characteristic all along….OR it somehow obtain such, during its “evolving”.
Since you want to bring up the platypus, again, what was it before it was a platypus? And to what it is supposedly evolving, now?
Your take about the coelacanth is even more pitiful. Again, this creature supposedly either evolved into something else or went extinct. As it turns out, it did NEITHER. It supposedly grew legs from fins; it didn’t. It supposedly walked on the ocean floor and later learned to walk on land; guess what, IT DIDN’T!!
Much to the chagrin of evolutionists, the coelacanth was and still is….A FISH, with the modern ones every bit as fishy as their alleged multi-million-year-old ancestors.
“This is often the case with creationists, you seem to think that evolution is always shown by increasing complexity. The theory states nothing of the sort. It says that organisms adapt to enhance the ability to procreate, the ones that do better, stay extant longer. Thats it.”
That, genius, would be a classic example of creatures reproducing after their own kind. Birds adapts, but they’re still birds; dogs adapt, fish adapt, but they’re still fish. The question remains: Where is the observed example of, say, a bird needing to adapt to the point where it starts “evolving” into another non-bird creature?
“Please show this Ph.D. geochemist the citation where isotope chronology has ever dated a rock that was ‘modern’ , as millions of years old. Liar.
No citation (or are you going to just rail anothe strawman about how the ‘right’articles wont make it in the journals) STFU, please, liar!”
Au Contraire, Arsenic.
Dr. Andrew Snelling shown that rocks from Mt. Ngauruhoe (in New Zealand), known to be a mere 50 years old (or less) were dated as being 3.5 million years old.
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone. All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces.
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The ‘ages’ range from
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp)
Strawmen are your forte’, Arsenic, not mine.
You wrote “As it turns out, it did NEITHER. It supposedly grew legs from fins; it didn’t. It supposedly walked on the ocean floor and later learned to walk on land; guess what, IT DIDN’T!!”
Hunh??? Where has anybody ever proposed a linage that has the coelacanth evolving into a land dwelling creature?
Lets get back to your premise. Transitonal forms don’t exist. The only way you can get there is to ignore that the fossil record provides an excellent record of exactly that, transitional forms, and we have only been at it about 200 years and only aboyt 40 with DNA. Its simply breathtaking how far we have come. But we didnt see it, so it couldn’t have happened, is that thae basis of your defense? Couldnt the same be said about Genesis, except you don’t even have fossils?
Now with respect to Shilling. You know he publishes papers in the peer review journals where he routienly cites geologic ages in the millons and billons of years. Right? And that he writes papers for the creationists where he denys an ancient earth, right? And that Creationist Shilling never cites Geologist Shilling and versa visa?
So, when is Shilling lying, and how do you know? Like I said, no credible examples anywhere. Shilling requested whole rock dates using a method that is generally best applied to individual crystals.
So again, how can you explain the transitional forms in the fossil record and how that there are forms now that are nothing like ancient forms and visa versa. If every animal was created whole at the beginning, why don’t they show up till billions of years later. You have made no effort to explain what is observed. What are you afraid of?
As I said, strawmen are your forte’, not mine.
I never claimed that every animal was created whole. Or, did you forget one of my first statement, when I first addressed your post, which was:
Said another way, the ancient ancestor of a cat was a….CAT (likely with varying features, like size, strength, length of fur, claws, leaping ability, etc.).
As far as your questions, regarding the coelacanth go:
According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered.
This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!
At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea. - Dr. David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp
The coelacanth (or “Zeke”, as I like to call him) was supposedly the fish that proved that land mammals “evolved” from fish. Again, Zeke was supposedly extinct, but when those fish were found to still be alive, they had none of those alleged “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” characteristics, once contributed to it.
More mistakes on your part include:
Now with respect to Shilling. You know he publishes papers in the peer review journals where he routienly cites geologic ages in the millons and billons of years. Right? And that he writes papers for the creationists where he denys an ancient earth, right? And that Creationist Shilling never cites Geologist Shilling and versa visa?
So, when is Shilling lying, and how do you know? Like I said, no credible examples anywhere. Shilling requested whole rock dates using a method that is generally best applied to individual crystals.
So again, how can you explain the transitional forms in the fossil record and how that there are forms now that are nothing like ancient forms and visa versa. If every animal was created whole at the beginning, why don’t they show up till billions of years later. You have made no effort to explain what is observed. What are you afraid of?
You have made no attempt to explain how rocks 50-yeas old (or less) get dated as being 3.5 million years old. So, your strawman falls again. If rocks that young can be dates as millions of years old, then your claim about certain animals not showing up until “billions” of years later” holds no water.
And, now we are to believe that, because a method, “best applied to individual crystals” was used on rocks, the result was an error of that magnitude (i.e. something formed less than 50 years ago, dated to be 3 million+ years old)?
And, the guy I referenced was Andrew Snelling. A geologist doesn’t stop being a geologist, once he believes in the Creation account. If Snelling was once an evolutionist, it’s not surprising that he would have papers citing the age of the earth as billions of years old.
And, that leads me back to something you have yet to address. You claimed that I was lying about young rocks being dated as millions of years old, thinking I wouldn’t produce a reference.
Now that I have, the question to you is simple: How do rocks 50-year old (or less) get dated as 3.5 million years old?
“Said another way, the ancient ancestor of a cat was a….CAT (likely with varying features, like size, strength, length of fur, claws, leaping ability, etc.)”
I assume varying enough to look like a dinosaur? “Leaping” turns into flying? Swimming??
No war on science by the Bush administration? You have to be kidding! And no, I wasn’t referring to stem cell research. He has not only closed 4 EPA laboratories who’s work was not reproduced elsewhere, he closed 50 libraries of printed research that was payed for by tax dollars and will not be accessable to the public. Ever. Again. 50 LIBRARIES.
We will just leave out the commly known actions of insisting that all Department of Interior, USGS, and EPA documents get cleared by political apointees for spin? Rewriting scientists findings. Hundreds of documented instances of that? Yer too funny. You also don’t read so well. First, Snelling (I wasn’tt bothering to spell check my posts to you) is SIMULTANIOUSLY publishing as a creationist and evolutionist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/snelling.htm
Also, I explained exactly how he got that date. He used a single crystal method on a whole rock sample. Why do the incliusions in a diamond date differently than the kimberlite containing them. Why are billion year old xenoliths in thousand year old rock as common as grains of sand on the beach? When you understand what I just wrote, we can talk about geochemistry.
But first, lets come back to the questions you haven’t answered. Current evolutionary theory explains the fossil record and current observation. You have a new theory that you says explains everything. Well explain whey there are not human fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs. Explain why we find ancient Homos that Genesis says nothing about in young dirt? What eveidence has there ever been presented that radioactive decay constants have changed enough that radiologic dating is off by a factor of over 100,000? YEC’s never say anything about the geochemical evolution of the atmosphere. After you finish explaining why there are not human fossils in the Precambrian, explain why there wasn’t any oxygen either. You see, not only do you have to invoke magic for the radiologic dates, you have to invoke magic for the observed rates of chemical reactions, reef growth, tree growth, erosion, atmosphereic deposition, fluvial and benthic sedimentation, etc. etc. etc. Your theory cannot, has not, and won’t explain any of that, consistantly. You can revise your theory, all you have to do is rewrite your creation myth! Ready! Set! Go!
You want to cherry pick, but in order to play science, there are rules. You can’t make up the rules as you go along. The reason that virtually all scientists subscribe to the current theory, is that it fits the observations, it follows the rules of deductive reasoning.
No war on science by the Bush administration? You have to be kidding! And no, I wasn’t referring to stem cell research. He has not only closed 4 EPA laboratories who’s work was not reproduced elsewhere, he closed 50 libraries of printed research that was payed for by tax dollars and will not be accessable to the public. Ever. Again. 50 LIBRARIES.
Ever heard of the term “budget cuts”? They happen, and they happen to scientific libraries, too.
We will just leave out the commly known actions of insisting that all Department of Interior, USGS, and EPA documents get cleared by political apointees for spin? Rewriting scientists findings. Hundreds of documented instances of that? Yer too funny. You also don’t read so well. First, Snelling (I wasn’tt bothering to spell check my posts to you) is SIMULTANIOUSLY publishing as a creationist and evolutionist.
Snelling would beg to differ. Snelling makes it clear that he is a creationist. And the folks that hired him for that project that Ritchie (an atheist) cites KNEW that Snelling was such before they hired him.
Here, Snelling breaks it down:
I have never hidden my allegiances or beliefs. For example, when I left the employment of mining companies in 1983, I made it perfectly clear where I was going, what I believed and what I was doing. I also told other research scientists that I was working with, and even offered to be a silent partner in the research work if my involvement embarrassed them or compromised them in any way. None of them in any way backed off, respecting me and the position I’d taken even if they didn’t agree.
When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting. It so happens that the editor of the volume when he did the work was still in the employ of one of the mining companies that I had worked for that knew my position, so nothing was hidden from the public in any way.
The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can’t see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not. In other words, even though I could have appealed to the editor of the monograph it would have been to no avail, because the reviewers would have also insisted on the conventional terminology, particularly as one of the reviewers was one of the researchers having done the standard work on the regional geology of that area. It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy or two-facedness. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don’t agree with the millions of years associated with them. In other words, even in the creationist literature we use the same terminology, though stripped on its conventionaal evolutionary/uniformitaria interpretation.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
Also, I explained exactly how he got that date. He used a single crystal method on a whole rock sample. Why do the incliusions in a diamond date differently than the kimberlite containing them. Why are billion year old xenoliths in thousand year old rock as common as grains of sand on the beach? When you understand what I just wrote, we can talk about geochemistry.
If lava from that mountain soldifies into rock in the 1950s, then the rock (crystals and all) are around 50 years old, pure and simple. The samples that Snelling used included rocks AND crystals, with the resulting “ages” being nowhere near what their actual ages were.
Observing the formation of that lava into rock kills any attempt to cite the age of such as being millions of years old.
But first, lets come back to the questions you haven’t answered. Current evolutionary theory explains the fossil record and current observation. You have a new theory that you says explains everything. Well explain whey there are not human fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs.
Apparently, your memory is short. First, the belief in Creation is hardly new. Second, human fossils DO NOT need to be in the same bed of rock with other creatures to have co-existed with them. I refer you AGAIN to the coelacanth, a fish once thought to have died out allegedly 70 million years ago and thought have existed before humans, because no human fossils were found with the “Zeke” fossils.
Those fish are alive and well, they are still fish, and they co-exist in the same time frame as people.
YEC’s never say anything about the geochemical evolution of the atmosphere. After you finish explaining why there are not human fossils in the Precambrian, explain why there wasn’t any oxygen either. You see, not only do you have to invoke magic for the radiologic dates, you have to invoke magic for the observed rates of chemical reactions, reef growth, tree growth, erosion, atmosphereic deposition, fluvial and benthic sedimentation, etc. etc. etc. Your theory cannot, has not, and won’t explain any of that, consistantly. You can revise your theory, all you have to do is rewrite your creation myth! Ready! Set! Go!
They don’t say anything about geochemical “evolution” of the atmosphere?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/atmosphere.asp
You want to cherry pick, but in order to play science, there are rules. You can’t make up the rules as you go along. The reason that virtually all scientists subscribe to the current theory, is that it fits the observations, it follows the rules of deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning would state that if a testing method can’t get the correct date for rocks of KNOWN age, it can’t get the accurate date for rocks of UNKWOWN age.
If a fish, once thought to be extinct, still exists and co-exists with people today, then it’s quite possible (and likely) that people co-existed with that same fish, allegedly millions of years ago (whether human fossils are with that fish fossil or not).
Please show this Ph.D. geochemist the citation where isotope chronology has ever dated a rock that was ‘modern’ , as millions of years old. Liar.
No citation (or are you going to just rail anothe strawman about how the ‘right’articles wont make it in the journals) STFU, please, liar!
AMEN, Donut!!
This is a tactic called “Elephant Hurling.” Donut uses sweeping generalizations without providing a single example of these supposedly numerous observations.
Creationist beliefs are not based on science, but faith. I openly admit this. However, evolution is no different.
One wonders why Donut considers us so dangerous. If we are such fools, then why do you act so threatened?
Explain how evolution is based on faith, rather than observation.
It’s based on “faith”, because you have not observed it; no one else has documented it, and you cannot replicate such in a lab.
No one has seen a reptile evolve into a bird; no one has seen unorganic material (left by itself, unmanipulated and unmolested) produce life.
Yet, you believe that it happened, based on a materialistic/naturalistic mindset desiring an explanation for life on this planet, other than “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…..”.
It’s based on faith, because you’ve never seen it; no one else has documented it; and, it can’t be replicated in a lab.
No one has seen a bird evolve from a reptile, or non-organic material (left unmolested and unmanipulated) produce life (on any scale).
To top it all off, evolutionists themselves have admitted that they BELIEVE that evolution occured, based on their mindset, NOT on scientific evidence. But, don’t take my word for it:
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution, we must have recourse to the miracle of supernatural creation. - Ernest Haeckel
This was, of course, after Louis Pasteur dismantled the evolutionary tenet of spontaneous generation, using (GASP!!!!) scientific research.
One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to conclude that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, we are here as a result-I believe-of spontaneous generation. George Wald.
Another blurb from Wald:
Time is the hero of the plot. Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait. Time itself performs the miracles
“Hero of the plot”, “Time itself performs the miracles”. Keep in mind that this is coming from an evolutionist. Why is he hoping that time is the hero that will perform the miracle of “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution?
Wald’s answer:
When it comes to origin of life, there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved over 100 years ago. But, that leads us to one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance.
That’s PHILOSOPHICAL grounds, not cold hard facts, not scientific data, and not observable, repeatable scientific experiments. He (and others, I might add) BELIEVE it happened, because the only other option is one that they don’t like, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth……”
And, evolutionists have the gall to claim that creationists run on “blind faith”.
Oh my! MCWAY do actually read the stuff you write before you post it? Do you actually research any of it?
Here’s an interesting article on ‘the disproof of spontaneous generation’. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
Obviously Pasteur didn’t (in the late 19th century) disprove “the evolutionary tenet of spontaneous generation”. That much should be obvious to any clear thinker.
Creationists do love to quote Ernest Haeckel. He did support evolution, though wasn’t struck on natural selection - Rob enjoys asking questions about his theories to catch the unsuspecting.
I think the primary point about ‘time being the hero’ is that given enough time the statistically unlikely becomes possible - and thus makes something that initially appears “statistically unlikely” plausible.
Anyway, evolution and spontaneous generation of life are not one and the same. For example what’s wrong with saying ‘yes, I agree with evolutionary theory however I must admit I have no opinion how life first entered the universe! However I know those pesky scientists are trying to figure it out.”
MCWAY you said “No one has seen a bird evolve from a reptile”. This is true, however, how do you think scientists come up with the various branches on the ‘tree of life’? Have you looked into this? Are you saying that ‘because it’s not been seen, it can’t of happened’?
Again MCWAY you’re banging away not really attempting to understand evolution or science. Where’s your evidence for your beliefs? I can quote yet more papers at you (but I doubt you’d read them)… each providing a little piece of evidence for evolution… where’s your evidence? Or shall we just say you do take your beliefs on “faith”, blind or otherwise.
Joseph!
What do you guys do with stuff like carbon dating, the speed of light, the theory of relativity and the rest of that advanced stuff? I mean, I finally figured-out that my refrigerator works not just by “removing heat” but by the release of energy through changing matter from one state (liquid) to another (gas). I also know that the theory of relativity (not a law) is used to help my GPS be more accurate. Can you explain how carbon dating places most fossils way back–more than a few years before 6000 years ago? Can you explain how you can accept the science in the GPS and not carbon dating? How about atomic clocks? If atomic clocks work, why not carbon dating? How about Plato’s Prime Mover?–Monothiests now call him “God”. Plato proposed that He kept things chugging along. Western philosophers, especially Berkeley and Descarte really chewed on old Plato to finally come to some tree falling in a forest…Boy! I can go on! How ’bout that carbon dating?
Chuckie, Chuckie, Chuckie! Your refrigerator runs because God makes it so!! (Or is that Capt. Picard - I forget which…?)
we use carbon dating to determine the age of fossils? how ‘xactly does THAT work?
Evolution has been proven, retested, measured and observed for as long as someone has cared to do so, how else would we have, well: cows, pigs, dogs and horses, or what about corn, wheat and dozens of other stuff people need in their uninteresting lives…..
What would the breething of animals be like if there was no evolution??
And for pete’s sake, stop referring to that silly book as a geenie or oracle about life, the universe and everything.
Anyone heard the one about Shakespear and the monkeys?
Whith so much gobeldigook put between two covers, OF COURSE you an find a lot of stuff that fits whith whatever else’s stuff, especially if you only read parts and paragraphs here and there……hey, lets just take all the words out and reshuffle’em…..that’l do the trick…….duh…
If there is a god, and all this is his work, maybe he’s on a different clock, and it’s still the seventh day for him….thats why he’s been quiet for so long, and maybe a big bang and some evolution is his way of working…….how about this: maybe our only way to get closer to god and to understand him is thtough science, and if we get it right, we might be pals with the big man in the end.
How, if all this god stuff is true, is it possible for ANY of us to run around saying we know what this god wants us to do or anything else about this stuff, when we are so wonderfully unable to understand even a fraction of what happens whithin the heads of the NON-godly humans running around right beside us….sheeeez….
First of all, the word is breeding, not “breething”.
Second, the examples you use are definitely NOT examples of evolution. Cows, pigs, dogs, and horses, you ask how we have those. Exactly where is the “observations” that cows came from creatures that weren’t cows or cattle? Or dogs “evolved” from non-dog creatures?
As for corn, that’s even sillier. Mixing different types of corn to produce a unique variety of corn is a far cry from evolution. The scientists started with CORN; they ended with (guess what)……CORN!!, not beans, not rice, but CORN!
You’ve fallen for the same tired bait-and-switch trick where observations of speciation are used and exaggerated out the wazoo to “prove” that Goo-to-you-by-way-of-zoo style evolution allegedly took places millions of years ago.
When you observe some dogs “evolve” into cows, or get tomatoes to “evolve” from corn, then business will pick up.
First of all, the word is breeding, not “breething”.
Second, the examples you use are definitely NOT examples of evolution. Cows, pigs, dogs, and horses, you ask how we have those. Exactly where is the “observations” that cows came from creatures that weren’t cows or cattle? Or dogs “evolved” from non-dog creatures?
As for corn, that’s even sillier. Mixing different types of corn to produce a unique variety of corn is a far cry from evolution. The scientists started with CORN; they ended with (guess what)……CORN!!, not beans, not rice, but CORN!
You’ve fallen for the same tired bait-and-switch trick where observations of speciation are used and exaggerated out the wazoo to “prove” that Goo-to-you-by-way-of-zoo style evolution allegedly took places millions of years ago.
When you observe some dogs “evolve” into cows, or get tomatoes to “evolve” from corn, then business will pick up.
Just look up evolution people. You’ve got the internet. Wiki has lots to say on the subject.
Here’s another way of putting it……I read recently that dandelions were “evolving” because of lawn mowers - that dandelions were in general shorted than they used to be. That is selective breeding, not evolution as you mean the word. If dandelions, by random mutation, developed the ability to RUN from my mower, THAT would be the type of evolution you mean. Bring me some mobile dandelions, I’m convinced.
That’s the most idiotic post I’ve read in a while.
because………….?
that is what evolution actually claims, shaunie.
I thought you were more intelligent than this Rob.
I’m quite happy to run with your idiocy. Land plants started to appear in the Ordovician age, it took well over 300 million years for flowering plants to evolve; so I’m not sure how long it would take for the evolution you’re taking about to occur.
However, I would imagine there would be easier ways to evolve to avoid the lawn mower… how about becoming shorter… oh, wait that’s what they’re doing!
let me ’splain again:
lawn mowers selectively breed shorter dandelions by changing the environment so that dandelions that ALREADY HAVE the gene coding for shortness survive and reproduce. they are and will remain dandelions. your claim exactly is like saying if i shoot all poeple in my town with blu eeyes, that demonstrates evolution.
there was no genetic mutation that made them shorter. there are no new organs, abilities or biological functions. if it took 300 million years for plants to evolve the abiltiy to produce flowers, how do you suppose mammals, reptiles, insects, birds and to seom extent fish all independently evolved the abiltiy for flight, with the thousands of complex, interrelated and necessarily coincidental other mutations required in much shorter time periods?
some simple questions:
does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?
is Archaeopteryx an intermediate in the evolution between reptiles and birds?
why was punctuated equilibrium proposed?
what is a tautological argument?
Oh wow, thanks Rob, it’s jolly nice of you to explain that again. I must admit I’m finding it hard to keep up with your intellectually superior reasoning. Patience is a Christian virtue, and you clearly have it in spades.
I’d like to point out that I said “I’m quite happy to run with your idiocy.”. That’s what I was doing. I was trying to point out Rob that given a enough time the dandelions may well evolve. Then I was trying to point out, that I had my doubts about natural selection leading to legs.
Um, well I hope I’ve not missed the point again Rob.
Well thanks for your ’simple’ questions. You must be so clever Rob, wow. None of your questions have easy answers Rob (although I’m sure they may be easy for you). I can only assume you already think you know the answers to your questions, so rather than beating about the bush… why don’t you get on with it?
I’ve a simple question for you.
Why doesn’t God cure amputees?
Oh wow, thanks Rob, it’s jolly nice of you to explain that again. I must admit I’m finding it hard to keep up with your intellectually superior reasoning. Patience is a Christian virtue, and you clearly have it in spades.
***if you understood it the first time, why did you repeat the claim?
I’d like to point out that I said “I’m quite happy to run with your idiocy.”. That’s what I was doing. I was trying to point out Rob that given a enough time the dandelions may well evolve. Then I was trying to point out, that I had my doubts about natural selection leading to legs.
***on what basis are you claiming that enough time will cause evolution? on what evidence? random mutation, logically and observationally, seems to result in lethality, not inscreasing complexity. “they may well evolve” is not a very scientific argument.
if you have your doubts about natural selection leading to legs, where did ours come from?
Um, well I hope I’ve not missed the point again Rob.
Well thanks for your ’simple’ questions. You must be so clever Rob, wow. None of your questions have easy answers Rob (although I’m sure they may be easy for you). I can only assume you already think you know the answers to your questions, so rather than beating about the bush … why don’t you get on with it?
***those questions do have pretty easy answers. the first two are yes,no, or partially. the third is not that difficult. the fourth is one simple sentence. go ahead - give ‘em a whirl.
I’ve a simple question for you.
Why doesn’t God cure amputees?
***1)why should i expect He would?
2)there are several answers given in scriptures. the healings in the new testament were clearly defined as signs of the messiah and His claims, and were given for a brief time to the apostles as a sign that they were under His authority. once the new testament was available (probably before it was completed, according to internal evidence). one of the many reasons is shown in the old testament where God was treated as a vending machine. another is that such displays today would be coercive, not of free will. some people at the time asked the same thing and were told they would only be given one sign - the ressurection. i believe i am more offended than you by the false claimants to healing powers today.
Rob I now realise (from other posts) your method of questioning is based on your belief that I don’t understand the science behind evolution.
Personally I don’t feel answering your questions with a yes, no or partially would do them justice - There’s much to discuss… you could talk about all kinds of things.. phylogenetics and cladistics for example.
The criticisms of PE are more interesting than why it was proposed.
As for tautological argument…where are you trying to get too? Can’t you just cut to the chase? You’re becoming tiresome.
Do you actually have a point? You just ramble on an on.
1) Because the bible says it’s a matter of faith James 5:14, Mark 5:34, Luke 9:41.
Do you believe that God can answer your prayers?
(James 5:16-18 - In what ways can a prayer powerful and effective?
If God does answer a prayer isn’t that a miracle?
Didn’t you get the memo, Joseph?
Critical thinking only counts, if it’s being used with regards to Scripture, with the final result being one rejecting the Bible (and, in this case, the Creation account).
Apply that to the materialistic/naturalistic-based paradigm that is evolution, and WHOA, NELLIE!!!!! The white coats get all bent out of shape.
Bent out of shape indeed…
I can’t really believe that this Ken Ham-guy actually got this museum-thing built… Didn’t know that there was that many stupid Americans out there… But then again, Bush is still in The White House… Please, America, GET BACK DOWN TO EARTH! But, before you sack Bush, please make him blow the entire middle east, and China, to h*ll… THAT would be a favor for the rest of the world..!
haha i
Hilarious!!!!! Best crap I’ve seen since Al Gore’s book!
Shows how all of us have evolved as a species from sea-monkeys to beings capable of showing both our great sense of humor and our tolerance and open-mindedness of other ideas and beliefs! This is way more fun than protecting Norway from the Soviets was!!!!
Unicorns lost their horn through micro-evolution and became todays horses.
Thousands of years of men sawing the horn off their unicorns for safety reasons finally produced a hornless unicorn renamed the cornless or translated as the horse. their is actually a small bump on the foreheads of horses that can only be felt. Someday it would be fun to reintroduce the unicorns through the find of some usable unicorn DNA.
Well, you’ve gotten as far as Lamarck. That’s a start, I suppose.
I love the humor. I bet the idea of unicorns probably stemmed from some animal (with a horn, more than one, or even none) combined with an overly active imagination. Since the bible has been translated over and over again, things are bound to be lost in translation. I suppose the original version of the bible would be absurd if it were presented today.
I take the Creation Museum as a gallery. A very creative and artistic gallery.
I agree with the person who said science was a process. A scientific “fact” is a “truth” that can be verified and replicated (which can be done through present observations like the theory of atoms) (but becomes shady amongst other theories, say black holes) with relative success.
On the other hand, a general “fact”, is something that cannot be proven wrong. You can’t prove that magic does not exist. You can’t prove that angels do not exist. And, you definitely can’t prove that God or Santa Claus does not exist. The majority of certain general “facts” are, empirically (ironic usage isn’t it), just beliefs.
I would love for more scientific “facts” to become general “facts”.
–Overall, it is subjectivity: relative to my perspective; Even though, I try to be as objective as I possibly can–But like, whatever.
Post the Bible verses and explain why they mean the unicorns that this site depicts. Then you might have a good case. Other than that, this site fails.
The IPU sounds entertaining, but we all know that the FSM is the one true Creator. Beer volcanoes and stripper factories FTW!
That’s what I and a number of posters here have been waiting for some of the folks here to do.
I can’t pick a billboard! That mechanistic one is beautiful! But it’s not exactly getting the message across….
But it’s just so darn pretty!
Anyways, awesome work, ya’ll!
I love the Last Unicorn Movie and that soundtrack is amazing. I bought it for my kids. Teaches sacrifice, love, and the reality that there are bad people in the world, but that some people, can change. 4 Stars.
Awesome - it’s about time we got back to good old fashioned KJV bible-based beliefs. That whole spaghetti monster cult is fun and all, but it’s not really based on a highly non-political english translation of ancient mythologies, is it now?
You’re… awesome. Really, really awesome. As soon as I find my credit card, you’re getting ten bucks from me.
I’m tired of the fact that people insist on being so gullible. Promoting unicorns as solid reality makes much more sense to me than saying that biblical-era humans lived alongside dinosaurs.
what would you say if i predicted we woulod eventually find dinosaur bones with intact, still elastic blood vessels, containing hemoglobin?
I would ask you to clarify what that has to do with the price of rice in China.
Already happened, but no intact DNA was supposedly found :(
Christians are missing one very large problem…
How many Christians, throughout history, believed these verses were speaking of the unicorn depicted on this webpage? After all, all they had access to was the KJV, no other translations, and therefore, understandings, were available to them.
Did those Christians get jipped with a substandard bible? Were they at some sort of disadvantage for having a faulty translation? Moreover, how many more translations will the bible have to go through before there is a “definitive” translation? How do you know YOU have the proper understanding/translation? Because the Holy Spirit tells you so? Don’t you think those other Christians believed the Holy Spirit told them THEY had the correct understanding/translation?
I think God needed a good editor.
Considering that, of the THOUSANDS of verses in the Bible, the word “unicorn” appears in a whopping NINE of them, I hardly think that those Christians got jipped, as whether the unicorn was a horsey-creature or not ranked somewhat low on the priority list.
Once again, the simple task is as Izaach said: Post those verses and explain why the word “unicorn” means the creature depicted on this site. As I stated earlier, the verses have the re’em, used in the same context and compared with cattle and speak of that creature as being wild and having brute strength.
So, where is the alleged large problem?
You will brun in hellmation for making fun of the BIBBLE!
learn to write, then learn to think, and then burn your bible (small b), that little book for litlle minds.
Pleeze don’t let me brun in hellmation! Ill bi gud frum now onn, and reed mi bibble, exspecially on the sabath, when I take a bath, so’s I remember them bof together.
And I agree, you shouldn’t capitalize, not even the first “b,” let alone the whole thing. Except that we know you was yellin’, cuz you’re so tired (as am I) of these hear heatherns that won’t just reed an’ beleeeeeve, like’n they orta do.
Now, Sleestak, get your tongue out of your cheek - you don’t know where that thing’s been!! ; )
Guys, this is brilliant. I thought the FSM website was great, but this goes one step further by taking direct yet witty action. Will be sending in a donation when my next paycheck hits, and look forward to documentation of your efforts when they come to fruition.
Ramen!!
P.S. If you end up using any of the billboards with text, you will proofread them first, right? That “it’s” for “its” rather irked me a bit there.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible: “The animal in question, called רים reim, is undoubtedly the rhinoceros, who has the latter name from the horn that grows on his nose. The rhinoceros is known by the name of reim in Arabia to the present day.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: “PLINY [Natural History, 8.21], mentions such an animal; its figure is found depicted in the ruins of Persepolis. The Hebrew reem conveys the idea of loftiness and power (compare Ramah; Indian, Ram; Latin, Roma). The rhinoceros was perhaps the original type of the unicorn. The Arab rim is a two-horned animal. Sometimes “unicorn” or reem is a mere poetical symbol or abstraction; but the buffalo is the animal referred to here, from the contrast to the tame ox, used in ploughing (Job_39:10, Job_39:12).”
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: “a one-horned animal, and is more closely defined as טביא דבי עילאי, “gazelle (antelope) of Be (Beth)-Illâi” (comp. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 1858, §146). The oryx also appears on Egyptian monuments sometimes with two horns, but mostly with one variously curled; and both Aristotle (Note: Vid., Sundevall, Die Thierarten des Aristoteles (Stockholm, 1863), S. 64f.) and Pliny describe it as a one-horned cloven-hoof.”
who gave YOU the right to interprit the WORD of GOD. it says UNICORN. it says SEVEN DAYS and it says UNICORN.
The large problem is that if God is perfect, and his Word is perfect, why is the Bible IMperfect?
You can’t simply chalk it up to a human mistranslation error because this is supposed to be God’s Word…you would think the Creator of everything could come up with a way to have his one book given to his creation in a perfect, infallible way. Doesn’t sound like too big of a stretch for a supposedly omnimax being.
I never knew Unicorns were GODS CREATION. When can I visit your new museum?
What about the faeries! Where are the damn faeries!
The fossil record shows that dinosaurs gradually evolved feathers and flight. Thus REPTILES evolved into BIRDS (for all you caps abusers out there). Is this sufficient? You’re never going to see that happen in a lab, as the process takes millions of years, unlike speciation.
Also, while it’s true that religion is never going to be held to the same standard as science, and it’s futile to try to do so, we can at least demand that religion operate with internal consistency. So I won’t ask believers to “prove” what’s in the bible according to scientific standards of proof, and agree that to ask for that would be pointless. Nevertheless, if exegesis is a permissible tool for demonstrating the true meaning of a word like “oxen”, then should we accept that the bible does not talk about homosexuality at all, but only about particular sexual acts (the Hebrew word in Leviticus refers to a particular form of sodomy that is forbidden; “homosexuality” as a term and a designation of a category of people is an invention of the British psychologist Havelock Ellis in the 1890s). Christians have lost credibility not because Christianity doesn’t live up to modern standards of scientific proof, but because biblical exegesis has been used highly selectively to justify existing prejudice. (Although I also have to say that those who would use the bible as a textbook of physics are required to justify their theories according to scientific standards of proof.)
The fossil record shows nothing of the sort. That blurb is merely a presumption of evolutionists.
If we’re never going to see birds evolve from reptiles (or any other non-bird creature), it would help if you inform some of your fellow “Goo to you….” advocates of such, before they start talking about this type of evolution being observed.
As for your claims about homosexuality, they are baseless and quite inaccurate. As I stated before, if you think that the verses in Leviticus (and in 1 Corinthians) refer to a “particular form of sodomy”, I invite you to produce the verse that condone homosexual behavior, outside of these alleged exceptions in Leviticus and 1 Cor.
To top it all off, when there are any questions about proper sexual behavior, the default model is that started in Creation, involving Adam and Eve. In other words, any sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, is deemed sinful.
To say that the Bible makes no comment about homosexuality is warped and trying to tie that with this whole issue, regarding the re’em is even sillier. Again, the invitation stands to show that the re’em or even the “monokeros” translated by Greeks in the Septuagint means the horsey-like creature depicted on this site.
Hold on a second there pardner’ you be invokin’ the old testament. As a Christian, do you feel that it is a sin not to follow the teachings of Leviticus?
Yes or no.
Can you present a new testament passage that states that homosexuality is a sin?
Yes or no.
Being a scientist I just love facts. Can you hang with a purely factual discussion McWay?
Yes or no.
Hold on a second there pardner’ you be invokin’ the old testament. As a Christian, do you feel that it is a sin not to follow the teachings of Leviticus?
I can invoke either testament I wish. As far as your question goes, the teaching of Leviticus are based on the Ten Commandments. If there’s a direct violation of God’s law, that would be considered sinful. Of course, I think I know where you going with this, which has less to do with whether or not certain acts are sinful and more to do with the max punishment involved.
Can you present a new testament passage that states that homosexuality is a sin?
I already did!!! Where do you think 1 Corinthians (chapter 6, in particular) is located, pardner?
Being a scientist I just love facts. Can you hang with a purely factual discussion McWay?
You can start by showing how (or if) the Hebrew word re’em actually refers to the horsey-looking creature we’ve come to know as a unicorn, an invitiation I made from my very first posts here (which NO ONE to date has answered).
Is this just going to be a billboard? Or are there actual plans for an actual museum?
Can’t we all just get along?
While a unicorn would be cool and all, I want a unicorn slave - two great tastes approved and recognized by the Bible, but as of yet unavailable in a Pepperidge Farm cookie.
“The Unicorn Museum - Where reason comes to die”
But who will stand up for the leprachauns? Sure AND begorrah.
Oh this is perfect! I live awfully close to this “museum” and would love to see such a billboard on my drive home. Please, oh pretty please make this a reality?
Is it at all possible to prove creationism outside of the biblical references?
I’m sure someone has noticed, but just to be sure…the Unicorn Skeleton poster has a grammatical error. It says: “Prepare to believe (what your told).” It should be “you’re” told.
Andrea (below) is in charge of all copy.
Unicorns rule
Columbus mentions in a matter-of-fact way that some of his men saw a unicorn?What did they see? I don’t think there were any rhinos in the New World. Perhaps there actually were unicorns” Remember, you can’t disprove a negative.
Herman King
Gloucester, Va.
i love the cyborg unicorn billboard! so authentic!
There’s now a I Heart Unicorn Museum group on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4723428642
Spread the one horn love.
If I only could win the powerball, I would give it all to the Unicorn cause.
Yours,
Robin in KY
God gave you a brain to use it. If you don’t use it or end believing in such crap and get screwed at the pump paying 3$ a gallon, and have an administrationthat spends 10 Billion of your tax money for an endless war, after lying to you all, while you argue like imbecills about the existence of Unicorns, you truly deserve what you are getting. You are too much for words. I rarely see such exquisite example of idiots.
I haven’t read every post on here, but I haven’t really seen anyone claiming that unicorns exist. The thing with parodies is that its a form of communication. Here we are, some of us are scientist, some are religious fanatics, some are just regular people who think unicorns are cool… we’re communicating. What’s the deal with this bible thing? There is just as much information out saying unicorns exist as there is backing creationism… there are lots of books on unicorns. There’s not a lot of solid data to back up either theory.
As for the bible… Some of it is supposed to be history… but there are a lot of historically accurate fiction novels out there… who is to say the bible isn’t one of them? A lot of the bible is supposed to be metaphors or fables… stories to teach us lessons, NOT fact.
If I were to say that “Bob is a pig” and that was translated from English to German to latin and back to English again, would the reader think that I had a pet pig named bob? that Bob was a slob? that he ate too much? Granted, there isn’t much context in a 4 word sentence, but be careful taking the bible too literally. I think that christianity is great at teaching morals (although a lot of immoral people are abusing society’s trust in the bible)… I don’t think that morals are logical, but i think the world is better with them… that doesn’t mean that I have to accept that the world was made in 7 days, that doesn’t mean that I have to beleive that jesus was a product of immaculate conception or even that jesus ever really walked the earth. You can live the life described in the bible while keeping your ideas plastic or dynamic. To me, beleiving that the universe was created in 7 days is just as logical as beleiving in unicorns… if you are offended, sorry, but why are all the creationists (including our #$@% president) trying to war with science? We’ve accumulated a lot of evidence for evolution and there is lots of evidence that the Earth is very old and that however man was created it was not done as described in the bible… and I don’t think the scientists that analyzed that data were trying to destroy christianity. I find this war on science very depressing and I think that if we as a society continue this war science/rationality vs. religion, we are going to be blind sided.
Tribalism. It pretty well defines the lack of communication and warfare amoung the primitives, local gangs…and Moslems, and Christians. Education that emphasizes learning “about” rather than inculcation is the only hope for a reduction in tribalism…Consequently, I strongly advocate classes about religion in public schools…I really liked your response, by the way…
Andrea! Pleez! Thads unudder subjuct 4 us imbusls/embosls/imbosels/imbecil/thehellwithit
Nice site, very amusing!
I don’t know about unicorn’s, and I can’t personally prove evolution.
However, I refuse to spend my life believing in an all-powerful being that created the universe, then created such a ridiculously imperfect being such as humans in His own image. And then has the audacity to hold that imperfection over us! Sin, and burn in hell forever? Did anyone stop to think about the fact that every sin known to man is committed by thousands of animal species on a regular basis as part of their natural existence? Are they all going to hell, too?
No, I find it MUCH easier to believe that the Bible is a construct of clever men who wanted to gain control of the somewhat crafty and potentially dangerous (but pathetically naive) human population, who could serve as excellent slaves, taxpayers, and parishioners, ultimately benefitting those purveyors of the religious discipline with power and wealth.
Only a masterfully planned ‘religion’ which couldn’t be proven wrong, and which threatens the unbeliever’s soul to eternal damnation, could tame the wily beast otherwise known as homo sapiens.
Maybe I’m damned to hell, but I’m pretty sure I’d much rather spend eternity surrounded by the sinful and morally depraved than floating around on a cloud with a bunch of Bible thumpers.
Oh wait - where exactly would the pedophillic Catholic priests wind up? I don’t think child abuse insurance guarantees a spot in line at the pearly gates.
Tsk, tsk, such cynicism! And so well-thought-out. You get an “A”! : )
The problem with your claim, regarding the circumstances and reason why the Bible was written is that it doesn’t match with historical fact.
How were those who penned the Bible trying to gain control? Take a good look at the Old Testament. Several of its books were written when Israel was ENSLAVED to other countries, (i.e. Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and many of the prophets).
Others were written when Israel was already a ruling nation (Solomon, Ecclesiates, 1 & 2 Kings, etc.).
As for the New Testament, the writers of those books penned them when Israel was under Roman rule, from Matthew to Revelation, with all but one of the disciples killed, and apostles like Paul martyred as well.
While your anti-Biblical rant is a good way for you to vent and spew, it hardly cites the reasons for the Bible’s being written with accuracy.
So, where oh where, is this alleged attempt to control people by the authors of the Biblical books?
Just playing devil’s advocate, but Unicorny made a good point MCWAY when he said that the, “Bible was a construct of clever men”. He didn’t say anything about the intent of the authors of the individual passages, which as you mentioned, have a historical significance. The Bible though, was indeed, created by man. The canon was put together by several councils over a period of years. That’s still an issue of contention to this day…just lookat the Apocrypha.
If you’re that familiar with history, it should be easy to see how men have used religion, not just Christianity, for their own ends. Crusades anyone? Inquisition?
Yes, he did. Unicorny claimed that the books were written for the expressed purpose of controlling the human population.
What I pointed out is that most of the Bible (all of the New Testament and a good chunk of the Old Testament) was written, while Israel was in bondage to other nations (i.e. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Rome, etc.).
Infidels… There is only one true Unicorn. And it’s pink
http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/
I read all of the posts (although I think I dozed off somewhere in the middle)–I know, I know, I should get a life.
What struck me was: Only one person mentioned that there are more than two sides to this ‘debate’…
Amen to that!!!
I’m one of those ignorant Christians, that so many seem to love clumping in one big mass and bashing (all the while smiling, patting their own backs & polishing their ‘tolerance’ awards for selective tolerance). I’m not really sure that a clumper-n-thumper (in denial about his own thumping–or bashing–practice) would really make such superior eternal company to that of an annoying Bible thumper… but I digress. Back on topic (if there really is one), I’m equally annoyed with some Christians who “check their brains at the door” and embarrass the faith by making statements that have not been thought through. Since I’m not a scientist, but I do occasionally cook, I will offer a dietary comment to the discussion: (if you haven’t yet been offended by any of the above arguments, this oughta do it; and if you’re a Christian who hasn’t yet been embarrassed by a fellow believer’s statements, well, here goes)
( if that didn’t work, try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9dqpKxrgx0 )
Gotta LOVE UNICORN!
This whole Unicorn idea is totally pointless. You’re just setting up an enormous straw man for the God botherers to blow down. They just laugh at the ignorance of the idea - ‘another case of atheists not understanding the bible’.
There are many powerful and clever ways to show the errancy inherent in the Bible, ten minutes on the internet will show you that. So why pick something so easy to dilute and wash away as a mistranslation of some unknown animal? The idea is feckless and completely asinine.
Please desist from such pointless rubbish and engage your brains elsewhere. Atheists should be ashamed by such a banal attempt at knocking the Bible. I know I am.
If one sees satire as mere criticism, you have a point. If one sees satire as poking fun, you don’t.
Wouldn’t we just laugh at and deride any creationist who did the following: Set up a satire web site because they found a mistranslated word in a French copy of the God Delusion by RD? In what way would that be satire? The only ‘poking fun’ that would happen is atheists laughing at the stupidity of it. The same can be said of this web site.
Like I said there’s plenty of clever and well reasoned ‘genuine’ errancy to pick on. In my view any intelligent believer will look at this site and assume that atheists are just a bunch of unintelligent p*ss taking idiots.
Satire and irony require intelligence.
Shaunie,
The difference is that no one claims the God Delusion as the inviolate word of an omniscient supreme being. The KJV is not a bad translation, it’s a document that’s been considered by Christian faithful as the “Word of God” for over 400 years.
Satire requires intelligence and a soft touch. I’m well versed in the multitude of errors in the Bible and could discuss them in great detail on this site, but it would ruin the impact of what we’ve created.
Based on our incredible stats over the last month, a simple “Unicorns Are Real” statement, some KJV references, and a picture of a horse’s butt have been much more effective than point-by-point Biblical refutations at getting the conversation started.
“There are many powerful and clever ways to show the errancy inherent in the Bible,”
may i see 2 or 3?
I don’t have to allege anything - without religion or laws to govern human actions, we would behave just like animals and steal, fornicate, adulter, and everything else that animals do. Its what we’ve done, and will always do, as long as we have free will. The law takes care of those who are caught; religion helps to control those who might not get caught. If Mommy and Daddy didn’t raise us well, that is.
Ultimately I agree with the lessons being taught - if we are going to live in a society and work towards the benefit of all mankind, we need to behave differently than animals. But far, far, far too many people couldn’t give a hoot about serving mankind and care only for their own interests. The threat of possible eternal damnation is a much better way to give someone reason to think twice before doing unto others than the promise of an entirely unprovable blessed, holy, afterlife.
And even though you may have found fault in my reasoning about the source of the Bible - which is still based on stories rather than provable fact, in my opinion - that still doesn’t address the motivation for an all-powerful being to create a ’system’ by which our innermost nature is to sin; and failing to resist those urges results in damnation. Oh, but if you go to church, confess your sins, and pray for forgiveness (don’t forget to tithe), He will forgive you. So….I need to be forgiven for being created as a sinner? Doesn’t quite seem fair to me. More like the act of a brat who happened to steal Daddy’s Universe Wand and is a bit out of control.
IMHO you don’t really believe that Unicorny. We don’t get our morals from “Religion and the Bible”. R&B encourages ‘blind faith’ rather than ‘reason’, ‘exclusion’ rather than ‘inclusion’, ‘intolerance’ rather than ‘tolerance’ etc…
There are so many examples in the bible of what today we would class as immoral behaviour it’s staggering. It’s modern society’s sense of social justice and morality that picks out the good bits from R&B and holds them up as ‘good’. That is proof enough our society’s zeitgeist controls our behaviours and coordinates our sense of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
If people were really scared of damnation wouldn’t they be out stoning naughty teenagers, locking up women during their ‘period’, going to church every day, avoiding shell fish, avoiding idol worship, killing infidels, etc… etc…
The benefits of religion are difficult to justify in today’s society.
You’re not making a whole lot of sense here.
We don’t get our morals from “Religion and the Bible”. R&B encourages ‘blind faith’ rather than ‘reason’, ‘exclusion’ rather than ‘inclusion’, ‘intolerance’ rather than ‘tolerance’ etc…
What standard indicates right and wrong behavior, here? You claim that it’s modern society’s sense of social justice. What happens if modern society deems that men can rape women with no reprecussions to the assailant? Or that the sentencing for first-degree murder should be lightened?
Your claim about the Bible encouraging blind faith, instead of reason, is utterly ridiculous.
It doesn’t encourage humanistic/atheistic reason, that’s for sure. There will be times where people won’t know how or why a certain situation happens or how to solve a problem. That’s where faith comes through.
As for tolerance, the current godless Flavors-of-the-month (i.e. Richard Dawkins) don’t sound all that “tolerant” to me. They certainly don’t tolerate people of faith and go out of their way to show just how allegedly superior in intellect they are to them. Folks of Dawkins’ ilk aren’t all that “inclusive”, either. They don’t want to co-exist with people of faith. They want religion (especially Christianity) either destroyed or marginalized into irrelevance. That ain’t what I’d call “inclusive”.
There are so many examples in the bible of what today we would class as immoral behaviour it’s staggering. It’s modern society’s sense of social justice and morality that picks out the good bits from R&B and holds them up as ‘good’. That is proof enough our society’s zeitgeist controls our behaviours and coordinates our sense of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
Our “modern” sense of justice is better than the ancient one in the Bible, because…..
For instance:
If someone steals your car, does the thief have to get you another car or two to replace it?
If you get raped, does the rapist have to provide for your material care for the rest of his life (if you’re single) or get executed (if you’re married)?
Does our society keep you from getting in debt beyond 7 years and forgives debt every 7 years?
We could learn a thing or two from the “old school”.
“If people were really scared of damnation wouldn’t they be out stoning naughty teenagers, locking up women during their ‘period’, going to church every day, avoiding shell fish, avoiding idol worship, killing infidels, etc… etc…
Weren’t you just saying something about a “banal attempt at knocking the Bible?”
“Naughty teenagers” weren’t stoned to death….unless they were married and got caught committing adultery or commited some other capital offense. Women weren’t locked up during their period; they were simply isolated or quarantined, for health and sanitary reasons.
If you’re going to take shots like this, perhaps you should brush up on your Biblical laws and practices, first.
It’s a shame MCWAY that you can’t see the sense in my comments. I find your reply quite disturbing, albeit amusing in places.
I particularly enjoyed your advice, that I “should brush up on your Biblical laws and practices”, thanks… should I presume to ask you brush up on your evolutionary knowledge? Here’s a brilliant quote from you
“As I said before, show an observation of a dog “evolving” from a non-dog creature and business will pick up.”
That’s just brilliant. Your lack of understanding is breath taking - I only hope you don’t start banging on about ’sheep only making sheep’ again.
I digress, back to the ‘What if’ section of your post. Can you not see that modern society’s sense of morality is improving over time? Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, racial equality etc… etc… Many of these developments go directly against the ‘biblical’ morality you seem to adore so much!
Clearly you can’t be a Christian if you assert the bible doesn’t encourage faith over reason. It does, you are wrong. A typical example 1 Co 3:18 - 19. I have many more examples (without the need of ‘brushing up’). I wont quote them for now, as I’m sure a biblical scholar such as you will find them.
Thanks for trivialising ‘tolerance’ away from the rather grand meaning I’d intended. Marvellous. Perhaps RD does want to marginalize religion… that doesn’t mean he’s intolerant - he’s using words and reason, not smashing up churches and burning people alive. Isn’t that another good example of our ‘tolerant’ society? [I doubt you understand!]
Again another good example of our modern society’s morality is the justice system (I’m referring to the UK here). The law is designed to protect society - not pander to an individual’s instinct for revenge. Do I need to explain that? Surely you can see the advantage in this?
I really loved your little bit about learning a thing or two from the ‘old school’.
1. Stealing a car = Make them buy you a new one. So what’s the deterrent? Basically if you get away with stealing enough cars your onto a winner. Great!
2. Rape = either A. force a relationship between victim and rapist… don’t punish the rapist directly. B. Kill the rapist [Biblical Quotes available on request]
3. The UK is pro-debtor. You don’t even have to wait 7 years. Cool huh?
I love the…
“Naughty teenagers” weren’t stoned to death…. unless they were married and got caught committing adultery or committed some other capital offence.
My mistake… you’re right, the best time to stone a teenager to death is if they commit adultery. I bow to your superior sense of biblical morality; I love that ‘old school’ style.
Can’t we find a reason to stone teenagers to death on principle? MCWAY’s way is pretty close. I think there’s a passage allowing it for talking back!
That’s just brilliant. Your lack of understanding is breath taking - I only hope you don’t start banging on about ’sheep only making sheep’ again.
That’s funny. I could have sworn that another poster, by the name of “B”, claimed that:
Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) descended from mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild sheep native to southwest Asia, but sheep cannot produce viable offspring with mouflons anymore, as they have evolved to a degree where they are a different species than their progenitors; speciation — the outcome of evolution — has occurred.
This was his example of obsevering evolution, which was (as I said), wild sheep producing tame sheep (eerily close that whole creatures-reproducing-after-their-own-kind thing that Genesis mentions).
Of course, the request was to show observation of a creature “evolving” from one unlike itself (i.e. dogs from non-dogs). So far the “examples” of such have been:
- Sheep (wild) producing sheep (tame)
- Dogs (wild) producing dogs (domestic)
- One type of bird laying eggs in the nest of another type of BIRD
- Mixing different brands of corn together to produce another brand of….CORN!!!
I digress, back to the ‘What if’ section of your post. Can you not see that modern society’s sense of morality is improving over time? Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, racial equality etc… etc… Many of these developments go directly against the ‘biblical’ morality you seem to adore so much!
People can molest kids and abuse women and get slaps on the wrists. In today’s world, you have to worry about your kids getting shot at school. That is far, FAR from improvement.
Name one instance in the Bible where people were enslaved, solely due to color of skin or ethnicity. People were slaves for a number of reasons, ranging from losing wars to punishment for crimes. Or, they became slaves to pay off debts (or in one case, Jacob, to purchase a bride when he didn’t have the cash).
As far as equality goes, the Israelites were given specific instructions on being kind to foreigners or “strangers”, as they were reminded of the harsh treatment they got, when they were in Egypt.
And, in case you forgot, many Christians fought to put an end to chattel slavery, both in the USA and the UK. Maybe my memory’s shot, but I don’t recall any groups of atheists doing that. If they did, good on them. But, such accounts are woefully silent.
Furthermore, I missed the part where women being allowed to vote was against Biblical morality.
You claimed we didn’t get our morals from “Religion and the Bible”. So, what is our measuring stick of right and wrong?
If it’s, as you claim, merely based on society’s zeitgeist, then it’s just as “good” and “right” to not let women vote as it is to let them vote. And, you’ve yet to demonstrate how modern society’s sense of morality is superior to those in ancient times.
1 Cor. 3:18-19 encouraging faith over reason? You DO know the difference between knowledge and wisdom, I hope. Plus, if you go down a verse you will see the next statement from Paul, something to the tune of “Let no man glory in men”, which is effectively what atheistic “reason” tends to be: Man simply worshipping himself.
Apparently, you forgot that God blessed Solomon with wisdom, at Solomon’s request. With such wisdom, reason was hardly a problem, until the Israelite king let such go to his head.
Thanks for trivialising ‘tolerance’ away from the rather grand meaning I’d intended. Marvellous. Perhaps RD does want to marginalize religion… that doesn’t mean he’s intolerant - he’s using words and reason, not smashing up churches and burning people alive. Isn’t that another good example of our ‘tolerant’ society? [I doubt you understand!]
Nope. Just because he hasn’t expressed his disdain for religion (Christianity, in particular) in violent fashion doesn’t mean he is tolerant of such. He prefers (at the moment) demeaning people of faith, insulting them, and boasting of his so-called enlightenment.
Why does “RD” want to marginialize religion? And, what makes you think that he wouldn’t resort to violent acts, should his words and reason be ineffective?
I really loved your little bit about learning a thing or two from the ‘old school’.
1. Stealing a car = Make them buy you a new one. So what’s the deterrent? Basically if you get away with stealing enough cars your onto a winner. Great!
2. Rape = either A. force a relationship between victim and rapist… don’t punish the rapist directly. B. Kill the rapist [Biblical Quotes available on request]
3. The UK is pro-debtor. You don’t even have to wait 7 years. Cool huh?
1) If someone steals your property, the best you can hope for is that the thief gets caught and you get your stuff back intact. In Biblical times, if you stole someone’s property (i.e. livestock), you had to not only return what was stolen, you gave them extra. You take a sheep; you return at least two sheep.
2) So, why is the rapist spared in one instance and put to death in the other? The underlying issue was care for the rape victim. The only reason he’s being kept alive is to meet the woman’s material needs (if the woman is unmarried/unbethroed). In our society, a rapist could get a few years of jail time. Once he serves his time, he’s off the hook. Meanwhile, the victim could have health and financial issues to last a lifetime.
If she needs expensive medical care, does the rapist cough up the cash? NO!! If she needs expensive counseling to heal the pyschological wounds, the violator is not obligated to fund it, in our time. And that isn’t even taking into consideration the likelihood of the victim being pregnant.
We say that when someone does time, he “pays his debt to society”. The Biblical laws has the rapist paying the victim and her family. The father and raped daughter make the call, as to whether the marriage goes down.
A married/bethroed woman has such care in place; therefore, there’s no reason to spare the rapist.
3) Biblical laws were pro-creditor, as the emphasis was that those who were wronged got adequate compensation.
I love the…
“Naughty teenagers” weren’t stoned to death…. unless they were married and got caught committing adultery or committed some other capital offence.
My mistake… you’re right, the best time to stone a teenager to death is if they commit adultery. I bow to your superior sense of biblical morality; I love that ‘old school’ style.
Capital offenses are ones where the maximum penalty is death. Adultery was one such offense, as was murder and rape. A murder victim isn’t any less dead, because his assailant was a teenager. Nor is a woman any less raped, because of her abuser’s age.
Now, if you have beef with adultery being a capital offense, that’s another issue, altogether. But, committing adultery is way beyond being “naughty”. It can destroy a family, bring disease and death into the family, and shame upon wives and children.
But, if you have such trouble punishing teens who commit such crimes, keep them in jail, until they turn 20, and then execute them.
Again, you claimed that modern society’s sense of morality was superior to Biblical morality. I merely asked (and still am asking) to make your case.
“Again, you claimed that modern society’s sense of morality was superior to Biblical morality. I merely asked (and still am asking) to make your case.”
1. We (in the UK and Europe) do not have the death penalty and certainly don’t hang up the dead. (Deuteronomy 21:22).
2. Slavery has been abolished. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14).
3. Women are seen as equal to men. (Deuteronomy 16:16 / 1 Peter 3:1).
4. Genocide is a no no. (Genesis 19:24 / 1 Samuel 15)
5. Religious tolerance. (Exodus 20:3)
6. Democracy
7. We find this intolerable Genesis 19: 5-8 See also… 2 Peter 2:7-8.
8. Incest is outlawed (Genesis 20:12)
9. We no longer accept the ‘Nuremberg Defense” (Genesis 22:10)
10. Social Security (1 Timothy 5:11-13)
11. Infanticide is generally frowned upon… (Rev 2:23)
I’m really quite bored now.
I’m not saying that modern society always gets it right. It clearly doesn’t. But generally speaking the laws and morality improve with time in our modern society.
1. We (in the UK and Europe) do not have the death penalty and certainly don’t hang up the dead. (Deuteronomy 21:22).
It ain’t like the Israelites had electric chairs.
We in the USA do have the death penalty (and should use it more) primarily for first-degree murderers. I personally wish rapists and child-molesters could be added to the list.
2. Slavery has been abolished. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14).
Chattel slavery has been abolished, and the movement to do such was spear-headed by Christians (Puritans, Quakers, etc.). Where were all the atheists and “rationalists”? I’m at a loss as to how they “reasoned” that chattel slavery was wrong, in either the USA or the UK, or what did they do to stop it.
The “slavery” you referenced in the Bible has been shown to be what we would call indentured servitude, imposed for a number of reasons (debt, punishment for crimes, etc) and usually ended after 7 years.
3. Women are seen as equal to men. (Deuteronomy 16:16 / 1 Peter 3:1).
Really? I heard that they were still underpaid, when doing the same work as their male counterparts, and for the most part, are still paraded in the media as sex objects (I refer you to your average card-carrying hip-hop video). Some think it’s “liberating” because they’re exploiting themselves, instead of having men exploit them.
Men are heads of household. The wives take the husband’s last name; the husbands don’t take those of the wives.
Besides, justice was equal in many aspects for both genders in ancient Bible days. If adultery was committed, both parties were put to death. If a man sullied a woman’s good name, the woman was presumed innocent of the charge and needed only to produce the tokens of her virginity. Dude got fined twice the bride price, took a pounding from the elders, and had to stay with his wife for the rest of his life.
Plus, I believe one of the commandments says to “Honor your father AND your mother”, and that cursing either one of them (“cursing” was something serious, not just saying some profanity) meant a severe penalty for the transgressor.
4. Genocide is a no no. (Genesis 19:24 / 1 Samuel 15)
If ten people repent, S&G gets spared. But their wickedness was great, and apparently some of that wickedness rubbed off on Lot’s two daughters.
The Amalekites got pummeled not because they were Amalekites, but because they attacked Israel, unprovoked, as they left Egypt. And their descendants kept up the attacks for over 300 years. A simple peace treaty would have helped the Amalekites’ case. But peace wasn’t on their agenda.
Simply put, it was either Israel or Amalek; Amalek is gone. Case closed.
5. Religious tolerance. (Exodus 20:3)
Many atheists are hardly “tolerant” of Christianity. Let’s see how “tolerant” they’d would be about religions that practiced, among other detestable things, human sacrifice (as did many of Israel’s neighbors), particularly with children and virgin women. There’s some inequality for you.
6. Democracy
And this is incompatible with the Bible, how?
7. We find this intolerable Genesis 19: 5-8 See also… 2 Peter 2:7-8.
We don’t dig a mob of gay men wanting to rape two strangers, or a cowardly father offering his daughters in the strangers’ place, either. Besides, Lot isn’t being rescued for being the most upright of citizens, but because he’s Abe’s nephew.
8. Incest is outlawed (Genesis 20:12)
There’s hardly anything new about that. (Leviticus 20). Abe was married to Sarah, while still serving the pagan gods of his father. Given the Lot incident, the fact that Israel’s population (after leaving Egypt) had grown tremendously, and likely the increase in genetic abnormalities in such relationships, banning of incest became law in Israel.
9. We no longer accept the ‘Nuremberg Defense” (Genesis 22:10)
Apparently, you missed the part where Abe tells his servants to wait while he and Issac climb Mt. Moriah and “WE will return”. Or, perhaps you forgot that God stopped Abe and provided a ram as a sacrifice, instead (and He has never tested anyone in that manner, since that time). Then, there’s the little matter of Issac’s being a grown man, more than capable of overpowering his 100+ year-old father.
10. Social Security (1 Timothy 5:11-13)
Here’s a prime example case of a skeptic being in the Kool-Aid and not knowing the flavor. What Peter is telling Timothy is that the church should emphasize care for widows, who have no one to care for them, by de-emphasizing those widows who had relatives to do such (either grown children or male in-laws, one of whom could potentially become a redeemer).
The church acted as “Social Security” for such widows; for the other ones, the family played the role. That’s why Peter said that “if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel”. Relatives were expected to care for the widows in their family. There would be little need for SS, if people would do this.
11. Infanticide is generally frowned upon… (Rev 2:23)
….unless it’s inside the womb. Then it’s called a “choice”. Besides, I don’t see anything in Rev. 2:23 about babies.
I’m not saying that modern society always gets it right. It clearly doesn’t. But generally speaking the laws and morality improve with time in our modern society.
Again, I ask: Morality, based on whose standards? What measuring stick are you using to judge right and wrong? Without such a standard, you have no grounds to say that modern society’s morality is an improvement over that of ancient society.
All your reasoning is pathetic. Very few Christians would agree with most of what you said. I have canvassed a few friends of mine who happen to be Christian.
1. You support murder.
2. Slavery in the modern society is outlawed in any guise.
3. As you ignored in my post… I’m not saying things are perfect - but as society continues to improve the equality will also follow.
4. So you’re saying that all the children and innocent people in S&G deserved to die - but with reference to point 1 I can understand that.
5. You still don’t understand social tolerance.
6. It’s an example of improvement in the social zeitgeist (which you claim doesn’t happen)
7. I assume that you read 2 Peter 2:7-8 where Lot is held up as a righteous man? Today he would not be considered so. Again you missed the point.
8. So you’d like to have sex with your sister if the population of Isreal was smaller?
9. I could of quoted any passage in the bible where God commanded to kill. Also if “WE will return” meant that they knew that they’d return - what was the test?
10. So if the people who are suppose to look after a granny… didn’t…there is no provision. I love Kool-Aid.
11. Modern society doesn’t kill babies in the womb. At the point they are a baby abortion is not allowed.
Again I’m telling you…
Morality isn’t based on any one person’s standards. The measuring stick is the societies sense of moral justice.
Are you saying MCWAY without God or you religion you’d be an evil person. You’d go out and murder people, be gay, etc… etc… because you don’t have big brother watching over you?
Are you saying MCWAY that most Christians would offer up there sons for stoning if they were “naughty” and they thought the could get away with it?
I live a moral life. I don’t adhere to a religion or believe in God. I expect in your view that’s impossible.
I also again love the way you’re appalled at the abortion of a bundle of cells but all gungho about genocide. I suppose that’s another example where you’re out of pace with modern society.
BTW, where’s your evidence that Isreal had God’s backing in the Genocide? As you’re such a fan of science - where’s the evidence?
All your reasoning is pathetic. Very few Christians would agree with most of what you said. I have canvassed a few friends of mine who happen to be Christian.
And? I’ve canvassed friends of mine, who have a different take. What’s your point
1. You support murder.
No, I support capital punishment for those who commit murder and are convicted in a court of law.
2. Slavery in the modern society is outlawed in any guise.
Of course it is. And Christians played a HUGE role in making it happen. You have yet to show how any atheists, with all their “reason”, aided to that end. Plus, you seem to not comprehend the difference between chattel slavery and indentured servitude (i.e. the “slavery” in the Bible).
3. As you ignored in my post… I’m not saying things are perfect - but as society continues to improve the equality will also follow.
I didn’t ignore your posts. I asked you to demonstrate how modern society’s morality was better, something you have yet to do.
4. So you’re saying that all the children and innocent people in S&G deserved to die - but with reference to point 1 I can understand that.
All S&G had to do was produce 10 righteous (or, at least, repentant) people and the cities would have been spared. Should all those evil people be let off the hook just because 10 of them repented?
The simple fact is that sinful behavior has detrimental consequences, which unfortunately aren’t limited to the trangressors. On certain scales, children pay for the sins of their parents. It’s as true today as it was back then.
5. You still don’t understand social tolerance.
First of all, you said religious tolerance. Second of all, I’ve already stated how “intolerant” certain atheists can be, regarding issues of faith. And, as mentioned, the verses you gave to make your points about modern society’s alleged improvement over that of Israel, regarding “religious tolerance” didn’t take into account the religious practices of those other nations (i.e. human sacrifice, various form of sexual perversion). Why not be “religiously tolerant” of that?
6. It’s an example of improvement in the social zeitgeist (which you claim doesn’t happen)
What makes it an “improvement”? That’s the question I put to you, which to the day, you have not answered. What’s the measuring stick of morality, since you aren’t using Scripture? And what makes that measuring stick superior?
7. I assume that you read 2 Peter 2:7-8 where Lot is held up as a righteous man? Today he would not be considered so. Again you missed the point.
He was “just” enough to heed God’s words and leave Sodom and Gommorah and tried to get his sons-in-law to do the same.
8. So you’d like to have sex with your sister if the population of Isreal was smaller?
I don’t live in Israel and don’t have any sisters. The bottom line is that, with an estimated population of 2 million people (and given the less-than-stellar influences of other nations around them, among other things), the law was given, banning incest.
I assume there’s a point to this, other than standard skeptic complaining.
9. I could of quoted any passage in the bible where God commanded to kill. Also if “WE will return” meant that they knew that they’d return - what was the test?
The issue isn’t God commanding anyone to kill. As far as the test goes, Abe went to that mountain in Moriah, as instructed, and did everything God told him to do, not knowing how God would fulfill His covenant to him, but trusting that He would somehow. That’s what’s known as faith.
You know the rest: God provided a ram, instead and have never required such a test from anyone else since then.
10. So if the people who are suppose to look after a granny… didn’t…there is no provision. I love Kool-Aid.
Who says there wasn’t? The priority goes to those who have no one to care for them, not to those who do.
11. Modern society doesn’t kill babies in the womb. At the point they are a baby abortion is not allowed.
The point they are a baby is called CONCEPTION!! Scientific research has shown that repeatedly (WAIT A MINUTE!!! I’m not supposed to like science…..OH, never mind!!!).
Are you saying MCWAY without God or you religion you’d be an evil person. You’d go out and murder people, be gay, etc… etc… because you don’t have big brother watching over you?
You still haven’t offered a standard of morality to designated “good” from “evil”. Until you do, you’re wasting your breath.
Are you saying MCWAY that most Christians would offer up there sons for stoning if they were “naughty” and they thought the could get away with it?
Stoning was a form of capital punishment, reserved for serious offenses (i.e. rape, murder) not being “naughty”.
Perhaps, if you actually read what I’ve posted, you wouldn’t have to ask me what I’m saying.
I live a moral life. I don’t adhere to a religion or believe in God. I expect in your view that’s impossible.
Moral based on what? That’s the point!!! Where are your standards? What is your standard? Without such, you have no cause to designate the laws of ancient Israel as being inferior to those of modern society (other than your godless personal bias).
I also again love the way you’re appalled at the abortion of a bundle of cells but all gungho about genocide. I suppose that’s another example where you’re out of pace with modern society.
Again, you have no standard (or have demonstrated no standard) to designate right from wrong. ANd I love the way you like to call a baby in the womb anything but a baby to justify destroying it, but get all bent out shape about “genocide”, espeically given that, unlike the baby in the womb”, the people judged by God actually get a chance to repent, before punishment hits them and their families.
BTW, where’s your evidence that Isreal had God’s backing in the Genocide? As you’re such a fan of science - where’s the evidence?
The same place as your “evidence” that modern society’s morals are superior to those of ancient Israel. Funny thing is you seem to have no problem believing that Israel committed this alleged genocide. Yet, the fact that Israel was attacked without provocation repeatedly seems to escape you. And, but for God’s intervention, the Amalekites would have decimated Israel, as they outnumbered the Hebrews.
With all of that said, it still boils down to this: You have NOT demonstrated any standard of morality that discerns good from evil, (at least one that has not been gleaned directly or indirectly from Scripture). When you do, then you’ll have a case.
McWay, the bible was written by ‘humans’ not ’sky fairies’. The morality therein must be ‘human’.
This ultimately seems to be a pointless discussion, as you can’t see how illogical you sound.
For example. If Christians are responsible for the abolishing the slave trade - what took them so long? Are you saying that Christians have always been appalled at the slave trade? Hmm… I wonder if, at some point in time, their moral sensibility changed?
McWay, the bible was written by ‘humans’ not ’sky fairies’. The morality therein must be ‘human’.
This ultimately seems to be a pointless discussion, as you can’t see how illogical you sound.
And!!!! That still doesn’t address where your sense of morality derives. Again, what guidelines set the standards for right and wrong? Society’s zeitgeist doesn’t work, because modern society has condoned a number of things that you’ve gone on record as saying was wrong (i.e. chattel slavery, not allowing women to vote, etc.).
For example. If Christians are responsible for the abolishing the slave trade - what took them so long? Are you saying that Christians have always been appalled at the slave trade? Hmm… I wonder if, at some point in time, their moral sensibility changed?
Many were. Just because it took a long time for the slave trade to be abolished doesn’t mean there weren’t Christians opposed to it.
And, by the way, where were all the atheists, with all of their “reason”? How did they “rationalize” that chattel slavery was wrong and what did they do about it?
MCWAY - are you a little bit slow?
“society’s zeitgeist doesn’t work, because modern society has condoned a number of things that you’ve gone on record as saying was wrong.”
You’re nearly there MCWAY, you’ve nearly got it. All except the ‘modern’ society bit. Proof of society’s forward moral progress is… that stuff that we once considered ‘okay’ is now considered ‘wrong’.
Systems of morality have been developed all over the globe - independent of your jewish cultural morality. How do you explain this?
“And, by the way, where were all the atheists, with all of their “reason”?”. Are you serious? Are you suggesting that no atheists were involved? What is the point in that? You can’t be that stupid surely?
Incidentally there are also many theories as to how our altruism may have emerged. I’m sure you’re familiar with these?
You’re back to your old tricks, resulting to insults and belittling people, when you can’t make your feeble arguments stick.
You’re nearly there MCWAY, you’ve nearly got it. All except the ‘modern’ society bit. Proof of society’s forward moral progress is… that stuff that we once considered ‘okay’ is now considered ‘wrong’.
What was “wrong” about not letting women vote? Or engaging in chattel slavery? What makes such change “forward” as opposed to backward?
Plus, the argument can be made that chattel slavery was always wrong. It merely took centuries to get rid of it (for the most part), because of the money involved in institutionalizing such.
Systems of morality have been developed all over the globe - independent of your jewish cultural morality. How do you explain this?
Independently? Or indirectly? Besides, I didn’t ask what anyone else’s standard of right and wrong, or good and evil was. The question was with regards to what YOUR standard was.
“And, by the way, where were all the atheists, with all of their “reason”?”. Are you serious? Are you suggesting that no atheists were involved? What is the point in that? You can’t be that stupid surely?
As I said before, if any godless folks were involved, they kept a supremely low profile. What was their rationale for ending slavery, especially given Darwin’s take on certain races (Negro, in particular) being inferior?
Let’s see if you can address that, or will you resort to more insults, as you tend to do, when your takes get picked apart.
The reason I resort to insults, is because you constantly ignore the obvious and recycle the same old tripe.
What’s wrong with it? Due to my upbringing as part of our modern society social exclusion and slavery of any kind fall below the accepted behaviours. We can all empathise with those in a position like that, and don’t like what we see.
If you’re asking just where I got my morality from - I’ve told you. I’ve told you many times. I can’t really tell you the same thing over and over can I?
Are you saying you’d be an immoral person if God wasn’t watching over your shoulder?
If Christianity’s view of slavery has always been consistent, why was the church involved in slavery? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Beilby_Porteus]
The rationale for ending slavery is obvious isn’t it? Do we have to cover the same ground again MCWAY.
Are you saying that the church didn’t have racist views? Are you saying racism was created at the point Darwin formulated his theory?
MCWAY, don’t flatter yourself - you’ve not picked anything apart. You’ve not actually written anything convincing in the slightest - and you’ve not really answered any questions. I ask again….
Are you saying you’d be an immoral person if God wasn’t watching over your shoulder?
Aside… here are some quotes from Darwin on slavery and race. Although I freely admit - he had racist views - it might help you answer your question…. from the horses mouth so to speak…
Your questions
“What was their rationale for ending slavery, especially given Darwin’s take on certain races (Negro, in particular) being inferior?”
Interesting quotes from Darwin himself.
http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm
Now, again I’ve addressed your questions - hopefully you will acknowledge this. Perhaps you could answer the questions I’ve asked you…
Are you saying you’d be an immoral person if God wasn’t watching over your shoulder?
and of course
Your evidence for demons (and any connections with illness)?
The reason I resort to insults, is because you constantly ignore the obvious and recycle the same old tripe.
More like you think insulting people hides your inability or unwillingness to answer a question or support a statement you’ve made.
What’s wrong with it? Due to my upbringing as part of our modern society social exclusion and slavery of any kind fall below the accepted behaviours. We can all empathise with those in a position like that, and don’t like what we see.
If you’re asking just where I got my morality from - I’ve told you. I’ve told you many times. I can’t really tell you the same thing over and over can I?
What you’ve said “over and over” is from where you don’t get your standard of morality, not where you do get such. Plus, as stated earlier, not paying women the same salary for doing the same job as their male counterparts is “accepted behaviors”. Is that “right” or “wrong”?
Again, parading women around as sex objects in the media is “accepted behavior”. Is that “right” or “wrong”? And, on what standard is such based?
If all it takes for something to be right is for it to be accepted, it’s simply becomes a numbers game or “Might makes right”. Now, I’ll go out on a limb and say I don’t think you believe that to be the case.
Are you saying you’d be an immoral person if God wasn’t watching over your shoulder?
What I’m saying, yet again, is without an objective standard of right and wrong, there is no such thing as being “moral” vs. being “immoral”. That’s why I’ve asked you repeatedly what your standard is (not, what is isn’t).
If Christianity’s view of slavery has always been consistent, why was the church involved in slavery? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Beilby_Porteus]
The rationale for ending slavery is obvious isn’t it? Do we have to cover the same ground again MCWAY.
The church was involved for the same reasons that everyone else was involved: power and economics. However, what you neglect is the Christians (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) who fought to end chattel slavery.
That leads me back to asking where were the atheists in this matter (if they were involved at all) and what “logic” and “reason” led them to state that chattel slavery was wrong.
Are you saying that the church didn’t have racist views? Are you saying racism was created at the point Darwin formulated his theory?
This is about what contribution the self-proclaimed “freethinkers” had, with regards to ending chattel slavery. The church (racist views or not) has nothing to do with that aspect.
MCWAY, don’t flatter yourself - you’ve not picked anything apart. You’ve not actually written anything convincing in the slightest - and you’ve not really answered any questions. I ask again….
Are you saying you’d be an immoral person if God wasn’t watching over your shoulder?
I didn’t flatter myself; my statement was more in regards to watching Rob go to work on your claims.
Again, without a clear standard of right and wrong, your question regarding my being “immoral” is pointless.
And, as far as demons go, I never claimed to have scientific evidence for their existence. Then again, this all stems back your question, which asked if I believed that demons were THE cause of illnesses (which you got from a passage in the New Testament, the book of Matthew, I believe).
I answered that question,……NO. They aren’t THE cause of illnesses. Do I believe they exist? Yes. Can I prove such scientifically? NO.
I’ll classify demon possession in the category of “hugely rare events”, just as you do with “goo”, that supposedly begat life with no direction, guidance, or supernatural intervention.
QUESTION FOR McWAY: I assume your name is a reference to The Way. So let me ask you this: do you go to a McChurch???
Your assumption is incorrect. “MCWAY” is simply a childhood nickname, based on my actual name, nothing more.
“Modern society doesn’t kill babies in the womb. At the point they are a baby abortion is not allowed. ”
***WHAT!?!?!?!?!??!!?
Currently I am in school studying web design. And i was just wondering, why you had a unicorns ass on your homepage.
If anybody here believe in creationism, and Adam & Eve, would they be so kind to explain how we now have numerous races of humans? How did we get from a pair of humans to asians, blacks, whites? How does the bible explain that? I curious
I would expect a fundie would point you to the ‘tower of babel’ story.
1. I’m Jewish.
2. I don’t believe for a minute in any form of literal translation of the Bible, nor do I believe in the god that people expect me to (what I call the ’sentient god’). Therefore I don’t really believe that the Bible was ’spoken’ by G-d, yeah, I know, I’m swaying somewhat from what people may consider mainstream religion, but I believe in the morals and the ethics (where, of course, they’re not nasty). Blame Herzl for that one.
Right, now that that’s out of the way. If you read Genesis you’ll find that at one point or another G-d limits the life span of man to 120 years. Then, in pretty much the next paragraph it says “[name] lived for 300 years”. Yeah, that makes no sense. However if you look at the names of the people in Genesis they correspond to (or are at least thought to by some) the names of tribes and peoples.
The Bible explains part of this whole ’splitting up’ of peoples through the story of ‘Ham lived for 300 years’. Ham may have been some sort of early settlement that lasted 300 years before being depopulated, or something along those lines.
Also, you must heard of the ‘Out of Africa’ theory? How could, from one ‘Eve’, the root of all ‘Out of Africa’ genes we get North Europeans, South Europeans, Slavs, Asians, etc.?
I’m sure you already know the answer you’d give to that question, but that’s much the same as your Adam and Eve thing there. Also at no point in the Bible is there anything to suggest that Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth.
Though of course the answer both you and I are likely to give is Evolution. I’m not a great fan of Darwinian Evolution [survival of the fittest(luckiest)] and I believe that sexual attraction has a greater role to play in it than people realise. Though what if, even, evolution is a tool of some god?
Just playing a bit of devil’s advocate here; please don’t take it as some kind of pre-planned, thought-out counter-argument.
Hi,
I am glad that you are seeking out the truth from the Bible. I know the Bible is true, because the message of Christ has given me hope and joy in my life.
In answer to your question, why don’t you visit the website that this website is making fun of? They have lots of articles on the very topic you are curious about. Here is one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp. You can search for “races” on their home page and find many more resources.
The God of the Bible promises that if you seek Him, you will find Him and that the truth will set you free…free from eternal punishment, and free from despair in this life. If you want to know if the Bible is true, start reading it. Pray to God and ask Him to show you what is true. He promises to do so.
With warm wishes, Reva :)
Reva,
I’m still seeking some degree of Truth in the Bible! (I’ll let you know if I find any…)
No, it’s a fine book, for a human work. But you can, as has been pointed out by just about everyone with half a mind, make a case for any number of conflicting philosophies and moralities with it.
“as has been pointed out by just about everyone with half a mind”
***how unwittingly true!!!
Hi there,
I really wanted to post a comment, but you blocked mine. I know you guys are anti-creationism, anti-Bible, etc., but, if you are really sure of your position (your right to think what you do and this is YOUR website), why wouldn’t you let people of differeing opinions post? If there is really no validity in what we say, and we are just laughing stock, then humor us. You can just laugh us off, but don’t deny people the right to post…that’s a pretty low blow :) Really, please consider displaying both sides of the issue. If you are indeed really right, your cause is not endangered by a few stray “fundies” or whatever you want to call creationists.
I was trying to point “Edo” to the following article about races. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp.
Genetically speaking, it is plausible that “brown” people can produce children of varying shades from very white to very dark. Hence, the decendents of Noah could have easily had the genetics for all the different races. The article explains a whole lot more.
Blessings - and I hope you find the truth. I am praying for you!
Reva
[Reva - your comment was held for moderation along with about 15 other comments while we were on vacation over Labor day - Admin]
The Bible does not explain it, because it is not a genetics textbook. A genetics textbook will quite adequately explain how this is possible. How do YOU think it happens?
Quote by Rob with reference to Adam & Eve and the genetic diversity we see today…
“A genetics textbook will quite adequately explain how this is possible.”
I have only one book on genetics… it’s called Genetics, Evolution and Biodiversity. I can’t find anything in there?
Could you point me to a genetics text book that does? I’ve a subscription to book24 through work, I’ve got access to most published texts - so point me in the right direction and I’d love to read up on this.
I am fairly certain the one you referred to does so. In two people with, say, brown skin and brown eyes, there can be all the genes necessary to get blue, green, brown and black eyes, blond, red, brown and black hair, etc. There can be genes that code for varying heights, eyelid folds, different skull shapes, and th einterpaly of these genes is quite complex. This is easily demonstrated by dog breeding. the genes necessary to produce all the great variety of dogs were present in animals that all appeared quite similar as wolves.
Again, do you propose the variety is due to accumulated mutations?
No text book would suggest that this is possible in the time scale your talking about.
No genetics text book explain to that the genetic diversity we see today could of started from Adam & Eve 6000 years ago… do be so stupid.
What I was trying to say was….
No genetics text book explains that the genetic diversity we see today could of started from Adam & Eve 6000 years ago… don’t be so stupid.
of course it would, if all tjhat information was present in the two original people, an dthat is entirely possible genetically. i challenge you to find a textbook that claims human diversity is from genetic mutations rather than isolated populations losing genetic diversity and thus becoming distinct.
how long do you supose it has taken to get the dicersity in dogs and cattle, which is far more than seen in humans? HUNDREDS of years, not thousands.
and you are uaing a straw man argument anyway. when did i claim adam and eve lived 6,000 years ago?
Oh my mistake - when did Adam and Eve live then?
i make no claims to know. the language of the bible allows for much longer time periods. the woman that genetics tells us we all descended from, to our best current alalysis, lived 20 - 200,000 years ago.
now, again, how long did it take to get the current dicersity observed in dogs and cattle?
Well clearly, the figurative Eve population is possible.
Does this mean that you think the bible was not correct in listing the genealogy up to Adam of Eve?
no, it means i understand that geneologies of that type were not meant to be exhaustive, an dit was (and still sometimes is) proper to call someone a son or grandson of an ancient ancestor.
you still avoid my question - now, again, how long did it take to get the current dicersity observed in dogs and cattle?
I’m not sure Rob. How long?
if you do not know, on what basis do you claim humans could not diversify as currently seen in 6,000 years?
Not sure - one what basis do you believe Demons are running about the place and God talks through Donkeys?
if you are not sure, why did you make the claim to begin with? does this standard apply to all of your other claims as well?
Perhaps your demons are now messing with my brain Rob… anyway my talking donkey told me not to answer…
ah, the inevitable fall into irrelevant insults when pushed to give actual specific defenses of beliefs……powerful evidence indeed of those beliefs being entirely faith-based……3 simple direct questions from this single thread left unanswered:
-on what basis do you claim humans could not diversify as currently seen in 6,000 years?
-if you are not sure (of the basis for your claim), why did you make the claim to begin with?
-how long did it take to get the current dicersity observed in dogs and cattle?
I’ve answered all of those questions Rob…. try and “stay focused”.
Also what do you mean “irrelevant insults”… I said perhaps the demons are messing with my brain. Surely that could be possible Rob - or are you saying Demons can’t do that?
Rob, as those questions are easily answered - why do you need them answered? Are you beating around the bush again? Perhaps if you actually have a point, you might want to make it.
If you are struggling for the answers to your questions, perhaps you could ask some donkeys - God seems to enjoy talking through them so might be in luck!
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-24 16:00:57
I’ve answered all of those questions Rob…. try and “stay focused”.”
***no, you have not. if you have, it is easy enough to copy and paste and show me i am wrong. one wonders why these questions are so difficult for you.
“Also what do you mean “irrelevant insults”… I said perhaps the demons are messing with my brain. Surely that could be possible Rob - or are you saying Demons can’t do that? ”
***since you do nto believe in their existence, and you were the one who said it, it was logically insincere.
“Rob, as those questions are easily answered - why do you need them answered? Are you beating around the bush again? Perhaps if you actually have a point, you might want to make it. ”
***if they are easily asnwered (and you also say you already answered them), why do you avoid them? i do not “need” them asnwered, but if you will not, then you are just blowing off steam, not having a discussion or demonstrating anything, especially science. you amde a specific claim that humans could not have diversified in 6,000 years, and claimed genetics texts would back you up, but will not answer questions about your basis or your beliefs. my point is to clarify your claims and their basis. apparently, there is no basis, therefore my point becomes you are talking out of alternate orifices, and have little to knowledge of genetics, evolution, or science. feel free to refute those points.
“If you are struggling for the answers to your questions, perhaps you could ask some donkeys - God seems to enjoy talking through them so might be in luck!”
***so you are a convert!
Yes Rob… you’ve done it - your pointless questioning beliefs in talking donkeys have converted me… I think everyone reading this will agree.
As an aside… you claimed text books would back you up - I said that no text book would say anything about Adam & Eve 6k ago spawning the whole human race.
I did answer your questions - I told you I don’t know - and to stop beating about the bush and get to the point. Do you have a point?
Rob, you believe in Demons, talking snakes and talking Donkeys… and yet you say that it’s me that talks out of my “alternate orifice”. Please get a grip.
“Yes Rob… you’ve done it - your pointless questioning beliefs in talking donkeys have converted me… I think everyone reading this will agree.”
***i have questioned belief in tlaking donkeys? when?
“As an aside… you claimed text books would back you up - I said that no text book would say anything about Adam & Eve 6k ago spawning the whole human race.”
***that is ludicrous to claim you meant only that genetics textbooks would claim adam and eve LITERALLY gave rise to the human race. you claimed we could not have the current human diversity from only 2 ancestors 6,0000 years ago, and i asid any genetics textbook would show you how this is quite possible and plausible. i stand on that claim.
“I did answer your questions - I told you I don’t know - and to stop beating about the bush and get to the point. Do you have a point?”
***that is the point. you claim knowledge and authority, yet when pressed must admit you made it up.
“Rob, you believe in Demons, talking snakes and talking Donkeys… and yet you say that it’s me that talks out of my “alternate orifice”. Please get a grip.”
***you believe no one says luke was an accurat ehistorian, that genetic drift proves darwinian evolution, that the fossil record supports evolution, and that aliens are statistically more likely than god. you have yet to demonstrate any scientific principle or experiemnt that proves non-material intelligent beings could not exist, yet that is your worst criticism of my beliefs and positions?
I’ll stick with my grip.
***you believe no one says luke was an accurat ehistorian,
This I think I’ve covered
***that genetic drift proves darwinian evolution,
I never said “genetic drift proves darwinian evolution”
*** that the fossil record supports evolution
In fact I said the fossil record isn’t required to prove evolution and it shows very little.
***, and that aliens are statistically more likely than god
True…
***. you have yet to demonstrate any scientific principle or ***experiemnt that proves non-material intelligent beings ***could not exist,
I can really prove that Russels celestial teapot doesn’t exist. So what?
***yet that is your worst criticism of my beliefs and ***positions?
No, it isn’t
***I’ll stick with my grip.
I can’t stop you gripping on to nonsense.
how old are you anyway? this book you are referring to is for middle high school!
from the Creation Museum’s “One Visitor’s Review — Evolution is now an excuse”:
“The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse
jesus christ, save me from your followers.
jeff
Will there be a wing devoted to nargles? I hope so.
Unicorns In Comics
For anyone interested the comic strip “Little Dee” has been featuring a Unicorn the last few days.
http://www.littledee.net/
Just made my donation, I’m excited to see this go up, I love giving a good slap in the face to people like this.
Can we see what the goal for donations is (or how much there is needed to erect this billboard), and how much has already been raised?
wow. ignorance is bliss. anything could be ‘real’ if you squint hard enough. i wonder if the unicorn museum folks don’t eat pork, since pigs are unclean animals (or if they are polygamists as the men are in the old testament, or if they have slaves…). the power of mind control by religion is an incredible scary thing.
What’s even scarier is that, for all the “enlightened” evolutionists and atheists here, not a single one has demonstrated that the re’em creature, described by the ancient Hebrews in those nine verses, is indeed a reference to the horsey-like critter, depicted here that we’ve come to know as a “unicorn”.
Despite mutlple references to historical data, showing the identity of this creature, the so-called poster boys for “logic” and “reason” here still keep running their mouths about Christians believing in unicorns.
But you do believe in talking snakes and donkeys?
Little side note to the biblical story of creation…
When God created Adam, there was no need for a utilitarian design…
So Adam would not have nipples.
There was no prenatal Adam…
So Adam would not have a belly button.
And, without the forsight of pro-creation…
Adam would be lacking one more feature common to mankind…
Adam would resemble a Ken doll!!!
Pre-Apple, Eve may have been equally challenged…
And yet they reproduced?
It’s enough to make the chicken and the egg quandry scratch it’s own head…
-j-
huh? whyever would you claim there was “no foresight of pro-creation”???
Hey! We’ve wandered a bit from the Unicorns! MCWAY has heroically defended his point of view and inadvertantly proved that the Bible must be interpreted and explained. He has shown that it is not always self-evident what the Bible means (he’s not stoning people, is he?). And, it is apparent that the Unicorn Museum is a viable concept, and I believe that we should discuss its contents.
Religions have created fabulous edifices to display their power and taste. Religious artists have created great works of art to show the most emotional aspects of the faith. Without the centuries of financial support and feudal massing of wealth, current secular artists fall very short of the acheivements of their compatriots in the medieval times…It might be interesting to involve the lack of support for the arts and trades by the contemporary religions, and the museum needs to display both secular and non-secular art, discussing the inception and value of both.
The museum should include everything known about the unicorn, the reem, etc. It should include all information about dragons and demons, which are both mentioned. It should show the acheivements of the religions that believe in such things, and how such religions effect commerce, science, war, and the arts–Ethiopia before the Dark Ages, the Dark Ages, Torquemada, the concept that only those who survive torture are possessed by demons, the heresy of Luther, etc.
Religions don’t take the slightest heresy lightly, and the museum should include the brutality of religions–the consequences that religions have historically held for those who don’t agree. It should show the implements of the torture chambers, and explain how these devices assisted the maintenance of the faith…The museum can even show the new “religion light”, which is intolerant of anybody not in the middle class and provides birth-to grave, morning-to-night immersion with the sect.
I envision the Unicorn Museum as a complete museum of religion. It would necessarily be very different from that of any particular sect. And, MCWAY could be used to consult on his sect’s beliefs.
Far too many skeptics are, as the saying goes, all up in the Kool-Aid but don’t know the flavor. What I’ve done is simply research certain aspects of the Bible that didn’t make sense to me at one point in time.
An example was the aforementioned issue, regarding the punishment for rape. (i.e. why the marital status of the victim determined the fate of the rapist). The laws were there to make sure the assailant paid his debt to the victim, not to “society”. If the victim were single, the rapist provided for her care for the rest of his life; if she’s engaged/married; the rapist gets executed, as a care system is already in place.
Regarding the whole unicorn issue, I’ve yet to see anyone show any proof that the re’em creature was unequivocally a reference to the horsey-type creature that we call a unicorn. King David wrote Psalms 22 somewhere around 900 B.C. The references in Deuteronomy are even earlier than that. Did the Israelites even conceive of a “unicorn”, as we know it today? If so, some evidence of such would be nice.
It’s been shown that the disconnect, so to speak, was the Septuagint, in which re’em got translated into “monokeros”. Someone mentioned that it didn’t make much sense to refer to a wild bull or ox, shown in profile with only one horn visible, as “monokeros” or “unicorn”. But, as I said earlier, we have creatures called “millipedes”, but those creatures don’t have 1,000 feet. So, I don’t see the re’em/”monokeros”/unicorn thing as a problem.
“There are about 30 genera of horses during 55 million years of evolution. Here is a short list Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene , Piocene, Pleistocene, Then finally Modern Equus . . . these are all “horse” but NOT Modern Equus . . understand? ”
really?!?!?!?! “Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene , Piocene, Pleistocene” are genera of horses? “eocene is cat-sized???
dud- you lose any right to argue any matter of science.
That would be (GASP!!!!) “horses” begetting “horses” aka creatures reproducing after their own kind. I wonder why no birds, dogs, or cats popped out or showed any signs of developing claws or feathers.
“dud- you lose any right to argue any matter of science.”
This comes from someone who believes in talking donkeys, talking snakes and that demons could posses him at any time.
Horse species did also not always come into being by gradual transformation (anagenesis) of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species split off from ancestors (cladogenesis) and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. There are about 30 genera of horses during 55 million years of evolution. Here is a short list Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene , Piocene, Pleistocene, Then finally Modern Equus . . . these are all “horse” but NOT Modern Equus . . understand? Eocene is cat size and as toes! (and there are “before” Eocene but then this is so less “horse” it could be considered something else, hence the beginning of that branch)
Ummm….wouldn’t “horses” producing “horses” be a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind? Furthermore, I don’t recall anyone claiming that horses (modern Equus) have always been modern horses. That sounds like the old “fixity of species” trick, falsely crediting that concept to Creationists.
Some laughable decenters say the time scale is wrong because of the “Great-Flood” - and that all of these creatures where just horse variants that did not make it. . .
“Great-Flood” Noah ? Give me a break . . they are not all in one geologic layer and there is no evidence of a planet wide flood Also . . . much to the dismay of all bible thumpers out there . . The “flood” story (thought as fact by “believers”) was clearly stolen from a early work . . . the Epic of Gilgamesh . . as was so many other parts of the bible is (This is of course normal since these stories are handed down from gen-to-gen . To make it in important books. . . with a bit of editing)
Ahhh, the old “Stolen Ark story” routine.
That’s pretty much been hacked to pieces. Let’s compare!
Dimensions:
Noah’s Ark: Length - 300 cubits (450 feet), Width - 50 cubits (75 feet); Height - 30 cubits (45 feet).
Utanapishtim’s (Uey’s) “Ark”: a giant cube, 120 cubits (180 feet) each dimension.
Now, if you’re building something that has to be stable in water, the LAST design you’d use is that of a cube. On the other hands, shipbuilders will tell you that the ideal length:width ratio for stability of a vessel is 6:1.
Take a wild guess as to which one has that ratio.
Length of Time of construction:
Noah’s Ark - 120 years maximum (the time period between God’s judgment and the Flood’s occurence is 120 years; whether it took Noah that long to build the Ark is not mentioned; in all likelihood, it did not).
Uey’s “Ark” - Less than a week (in between bouts of drunkenness with his friends).
Practicality
Noah - Loads the Ark with animals, food, and water…..the basics.
Uey - Brings on gold and silver (exactly where is he going to spend this, if the planet is destroyed by water?).
At best, you could state that the Epic of Gilgamesh simply made it to print, first. But, when you factor in the oral tradition that the Hebrews had, the claim that they “stole” the Flood account from the Epic of Gilgamesh is preposterous.
Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m. Compare this with a tsunami (‘tidal wave’), which is typically only about 10 m high. Note also that there is even less danger from tsunamis, because they are dangerous only near the shore―out at sea, they are hardly noticeable.
Contrast that with Utnapishtim’s ark—this was a huge cube! It is harder to think of a more ridiculous design for a ship—it would roll over in all directions at even the slightest disturbance. However, the story is easy to explain if they distorted Genesis, and found that one dimension is easier to remember than three, ‘its dimensions must measure equal to each other’, and it seems a much nicer shape. The pagan human authors didn’t realize why the real Ark’s dimensions had to be what they were. But the reverse is inconceivable: that Jewish scribes, hardly known for naval architectural skills, took the mythical cubic Ark and turned it into the most stable wooden vessel possible!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp
“horses” producing “horses”….
Good one MCWAY - another crushing defeat against evolution. It does amaze me how so many scientists have fallen for evolution theory, when such a inspired and simple argument defeats it so easily. Fantastic.
Hey it’s obvious that we should believe in the Noah’s flood… the evidence is so easy to see… but evolution? No way… not when we can say “horses” producing “horses”!
You should right a book - though I wouldn’t offer it for peer review.
I also find it pretty amusing that part of the ‘evidence’ for the flood given at answersingenesis is that lots of cultures have flood myths. However MCWAY is happy to rubbish the Gilgamesh mesh story in favour of his own particular myth.
Another example of reasoning without evidence…
“the claim that they “stole” the Flood account from the Epic of Gilgamesh is preposterous”
Why is it preposterous? Surely it’s possible? In fact it sounds quite likely that myths like this might spread across different cultures - especially one with such a passion for oral tradition.
The reason MCWAY thinks its preposterous is that the Noah flood appears in the bible, and as such, must be factual and true as the bible was written by his favourite flavour of sky fairy.
“Ummm….wouldn’t “horses” producing “horses” be a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind? Furthermore, I don’t recall anyone claiming that horses (modern Equus) have always been modern horses. That sounds like the old “fixity of species” trick, falsely crediting that concept to Creationists. ”
This is exactly what I meant . . you are misunderstanding the terms . . In your classification “horse” would include all of the ancestors of “Horse” (the simplistic term) . . this would include the first mammals back to the early ocean going creatures and so on . . . where as the definition I am talking about goes back to the earliest (that we have found) definable horse ancestor (the beginning of that branch), Note there are NAMES for these creatures, they layman’s term is simply “Horse” . . and so goes your simplistic retort.
What would you call a donkey or a Zebra? They are of the Equus stock but have diverged to the point that they ether can’t interbreed or make can only make hybrids (like Hinnies and mules since they have a different # of chromosomes or subspecies) in time they will diverge farther and this would not even become possible (they are there own branch a entirely new species).
Go earlier and you see the same thing, you have animals that are similar also but may have started other branches. Now the exact position of this “change” (which is your misunderstanding) is not some real hard demarcation line . (This animal stops here and that starts). but how well we can differentiate between organisms and what we have to study. The more fossils we find the higher density the sampling gets and the better the data, the better the fossils the better we can look for similarities. Frankly the more that we find the more the previous data had been strengthened. So far evolution has been spot on . . and we find new nuance to it but nothing that discounts it (funny that, that is how science works.)
This may help
(A) Anagenetic speciation. A species changes significantly enough over time that we would conclude that the changed form was so different that it would not have been able to repoduce with the original form. See the Foraminifera for this example. Dashed lines indicate periods of transition.
(B) Cladogenesis — allopatric of perapatric branching off of a daughter species. The (or) route indicates that the new species replaced its parent (red marks an extinction event). The fossil record would show this extinction/replacement as an instance of punctuated equilibrium. One or two species survive to the present.
(C) Alloptric or perapatric branching. Here, the parent species later goes extinct. Two species survive to the present (but there could be many). See Dinos-to-Birds or Whale Transitionals as examples.
(D) Similar to (A) and (C) combined. But two species in this representation give birth to species swarms. The number of species surviving to the present could be 3 or 11 (or hundreds) depending on the taxonomic treatment accorded to members of the swarms. See the Cichlid Fishes for this kind of example. Also, see many other kinds of examples of currently observed speciation on my Living Transitional Species page.
Yet, for some strange reason, the Genesis account have far greater details in the design of the Ark than does the Epic of Gilgamesh. By that reasoning, if any other culture has such a (as the term goes), “Flood legend”, we should see more and more details about the Ark itself. However, we do not.
Another example of reasoning without evidence…
More like, in your case, commenting without comprehension. The phrase I used was “At best, you could state that the Epic of Gilgamesh simply made it to print, first. But, when you factor in the oral tradition that the Hebrews had, the claim that they “stole” the Flood account from the Epic of Gilgamesh is preposterous.”
Factor in the oral tradition with what? The details in the Genesis account woefully absent in the Gilgamesh account.
To top it all off, the AIG link mentions where and how the “stolen Ark story” came to be and how archaeological discoveries have render that claim to be utterly false.
And, those are among the reasons I called the claim that the Jews stole the Ark account “preposterous”.
But, I doubt you took any of that into consideration, given your adherence to the gospel of “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” (aka evolution).
Hmm a story gaining details as time goes by… well that’s unheard of isn’t MCWAY. I mean that never happens. I’m sure in your world stories, well what, get more simple as time goes by? Yes that’s it… stories over time don’t get more complex, that’s impossible. It’s just not conceivable that the Jewish scribes would actually add to a story whilst adding it to their cannon.
Next MCWAY will be telling us he believes in Adam and Eve, talking snakes and original sin. Isn’t that right MCWAY? You believe the bible is 100% error free and entirely accurate. You believe in the virgin birth. You believe a God that created the universe and everything in it; talked through a donkey. You believe God is the author of the bible. You believe bad people will burn in hell. You believe in the tower of Babel.
Basically what you’re saying is you only accept evidence that supports the bible; although I’m sure you’d say ‘there is no evidence against the bible’. You ignore all evidences for evolution; the evidence that there was no global flood, the evidence that civilisation has been around well before the biblical chronology would have us believe.
Erog, is attempting to explain some evolutionary evidence to you… but you just keep saying well that’s just “horses making horses”…. Can we assume he’s wasting his breath - as it seems the only way you’ll accept evolution is if a scientist, sticks a dog in a box, somehow evolves it and pull out a monkey?
For every new link evolution finds, people like you just point to the gap either side of it and somehow claim a victory… there are now twice as many gaps!!!
Finally, going back to the flood. Can we assume that Noah was actually aided by God? Surely God must have helped gather the animals? Didn’t he ’seal the door’? Perhaps God helped in all manner of ways? Maybe he stopped the animals being hungry? Maybe he didn’t allow any leaks? With that in mind - there is no point looking at any evidence or logical reasoning - as MCWAY can always just declare ‘Well, my sky fairy must have helped out’.
Hmm a story gaining details as time goes by… well that’s unheard of isn’t MCWAY. I mean that never happens. I’m sure in your world stories, well what, get more simple as time goes by? Yes that’s it… stories over time don’t get more complex, that’s impossible. It’s just not conceivable that the Jewish scribes would actually add to a story whilst adding it to their cannon.
So where are the added details in the other cultures with some account of a global flood, destroying the earth. More specifically, what exactly shows that the Jews added details to the Gilgamesh epic, especially considering (as AIG suggested) that they weren’t exactly known for their naval architectural skills?
Next MCWAY will be telling us he believes in Adam and Eve, talking snakes and original sin. Isn’t that right MCWAY? You believe the bible is 100% error free and entirely accurate. You believe in the virgin birth. You believe a God that created the universe and everything in it; talked through a donkey. You believe God is the author of the bible. You believe bad people will burn in hell. You believe in the tower of Babel.
And, next you’ll be telling us that you believe your ancestor was “Unga-Munga” the caveman, who “evolved” from some other critter, who evolved from yet another critter, and ultimately from 5-billion-year-old blob of goo, that inexplicably came into existence.
What’s your point?
Basically what you’re saying is you only accept evidence that supports the bible; although I’m sure you’d say ‘there is no evidence against the bible’. You ignore all evidences for evolution; the evidence that there was no global flood, the evidence that civilisation has been around well before the biblical chronology would have us believe.
What I’m saying is here for all to see. Perhaps, it would help if you actually read it.
I’ve addressed the so-called evidence for evolution (i.e. the examples given, virtually of which are nothing more than speciation, which does NOT conflict with Creation whatsoever; the young rocks mistakenly dated as being millions of years old, just to name a few).
Erog, is attempting to explain some evolutionary evidence to you… but you just keep saying well that’s just “horses making horses”…. Can we assume he’s wasting his breath - as it seems the only way you’ll accept evolution is if a scientist, sticks a dog in a box, somehow evolves it and pull out a monkey?
For every new link evolution finds, people like you just point to the gap either side of it and somehow claim a victory… there are now twice as many gaps!!!
Again, Ergo’s “attemtping to explain some evolutionary evidence” is merely his taking about speciation, something that DOES NOT CONFLICT but fits right in line with the Creation account: creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Finally, going back to the flood. Can we assume that Noah was actually aided by God? Surely God must have helped gather the animals? Didn’t he ’seal the door’? Perhaps God helped in all manner of ways? Maybe he stopped the animals being hungry? Maybe he didn’t allow any leaks? With that in mind - there is no point looking at any evidence or logical reasoning - as MCWAY can always just declare ‘Well, my sky fairy must have helped out’.
That’s funny! I could have sworn that any supernatural intervention by you-know-who was pointed out in the chapters of Genesis that give the account of the Flood.
But, if you’re wondering how Noah and family could have pulled off such a task (feeding the animals, cleaning up after them, etc.), you can check this out, for yourself:
According to Scripture, Noah’s Ark was a safe haven for representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals that God created. While it is possible that God made miraculous provisions for the daily care of these animals, it is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles. Exploring natural solutions for day-to-day operations does not discount God’s role: the biblical account hints at plenty of miracles as written, such as God bringing the animals to the Ark (Genesis 6:20; 7:9, 15). It turns out that a study of existing, low-tech animal care methods answers trivial objections to the Ark. In fact, many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals
More details can be found in the book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, which I bought a couple of years ago.
I suppose my point is this… here we all are listening you morons knock evolution theory because it can’t be duplicated in the lab and never can be. You claim to support and understand science… but basically you talk utter nonsense.
A lovely example of such nonsense is found by following the link you supplied, there is a paragraph headed ‘What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?’. Dinosaurs on the ark? This is laughable!
You keep using the word ’speciation’ for every observable evolutionary model, when it’s clear you do not understand the first thing about it.
You rubbish a perfectly good theory because you judge the evidence to poor. Where’s the evidence that Adam and Eve existed? Where’s the evidence that Noah existed? Where’s there evidence for any miracle? There is none… but somehow your own backward beliefs don’t need any evidential support!? If the work is only 6000 years old… where’s the DNA evidence? DNA shows a totally different picture… but I suppose like evolution - if it disagrees with the bible you’ll just rubbish it.
Why must you kid yourself? As you sit there reading these words, you must realize that you don’t have any evidence to believe your own theories.
It takes a lot to let go of belief, letting go of the “big brother”. I was brought up in a massively religious family. I served as a speaker in our local district from a very young age. I too clung on to any anti-evolution information. I accepted tenuous links between Genesis creation stories and real world evidence. I tried to convince myself there’s some kind of scientific conspiracy against God. I tried to convince myself there’s a debate going on in the scientific community about evolution (there isn’t by the way).
I suppose my point is this… here we all are listening you morons knock evolution theory because it can’t be duplicated in the lab and never can be. You claim to support and understand science… but basically you talk utter nonsense.
My point is this: We “morons” (i.e. Christians who believe in Creation) support science, which is simply the observation of nature and natural phenomena. What we do NOT support is the godless, atheistic, naturalistic paradigm, known as evolution.
Simply put, we believe that “in the beginning, God created….”, not “in the beginning, goo ‘evolved” into….”
You keep using the word ’speciation’ for every observable evolutionary model, when it’s clear you do not understand the first thing about it.
That’s because every so-called example of “observable evolutionary model” mentioned on this forum has been nothing more than speciation: Wild sheep producing domestic sheep, one type of bird laying eggs in the nest of another type of birds, and the latest, “horses” producing “horses”.
All examples of creatures reproducing after own kinds, which falls right in line with the Genesis account.
What we haven’t seen, however, is sheep coming from non-sheep animals (i.e. dogs or cats) or horses from non-horses (i.e. cats or sheep).
You rubbish a perfectly good theory because you judge the evidence to poor. Where’s the evidence that Adam and Eve existed? Where’s the evidence that Noah existed? Where’s there evidence for any miracle? There is none… but somehow your own backward beliefs don’t need any evidential support!? If the work is only 6000 years old… where’s the DNA evidence? DNA shows a totally different picture… but I suppose like evolution - if it disagrees with the bible you’ll just rubbish it.
Why must you kid yourself? As you sit there reading these words, you must realize that you don’t have any evidence to believe your own theories.
One minute you claim that the evidence I’ve presented is “nonsense”; the next you claim I have none at all. Make up your mind here.
I could easily ask you where your evidence of the primoridal soup (aka “Goo”) is from which life allegedly “evolved” with no Divine help, whatsoever. As for Adam, Eve, and Noah, their carcasses haven’t been found (that I know of). But, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time Biblical skeptics have claimed that an account from Scripture was false, only to be refuted when archaeological evidence comes to the forefront.
It takes a lot to let go of belief, letting go of the “big brother”. I was brought up in a massively religious family. I served as a speaker in our local district from a very young age. I too clung on to any anti-evolution information. I accepted tenuous links between Genesis creation stories and real world evidence. I tried to convince myself there’s some kind of scientific conspiracy against God. I tried to convince myself there’s a debate going on in the scientific community about evolution (there isn’t by the way).
Here again lies your assumption that all believers in Creation are so, because they were brought up as such. You do realize that many Christians, including the scientists at AiG, were once atheists and evolutionists. Funny thing is that they use something called “reason” and changed their minds. Oh I forgot, many of you godless types don’t count the use of “logic” and “reason”, unless the end result is someone rejecting his faith in God.
Science, is not simply the observation of nature and natural phenomena.
It’s not just evolution that you refute. Many areas of science fall foul of your backwards thinking. Geology, genetics, historical linguistics etc… etc… all these sciences do not support a young earth creationist viewpoint.
My mind is made up, I was actually asking you to present evidence for your beliefs. So far you’ve only attempted to knock evolution. Evolution theory has plenty of evidence. YOU HAVEN’T PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BELIEFS.
My assumption ? Your assumption matey. I never assumed anything. What I said was “It takes a lot to let go of belief, letting go of the “big brother” - I can of course only relate from my own personal viewpoint.
Besides which, it’s nice you see that you judge me godless, purely because you believe in the Jewish god Yahweh and I don’t.
Come on, where’s the evidence for your beliefs? I’ve posted a couple of things below to help you on your way - but you’ve not answered!?
Science, is not simply the observation of nature and natural phenomena.
Of course, it is. Geology is the observation of nature (specifically rocks); botany is the observation of nature, regarding plants.
It’s not just evolution that you refute. Many areas of science fall foul of your backwards thinking. Geology, genetics, historical linguistics etc… etc… all these sciences do not support a young earth creationist viewpoint.
It is just evolution that I refute. Of course, those sciences do not support a young earth Creationist viewpoints. Those sciences aren’t sentient beings. They are merely scientific disciplines or tools, if you will. In the hands of evolutionists, they are used to support an old, billion-year earth; in the hands of Creationists, they are used to support a young God-created earth.
My mind is made up, I was actually asking you to present evidence for your beliefs. So far you’ve only attempted to knock evolution. Evolution theory has plenty of evidence. YOU HAVEN’T PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BELIEFS.
I have done so. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have referred to such as “nonsense”.
My assumption ? Your assumption matey. I never assumed anything. What I said was “It takes a lot to let go of belief, letting go of the “big brother” - I can of course only relate from my own personal viewpoint.
Besides which, it’s nice you see that you judge me godless, purely because you believe in the Jewish god Yahweh and I don’t.
No, I referred to you as godless, because of your earlier statements, particularly ones regarding religion. Are you suggesting that the only religion with which you have beef is Christianity?
There are natural, social and formal sciences…
Also, stop talking tosh… what’s all this “In the hands of” rubbish. What about when Geology is “in the hands of” geologists? The same goes for all the sciences you say you don’t refute. You just can’t accept the clear evidence from any area of science that refutes the bible!
MCWAY it’s clear to everyone you’re avoiding the issue… you haven’t presented any evidence for your beliefs. What I called “nonsense” was your attempts to rubbish evolution and other sciences.
Come on it should be easy for you. Where’s your evidence? Clearly the evidence for evolution isn’t compelling enough for you, I’d love you to share the evidence (which must be very cool) that supports your belief.
I have a “beef” with religion in general. I can assume though as you believe in the ‘Christian’ viewpoint literally and you exclude all other religious viewpoints.
Also, stop talking tosh… what’s all this “In the hands of” rubbish. What about when Geology is “in the hands of” geologists? The same goes for all the sciences you say you don’t refute. You just can’t accept the clear evidence from any area of science that refutes the bible!
There are geologists who believe in evolution; and there are geologists that believe in Creation. You do realize that, I hope.
The same goes for biologists, chemists, paleontologists, etc.
MCWAY it’s clear to everyone you’re avoiding the issue… you haven’t presented any evidence for your beliefs. What I called “nonsense” was your attempts to rubbish evolution and other sciences.
Evolution isn’t a science; it’s a theory. Nobody has a Bachelors of Science, a Masters of Science, or a Ph.D of science in evolution. There are, however, such degrees in the aforemention scientific disciplines. And there are those in the past and present with such degrees in those disciplines, who believe in Creation.
Not only have I presented evidence to support some of my statements, but I’ve provided links to such. Whether you refer to that as “nonsense” or not isn’t my problem or concern.
I have a “beef” with religion in general. I can assume though as you believe in the ‘Christian’ viewpoint literally and you exclude all other religious viewpoints.
You DO? I would have never guessed it.
1. I must admit that their are some scientists that believe in all kinds of nonsense. I’m sure some believe in UFO abductions or in Allah. You must concede that the overwhelming consensus in science support evolution - and reject creationism.
2. Two seconds on Google - BSC in evolution -
http://www.port.ac.uk/courses/coursetypes/undergraduate/BScHonsPalaeobiologyAndEvolution/
EVOLUTION IS A SCIENCE. You don’t understand the term ‘theory’ in a scientific frame work - or choose to pretend you don’t.
3. MCWAY you have not given any evidence for you beliefs - none. All you’ve done is given links to pages that knock evolution (which doesn’t prove your beliefs) or a guess at how the ark thing might be possible - there’s no actual scientific evidence.
If it’s not your concern then why are you trying to post scientific rejections of evolution? You’ve ignored all the posts that you can’t answer because you don’t have any answers.
You constantly ignore the point of posts… Just admit you’ve no scientific basis for any of your beliefs, and that it’s all taken on faith.
“Utnapishtim’s ark—this was a huge cube! It is harder to think of a more ridiculous design for a ship “
two points here . . first . . you would call that a barge . . .second it is a STORY, a STORY it is not real . . the story has to do with the search for immortality, you are trying to make it real event . . Laughable . . . and you do the same with Noah .. . even the Jews do not take most of those stories as flat truth or history but of traditional stories made to teach (only the more radical ones but nothing approaching the Christians). (which when the Christians broke off from but took the Jewish teachings – and are quite touchy about because of all of the contradictions in it – funny that)
“most stable wooden vessel possible “
If so super! and if the directions where there for all to see . . . . why did no one use that destine afterward? Seaworthiness? literalist websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. This is considerably longer than the schooner Wyoming, launched in 1909 and the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built: it measured only 329.5 feet (100 m) and needed iron cross-bracing to counter warping and a steam pump to handle a serious leak problem. “The construction and use histories of [late 19th-century wooden European] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships. . . . man Noah was good! And the web site that “proves” that it would work . . . can we say a boat load of assumptions on a few lines of text . . .
Also literalists date the story to happen at around 3402 and 2462 BC, Though we have historical evidence of other civilizations thriving at that point . . oops.
Those older flood stories where around long before any Jewish scribes embellish them . . in fact you can watch how they become more grandiose and change for the times as the moved from culture to culture. Fascinating and VERY human.
But I am sure you can rewrite history, cherry pick information, and obfuscate facts to your own end . . . . Science will march on and resolve the “blurry” areas by observing, testing and using that to predict outcomes and add to our growing knowledge, you will continue to stamp your feet and say “No No NO my old book says otherwise” stamp your feet, make personal attacks and crazy accusations . . basically a sore need to grow up a bit and face reality . . this is a good thing to do and is not shameful if it takes a while . . since early indoctrination into religious fantasy can be quite long lasting.
Utnapishtim’s ark—this was a huge cube! It is harder to think of a more ridiculous design for a ship “
two points here . . first . . you would call that a barge . . .second it is a STORY, a STORY it is not real . . the story has to do with the search for immortality, you are trying to make it real event . . Laughable . . . and you do the same with Noah .. . even the Jews do not take most of those stories as flat truth or history but of traditional stories made to teach (only the more radical ones but nothing approaching the Christians). (which when the Christians broke off from but took the Jewish teachings – and are quite touchy about because of all of the contradictions in it – funny that)
Yes, you would call that a barge. But, a barge built in the shape of a cube, given the impending disaster to come is rather silly. Furthermore, unlike Uey, Noah isn’t searching for immortality and nothing in the Genesis account suggest he would be granted such. Rather strange, considering the Jews supposedly stole the Ark account from the Babylonians.
“Even the Jews don’t take…….” My, my my!!! Aren’t we painting with a broad brush.
If so super! and if the directions where there for all to see . . . . why did no one use that destine afterward? .
Perhaps, the reason no one used such a design afterwards is because there wasn’t a second worldwide flood, requiring the stoage of several thousand animals for a year.
Seaworthiness? literalist websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. This is considerably longer than the schooner Wyoming, launched in 1909 and the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built: it measured only 329.5 feet (100 m) and needed iron cross-bracing to counter warping and a steam pump to handle a serious leak problem. “The construction and use histories of [late 19th-century wooden European] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships. . . . man Noah was good! And the web site that “proves” that it would work . . . can we say a boat load of assumptions on a few lines of text . .
I’m sorry! Didn’t you just state that you could call the Ark (or at least, the one in the Epic) a barge? By that logic, Noah’s Ark was a “barge”, too. All it has to do is stay stable; the Ark didn’t need to be navigated for one simple reason: There was nowhere to go.
“man, Noah was good!” He had plenty of help! :)
Also literalists date the story to happen at around 3402 and 2462 BC, Though we have historical evidence of other civilizations thriving at that point . . oops.
We also have historical evidence that these other “thriving” civilizations (i.e. the Chinese and the Egyptians) have similar accounts of a global flood……OOPS!!, indeed.
Those older flood stories where around long before any Jewish scribes embellish them . . in fact you can watch how they become more grandiose and change for the times as the moved from culture to culture. Fascinating and VERY human.
But I am sure you can rewrite history, cherry pick information, and obfuscate facts to your own end . . . .
And where, oh, where did they get such a concept that, deities notwithstanding, at some point in Earth’s history, the planet was destroyed by a global flood, with only a handful of humans surviving, by building a vessel and collecting animals?
Incidentially, the ancient Chinese word for “boat” is comprised of three characters that translated into “eight-mouth-vessel (mouth, as in “mouths to feed”). How many people were on Noah’s ark, again? EIGHT!!! What a coincidence!!!
Science will march on and resolve the “blurry” areas by observing, testing and using that to predict outcomes and add to our growing knowledge, you will continue to stamp your feet and say “No No NO my old book says otherwise” stamp your feet, make personal attacks and crazy accusations . . basically a sore need to grow up a bit and face reality . . this is a good thing to do and is not shameful if it takes a while . . since early indoctrination into religious fantasy can be quite long lasting.
Science is indeed marching onward, and it’s stepping right on Team “Goo-to-you….”’s toes, hence one of the reasons this forum exists in the first place. And this is simply from ONE museum. If AiG creates a second one, the evolutionists are going to have a stroke.
As for the rest of your little quip, first, what make you think that there was any “early indoctrination”, regarding my religious beliefs. Once again, we have skeptics that keep forgetting that many Christians became such, who did NOT grow in Christian homes or were at one time atheists. I know that’s a rather strange concept for you, but that’s a fact.
Not to mention that many Creation scientists were ONCE evolutionists. It was their observing and testing that led them to believe that this planet ain’t billions of years old and eventually, they became Christians.
“Once again, we have skeptics that keep forgetting that many Christians became such, who did NOT grow in Christian homes or were at one time atheists. I know that’s a rather strange concept for you, but that’s a fact. “
“Not to mention that many Creation scientists were ONCE evolutionists. It was their observing and testing that led them to believe that this planet ain’t billions of years old and eventually, they became Christians. “
Ah the common retort . . There are other reasons to become religions (and not just Christian) this goes from Social pressure, Marriage pressure, a crisis, active indoctrination, etc. . In fact I know people that will believe in just about anything, From Aliens to Atlantis . . and also now “born again” Christians and may move to something else shortly. They are just casting around for something to believe in. and there are allot of these people . . one good reason there are allot of cults out there . .big business.
Also scientists are human and can have a crisis, be indoctrinated, or often become Christian for marriage purposes etc. The funny thing is there are VERY few . . BUT you only highlight the few rather then the grand majority.
“unlike Uey, Noah isn’t searching for immortality and nothing in the Genesis account suggest he would be granted such. Rather strange, considering the Jews supposedly stole the Ark account from the Babylonians. ”
Missing the point again . . . The Gilgamesh story, happens to be the earliest in the region, there are many variations, all using similar themes or story elements. Again you can see them evolve as stories do over time . . This one happens to be a very early one that ALL would have known . . unlike the more complex later versions. These theme locally got around (since in reality there WAS a great flood of the region . . .REGION . . flooding of the black sea area is looking like the source for all of the flood myths in the area - - - HARDLY the WORLD!)
Most Flood myths have to do with local disasters (which is from there POV the entire world) and again these are Embellish over time and mutate to quite different stories USED for different purposes.
Also these stories along with many other that are intertwined in other local biblical stories where region wide . . All cultures used these common stories. (the Israelites had these stories along with all of the other civilizations of the region long before “enslaved by Babylon“ . . which you wrongly assumed I meant was the point of transfer.
Also other Non local flood myths do NOT coincide in story OR time frame. What IS a common thread is that humans are often killed in great numbers by floods because often the “best” areas are near rivers, lakes, and seas. And it still happens today . . with big events and loss of life comes big stories.
“Perhaps, the reason no one used such a design afterwards is because there wasn’t a second worldwide flood, requiring the stoage of several thousand animals for a year. “
?? SO, as stated it was a GREAT super design as stated by the enthusiasts you boaster you claims on (that could have been used for commercial purposes) . . .and never used again . . Even variations? Since the ratio was supposedly the “good” part (since very little other detail is there) . . .
Also “several thousand animals for a year” Are you kidding? That is the Biggest, drive the truck through, hole in the entire thing . . The diversity of life was not known then so it was not a biggy, but from our modern stand point . . you would be hard pressed to house ALL the creatures from a single region let alone the world. (the small creatures alone would take a lifetime just to catalog, let alone catch and car for), Also, survival and food . . another OVERLOOKED area, we have a hard enough time keeping creatures alive in captivity even now that we understand more about them, pack them in close courters for a few months . . AND have enough food? How about creatures that require nectar, fresh fruit, other creatures flesh, etc (the the Etc goes on and on) . .
and where are the Kangaroos, the Tortoises, the Rattlesnakes, Trap door spiders, great apes, humming birds, bats, centipedes . . etc etc etc etc etc etc . . .
Laughable to the extreme . . . . (waiting for the rationalization)
Add to that, the concept of the Hebrews, again not known for their naval architectural skills, having the wherewithal to change a cube into a rectangular barge (that just happens to have the ideal length to width ration for stability) is rather absurd.
really? About as absurd as the very non “jewish” Jesus images currently accepted as the real face of Jesus, or all of the other images and interpretations from a time where few people understands the culture or tech of that older time that are embellished with “of the Time” or “in OUR image” depictions? I find it quite probable that the details where added at a later date (since we can SEE it bing done). And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
“Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible, which would include Genesis, where the Flood account is located) was in circulation among the Hebrews LONG before they became enslaved by Babylon. ”
But not in there current form and not close to what is current in the Christian form (and like said earlier the transfer of these stories happened quite earlier). . you may want to look at the massive changes that happened after the creation of the northern/southern kingdoms. These are well documented but often purposely overlooked by Christians because of the need to have one “unwavering” truth spanning the ages . . .
“ancient Chinese “??
Oh really :) what dialect? And site your source . . . (How many people were on Noah’s ark, again? EIGHT!!! What a coincidence!!! ) Now you are REALLY reaching . . .
Also did not the Chinese flood myth include a 22 YEAR flood . . people in mountain caves . . other gods . . NO ships . .and dragons . . .
Did I say cherry picking?
The lengths people go to attempt to prove a myth as real astounds.
I have made UFO fakes in the past to highlite the stubbornness of “true believers” . . . These images are now shown as “real” proof, even after I self debunked them (showed all of the CG elements and everything) . . they still think they are real . . . “true believers” just believe and will argue and make up fantasy to cover them. It is interesting and scary that people are like that . . .and that the subject matter is often irrelevant.
Ah the common retort . . There are other reasons to become religions (and not just Christian) this goes from Social pressure, Marriage pressure, a crisis, active indoctrination, etc. . In fact I know people that will believe in just about anything, From Aliens to Atlantis . . and also now “born again” Christians and may move to something else shortly. They are just casting around for something to believe in. and there are allot of these people . . one good reason there are allot of cults out there . .big business.
A common retort to a common blurb by Biblical skeptics. Come up with something new and business will pick up.
Also scientists are human and can have a crisis, be indoctrinated, or often become Christian for marriage purposes etc. The funny thing is there are VERY few . . BUT you only highlight the few rather then the grand majority.
Or, they can (based on their own scientific inquiry) come to such conclusions, regarding their views on age of the Earth and life on this planet, which leads them to become Christians.
Missing the point again . . . The Gilgamesh story, happens to be the earliest in the region, there are many variations, all using similar themes or story elements. Again you can see them evolve as stories do over time . . This one happens to be a very early one that ALL would have known . . unlike the more complex later versions. These theme locally got around (since in reality there WAS a great flood of the region . . .REGION . . flooding of the black sea area is looking like the source for all of the flood myths in the area - - - HARDLY the WORLD!)
Most Flood myths have to do with local disasters (which is from there POV the entire world) and again these are Embellish over time and mutate to quite different stories USED for different purposes.
It seems you’re missing the point. You claimed that the Hebrews specifically stole the Gilgamesh Epic, and used it to make the Genesis account of the Flood. Yet, you’ve shown nothing that would suggest such. You claim there was embellishment; where is it? Again, how is it that the Jewish people just happen to use a 6:1 length-to-width ratio (regarding the dimensions of Noah’s Ark), when the alleged originators failed to do the same (combined with the Hebrews’ lack of reputation for naval architecture)??
Also other Non local flood myths do NOT coincide in story OR time frame. What IS a common thread is that humans are often killed in great numbers by floods because often the “best” areas are near rivers, lakes, and seas. And it still happens today . . with big events and loss of life comes big stories.
Floods happen quickly and suddenly (often without warning). And, the general method of surviving such is fleeing for higher ground, NOT building a structure and trying to float it out. Doing the latter implies that the people KNEW when the Flood was coming and its magnitude.
Also “several thousand animals for a year” Are you kidding? That is the Biggest, drive the truck through, hole in the entire thing . . The diversity of life was not known then so it was not a biggy, but from our modern stand point . . you would be hard pressed to house ALL the creatures from a single region let alone the world. (the small creatures alone would take a lifetime just to catalog, let alone catch and car for
Also, survival and food . . another OVERLOOKED area, we have a hard enough time keeping creatures alive in captivity even now that we understand more about them, pack them in close courters for a few months . . AND have enough food? How about creatures that require nectar, fresh fruit, other creatures flesh, etc (the the Etc goes on and on) . .
and where are the Kangaroos, the Tortoises, the Rattlesnakes, Trap door spiders, great apes, humming birds, bats, centipedes . . etc etc etc etc etc etc . . .
Laughable to the extreme . . . . (waiting for the rationalization)
I covered that sometime ago, via a link I posted. But, just to refresh your memory:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals
More can be found in the book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, from which that link is based.
About as absurd as the very non “jewish” Jesus images currently accepted as the real face of Jesus, or all of the other images and interpretations from a time where few people understands the culture or tech of that older time that are embellished with “of the Time” or “in OUR image” depictions? I find it quite probable that the details where added at a later date (since we can SEE it bing done). And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
I thought you said that such would be a BARGE (at least, when you were making reference to the cubic “ark” in the Epic of Gilgamesh”). The Ark wasn’t a ship for one simple reason: Ships are vessels that get navigated in water to go from one point to another. The Ark needed no navigation, because there was NOWHERE for it to go. All it needs to do is stay afloat and stable.
But not in there current form and not close to what is current in the Christian form (and like said earlier the transfer of these stories happened quite earlier). . you may want to look at the massive changes that happened after the creation of the northern/southern kingdoms. These are well documented but often purposely overlooked by Christians because of the need to have one “unwavering” truth spanning the ages . . .
When did the dimensions of the Ark get changed and what were they before this alleged change?
Let’s see a copy of Genesis that has a copy of the Ark’s dimensions as being other than 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.
really? About as absurd as the very non “jewish” Jesus images currently accepted as the real face of Jesus, or all of the other images and interpretations from a time where few people understands the culture or tech of that older time that are embellished with “of the Time” or “in OUR image” depictions? I find it quite probable that the details where added at a later date (since we can SEE it bing done). And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
Modern ships don’t use a 6:1 length-to-width ratio?
“ancient Chinese “??
Oh really :) what dialect? And site your source . . . (How many people were on Noah’s ark, again? EIGHT!!! What a coincidence!!! ) Now you are REALLY reaching . . .
Also did not the Chinese flood myth include a 22 YEAR flood . . people in mountain caves . . other gods . . NO ships . .and dragons . . .
Did I say cherry picking?
Let’s see:
This is begging the question. The point is that if the biblical history is true, the Chinese people would be descended from Noah and his family. Even if they had forgotten this aspect of their history, the claim would be that the characters are evidence of that part of Chinese history.
However, the Chinese classic called the Hihking tells how the “family of Fuhi,” was saved from a great flood. It says that the entire land was flooded, including the mountains and one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider Fuhi to be the father of their civilization. The Flood was survived only by Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters. Being the only people left alive, they repopulated the world.
Lets see: We have Fuhi and his wife that’s two. We have their sons, that’s three and we have their daughters, that’s three.
That’s 2 + 3 + 3 = 8.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2001/bb-01-54.htm “Panning for Traces of the Flood”.
So China does have a Flood legend that has eight people in an Ark.
And, didn’t you just state that the Flood was “regional”. Last time I checked, China was not “regional to Israel or Babylon. There’s a reason why China is part of the “Far East”; where as Israel and Babylon are in the “Middle East”.
And, to reiterate, the ancient Chinese word for “boat” translates “eight-mouth-vessel”
The lengths people go to attempt to prove a myth as real astounds.
I have made UFO fakes in the past to highlite the stubbornness of “true believers” . . . These images are now shown as “real” proof, even after I self debunked them (showed all of the CG elements and everything) . . they still think they are real . . . “true believers” just believe and will argue and make up fantasy to cover them. It is interesting and scary that people are like that . . .and that the subject matter is often irrelevant.
Unfortunately, we ain’t talking about UFOs. You haven’t shown any “fakes”. You haven’t shown that the Hebrews stole or borrowed the Genesis flood account from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. You haven’t shown that the original Genesis account that allegedly has the Ark’s dimensions as anything other than 300X50X30 (length, width, and height, respectively, in cubits).
You’ve merely re-hashed a bunch of skeptics takes that have long been refuted.
Ah the common retort . . There are other reasons to become religions (and not just Christian) this goes from Social pressure, Marriage pressure, a crisis, active indoctrination, etc. . In fact I know people that will believe in just about anything, From Aliens to Atlantis . . and also now “born again” Christians and may move to something else shortly. They are just casting around for something to believe in. and there are allot of these people . . one good reason there are allot of cults out there . .big business.
A common retort to a common blurb by Biblical skeptics. Come up with something new and business will pick up.
Also scientists are human and can have a crisis, be indoctrinated, or often become Christian for marriage purposes etc. The funny thing is there are VERY few . . BUT you only highlight the few rather then the grand majority.
Or, they can (based on their own scientific inquiry) come to such conclusions, regarding their views on age of the Earth and life on this planet, which leads them to become Christians. I believe there’s a guy here, named Rob, who fits that category.
Missing the point again . . . The Gilgamesh story, happens to be the earliest in the region, there are many variations, all using similar themes or story elements. Again you can see them evolve as stories do over time . . This one happens to be a very early one that ALL would have known . . unlike the more complex later versions. These theme locally got around (since in reality there WAS a great flood of the region . . .REGION . . flooding of the black sea area is looking like the source for all of the flood myths in the area - - - HARDLY the WORLD!)
Most Flood myths have to do with local disasters (which is from there POV the entire world) and again these are Embellish over time and mutate to quite different stories USED for different purposes.
You were saying something about “common retorts”?
There are many descriptions of the remarkable event. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America (So much for the “regional” stuff). It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4
It seems you’re missing the point. You claimed that the Hebrews specifically stole the Gilgamesh Epic and used it to make the Genesis account of the Flood. Yet, you’ve shown nothing that would suggest such. You claim there was embellishment; where is it? Again, how is it that the Jewish people just happen to use a 6:1 length-to-width ratio (regarding the dimensions of Noah’s Ark), when the alleged originators failed to do the same (combined with the Hebrews’ lack of reputation for naval architecture)??
Also other Non local flood myths do NOT coincide in story OR time frame. What IS a common thread is that humans are often killed in great numbers by floods because often the “best” areas are near rivers, lakes, and seas. And it still happens today . . with big events and loss of life comes big stories.
Another common thread is that floods happen quickly and suddenly (often without warning). And, the general method of surviving such is fleeing for higher ground, NOT building a structure and trying to float it out. Doing the latter implies that the people KNEW when the Flood was coming and its magnitude.
Also “several thousand animals for a year” Are you kidding? That is the Biggest, drive the truck through, hole in the entire thing . . The diversity of life was not known then so it was not a biggy, but from our modern stand point . . you would be hard pressed to house ALL the creatures from a single region let alone the world. (the small creatures alone would take a lifetime just to catalog, let alone catch and car for
Also, survival and food . . another OVERLOOKED area, we have a hard enough time keeping creatures alive in captivity even now that we understand more about them, pack them in close courters for a few months . . AND have enough food? How about creatures that require nectar, fresh fruit, other creatures flesh, etc (the the Etc goes on and on) . .
and where are the Kangaroos, the Tortoises, the Rattlesnakes, Trap door spiders, great apes, humming birds, bats, centipedes . . etc etc etc etc etc etc . . .
Laughable to the extreme . . . . (waiting for the rationalization)
I covered that sometime ago, via a link I posted. But, just to refresh your memory:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals
More can be found in the book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, from which that link is based.
About as absurd as the very non “jewish” Jesus images currently accepted as the real face of Jesus, or all of the other images and interpretations from a time where few people understands the culture or tech of that older time that are embellished with “of the Time” or “in OUR image” depictions? I find it quite probable that the details where added at a later date (since we can SEE it bing done). And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
Ships don’t use a 6:1 length-to-width ratio? I suggest you check some shipbuilders’ guides.
Besides, I thought you said that the Ark was a BARGE (at least, when you were making reference to the cubic “ark” in the Epic of Gilgamesh”). The Ark wasn’t a ship (in the purest sense) for one simple reason: Ships are vessels that get navigated in water to go from one point to another. The Ark needed no navigation, because there was NOWHERE for it to go. All it needs to do is stay afloat and stable.
But not in there current form and not close to what is current in the Christian form (and like said earlier the transfer of these stories happened quite earlier). . you may want to look at the massive changes that happened after the creation of the northern/southern kingdoms. These are well documented but often purposely overlooked by Christians because of the need to have one “unwavering” truth spanning the ages . . .
So, when did the dimensions of the Ark get changed and what were they before this alleged change?
Let’s see a copy of Genesis that has a copy of the Ark’s dimensions as being other than 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.
really? About as absurd as the very non “jewish” Jesus images currently accepted as the real face of Jesus, or all of the other images and interpretations from a time where few people understands the culture or tech of that older time that are embellished with “of the Time” or “in OUR image” depictions? I find it quite probable that the details where added at a later date (since we can SEE it bing done). And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
Modern ships don’t use a 6:1 length-to-width ratio?
“ancient Chinese “??
Oh really :) what dialect? And site your source . . . (How many people were on Noah’s ark, again? EIGHT!!! What a coincidence!!! ) Now you are REALLY reaching . . .
Also did not the Chinese flood myth include a 22 YEAR flood . . people in mountain caves . . other gods . . NO ships . .and dragons . . .
Did I say cherry picking?
Let’s see:
This is begging the question. The point is that if the biblical history is true, the Chinese people would be descended from Noah and his family. Even if they had forgotten this aspect of their history, the claim would be that the characters are evidence of that part of Chinese history.
However, the Chinese classic called the Hihking tells how the “family of Fuhi,” was saved from a great flood. It says that the entire land was flooded, including the mountains and one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider Fuhi to be the father of their civilization. The Flood was survived only by Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters. Being the only people left alive, they repopulated the world.
Lets see: We have Fuhi and his wife that’s two. We have their sons, that’s three and we have their daughters, that’s three.
That’s 2 + 3 + 3 = 8.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2001/bb-01-54.htm “Panning for Traces of the Flood”.
So China does have a Flood legend that has eight people in an Ark.
And, didn’t you just state that the Flood was “regional”. Last time I checked, China was not “regional” to Israel or Babylon. There’s a reason why China is part of the “Far East”; where as Israel and Babylon were/are in the “Middle East”.
And, to reiterate, the ancient Chinese word for “boat” translates “eight-mouth-vessel”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences16.html
The lengths people go to attempt to prove a myth as real astounds.
I have made UFO fakes in the past to highlite the stubbornness of “true believers” . . . These images are now shown as “real” proof, even after I self debunked them (showed all of the CG elements and everything) . . they still think they are real . . . “true believers” just believe and will argue and make up fantasy to cover them. It is interesting and scary that people are like that . . .and that the subject matter is often irrelevant.
Unfortunately, we ain’t talking about UFOs. You haven’t shown any “fakes”. You haven’t shown that the Hebrews stole or borrowed the Genesis flood account from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. You haven’t shown that the original Genesis account that allegedly has the Ark’s dimensions as anything other than 300×50x30 (length, width, and height, respectively, in cubits).
You’ve merely re-hashed a bunch of skeptics takes that have long been refuted
From Erog:
And the “ideal length to width ration for stability” is still rather a funny . .since the fictional ship suffers from a real stability problem from the wide flat bottom hull, and that the “ideal ratio” was in plain sight but never used again?!
Never used again, huh!? Then, laugh at this!
(From the 2007 Cargo Ship Challenge, by the Maryland Association of Appraiers)
Judging Guidlines:
III. DESIGN AND FABRICATION.
The model must be scaled 1″=10′0″ (1:120) and conform to these basic specifications:
The sum of the overall length (L) and beam (B) (beam = width, by the way) shall not exceed 660 feet (66 inches).
Appendages such as rudders are not included in these limits, so long as they are reasonable and necessary to the proper functioning of the vessel. The ratio of length to beam must be in the range
3:1 to 6:1.
http://www.thebmi.org/library/CARGOSHIPRules2007.pdf
Imagine that! Modern shipbuilders use the same length-to-width ratio that Noah used for building the Ark long ago, to ensure stability. And this is for holding CARGO, something I believe Noah had.
Now, where, oh where, is your support for your claim that the Hebrews took the Genesis account from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, especially since the Epic uses a CUBE for its “ark”, one of the worst designs possible for stability (especially under violent conditions)?
I wonder MCWAY if God made the ark cube shaped…. do you think he could of made it survive the journey?
Oh, I almost forgot. There’s the little matter of your showing that the Hebrews stole the Ark story from the Babylonians’ Epic of Gilgamesh and “embellished” it.
Of course, it doesn’t help matters that the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible, which would include Genesis, where the Flood account is located) was in circulation among the Hebrews LONG before they became enslaved by Babylon.
Add to that, the concept of the Hebrews, again not known for their naval architectural skills, having the wherewithal to change a cube into a rectangular barge (that just happens to have the ideal length to width ration for stability) is rather absurd.
Funny really…. you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t believe the evidence. Where’s the evidence for Noah’s flood? I expect that it must be easy to scientifically prove a global flood?
So far you’ve put links to websites that “claim” it might be “possible”. But surely you must have had some pretty strong evidence to actually believe it? I mean you wouldn’t rubbish evolution because of a lack of evidence; and then say you believe in the flood without some pretty conclusive evidence?
MCWAY - what do you make of…
Matthew 8:
16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”
Matthew 9:
32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. 33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel.”
Do you believe that demons are the cause of illnesses?
Being that demons are supernatural beings, that’s certainly possible (as evident in the passages you mentioned) that they are A cause of illness. That does not equate to demons being THE cause of illnesses.
You’re assuming that all of the people that Jesus healed had their ailments attributed to demon possession.
If you go back a few verses in Matthew 8, you note that Jesus healed someone who was “sick of the palsy”, the centurion’s servant.
Jesus also healed Peter’s mother-in-law, who was described as “sick of fever” in verse 14.
And He does that BEFORE He is presented with the “many who were possessed”. There is a clear distinction between run-of-the-mill ailments and demon posession
Verse 16 states that Jesus drove out spirits AND healed all that were sick. That doesn’t neccesarily equate sickness with being possessed.
Anyone whom Jesus healed clearly had, for lack of a better term, regular infirmities, unless the text specifically mentions otherwise.
Where’s you evidence that Demons exist.
Incidentally… here’s another MCWAY quote…
You’re assuming that all of the people that Jesus healed had their ailments attributed to demon possession.
… Hmm, again you presume that I assume. MCWAY I don’t believe demons. Just like I don’t believe in the boogy man, zues, etc… etc…
What I was doing was getting you (MCWAY), the supporter of science and reason to admit you believe that demons cause illnesses.
Try again!!!
What you asked was whether I believed that demons were THE
cause of illnesses. To that effort, you used two verses (woefully out of context, I might add) to make the case that Matthew attributed all sickness to demon possession.
What I did was show the verses (in the same chapter, I might add) in which Jesus heals those that were sick, with the specific ailment listed.
The point, which you missed by a country mile, was that demon posession and run-of-the-mill illnesses are two different things.
… Hmm, again you presume that I assume. MCWAY I don’t believe demons. Just like I don’t believe in the boogy man, zues, etc… etc…
What I was doing was getting you (MCWAY), the supporter of science and reason to admit you believe that demons cause illnesses
But you do believe that a blob of 5-billion-year-old “goo” and “Unga-Munga, the caveman” were your ancestors. Go figure.
I’m beginning to think you’re a little weird MCWAY… again you assume you’re a step ahead, but you’re not. The whole point of my post was to get you to …
A. Admit you believe in Demons.
B. Admit you believe that Demons can cause illness.
I was hoping by posing the question in the way I did, that you’d defend your position as you did. You might say it’s a loaded question MCWAY.
The fact remains folks that MCWAY the person who claims to support science and reason believes in Demons, and that through possession they ‘can’ cause illness! Ha! MCWAY where is the scientific evidence for this??? Please tell us!
You say you only reject evolution (which clearly isn’t true) but in reality you must now admit you reject any science that refutes the bible. Medical science wouldn’t agree with anyone who gave ‘demon possession’ as a prognosis, for example.
Again you criticise evolution… which is the best explanation of the evidences from the various natural sciences that explains the world around us. Surely it makes sense to support this theory?
This forum is still waiting for you to show the evidence for your beliefs! Shall we start with Demons? Perhaps you’d like to admit now that you take ‘faith’ over scientific evidence? Are you strong enough to admit this? Can you stop wrapping yourself in the flag of science and expose that ‘faith’ is the keystone of your theology?
PS… I love this quote from you…
“Big deal!! The Bible didn’t attribute all sicknesses to demons, a fact I explained to Shaunie not too long ago.”
MCWAY - Please don’t assume that you have a greater knowledge of, or that you’re explaining the bible to me. I studied the bible for the first 18 years of my life, my education was supported heavily by theology, I was groomed to be a minister, I’ve studied a lot of the famous theology, including the more modern McGrath, Brueggemann etc…
PPS. Why don’t you try again…. where is your scientific evidence?
until very recently medical science attributed autism to cold, distant mothers. at what point did “medical science” become infallible?
Who is claiming it’s infallible? Isn’t it great though that medical science moved forward and the ‘refrigerator mother’ idea has been dropped in the light of evidence.
How long are you going to stick to your idea that Demons can cause illness? Isn’t it time you moved on?
Are you going to offer evidence for Demon possession being a cause of illness?
Perhaps you could admit you just take your belief in Demons (and the fact they could give you a rather nasty cold) on faith rather than evidence?
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-24 04:48:48
Who is claiming it’s infallible? Isn’t it great though that medical science moved forward and the ‘refrigerator mother’ idea has been dropped in the light of evidence. ”
***you are. you clearly beleive that whatever you read science believes at this moment must be right. as i said, it was believers in the truth of genesis that knew all along the universe had a beginning, and a believer that proposed continental drift centuries before “modern science” caught up.
“How long are you going to stick to your idea that Demons can cause illness? Isn’t it time you moved on?”
***how long are you going to assert i claim things i do not. i specifically said i do not beleive the bible says demons cause illness. i specifically aske dyou to show me it does. then you say i am stickign to an idea that demons cause illness. FOCUS!
“Are you going to offer evidence for Demon possession being a cause of illness? ”
***no. i never said it was.
“Perhaps you could admit you just take your belief in Demons (and the fact they could give you a rather nasty cold) on faith rather than evidence?”
***i readily admit my belief in their existence is based on reasoned and evidenced belief that God exists and reasoned and evidenced belief that scriptures represent his communication to man, and FAITH that it is accurate and truthful.
I never said it was infallible… didn’t I mention in my post that science moves forward? Surely even a simpleton would of caught that?
The bible clearly states that demons possessed people in the bible - and caused illnesses. Are you saying MCWAY is wrong?
Why do you need FAITH if you have evidence?
I asked you to show me where the bible attributes illness to demons.
See the first post?
Sorry, just remembered you said I took the scriptures quoted out of context… in what way?
I quoted two scriptures that talk about demon possession in relation to illnesses. Then I asked a question about demons and illnesses.
Please explain to me how this is ‘out of context’? Sorry to ask you for ‘evidence’ again but I’m clearly confused… perhaps you could “explain” some more stuff to me.
Much modern Christian theology disagrees with literal supernatural beings causing the illness in those ‘out of context’ quotes. I can only assume that these scriptures are ‘out of context’ in these works too!?
there you go again……….
“I quoted two scriptures that talk about demon possession in relation to illnesses. Then I asked a question about demons and illnesses.
Matthew 8:
16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”
Matthew 9:
32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. 33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel.”
Do you believe that demons are the cause of illnesses?”
***first, demonstrate where in those scriptures demons are claimed to be the cause of illness? i see in both that the two are clearly seperated. the man who wa sdemon posessed was no longer mute. inability to speak was attributed to the demon, not an illness.
“Much modern Christian theology disagrees with literal supernatural beings causing the illness in those ‘out of context’ quotes.”
***1)what is “modern christian theology”?
2)examples?
Another thing MCWAY - you seem to agree that species adapt… adapt considerably in fact. Do you believe, for example, that… Lions and Tigers ‘adapted’ from a common animal? Did God create Lions and Tigers separately?
Did god create one of each species type and let the diversity we see today happen? That is… did he create one horse, one cat, one dog, etc… etc…? Each species then adapted into the different flavours of animal we see today?
If you refute evolution, I’d like to hear what the alternative is. Perhaps we could discuss how your creationist view point explains the world around us?
Clearly, the animal that lions and tigers descended from had the genetic information that is presently available to either species - so speciation can be demonstrated to occur by loss of genetic information, NOT by random mutation preserved by natural selection. That is good science. however, this is NOT what Darwinian evoution proposes. Evolution states speciation occurs by a series of random genetic mutaitons that randomly, at certain times, increase natural survivability and reproduction of that mutation and NEW genetic information. This is pure philosophical speculation, NOT science. It has never bene demonstrated, and in fact every attempt results in demonstrating that mutations are nearly always harmful, at best neutral, and acucmulations of them are always harmful.
In addition, you seem unaware of the difference between operational science, which can be demonstrated by reproducible experiments, and historical or forensic science, which relies on extropolations and evidence which can be interpreted differently.
For example, the fossil record overwhelmingly demonstrates the sudden appearance of species, their continuance over long periods of time without change, then a sudden disappearance. with VERY rare possible exceptions, this is accurate, but because of a priori philosophical dogma, and because thats where the grant money is, wild, ever changing speculations are madeon an almost continual basis. anyone who actually follows paleontology at all is aware of this years truth becoming next years nonsense.
What?
Firstly… are you saying that (using the example) the ancestor of the lion and tiger had all the genetic information present in the animals we see today? To put it another way - are you saying that the lion and tiger are somehow less genetically diverse than their common ancestor? To clarify further, are you saying that you believe the lion and tiger have no unique genetic information compared to their common ancestor?
Again, I love the way you’ve assumed I’m “unaware of the difference between operational science…. and historical or forensic science”. Science what’s that?!
Your description of the fossil record isn’t “accurate” as you state.
Evolution is not an “a priori philosophical dogma”… it’s practically the opposite. A fact that you so clearly alluded to yourself… I quote “wild, ever changing speculations are madeon an almost continual basis”. Do you actually understand what you’re writing? If you do… why contradict yourself so clearly?
I’m curious as to your alternative to evolution? You seem to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the natural world, however you’ve not offered an alternative for the world around us.
Clearly science and critical thinking are important to you… you seem quite passionate about it? How would you explain the diversity around us?
You seem to agree (at the very least) that geology shows the earth is ‘very’ old (QUOTE: the “fossil record overwhelmingly demonstrates the sudden appearance of species, their continuance over long periods of time without change”).
Clearly ‘you feel’ that there is a lack of scientific evidence for evolution, and that scientists just take it on ‘faith’ that it is correct… ‘you feel’ it’s a dogmatic field. I’m sure you must have some pretty striking verifiable and falsifiable evidence for your beliefs….
PLEASE SHARE!
Firstly… are you saying that (using the example) the ancestor of the lion and tiger had all the genetic information present in the animals we see today? To put it another way - are you saying that the lion and tiger are somehow less genetically diverse than their common ancestor? To clarify further, are you saying that you believe the lion and tiger have no unique genetic information compared to their common ancestor?
***yes, I am. On what basis would you dispute that? We know historically this applies to all cattle and all dogs today.
Again, I love the way you’ve assumed I’m “unaware of the difference between operational science…. and historical or forensic science”. Science what’s that?!
***First, I said you SEEM unaware, based on a lack of seperation in thoughts concerning the two.
Your description of the fossil record isn’t “accurate” as you state.
***In what way? I can not answer without specifics.
Evolution is not an “a priori philosophical dogma”… it’s practically the opposite. A fact that you so clearly alluded to yourself… I quote “wild, ever changing speculations are madeon an almost continual basis”. Do you actually understand what you’re writing? If you do… why contradict yourself so clearly?
***Evolution per se is not. What i said was the way the theory is treated because it is the best purely naturalistic theory IS. It DOES assume a priori that there can be no Creator, or at least one we can have any knwoledge of. It does demand that at the very least all life arose according to the inherent structure or property of matter/energy. In practical terms, once the existence of a Creator is allowed even as a possibility, then much common evidence is best predicted and explained by such a “being”.
I’m curious as to your alternative to evolution? You seem to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the natural world, however you’ve not offered an alternative for the world around us.
***If you prefer, I can begin with a rational basis for the belief in a creator, but to answer more succintly, I believe God created “kinds” of life (~ what we taxonomically call “families” or “order”, with great genetic diversity. I am open as to order and timing of such creation. I do not reject speciation, but believe it can only be demonstrated by operational science to be in a downward (decreasing complexity) direction.
Clearly science and critical thinking are important to you… you seem quite passionate about it? How would you explain the diversity around us?
***See above
You seem to agree (at the very least) that geology shows the earth is ‘very’ old (QUOTE: the “fossil record overwhelmingly demonstrates the sudden appearance of species, their continuance over long periods of time without change”).
***I agree MOST current evidence points in that direction, but my statement above does not demonstrate that, as i did not define “long”.
Clearly ‘you feel’ that there is a lack of scientific evidence for evolution, and that scientists just take it on ‘faith’ that it is correct… ‘you feel’ it’s a dogmatic field. I’m sure you must have some pretty striking verifiable and falsifiable evidence for your beliefs….
***If you are asking if special creation is falsifiable, it is so as much as Darwinian evolution. there are MANY areas of weakness and poor prediction in the htoery, but there always comes a magic wand to wave them away. Puncuated equilibrium wa sonl yproposed a sa theory because the burgeoning fossil record did NOT support evolution, and did not shwo what it wa spredicted it would show. If it did, there would exist no possible reason to propose it. Your statemen ti sunclear as to what you want me to defend, whether it is a lack of scientific evidence (not actually a precise statement of my belief), or that scientists take it on faith, or that it is a dogmatic field. Please clarify.
[Sigh]
I can see that this is going to be totally pointless - as you “seem” totally self deluded.
Genetics - Although I disagree with your viewpoint. I can only “assume” that you believe then that humans have come about through speciation. We are part of the Hominoidea family.
Fossils - I didn’t ask a question. Firstly, the fossil record is not required to prove evolution, however the small amount of information it does provide supports evolutionary models. Secondly the fossil record does not “overwhelmingly demonstrate” anything.
‘A priori’ Evolution - I’m glad you agree evolution is the best natural explanation, I’m sure millions are celebrating this fact as we speak. A few points,
1. Evolution does not a priori assume there is no creator. It has as much to say about a creator as the theory of gravity. Please stop talking rubbish.
2. There is no evidence for divine intervention in ‘evolutionary’ evidence or are there any gaps where evolution requires a ‘god’.
3. It’s clear your original statement that evolution is an “a priori philosophical dogma” is rubbish.
Long - You may not have defined long, but you set the scene by talking about the fossil record. I must “assume” then you talking about long in a ‘geological’ sense, ie millions of years.
Falsifiable - Evolution is perfectly falsifiable as JS Haldane quipped when ask for falsifiability “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian”. So again stop talking rubbish. Evolution is clearly falsifiable.
Clarity - I thought I was clear. Please provide evidence for your beliefs. Attempts to disprove evolution are not proofs of your beliefs.
I can see that this is going to be totally pointless - as you “seem” totally self deluded.
***1)why is “seem” in quotes?
2)make up your mind - am i brainwashed and controlled or self-deluded?
Genetics - Although I disagree with your viewpoint. I can only “assume” that you believe then that humans have come about through speciation. We are part of the Hominoidea family.
***1) why is “assume” in quotes?
2)no, you are incorrect. i did not say all life is a result of speciation.
Fossils - I didn’t ask a question. Firstly, the fossil record is not required to prove evolution, however the small amount of information it does provide supports evolutionary models. Secondly the fossil record does not “overwhelmingly demonstrate” anything.
***1)for what possible reasons would the fossil record NOT support evolution?
2)the fossil record provides VAST information, not a “small amount”.
3)what are some examples of the fossil record supporitng the theory that all life arose from a common ancestor via random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection? if that conforms to rality, then the fossil record should be a blur, not showing distinct classes unchange dove rtime.
‘A priori’ Evolution - I’m glad you agree evolution is the best natural explanation, I’m sure millions are celebrating this fact as we speak. A few points,
1. Evolution does not a priori assume there is no creator. It has as much to say about a creator as the theory of gravity. Please stop talking rubbish.
***this is contradictory. you admit it is the best purely naturalistic explanation, which by definition AP PRIORI assumes there is no creator. to set preconditions is not scientific or open minded.
2. There is no evidence for divine intervention in ‘evolutionary’ evidence or are there any gaps where evolution requires a ‘god’.
***of course there is. it is the SAME evidence, interpreted differently.
3. It’s clear your original statement that evolution is an “a priori philosophical dogma” is rubbish.
***that is an unsupported a priori assertion.
Long - You may not have defined long, but you set the scene by talking about the fossil record. I must “assume” then you talking about long in a ‘geological’ sense, ie millions of years.
***why must you assume that?
Falsifiable - Evolution is perfectly falsifiable as JS Haldane quipped when ask for falsifiability “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian”. So again stop talking rubbish. Evolution is clearly falsifiable.
***that would not falsfy evolutionary theory. that would be evidence against geological timelines. but why would we expect such a thing even if creation is true and evolution is not? in addition , there are thousands of out of order fossils that, as i have already stated, are dismissed, not because they do not exist, but because they do not fit the theory. when intact, elastic blood vessels with heme still in them were found in t rex bones, that was not seen as a falsification of anything, next question was only “how do blood vessels stay intact for 65 million years.
Clarity - I thought I was clear. Please provide evidence for your beliefs. Attempts to disprove evolution are not proofs of your beliefs.
***actually i am demonstrating weaknesses in the theroy, not attempting to disprove it, as i do not beleive it si falsifiable. when there are essentially only two choices, demonstrating one to be likely false IS support for th eothe rbeing true.
Dunno why “seem” is in quotes… why is it in caps in your post?
I think you are deluded personally.
Can’t imagine why “assume” is in quotes, can you?
Fossils - we’re lucky to have as many fossils as we do - they represent a tiny amount of information compared to the information lost. Surely you could of worked that out? It’s a commonly raised issue. I’m not sure how to answer your two contradictory questions.
Evolution does not specify there is no God. It has nothing to say on the matter. Evolution is called naturalistic, because it was thought that God created the forms of life on the earth - however evolution proposes no supernatural intervention is required. Surely you can understand this?
Falsification - yes it would. Nothing is dismissed, it’s all studied.
Given that your option has no evidence, how does it become more likely? If evolution is suddenly disproved, scientist wont all say “It must be God!”… I’d imagine they say… “Oh gosh, we don’t know - perhaps we’ll look at this new evidence”.
Dunno why “seem” is in quotes… why is it in caps in your post?
***it is in caps for emphasis. quotes are intended for…well, for quotes.
I think you are deluded personally.
***poor sentence structure. it is redundant to say i am something personally.
Can’t imagine why “assume” is in quotes, can you?
***no - who are you quoting?
Fossils - we’re lucky to have as many fossils as we do - they represent a tiny amount of information compared to the information lost. Surely you could of worked that out? It’s a commonly raised issue. I’m not sure how to answer your two contradictory questions.
***are you claiming the evidence for evolution just happens to be nearly exclusively among the “lost information”? why do you think the record as it is is not representative of the whole? how many fossils are necessary before we can draw conslusions from it?
Evolution does not specify there is no God. It has nothing to say on the matter. Evolution is called naturalistic, because it was thought that God created the forms of life on the earth - however evolution proposes no supernatural intervention is required. Surely you can understand this?
***it explcitly states there was no creator god. close enough.
Falsification - yes it would. Nothing is dismissed, it’s all studied.
***if that statement is true, please provide for me the studies into whether the t rex bone (bone, not fossil) was really 65 million years old.
Given that your option has no evidence, how does it become more likely? If evolution is suddenly disproved, scientist wont all say “It must be God!”… I’d imagine they say… “Oh gosh, we don’t know - perhaps we’ll look at this new evidence”.
***it is NOT given that there is no evidence. the fossil record record, DNA, and irreducibly complex biologicla systems are powerful evidence for creation. what you imagine does not conform to reality. there’s no money in it.
Rob, are you criticising my written English? That’s bloody rich coming from you. Looking at most of your posts I don’t think that’s a road you want to go down. I mean I could bang on about your lack of punctuation, bad spelling, terrible sentence structure (wow that sounds cool), etc… etc…
Shall we start with the last paragraph of your previous post… hmm… “biologicla”, I can’t find that in any dictionary? Incidentally, full stops are generally used at the end of a sentence; when starting a sentence I was always taught to use a capital letter. I’m not really clear what the “fossil record record” is, are we talking about the record of the “fossil record”?
Rob, sometimes it’s difficult to read your posts as they’re so poorly written. What I do is try to understand your point, rather than criticise your written style.
How about we put this little ‘written English’ debate behind us and move on?
*****
Fossils - I was just pointing out that most would find it difficult to say the “fossil record overwhelmingly demonstrates” anything.
Well Rob, I’m sure you looked long and hard for studies into that T-Rex issue. Of course, I’m sure you’ll have found that much of the study is still on going. I am sure you realise that the original discoverer Dr Mary Schweitzer is currently researching this remarkable find. Her papers:
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291
palaeontologia-electronica.earthsci.carleton.ca//2002_2/editor/r_and_p.pdf
Rogers has a neat little post here:
www.smm.org/buzz/blog/more_soft_tissue_recovered_from_fossils
Any scientist who found ‘real’ evidence of divine intervention certainly would not struggle for money.
As for irreducible complexity… it’s just stumbling around looking things ’science can’t explain’… science then studies them… finds out they’re not irreducible… and the process starts again.
The second paper should have www in front too!
Fossils - I was just pointing out that most would find it difficult to say the “fossil record overwhelmingly demonstrates” anything.
***but that is not true. most have no problem saying it demonstrates what it does, and does so overwhelmingly.
Well Rob, I’m sure you looked long and hard for studies into that T-Rex issue. Of course, I’m sure you’ll have found that much of the study is still on going. I am sure you realise that the original discoverer Dr Mary Schweitzer is currently researching this remarkable find. Her papers:
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291
palaeontologia-electronica.earthsci.carleton.ca//2002_2/editor/r_and_p.pdf
***actually i knew about ti shortly afte rit happened. i know what she is researching. back to my point (stay focused), where are the studies or questions concerning whether the bones are really 65 million years old? open minds an dgood science would demand this.
Rogers has a neat little post here:
www.smm.org/buzz/blog/more_soft_tissue_recovered_from_fossils
Any scientist who found ‘real’ evidence of divine intervention certainly would not struggle for money.
***i wa snot speaking of such a thing. i wa scommenting on any scientist who wanted funding for a study to see if dating of dinosaur fossils was wrong.
As for irreducible complexity… it’s just stumbling around looking things ’science can’t explain’… science then studies them… finds out they’re not irreducible… and the process starts again.
***huh? examples? in fact, it is about things science CAN explain, but evolutionary theory can not.
Rob - I’m sure many people are looking for new dating methods. Any scientist who developed a dating theory that could work, would get funding. Why do you think they wouldn’t? Where is your evidence for this lack of funding you are alluding too?
What exactly do you draw from Dr Schweitzer conclusions?
Again I love you’re little ’stay focused’ bit… you really do try to be patronising, firstly trying to criticise my written English and now my ‘focus’. This thread started with me asking “Perhaps we could discuss how your creationist view point explains the world around us?” If you were focused wouldn’t you be providing evidence that God created the dinosaurs (regardless of how old you think the bone is)?
As for ID - I include evolution as part of science. So my statement is still works. ID however, is not science.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 11:30:22
Rob - I’m sure many people are looking for new dating methods.”
***on what basis are you sure?
” Any scientist who developed a dating theory that could work, would get funding. Why do you think they wouldn’t? Where is your evidence for this lack of funding you are alluding too?”
***actually i asked whether anyone was considering whether our current dating was correct, not whether they were looking for new methods.
“What exactly do you draw from Dr Schweitzer conclusions?”
***that the paper you linked to was from 1999. there have been several since then.
“Again I love you’re little ’stay focused’ bit… you really do try to be patronising, firstly trying to criticise my written English and now my ‘focus’. This thread started with me asking “Perhaps we could discuss how your creationist view point explains the world around us?” If you were focused wouldn’t you be providing evidence that God created the dinosaurs (regardless of how old you think the bone is)?”
***stay focused was because you very often change the claim or the argument midstream, or misrepresent my own claims or arguments.
“As for ID - I include evolution as part of science. So my statement is still works. ID however, is not science.”
***neither one is science. both are theories that attempt to explain what we see. both use mostly the same evidence. both are historical speculations and philosophies. both begin with a priori assumptions (either a creator god is possible or it is not)
neithe rone cna be direclty demonstrated by the scientific method, however repeatable expreiments and empiricla evidence moslt ycomes down against darwinian evolution.
What are you talking about Rob? To refute a dating method, surely you’d have to come up with a new method to date?
Also I linked to a more recent paper. Did you read it? The conclusions should answer some of your questions.
I don’t change the claim… you do as I commented… as you ignored.
Again… evolution does not comment on the existence of a God. You repeatedly saying doesn’t make it true.
“however repeatable expreiments and empiricla evidence moslt ycomes down against darwinian evolution.” Where is the proof of this? Do you have some more lecture notes?
Quote :
Rob - I’m sure many people are looking for new dating methods.”
***on what basis are you sure?
Some examples of funding for dating methods:
Absolute Dating of Ancient Ice using U-Series AnalysisLaura Robinson
http://www.whoi.edu/administration/dirres/funding/whoi_funding/Indep_Inter/ind_award_2006.html
Mass Geologists to Develop New Electron Microprobe to Determine the Ages of Rocks
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5726
* DataMining methods for statistical improvement *
Computational methods for the analysis of palaentological data
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/year2005/research/proj_tiedonhallinta.html
* UCI Report *
New method for determining age of artifacts fills chronological gap for scientists
http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1123
* An article showing the array of techniques used *
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/kevin.greene/wintro/chap4.htm
* News article *
http://www.esf.org/research-areas/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/news/ext-news-singleview/article/new-breakthroughs-in-geological-dating-imminent-307.html
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 15:05:57
What are you talking about Rob? To refute a dating method, surely you’d have to come up with a new method to date?”
***i asked what scientists even considered questioning current accepted dating for t rex. there are already dating methods that give different results, they are rejected. you said you are sure there are many people looking for different dating methods. who are they?
“Also I linked to a more recent paper. Did you read it? The conclusions should answer some of your questions.”
***i have already read it. in what way would that change my claims?
“I don’t change the claim… you do as I commented… as you ignored.”
***exactly how many examples will result in you admitting you change your claims as you go along?
“Again… evolution does not comment on the existence of a God. You repeatedly saying doesn’t make it true.”
***1) it was not me saying it - it was evolutionary biologists
2)YOU said this:”Evolution does not specify there is no God. It has nothing to say on the matter. Evolution is called naturalistic, because it was thought that God created the forms of life on the earth - however evolution proposes no supernatural intervention is required.”
***the difference between that and there is no god is a weaselly unimportant difference
“however repeatable expreiments and empiricla evidence moslt ycomes down against darwinian evolution.” Where is the proof of this? Do you have some more lecture notes?”
***this is very easily refuted. show me the repeatable experiments that demonstrate an organism becoming something else, gaining new organs and abilities.
Actually i knew about it shortly after it happened. I know what she is researching. Back to my point (stay focused), where are the studies or questions concerning whether the bones are really 65 million years old? Open minds and good science would demand this.
Open minds, YES; Minds hell-bent on maintaining naturalistic dogma, regardless of scientific evidence that refutes it, NO!
I mentioned this study on another forum. Soft tissue can’t survive for 65 million years. Yet, there is soft tissue in this T-rex fossil.
It’s really simple: Either soft tissue actually can last for much longer than previously thought, or that T-Rex ain’t 65 million years old. Take a wild guess as to where Team “Goo-to-you…..” is hedging its bet.
Have you even read the research MCWAY? Clearly not from your last post…
Are you saying that the scientists have actually lied in their research? Do you think the results came out saying t-rex was really 6500 years old and they thought… ‘uh-oh lets change the figures… quick add on ten million years or so.’
You’re right of course ’tissues can last for much longer than previously thought’. I’m glad you’re finally making some intelligent comments in your posts.
How’s the research coming on for the existence of demons? You’ve been strangely quiet about it? You seem happy in your idiotic attempts to knock valid scientific research, but where’s yours?
What about the flood papers? Surely you’ve found (or done) some research on that now? No?
Did you find the post about evolution being a science… you know, yet another one of your posts where you talk total rubbish. You make me laugh - try actually researching stuff before you add your comments.
Dogs are descended from the wolf. This is simply interbreeding, and the effect of climate upon an organism. Theoretically then, we can, and do, make all different types of dogs to suit our own purposes. Wolves can interbreed with dogs. Big deal. Are Lions and Tigers related? Well we have bred a Liger already, so, why not. Can the two be traced back to maybe a similar animal as the Liger? Sure, maybe. Either way, this doesn’t prove anything. So do we want to call this process evolution? We could but it’s a different definition from the “millions of years gradualism” all together, so things might get confusing. We can breed dogs and cats for eternity and all we’ll get are more dogs and cats (various shapes and sizes of course). Creationism doesn’t refute this, infact it hinges on it. It’s a simple everyday occurance; and at one time a hypothesis which, by the way, can be tested and confirmed. That’s science. Species-to-species gradualism (or whatever one wants to call it) can’t be, but only reasoned in one’s mind. I type this only to make the point that the real debate isn’t “Science against Creationism”. Why do plenty of scientists hold to creationism? Do they ignore their own practice? Of course not. Yes, people imagine many of the details concerning what creation might of looked like, but people imagine all the more when argueing for evolution.
“We can breed dogs and cats for eternity and all we’ll get are more dogs and cats.” I take it you’re taking that on faith rather than evidence?
If you believe that all the different types of say Cats, could have come from one common ancestor - via ’speciation’ : I can only assume you accept the possibility that the Ape family especially Hominoidea (which includes humans) could have evolved (oops I mean “Species-to-species gradualism” ) from a common ancestor. Humans came about through speciation.
You can’t have it both ways.
“Plenty of scientists”? This simply is not true. Don’t make out there’s some kind of massive debate in the scientific world. There isn’t. The vast majority of scientists do not believe in a young earth and they fully agree with evolution theory.
“Where’s you evidence that Demons exist. “ - good question!
“Being that demons are supernatural beings” - Ignores direct question and ASSUMES existence.
classic . . another supernatural being only people indoctrinated to the point of suggestive hallucination can see, or people that it is in there best interest to further the myth. This is the name of the game and fits all boogy men of supernatural dimension. . . :)
It is telling that representations range from Invisible (but can be felt), the classic Woo Woo defense position, to classical artistic representations that vary widely with the time period, artistic whimsy, and payed contract of the artist in question. It is also telling that often demon names are pulled from other religions or use there imagery. Take the 1/2 goat 1/2 man common representation . . stolen right from a pagan region in which was being quashed at the time . . in fact for a time ANY person that resented and resisted the churches ways where call demons. And the Jews believed that they may be the ghosts of the wicked dead not fallen angels. The Muslims believe that the demons were created by God and that they are both good and evil. Daemon (Greek), divinity, inferior deity, or tutelary genius (the ancient Greek equivalent of a guardian angel) NOT bad and possibly the beginning of the word?. Also there is no mention of demons prior to the days of Noah – in that “bible” book ;) strange that.
What we see is a term evolving to what the dominate culture wants it to be . . .
Very similar to the word dragon . . the western and eastern “versions” are entirely different . . .BUT we use the same name for them . .. There is the RUB . .the western world use the same name, the western world saw a basic (but shallow similarity) the western world falsity labeled in from THERE point of view. And It stuck . at least in the western world. . it is wrong but we use it to this day.
People like MCWAY love to say they support science and critical thinking, but it seems to stop short at their own Christian beliefs. MCWAY is still yet to supply one shred on scientific evidence for his own beliefs!
Contrary to the opinions posted by some on this site, a belief in Biblical literalism is inconsistent with, inter alia:
Science
Common sense
Sanity
Einhorn. Eenhorn. Unicorn. Monocerous. Any way you cut it, it’s only got the one horn.
Let me add this:
The existence of some creature at some point in the past which looked like a horse with a single horn sticking out of its forehead is far less ridiculous than a large number of the claims which fundamentalist Christians treat seriously every day. Such a creature COULD have existed, only there is no meaningful evidence it ever did. It’s not an impossibility. On the other hand:
1. There is not enough water in the world to flood the whole place.
2. Female mammals don’t get pregnant without sperm.
3. Dead is dead.
4. A person cannot walk on water.
5. A stick cannot turn into a snake.
Etc.
1. Yes, there is.
2-5. That’s sorta the point. You think the witnesses of those events didn’t say the same thing?
1. No there isn’t. (Do you honestly believe there’s enough water on this planet to submerge the earth to the level of Everest?)
2-5. The point was Rob, nobody ever witnessed “those events” because they never happened. If you believe they happened - where’s the evidence?
Just admit you don’t care about science or critical thinking… all your beliefs are purely based on “if it’s in the bible - it must be so”.
If this isn’t the case - where is your evidence for the following.
1. Talking snakes
2. Adam & Eve
3. Demons
4. A Global Flood
5. Jesus’ reanimation
6. God
Please indicate in a post if… you accept the above because of ‘faith’ or scientific evidence… if it’s science - please explain it to us.
1. No there isn’t. (Do you honestly believe there’s enough water on this planet to submerge the earth to the level of Everest?)
2-5. The point was Rob, nobody ever witnessed “those events” because they never happened. If you believe they happened - where’s the evidence?
Just admit you don’t care about science or critical thinking… all your beliefs are purely based on “if it’s in the bible - it must be so”.
***sorry, i can not in truth admit that. I was an atheist until i was in my 40’s. When i became a Christian, i believed in evolution. it was not critical to my belief. with an opened mind, i wa , however, able to critically evaluate the evidence, considering ALL possibilities.
If this isn’t the case - where is your evidence for the following.
1. Talking snakes
***The Bbile does not claim snakes routinely talk. Again, that is sorta th epoitn of miracles in the bible - they are not as common as people generally beleive, and always for a specific purpose (though this is more like non-material intelligence intervening tha na “miracle”)
2. Adam & Eve
***Mitochondrial DNA, linguistics
3. Demons
***a non-material being would not be detectable by the means i beleive you ask for.
4. A Global Flood
***Worldwide accounts, distribution of fossils, the movement of continetns, the ice age, frozen mammoths
5. Jesus’ reanimation
***manuscriptural and cultural evidence many orders of magnitude greate rthan that accepted for the historicity and veracity of any other account in history before the printing press
6. God
***I could type for days.
I will begin very simply:
-nothing can cause itself to begin to exist
-the universe began to exist
-therefore, something ELSE had to cause the universe to begin to exist
Please indicate in a post if… you accept the above because of ‘faith’ or scientific evidence… if it’s science - please explain it to us.
*** Every area of life is not science. Yes, I NOW accept many things on “faith”, but that is not “blind faith”…..it is faith that goes beyond the objective or scientific evidence, but not unreasonably so. We all operate this way every day. As an example, one small confirmation has been my autistic son - what has happened to him is best explained by intelligent intervention - and my brother who is a physician and until a couple of years ago, also a non-believer, concurs.
Now if you include in science forensic science, carbon dating, the accepte drules for evaluating manuscriptural and inscriptional evidence, then in addition, there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection, while the only real argument against it gores somethign like “people don’t rise from the dead”. well, normally not. those living in jerulasem 2000 years ago knew that as well, but a whole bunch of them who were in a position to know for sure whether it happened or not believed it did
I love the way you in other posts wax lyrical about gaps and false evidences for evolution theory… then we get a post like this! It’s laughable!
1. You admit you believe this because the bible says so.
2. Mitochondrial DNA and linguistics do not prove Adam and Eve. As you’re so fond of evidence - please indicate 1 peer reviewed journal that even hints at this. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
3. You admit you believe this because the bible says so.
4. World wide accounts are subjective. Distribution of fossils, the movement of continents, the ice age, frozen mammoths? Please indicate just 1 peer reviewed journal that shows each proof. Non of these things provide proof of a global flood. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
5. So again no scientific evidence. I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
6. You argument is totally feckless. How about this…
-nothing can cause itself to begin to exist
-God began to exist
-therefore, something ELSE had to cause God to begin to exist
Secondly no scientist says the universe caused itself. The mystery of why the universe exploded into existence is question of such majesty it deserves a better answer than ‘God did it’.
Are you saying you attribute your son’s autism on intelligent intervention (aka God)?
PS. Don’t kid yourself there is no “overwhelming evidence for the resurrection”. None. No matter what you take into account in written form, it all stems from one originally corrupt source - the bible. You believe in the resurrection because the bible says so.
I love the way you in other posts wax lyrical about gaps and false evidences for evolution theory… then we get a post like this! It’s laughable!
***please demonstrate wher ei talk about gaps or false evidence.
1. You admit you believe this because the bible says so.
***no, i did not. i said the bible does not say what he claimed it did.
2. Mitochondrial DNA and linguistics do not prove Adam and Eve. As you’re so fond of evidence - please indicate 1 peer reviewed journal that even hints at this. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
***i did not say they “proved” anything. mitochondrial DNA provides support (STRONG support) for all humans being descended from one woman who lived fairly recently (~2–200,000 years ago)
3. You admit you believe this because the bible says so.
***no, i did not. i merely said somethign about what non-material beings would be like, not whether they exist.
4. World wide accounts are subjective. Distribution of fossils, the movement of continents, the ice age, frozen mammoths? Please indicate just 1 peer reviewed journal that shows each proof. Non of these things provide proof of a global flood. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
***i am confused. are you attempting to refute that the continents have moved, that fossils are concentrate din large amounts in small areas, or that frozen mammoths have bene found? do i really have to provide peer reviewed journals (sic) concernig those matters?
5. So again no scientific evidence. I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.
***my definition of science includes the accepted standards for manuscripts and inscriptions as related to the accuracy of historicla accounts. the scientific community generally accepts this as a science. by those standards, yes, there is scientific evidence. if you disagree, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what YOU believe the standards to be.
6. You argument is totally feckless. How about this…
-nothing can cause itself to begin to exist
-God began to exist
-therefore, something ELSE had to cause God to begin to exist
***sorry, i neve rclaimed god began to exist. you made that up. there are no ratinal, logical, or observable objections to th eoriginal argument (by the way, bette rrefutaitons than yours exist, but they are all still very weak).
Secondly no scientist says the universe caused itself. The mystery of why the universe exploded into existence is question of such majesty it deserves a better answer than ‘God did it’.
***”mystery”? that is science? “question of such majesty” is science? scientifically, what is a majestic question? what makes one answer better than another? my understanding of science is that it looks for the CORRECT answer, not a better or more majestic i.e. more to your liking answer
Are you saying you attribute your son’s autism on intelligent intervention (aka God)?
***no, i am not. long story, but i do attribute a definite event in his life to God, and any other explanation is far more unlikely than that one.
PS. Don’t kid yourself there is no “overwhelming evidence for the resurrection”. None. No matter what you take into account in written form, it all stems from one originally corrupt source - the bible. You believe in the
It’s difficult to know where to start Rob. I’m a little confused about where you’re coming from really.
1. Do you believe God talked through a snake or not?
2. Do you believe that the human race descended from a literal Adam and Eve (specifically those personalities described in Genesis)?
3. Do you believe in Demons?
4. Do you believe God flooded the earth?
5. Do you believe God resurrected Jesus?
6. I think I know the answer. Yes you do believe in God? As for you comments - I must say you seem very sure in your assertions. You say I made up the bit about God having a beginning… why can’t I assert that you made up the counter argument?
Also you come across as a little dishonest why you say “‘I’ will begin very simply:” then quote the most over used trio of questions in this debate (Vallicella I think?). I won’t bother recycling the same old detritus, other than to say you declare that your own logic don’t apply to your God. That’s brilliant, well done.
******** Quote
***”mystery”? that is science? “question of such majesty” is science? scientifically, what is a majestic question? what makes one answer better than another? my understanding of science is that it looks for the CORRECT answer, not a better or more majestic i.e. more to your liking answer
******** End Quote
This Rob, is pathetic. Are you so ignorant that you don’t believe that scientists are moved by mystery and majesty? Can you not see that a scientist might find the question of the universe origins majestic? When did I say science is mystery? When did I say science didn’t look for the correct answer? Until there is proof - science will never settle for an unprovable answer such as ‘God did it’ - it deserves study.
It’s difficult to know where to start Rob. I’m a little confused about where you’re coming from really.
***or just a little confused?
1. Do you believe God talked through a snake or not?
***no
2. Do you believe that the human race descended from a literal Adam and Eve (specifically those personalities described in Genesis)?
***yes
3. Do you believe in Demons?
***first define what you mean by “demon”
4. Do you believe God flooded the earth?
***yes
5. Do you believe God resurrected Jesus?
***yes, although i believe jesus is also god.
6. I think I know the answer. Yes you do believe in God? As for you comments - I must say you seem very sure in your assertions. You say I made up the bit about God having a beginning… why can’t I assert that you made up the counter argument?
***you can assert the moon is of green cheese, but by claim and by definition the christian god is eternally existent, outside of time, and the prime cause for all other events. so what you are dooing is not a counter-argument, it is a straw man argument. if you want to make an argument that a god who ha da beginning does not exist, i agree with you so you wil ahve to have that argument with someone who believes in, say, the greek or roman gods.
Also you come across as a little dishonest why you say “‘I’ will begin very simply:” then quote the most over used trio of questions in this debate (Vallicella I think?). I won’t bother recycling the same old detritus, other than to say you declare that your own logic don’t apply to your God. That’s brilliant, well done.
***it is the kalam cosmological argument, and if you are over 16 and unfamiliar with it, objections to it, and answers to those objections, your education is lacking. as i clarified above, the logic does apply to the god i claim exists. i do not know anyone who ha ssupport for claiming as you do that the argument does not have validity. the only argument is know of question one or more of the premises, an ddo so in metaphysicla, speculative terms that do not conform to any observed reality.
******** Quote
***”mystery”? that is science? “question of such majesty” is science? scientifically, what is a majestic question? what makes one answer better than another? my understanding of science is that it looks for the CORRECT answer, not a better or more majestic i.e. more to your liking answer
******** End Quote
This Rob, is pathetic. Are you so ignorant that you don’t believe that scientists are moved by mystery and majesty? Can you not see that a scientist might find the question of the universe origins majestic? When did I say science is mystery? When did I say science didn’t look for the correct answer? Until there is proof - science will never settle for an unprovable answer such as ‘God did it’ - it deserves study.
***not at all. i ask what that means,a nd whether it is science or not. you seem to be admitting, even arguing, that there are areas of valid knowledge that are not knowable scientifically. is that correct? and what specifically are your criteria for determining one question is majestic and another not?
1. Sorry I got confused… I think God spoke through a donkey, is it? Satan through a snake? Is that right?
2. I thought the genealogy in the bible limits the possible age of Adam and Eve to 6-10k years ago? Is that incorrect?
3. A supernatural being cast out of heaven, condemned by God, in league with Satan. McWay believes they can posses people and make them poorly
4. Good man, global flood! Many many good peer reviewed scientific papers are published on this I’m sure.
5. Good man, Jesus was God. I’m sure the scientific evidence for this must be far greater than the evidence for say evolution. Such a well educated man as yourself, with all your scientific understanding must require more than just hearsay to believe some like that, I’m sure.
6. I’m glad you agree that your assertion that God has no beginning is as valid as saying “moon is [made] of green cheese”. It’s good to see you realise how unconvincing it is when someone just asserts something with no evidence.
-
I’m sure that during the time humans are around, there will be many things that science’ never gets to explain.
The specific criteria for a majestic question, is that it’s one more ‘majestywatt’ greater than a ‘mildly majestic’ question.
1. Sorry I got confused… I think God spoke through a donkey, is it? Satan through a snake? Is that right?
***yes
2. I thought the genealogy in the bible limits the possible age of Adam and Eve to 6-10k years ago? Is that incorrect?
***yes, that is incorrect
3. A supernatural being cast out of heaven, condemned by God, in league with Satan. McWay believes they can posses people and make them poorly
***huh?
4. Good man, global flood! Many many good peer reviewed scientific papers are published on this I’m sure.
***no, that is not how research articles actually work.
5. Good man, Jesus was God. I’m sure the scientific evidence for this must be far greater than the evidence for say evolution. Such a well educated man as yourself, with all your scientific understanding must require more than just hearsay to believe some like that, I’m sure.
***again, if you include textual criticism in science, yes it is.
6. I’m glad you agree that your assertion that God has no beginning is as valid as saying “moon is [made] of green cheese”. It’s good to see you realise how unconvincing it is when someone just asserts something with no evidence.
***first, there is no possible evidence, but that is irrelevant. there is much evidence for the existence of God, just not for his pre-existence. that is simply par tof the nature of the claim for his existence. are you intereste din evidence for god, or his pre-existence?
I’m sure that during the time humans are around, there will be many things that science’ never gets to explain.
***on what basis are you aure of that? but to actually answer my question, are there valid areas of knowledge that are outside of science?
The specific criteria for a majestic question, is that it’s one more ‘majestywatt’ greater than a ‘mildly majestic’ question.
***on what specific basis is a question majestic at all?
1. So you believe the creator of all things spoke through a donkey… without any actual evidence. You also believe in Satan without any evidence, and that he spoke through a snake.
3. Demons are the same as Satan…. he’s there ring leader.
You believe in Satan so probably believe in demons too!?
4. That is how things work… where are the articles/journals?
5. Ha! That’s ridiculous! Can you give me one shred of scientific evidence God and Jesus are the same!? No, and yet you believe it.
6. Im happy that you agree asserting God’s pre-existence iis as valid as saying “moon is [made] of green cheese”
Define “areas of knowledge”?
***on what specific basis is a question majestic at all?
Are you asking how we know how many majestywatts are in a majestic question? That’s easy 10 prestigelets = 1 majestywatt.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 11:53:49
1. So you believe the creator of all things spoke through a donkey… without any actual evidence. You also believe in Satan without any evidence, and that he spoke through a snake. ”
***depends what you mean by evidence. on other bases, i believ ethe scriptures are god-breathed and true, therefore i have no reason to doubt these. perhaps it would be more clear to say i believe these things for a reason.
“3. Demons are the same as Satan…. he’s there ring leader.”
***the “huh” was asking what “make them poorly” means
“You believe in Satan so probably believe in demons too!?”
***if you mean non-material beings who have rebelled against their creator, yes.
“4. That is how things work… where are the articles/journals?”
***no it isn’t. shwo me msome that dem,onstrate it is. i will say, that prior to the 20th century, the only people that believed the continets have moved were thos ebasisng their belief on biblical truth. this also applies, by the way, to a belief that the universe had a beginning.
“5. Ha! That’s ridiculous! Can you give me one shred of scientific evidence God and Jesus are the same!? No, and yet you believe it. ”
***”Ha”???is there anyhting you believe that you can not demonstrate with scientific evidence? if scientific evidence is the only way to know something, how can you scientifically prove the statement “scientific evidence is the only way to know something”?
“6. Im happy that you agree asserting God’s pre-existence iis as valid as saying “moon is [made] of green cheese”
***i refuted it, i did not agree with it.
“Define “areas of knowledge”?”
***see #5 above.
***on what specific basis is a question majestic at all?
Are you asking how we know how many majestywatts are in a majestic question? That’s easy 10 prestigelets = 1 majestywatt.”
***define prestigelets, non- tautologically.
So basically Rob you believe in all kinds of complete rubbish in the bible - and yet refute well grounded science.
***define prestigelets, non- tautologically.
Rob, tell me - as you’re beating around the bush again - what are you getting at?
what is the standard by which a question is “majestic”? what measuring stick do you use to determine the worth or value of any belief or question over another, and by what objective criteria is it shown to be valid?
forgot this one:
“1. You admit you believe this because the bible says so.
2. Mitochondrial DNA and linguistics do not prove Adam and Eve. As you’re so fond of evidence - please indicate 1 peer reviewed journal that even hints at this. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.”
***CASE STUDY IN MOLECULAR EVOLUTION NO. 3
Written by Harold B. White, Sept 1993, revised 1995, 1997, 2000
C-647 BIOCHEMICAL EVOLUTION, FALL 2002
Parsons, Thomas J. ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367.—Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.
you asked for 1, i provided 2-will you now ask for more?
“4. World wide accounts are subjective. Distribution of fossils, the movement of continents, the ice age, frozen mammoths? Please indicate just 1 peer reviewed journal that shows each proof. Non of these things provide proof of a global flood. If you can’t I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.”
***again, no journal would do such a hting. show me one peer reviewed journal that proves continental drift and the date and causes of the ice ages.
“5. So again no scientific evidence. I can only “assume” you believe this because the bible says so.”
***please clarify. are you claiming manuscripts, inscriptions, carbon dating are not scientific evidence?
“6. You argument is totally feckless. How about this…
-nothing can cause itself to begin to exist
-God began to exist
-therefore, something ELSE had to cause God to begin to exist”
***show me the claim god began to exist (other than by you)
“Secondly no scientist says the universe caused itself. The mystery of why the universe exploded into existence is question of such majesty it deserves a better answer than ‘God did it’. ”
***it deserves a TRUE answer, not a “better” answer.
“Are you saying you attribute your son’s autism on intelligent intervention (aka God)? ”
***no. i attribute it indirectly to the fall. to me.
“PS. Don’t kid yourself there is no “overwhelming evidence for the resurrection”. None. No matter what you take into account in written form, it all stems from one originally corrupt source - the bible. You believe in the resurrection because the bible says so.”
***1) “the bible” is not one source. paul’s letters and lukes histories are not one source.
2)in what way is it “corrupt”?
3)how many extra-biblical sources will result in you dropping the claim that i only have one source?
hey - check this out-those crazy creationists eldridge and gould are at it again
“Eldridge and Gould (the authors of the original paper defining p.e. Eldridge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibrium: an alternative pyletic gradualism. In Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, and Co.). In this paper, E and G present punctuated equilibrium as a model to describe the pattern of evolutionary change AS SEEN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. They argue that ***most well studied stratigraphic sequences of fossils **do not show*** the gradual accumulation of evolutionary change through the temporal span of the species (Phyletic gradualism)***. In other words, the fossil record does not support the hypothesis that a large population of individuals of a species can accumulate adaptive change over time and slowly transform from one species into a daughter species. Rather, E and G argue that in most cases the fossil record shows change in a species population to be a random walk - sometimes in one direction, later in another - that does not accumulate over time to produce speciation.”
2. Reading on… the article does say “Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.”
So they obviously can see a problem here with the state of research. Research which has been carried out… surely you’ve discovered this?
The Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region
Sigru´n SigurDardo´ttir,1 Agnar Helgason,2 Jeffrey R. Gulcher,1 Ka´ri Stefansson,1 and
Peter Donnelly3
Hypervariable Sites in the mtDNA Control Region
Are Mutational Hotspots
Mark Stoneking
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
Rob… come on, if you’re gonna quote research - at least make sure that it’s not been followed up….
4. What a dumb question…
Continental Drift - A nice modern one for you Rob…
Journal of Geodynamics
Volume 45, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 32-48
Slab detachment and mantle plume upwelling in subduction zones: An example from the Italian South-Eastern Alps
Patrizia Maceraa et el…
As for the ice age stuff… I’ve found 2034 articles from just one source. Not sure which ones you’d really like. I can’t understand why you can’t find them yourself?
Quaternary Research
Volume 67, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 161-173
Magnetostratigraphic datingnext term of an intensification of glacial activity in the southern Italian Alps during Marine Isotope Stage 22
As for the cause - I’m sure your acudumbic skill will allow you find out what science is out there - but, hand on - what do you think caused the ice age? I’m sure you’ve plenty of evidence to back up your beliefs!…
5. Ha! You make me laugh. Rob you’ve no evidence that God is Jesus. You moron! If there’s evidence - you should publish it - you’d take the world by storm… oh, that is unless you’re being a moron. Come on lets face it… you believe it just because the bible says so.
6. Well Rob, where is your evidence god a. exists and b. always has? Oh, hang on - you’re just gonna assume something aren’t you… yeah!
7. Im happy to admit the bible is a collection of sources… albeit interconnected. But I think you understood what I meant.
You don’t have any evidence for resurrection outside the bible. You discount a wealth of evidence for evolution - instead believing in creation - yet you believe in the resurrection purely on the bible’s word. How ironic.
NOTE: Again Rob nice quote… the quotes after were quite interesting too…
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/punk.htm
But you choose not to quote them? Hmm….
Just go to any academic source and research, you’ll find a long line of research from 1972 up to now… many of the issues have been covered. I’m tired of having to do all the research for you Rob. Surely if you’ve got a brain, you should try using it… look up some up-to-date research for yourself.
The more nonsense you write the more I can understand how you believe that donkeys talk and demons might be messing with your brain.
I am very excited about this museum.
It is obvious, as a true believer, that if the bible says it, it must be so. Therefore only unbelieving rebellious sinners would stand against this museum. And rebellion is akin to the sin of witchcraft, and we should not suffer to let a witch live among us. Therefore we must stamp out and destroy everyone who opposes this museum, to show God’s love to the world.
I am glad that my brothers and sisters in Christ are trying to educate the world about unicorns, and the other wondrous miracles of God’s creation!
Please remember that if you are against this museum, you are a sinner who is dammed to hell for all eternity because of your hatred and rebellion towards God! It is not too late to save yourself. You must open your heart to Jesus, and admit that you are a no good wretched worm without the power of HIS forgiveness. Pray for his forgiveness, and only then you will know true peace. If you don’t, then God has no choice but to burn your soul for ever and ever because he loves you.
Jenny. That was so humorous. Keep your day job!
The creationists are all quiet now… the were very vocal with their futile attempts to knock science (especially evolution theory, geology etc…)… but once they were asked to provide evidence for their beliefs, it all fell silent!?
Really? How ’bout the fossil record for starteres?
How do fossils prove your beliefs? Have they found a ‘God’ fossil?
see above - the fossil record does not demonstrate darwinian evolution, thats why PE was proposed.
To quote myself… “but once they were asked to provide evidence for their beliefs, it all fell silent!?”
Then you pop up again, without any evidence for your beliefs - just more futile attempts to knock evolution.
How does the fossil record prove God created the universe?
Because rob believes it to be true.
Kinda like the bible is true because he believes it to be true.
or like survival of the fittest drives evolution……and the fittest are then defined as “those that survive”?
How does the fossil record prove God created the universe?
it doesn’t
no one claimed it did
evolution predicts a blurred, indistinct fossil record, not one that shows sudden appearance sof distinct organisms that remain unchanged throughout their recrod and then go extinct. that is far better predicted by the theroy that an ntelligent being created life.
now, why was pe proposed?
Are you going to provide evidence or not?
“How do fossils prove your beliefs? Have they found a ‘God’ fossil?”
1)PLEASE stop using the word “proof”, or mischaracterize my claims. i would never make such a foolish claim as “the fossil record prove God created the universe” . what i say, again, is that the actual fossil record is best predicted by creation, not evolution. why do YOU think PE wa sproposed as a theory, if the fossil record supported evolution? why do you think francis crick would rather believe in mysterious aliens than God?
Have you read my original post in this thread? It was ask for proof of your beliefs? The fossil record doesn’t prove the existence of God?
Francis Crick did indeed suggest panspermia as an naturalistic origin theory. Without evidences his ideas are generally treated with amusement, perhaps an over reaction to Behe. Crick realised fully though that panspermia just moves the origin further back, ultimately explaining nothing.
However if you’re suggesting you support Crick’s theory or thinking, you must also concede that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which life evolved.
The origin of the first life would have most probably been a hugely rare event… that’s perhaps why he suggested ‘aliens’. I assume this is what you wanted me to say. I’m happy to. I’m happy to say… “A brilliant scientist couldn’t comprehend how life started of earth - as so panspermia was his preferred reasoning.”.
The origin is a true mystery, science is happy with that. It’s the challenge of understanding that drives it.
However if you’re suggesting you support Crick’s theory or thinking, you must also concede that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which life evolved.
Rob would be conceding nothing. He has stated multiple times that natural selection fits right in line with the Creation account (or at least, it fits better with the Creation account than it does with evolution).
For instance, (as Rob mentioned beforehand) you can have loads of diversity with dogs (wolves, poodles, hyenas, Great Danes, chiuahuas); but, at the end of the day, they’re still dogs, not cats or birds.
The origin of the first life would have most probably been a hugely rare event… that’s perhaps why he suggested ‘aliens’. I assume this is what you wanted me to say. I’m happy to. I’m happy to say… “A brilliant scientist couldn’t comprehend how life started of earth - as so panspermia was his preferred reasoning.”.
What makes you think he couldn’t comprehend it? It seems that he didn’t buy that particular naturalistic theory; but given his adherence to naturalism/materialism, he had to come up with something. Otherwise, it’s that old pesky, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. And we certainly can’t have that.
The origin is a true mystery, science is happy with that. It’s the challenge of understanding that drives it.
Since when did science (the study of natural and physical phenomena) get emotions? And you call Creationists morons. Naturalistic scientists may be happy with that claim (for philosophical reasons). But, science isn’t happy or sad or miserable or mad.
Materialists refusing to accept that the world is a product of Creation hardly makes the origin of life a mystery.
So you’re happy to quote Crick’s theory when it suits you - lets ignore the fact he supported Evolution.
“What makes you think he couldn’t comprehend it?”, what a stupid thing to ask… What he couldn’t comprehend was life starting on earth “all by itself”.
Sorry McWay I was talking figuratively, I think most readers would take my statement that way. Clearly you got confused with the abstraction, I’ll avoid it in the future.
The origin of life is a mystery - even if your sky fairy did it. Science would still explore, measure and quantify. The scientists (not “science” itself) would probably enjoy the mystery of how it happened.
How are you coming on with your evidence that Demons can cause illness?
So you’re happy to quote Crick’s theory when it suits you - lets ignore the fact he supported Evolution.
I didn’t ignore that fact, Shaunie, as shown by the phrase, “given his adherence to naturalism/materialism….” Perhaps, you’re the one confused here.
Sorry McWay I was talking figuratively, I think most readers would take my statement that way. Clearly you got confused with the abstraction, I’ll avoid it in the future.
Hardly!!!
The origin of life is a mystery - even if your sky fairy did it. Science would still explore, measure and quantify. The scientists (not “science” itself) would probably enjoy the mystery of how it happened.
If my “sky fairy” did it, then it’s no mystery. We know how life began on Earth. Of course, SCIENTISTS would still explore, measure, and quantify. They always have; and those scientists who believed in Creation were doing that long before Darwin came up with evolution.
It is the paranoid adherents to “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” who are howling about scientific progress coming to a halt, if future generations don’t buy into evolution.
How are you coming on with your evidence that Demons can cause illness?
How are you coming on your measuring stick of right and wrong?
Hmmm where to begin.
Well I can see that some of the creationists here can’t answer a straightforward question without obfuscating.
Mcway, can you provide a link to just one peer-reviewed published piece of scientific research that links illnesses (of any sort) to demons?
It isnt a case that scientists are paranoid, the reason that scientific progress would cease is that creationism predicts nothing, all true science is based on empirical evidence (no matter who conducts the research) and extrapolation from a hypothesis. Since creationism as a hypothesis cannot be used to predict an outcome (it is impossible to predict how a truculent sky daddy will construct his minions since it is all magic) then it is impossible to test and more importantly falsify (or have you forgotten that for dog all things are possible?)
As an example Behe calls his idea “irreducible complexity” well there is no point studying it if the answer is always ‘god did it’ where’s the fun in that?
By the way I like
You are correct that belief just doesn’t cut it, I want hard empirical evidence, anything else is just hearsay and gossip.
I like the ‘goo to you by way of the zoo’ thats cute, so I made my own, dust to us by way of the yahwist. Whaddaya think ;-)
It isnt a case that scientists are paranoid, the reason that scientific progress would cease is that creationism predicts nothing, all true science is based on empirical evidence (no matter who conducts the research) and extrapolation from a hypothesis. Since creationism as a hypothesis cannot be used to predict an outcome (it is impossible to predict how a truculent sky daddy will construct his minions since it is all magic) then it is impossible to test and more importantly falsify (or have you forgotten that for dog all things are possible?)
Scientific progress happened LONG before Darwin came up with the whole evolution spiel. And, it continues to this day, in spite of, not because of, any adherence to evolution.
Creationism predicts that creatures reproduce after their own kinds, which we’ve seen time and time again, even in so-called examples of evolution. We mix two different brands of corn together and (surprise, SURPRISE), we get more CORN. We breed dogs together; we get dogs. For some strange reason, we don’t get fish, birds, or wilderbeast. I wonder why.
Well I can see that some of the creationists here can’t answer a straightforward question without obfuscating.
Apparently, the evolutionists can’t either. I mean none of our buddies, who bow before the shrine of “goo”, have even shown (for all their jabs about the Creation museum, the reason for this site) that the re’em to which the ancient Hebrews were referring was actually this horsey-looking creature, depicted on this site.
If true science is about empirical evidence, let’s see some that produces a bird from creature what wasn’t a bird at first. (Last time I checked, observation and repeatability were part of the scientific process).
“Comment by Caedes
2007-10-16 11:47:36
Hmmm where to begin.
Well I can see that some of the creationists here can’t answer a straightforward question without obfuscating.”
***I have a rather long unanswered list of very specific questions here, and have answered every one asked of me.
“Mcway, can you provide a link to just one peer-reviewed published piece of scientific research that links illnesses (of any sort) to demons?”
***first, by definition, an intelligent being not made of matter would be undetectable by the scientific method given our present capabilities. as i have asked many times here, are there legitimate ways to have knowledge that are not dependent on the scientific method?
you also ignore that the biblical examples of demonic posession are cenetred around the activities of God on earth, and mos tof th eillnesses are not attributed to them
finally, - Western Christianity’s two historical treatments of people with disabilities or mental illness
Herbert C. Covey,
College of Continuing Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1030 W 15th Ave, CO 80020, USA
Available online 18 December 2004.
Abstract
Christianity had two traditions of interpreting people with disabilities. The older tradition viewed disability as the result of sin. This tradition punished, separated, and restricted people with disabilities. It barred them from full participation in the Church and its rituals. However, as Christianity developed, a second tradition emerged that saw people with disabilities as needing compassion and that God accepted everyone. The second tradition saw people with disabilities as representing opportunities for the faithful to do charitable works. Christianity led the movement to provide assistance to people with disabilities until government later began to supplant its efforts.
“It isnt a case that scientists are paranoid, the reason that scientific progress would cease is that creationism predicts nothing,”
***special creation theory predicts a fossil record like the one we see. special creation theory predicts clear distinct classifications of life like we see. it predicts genetic limits & dna repair mechanisms.
” all true science is based on empirical evidence (no matter who conducts the research) and extrapolation from a hypothesis. Since creationism as a hypothesis cannot be used to predict an outcome (it is impossible to predict how a truculent sky daddy will construct his minions since it is all magic) then it is impossible to test and more importantly falsify (or have you forgotten that for dog all things are possible?)
As an example Behe calls his idea “irreducible complexity” well there is no point studying it if the answer if the answer is always ‘god did it’ where’s the fun in that?”
***there is every point. it can easily be falsified if you can demonstrate how “irreducibly complex” systems or mechanisms could have been produced by accumulated small genetic mutations. irreducible complexity is yet anothe rprediciton of special creation theory.
1)crick was not reacting to behe. he was reacting to the discovery of dna
2)even iif th eorigin of life was a “hugely rare event”, if it was a naturla occurence, why can we not reproduce it?
3)evolution DOES make claims as to the origin of life, that is what “pre-biotic evolution” is.
4)science cna not be “ahppy” with anything, and scientists certainly should not be content to leave naturalistic events as a mystery. what nonsense.
5)”I’m happy to say… “A brilliant scientist couldn’t comprehend how life started of earth - as so panspermia was his preferred reasoning.”. “. but of course not an intelligent creator, because ________?
6)if it was a “hugely rare event”, how do you explain the very early origin of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes?
1) Really? That’s your opinion.
2) Because it hugely rare.
3) Evolution starts once life has occurred not before.
4) What I said was “It’s the challenge of understanding that drives it.”. Of course I was speaking figuratively when I said “happy” I’d think any half-wit would of realised that.
5) Aliens are statistically more likely.
6) Although the question does really make sense… I can see what you’re asking. The develop of eukaryotes would probably be a hugely rare event too. Consciousness could be an even more rare event.
#2 and#5 are where you shoot yourself in the foot.
One minute you’re claiming that whatever (besides God) cause life is “extremely rare”. The next, you state that there can be no supernatural God, because “aliens are statisically more likely”.
There’s a lot of stuff that more likely than “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution occuring. But, without any observation or replication of such occuring, BELIEVE that it happened.
The problem is, by naturalistic/materalistic rules, belief doesn’t cut it.
1) Really? That’s your opinion.
***it would be if one did not happen first!
2) Because it hugely rare.
***to occur accidentally. if it was a chemical reaction, there is no reason we can not reproduce it on purpose. it is hugely rare for certain erosional events to happen, but a couple sticks of dynamire will reproduce one right now.
3) Evolution starts once life has occurred not before.
***you are making up your own definition.
4) What I said was “It’s the challenge of understanding that drives it.”. Of course I was speaking figuratively when I said “happy” I’d think any half-wit would of realised that.
***that drives what?
5) Aliens are statistically more likely.
***really? what are those statistics based on? can i see the calculations?
6) Although the question does really make
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
good answers!
You only asked one sensible question… 5.
I gave you the answer… such an educated man as yourself should understand it.
first, i did not ask any questions, i was refuting your claims. if they ar enot sensible, blame the originator of them-oh wait, that would be YOU.
second, does it never give you pause that with nearly every claim you amke, in the and you must weasel out of it with an insult or a flippant dismissal of its importance?
“what are those statistics based on?”. Isn’t that a question?
“blame the originator”. I wouldn’t claim I originated them.
“good answers!” Isn’t that flippant?
Wasn’t it you that previously resorted to calling into question my grammar and written skills.
Isn’t it you that thinks you can dismiss research by writing the odd comments about the executive summary?
Haven’t you dismissed all questions to provide proof of your God, Demons, etc…?
Isn’t you who ignores a vast body of research and knowledge, insulting the time, effort, expertise and professionalism of scientists?
In general I like this sort of parody (I love godhatesshrimp.org), but I’m not so sure resting the parody on a verse about unicorns in the KJV is a good idea. Yes, as others here have noted, there are fundamentalist creationists who believe the KJV is the inspired word of God, but there are many more who don’t, and even some of those who do would warn against understanding the KJV by modern definitions of words. Any, yes, any choice of verses is going to be somewhat arbitrary, since modern fundamentalist/evangelical doctrine has as much to do with mistranslation and misinterpretation as it does with what the Bible “really” says. Even so, there are a number of verses to which creationists can’t so quickly respond with something as simple as, “That’s a mistranslation.” Take the verses that imply geocentricism, for example. Someone even wrote a book using the Bible to defend geocentricism only about ten years ago, so pointing out the verses would hardly be a strawman.
All that said, I can’t complain too much. The real tragedy is that one of the best-proved theories is still being disparaged and denied to students, even in the 21st century. Best wishes in the struggle against ignorance.
Best of luck on this project. After all, it’s supposed to be a snub at the belief that everything was created in 6 days. Except WOMEN. Women were an afterthought, created in the second week. Now that kind of belief system, we don’t need.
But, ya know, on my deathbed, I will probably repent and ask for forgiveness (under my breath) just in case. That’s the smart thing to do, dontcha think? Redemption is, after all, guaranteed.
It seems that the creationists are having some difficulty answering some very straightforward and clear questions here.
Mcway, Please provide a peer-reviewed and published scientific study that supports the opinion that illnesses are caused by demons. You are right in your assertion that belief doesn’t cut it, I want hard empirical evidence. Just because something is extremely unlikely doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened, in this instance both abiogenesis and the god hypothesis are extremely unlikely, since we have no empirical evidence for either then occams razor suggests we choose the former as the simpler hypothesis.
Rob, I’ll just pick one to make it easy for you, please provide one peer-reviewed and published article that supports your claim that the fossil record is predicted by creationism and disproves Darwinian evolution.
Obviously I would expect both to be published in a mainstream scientific journal, not some shoddy apologist rag.
Incidently Rob, deny it all you like but special pleading is still special pleading.
I was also very intrigued by your assertion that Shaunie was incorrect in his claim that evolution requires life. Without going into a semantic argument regarding what counts as life for evolutionary purposes, the statement that evolution is a process that occurs once you have some form of life already is perfectly correct.
“Rob, I’ll just pick one to make it easy for you, please provide one peer-reviewed and published article that supports your claim that the fossil record is predicted by creationism and disproves Darwinian evolution.”
***do you ever read peer-reviewed publishe darticles about the fossil record? find me one that claims the fossil record is predicted by darwinian evolution. such articles do nto make braod conslusions like this. all i need do is ask my as yet unanswered question:
if darwinain evolution predicts the fossil record, if the fossil record supports evolution, why wa spunctuated equilibrium proposed as a theory?
“Obviously I would expect both to be published in a mainstream scientific journal, not some shoddy apologist rag.
Incidently Rob, deny it all you like but special pleading is still special pleading.
I was also very intrigued by your assertion that Shaunie was incorrect in his claim that evolution requires life. Without going into a semantic argument regarding what counts as life for evolutionary purposes, the statement that evolution is a process that occurs once you have some form of life already is perfectly correct.”
***according to whose definition?
“Macromolecules to Living Cells
Took half a billion years
Event Still a Mystery
1. Prebionts
****Nonliving structures that evolved**** into the first living cells
from Concepts Of Biology Lecture Topics
– College of St. Elizabeth, N.J.”
“We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly - stephen gould”
now ‘nothe rquestion: up until ~1915, who was more correct in the explanation of the origin of the universe, secular scientists or thsoe with a literal understanding of genesis?
Rob - you’ve linked to someone’s lecture notes? Is this your evidence? lol
Anyone with as great an understanding of biology and evolution theory will know that 1. Life is a tricky thing to label and 2. “Evolved” is perhaps an unfortunate description for this process.
Hey - could you link to some other lecture notes to clear this up?
tufts univ. -
A third theory of life’s origin is known as chemical evolution. In this idea, pre-biological changes slowly transform simple atoms and molecules into the more complex chemicals needed to produce life. Favored by most scientists today, the central premise of chemical evolution stipulates that life arose naturally from nonlife. In this sense, the theories of chemical evolution and spontaneous generation are similar, but the timescales differ.
univ of newcastle - chemical evolution:
The theory of the process by which life arose from inorganic matter.
Thanks again Rob. Did you read the previous post?
yes- are prescott, eldredge and gould not published, peer-reviewed scientists?
You can’t peer-review a scientist Rob. That’s what happens when you submit work to be published. A published scientist could claim all kinds of things, that doesn’t make all their views ‘peer-reviewed’… Do you see how that works?
“A third theory of life’s origin”…. third??? You mean there are others?
So you are assuming that the evolution theory we all know and love is one and the same with the “chemical evolution” theory?
“In short, the theory of evolution predicts that life “generated spontaneously” from non-organic matter. The differences between the findings of the experiments and the theory of evolution were not solved until the Russian scientist, A.I. Oparin proposed the prebiotic theory of evolution.
Oparin proposed that life formed in a series of steps from non-organic matter. This theory is known as the theory of prebiotic evolution.”
“The Origins of Life:
Prebiotic Evolution and the Precambrian Fossil Record - Microbiology
by L.M.Prescott et al.”
”
Study of early life and prebiotic evolution
In 1953 Stanley L. Miller (1930– ) prepared a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water—compounds thought to be prevalent on Earth before life developed. Subjecting the mixture to electrical sparks produced amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This was one of the first investigations into how life could have arisen from nonliving material billions of years ago. More recent research has suggested RNA to have been more crucial to the development of early life. Just how RNA came to be, and how it could have replicated prior to the existence of proteins and DNA, is a vital question in the study of prebiotic (or prebiological) evolution. - chemicla heritage foundation”
******”In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould ***published a landmark paper ***developing this idea. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr’s theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner’s theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.*** Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record***, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”******
***Eldridge and Gould (the authors of the original paper defining p.e. Eldridge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibrium: an alternative pyletic gradualism. In Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, and Co.). In this paper, E and G present punctuated equilibrium as a model to describe the pattern of evolutionary change AS SEEN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. They argue that ***most well studied stratigraphic sequences of fossils **do not show*** the gradual accumulation of evolutionary change through the temporal span of the species (Phyletic gradualism)***. In other words, the fossil record does not support the hypothesis that a large population of individuals of a species can accumulate adaptive change over time and slowly transform from one species into a daughter species. Rather, E and G argue that in most cases the fossil record shows change in a species population to be a random walk - sometimes in one direction, later in another - that does not accumulate over time to produce speciation. ***
Again Rob is selectively quoting from a web site… the web site reads…
“Out of this chaotic environment has arisen several possible theories about the origin of life.
1) Prebiotic Evolution- Organic organisms may have evolved from inorganic matter in interaction with the non-living environment, in a series of stages.
2) Extraterrestrial Origins- Life originated on an extraterrestrial environment, possibly an asteroid or another planet. This was then transported to Earth by comets, or meteors.”
I think thats quite clear?
Evolution does point to a starting point of simplicity - that much should be obvious. Science doesn’t understand how the ball got rolling. But this doesn’t mean that evolution has anything to say about the existence of god. It doesn’t have anything to say about Russels teapot either!
Rob is like your job or something to repeatedly quote nonsense on the internet - when you know there’s plenty of more up-to-date research?
Hmmm where to begin.
Well I can see that some of the creationists here can’t answer a straightforward question without obfuscating.
Mcway, can you provide a link to just one peer-reviewed published piece of scientific research that links illnesses (of any sort) to demons?
It isnt a case that scientists are paranoid, the reason that scientific progress would cease is that creationism predicts nothing, all true science is based on empirical evidence (no matter who conducts the research) and extrapolation from a hypothesis. Since creationism as a hypothesis cannot be used to predict an outcome (it is impossible to predict how a truculent sky daddy will construct his minions since it is all magic) then it is impossible to test and more importantly falsify (or have you forgotten that for dog all things are possible?)
As an example Behe calls his idea “irreducible complexity” well there is no point studying it if the answer is always ‘god did it’ where’s the fun in that?
You are correct that belief just doesn’t cut it, I want hard empirical evidence, anything else is just hearsay and gossip.
I like the ‘goo to you by way of the zoo’ thats cute, so I made my own, dust to us by way of the yahwist. Whaddaya think ;-)
this is an example of “irreducible complexity”:
“Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to “explain” vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.
Now that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an “evolutionary explanation” of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.”
That is science, it is falsifiable, and you mey feel lfree to give us th eintermediate steps brought about by random mutation that led to these biological processes. i will not hold my breath.
oh, and “yahwist” does not rhyme with “dust”
Nice Behe quote rob. The most telling comment is right at the end…. “It must be explained”.
Although I dont have much time to dedicate to your creationist nonsense here are some articles that are free on the internet. If you’ve access to a Athens accounts I’ll be more happy to give more academic materials which are more current. I’m surprised that an academic such as yourself can find this stuff yourself.
Oh, this time are you just going to criticize the abstracts/executive summaries (where referencing isn’t required) or actually read the article and confirm the references? You know, like scientists do?
Molecular genetics and the evolution of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates
Yongsheng Shi, F. Bernhard Radlwimmer, and Shozo Yokoyama*
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 September 25; 98(20): 11731–11736.
Review Paper (with many interesting references):
Molecular evolution of retinal and nonretinal opsins
http://www.genestocellsonline.org/cgi/reprint/1/9/787.pdf
Evolutionary analysis of rhodopsin and cone pigments: connecting the three-dimensional structure with spectral tuning and signal transfer#
David C. Teller,ab* Ronald E. Stenkamp,abc and Krzysztof Palczewskidef
FEBS Lett. 2003 November 27; 555(1): 151–159.
Paleomolecular biology unravels the evolutionary mystery of vertebrate UV vision
Jianzhi Zhang
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 July 8; 100(14): 8045–8047. Published online 2003 June 30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1533183100.
From the Cover: Molecular analysis of the evolutionary significance of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates
Yongsheng Shi and Shozo Yokoyama
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 July 8; 100(14): 8308–8313. Published online 2003 June 24. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1532535100.
The molecular mechanism for the spectral shifts between vertebrate ultraviolet- and violet-sensitive cone visual pigments.
Jill A Cowing, Subathra Poopalasundaram, Susan E Wilkie, Phyllis R Robinson, James K Bowmaker, and David M Hunt
Biochem J. 2002 October 1; 367(Pt 1): 129–135. doi: 10.1042/BJ20020483.
Talkorigins.org got this nifty little index to creationist claims.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
God’s an atheist…
…therefore I am too…
OMG i have 3 words. INSANE INSANE INSANE!!!! Shaunie why do you always have to be right, ive noticed you are arguing everything that everybody has to say. The majority are saying that theyve read certain statements that have in fact been proved and you seem to be the only one who is constantly arguing them, I dont know any of the fancy words you do,nor do i know a great deal about science or religion,even though i do believe in a little of both,but when i see all these people pulling up actual statements that well known scientists have stated and have proved with their great minds and findings, i have to believe in what the majority are saying and im sorry but to me it seems you are the kind of person who cannot stand being wrong and you will do whatever it takes to enforce your beliefs are what is true. A lot of this is probably so you will get some attention from others.whether it be bad or good,any kind of attention is what your after. Now that said, I love unicorns! I dont care whether their real or not, i love em,thanks for your site,it is quiet informing and interesting apart from the bickering and arguing, constructive arguing is great,but when it gets crazy, like people trying to stab at each other i found that quiet annoying, but all in all great job guys!
Hi Niss
Thanks for the insults… It’s nice to see that when an atheist defends/discusses/argues his side of things (on an atheist website no less) they are insulted for it!
I’ve posted many links myself to actual scientific journals/reports… which of these great scientists did you disagree with? You make out that people have actually posted scientific reports that confirm creationism or proven evolution false… I’ve not seen them…. please point them out so I can go back and check them?
It’s a shame you only believe a “little” science…
What’s all this about ‘not wanting to be wrong’? Because I’m not convinced and I’m arguing against creationism that means I’m “the kind of person who cannot stand being wrong and you will do whatever it takes to enforce your beliefs are what is true”? Now, isn’t religious folks who tend to “do whatever it takes to enforce your beliefs are what is true”, like in the bible for example!?
Considering you said “like people trying to stab at each other i found that quiet annoying”… thanks for the stabbing Niss.
Have a nice day now!
1+1 = a window
I have one more comment to add…Real or not…UNICORNS ROCK!!!!
Speaking of unicorns rock!
I have a rock with the unicorn set up in the biblical tale of JOB! This photographic projection also defines the leviathan and behemoth detailed in JOB 39 - JOB41.
http://www.impactoptics.com/images/unicorn-petroglyph-2d.jpg
A posting on Wikipedia explains in the discussion tab:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image-Unicorn-petroglyph-2.JPG
Proof from the rock that the unicorn rocks!
Laser…
Rock Art Images by Laser Les
www.impactoptics.com
This whole thread is amazing.
To the atheists:
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa132/omg-shoes-/Atheismlol.jpg[/IMG]
I lol’d.
You stupids. The horn served as an aphrodisiac. That’s why there are so many of us and no unicorns.
I do think that Unicorns are Real!! It is SO sad that they are no longer around on Earth anymore. Or Mabey they are. I don’t know about you, but when I get older, I am going to search everywhere to find those BEAUTIFUL creatures!!! But everyone has their own oppinions on Unicorns. I don’t Care if people call me names or make fun of me just because I believe in something that really no one has seen. I feel that it is important to belive what you belive and not what someone else does. I STORNGLY feel that Unicorns are real!! They are probably just hidding in a magical place where they can not be harmmed or heart! I once read and Artical about these STONG and BEAUTIFUL creatures!! People say that Unicorns are VERY kind to people and do not harm anyone. I belive that. They say that the Unicorns Horn heals any bad poision. I hope MANY people belive that Unicorns are real!!
I have a strong feeling that Unicorns are real. I don’t care if people make fun of me or call me names for something that I belive in. That is my opinion!! I think that they will always be in my mind. People say that Unicorns are VERY kind to people and help heal piosion from hearting you if you have poision in you. I don’t know about you, but when I grow up, I’m going to search everwhere for Unicorns
Listen, it doesn’t matter whether or not “unicorn” is actually “supposed” to be one word or another in the context of culture when the Bible was written. Someone wrote “unicorns” and therefore, unicorns existed and we are not to question that.
Right?
Oh, you mean that’s kind of ridiculous? Oh, hey, that’s kind of like, for one example, when people refer to passages about gay people being an “abomination” without taking into consideration the context of what that word actually MEANT back when it was written.
And I think that’s kind of the point of this site, you know? You aren’t supposed to pick and choose, right?
I don’t care what people. Believe in Jesus, believe in the mystic teapot, believe in fairy godmothers, believe in anything you want. Awesome. But don’t use your beliefs to rewrite science books for public school education and don’t use your beliefs to persecute other people.
To the Christians:
http://a683.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/l_99e9b56709a01c818e4693fa4e39a092.jpg
I lol’d.
Unicorns are sexy, and their flippin sweet, and i dream about them at night.
Also we think about them when we are riding horsees
Unicorns did exist. We humans forced them into extinction by the wanton practice of killing them for their horns. The Black Rhinoceros is going to become extinct before too much longer for the same reason.
Another point. There are many, many ancient tapestries depicting a royal family with a Unicorn in their midst like the family dog.
Putting a non-existant creature into the middle of one of the tapestries makes about as much sense as taking a formal family photo and sticking Mickey Mouse into the middle of it!
Fossil evidence is so difficult to find, because the horn had such value. They wouldn’t be left to rot if the animal died naturally. Unicorns were hunted, and the hunters were not against taking the horns from animals regardless of whether they died of natural causes or were slaughtered.
At school kids in my class had a debate on unicorns being real or not .
I want to know if unicorns are real or not . I liked your website and was that a real unicorn skeleton or not ?
hi i was just wondering how long did unicorndlive for and do they still live?
For those confused about the use of the word unicorn in the King James Version of the Bible (for example: the creators of this website), you should grab a good book about the history of Bible translation.
Speaking of unicorns:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg9q1oD4W9a8TZHYfvE4ToLE90iAD9181I381
I don’t have time to follow these discussion, nor do I have the time to give a scientific lecture here (too busy with my own research), but I do want to point out an enormous flaw in Rob’s “irreducible complex vision” argument. The way Rob poses the problem makes it seem that all proteins involved in the cascade had to have evolved dependently of each-other, which is not the case! The proteins and mechanisms involved are common in pretty much everything that happens in our body. For instance, the trans and cis motifs of proteins are common among almost every conformation changing protein, and is a major factor in the induction of DNA damage due to UV radiation (how is that intelligently designed!). In this case, ulcanic acid shifts from trans to cis. ATP, or the cousin GTP, is how proteins transfer energy, and again is common. The same for all the other cascades: all common motifs and mechanisms.
Molecular biological arguments of irreducible complexity always assume that the each subunit of the entire protein, or each protein in a cascade, needed to evolve dependently of all the other factors, which is just false! Life uses and re-uses! We see this in the homology (similarity) of proteins between species: the further the species are apart on an evolutionary scale, the more diverging the proteins are… and even then we can still determine which parts are really important, because these have been conserved, eg. don’t differ that much. Even between humans and yeast!
Science is so amazing! It is a waste not to probe deeper because we just argue that it has been designed. We would miss out on how intricately connected all life on this planet truly is.