Wednesday September 19 5:08 PM ET Fossil Finds Show Whales Related to Early Pigs By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Fossils recently unearthed in Pakistan show that whales evolved from land animals related to sheep and pigs, and that hippos could be their closest living kin, scientists said on Wednesday.

How whales evolved and who their ancestors were has been hotly debated for decades.

Scientists knew they were related to land mammals but they have been divided on which ones because fossil evidence of the whale's 10-million-year transition from land to water has been sketchy.

But paleontologists have discovered 50-million-year-old fossils of early whales that lived on land, and ankle and skull bones from primitive aquatic whales that fill in the gaps.

``With these new discoveries the whale fossil record is now so complete,'' Hans Thewissen, of Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, said.

``It shows us so well how whales became aquatic that it is probably the best, or one of the best, examples of evolution where these major changes are documented with fossils,'' he added in a telephone interview.

Thewissen and his colleagues uncovered fossils of a fox-size mammal called Ichthyolestes, and Pakicetus which resembled a wolf. The research is reported in the science journal Nature.

The ankle bones are seen only in a group of animals known as artiodactyls such as cows, pigs and hippos. But the heads of the creatures have whale-like features.

``They are whales that were still living on land. Their relatives are a group of even-toed ungulates,'' Thewissen said, using another term for artiodactyls.

In a separate report in the journal Science, Professor Philip Gingerich, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor described a skeleton of a later aquatic whale that included both ankle and skull bones that he and his colleagues discovered in a different part of Pakistan.

The ankle bone was also of an artiodactyl.

``Now I even admit the possibility that hippos are a side line of artiodactyls that might be closer to the whales than any other living animals,'' Gingerich said in a statement.

Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls.

``The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,'' Gingerich said.

Christian de Muizon of the Museum of Natural History in Paris described the discovery of the land whales as one of the most important events in the past century of vertebrate paleontology.

``The newly discovered fossils show the first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners,'' he said in a commentary in Nature.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Answers

Oink

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Good find.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

This from Reuters, as well as the original it quotes from Nature, are both so full of leaps of faith and gaps in logic that it's truly amazing that any intelligent human being could regard them as "science".

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Source of Little's Scientific Knowledge

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

NOT ONE SINGLE DAY MORE:

Age of the Earth?

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Be sure to send away for the Videos of the rest of this HEE HAW SHOW:

Hee Haw Show

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Geeze. Talk about artiodactyls.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

The theory of evolution is no more "science" than is the belief from centuries ago that the sun revolved around the earth. Both theories have similarities, though: make an assumption, then try to make sure that the data, or the commonly-held perceptions of the data, fit that assumption.

Those who thought the sun revolved around the earth made an assumption, then made the observations fit that assumption. Evolutionary theory does the same thing. It is based on faith, not knowledge; just as creationism is based on faith. The difference is, that creationists make no bones about the fact that they have faith in a Creator who exercised intelligent design. The evolutionists, however, try to call their faith "science" when it has only a passing resemblance to any valid science that's ever been known. This intentional muddying of the semantic waters isn't surprising though; honesty has never been the evolution camp's strong suit. Hoaxes such as Piltdown Man and the dead peppered moths purposely pinned to the tree trunks in England run all through the history of evolutionary thought. The latter hoax is still published in textbooks as purported fact to this very day. It's also notable (laughable?) that the original articles reporting this "whale" find make straight-faced reference to the supposed reptile-bird Archaeopteryx (link); the veracity of which has been called into serious question by more than a few of the world's leading scientists. Much has been written about Archaeopteryx, and whether it might be a hoax along the lines of Piltdown Man.

One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that observations and measurements must be *reproducible* in order to be valid. There is nothing, repeat nothing, in the evolutionary theory that is reproducible. There has not been a single instance of a species that evolved into another one in recorded history. No reproducible measurements and observations have shown macroevolution in action; i.e. one species turning into another. Not a single one. So evolutionary theory flies square in the face of the scientific method. Evolution completely and utterly flunks the most basic tests of what constitutes "science". It's just that the "converts" are sufficiently indoctrinated so as to gloss over this fatal lack.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that left to its own devices, nature tends towards entropy; there is always an increase in disorder. Things fall apart if not operated upon by an outside force that exerts energy in a contrary direction. But No! the evolutionists say. Nature tends towards more complexity, all by itself, if we are to believe evolutionary theory.

So which is right? They can't both be. Either evolutionary theory or the Second Law of Thermodymanics must be thrown out the window. And the Second Law has never been demonstrated to be false, not in a reproducible way that is permissible under the scientific method. The only case in which the Second Law is called into serious question is when the evolutionists contradict it. Hmmm.

Credible scientists the world over are starting to see whale-sized holes in the theory of evolution, and that's a stone hard fact, not an opinion. Those who think this can't be true are the ones with the blinders on.

Regarding this latest 'evolutionary find', a poster on another forum wrote, "All this talk about fossils of early forms of whales being found, and yet from the description of the fossils, it didn't sound like any whales I've ever seen or heard of. In order to make the 'connection', one has to ASSUME evolution, and then one can say, 'Oh, look! Fossils of early forms of whales!' Makes one wonder what evolutionists would say if they found a fossil of a platypus: 'Oh, look! An early form of a duck! What a find - who would've thought ducks were so high on the evolutionary scale?'"

States the case pretty well, methinks.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

The problem is, there isn't a single one of these fatuous "holes" that any genuine scientist recognizes as valid. Indeed, some have gone to the trouble of thoroughly and utterly refuting every single one of them, at exhaustive length. We have long since passed the point where anyone resuscitating these idiocies is either bone ignorant or incredibly dishonest. And ignorance that deep would preclude memorizing this nonsense in the first place. So what's left is rather pathetic lies.

What's most interesting is that Chicken never makes any mention of his *motivation* for waving his ignorance around so publicly. Could it possibly be that his alternative (that 4-thousand-year-old tales handed down from superstitious cave men) might fail even more flagrantly to meet what he misrepresents as "science"? Nowhere do we see even a hint of any competing claims, much less any competing rigor in being skeptical of those as well.

But this is the trap anyone falls into, who mistakes the province of religion (moral guidance) for the province of evidence. Logic must be abandoned, when one starts trying to "support" superstition by lying about science. Because even if evolution were wrong, that doesn't make magic right.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Responding to Flint --

The problem is, there isn't a single one of these fatuous "holes" that any genuine scientist recognizes as valid.

That is 100% incorrect. The only way you could write such a thing is if (1) you are seriously misinformed, or (2) you're trying to mislead others who might be reading this. There are hundreds and thousands of genuine scientists who find serious fault with evolutionary theory these days, and that number is growing. Those are the facts, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

...what's left is rather pathetic lies.

As shown above, it's the evolutionists who have made a career out of "pathetic lies". You're pointing that dog at the wrong tree.

What's most interesting is that Chicken never makes any mention of his *motivation* for waving his ignorance around so publicly.

I don't think it's ignorance, but in the interest of humoring you, I'll say that the reason for opposing evolutionary theory in public is that I quite simply don't believe it's true. It lowers humans to mere animal beings who are the latest in a long line of random occurrences, as opposed to being God's crowning creation on earth. Evolution is a direct affront to God's role as Creator, and turns both the Bible and Jesus Christ into liars. What is your motivation for defending it? And why can't you speak in scientific terms here, instead of getting into philosophical matters? Could it be because evolution is actually a matter of philosophy, not science?

Nowhere do we see even a hint of any competing claims...

Did you just skip over the parts about the scientific method, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Maybe you need to go read again.

...much less any competing rigor in being skeptical of those as well.

It's clear where your skepticism is pointed, and it's obviously not directed towards both points of view. Hypocritical as usual.

But this is the trap anyone falls into, who mistakes the province of religion (moral guidance) for the province of evidence. Logic must be abandoned...

That's the biggest mistake modern "science" makes; thinking that religion and true science are incompatible. Man thinks he's smarter than his Maker. (And Flint is smarter than all, of course.)

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Clearly "Little" would profit by attending a school in the states mentioned in this article.

Link

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Link to a "creationism" hoaxer
One of "Littles" "experts" (self-appointed you may be sure). Note that while there might be scientist who believe in "creationism", none are recognized in the disciplines associated with The Theory of Evolution. It is even more interesting that it was the entire "Christian Establishment" that fought the concept of Earth circling the Sun because it conflicted with their "beliefs" that God had "created" the Earth as the highest Planet and placed Man upon it as His "greatest accomplishment".
As for the concept that "evolution" can't be reproduced "scientifically", that was put to rest by a Monk named Gregor Mendel who showed how it happens. That lead to the formation of "the Modern Synthesis" which has been augmented and built upon since.
Now 130 years later, the bio-chemical origins of heredity can by traced. It hardly need be stated that the greatest opposition to "cloning humans" comes from those who tremble in fear that their long held *myths* derived from a book written and re-written to serve its establishment over centuries will be totally demolished.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

[I'll say that the reason for opposing evolutionary theory in public is that I quite simply don't believe it's true. It lowers humans to mere animal beings who are the latest in a long line of random occurrences, as opposed to being God's crowning creation on earth.]

Just so. Science, logic, and evidence are strictly a smokescreen, irrelevant to the real motivations here. And the real motivation is *pride*, pure and simple. Chicken has placed himself atop an imaginary pedestal, which must be defended with irrational fervor.

This is the last and most durable artifact of human self-deception. Once we were all that was, but we discovered an outside universe. But hey, at least we were right at the center of it. Oops, turns out we're on an insignificant mudball in the middle of nowhere. But at least we had the largest and most complex brains of any known creatures. Except that several others have been found to have larger and more complex brains.

But at least we were magically created out of nothing right at the top of creation, right? Sadly, huge libraries of evidence say otherwise, upon which all or most of human knowledge rest in many disciplines. And all the godballs can come up with otherwise is lies and fraud, armored by an impenetrably mindless inflexibility. Little people who cannot accept that the universe does not exalt them in the style to which they pretend to themselves they are entitled.

Most religiously-inclined but otherwise rational people recognize that evolution is a fact, though there likely will always be more to learn about its mechanisms. For these people, since some god or another has been trained into them, evolution is simply that god's way of orchestrating the *process* of making these people the crown of creation. That way, they can allow reality to penetrate without sacrificing their hubris. Evolution was God's means of creating us in His image to feel superior to everything else, see?

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that we are simply the contingent and accidental result of a feedback process? Does this make us any less? Despite the insecurities of small-minded people, we are still what we make of ourselves, and our lives are what we can do with them. No magic required. There is no creation, and it doesn't need any crown. Religion is simply little people trying to puff themselves up into more than they are, and creationism is this same tendency carried to such absurd extremes it insults what little intelligence creationists have retained. How very sad.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Usher -- Calling someone a hoaxer, and posting a link to a page describing the person, signifies exactly nothing. Pleez 'splain. Note that while there might be scientist who believe in "creationism", none are recognized in the disciplines associated with The Theory of Evolution. Totally inaccurate nonsense. Are you guys spouting this fluff on purpose? You're missing not only the boat, but the ocean, on easily verifiable facts. 20% of scientists in the U.S. believe in intelligent design, and refute evolution. I guess you'll have us to believe that out of that 20%, none of them have anything to do with relevant fields. (is your name Barnum?)


It is even more interesting that it was the entire "Christian Establishment" that fought the concept of Earth circling the Sun because it conflicted with their "beliefs" that God had "created" the Earth as the highest Planet and placed Man upon it as His "greatest accomplishment". Well, they were wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, above all else. Because the church was wrong on that count doesn't mean that it's wrong on every single thing that touches on scientific themes. Drawing (jumping to) such a broad conclusion isn't very scientific, now is it.


As for the concept that "evolution" can't be reproduced scientifically", that was put to rest by a Monk named Gregor Mendel who showed how it happens. Another poopie load -- Gregor Mendel believed very specifically in Creation as it's narrated in the book of Genesis. The man who himself did the genetic science knows what it showed a bit better than you do. No one has ever "showed" how evolution happens. They have "theorized", and there it ends. It can't be reproduced, so it's a philosophy, not a science. Evolutionists are going on faith just as much as creationists are. It's interesting how some on this thread seem to want to paint those who don't believe in the leaky theory of evolution as "ignorant". Well, here for your reading pleasure is a partial list of past scientists who believed the Bible, and in the Genesis account of Creation:


Leonardo da Vinci Francis Bacon Johannes Kepler Blaise Pascal Robert Boyle Isaac Newton Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz Johathan Edwards Carolus Linneaus William Herschel John Dalton Humphrey Davy Michael Faraday Samuel F. B. Morse Charles Babbage James Joule Gregor Mendel Louis Pasteur William Thompson, Lord Kelvin Joseph Lister William Mitchell Ramsay James Clerk Maxwell George Washington Carver Arthur Wilder-Smith


Every man in the list above was on record as having a belief in a literal Biblical Creation; every one of them a giant in his field. Many of them lived after Darwin first proposed evolutionary theory, but still refused to subscribe to that way of thinking. Facts of history. If we're to take Flint's and Usher's statements at face value, then these men were "ignorant". Wow. Never thought I'd be going back and forth on a web board with people who think they're sharper than Sir Isaac Newton.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Flint -

Just so. Science, logic, and evidence are strictly a smokescreen, irrelevant to the real motivations here. And the real motivation is *pride*, pure and simple. Chicken has placed himself atop an imaginary pedestal, which must be defended with irrational fervor.

You couldn't be any more wrong if you lived to be 1000. This isn't about *me*. Or you, or Usher, or cpr, or any other individual. (beyond that, you flunk the long-distance psychic test, wherein you attempt to read my mind and motivations from miles away)

It's about the state of humanity, and our purpose on this earth. Science, logic, and evidence are all crucially important things to anyone living; but so is the very nature of who and what we are. They're all unavoidably intertwined, interwoven.

That's why people like me object to evolution. Darwinism cheapens human life. It's not a matter of putting humanity up on a pedestal; it's a matter of recognizing and acknowledging that there is a Creator, and giving Him His due. You're certainly free to disagree with His existence; that's up to you.

But it's apparent here that the "small-minded" ones are those who dismiss as ignorant the thoughts of those who disagree with them. I don't think you guys are stupid; I just think you're wrong. Big difference.

It's just not wise to term as "ignorant" those who disagree with you, and ascribe inferior motives to them when you have no way in the world of knowing what you're saying.

That group you term "ignorant" includes some of the greatest minds this earth has ever produced, by the way. See previous post.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Little, the joker gives some scientists who have been dead and were dead centuries before Darwin and Mendel. Is there any doubt that Newton when presented the facts of Einstein and the Quantum Scientists would have changed his view of the universe? If you doubt that you do not understand the Scientific Process one bit.
As for Mendel showing how heridity worked, it was that very addition to Darwin that enabled the creation of the Modern Hypothesis. That hypothesis has *nothing* to do with "Creationism". Little tosses terms back and forth that contradict his own positions and while "foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds" it does nothing to establish his case that there is nothing to "Evolution".
Mendel may have believed in the Bible but he also knew that if he took identical peas and bred them, he got identical children. If he varied one "marker", he got different children. Experimentation with other members of the plant and animal kingdoms have established the validity of Mendel's work. Mendel worked without knowledge of DNA. Even the concept of "genes" on a chromosome has since been modified.
What really troubles the "Littles" (correct name) of the world is this. Man constructed a heirarchy of Plant and Animal Kingdoms based on observation and classification was done by a set of markers. At the Apex of this system was placed Man. But it is fact that this is merely a convenience for Man.

It is also a convenience for Man to extend such thinking as follows:

Since the greatest Progress has come from Western Man and Western Man is almost exclusively White, it follows that White Men are the chosen people. And there can be no doubt about that because the "Littles" of the world have a collection of writings derived from the legends of Tribes in the Fertile Crescent.

There is no need to confuse yourself with any "data" that conflicts with this views. It follows further that since the White Man's Creed is "the best" (it is after all the Chosen Religion of the Chosen People), extending that Creed across the World is a "duty" of the Chosen People.
It also follows that obliterating any logical contradictions from any outside sources of information is also the duty of the Littles of the world.

This sort of circular reasoning has been going on since "Man" left the comfort of the Cave. Only members of the Tribe are worthy of the Creed and only Creed Believers can belong to the Tribe. Tribes become Nations and Nations then fight for their Creeds.
Meanwhile, "Science" marches on. Giving the world all the "Progress" it can handle. Somehow the All Present Super Daddy has little to do with it and that really pisses off all the "littles".

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Preach it Chicken. Know that you don't stand alone, Myself and many others believe just like you. I personally have grown tired of trying to educate those that would remain wilfully ignorant. One day, to thier great dismay, they will learn the truth. But for them it will be too late.

That part really sux, but they have been warned, over and over again. They have nature smack in their face, and still can't see. rather they won't see.......

It sux to be them.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

[If we're to take Flint's and Usher's statements at face value, then these men were "ignorant". Wow. Never thought I'd be going back and forth on a web board with people who think they're sharper than Sir Isaac Newton.]

You are confusing ignorant with stupid. Newton, like all people of his time, was necessarily ignorant of scientific developments that had not yet happened before they died. Like any good scientist, Newton accomplished great strides with the data available to him at the time.

Now, if Newton were brought back to life today, presented with Einstein's theories and the relevant evidence supporting them, THAT would be the test you are looking for. If Newton said "Aha!, yes, you have derived a better theory because you had better evidence", then Newton is smart and his ignorance would be cured.

If (like creationists everywhere) Newton chose instead to block out any possibility of learning from the subsequent efforts of others, of increasing his knowledge *because it meant discarding his convictions*, then Newton would fall into the stupid category. Smart people learn, stupid people deny.

Listing people unfamiliar with the various theories of evolution, most of whom were either in entirely different fields or who died before Darwin published, is "proof" that evolution is wrong in much the same way as "proving" nobody ever walked on the moon by listing great people who died before 1969 and thus couldn't name those people. If you are sincere about this, you are simply stupid. Otherwise, you are dishonest. In either case, you perpetuate fraud from religious conviction.

Appeal To Authority is bad logic. Appeal to irrelevant authority is either really dumb or really dishonest.

I'm perfectly comfortable with legitimate disagreement. Sometimes the evidence is ambiguous or nonexistent. Sometimes evidence is irrelevant -- you and I may legitimately disagree as to whether a painting is "attractive." But beyond some level of logic and evidence, some matters are simply not subject to *legitimate* disagreement. If I drop a brick and it falls, someone who for religious reasons sticks their fingers in their ears, scrunches their eyes tight shut, and SCREAMS that the brick went UP is not legitimately disagreeing with either me or reality. Instead, they are perverting the use of their own minds to meet psychological needs.

And this is why it's futile to waste too much time trying endlessly to correct the errors of logic and mispreresentations of the facts. Those errors and lies have been exposed ad nauseum, by tens of thousands of qualified people, for over 150 years, without so much as slowing down the creationists' process of fabricating more errors and more lies. Because ignorance can be cured, but what Chicken is presenting is not ignorance, and it cannot be cured.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

*Sigh* (as someone used to say)

Futile, yes; but one last time will I turn the light of truth on the error of evolutionary belief structure.

THE main error in evolution is that it CANNOT....CANNOT.....explain where things came from. In order for things to evolve, there must be a simpler form earlier in history. Fine. Men came from apes, apes from reptiles, reptiles from primordial ooze, etc. etc etc, says the true believer in evolution.

But they don't want to hear the next question....it is always dodged....

Where did the first something come from? I mean, go back far enough, and the true believer in evolution says you come to the "big bang"; What "banged"?

"aha, the primordial atom 'banged'", says the faithful.

"But WHERE did the 'primordial atom' come from?" asks the true scientist.

......?.....uhhhhhh......."shut up, you religious freaks!" is the response of Flint and the rest of his true-believing kind (including Chuckles P. Roooooobin, the quack)

*Sigh*

Try and answer the question in four hundred words or less, oh faithful to the ignorance of evolution. Otherwise, keep quiet and keep your ignorance to yourself.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

I don't want anyone to change his beliefs becuase of SCIENCE BUT I DEMAND THEY ***** GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS OF ANYTHING and make sure that they take their Relics of Belief with them****. At the MINIMUM, these Intellectual FRAUDS of "creationism" should abandon use of ANY 19th and 20th and now 21st results of Scientific Investigations whether from Physics, Chemistry or Biology. That would INCLUDE: MEDICINE.

When they suffer from Flu, heart diseases, assorted cancers and almost any disease that has been mitigated by SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS, LET THE "TRUE BELIEVERS" turn to their "beliefs". That way they could be "true to their principles".

I do not believe they are entitled to "cherry pick" from the Menu of Progress that which serves them IF it also violates their "beliefs".

THUS, when the results of Science come back with cures from investigating DNA, none of these FRAUDS should be allowed the benefits that MERE MAN HAS GIVEN TO OTHERS. Let them turn instead to their Priests and SHAMANS.

The "true scientists" are still asking where the first atoms came from. The intellectual FRAUDS of "creationism" don't even keep asking. THEY HAVE THEIR ANSWERS ALREADY. That implies they are neither HONEST nor Scientists.

I doubt that GOD approves of WALLOWING IN IGNORANCE IN **HIS NAME** as the self appointed guardians of HIS BOOK do. When "Six Day Creation" became "not exactly 24 hour day Creation" and the rest of the edifice was held together by LIES AND SPIN, HOAXES AND FRAUDS, anyone who thinks that "GOD" is in league with such people will learn the truth when it is too late for them.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Iknow:

This is simply your pride tripping you up once again. There are without doubt many questions to which we do not know the answers. We speculate, and we do our best to form our speculations in terms that suggest investigations which (for all we know) might show that our speculations are incorrect, and so we keep looking.

But it takes a larger mind than you've shown so far to admit that we do not know what we do not know, and that pompously and belligerantly claiming that it all happened by magic, and then sitting back smugly, only demonstrates yet another refusal to see.

The tack you are taking now has been called "the god of the gaps", i.e. everything that science has established is now taken for granted, but magic still serves to explain everything else. But over time, as real investigators (those who want to *increase* our learning rather than *stifle* it) learn more and more, there is less and less that "requires" a magical explanation. And so as the gaps in our knowledge grow smaller, so does the little and shrinking god the simple-minded must use to explain them away.

In order to learn anything, a person must recognize that he lacks the knowledge he is attempting to learn. But if that person thinks all he needs to do is chant "god did it" and then *believes* he has the final answer, he has rendered himself learn-proof. And while you may be entirely content never having to learn anything, most of us are large enough to admit that there are things we don't know. And so we grow, and use our knowledge to provide YOU with a long, healthy life. You bite the hand that feeds you, without which your life would indeed be cruel, brutish and short. So next time you think you see your god, you should thank it for all the people who don't need one.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

ah, the two extremists weigh in... the "cussing christian" with his typical blather tries to cloud the issue....and DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

At the other end of the spectrucm the godless flint says "we don't know" yet he has already stated that creationism has been disproven....heh. using words like "magic" etc. both extremists show they are running scared....of the TRUTH. It stares them in the face.....sister wisdom begs to teach them.....they ignore her pleas.

A good scientist tests hypothesis...to either disprove or continue towards truth. Even a 4th grader can tell that the 'logic' of evolution breaks down when you go far enough back...THAT is enough for most scientists to admit that there must be something more. Those who continue to wish that there is no God fight on valiantly, even if total ignorance is the only path to continue down.

Since neither blowhard even ATTEMPTED to answer the question..... which camp do YOU think they are in?

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

What question? What question from you would I waste MY time answering? You and the other "belivers" can't even phrase a question in a scientific manner. You resort to calling Evolution a "belief system" or a "philosophical system" and DARE to call Creationism "a Science" when it is in fact AN MERE EXTENSION OF YOUR........FAITH AND CREEDS. Worse, you dare to explore areas of Science which have been settled long ago and merely revised as new knowledge /data is added. THAT is Science. Not the BULL SHIT collection of factoids you dare offer as "proof" that Evolution is not Science.

Discussing elementary chemistry with the great unwashed leads to nothing. You would not understand it anyway.

An experiment over 60 years ago established that molecules could be formed in the "primordial soup" that Earth was as it cooled down.

Want to go onto the Red Herring of "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has never been contradicted"?

PROVE IT. MATHEMATICALLY. Because in order to do that you must state your starting postulates and buried under your rhetoric and screeching lies a FALSE and MISLEADING USE of the 2nd Law. But THAT....like the FALSIFIED PHOTO OF A FOOT FOUND IN FOSSIL AREAS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVE THAT MAN EXISTED WITH DEENO THE DINO ALA: FRED FLINTSTONE. Then you dare raise the Piltdown Man which was exposed by SCIENTISTS not "believers"? YOU TRAFFIC IN FRAUD AND DECEIT LITTLE BETTER THAN THE WITCH DOCTORS, SHAMANS AND PRIESTS YOU DEFEND.

IF the "thinking" of the true believers were correct, it would imply that NO PLANT could ever store energy for there would be no source for the energy stored. That would imply that FARMING COULD NOT EXIST because the 2nd Law does not allow it. But FARMING does exist just as Evolution Theory can be demonstrated much to your horror defending your Tribal Lore.

How could a seed of corn grow to the proverbial Elephant's Eye by the 4th of July? Is that not "order out of chaos". Is the 8-10 foot stalk of corn not far more complicated than the seed?

But this sort of argument does not serve the DEVIL-lutionist well, so they stay MUTE about it.

Since it is fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form, it has to come from somewhere else. OTHERWISE, no seed would ever grow to crop, no tree could add a leaf and EVOLUTION does not contradict the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is derived and stated:

DELTA S IS GREATER THEN OR EQUAL TO ZERO WHERE "S" IS ENTROPY.

IT IS TRUE THAT LAW HAS NEVER BEEN CONTRADICTED ..........*******IN A CLOSED SYSTEM****.

But a simple analysis shows that the 'system' of the Earth and Sun is NOT a closed system and in fact, mathematically, DELTA S could be LESS THAN ZERO (i.e. order out of chaos) for a very simple reason which even FARMERS can understand.........THE ENERGY FOR DOING THAT FORM OF WORK DOES IN FACT EXIST IN STORED FORM (WHETHER FROM PLANT OR ANIMAL SOURCE).

The constant addition addition of Energy from the SUN changes the Math and makes the 2nd Law inapplicable. That Energy is the source of LIFE and all other forms of Energy except Atomic Power. Oil, Nat. Gas, Coal are merely stored forms of the energy transmitted to Earth.

Since the EARTH IS A SINK and the SUN IS A SOURCE, you have to add that energy to the equation that the "true believers" so ignorantly toss around.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Way back Chicken Little stated, "There are hundreds and thousands of genuine scientists who find serious fault with evolutionary theory these days, and that number is growing. Those are the facts, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise."

Pray tell, where are these hundreds and thousands of genuine scientists you claim here?

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

One thing that Little did not include in his list of Long Dead Scientists was the fact that Darwin lies in close proximity to Newton in Westminster Cathedral having been placed there in a State Funeral. Bishop Wilberforce didn't make it and you can assume that none of the current peddlers of the "revised" version of Creation will get to rest near either of the 2.

Actually, Buddy, there are legitimate Scientists who are also sincere worshipping members of the assorted Faiths of all Kinds. This is also true of the Physicists working in Quantum and trained in "Relativity" another very sore subject with the chanters of ignorance. As the vast majority of Faiths make changes to their Mantras over the years, there are always some who refuse to "compromise". "They Know What They Know" and don't dare bother them with the facts. They can always be found in the rear guard of thought defending their Dung Piles of Irrationality from "Earth Centered Universe" to "Clock Like Universe" to "Absolutism" to "Debilution" whatever.

Last night on the first of the dreadful PBS 4 parter, the program ended with a "Orthodox Catholic, Orthodox Darwinist" who stated bluntly (and I would think correctly) that he found no conflict between his Faith and his Work. He is correct because FAITH takes over in those areas where Science can't go. Sadly, so does POLITICS and MONEY. Make know mistake about those in the Rearest Guard. Like the Pat Robertsons of the world, they have large Business Interests to protect. Never forget that an "expanding church membership" goes nicely hand in hand with prohibitions on Birth Control nicely wrapped in the gossemer of "be fruitful and multiply" (and don't forget the Special Collection this week for the Bishop, Missionaries, etc.

While the PBS program was an attempt to depict the Life and Times of Darwin (it failed), there were some snippets worthy of catching. One would deeply disturb all the "creationists". As we know now, all living plants and animals have DNA. PBS chose to include the early study that showed that the DNA of humans was very closely correlated to the DNA of Chimps to the tune of 98%.

This is where the Blind Believers SOIL THEMSELVES when they insist on the 100% inerrancy of the written word of *their* interpretations of their Bibles.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

go chuckie GO!!

Dood, you are a frickin RIOT! Never in my life have I seen a “cussing christian” who is so consistent.....hehe!

I thought I did a fine job of phrasing the question....I even stated it several ways, knowing in advance that blowhards like yourself would deflect, sputter, ignore, drool, etc. because YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. At least Flinty made some attempt to brush it off before QUICKLY changing the subject.....

Where did the first something come from?

I mean, go back far enough, and the true believer in evolution says you come to the "big bang"; What "banged"?

WHERE did the 'primordial atom' come from?

Heck, I even begged you jokers to answer in 400 words or less, but I knew ahead of time you wouldn’t.....because you CANNOT. I will even try and rephrase the question yet again, chuckles.....

“Where did the seed come from that produces the 8-10’ cornstalk?”

(careful how you answer now.....you might get yourself into a “pickle”...heh! I’ll assume you will say it evolved from a simpler form....fine. Use that line of reasoning....then start heading backward......where do you end up?)

You claimed An experiment over 60 years ago established that molecules could be formed in the "primordial soup" that Earth was as it cooled down.

You’re not trying to be serious are you? Stanley Miller??? that farce was debunked long ago....millers experiment required applied vacuum, a condenser and cold trap. Where were those items in the primordial soup? Not to mention the fact that as soon as the “synthesized molecules” hit the hot pool again, they dissipated at a rate 10 times faster than they were formed (for those to slow to understand, or to ignorant, the Alanine and Glycine that were created through the application of technology *error #1*, broke down back to the component elements methane, ammonia hydrogen and oxygen WAY quicker than they could form. In other words, even in a chance makeup the “new elements” couldn’t have survived!)

Keep up the humor, chuckie....I’m fascinated by your ability to blather on!

BTW, the PBS special was killer! I laughed so hard, My fam had to come see what was on! Better than Abbott-n-Costello! and that one pathetic little fat dude even looks like one of ‘em! talk about ASSumtions! Guy claimed there were hundreds of transitional forms.....then never produced ONE! DNA that is 2% different? GREAT! does the DNA that is closer in relation than that mean things like horses and sea monkeys are related?

Great laughs....can’t wait for the rest!!!

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

The nice thing about science is that ideas can be debated. The "big bang" theory is just that--a theory--and all good scientists know it.

The trouble with you creationists is that you think you already know what the truth is, therefore there can be no debate.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Any reasonable person has to conclude that both Creation and Evolution are NOT COMPLETE. Those who think the answers lie in Fireside Mythology need a process known as Excorcism for they are possessed.

The origins of corn seed and the plant species itself is easy to learn. Perhaps this joker would like to explain why the Histones vary so little between Plants and Animals.

It is one thing for the DNA mechanism to be similar across kingdoms but if there were no common ancester why would other structures and mechanisms be so identical? THAT the creation retards do not want to address after their standard retort that "HE" created everything EXACTLY as detailed in "the Book" (subject to their interpretation of course).

It is thought the ancestor of today's corn was a Mexican perennial and in the late 1970s a breeder crossed the Mexican plant (still not extinct) with assorted strains of hybrid corn. There were plants grown on from the cross but nothing with agricultural merit. The thought of "perennial corn" that could be harvested as a crop made the project worth doing, evolution or no evolution. Any library worth a damn should have the Scientific American issues with the articles on this story.

You may assume by Evolutionist theory that such plants come from a common ancester. Just as you may assume that Chimps and Man did. Of course, most of the "creationists" are proof of the hypothesis that chimps are descended from Man not the other way around. "Creationists" should content themselves with the limp explanation that GOD created the PreCursors and let it go at that. In a way, that is what the Diests model was and that enabled the more intelligent of the "biblical inerrancy" retarded to MOVE ON.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Well, one more foray to cast light into dark corners and see what cowers there.

1) I didn't say creationism had been "disproven" and I won't, because unlike scientific theories, creationism is a *definition*. It has nothing to do with logic, evidence, or proof. When we define the sky as being blue, then that's our definition. If we said instead that the color of the sky was "gleeble" then THAT would be the color. Definitions are either accepted or they are not, but proof does not apply.

As an illustration, I defy TrueBeliever to name any evidence that would lead him to discard his definitions in favor of observation. This he cannot do. He is "right" because he SAYS he is right.

In any case, there's really no such thing as "scientific proof" as there is in (say) mathematics. In science, *everything* is subject to doubt. All we have is degrees of likelihood. It's the religious who talk in terms of absolutes like "proof" and "truth". Scientists deal with probabilities, relative strengths of evidence, proper use of tools.

2) We continue to raise the rather simple and obvious point that even if evolution is incorrect, this does not make any competing explanation correct by default. That's like saying that even if you can prove that 2+2 is not 4, that does NOT *necessarily* mean the "correct" answer is 17. Anyone is free to find the evidence in favor of evolution less than fully compelling, but that does NOT mean that the "evidence" (nonexistent) in favor of magic is MORE compelling. You cannot logically support any argument by poking holes in some other different argument, even granting that there are genuine holes to be poked. So you aren't necessarily right even if I am wrong. You must support your explanation on its own merits -- which you have never done.

So the true believer is now saying that unless someone else can answer a question to his satisfaction, his answer must be the best -- even when his answer is based on nothing whatsoever! However (see point 1), he CANNOT support his position with the rigor and techniques he demands (and then tunes out) that others defend theirs. Positions based on definitions cannot be defended -- they are accepted or they are not.

3) As even minimally educated people understand, Darwin's (and subsequent) theories of evolution are attempts to describe how life changes over time, and NOT attempts to guess how life may have started in the first place. So it's not that "the logic of evolution breaks down if you go back far enough", it's that before a defined point, the conditions did not exist for evolution to apply at all.

So TrueBeliever is saying "your theory is no good because it cannot explain what it was not intended or developed to explain." Which is like saying the theory of gravity is no good because it can't explain politics. Not an honest argument, leaving us back where we started. Either the TrueBelievers are amazingly stupid, or equally dishonest.

4) It has always been a fool's errand to try to debate facts with creationists. Invariably, you get trampled in what has been called the "Gish Gallop" after creationist Duane Gish, who cobbles falsehoods together with logical fallacies at breakneck pace, knowing that (a) Refuting each single point would take whole books (b) which could not be properly understood without a scientific background few people possess. The appeal of magic is straight to the ignorance of its audience, and always will be.

But one has t wonder at a "debating" method that *relies* on an ignorant audience, so as to confuse rather than inform. That's the approach of the con artist.

5) It's the rearguard, superstitious simpletons who are fighting on valiently, while the real world leaves them behind. After all, evolution is one of the most thoroughly established and accepted theories science has to offer. Religious victims rail against it NOT because it has any real flaws, but because it conflicts with a rather arbitrary and foolish belief system. It's hard for me to understand what leads some people to deny blatant reality so furiously. What strange pathologies they must be suffering!

(And as a footnote, you have to wonder why the "objections" to evolution are so repetitive, and presented in nearly the same words every time. As though the TrueBelievers are all cribbing from the same cheat sheets -- and have either never seen the refutations, or not understood them, or prefer to pretend they are ignorant of them. Do you suppose it's a coincidence that the ONLY objections ALL come from the same splinter group of religious nutballs? If they are sincere (hard as that is to believe), I pity whoever trained them should they ever realize how badly they've been taken.)

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Dr. Science discusses the ability of the "creationists" to process information and use it below. File them under : "knowledge; squat"

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Dear Doctor Science, What is the proper use of the term "squat," as in the phrase "He doesn't know squat"? -- Doug Stevens from Detroit, MI It's actually a corruption of the word "Diddily," which is of Indo European origin and thought to have reached common usage in ancient Armenia. Some linguists posit the existence of two separate languages, "Diddily" and "Squat", which were spoken on opposite banks of the "Bo" River. In either case, invading Visigoths stamped out all traces of their culture, including the language, and both "squat" and "diddily" now mean "very small" or "negligible." -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Subscription questions - send a blank message to faq@drscience.com. Visit the Ask Dr. Science web site at sponsored by those smart folks at Yahoo Groups

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

ah yes, flintboy and the the "cussin christian".....what a team!

Keep those laughs comin!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Just look in the mirror and keep laughing. Then ask yourself, "What if they are right and I have been mislead?".

Do that every night before you try to go to sleep for the rest of your life. Then maybe you will know "Who's the Fool".

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

How ironic that those were the words I was going to use on you, but decided against. You been 'took', chuckie.....too bad that when that realization hits you, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

I sleep just fine, BTW. My God reigns.....the same God who created all things according to his word, is the same God who redeems me from sin.....HE is doing it, and I get the benefit!

Too bad you can't see past your myopic little self-important world OF YOUR OWN CREATION.....

See ya 'cross the chasm......"dood".

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

Hey, LittledickHead,

Your diatribes have exactly the same effect on reasonable people as the rantings in Elementary School of Sister Monica Whipp who told all the chilluns to "sit up straight when I am talking, or God will Punish You for That". Its bullshit and older than the tents of the Nomads in Tents who started the stories you read and accept as "Biblical Fact".

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

"No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation"- Pete

One must wonder about a lost soul who calls himself "christian" (cussing the whole time....heh!) then calls the bible "ancient writings of cavemen" and "fireside stories open to interpretation".... just what part of the salvation message do you believe? the virgin birth? NOT scientific at all, yet without it, Christ could not be sinless. The ressurection? not even close to being scientific. yet without it, ALL christians are WITHOUT HOPE.

I never could understand those who think they can pick and chose what part of scripture they should follow.....ya know what I tell em?

"The bible says:

'Judas went out and hanged himself.'

'go thou and do likewise'

'what thou doest, do quickly'

NOW follow your own rules for "private interpretation", fools!

(for those who don't know, the bible does say those things, just not in that order. an extreme example of misusing the scriptures to your own end.....and have you noticed that not one of the evoloutionists even attempted to answer the 'big bang' question? do you know why? it destroys their belief in evolution. If a process had no beginning, it could not possibly "evolve". Flinty tried to side-step the issue and deflect, but it made him look foolish.....heh! Chuckie don't need no hep lookin foolish.....he do FINE by hissef!!! LOL!!!)

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

true:

It's not sidestepping an issue to point out that the big bang is not addressed by any evolutionary theory, nor is any such theory *intended* to address it. It's hardly my fault that you don't have any clue what you're talking about. After all, if you did we would not be disagreeing.

Meanwhile, the big bang remains one (of several) proposals for how our universe may have started. We have very little evidence of anything that far back, and what little we do have is extremely indirect and ambiguous. However, scientists (unlike true believers) are actually permitted to admit that there are things they do not know -- they do NOT have to make up magical explanations and then worship their own imaginations.

So for all anyone knows, our universe MAY have been started by magic. And maybe not. The first step toward knowledge is admitting that you do not know. That's why religions are so bound up in ignorance -- they cannot admit they don't know, so they make it up. And when they turn out to be howlingly wrong, they cannot admit error without admitting WHY they were in error, which would collapse their whole nonsensical structure.

But hey, you're free to believe whatever someone trained you to believe, and welcome to it.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Ah fllinty, now you stepped in it. I tol' ol chukie to be careful how 'e answered.....you shoulda paid attention.

"Meanwhile, the big bang remains one (of several) proposals for how our universe may have started. We have very little evidence of anything that far back, and what little we do have is extremely indirect and ambiguous. "

So you are saying that you believe.....on very little evidence. hmmm..... is that like.....FAITH? I think so.

you are starting with a belief system flint-boy.....plain as the nose on yur face. belief in evolution is just that....belief. if you were anywhere near as scientific as you claim, you would be able to objectively look at your position and say "waitaminute...something can't come from nothing in this model I am using"

The fact is flinty, you hate God and even the idea of God....your constant use of the word "magic" is evidence of that. I wonder what thoughts will go thru yur head on your death-bed, flint-boy....

I guarantee it won't be evolutionary belief strucures.

'sides...if I went on what I was taught, I would still be caught in the evolution baloney trap. THAT is what I was indoctrinated into. INDEPENDANT RESEARCH led me to know that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THIS EARTH happened by "random chance".....

Look long and hard in a mirror flint-boy......BEFORE its too late.

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#ref139

Issue No. 9

September 1983

---

COMMENTARY

Biblical "Science"--The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:

• (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
• (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
• (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
• (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
• (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
• (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
• (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
• (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
• (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
• (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
• (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
• (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
• (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
• (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
• (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
• (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
• (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
• (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

Some statements are so vague that apologists can often evade dilemmas by creative rationalizations. As Ingersoll said: "If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 37). For instance, Gen. 1:7-8 says: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;... And god called the firmament Heaven." Realizing the scientific implausibility inherent in this narration, some apologists attempt to portray the firmament as nothing more than the atmosphere separating the moist clouds above from the oceans below. Some biblical allegations are not only erroneous but have been fatal to their adherents. For instance, Mark16:17-18 says: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils;.... They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." Not many believing Christians are willing to drink poisons or handle rattlesnakes to prove the Bible's accuracy, although some have tried. Many individuals have died because they put their trust in the Biblical injunction to pray ("And the prayer of faith shall save the sick," James 5:13-15) and, not wanting to make Asa's mistake (2 Chron. 16:12), shunned physicians.

The unscientific aspect of biblical teachings is also shown in the fact that many mythological creatures are spoken of as if they were, in fact, real. The manner in which they are described and the context within which this occurs show biblical writers felt they actually existed. Some of the prominent examples are:

cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5),

unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),

satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)

fiery serpents (Num. 21:6),

and flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6).

Last, but not least, one should note the hundreds of miracles contained within the Bible. Perhaps more than anything else they prove the Book lacks scientific validity. Miracles, by definition, have supernatural causes, and science, by definition, doesn't work with the supernatural. In order to avoid an extended discussion as to the existence of miracles, I will simply say that nearly all reputable scientists deny their existence and feel all events have a natural, material cause. Believers in miracles can never produce a supernatural event when asked to do so. Challenges are invariably left unanswered. Any book claiming a woman turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun went backward 10 degrees on the sundial (2 Kings 20:11), and quails came from the sea (Num. 11:31) is going to have great difficulty demonstrating its scientific precision to any reasonably scientific mind. One can't help but recall the humorous instance in which an eight year old lad was asked by his mother what he had learned at Sunday school. "Well," he said, "our teacher told us about when God sent Moses behind enemy lines to rescue the Israelites from the Egyptians. When they came to the Red Sea, Moses called for engineers to build a pontoon bridge. After they had all crossed, they all looked back and saw the Egyptian tanks coming. Moses radioed headquarters on his walkie-talkie to send bombers to blow up the bridge and save the Israelites."
    "Bobby," exclaimed his mother, "is that really the way your teacher told you that story?"
    "Not exactly, Mom, but if I told it her way you'd never believe it."
    Virtually every child has heard about the parting of the Red Sea, the whale swallowing Jonah, the stick turning into a snake, and Jesus' walking on water. In fact, many people begin their critical analysis of the Bible by doubting the authenticity of these stories. Logic, reason, and skepticism accompany a scientific mentality; not one of faith and uncritical belief.

In recent years the conflict between science and the Bible has become especially pronounced with respect to the struggle between evolution and Creationism. The battle has been, and is being, fought in many forms-- e.g. the schools, libraries, and courts. BE will not enter the fray because the subject matter not only lies outside the Bible per se, but is highly technical and of little interest to many people. Few scientists and even fewer laymen really understand the intricacies of all the sciences that are involved in a really thorough discussion of evolution. Paleontology, geology, biology, astronomy, archeology, chemistry, and anthropology are some of the disciplines one must comprehend in order to proceed wisely. However, it is interesting to note how the struggle between science and the Bible has evolved. Originally, scientific findings were denounced as blasphemous lies. But as science has expanded and the evidence has mounted, many apologists have adopted a more realistic stance. They have increasingly rewritten the Bible by either changing literal statements to figurative meanings or alleging, "What the Bible really meant was..." For example, they assert the seven days of Creation weren't really days; they were eras or epochs. When the Bible describes miracles it doesn't mean to imply they exist. It is merely relating instances in which naive people were fooled by trickery and other mechanisms. With characteristic wisdom, Ingersoll took note of this slow evolutionary change: "The church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every device that cunning could suggest or ingenuity execute, but the conflict could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerned, was in danger of being driven from the earth. Beaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate, to evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having failed to harmonize the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was not a scientific book,....(Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p.220)." "In matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be a regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Bible. The tables have been turned, now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with science. The standard has been changed." (Ibid. Vol. 2, p. 242). "In other words, the standard has been changed; the ancient is measured by the modern, where the literal statement in the Bible does not agree with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries, but give new meanings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring to reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible with science. (Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 151). Only staunch fundamentalists continue trying to erase the handwriting on the wall. In the 5th chapter of Daniel, Belshazzar didn't try to erase the unpleasant handwriting on the wall. He listened and acted accordingly. One would think believers in the Bible would learn from his experience. In summary, the Bible is not inerrant with respect to science. Many statements reflect the era in which they were written and assertions to the contrary are weak at best.

---

Jesus, the False Messiah--As stated in prior issues of BE, Jesus often made statements and committed acts which invalidate any claims he made to the Messiahship. Additional examples, such as the following, are worthy of note. Mark 9:25-26 says: "...he (Jesus-ed) rebuked the foul spirit, saying into him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him;..." Jesus' statement is false, because if the spirit was deaf, how could he have heard Jesus and come out? If he was dumb, how could he have cried ou?. In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Lev. 19:13, which says: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor." This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments. In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he live? The gospel did not appear until after his death.

---

REVIEWS

In some of their apologetic works, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart provide common responses to those who question the Bible's scientific qualifications: "The Bible is not a textbook on science. Its purpose is not to explain in technical terms the technical data of the natural world, but to explain God's purpose and relation to man, to deal with spiritual things. It is definitely not a technical textbook for scientists. The descriptions which the Bible gives concerning nature are neither scientific nor unscientific, but phrased in words that are non-technical and often general, so that even the common reader can follow the thought. This does not at all mean the statements are incorrect." (Answers to Tough Questions, P. 104) The problem with this explanation is that it's irrelevant. Whether or not the Bible is a scientific textbook or whether it's intended to be a technical work doesn't matter. The fact is, scientific statements contained therein are either true or false. They are either correct or they aren't. That's all that matters. And any book alleging a bat is a bird and some foul are four-footed is incorrect. The assertion that "The descriptions which the Bible gives concerning nature are neither scientific nor unscientific" has no truth whatever. They definitely lie within the scientific sphere, and are false. McDowell and Stewart continue: "The Scriptures entertain no fanciful ideas of science and of the natural world,.... It was Ptolemy who suggested that the earth was flat. We read statements such as these and laugh, but there are no absurd statements in the Bible similar to these." (Ibid. P. 105). Such comments hardly merit a response. The Bible is permeated with miracles and erroneous scientific comments, as this month's Commentary shows.

In The Bible is a Scientific Book apologist Gordon Lindsey not only defended the Bible, but asserted: "The Bible foresaw the great inventions of our day" (p. 8). He contends many biblical statements are nothing more than prophecies of scientific developments in the 19th and 20th centuries. For instance, Lindsey claims that Isa. 31:5 predicts Jerusalem would be defended by airplanes, as occurred in 1917 and during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. Isaiah 31:5 says: "As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it, and passing over he will preserve it." Yet several parts of the verse show the Lord is the "Airplane" referred to, The "as birds flying" phrase applies to God himself. He will hover over and defend Jerusalem. There is no justification for assuming airplanes are intended. The phrase "And passing over head he will..." makes the same point. God is doing the flying and protecting. On page 16 Lindsey says: "Peter, quoting from Joel 2:30, apparently refers to atomic warfare: 'And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke' (Acts 2:19). It requires no imagination to see that this is an apt allusion to nuclear war." On the contrary, it requires great imagination to relate this verse to nuclear war, since any war has blood, fire and smoke. Lindsey contends the advent of radio is predicted in Job 38:35, which says: "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" But lightnings or electricity are not sent through the air by radio. Radio waves are sent, and they aren't electricity or lightnings. Lindsey refers to Psalm 90:10 as evidence the Bible forsaw a life expectancy of 70 years. The verse says: "The days of our years are three score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away." Lindsey concludes: "Some 3,500 years ago Moses,...said that a man's life would be 70 years.... It is amazing that Moses, living in a period when life expectancy had been rapidly dropping, should make this statement. For turn to your world almanac, and you will see that today, after every means of modern medical science has been exhausted, longevity is 70.2 years. Science, try as it may, is unable to break the barrier.... God has cut down the life expectancy of man to 70 years, and there it has stayed for 3,500 years. Another proof of the veracity of the Holy Scripture" (Ibid. p. 27-28). Anyone seeking evidence as to why the Bible and its evangelical proponents should not be allowed to dominate science in the classrooms need look no further than this line of thought. It's hopelessly inaccurate. In the first place, life expectancy in most countries of the world is far below 70 years. In India and Bangladesh, for example, people are considered old at 50. Only the more advanced countries have life expectancies approaching 70 years. Lindsey should realize most people don't live as long as his native Texans. Secondly, the life expectancy of the average American hasn't been as low as 70.2 years since 1965. So any assertion to the effect that science has reached an impassable barrier is false. Thirdly, the life expectancy of man has not stayed at 70 years for 3,500 years. Quite the opposite, constant improvements in medicine and nutrition have generated a steady lengthening of the life expectancy, and only recently has it attained an average of 70 years. Tendentious reasoning, such as that shown by Lindsey, can only lead to erroneous conclusions.

In Biblical Difficulties W. Arndt alleges the Bible does not say the earth is flat in Psalm 136:6 and Isaiah 11:12, or rests on pillars in 1 Sam. 2:8. After contending these are merely figures of speech in poetic jargon, Arndt says: "If no better arguments against the world view of the Bible can be presented than those looked at, the Bible has little to fear on this score." (Ibid. p. 165). To begin with, 1 Sam. 2:8 (RSV) does say the earth rest on four pillars, and Isaiah 11:12 does say the earth has four corners. It's difficult to see how anything could have corners without having flat sides. But if Arndt insists on giving a figurative interpretation to these imprecise statements, so be it. They are not definite enough for either side to make a conclusive argument. But what about comments that are definite? The Book of Leviticus, for example, has probably more inaccurate scientific comments than any other book in the Bible, but is ignored entirely by Lindsey and only lightly touched by Arndt. In response to the comment in Lev. 11:6 that hares chew the cud Arndt says: "It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter--the hare and the hyrax--do not ruminate at all,...but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating.... The statement that it cheweth the cud is to be taken phenomenally, not scientifically.... Moses speaks of animals according to appearance, and not with the precision of a comparative anatomist...." (Ibid. p. 119-120). The fact is the statement is false. Lev. 11:6 says hares chew the cud. In truth, they don't. That's the bottom line. Rationalizing just won't save the day.

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001

Biblical "Science"--The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike.

Depends on what you mean by "scientifically valid." The Bible isn't a science text, it's God's revelation to mankind. I agree with him this far, wholeheartedly. The Bible wasn't written to tell us how many atoms can dance in the head of a pin, but to show us that God loves us and wants to bring us into a personal relationship with Him.

Some Fundies do try to interpret the Bible as a strictly-accurate science or history textbook, and that's wrong. But having said that, I do believe that the Bible is inspired of God and that the Bible can be trusted, even in the 20th century.

This boy doesn't want to hear this, but the Bible DOES often use figurative and symbolic language. That's not a rationalization, it's a simple statement of fact.

Further, except for some REALLY arcane stuff that I won't bore you with, we Christians (in general) don't have too many disagreements about where the Bible is "symbolic", either -- in spite of sectarian and denominational differences.

(Most Christians understand that Daniel and Revelations, to take two obvious examples, are filled with prophetic symbology.)

But having said that, the real question is whether the Bible can be trusted. Can I believe that it's God's inspired and authoritative Word for Mankind, and that it is valid and applicable today? This is really the key question, and whether this fellow will admit it or not, that's the REAL reason why he attacks the Bible -- because he knows that people like me will read, say, "thou shalt not commit adultery" and say unequivocally, "adultery is therefore WRONG, and there is no way to make it right."

Solely because this boy raises a few questions in that regard, I'll take the time to address them. This is going to be way too long, and I apologize for that in advance.

God inspired various men to write the Bible, but they did so in the context of their experience, using the language and conventions of that day. This isn't a "rationalization;" knowing this *fact* is one reason why Christians and Jews dominate the fields of linquistics and translation and Biblical archeology -- and have for centuries.

Anyone who's a serious student of the Bible will probably own a Bible dictionary or similar "help" (or a "reference" Bible, which includes the information along with the text) precisely so that he/she CAN understand the time period in which the Bible was written; what some of the archaic words and images mean, the background for the illustrations, etc.

This fellow is also targeting the KJV bible, which is unfair. We have much better translations nowdays. In spite of better translation, though, there are still some terms (especially in the ancient Hebrew) that we're not 100% sure of.

(The NIV mentions these uncertainties to the reader in footnotes; the old KJV does not. We're not sure what the "leviathan" was, or whether the high-flying "birds" in Matthew were eagles or vultures, for example.)

You see, this guy is also ignorant of ancient languages and customs and -- most importantly -- the ancient style of writing, which was unconcerned with technical accuracy. In plain English: he's reading the Bible (and the King James at that!) expecting it to correspond to his 20th century view of what "correct and accurate" should be; it doesn't work that way.

One example that I often use is that the Bible might say in one place, "In all of Israel, no one ate beets." But the next chapter begins by saying, "Hannah ate beets!" What gives?

From a 20th century point of view, that's a gross contradiction. But an ancient wouldn't even notice! He would (correctly) interpret this as, "most of the people stopped eating beets, but Hannah was an [obvious] exception."

(And the text would invariably continue: "Now I'm going to tell you why she was an exception and make an important -- usually spiritual -- point.")

Further -- and this is so important I'm going to put it in red -- the ancient languages often had to use the same word to describe several different things, or "bend and borrow" a word that might not technically fit to describe something for which there was no word in the language!.

To give you a crude idea, you wouldn't expect Shakespeare to use the word "airplane" or "computer" to describe these things upon seeing them for the first time. The problem was even worse for the ancient, whose entire language might only consist of a few thousand words, which had to be bent and stretched to cover often-complex spiritual and moral points.

There's the root of his error, and (assuming that you've even made it this far; this screed is WAY too long!) that's really all I need say. But for those who care, I'll take some of his specific objections one at a time. The fact is, none of them are worth the cost of the ink to print them.

(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18)

In Moses' day, they didn't know a "mammal" from a bowl of barley. If it flew, it was considered a bird. If this fellow can find some way to explain the difference to an ancient mind, I'm all ears.

As proof of this, the Hebrew for Lev 11:20ff uses the word for "bird" interchangeably with that for "insect" (lit., "swarming creature"). The two are considered roughly equivalent to the point being made (which in this case, is a rather arcane prohibition in the ancient Mosaic law). To the ancient mind, if it flew, it fell under the general category of "things that fly" -- be it a bird, bat, insect, whatever.

So ... (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21)

See what I just said. But just for the record, the NIV more correctly translates this passage,

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

... since the context makes it pretty clear that insects, rather than birds, are being discussed here. Of course, this leaves the problem that the Bible seems to say that insects have 4 legs ...

(c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23)

As I said above, the Bible isn't concerned with strict technical accuracy to start with (which is one reason why I agree that it isn't a science textbook). But the answer to this one is simple: to the ancient mind, the insect could be seen as having 4 legs and 2 hands, or 6 legs, or 6 hands -- depending entirely on context and the point being made.

Again: to the ancient, the moral -- the point of the story -- was far more important than technical accuracy! And this answers these objections:

(d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)
(e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5)

This is silly quibbling. Rabbinical scholars have had no trouble interpreting these passages for millenia, including this one ...

(f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4)

The camel does have a split hoof, but it's not immediately apparent (there's a thick pad on the bottom of the foot). Again, we see, not strict technical accuracy, but that which would have been apparent to the ancient reader/listener.

Incidentally, there are some very arcane discussions about things like this on the Web, if you're interested. Rabbinical scholars generally agree that Jews shouldn't eat camel meat, but are divided over whether Jews should drink camel milk.

Further, it's generally understood (with exceptions!) that "chewing the cud" referred to eating vegetation in a manner similar to that of cattle. Having a "divided hoof" wasn't always immediately apparent, which is why Moses carefully named those animals which were considered "unclean" in those cases where there might be questions.

Fortunately, as a Christian, I don't have to worry about this, because I'm no longer under the Mosaic law, but under grace![g]

(g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV)

(Now, wait a minute. Why'd he leave the KJV and use the Revised Standard Version for this one verse? Hmmm ...)

The greek word for "earth" is GE (pronounced "ghay") and can be translated as "soil," or by extension, the land areas of earth (as apart from the oceans). This matters because, if you read the entire passage (chapter 3), you'll see that Peter is (once again!) making an important spiritual point about the flood judgement -- when water covered "GE," the soil -- of the Old Testament.

Hey, I'll agree with the guy; this is not scientific. What he misses is that it's not supposed to be, and I've never thought that it should be considered a technically-accurate description of how dry land was formed on this planet. Most Christians don't.

(h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8)

I'm going to quote the passage in question from the NIV, because it better illustrates the spiritual point being made.

8b. For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.
9. He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness. "It is not by strength that one prevails ..."

No, this isn't scientific, nor is it technically accurate. But once again, it's not supposed to be; it's obviously figurative and the point here is that if God can make the world and "set it in place" (however you wish to view that), then guarding His children is a small matter.

(i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30)

Now we're really quibbling. If he can't see that this is symbolic, I can't help him.

(j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7)

He's really upset about split hooves and cud, isn't he? See what I said above.

(k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13)

He has simply mis-read this passage. It doesn't say that the first rainbow appeared after the flood, it simply says that, from that point on, the rainbow would symbolize God's promise.

Incidentally, this illustrates a HUGE problem in the historic battle between Church and Science: in the past, yes, the Church has taken its interpretations of certain scriptures and elevated them to the status of fact (much to its later embarassment). It's very important to differentiate between the interpretations of men -- which are sometimes wrong -- and what the Bible actually says.

In this case, the truth is that the Bible actually says very little about stellar mechanics or the shape of the earth -- a few obscure passages are all that it devotes to the subject en toto.

(l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV)

Quibbling. Again, he's expecting Western technical accuracy from an ancient document. Jesus was making a point that his listeners would have understood.

(m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12)

This is a missed translation in the KJV. The Hebrew word TOWR doesn't mean "turtle," it means "turtleDOVE." The NIV more correctly translates this as "the cooing of doves is heard ..."

(n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3)
(o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1)

The phrases "ends of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" have been used since ancient times to indicate area and direction. "Four corners of the earth," in particular, refers to the four points of the compass.

(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21)

Have you realized yet that he has requoted the same passage from Leviticus several times? I addressed this above. The passage is speaking of insects.

(q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

This passage doesn't say that, not even in the KJV. I don't know where he gets that from.

A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

This passage doesn't say that, either, merely that the fetus jumped when it heard the sound (gk. PHONE) of Mary's voice.

My fingers are getting tired; I'm going to pick and choose from the remainder.

Mark16:17-18 says ...

This IS unfortunate; some believers HAVE been killed while handling snakes or drinking deadly poison. Many scholars now believe that the entire passage from Mark 16:9 through the end of the chapter isn't actually part of the orginal manuscript; it was a later addition ... which makes it REALLY unfortunate.

His comments about faith healing are also accurate. While I certainly believe that God heals according to His will, I also believe that in many cases, he uses physicians and medicine to accomplish that.

Before I let him give us all a bad rap, though, I'd like to point out that Christians invented the concept of the hospital out of compassion for the sick. We also invented the concept of sending doctors into regions with no medical care (ie, medical missionary work).

All of these words, by the way, come from the KJV translators:

cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5) unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10)
satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)
fiery serpents (Num. 21:6)
flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6)
A look at the literal Hebrew resolves these. Jeremiah 8:17, for example, speaks of "snakes" and "vipers;" the Hebrew doesn't use "cockatrice." Likewise, the literal Hebrew in Deuteronomy 33:17 doesn't have "unicorn;" the NIV more correctly renders this as "horns of the wild ox." And so on.

Last, but not least, one should note the hundreds of miracles contained within the Bible ...

No one would argue that miracles, by definition, cannot be scientific. He's right about that.

I'll leave the rest to someone else. I'm off to bed.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

That just scratches the surface of "problems". You have to keep reading the web site. There over 100 parts to this site.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart16.html#issref161

Issue No. 21

September, 1984

---

COMMENTARY

The Creation Accounts

(Part One of a Two Part Series)

Few topics in recent history have generated more controversy than the question of how the earth and its environs were created. For years two major positions--Evolution and Creationism--have been locked in an on-going struggle for influence in the schools, the media, and elsewhere with little chance of immediate victory for either. BE will not enter the fray directly because the issue invloves a tremendous amount of technical information lying outside the Bible per se. Creationism is, for all practical purposes, an assault upon the integrity of nearly every physical science, and in order to cope effectively with such organizations as the Institute for Creation Reseaarch one would have to become quite knowledgeable with respect to geology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, biology, archeology, physics, chemistry, and other physical sciences. Few individuals on either side are sufficiently informed to conduct an impressive presentation. Nevertheless, some general points of disagreement between evolutionists and creationists are worthy of note, and can be discussed with confidence. Creationists obtain their philosophy from biblical accounts related in the book of Genesis, and refer to it as "Scientific Creationsim". But if their position is as scientific as alleged, then why does it clash with science on so many points? Prominent examples are the following:

• (1) "And God said, Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3) and "...And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen. 1:5), versus "And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.... ' "And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.... And the evening and morning were the fourth day" (Gen. 1:14-19).
  • (a) God created light on the first day; yet there were no moon, sun or stars until the fourth day;
  • (b) how could it be known when the first three days ended if there was no sun until the fourth day?; and
  • (c) How could morning be distinguished from evening, if the sun and the moon were yet to be created?
• (2) "And God said,'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind.... And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:11-13), versus "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also" (Gen. 1:16), and "the evening and the morning were the fourth day" (Gen. 1:19). Vegetation was created on the third day; yet there was no sun for the photosynthesis until the fourth day.
• (3) " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), and"... the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen.1:5), versus "And God made two great lights; and the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also" (Gen. 1:16) and the evening and the morning were the fourth day" (Gen. 1:19).
  • (a) According to biblical "science", the earth was created 3 days before the sun, the moon and the stars;
  • (b) Scientists say there are many stars whose light takes millions of years to reach the earth. How, then, could they be 6,000 to 8,000 years old as many Christians allege?
• (4) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...' And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:11-13), versus "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life... And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly.... And the evening and the morning were the fifth day" (Gen.1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science says that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before life appeared on land.
• (5) " So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds,and every winged bird according to its kind.... And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day" (Gen. 1:21-23 RSV). Geological science says fishes appeared long before the birds. They were not created during the same day or period.
• (6) "And God created...every winged fowl after his kind...." (Gen. 1-21) and "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day" (Gen. 1:23), versus "And God made ther beast of the earth... and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind...." (Gen. 1-25), and "... the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Gen. 1:31). Science says creeping reptiles appeared on the earth before the fowl, not afterwards.
• (7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made...every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind...." (Gen. 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.
• (8) "And God said, 'Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Gen. 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.
• (9) "So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27), and "the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Gen. 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher's calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus' ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.
• (10) "And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so" (Gen. 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs.
• (11) "And God saw everything that he had made...." (Gen. 1:31) and "on the seventh day God ended his work" (Gen. 2:2). Scientifically speaking, unless God had male organs or attributes, it is difficult to see how God could be masculine.
• (12) "And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and bought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof" (Gen. 2:19). Environmentally speaking, how could every living creature be brought to any spot in the Middle East or elsewhere without many animals dying because of climatic changes and other factors?
• (13) "And Lord God said unto the serpent, 'Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt eat all the days of thy life'..." (Gen. 3:14). If the serpent was a snake, snake-like, or reptilian in character and condemned to crawl upon its belly, how did it move before? And does science know of any serpent that eats dust?

In order to extricate themselves from the problems associated with a six-day creation approximately 6,000 years ago, many apologists assert that each day represents an age or era ,encompassing millions of years. In other words, literal days composed of 24 hours each were not intended. Their belief, however, is erroneous for several reasons:

• (1) The word translated as "day" is "yom" in the Hebrew, which means a definite 24-hour period from sunset to sunset;
• (2) Starting evening and then morning shows a 24-hour period was intended. This was how Jews computed a day;
• (3) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned?;
• (4) Actual days must be intended; otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;
• (5) If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word "yom" is employed: "And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Gen. 7:17), "And he (Moses--Ed.) was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights" (Ex. 34:28), and "Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights..." (Deut. 9:25). If "yom" means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was "there with the Lord" for a long time.
• (6) If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath.... in it thou shalt not work.... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" (Ex. 20:9-11).
• (7) Gen. 1:16 ("And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night") states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it--time with days that are 24 hours long, with daylight ruling half of each.
• (8) And lastly, Adam was made on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26, 31), which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Gen. 5:5).

 

---

What is Science

At this point in the commentary an extra-biblical discourse is in order. Not long ago the editor of BE heard some creationists denounce the theory of evolution and its foremost proponent, Carl Sagan, in no uncertain terms. They accused evolutionists of having a theory with scores of unanswered questions, for which God was the only rational explanation. From these discussions it became evident that two major problems are indelibly written into their approach. First, it exposes a misconception about the nature of science. Physical scientists gather data and formulate theories or laws based upon the information collected. As additional information is gathered, the theories and laws are improved and perfected in a never-ending, on-going process. Physical scientists never arrive at a point where they can say they have a theory or law that is good for all time and under all conditions. They can never say they have an absolute truth that will be true forevermore. What they say is that, based upon all known data and information, a particular theory or law is valid. They are not saying the theory or law will never have to be modified. For the present, however, it's the best explanation available.

When creationists denounce Carl Sagan for calling evolution a proven fact, they are actually attacking all physical scientists, because no scientist can prove any physical law or theory will be eternally true. Creationists want absolutes, which science will never generate. Science does not provide the kind of eternal verities creationists seek. Every law or theory in science is a temporary truth, a relative truth. It works for now; it is true for now. But that is not to say it will never be enhanced. Scientists gather data and formulate theories based on what they have. As new information is collected, the theory is modified and improved, to take account of new facts. Creationists, on the other hand, formulated theories based on the book of Genesis, gathered data to corroborate them, and discarded all information to the contrary. Facts were made to fit beliefs, rather than vice versa. Secondly, there are always going to be questions in the physical sciences for which current theories or laws have no provable explanation. That is inherent to the nature of science. And because scientists don't know all, creationists and others of an anti-science propensity will always have a void to exploit. And, of course, historically they have done just that. Quick to provide supernatural explanations for unknown causes or phenomena, they have specialized in focusing on the weakness of science and asking questions for which scientists had no conclusive proof. The history of the struggle between scientists and supernaturalists has been, and will continue to be, a perpetual process in which supernaturalists are retreating, while naturalists are advancing. Every time naturalists have found answers to the questions of supernaturalists, the latter have moved to new questions. And until naturalists can provide satisfactory explanations for everything, supernaturalists will always have an opening for divine intervention. The theory of evolution provides a prime example. Yet, it is a theory for which no absolutely conclusive proof is available. But, then, that is true of every law or theory in the physical sciences. If one seeks absolutes, statements which are true at all times, under all conditions, then he should stay with supernaturalists such as the creationists. They, alone, provide absolutes: absolutes which are absolutely wrong. They ignore or discount that which doesn't comply with a predetermined, eternal "truth," which is undoubtedly one of the greatest weaknesses of the entire Bible. It deals in absolutes. By saying "All have sinned" or all must die, it boxes itself into a corner, because exceptions aren't difficult to find in the Book itself.

True, evolutionists can't provide provable explanations for some questions; but creationists provide readily disprovable explanations for most questions. Originally, naturalists held sway 5% of the time and supernaturalists 95%. As naturalistic explanations have grown throughout history, as frontiers of science have expanded, supernaturalistic explanations have been forced to retreat. The percent of naturalistic influence has grown immeasurably, while the percent of supernaturalistic influence has decreased dramatically. But the former will never totally eradicate the latter until a provable natural explanation can be provided for every event, including those of the bygone ages. As Ingersoll once noted:

"At one time it was believed that a race of men existed with their heads beneath their shoulders. Returning travelers from distant lands were asked about the wonderful people and all replied that they had not seen them. Oh, said the believers in the monsters, the men with the heads beneath their shoulders live in a country you did not visit. And so the monsters lived and flourished until all the world was known. We cannot know the universe. We cannot travel infinite distances, and so, somewhere in shoreless space there will always be room for gods and ghosts, for heaven and hell." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. 480).

One would think, though, that creationists and other supernaturalists would learn from history and admit they are fighting a losing battle. They are correct in feeling they can never be eradicated, because science will never know all, it will never become God; but they must realize their losses will grow with every scientific advance. Indeed, increasing numbers of biblicists are wisely abandoning the ramparts and leaving fundamentalists to cover the retreat.

---

REVIEWS

Interestingly enough, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and creationists don't agree with one another with respect to the origional creative process. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, argue that each of the six days encompasses thousands of years.

"... some may say even the idea of this planet passing from a 'formless and waste' condition to its present form with continents, forests, plants, animals, and men, all in just six 24-hour days--this still is incredible! But where does the Genesis account say that the 6 days were 24-hours each? Though some religious groups teach this, the Genesis account does not say it. You yourself use the expression 'day' in a broad sense of your 'grandfather's day.' Likewise the Bible often used the word 'day' in a broad sense-Gen. 2:4. Keep in mind that the works spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are those of God, not of man... Are God's 'days' of work controlled by the rotation of this globe? Obviously not. Of God, the Bible says:'One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day'(2 Peter 3:8). And that even to God a 'day' can have more than one meaning is seen when comparing this text with Psalm 90:4 which says: 'A thousand years are in your eyes but...as a watch during the night.' So it is plain that the word 'day' can be used to refer to a 24-hour day, a person's lifetime, 1,000 years or even longer" (Is the Bible Really the Word of God, p. 18-19).

On pages 62 and 63 in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer argues against 6 literal days of 24 hours each.

On the other hand, Henry Morris, one of the foremost creationists and Director of the Institute for Creation Research, supports six 24-hour periods. "The Hebrew word for'day' is 'yom' and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of tome, if the content warrants. In the overwhelming preponderance of its occurrences in the O.T., however, it means a literal day... Still further, the plural form of the word (Hebrew 'yamim") is used over 700 times in the O.T. and always, without exception, refers to literal 'days.' (The Bible Has the Answers, Henry Morris, p. 94). In denouncing the idea that each day represented an era, creationist Morris made a surprising admission. "Not only is the day-age theory unacceptable scripturally, but it also is grossly in conflict with the geological position with which it attempts to compromise. There are more than 20 serious contradictions between the Biblical order and events of the creative days and the standard geological history of the earth and its development, even if it were permissible to interpret the 'days' as 'ages.' For example, the Bible teaches that the earth existed before the stars, that it was initially covered by water, that fruit trees appeared before fishes, that plant life preceded the sun, that the first animals created were the whales, that the birds were made before insects, that man was made before woman, and many other things, all of which are explicitly contradicted by historical geologists and paleontologists." (Ibid. p. 94).

Jerry Falwell's mentor, fundamentalist John R. Rice, also discounted the day-age theory. "Gen. 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, 'And the evening and the morning were the first day,' is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24- hours... There is no Bible evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods." (Dr. Rice, Here is My Question, John R. Rice, p. 259).

In order to resolve the conflict between a 6 day creation and one involving millions of years, some biblicists devised the gap-theory. Heaven and earth were supposedly created as related in Gen. 1:1 and the earth proceeded to evolve over hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Then a cataclysm destroyed the earth and returned it to its former state. Then with Gen. 1:2 the 6 days of creation began. In other words, hundreds of millions of years, a gap, existed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen.1:2. The gap-theory attempts to satisfy both evolutionists and creationists. Creationist Morris gave the following appropriate response: "...the pressures...have been so heavy during the past century that many Bible scholars have felt desirable to reinterpret Genesis in some way that would accommodate the supposed geologic ages. Two such theories have been advanced, one placing the geologic ages 'during' the 6 days of creation (thus making the 'days' into 'ages'), and the other placing the ages 'before' the 6 days (thus turning the 6 days into days of 're- creation' following a great cataclysm which had destroyed the primal earth)..." (Ibid. p. 90). After discussing "numerous serious fallacies" in the gap-theory, Morris concludes: "The gap theory therefore really does not face the evolution issue at all, but merely pigeonholes it in an imaginary gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it and then use the method of special creation to re-create (in 6 days--Ed.) the same forms He had just destroyed. Furthermore. there is no geologic evidence of such a world-wide cataclysm in recent geologic history.... (During the Glacial Age-- Ed.) ice sheets only extended into the middle latitudes, and certainly did not destroy all previous life. There is no Biblical evidence of such a worldwide pre-Adamic cataclysm either. A few tests, isolated from the contexts, may possibly be interpreted to fit in with the gap theory, but nowhere in the Bible is there a clear, straightfoward account of the supposed primeval creation and the character of the hypothetical pre-Adamic cataclysm. This is strange in light of the importance which this theory has come to hold in the theologies of many Bible teachers and in the much-too-easy answers which they offer for this basic issue in the foundational history of the cosmos." (Ibid. p. 91-92)

---

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart16.html#ref166

Issue No. 22

October, 1984

---

COMMENTARY

 

The Creation Accounts

(Part Two of a Two-Part Series)

Last month's commentary on the scientific problems associated with the biblical account of creation noted there is one more version which occurred. There are actually two--the first beginning with Gen. 1:1 and concluding with Gen. 2:3, the second beginning at Gen. 2:4 and concluding the chapter. These are noteworthy in that they not only disagree with one another in numerous instances, but are internally plagued as well. Many examples of the former can be given.

• (1) "And God made the beast of the earth" (Gen. 1:25) and "So God created man in his own image" (Gen. 1:27), versus "God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7) and "God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam"(Gen. 2:19). According to the 1st account man was created after the beasts. According to the 2nd he was created before them. In the latter instance, he had to have been created before the other beasts; otherwise, how could they have been brought to him? (
• 2) "And God created...every winged fowl" (Gen. 1:21) and "So God created man in his own image" (Gen. 1:27), versus "God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7) and "...God formed...every fowl of the air (Gen. 2:19). In the 1st creation God made the fowl, then man. In the 2nd he made man, then the fowl.
• (3) "And the earth brought forth...the tree yeilding fruit...the third day" (Gen. 1:12-13) and "God created man in his own image...the sixth day" (Gen.1:27, 31), versus "God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7) and "Out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is...good for food..." (Gen. 2:9). In the 1st creation God made the fruit trees on the third day and created man three days later. In the 2nd creation God made man before the fruit trees.
• (4) "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly...fowl that may fly..." (Gen. 1:20), versus "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every...fowl of the air..." (Gen. 2:19). According to the 1st creation all winged fowl were created out of the waters. Yet, the 2nd account says that every fowl of the air was created out of the ground.
• (5) "And God created...every winged fowl...the fifth day" (Gen. 1:21, 23) and God made the beast of the earth...the sixth day" (Gen. 1:25, 31), versus "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air..." (Gen. 2:19). According to the 1st creation, fowl were created on the 5th day and beast on the 6th. Under the 2nd creation, fowl and beast were created at the same time; they formed one creative act.
• (6) "And God said, 'behold, I have given you...every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat'" (Gen. 1:29), versus "...of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" (Gen. 2:17). In the last creation Adam may eat from any fruit tree; while in the second he may not eat the fruit of all trees.
• (7) "So God created man in his own image" (Gen. 1:27), versus "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5) and "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become one of us, to know good and evil'" (Gen. 3:22). In the 1st creation man is made in the image of God; in the second, likeness is acquired by learning of good and evil.
• (8) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27), versus "...but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs...and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman" (Gen. 2:20-22). In the first creation man and woman appeared on earth together; in the second, man came first and later his rib was taken to make a woman.
• (9) "And the earth was without form, and void.... And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2 and "God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear': and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas..." (Gen. 1:9-10), versus "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth...for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground" (Gen. 2:4- 6). In the 1st creation the earth, when created, was covered with water and the land did not appear until the 3rd day. In the 2nd creation there was no water at first; the earth was dry land.
• (10) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...upon the earth..." (Gen. 1:11) versus "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew..." (Gen. 2:4-5). In the 1st. creation plants were created from the earth: they were a product of the earth. In the 2nd creation were created independent of the earth and then transferred to the earth. "Before it was in the earth" shows plants were created before they had contact with the earth.
• Although not necessarily contradictory, two additional inconsistencies are noteworthy. (11) "And God blessed them, and said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply...and have dominion over...every living thing that moveth upon the earth'" (Gen. 1:28), versus "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress and to keep it." (Gen. 2:15). Under the first creation God gave man and woman dominion over all things, and they were ordered to subdue the earth. Under the 2nd creation they were confined to the Garden and ordered to keep and dress it.
• (12) In the 1st creation account God is always called "God"; in the second he is always called "Lord God."

Besides contradictions and inconsistencies between the accounts, there are also problems within each. With respect to the first, the following are noteworthy:

• (1) "And God saw the light, that is was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night...the first day" (Gen. 1:4-5) versus "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night....' And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...the fourth day" (Gen. 1:14-16, 19). Why would God need to divide the day from the night on the 4th day when it was already done on the 1st day?
• (2) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...the 1st day" (Gen. 1:1, 5), versus "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...the 4th day" (Gen. 1:16, 19). According to science the earth was created after the sun, not before. Yet, Genesis says the sun was created three days after the earth.
• (3) "And the earth brought forth grass...and the tree yielding fruit...the third day" (Gen. 1:12-13), versus "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly...the fifth day" (Gen. 1:21, 23). There are few reputable scientists who would say that the earth was covered with fruit-bearing trees before animal life appeared in the seas.
• (4) "And God called the firmament heaven" (Gen. 1:8), versus "...in the firmament of heaven" (Gen.1:14,17). Are heaven and the firmament identical? The phrase "firmament of the heaven" implies they are not.
• (5) "And God blessed them, and said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...'" (Gen. 1:28). "Replenish" means that men or people must have existed before Adam.
• (6) "And on the 7th day God ended his work...and he rested on the 7th day..." (Gen. 2:2). If God ended his work on the seventh day, then he must also have worked on the 7th day. Unless he was working on the 7th day, he could not have stopped working on the 7th day. Therefore, God worked on all seven days. He worked on the sabbath.
• (7) "And God saw every thing that he made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). How then could evil have entered a world which was good, yea perfect, when the work of creation was completed?
• (8) "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27). Is God one or many?
• (9) Gen. 1:26 ("God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'") appears to contradict Isaiah 40:25, which says, "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One."

The second account is also not without internal problems. For example, "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:12) versus "...the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4) and "all the days that Adam lived were 969: and he died"(Gen. 5:5). Adam ate the forbidden fruit and did not die. The serpent told the truth and God didn't. If a spiritual death was intended, as many allege, then why wouldn't that also be the intent of the following verses. "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Howbeit because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord..., the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). As the following verse shows, he certainly was not referring to a spiritual death. "And it came to pass on the 7th day, that the child died" (2 Sam. 12:18).

The narrative of events in the Garden of Eden, which is introduced in the second account, is not without problems either.

• (1) "...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat and gave also unto her husband with, and he did eat" (Gen. 3:6), versus "God is the Rock, his work is perfect" Deut. 32:4). If God's work is perfect and he created Adam and Eve, then they were perfect. How, then, could they have sinned?
• (2) "And the serpent said unto the woman...For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:4-5) and "the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'" (Gen. 3:22). In effect, in Gen. 3:22 God is saying the serpent told the truth when he said that man would learn good and evil. But in the Book of John we are told the Devil is incapable of telling the truth. "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him...for he is a liar and the father of lies" John 8:44 RSV).
• (3) "...Adam and his wife (Genesis relates no marriage--Ed.) hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God...and the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen. 3:8-9), versus "There is no darkness...where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves" (Job 34:22). Apparently, either the workers of iniquity can hide themselves, or God is practicing deception.

 

Pascal's Wager

While engaged in a debate with a couple of ministers some time ago, the editor of BE again heard a familiar refrain, similar to that created by the 17th century French philosopher, Blaise Pascal. The latter asserted one should believe because it might be true. If it isn't, you have lost nothing; if true, you have gained everything, so why not believe and "play it safe"? A major problem with this is: Believe in what? Members of nearly every denomination and every religion contend one must believe their way in order to reach the promised land. Some believe that in order to reach heaven, one must merely accept Jesus as one's savior; others believe various sacraments are required; the Church of Christ, for example, believes baptism is obligatory. The "play it safe" approach would force one to adopt the beliefs of nearly every denomination or religion in existence. Once you chose the beliefs of one religion or denomination over another, you are no longer "playing it safe." You are gambling; you are betting that you have selected the correct road to salvation out of hundreds available. If baptism is a necessity, as some maintain, or other sacraments are a must, as others contend, then millions of people, including Christians, are lost. Even if you decide to "play it safe" by accepting the beliefs of everyone, you would become involved in an impossible situation, since many beliefs are mutually exclusive. From the Muslin perspective, for instance, all believers in the Trinity, which would include most Christians, are doomed to perdition and quilty of the grossest blasphemy. "In blasphemy indeed are those that say God is Christ the son of Mary." (Sura 5:17 in the Koran). "They do blaspheme who say: God is Christ the son of Mary.... Whoever joins other gods with God, God will forbid him in the Garden, and Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no God except One God. IF they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness?...Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle." (Sura 5:72-75). "They say: God has begotten a son! Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder,...for it is not consonant with the majesty of God...that he should beget a son." (Sura 19:88-92). "In blasphemy indeed are those that say God is Christ the son of Mary" (Sura 5:17)

Christians who believe they are "playing it safe" are actually engulfed in many gambles. They are betting their particular denomination's requirements are correct, out of hundreds that exist; they are betting the Muslims are wrong in consigning them to hell for belief in the Trinity; they are betting some sacraments are not required; they are even betting the Bible is God's book, despite its degradation of Him. They are taking more chances than an investment banker on Wall Street. If it's not God's work and God does exist, one can only pity their fate. If a group of people were selling a book which described you as "a false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, a hypocrite, a tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, infamous and hideous" (Some Mistakes of Moses by Ingersoll: See also March 1983 issue of BE) and claimed the work was written and approved by you, how would you treat them if given the opportunity? Any believer, Christian or otherwise, who thinks he isn't making a lot of wagers, that somehow he "playing it safe," is only deluding himself.

---

 REVIEWS

 

In Answers to Tough Questions Josh McDowell presented two major defenses that are usually offered to explain the "Two Creation" dilemma--the accounts are complementary and the second is not chronologically arranged. "It is a mistake to assume that the two Genesis narratives are duplicates, for they actually complement one another. The first outlined the broad processes of creation...while the second paid greater attention to the creation of man and set him with his mate in a specific geographical location" (Page 177). "Much of the problem results over the assumption by the critics that the sequence of chapter 2 is chronological, when it never was meant to be understood in that manner." (Ibid. p. 185).

Several problems accompany these explanations. First, out of 34 verses in the first account (KJV), 31 begin with the word "And", which is clearly used to denote sequence and chronology. This happened and, then, that happened. Out of 22 verses in the second account, 17 begin with "And" and serve the same function. There is nothing to justify the apologetic assumption that the first group of "Ands" denote sequence while the second do not. Secondly, one need only read chapter 2 beginning with verse 4 to see the events are arranged sequentially. Verse 7 (man's creation) would logically follow verse 5; verse 8 would logically follow verse 7; verse 9 would follow 8 (the Garden); verse 15 would follow verse 7 (the creation of man) and 8 (the Garden of Eden); 17 would follow 16; 20 would follow 19 (the naming of animals); 22 would follow 21 (the rib); and 23 would follow 22 (the woman). Indeed, understanding the 2nd version would be rather difficult if the events were not viewed sequentially.

Thirdly, Gen. 2:19 ("And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them") would present a contradiction, even if the second account were not sequential. As stated earlier, how could the animals be brought to Adam for naming unless Adam already existed? But according to the first account, man was the last being created. McDowell seeks to escape this problem by changing the verb "formed" to "had formed." He asserts that "in Gen. 2:19 there is not explicit warrant in the text for assuming that the creation of animals here happened immediately before their naming.... The proper equivalent English for the first verb in Gen. 2:19 is the pluperfect ("had formed")." (Ibid. p. 186). Apparently McDowell feels he knows Hebrew better than the scholars who translated all the following versions:KJV, RSV, LB, NASB, NAB, ASV, and the Jewish Masoretic text. Not one says "had formed." They all say "formed." Fourthly, even if the 2nd account is less general and focuses more on man specifically, that has little bearing on the chronological disagreements. When the accounts discuss the same events, the sequences must agree. Both mention man, fowl, beast, fruit trees, woman, and plants.

One of the specific differences addressed by McDowell involves the creation of man and woman. "The sequential differences with regard to the creation of man and woman are also a major point of contention, but if properly understood the problem vanishes.... By the simple phrase "male and female created He them," we are not told how they were made or if they were created at the same time. There is only the indefinite statement that they were created. In the second account, when the writer elaborates the story of mankind's origins it is explained in detail how man and woman were formed respectively. This is not a matter of inconsistency, but of a general statement followed by a detailed account..." (Ibid. p. 184). McDowell conveniently ignored the verse immediately after 1:27. Gen. 1:27 says, "...male and female created he them" which is followed by "And God blessed them and said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply...'"(Gen. 1:28). They were created simultaneously and blessed by God immediately thereafter and told to multiply. Not only does the "And" at the beginning of verse 28 denote sequence, but the blessing would logically immediately follow their creation. Moreover, the order to "be fruitful and multiply" is written in such a manner as to not only be the first comment of God to Adam and Eve, but one addressed to both of them. Whereas, Gen. 2:16-18 shows God conversed with Adam alone before Eve even existed. In other words, unlike that which is related in the 2nd account, the first account shows they were created together, as part of one act.

In Bible Difficulties apologist Arndt stated, "To all of the attacks made upon the account of Creation as presented by Moses the Christian can reply, in the first place, that the pronouncement of his God on the origin of the world is more important to him than the dicta of scientists. In the second place,...none of the critics was present when the universe was created..." (Page 109). Arndt's first comment demonstrates the closemindedness that is so indicative of the apologetic mentality. "I don't care what evidence you have, if it contradicts the Bible then it's false." BE confines itself primarily to an internal analysis of the Book for this very reason. Secondly, Arndt claims none of the critics was present when the world was created. True, but then, neither was Moses. At least scientific critics can provide rocks, fossils, and other material evidence, which were present upon which to make judgements. Moses gave us nothing more than a book, assuming he wrote it.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

Usher/CPR,

First of all, I've shown -- clearly -- that the boy made several errors of fact in that first article that you posted. At the very least, this guy is woefully unfamiliar with ancient languages and customs. Why should I pay a great deal of attention to the other stuff that he has to say? He hasn't shown me anything resembling scholarship.

This guy took the King James Bible and some of its peculiarities in translation and built most of his case on that deck of cards.

Second, this is old news to me, anyway. I've seen better critiques of the Bible (much better) starting with when I was in my teens. This boy has a bit to learn before he can join the Big Leagues. Really, his Web site looks like a simple cut and paste from some of the stock arguments that I've been seeing all of my life (and all of which have been addressed at one time or another, by the way).

He wants to nitpick and apply a 20th-century methodology to a book that was written according to ancient methods. He obviously gets a rush from this; well, it's a free country and I love him. But I'm not going to waste time on him. I wasted more than I should last night, but hey; it had been a long day and I was bored. :)

(Believe it or not, I find stuff like that and interesting way to pass the time. Believe it or not.[g])

I've already stated that the Bible is NOT a science textbook. I can agree with him to that point. But I also believe that it's God's word to mankind, which we would do well to heed. I targeted those of his statements that would attack *that* premise, not his argument about the Bible being a "science text."

Nuff said.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

Stephen:

What I cannot understand is, why bother with all this imaginary superstructure? Why worry about whether the linguists and theologists are redacting ancient perceptions into what they want to see?

You know, the *useful* advice the bible gives is all MUCH more clearly presented by nearly every book in the self-help aisle down at Barnes and Noble. If you're willing to discard the nonsense chaff (because it's not a science text) and keep the good advice (which is more clearly presented by modern books anyway), why bother with the entire bible at all?

Essentially, all that's left is the tired morality and the supernatural punishments for violation of tribal customs ("your afterlife will suck"). In other words, things adults should have outgrown.

So I agree that all this Biblical Errancy stuff is a waste of time. I just recognize that it's irrelevant to all but a specific cult. If you are a grown-up (and you seem to be), why ever do you persist in such childishness? Your invocations of some god are indistinguishable from a kid being comforted by his teddy bear.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

Better take a long hard look at the very long INDEX page at BE before you leap to any conclusions that the author was any "boy". The FACTS ARE THE BIBLE (ALL VERSIONS) IS CLUTTERED WITH NONSENSE. And not just the Rightist Fundies use it for political reasons but so do those from the other side of the aisle.
There is one comment that is dead on. "Fundamentalists know a very great deal about the Bible but little about anything else." And now even dressing up their "organizations" with "Ph.Ds" in some branch of Science doesn't contradict that Truism. Once you take a Ph.D. out of his specialty, he tends to be very average or even less in other subjects.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

flinty, you are a piece of work...heh heh heh.

Man are your buttons easy to push. AND....you are starting to sound downright retarded (I'm sure that is not the case, but you do SOUND that way). talk about "exhibit A"...LOL. J

You say you operate under "observation", then in the same statement claim the earth is billions of years old. BS. Are we to believe you are billions of years old? YOU weren't around to OBSERVE anything. YOU are the one that is swallowing what you are taught. I suppose you "study" archaeology, you yourself go out and dig in the dirt....no way would the almighty FLINT-BOY ....READ.....*gasp*. What a BS'er you are. You speak with forked tongue, as the redman used to say. Your claim that "very little" evidence of big bang is "good evidence":

it is the simplest explanation consistent with all of the (very little) good evidence available. - flintboy REALITY: "very little" translates into NONE. "very good" in evolutionary belief structure means "we've decided ahead of time this is true".

Witness your own biased opinion. YOU are indoctrinated...and as far as I can tell, hopelessly mired in ignorance. Your hatred of God is obvious, you wear it like a badge.

I know you LUV to get the last werd dood....so go ahead. I'm thru with you, charles p. reuben AND the both of your COLOSSAL ignorance.

The fact is flinty, you hate God and even the idea of God....your constant use of the word "magic" is evidence of that. I wonder what thoughts will go thru yur head on your death-bed, flint-boy.... I guarantee it won't be evolutionary belief structures.

'sides...if I went on what I was taught, I would still be caught in the evolution baloney trap. THAT is what I was indoctrinated into. INDEPENDENT RESEARCH led me to know that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THIS EARTH happened by "random chance".....

Look long and hard in a mirror flint-boy......BEFORE its too late.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2001

CPR,

The FACTS ARE THE BIBLE (ALL VERSIONS) IS CLUTTERED WITH NONSENSE.

That's your opinion and I respect it, but that's all it is: an opinion. I happen to strongly disagree with you. Further, you have shown me no clutter. You have shown me your OPINIONS and have posted another guy's opinions to support your opinion.

Even worse, this guy has made demonstrable errors. I can't trust him. If I were to go to his Web site, I'd have to check everything he said; I have neither the time nor the inclination.

(Besides, as I told you earlier, he really doesn't have anything new. This is a rehash of the same "Twenty Mistakes In The Bible!" stuff that I've been dealing with since I was a teen. Boring.)

It took me maybe 15-20 seconds to confirm this guy's glaring mistake on "turtledoves." He could *easily* have prevented that error by doing a minimal level of research. He didn't. That's a serious mistake, too, though maybe you can't see that.

If I wanted to, I could argue that HE is deliberately propogating a falsehood because it supports his argument -- the same thing that you and Flint regularly accuse Fundies of re: evolution. :)

Flint,

In a way, I'm flattered by some of the things that you say, especially what they seem to imply. You apparently feel that I'm too "smart" to remain wedded to these ancient "superstitions."

You and Charlie both are making one critical mistake: you assume that Christianity roughly divides into two groups, those who are ignorant and backwards (but believe the Bible is God's word) and those who are "progressive" and intelligent (and who must therefore reject the Bible as any kind of an authoritative document).

In fact, you are ignoring the HUGE middle ground, which eclipses BOTH of the aforementioned, at least in Protestantism. (I'll let my Catholic and Orthodox friends speak of their respective branches; I can only speak of what I know).

Compare Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell and you'll get an idea. Graham is quite conservative -- really, he and Falwell would agree on most of the fundamentals. (For that matter, so would I.) So why the huge difference in public perception of the two?

It's simple: Graham eschews politics and concentrates on God's love and forgiveness. His sermons are simple challenges: God can change you. He loves you. No matter what you've done, he'll forgive you.

How do I know that?

Because the Bible, God's Word, says so. :)

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Stephen:

How you must cringe to read what the good little believer keeps spewing. He's content to say there is no evidence for a big bang whatsoever, and conveniently ignores things like the background radiation, the red shift, the speed of light, the varying states of stellar and galactic evolution with respect to distance into the past (implied by the time light took to reach us), etc. etc. etc. He just blindly continues to force what little he knows to fit what he is determined to believe, and if it can't be forced to fit he just ignores it.

What you can't seem to see is that you are doing with morals exactly what the little believer is doing with physical phenomena. From an outside perspective, Christianity doesn't divide into two (or more) groups. You either believe nonsense on faith, or you do not.

Really, WHY do you need some imaginary god to "love" and "forgive" and "change" you? What makes you so desperate for this that you are willing to suspend even a shred of reason and claim some book is the Word of God because it says so, and it says so because it's the Word of God? This sort of "reasoning" would justly deserve the scorn you can (and DO) heap on it in *any other context*!

Trust me, you have the potential to be a worthy person in your own eyes without this incredibly complex system of magical incantations and dubious history and (in little believer's case) hostility toward reality. You can live a good life, and recognize and correct errors according to rule systems of your own choice, without any of this song and dance. You don't need charlatans claiming to be middlemen standing between you and some god to TELL you how to live! (although according to my reading, such charlatans have always made a good living fronting for any god the gullible are willing to accept. Perhaps this PeterPanism refusal to grow up has always been fairly common? And wherever people are willing to deceive themselves, the con artists can be found.)

Little believer is clearly using his religion as a shell behind which he can remain sublimely ignorant of nearly everything. But you should not need that. The "authority" of the bible is no different from the "authority" of the books written by modern scholars, marriage counselors, and the like. The material ANYONE writes either stands on its merits or it does not. Perhaps the bible can be forced not to look quite so primitive and silly if it is interpreted appropriately enough (and as we see, can be made to look worse than it is if misinterpreted appropriately enough), but WHY go through the effort? Pure circular reasoning should offend you -- and it DOES, except for this single (but HUGE) blind spot. Very strange.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Poole:

Just got back from the east coast very late last night. I have been inspected enough to tell you that I am secure.

Interesting conversation to me: When I left undergrad school, I had scholarships in theology and science. I chose science. I didn't stop thinking about the divinity stuff.

There is one place we would not agree: You said,

I also believe that it's God's word to mankind,

I might agree that the Bible [or other Holy books] contain the word of God, but I wouldn't agree that they are they word of God.

Then, this leaves me confused. I don't know what the statement, the word of God, means.

Is the Bible more the word of God than the gene sequence that the student presented me at 8:00 am this morning [on no sleep I have not looked at it].

I don't know. I am envious of people who have all of the answers. Now, some sleep.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

>> Trust me, you have the potential to be a worthy person in your own eyes without this incredibly complex system of magical incantations and dubious history and (in little believer's case) hostility toward reality. You can live a good life, and recognize and correct errors according to rule systems of your own choice, without any of this song and dance. You don't need charlatans claiming to be middlemen standing between you and some god to TELL you how to live! (although according to my reading, such charlatans have always made a good living fronting for any god the gullible are willing to accept. Perhaps this PeterPanism refusal to grow up has always been fairly common? And wherever people are willing to deceive themselves, the con artists can be found.) <<

Flint,

I have seen no better attempts at proselytization than your little sermon above. How ironic that you cast yourself in the role of charlatan!

When will you realize that your knowledge of such things as "background radiation" "red shift" or "stellar evolution" is so superficial that it's simply parroting the buzzwords. You've read a few articles on the subject and you *believe* what you've read. That's all. If you've done anything more than view Mars through a telescope in the way of stellar research, I'd be very surprised.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Elbow:

Unlike you, Stephen actually tries to think, and with effort occasionally rises a bit above a genuine handicap circumstances imposed on him. It's that very effort I'm speaking to.

I've learned from our past interactions that you are a game player. You don't really care about either the theology or the science, only about how to twist words according to the rules of disinformation. Your schtick is becoming threadbare.

Accordingly, Stephen is capable of following some of the links Charlie provided, to get past this "holy book" nonsense and chew on the real meat those links lead to. Meanwhile, you continue with "If I throw up enough smoke and call Flint enough names, maybe nobody will notice that I have no valid position myself." And if you think you are winning that game, pat yourself on the back. You'll feel better.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Actually, Flint, I only interjected that observation because it became obvious that *your* "schtick" is getting old. And you make it painfully easy to expose your hypocrisy. In fact, every time I challenge your bona fides, it is you who reacts with the smoke, as exemplified by your immediate response. Quite simply, you don't understand the difference between what you know, and what you think you know; between what you've read, and what you really understand.

As to what I'm interested in, you have no idea. Theology is very important to me, but probably not in your sense of the term. The questions you've posed to Mr. Poole reveal a woeful, abysmal ignorance of Christianity, so I doubt your sincerity or interest in actually discussing the subject. For thirty years I've known the reality of Christ in my life, so from my perspective you have consciously cut yourself off from the most important portion of life/ being/ reality.

And I've always loved science, from the layman's POV, which puts my understanding on a par with yours. But I think I view a number of scientific "advances" a bit more critically than you do: I don't accept every "new discovery" as fact just because it has "Science" appended to it. (Go ahead, ask me why I accept everything in my holy book. I'll be glad to talk about it.)

But try to get beyond the juvenile knee-jerk condescension act for a change. You resort to it every time the truth gets uncomfortable for you.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Elbow:

Consider your "defense" of something you didn't bother to specify.

First, you use sarcasm:

[I have seen no better attempts at proselytization than your little sermon above.]

Yup, that's typical "reasoning". Next, you say:

[How ironic that you cast yourself in the role of charlatan!]

Which is simply a lie. I don't know how else to describe such a wildly inaccurate and self-serving mischaracterization of what I wrote. And to top it all off you continue with:

[When will you realize that your knowledge...]

which reflects a stunning logical blunder. As though the accuracy of what I write is a function of how well you think I understand it. By this "logic", a pocket calculator can't be trusted to add because the calculator is too stupid to understand what it did!

Now, here you are saying

[But I think I view a number of scientific "advances" a bit more critically than you do: I don't accept every "new discovery" as fact just because it has "Science" appended to it.]

But unless we assume you don't read what others write, this statement cannot be considered honest. I've said repeatedly, on this very thread, that scientific theories are explanations, not definitions. No scientist regards ANY theories as "facts". If by "new discoveries" you mean the actual observations and measurements, yes, these are facts. The *interpretations* of these observations are permanently tentative by their very nature. Only the religious deal in absolute truths. It is the nature of science that subsequent observations will *always* have the potential to require that ANY explanation be modified.

And as you've shown in the past, your "critical view" reserves its skepticism specifically for those aspects of science that you view as being in conflict with your religious dogma. And rather than regard the most likely explanations based on the preponderance of evidence as being "most probably accurate" until we discover something better, you reject ALL such explanations *entirely* to force a fit with your interpretation of your holy book. The tests you demand of reality are inappropriate, because you require *absolute certainty* beyond even the most ludicrous objections. This kind of certainty is available ONLY from definitions, not from real life.

What surprises me is that, when the overwhelming proponderance of evidence is easily sufficient *except* (a)where it disagrees with the tenets of some religion; and (b) ONLY to members of that religion, it still never occurs to those True Believers to wonder whether the problem lies with the religion or the evidence. As I've been pointing out to Stephen, when his religion is involved he gladly embraces *exactly* the kind of logical error he's so capable of identifying and correcting in every other context.

So we are once again back to the difference between a school and a church. A school regards church teachings as being much like any other -- relative, conditional, changeable, subject to trial and error and independent validation. A church regards school teachings as they do their internal teaching -- as either absolutely true, or absolutely in error. In school, the facts are to be investigated. In church, the truth is to be memorized. In school, the facts are subject to reinterpretation as more are discovered. In church, the truth is to be defended unchanged by anything, whatever it takes (including the outright rejection of the blatently obvious).

So I'll study and learn, and you can memorize and pray, and we can each feel sorry for the limitations the other self-imposes. And we can each express our pity using tools those who study and learn invented, and pretend the irony of this escapes us. OK?

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

L bow:

don't waste your time with flintboy. he couldn't find his ASCII with both hands.

He parades his ignorance like a badge....never realizing it is like a 4 year old being "proud" of the booger hanging out his nose, and thinking it is "neat!"

This was the same anthill kicker who said y2k would be a big deal but prepped for a year of disruptions and took his money from the bank.

You think this dood can reason? heh heh heh.....

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

heh.... READ:

"NO big deal...."

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

>>First, you use sarcasm:

[I have seen no better attempts at proselytization than your little sermon above.]<<

No, Flint, no sarcasm was intended. That is a valid assessment of the paragraph I quoted. I recognize your tone and reasoning from similar arguments by Christians trying to make converts. You crossed the line from convincing to converting.

>>[How ironic that you cast yourself in the role of charlatan!]

Which is simply a lie. I don't know how else to describe such a wildly inaccurate and self-serving mischaracterization of what I wrote. <<

I didn't say you *meant* to cast yourself as a charlatan, but by attempting to convert Mr. Poole, you did indeed.

>>As though the accuracy of what I write is a function of how well you think I understand it.<<

Boy, when you miss a point, you miss bigtime!

"Accuracy"????? What accuracy? You tossed out some cosmological buzzwords. Where's the accuracy in that?

I will admit it would have been better to phrase my point as a general truism, as opposed to what sounds like an accusation. IOW, *We all* are simply parroting the buzzwords. I just want to know if you recognize the distinction.

>>[But I think I view a number of scientific "advances" a bit more critically than you do: I don't accept every "new discovery" as fact just because it has "Science" appended to it.]

But unless we assume you don't read what others write, this statement cannot be considered honest.<<

Whoa! You're making much too much of this. It was meant as a small dig and self-deprecating humor. I realized the irony of what I was saying.

>>And as you've shown in the past, your "critical view" reserves its skepticism specifically for those aspects of science that you view as being in conflict with your religious dogma.<<

Not true at all. You know only of my skepticism of certain subjects we've discussed.

>>And rather than regard the most likely explanations based on the preponderance of evidence as being "most probably accurate" until we discover something better, you reject ALL such explanations *entirely* to force a fit with your interpretation of your holy book. The tests you demand of reality are inappropriate, because you require *absolute certainty* beyond even the most ludicrous objections. This kind of certainty is available ONLY from definitions, not from real life. <<

You've really refined that strawman. Again, simply not true. Put it to rest, will ya? My moral life deals with absolutes, there are a few things I can say I *know* absolutely, and there are a whole lot of facts that I just *think I know.* Isn't that the exact opposite of your strawman? Would you accept these three categories as comprehensive? If so, then, in your estimation, into which of these categories would you place the theory of evolution?

>>So I'll study and learn, and you can memorize and pray, and we can each feel sorry for the limitations the other self-imposes. And we can each express our pity using tools those who study and learn invented, and pretend the irony of this escapes us. OK? <<

Again with the false dichotomy. I can (and do) study and learn, as well as memorize and pray, so who has the greater limitation? There is irony there, but not what you would try to make it.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Elbow:

OK, we'll play it your way then.

[No, Flint, no sarcasm was intended. That is a valid assessment of the paragraph I quoted. I recognize your tone and reasoning from similar arguments by Christians trying to make converts.]

Then we must agree to disagree. What I wrote was not a "sermon". As for "prosletyzing", I suppose this is true. I know from long discussions with Stephen that he does not choose to reject overwhelming evidence about the physical universe. For him, God is much more personal. I'm willing to presume that for Stephen, his delusions (as I have no choice but to regard them) serve him a very useful purpose, BUT that this same purpose can be served without delusions.

The analogy to children abandoning imaginary playmates is appropriate. If Stephen says "I arbitrarily choose to retain my childhood imaginary friends because they still comfort me" then I have no objection. So long as he says "I accept the reality of my imaginary friends because they are attested to in a single book (which uses itself as validation)", then I must point out the logical error involved. And you will notice Stephen himself does not hesistate to point out the SAME logical error in other contexts, when made by other people. One does not become trustworthy solely by saying "trust me"!

[I didn't say you *meant* to cast yourself as a charlatan, but by attempting to convert Mr. Poole, you did indeed.]

Pfaugh! Every religion has its priesthood, which makes its living (and often a damn good one) acting as middlemen between the believers and their gods. I personally have no ambition to mediate rational thinking on Stephen's part. He's fully capable of excellent rational thinking about all other topics, and has done so to the point where this single religious exception stands in high relief. And I regard these priests as charlatans. Even adults who have retained their personal gods often recognize that no "holy book" is required.

(And as a footnote, who could seriously believe that had Stephen been brought up in some different culture up until the time he suffered his physical brain trauma, he'd have interpreted his delirium in terms of the Christian god? After all, this interpretation never seems to occur to those from other cultures. How very coincidental!)

[You tossed out some cosmological buzzwords]

Well, again we must agree to disagree about etymology. I can't stop you from claiming (or even "thinking") that concepts your religion forbids you to understand, cannot be usefully described by language. But those words have real meaning, and describe aspects of a genuine, verifiable physical universe. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

[Not true at all. You know only of my skepticism of certain subjects we've discussed.]

Granted. You may doubt a great deal more, and find overwhelming evidence unpersuasive in anything at all. But I personally regard solipsism as an empty philosophy at the extreme, and I also regard the conspiracy theorists (man never landed on the moon, "they" are spraying us with *something* to "keep us docile", etc.) as taking positions for which the "evidence" is either nonexistent, or creates paradoxes.

In any case, I regard skepticism as healthy, *provided* it recognizes that reality exists. Otherwise, you are like that debunker in the Dilbert cartoon who had to run off to debunk the "so-called Hubble Telescope". There is such a thing as genuine (if in principle tentative) acceptance, when the data are sufficient. And defining "sufficient" in such a way that no conceivable investigation could generate it isn't honest skepticism. True skeptics don't reject reason in favor of religious dogma. Indeed, true skeptics factor religion into their calculations. If something is rejected or doubted ONLY by members of one specific faith, and the members of that faith produce no original data, this by itself is meaningful.

[Would you accept these three categories as comprehensive?]

Did you leave something out? I've read your post several times, and I can only find two categories -- things you know absolutely, and things you think you know. Or did you mean moral absolutes are different from things you know absolutely?

[into which of these categories would you place the theory of evolution?]

In any case, I regard evolution as something we think we know, which is the same category into which we place every possible scientific theory. Otherwise, it ain't science.

Nonetheless, there are degrees of "think we know". Some cosmological constructs (the cosmological constant, maybe the big bang, the rapid expansion in the first picosecond, etc.), at least according to my reading, fall into the category of either pure guesses or wild hypotheses, subject to drastic modification with every (extremely indirect) measurement of anything related. Yeah, they fit the "data", but no cosmologist considers such data to be particularly "hard". We are quite sure that the background radiation and the red shift exist. We use these to make deductions, knowing the paucity of relevant observation on which such deductions are based. But people are curious. So long as we are readily willing to discard notions whose major strength was that there was originally nothing to contradict them, and now there is, we're fine. In my opinion, we haven't yet collected data (or invented the means to do so) sufficient to honor most cosmological notions with the term "theory".

Evolution (in the biological sense of relative reproductive success) lies at the other end of this spectrum. It is generally considered (except by those grinding religious axes) as solidly supported across the board as any theory science has to offer. Think of the solidity of a theory in terms of the number of relevant observations without any contradictions. If that number is 2 or 3, we have a very weak proposal due to simple lack of data. If that number is WAY into the billions, across nearly every scientific discipline, we have as solid a theory as the human mind and scientific process can produce. And that's where evolution stands today.

[For thirty years I've known the reality of Christ in my life...]

Here I am simply boggled. All I can do is ask you how you would regard my ideas, if I were to testify that "I have let the Easter Bunny into my heart and known His reality for thirty years, and I KNOW the Earth is flat because He told me so." Do you think you'd have any chance of convincing me that the Earth is a physical sphere, just on the basis of evidence alone? I should certainly hope you'd regard any conversation with me as pure entertainment!

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Flint,

Sorry for the delay. Real life intervened.

>>Pfaugh! Every religion has its priesthood, which makes its living (and often a damn good one) acting as middlemen between the believers and their gods. I personally have no ambition to mediate rational thinking on Stephen's part. He's fully capable of excellent rational thinking about all other topics, and has done so to the point where this single religious exception stands in high relief. And I regard these priests as charlatans. Even adults who have retained their personal gods often recognize that no "holy book" is required.<<

"Pfaugh!"?? Do you really use that word in conversation? Look, I understood what you were saying when you wrote to Mr. Poole. There's no need for the repetition. What struck me about the issue is that you find no problem with using the same techniques, appeals and argumentation as the charlatans you've repeatedly condemned!

>>(And as a footnote, who could seriously believe that had Stephen been brought up in some different culture up until the time he suffered his physical brain trauma, he'd have interpreted his delirium in terms of the Christian god? After all, this interpretation never seems to occur to those from other cultures. How very coincidental!)<<

And how is that different from your own experience? You might pride yourself in your atheism, but you've stated that your parents were atheists. How very coincidental! If it is fair to say that the vast majority of the world's population practice one faith or another, than it is more likely the atheist who has suffered some sort of brain injury or hereditary defect. I don't think that's true in Mr. Poole's case or yours. But that is your "logic."

>>[You tossed out some cosmological buzzwords]

Well, again we must agree to disagree about etymology. I can't stop you from claiming (or even "thinking") that concepts your religion forbids you to understand, cannot be usefully described by language. But those words have real meaning, and describe aspects of a genuine, verifiable physical universe. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.<<

However do you draw such wild conclusions? I never said they were meaningless, nor that I was forbidden from understanding them. The terms refer to interpretations of data that is so technical that one person in ten may recognize them, one in a hundred may have some idea what they mean, and less than one in one hundred thousand may have a chance at observing the data directly and interpreting it correctly. Could you build an instrument to detect the background radiation? I had a job of calibrating microwave equipment and I know how difficult it is to eliminate noise. I wouldn't know where to start. I repaired spectrum analyzers, but I couldn't properly interpret a stellar spectrograph. Could you? Would you recognize red shift on one? If you observed a star, could you determine its phase of steller evolution? We, that is, *You* and *I*, are so far removed from these processes that we accept the interpretations on *faith*! These are things we only *think* we know.

>>In any case, I regard skepticism as healthy, *provided* it recognizes that reality exists. Otherwise, you are like that debunker in the Dilbert cartoon who had to run off to debunk the "so-called Hubble Telescope". There is such a thing as genuine (if in principle tentative) acceptance, when the data are sufficient. And defining "sufficient" in such a way that no conceivable investigation could generate it isn't honest skepticism. True skeptics don't reject reason in favor of religious dogma. Indeed, true skeptics factor religion into their calculations. If something is rejected or doubted ONLY by members of one specific faith, and the members of that faith produce no original data, this by itself is meaningful.<<

So there's no reason to be skeptical of any aspect of evolutionary theory? For you, the data are sufficient? Doesn't that turn your skepticism on its head?

>>[Would you accept these three categories as comprehensive?]

Did you leave something out? I've read your post several times, and I can only find two categories -- things you know absolutely, and things you think you know. Or did you mean moral absolutes are different from things you know absolutely?<<

Just for the sake of clarification (and not because you will necessarily agree), moral absolutes are universal, whereas things I know absolutely are mostly personal and by definition; my own name, for instance. But I did leave out another category: things we know we know nothing about. :-)

>>[into which of these categories would you place the theory of evolution?]

In any case, I regard evolution as something we think we know, which is the same category into which we place every possible scientific theory. Otherwise, it ain't science.

Nonetheless, there are degrees of "think we know". Some cosmological constructs (the cosmological constant, maybe the big bang, the rapid expansion in the first picosecond, etc.), at least according to my reading, fall into the category of either pure guesses or wild hypotheses, subject to drastic modification with every (extremely indirect) measurement of anything related. Yeah, they fit the "data", but no cosmologist considers such data to be particularly "hard". We are quite sure that the background radiation and the red shift exist. We use these to make deductions, knowing the paucity of relevant observation on which such deductions are based. But people are curious. So long as we are readily willing to discard notions whose major strength was that there was originally nothing to contradict them, and now there is, we're fine. In my opinion, we haven't yet collected data (or invented the means to do so) sufficient to honor most cosmological notions with the term "theory". <<

So far we are in perfect agreement.

>>Evolution (in the biological sense of relative reproductive success) lies at the other end of this spectrum. It is generally considered (except by those grinding religious axes) as solidly supported across the board as any theory science has to offer. Think of the solidity of a theory in terms of the number of relevant observations without any contradictions. If that number is 2 or 3, we have a very weak proposal due to simple lack of data. If that number is WAY into the billions, across nearly every scientific discipline, we have as solid a theory as the human mind and scientific process can produce. And that's where evolution stands today.<<

"the other end of this spectrum"? "Without any contradictions"? Surely you jest. In physics, we have no unified field theory because there are contradictions, and physics is "Hard" Science. If the theory of evolution has no contradictions, it is due to fraud, wishful thinking, self-deceit, and deliberately ignoring the contradictions on someone's part. Someone has suspended his skepticism on this particular subject. If I claimed to be a scientist, I'd think long and hard before stating unequivocally "there are no contradictions." It could be quite detrimental to my professional credibility.

>>[For thirty years I've known the reality of Christ in my life...]

Here I am simply boggled. All I can do is ask you how you would regard my ideas, if I were to testify that "I have let the Easter Bunny into my heart and known His reality for thirty years, and I KNOW the Earth is flat because He told me so." Do you think you'd have any chance of convincing me that the Earth is a physical sphere, just on the basis of evidence alone? I should certainly hope you'd regard any conversation with me as pure entertainment! <<

*You're* boggled? You've reached back to a different post for the quote, so I'm a bit confused by the context here. I did not say the above to convince you of anything except that *I* am convinced that there is more to reality than flesh and blood. There is a spiritual aspect to our being. I believe that humanity is hard-wired, not by a freak of nature, but by God, to seek Him. When that impulse is suppressed, ignored or resisted, something else takes its place. In your case, it's your certainty about evolution specifically, and Holy Science in general. You speak of it in the same way as others do of their faiths. You require faith's validation, just like others, so you "read and study," you present your case on fora such as this. You are defending your faith. But if sheer numbers mean anything (as in "If that number is WAY into the billions" as you claimed) then I remind you that the personal experiences of hundreds of millions of people past and present say *you* are the one missing the boat.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Your last argument is poppy cock. If there are millions and millions who benefit from Faith in God, there are also millions who benefit from living a moral code in a non-Christian tradition. Little comment is needed for the assertion that humans are "hard wired" to seek "God". If humans are hardwired for anything, it is a need to make some order out of seeming chaos and a "God" neatly fits that need. Refer to "man created God" theory or Pascal.

Worse for you, none of your "millions and millions" who "believe" matter in the least to Science for if that so, and the masses could vote on the validity of their "Beliefs", there is little question that a poll of the entire world's population since the beginning of Time would show that the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was therefore the Center of the Universe.

After all, is it not "fact" that the Sun "rises in the East" and "sets in the West"? Every day? And that each year the Sun will be seen in EXACTLY the same spot in the heavens as the year before? Even the Natives in Chaco Canyon were able to mark that as did the creators of Stonehenge.

In similar manner, the "action" of the Quantum Theory may seem to be equally irrational to those who would dismiss it, yet you would never be able to post to this forum unless there were validity to it.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Presenting material to someone who does not understand but wishes to do so, is much different from presenting that same material to someone who understands perfectly well, but has decided to engage in the denial game for whatever purpose. Creationists are like the OJ jury -- if he'd confessed, they'd have decided it was coerced. If someone had videotaped him doing it, they'd have concluded the tape was doctored. If there had been 50 witnesses, they'd "discover" a case of mass hypnosis. And while each of these is in some sense remotely possible, still nobody could doubt that the jury's *intent* was to force the data to fit the conclusions. Whatever it took. Their minds were made up and the reality was not relevant.

These discussions about evolution are like debates as to whether the game of baseball exists. Nearly everyone who pays attention to such things is presently concerned with specific details. Things like which teams made the playoffs, and Barry Bonds' home run record, and Rickey Henderson's runs scored record, and Seattle's games won record. It's been a remarkable and exciting season, and aficionados might legitimatley argue about whether the ball is more juiced, or athletes are better conditioned, or expansion has diluted the talent base, etc.

Now, here comes a creationist to claim that the very game of baseball itself is an artifact of blind faith, with no more objective reality than the Wind God. Of course, this is a contention completely outside the frame of reference that baseball has accrued over about 150 years of steady play.

On what basis does the creationist make this claim? That is, beyond the simple observation that he considers that baseball's reality conflicts with his religion? Well, I'm sure he can dream up something. Maybe he claims that (1) baseball is nothing more than the outcome when people follow a given rule set; (2) that the rule set being followed is in some cases hazy (i.e. the strike zone), sometimes broken (i.e. umpires make mistakes), and subject to definitional changes themselves (i.e. we've modified the rules over time); (3) that therefore the rules are neither specific nor stable enough to constitute a reality; (4) and thus baseball is an arbitrary article of faith without objective validity. Sure, people are doing *something*, nobody denies this, but it cannot be baseball, whose existence has just been demonstrated to be false!

Now, does it really make sense to try to convince the creationist that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence dictates otherwise? Clearly, the creationist can attend games and *watch* baseball with his own eyes, directly. Indirect evidence abounds, from media commentary to broadcasts to countless eyewitness reports. But these things are trivially self-evident! Parading them all again is a silly exercise, utterly unpersuasive to the creationist, NOT because they lack force, but because the creationist has DECIDED baseball doesn't exist, and found any pretext to "support" this, however specious.

Probably the best argument is simply to enjoy the game of baseball, in all its endless fascination.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2001

flint, could you be any more melodramatic? I mean really....you should read your own words. Trying to tar and feather creationists does work well on you, friend. Your analogy is no good in any context. Baseball is observable. Evolution has yet to be observed.

review of PBS "evolution" series

"The two-hour premier episode of the PBS/Nova series Evolution tries to set the tone for this propaganda effort. Much of it involves a dramatization of the life of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), interspersed with alleged evidence for evolution and against creation. Of course, they provide no space to scientific criticisms, giving the impression that there is only ‘religious’ criticism of evolution. They also ignore the rabidly atheistic faith of many of evolution’s proponents, including many of those involved in the series, e.g. Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Edward O. Wilson and Eugenie Scott (see also A Who's Who of evolutionists). To try to deflect the charge that the series is anti-Christian they try to pretend that evolution and ‘religion’ are compatible, with the aid of compromising churchians who deliberately overlook many key points of conflict.

To avoid the impression that this was one-sided propaganda, they claim that the Discovery Institute, part of the Intelligent Design Movement, was invited for ‘balance’. But the Discovery Institute pointed out that they declined because they would have been slotted in to the ‘religious’ objections sections whereas their objections to evolution are purely scientific. Answers in Genesis also features on Episode 7: ‘What about God?’ but again the scientific objections were not shown. "

I dare you to read thru this critique...in its entirety. You will be shocked as the SCIENTIFIC objections are laid out....you haven't been allowed to see them in the "church" of evolution/propoganda/PBS.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

Standing:

If you can find any objections to the PBS serious *outside* of a creation-cult website, let me know. But for your own sake, you might try receiving your indoctrination from somewhere other than the dark ages.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

OOOOH. Another creationist sage quoting from another creationist's web site. Whoop de freaking doo-doo.

SCIENCE MARCHES EVER ONWARD. Creationism "criticizes". BUT "critics never built anything" said Master Builder Robert Moses.

New state of matter gets NOBEL:

LINK
http://www.msnbc.c om/news/640095.asp

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

OOOOH. the two BITCHES speak. When you morons can find objections to creationism from a source other than an evolution beliefcult website, let me know. You need DEPROGRAMMING.

(See!? I can call names just like you can, A-holes. What does it solve?)

You are ignoring SCIENCE while claiming to be scientists.

THERE ARE NO BIGGER HYPOCRITES THAN YOU. Go join Gary North and Ed Yourdon in the "pathetic loser" line. I hear P JONES is holding your places...

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

see:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/640623.asp

WHERE IS THE NOBEL FOR "CREATIONISM PROOFS"??

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

They died out when you and your atheist friends kicked God out of schools....

"Then the program showed the Sputnik, and claimed that American authorities were so alarmed at that the Soviets beat them into space that they decided to make science education a priority. Somehow evolution was smuggled in there. However, the science that put spacecraft on the moon is nothing like evolution. Rocket science involves repeatable experiments in the observable present; evolution is a just-so story to explain the unobservable past without God’s direct intervention. It’s especially ironic that the leader of the Apollo program, Wernher von Braun, was a creationist!

It’s also blatantly revisionist history. During this alleged scientific nadir of supposed evolution censorship between Scopes and Sputnik, American schools produced more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world combined. This was especially pronounced in the biological field (Physiology and Medicine), supposedly one that can’t do without evolution—America produced twice as many as all other countries. "

Just to make you can read that part:

American schools produced more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world combined. This was especially pronounced in the biological field (Physiology and Medicine), supposedly one that can’t do without evolution—America produced twice as many as all other countries

You and other anti-God morons had your chance....glory in what you have accomplished....

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

GONG. ZERO for "originality".

From Scopes to Sputnik coincided with AMERICA becoming the CENTER OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD, especially in PHYSICS thanks to one Adolf Hitler and the decline of the German Scientific Community.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Ah gee, no "points" from Osama Bin Reuben. *sniff sniff*.

Gosh how many decades from Hitler to Sputnik??????

Open your eyes instead of your mouth for once.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

Peasant. The number of Nobels the USA won after the Decrees of 1933 has been well documented. It had NOTHING to do with Scopes.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

when you and your atheist friends kicked God out of schools....

Separation of church and state, as it should be. If we put God back in public schools, whose God should it be?

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

"They died out when you and your atheist friends kicked God out of schools.... ".

Truly amazing lack of logic here.

Consider "God".

God is Omnipotent. How could mere man "kick God out of the schools" IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL?

God is Omnipresent. How could GOD NOT BE IN THE SCHOOLS IF **HE** IS EVERYWHERE.

GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU HAVE SOME LOGICAL RESPONSE TO YOUR OWN STUPIDITY.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

CAN'T get back to you....your too far gone....down the broad path and I don't mean women.....

Seems all who disagree with Usama Bin Reuben are now being censored....

Ironic.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2001

JERK

TYPICAL "BELIEVER".......RUN AND HIDE WHEN THE CONTRADICTIONS AND EVASIONS ARE EXPOSED !!!

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS----------> HYPOCRITE.

They died out when you and your atheist friends kicked God out of schools.... ". Truly amazing lack of logic here. Consider "God". God is Omnipotent. How could mere man "kick God out of the schools" IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL? God is Omnipresent. How could GOD NOT BE IN THE SCHOOLS IF **HE** IS EVERYWHERE. GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU HAVE SOME LOGICAL RESPONSE TO YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2001

First off, screw you hypocrite/whitewashed tomb/Usama Bin Reuben.

Your BS rehtoric is getting old. YOU never answer questions, just cut- n-paste boatloads of swill from various websites....then YOU condemn ANYONE who doesn't believe ****JUST LIKE YOU DO***** if they post info from a website......pull your freakin head out.

If you ever cracked your bible (doubtful), you would know that the history of God's chosen people is FILLED with accounts of their turning away from God's statutes.....then they got WHACKED.

OUR country has done the EXACT SAME THING.....fueled by ****8PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF***** who want God "removed" from education.....prepare for the same kind of "whacking" denoted in the Bible, Charles Bin Laden.

Speaking of unanswered questions.....

"where did the first 'thing' (that created the big bang, hah hah) come from?"

Now, quick.... cut and paste more spittle spew, you nutcase.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

TRY AGAIN WITH THIS BIRD BRAIN-WASHED:

They died out when you and your atheist friends kicked God out of schools.... ".

Truly amazing lack of logic here.

Consider "God".

God is Omnipotent. How could mere man "kick God out of the schools" IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL?

God is Omnipresent. How could GOD NOT BE IN THE SCHOOLS IF **HE** IS EVERYWHERE.

GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU HAVE SOME LOGICAL RESPONSE TO YOUR OWN STUPIDITY.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

MORE LINKS FOR **INFORMATION** VS. THE "BELIVERS' PROPAGANDA"

FROM:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006Wui

Hello,

-- A (A@B.com) wrote:

And thanks to you, also, Jonathan for your excellent commentary.

My pleasure. :)

I think you should repost that note on every nutter creationist thread.

Ha! After all, I have so much free time already...! :) :) However, feel free to repost it wherever you want. :) 

Could you somtime post a copy with the links spelled out so I might save the sources as well as the essay?

I'm flattered you'd keep the essay. Here's where the links go:

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

ht tp://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/vlaard/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/hovin d_questions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young- earth/

http://www2.uic.edu/~vu letic/cefec.html

http://switch.to/evolution

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr-hot.h tm

http://www.holysmoke.org/t hought.htm

http://www.darwindisproved.com/

 

I assume the links are still working, but it's been awhile.

 Keep smiling,

Jonathan

http://www.q- a.net/origi.html

-It doesn't matter what I believe, etc. etc..-

 

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), October 16, 2001.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

THE BEST FOR THE SLOW OF MIND WHO DON'T "GRASP" MATTERS QUICKLY A QUICK SUMMARY OF "WHAT CREATIONISTS HATE".

LINK
http://www.holysmoke.org/thought.htm

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

Good stuff on www.HOLYSMOKE.COM . Just a sample of it now:

Ice Ages

Very inconvenient! They have to have occurred since the Flood, since, according to creationists, the surface of the Earth was reworked by the Flood (to create, for instance, the Grand Canyon practically overnight), which would have messed up all those marks of glaciers on the landscape. That means mile-thick ice sheets had to advance and retreat again and again, across half the Northern Hemisphere, with the speed of freight trains.

Size of the Earth

...has obviously expanded greatly since Noah's day, when he could, in a short period, collect pairs of all animals and birds from all over the world, without the benefit of modern air transport. Then after the Flood, the critters all had to migrate, at the double-quick, to their present habitats in Tasmania, the Galapagos, the coasts of Antarctica, Patagonia, the American Southwest, or wherever. It's clear the Earth was no more than a few hundred miles across, probably flat, and with no inconvenient oceans like, say, the Pacific.

The Slow Rate of Evolution

Having some time ago abandoned the completely silly proposition that Noah could actually have accommodated pairs--let alone sevens--of every animal species on Earth aboard the Ark, creationists have fallen back upon the rationalization that he collected not species but "kinds". They never, of course, clearly define "kind", because any such definition would create more problems in biological classification than it solved (and reveal how little they know about species diversity). Be that as it may, if a pair of the bovine "kind" walked off the Ark a few thousand years ago, they have had to evolve into all 24 present species and uncounted varieties of wild and domestic cattle since then. (Creationists: you really don't want to know how many species of the bat "kind" there are. And don't even think about beetles.) Creationists, then, are in the awkward position of believing in a much faster rate of evolution than is possible in nature, while detesting the term itself, and generally refusing to call diversification-since-the-Ark evolution (Lord, how they hate that word)!

The Number of Species in the World

There are just way too many of them! There are so many that we still don't even have a solid estimate of exactly how many--but five million is at least the right order of magnitude. That's so many that creationists have given up trying to stuff them all into the Ark (see above). A vanishingly tiny percent are even mentioned in the "scientifically accurate" Bible. Whole orders and phyla are left out. Of the few mentioned, there seems to be some slight confusion over such seemingly simple things as whether a bat is a bird or mammal, how many legs a grasshopper has, and who chews cuds and who doesn't. There's even embarrassing mention of creatures unknown to science, such as unicorns. My humbly- offered solution: Since the Bible is "scientifically accurate", then when it was written there were just a few hundred species! They could all fit onto the Ark.After the Flood (take your pick):

They speed-evolved into the millions we have now. God made a whole bunch more, just to test our faith in Holy Scripture.

Satan made a whole bunch more, just to ruin our faith in Holy Scripture. (I vote for this one, since I've been told recently by several good creationists that Satan invented evolution!)

The Sky

...has evaporated. In Adam's time it was clearly a solid dome, a "firmament", which could separate waters above it from those below on the Earth. By Noah's time it was still solid enough to have windows in it that had to be opened to let the rain through. I think that creationists that try to rationalize (weasel) their way out of this one by calling it metaphor have given in to the godless materialists! The Bible really is literal, in the true sense of the word. The sky was a hard firmament with windows in it--but some time since then it evaporated. Anybody who says different is a mealy-mouthed evolution- sympathizer.

Fossils

...have always been a thorn in the side of creationism. First of all, extinct creatures shouldn't even exist in a perfect Creation, since their very extinction implies that they were not so perfect. And there are so darn many of them, of so many different kinds. Every excuse they come up with for why there even are fossils of extinct organisms makes creationists look silly. And the very fact that they've come up with so many different, mutually exclusive explanations would seem to indicate that, essentially, they're clueless. I have personally been offered all these sound, creation-scientific explanations of what fossils are and how they got there:

Dinosaurs were too big to go on the Ark, so they got buried in the mud of the Flood.(How about extinct smaller creatures--and what about the "fact" that Noah collected pairs of all animals?)

Extinct creatures were on the Ark. They died out later. (How many seismosaurs, T. rexes, mastodons, and megatheria can you fit on the head of a pin?)

Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by Satan and/or materialistic science.

Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by God to test your faith. (And I will go to hell for falling for a trick pulled by the Almighty Himself? Doesn't that seem just a bit petty?)

Transitional Fossils

...can't possibly exist, since nothing ever gradually evolved into anything else. Less sophisticated creationists handle the issue by merely spouting the slogan "There are no transitional fossils". They heard that from a good born-again fundamentalist, so it must be true--no further research necessary. The few who are vaguely aware of the vast range of fossils that have been found, including beautiful examples of transitional series, merely draw lines: everything on that side of the line is ape, and everything on this side is human. If another fossil turns up with features exactly between the two, no problem--just assign it to one side or the other. No matter how fine the gradation, creationists will never admit seeing transition, because they know ahead of time that it can't exist. Amusingly, however, in series such as the hominid line leading to us, different creationist "experts" draw the line between ape and human in different places!

Human Embryos

...especially very small ones, actually have tails and gill slits. So do all mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish embryos. One would almost think they are related somehow. Thank goodness for modern Creation Science, which has taught us how to ignore, deny, or find some rationalization (anything at all will do) to explain away this and all other evidence of evolution.

Unusual Babies

...with such birth anomalies as being born with a tail, or covered with fur. Tails are more common than most people realize, since they are, of course, surgically removed immediately, and often the child himself is never told. For furry people, refer to the famous Mexican family, several of whom are circus performers. These would, of course, be some of the "throwbacks" which creationists assert must, of course, occur if evolution is real. But since evolution is, of course, not true, the good creationist, upon being presented the very evidence he demanded, will, of course, not be fazed in the slightest. Of course. A small footnote: back in the good old days, when everyone was a literal-creationist, and religion was science (known as the Dark Ages, with good cause), such babies were identified as the spawn of Satan, and killed instantly, along with their mothers, who were, naturally, witches.

Elephants

In the Sunday School stories, most of us imagined one pair, or at most two African and two Asian, on the Ark; and we assumed those few were Noah's biggest problem. But he could probably have wedged them in somewhere, among the handful of other large mammals always shown in the picture books. Somehow the elephants were always waving their trunks over the side, and the giraffes poking their heads up over the deck house. Then we grew up (most of us) and found out that there used to be things like mastodons and wooly mammoths. As a matter of fact, if we did just a little research, we could have found out that there are some 160 species of probiscideans, living and extinct, many of them wildly, grotesquely different from modern Jumbos. Then the problem arises of whether or not all those guys were on the Ark. All 160 species, with their months of fodder, obviously could not have been aboard, especially if we realize that other large mammal "kinds" also have myriad extinct species. As I see it, there are several explanations. Choose your favorite from the list below:

158 of God's perfectly-created elephant species had already died out before the Flood.

Only one pair of the elephant "kind" (are they "clean" or "unclean"?) were aboard, and immediately afterward evolved into 160 different species, 158 of which immediately became extinct.

158 species were simply left off the Ark, and got killed and fossilized by the Flood--and Genesis is just exaggerating about all beasts being aboard.

There never were more than two species of elephants--all those fossils of extinct ones, including whole, frozen mammoths that modern people have actually dined on--are merely a trick of Satan.

All animals were on the Ark, just like Genesis says. Shut up and don't ask.

Thanks to Oren Grossman for informing me that there are actually three species of living elephants, including the smaller African bush elephant. Thus creationists only need to account for 157 instant extinctions... but have to accommodate at least six pachyderms on the Ark!

DNA

Nasty stuff. It's really a shame that it had to turn up and confirm predictions of relationships made by evolutionary theory perfectly. And what a dirty trick to have human DNA fit right into the distribution, right next door to the chimps'! It's just not fair. It almost looks like Someone arranged the whole thing just to make evolution appear to be true. Worse yet, this ultimate blueprint for building entire human beings turns out to be just plain chemicals, with nothing magical or even particularly unusual that sets humans aside from other living things. And those geneticists can even tinker with the stuff, and build new creatures. They can replace defective genes in people, and even put human genes into pigs. Why wasn't something put into Leviticus to forbid such ungodliness?

Their Own Coccyxes

...when examined closely via X-rays or a prepared skeleton, look disturbingly like the vestigial remnants of tails. They certainly serve no purpose nowadays, and if you've ever broken yours, you've probably wondered why we were Created with such a useless source of potential agony. (Besides, coccyx sounds downright obscene.)

Their Appendixes

Same problem as the coccyx, only it's even more likely to cause the average creationist great discomfort, and occasionally death. The scientifically literate, when cursed with appendicitis, might bewail the incomplete evolution that has left him with a useless and sometimes dangerous abdominal organ. Perhaps the creationist praises his Creator for blessing him with a "cross to bear".

Honesty and Moral Behavior

...among evolutionists. It must really irk creationists that the great majority of us "evolutionists" are basically upright, moral folks. We shouldn't be, because belief in evolution "destroys our faith in the Bible", so naturally we have "no moral guide" and "no fear of eternal damnation", and since "we think we came from monkeys", we see ourselves as "animals with no eternal souls". I'll confess it right now: my basically upright, honest, cleanly-lived life is all a sham. I'm part of the One World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy (OWGEC), and my apparent morality is merely a deception to lure unsuspecting young creationists over to the Dark Side!

Ribs

...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women, because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as women.)

NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed they (gasp) evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist "micro-evolution"?

Viruses

Viruses hardly fit into the creationist's view of the world at all. In the first place, nothing even remotely like them is even remotely alluded to in either Testament. About the only "biblical" disease that anyone can remember is leprosy (a bacterial disease), and there's no clue that any of the writers that mentioned it knew that it was caused by any sort of micro-organism, let alone a virus. Egyptian cattle suffered a "murrain"-- with no apparent cause other than a divine curse. A blight on crops is mentioned in a place or two, which, if it were naturally caused, might be a viral disease, but again only the disease is mentioned, not any organic cause. Then there are the "emerods" (hemorrhoids) with which God afflicted some folks he was miffed at. I have been told both of the following by "creation scientists":

The Devil created viruses.

Viruses are not in the Bible because they are "imperfect".

But the really disturbing thing about viruses is that they occupy the twilight zone between living and dead, a zone that would seem ought not to exist in a creation in which creatures were "given life", or have "the breath of life". Of course, the creationist may arbitrarily assign them to either the "living" or "dead" category, but either assignment is a forced fit. Can they be alive if they don't move, breathe, eat, excrete, or metabolize at all, and can even be crystallized, like other non-living chemicals? Can they be dead if they can self-replicate (reproduce) using the same basic methods as other living things, parasitize other creatures, and are made of nearly the same proteins and nucleic acids as we are? Evolutionary theory doesn't demand that there be a sharp distinction between living systems and nonliving molecules. That's the premise of abiogenesis, which creationists insist on lumping in with evolution, so what the heck... we'll take it. Evolutionary theory can also explain where viruses came from, or why they exist. The fact that there are presently several tentative explanations in no way threatens the structure of evolutionary theory; we're perfectly happy with hypotheses until the preponderance of evidence clearly favors one over all others. In evolutionary theory (with abiogenesis) there should be some hazy area between living and nonliving, and viruses are dwellers of that twilight zone.

The Cause of Cancer

And who wouldn't hate that? But I don't mean the carcinogens that set it off, like tobacco tars, asbestos, or ultraviolet light; I mean the root cause that makes it possible for things like those to start cancers growing. And that cause turns out to be evolution in action! A cancer starts when a carcinogen, or sometimes just a random accident, causes a mutation in a gene of one cell. That mutation "switches on" genes that are normally "off", and makes the cell start reproducing wildly, as though it were an embryonic cell, and not a dedicated part of an adult body. A mutation is one unit of evolution. In this case it is harmful, but the ability to mutate is so valuable to DNA--it lets it adapt to new conditions--that that mutability cannot be given up, even if it sometimes produces fatal cancer. It is perhaps significant that cancers in people are very rare until after their peak reproductive years.

The Hair on the Backs of Their Necks

...which stands up at the very thought that their children might actually be exposed to an evil-lutionist at school. When they stop to think why the hair on the backs of their necks should stand up, at that or any terrifying situation, the only explanation that makes sense is that it's a vestigial reaction inherited from our mammal ancestors. Other mammals' hair rises in response to "hair-raising experiences" as a defense. It's a warning sign of aggression, and may make the animal look bigger and fiercer. We've apparently given up that signal, maybe in favor of words or other body language. About the only trace left is that creepy feeling about nape of the neck and scalp, which is almost impossible for others to see.(suggested by Ron Tolle)

The Order of Creation

...is a bottomless can of worms for literal creationists, especially if one takes literally and in their most obvious meanings both Genesis 1 and 2, which don't match in many particulars. But consider just a couple of minor difficulties in the first chapter. For one, the light of day is created before the sun from which it comes. If we assume it was some divine form of light, requiring no material source, then what need of the sun? In the same curious order were plants created before the sun, which is needed for photosynthesis (especially confounding to the day-age folks).(suggested by Ron Tolle)

Goosebumps

(the bumps, not the books [although many creationists hate those "occult" books, too]) Goosebumps were obviously "created" to erect and "fluff up" the hair or fur on a hairy or furry mammal ancestor, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. Since most of us nowadays have so little body hair as to render it useless for insulation purposes, goosebumps are another vestigial reaction whose tool (fur) is no longer with us.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

HAH HAH HAH! Could the actions of Usama Bin Reuben be predicted any more accurately???

First off, screw you hypocrite/whitewashed tomb/Usama Bin Reuben. Your BS rehtoric is getting old. YOU never answer questions, just cut- n-paste boatloads of swill from various websites....then YOU condemn ANYONE who doesn't believe ****JUST LIKE YOU DO***** if they post info from a website......pull your freakin head out.

If you ever cracked your bible (doubtful), you would know that the history of God's chosen people is FILLED with accounts of their turning away from God's statutes.....then they got WHACKED.

OUR country has done the EXACT SAME THING.....fueled by ****8PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF***** who want God "removed" from education.....prepare for the same kind of "whacking" denoted in the Bible, Charles Bin Laden.

Speaking of unanswered questions.....

"where did the first 'thing' (that created the big bang, hah hah) come from?"

Now, quick.... cut and paste more spittle spew, you nutcase.

-- (U@R.whited tomb), October 16, 2001.

ANSWERED YOUR STUPID Q, BUTTHEAD. ANSWER MINE.

NICE TRY TO BURY THIS UNDER YOUR TYPICAL TRUE BELIEVER CUT AND PASTE DOG AND PONY SHOW, CHARLES P. LADEN.

Quick, bury it again before you must admit you don't have any answer....

LOL! at Usama Bin Reuben Go hide in your cave, boy!

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2001

NOTHING LEFT FOR THE "BELIEVER" BUT NAME CALLING?

BEST FOR THE SLOW OF MIND WHO DON'T "GRASP" MATTERS QUICKLY A QUICK SUMMARY OF "WHAT CREATIONISTS HATE".

LINK
http://www.holysmoke.org/thought.htm

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2001

name calling? pot-kettle-blackerthantobbiesASSphalt

Osama Bin Reuben- nice "link"...it works just as well as your belief in evolution as "science"....heh!

"where did the first 'thing' (that created the big bang, hah hah) come from?"

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2001

name calling? pot-kettle-blackerthantobbiesASSphalt

Osama Bin Reuben- nice "link"...it works just as well as your belief in evolution as "science"....heh!

"where did the first 'thing' (that created the big bang, hah hah) come from?"

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2001

Here is a Great Page for the True Believers:

LINK
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

then you admit evolution is a belief just as creation is? good for you.

They BOTH fall into the "belief" category....and people are free to believe whatever they like.

as for chuckles Bin Laden...

"where did the first 'thing' (that created the big bang, hah hah) come from?" don't "dodge" now, chuckie....

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Try this one, you'll be very comfortable there. :

Going right along with those people:

Link to Another View of the Earth
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe- scidi.htm

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Jonathan, shame you wasted all that "stuff" because it comes from all those Secular Humanists who are out to destroy God and The Bible with all that data and information.

You can't possibly believe it will matter one iota to those who really, really, really, really believe, do you?

Because even if you were to show that it all came from a tiny Mustard Seed via E = mc**2 , they would still demand to know where the Mustard Seed came from.

You could refer them to the long series from BBC (idolators all of them) which was called "Testament" and the first episode. Then they could see the narrator sitting alongside a pool that is venerated by the locals because it is said that the Prophet Abraham dranketh there (yup, the same buzzard in the Book who was gwine git rid of his once barron wifey of many moons and later his son).

BUt the horror of the first episode is that the Pool of Abraham who is venerated as a Prophet by 3 major religions is now the Pool of the Sacred Goldfish for therein dwell said Goldfish who may not be eaten even by starving villagers.

Later on, the Narrator goes on to tell how the Jews were able to have such a "Successful Religion". It was really quite simple. They offered the VERY BEST DEAL. While other tribes had the Golden Calf or the Fatted Cows or the Sacred Cats or Goldfish to bless the Crops and Flocks annually; it was not "good" to be a Priest of such religions in Bad Crop years or years in which the wolves got to the sheep.

So what was the deal that the Jews offered that became so special? Simple. Be "good" now and you will have Eternal Life. No matter how much you suffer or prosper in this life it don't mean a THANG. Because if you just keep on truckin' (and don't forget the 10% to the Priests), you gonna be OK, Brer. Trust them on that. Or the RCs or the Baptists or the Moslems or the Hindis (who didn't offer the "Eternal Special" only a never ending lifetime return contingent on how well you behaved or misbehaved now).

SUCH A DEAL. AND IT WAS WHOLESALE, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC but controlled by those who controlled "The Sacred Texts".

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2001

THE STORY OF THE BIG BANG

LINK

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2001

I'm sort of removing myself from the whole Creationism vs. Evolution scene. I just want to address another issue I see arising. I stumbled upon this page while doing research for a college paper based on my worldview. Being a Christian, I was bewildered to see the name calling and harsh remarks that fellow Christians had against non-Christians. How are your insults to those who don't believe helping at all? They are just pushing them further away, causing them to form a more callaused opinion about Christians. It's great to see debates like this going on, but please Christians, remember our whole purpose: to show love to our enemies. Jesus said that even the pagans show love to our brothers. People that follow Christ will show love to our enemies (I'm not in any form calling those that believe in Evolution our enemies, or anyone who believes a different way), just remember what kind of opinion people are forming of us as a whole based on the way we live. That's all I have to say. Thanks for listening

Krystal

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Thanks for your note. This is the BEST ANSWER I have for all the "Believers". Posted to a business list after someone complained about praying in an office.

Subject: Christian comments

I have seen many so called christian comments posted here. Before you get steamed up, let me tell you that I am an ordained minister, seminary and all that.

Reading the book we call the Bible does NOT make you a christian anymore than reading a motor manual makes you a mechanic.

It's what you DO that makes you a christian not what you read.

We have had over 1500 years of my religion is better than yours and countless people have died in that cause.

Apply the book to your own life and Do the right thing!

I think you will find that that will get you more customers than you need.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

If only Osama Bin Reuben could follow his own advice...

Sawdust speck....wooden beam, all that......

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

TELL US ALL ABOUT IT.......WORSHIPPER OF WORDS ON SCROLLS

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Ah, nice move by extremist charles p. reuben. tell anyone that believes the bible to be inspired by God that they "worship" words on a page.

hah!

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Prove anything you ever post, Howard, John, aka: "Chicken Little" and dozens of other names.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Right back attcha CHARLES P. REUBEN, Usher, sister cat, and a dozen other names.

CHARLES P. REUBEN, texas realtor, self appointed expert on EVERYTHING.

you are a bullshit artist, to use YOUR own words.

(now watch poole come to your defense by deleting this post...)

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

You are one big mess. There are few CHRISTIANS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT THE "INSPIRED WORD OF GOD".

THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAT THE "LITERALIST" WHO DEMAND THAT **ALL** BELIEVE .......THEIR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. DOWN TO EVERY LAST FABLE REPEATED OVER CAMPFIRES IN EGYPT TO THE JEWS AND NOT WRITTEN IN ANY FORM FOR A ****1,000 YEARS***.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT "GOD DICTATED" TO THE JEWS WHO THEN TRANSCRIBED IT ALL FOR THE CHRISTIANS AND THEN THEN THE ORGANIZED AND DIS-ORGANIZED RELIGIONS...THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.

ENJOY BEING IN THE..............TINY MINORITY.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

And you might want to read this and try to come up with some EXPLANATION FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE A "GAP" IN THE "BIBLE RECORD" (though I have little doubt you will come up with some TOTAL FANTASY WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR THIS.

AFTER ALL........ROME....HAS BEEN DOING THAT FOR ALMOST 2,000 YEARS. WHY SHOULD "FUNDIES" BE DIFFERENT?

LINK

Scholars consider the scrolls a treasure of Jewish history and religion. They provide insights into what the Hebrew Bible looked like more than 2,000 years ago and reflect the thinking of Jews during the turbulent period that produced the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism.

Although there is no mention of Jesus or John the Baptist, or anything resembling the religious movement described in the New Testament, scholars said the scrolls give them a richer understanding of the Jewish world during the life of Jesus. "The scrolls are even more valuable than we thought 50 years ago," Dr. Tov said. "They give us a literature of ancient Israel."

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001