The God App

That "two types of fundamentalism" is a standard smear tactic from the fundamentalist religious side. It's the same reason that our resident religiotrolls try to claim that evolution amounts to a religion.

Alex H said: That "two types of fundamentalism" is a standard smear tactic from the fundamentalist religious side. It's the same reason that our resident religiotrolls try to claim that evolution amounts to a religion.

Well, we could argue about the line between life vs. non-life, but basically you're right, Biggy.

And no-one has ever, ever recorded divine intervention in any of it, anywhere.

IBelieveInGod said:

Alex H said: That "two types of fundamentalism" is a standard smear tactic from the fundamentalist religious side. It's the same reason that our resident religiotrolls try to claim that evolution amounts to a religion.

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

IBelieveInGod said: Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

I'ms till trying to figure out the three continents bit. It's reasonable to assume that most of the Bible was written in Asia. One could make a case that some of the Epistles might have been written in Europe. But what about the third continent? Are they confusing the fact that the recipient of the Epistle to Philemon (the one where Paul defends enslaving fellow Christians) was in Alexandria, which is strong evidence that the letter was written elsewhere, otherwise Paul would just have gone to talk to him.

The third is Africa. Quite probably the Gospel of Matthew originated in Alexandria, in Egypt.

Some of the letters of Paul, probably the letters of "Peter" (though almost certainly pseudonymous) and probably the Gospel of Mark originated in Rome, hence Europe. The Revelation of St John, whoever he was, is traditionally ascribed to the island of Patmos.

I should have added, however, that all these attributions are dubious, and hence the claim for "three continents" is very dubious at best.

The entire claim is in fact grossly inflated. All the writers of the Bible so far as we are aware were male Jews of their time, with the possible exceptions of Luke and Mark, who may have been Pauline converts from paganism. They shared a culture, generally, though one can seen evolution of its religious ideas over time, and other influences coming out. It's not particularly surprising that there is a general consistency in the main themes of the Bible, (although not in detail) especially since the whole was extensively redacted in ancient times.

But it is very far from being a "unified story line" with "no contradictions". Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind must surely be struck by the difference between the petty, vindictive, savage, jealous, punitive and downright nasty God of (most of) the Old Testament and the Heavenly Father spoken of in the New. And that's only the most striking of the inconsistencies. There are others, even in the 'main themes', and thousands of others in detail.

Ibelieveinlying: never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind must surely be struck by the difference between the petty, vindictive, savage, jealous, punitive and downright nasty God of (most of) the Old Testament and the Heavenly Father spoken of in the New.

Helena Constantine said:

IBelieveInGod said: Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

This from a person who believes that mankind came from dirt?

Stanton said:

Helena Constantine said:

IBelieveInGod said: Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

This from a person who believes that mankind came from dirt?

In the Bible, God uses magic to create Adam from a handful of dust and breath. Yet, IBelieve gets upset when I refer to this as "poofing," or when I ask why that this should be taught in a science classroom in place of actual science.

Starting with Genesis, we get two different creation stories. How is that not a contradiction?

Is it not generally agreed among all involved that living things originated at some time in the (more or less) distant past? Isn't it generally understood that Pasteur put to rest any idea of spontaneous generation under present conditions?

IBelieveInGod said:

Alex H said: That "two types of fundamentalism" is a standard smear tactic from the fundamentalist religious side. It's the same reason that our resident religiotrolls try to claim that evolution amounts to a religion.

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

Jim Thomerson said: Isn't it generally understood that Pasteur put to rest any idea of spontaneous generation under present conditions?

scienceagogo.com: Now, however, two Scripps Research Institute scientists have taken a significant step toward confirming the viability of the RNA World model. For the first time, they have synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. Reporting their work in Science, Scripps' Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce explained how their breakthrough began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The ultimate goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication. This involved synthesizing a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that then underwent a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA. Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that was a very efficient replicator. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

J. Biggs said: And then took a rib - y +x and voila, Eve. God obviously wants us to take this stuff literally, despite evidence to the contrary.

"...a prominent early xianity, Gnostics, theorized that there were really two gods. The overall god is a distant, ineffable one. The lesser god is the OT creator god, widely regarded as incompetent and a bit malevolent."

Atheists believe in no god. The truth therefore must be exactly halfway between the two extremes, i.e. one god, QED. Good thing no Hindus or other polytheists hadn't commented above, or the answer wouldn't have come out right. And maybe a demi-god in the mix if the number of gods postulated was odd.

It is interesting to see how different religions are taking advantage of modern technology. Orthodox Jews don't generally proselytize but they've made effective use of iPhones and similar devices by putting copies of their shorter prayers on apps. So for example, it isn't uncommon on a college campus with lots of Orthodox Jews now to see someone at afternoon services using their iPhone or Blackberry rather than a prayerbook.

This difference in use seems to be connected to the heavy emphasis so many forms of Christianity place on proselytizing. The main requirement of evangelical Christianity is to spread the Good News so the most obvious way of using technology is to aid in that.

It is interesting to see how different religions are taking advantage of modern technology. Orthodox Jews don't generally proselytize but they've made effective use of iPhones and similar devices by putting copies of their shorter prayers on apps. So for example, it isn't uncommon on a college campus with lots of Orthodox Jews now to see someone at afternoon services using their iPhone or Blackberry rather than a prayerbook.

This difference in use seems to be connected to the heavy emphasis so many forms of Christianity place on proselytizing. The main requirement of evangelical Christianity is to spread the Good News so the most obvious way of using technology is to aid in that.

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

fnxtr said:

J. Biggs said: And then took a rib - y +x and voila, Eve. God obviously wants us to take this stuff literally, despite evidence to the contrary.

Heh. Wouldn't it have had to have been ((x + y) - y) + x? Unless Eve was a girl with something extra...

I especially like the rib Harold just gave IBIG.

The only religious app I carry on my iPhone 4 is "MacTracker."

Until I got MacTracker I'd get into ENDLESS discussions as to whether a Mac IIsi came with a 68030 or a 68040 CPU. Thank you, MacTracker.

“Say someone calls you narrow-minded because you think Jesus is the only way to God,”

I don't think that would be a very common atheist argument. More likely to come from a theist who has an "all religions are a path to God" type of beleif.

fnxtr said: Well, we could argue about the line between life vs. non-life, but basically you're right, Biggy. And no-one has ever, ever recorded divine intervention in any of it, anywhere.

I don't think this is what one calls an "App," but even a komputer klutz like me was able to "create" more than one million anti-evolution sayings (no two alike) using Excel. Here are 3:

1. Darwinism, or "goo to you by way of the zoo" is a theory that denies God. Students must be taught that Man was created in his present form in the last 10000 years because we must take a stand for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

2. Darwinism is a secular faith. Students must be taught about the Genesis Flood because it's only fair.

3. Macroevolution, which is unproven like microevolution, is a theory for fascists. Students must be taught that Darwinists are lying atheists because they need to keep an open mind.

Say IBIG ... if you only believe in what you can see and measure and observe ... then how to you know you have a brain?

Have you ever seen it? Has anyone else ever seen it? Have you ever seen anyone else's brain? What evidence can you present to us to show you have a brain?

harold said: IBelieveInGod said -

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

This is good argument against creationism. Thank you. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of cellular life. It explains the subsequent evolution of cellular life, and post-cellular self-replicators like viruses. Creationism claims that new species are magically created. This has never been observed. Evolution of new species, on the other hand, has frequently been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation But how did cellular life itself originate? That field of study is known as "abiogenesis". Raven mentioned some progress which has been made in that field. Again, IBIG, thank you for your helpful critique of creationism. On another thread, you made another good pro-evolution argument. You pointed out that all of life shares common carbon-based biochemistry. Naturally, although magic could do anything, we would expect life that shares common ancestry to share common biochemistry. Keep up the good work. It's good to see that we can agree on something after all.

OK, not convincing me here ... still think you have a brain?

IBelieve, you have not explained why we should assumed evolution is false, therefore GODDIDIT AND THE BIBLE IS 100000% TRUE because all life as we, humans, know it is carbon-based, or even why we should regard GODDIDIT as an explanation.

IBelieveInGod said: My point was that observable testable science can only observe and test life creating life. Therefore my point is that we should assume that all life was created by other life, any belief that life came about from non-live should not be considered real science considering it has never been observed or tested.

You don't really think you're going to get an answer that makes any sense to that question, do you, Stanton?

MrG said: OK, not convincing me here ... still think you have a brain?

MrG said: You don't really think you're going to get an answer that makes any sense to that question, do you, Stanton?

eric said: And we can similarly explain how life forms from non-life. CHON atoms form compounds that self-replicate in certain chemical environments...

IBIG, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Please explain your answer.

Wait... so people are paying money for a poorly written and logically incorrect list of 'comebacks' to anti-christian arguments.

What a gullible breed. Shame I (as an atheist) have too many morals and an ethical upbringing to get involved in such a scheme.

Or, for that matter, did they have brains?

Jesus Christ people, if you must feed the troll, can you at least ask him how many years ago this or that happened? If he gives an answer, you can just rub it in that many creationists disagree. Most of the time they refuse to answer. If they do answer they avoid the follow up questions and soon disappear, looking for others to feed them.

Holy FSM. Now there are 2 trolls. See if you can get them to debate each other.

Really? The theory of evolution by common ancestor assumes that life arose from non-living matter.

There may be those here who don’t accept this, but most do accept that life arose from non-living matter, and then all life evolved from this first life.

Which brings me back to my point of is it real science to accept that life came about from non-living matter without life creating life?

If God created all life, why wouldn’t all life share the same carbon based biochemistry?

Chunkdz -

What is your opinion? When did life originate? Do you have a hypothesis as to how? Can we test your hypothesis? Or are you just saying that it should be verboten to even conjecture about it?

It is interesting to see how different religions are taking advantage of modern technology.

Starting with Genesis, we get two different creation stories. How is that not a contradiction?

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism. ---Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 1966, pp. 116-117. Quoted in Dr. Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (textbook) and also in Wayne Jackson's article, "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis" at Apologetics Press. Jackson's article is available at the following link. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

A contradiction is two statements that are opposite when both are said in reference to the same thing applying at the same time. The writer of Genesis wished to tell of Creation in chapter 1 by emphasizing the sequence of events. There is an orderliness to the description that is lacking in the second chapter. In chapter 2, the writer is not concerned to tell you about the timing of the events because he has already told you that information in chapter 1. Now, he wants to focus on what is most important, namely, the origin of man and woman. Notice how much there is about the male-female relationship in chapter 2 that is completely missing from chapter 1? You see, they don’t contradict one another because they are treating different.aspects of the whole creation from different perspectives. ---Kenneth J. Howell, "Are There Contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2", article from www.catholic.com

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. --Matt Slick, www.carm.org

chunkdz said:

eric: "You do not understand science. Actually, your problem is worse, you don’t understand the entire concept of reductionism."

Actually, claiming that you have in your possession a plausible explanation for abiogenesis is not science until it is testable (See Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959) Given that no one on the planet except 'eric' has so far made this extraordinary claim, we should rightly expect 'eric' to produce some extraordinary evidence. (See Sagan: 'Encyclopaedia Galactica, 1980) Furthermore, eric has not demonstrated an instance of true reductionism. Such an unfounded claim about such a speculative event 4 billion years ago amounts to what Dennett referred to as "greedy reductionism" (See Dennett: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995) In short, eric's reply bears many hallmarks of scientism. I should expect that a website dedicated to defending science should want to squash this before it spreads.

Eric has, of course, referred to perfectly testable ideas which are not unique to him or extraordinary, and which are reductionist in nature. Chunkdz is wrong on all counts. But I'd like to get his answers to my questions.

Chunkdz -

What is your opinion? When did life originate? Do you have a hypothesis as to how? Can we test your hypothesis? Or are you just saying that it should be verboten to even conjecture about it?

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

Three ID/creationist trolls; none of which has ever made the slightest effort to understand science.

And now they want to accuse scientists of scientism.

Weird!

FL, that tactic didn't work on ATBC well over a year ago. Quit trying to explain it away now.

Mike Elzinga said: Three ID/creationist trolls; none of which has ever made the slightest effort to understand science. And now they want to accuse scientists of scientism. Weird!

I don't really want to feed any trolls, especially as the subject of abiogenesis has nothing to do with the original post, but I do like to point out that it was once widely believed that life arose spontaneously all the time: maggots came from meat, mold came from bread, and so on. This was considered overwhelming proof of the miraculous life-creating powers of god.

Now we know better. Does this make creationists reconsider their arguments? Of course not. Nowadays the *lack* of spontaneous generation is presented as overwhelming proof of the miraculous life-creating powers of god.

No matter what the prevailing evidence is, it will always be presented as proof of special creation.

IBelieveInGod said: Not accusing scientists of scientism, just those who have demonstrated those qualities.

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: Not accusing scientists of scientism, just those who have demonstrated those qualities.

And just how in the hell would you know the difference? We’ve watched you trolls eat up hundreds of pages spouting gibberish. Not once in all of those wasted pages have any of you demonstrated any knowledge of science or any willingness to learn any science. Why is that?

Chunk and IBIg, are you going on the next 'scientific' expedition to Turkey's mount Ararat to find the ark? I hear one of these very popular christian expeditions found a piece of wood once, dated 'scientifically' to about the 16th century, hell, maybe even the 10th. That's a really really long time ago isn't it? Wow, it's like older than your your grandpappy.

A quick review of the history of religions should convince even the most stalwart of scientists and the most stubborn of fundamentalists that the predominant religion in any given area always succombs to assimilation of other ideas given enough time and the continued persistence of the other ideas.

While time take its course in our socialization, as well as in our evolution, unless we intend to take up arms against one another, we might as well be civil and let time work its magic.

No one is going to argue their ideas into the future. The "best idea" really does not win out in the marketplace of ideas, but rather those ideas tend to survive which belong to those people who tend to survive. Now, pick up a gun and kill all the infidels, that could get your ideas into the future; but short of mass execution or extinction, only minor changes will take place in our lifetimes -- so minor we'll probably not even notice them.

So after all the jawin' back and forth is over, let's shake hands and have a beer together, or whatever.

chunkdz said: Actually, claiming that you have in your possession a plausible explanation for abiogenesis is not science until it is testable (See Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959)

Given that no one on the planet except 'eric' has so far made this extraordinary claim, we should rightly expect 'eric' to produce some extraordinary evidence. (See Sagan: 'Encyclopaedia Galactica, 1980)

Furthermore, eric has not demonstrated an instance of true reductionism.

chunkdz said: Actually, claiming that you have in your possession a plausible explanation for abiogenesis is not science until it is testable (See Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959)

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: Not accusing scientists of scientism, just those who have demonstrated those qualities.

And just how in the hell would you know the difference? We’ve watched you trolls eat up hundreds of pages spouting gibberish. Not once in all of those wasted pages have any of you demonstrated any knowledge of science or any willingness to learn any science. Why is that?

Scientism:):):)

I read Kitchen. His "evidence" consists of saying, over and over again, "it is so consistent", as if by simple repetition he can make it be untrue that in 1 Genesis human beings are created last of the animals and in 2 Genesis they are created first of them.

But simple repetition clothed in the trappings of religious authority is evidence, to a fundamentalist. The more Kitchen and others repeat it, the more evidence they generate.

The only lesson that can be drawn from this is that the mind of a fundamentalist simply does not use reason in the same way as a fully rational person does.

The only lesson that can be drawn from this is that the mind of a fundamentalist simply does not use reason in the same way as a fully rational person does.

FL, that tactic didn’t work on ATBC well over a year ago.

Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. ...Search all the cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas---none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture, and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. --Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 68-69.

Demagoguery? Hateful insults? Name calling? Listen here you brain dead twerp. The moment, the very moment you produce in the lab of god anything vaguely representing research you will no longer be called vacuous shite, and not a moment before.

chunkdz said: BTW, IBelieveInGod, I appreciate the way you have presented your opinions calmly and politely on this thread. It provides a marked contrast to the flurry of demagoguery, hateful insults, and childish namecalling that we've witnessed.

chunkdz said:

Harold: "Chunkdz - What is your opinion? When did life originate? Do you have a hypothesis as to how? Can we test your hypothesis? Or are you just saying that it should be verboten to even conjecture about it?"

I think speculation is wonderful. I'd never be arrogant enough, however, to claim that I have a scientific explanation like eric did. I believe eric fails the moment he invokes reductionism to explain the origin of life. The sum being so much greater than the parts where life is concerned, I suspect a more holistic approach is needed. Just my opinion though.

I believe we can title this episode "Attack of the Killer Creationists". Looks like we need some RAID, some mousetraps, and lots of flypaper, among other weapons.

IBelieveInGod said:

fnxtr said: Well, we could argue about the line between life vs. non-life, but basically you're right, Biggy. And no-one has ever, ever recorded divine intervention in any of it, anywhere.

Actually the Bible does record divine intervention.

FL lies outright again:

FL, that tactic didn’t work on ATBC well over a year ago.

Oh yes it did. Quite effectively, to be honest. The resolution and elimination of the alleged Genesis contradiction was never refuted. Still hasn't been, btw. Multiple sources have been given to demonstrate that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are NOT contradictory. Here's one more, just for fun: Dr. Gleason Archer.

Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. ...Search all the cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas---none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture, and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. --Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 68-69.

chunkdz said: BTW, IBelieveInGod, I appreciate the way you have presented your opinions calmly and politely on this thread. It provides a marked contrast to the flurry of demagoguery, hateful insults, and childish namecalling that we've witnessed.

chunkdz said: My only conclusion, moron, was that this research would cause you to sit in a puddle of your own diarrhea and that spittle would drip from the corner of your mouth as you stare glassy eyed. My prediction has been vindicated several dozen times over now. Especially now that you, in an effort to dismiss the scientific findings, are reduced to pathetically taking Knight out of context. No one, including Knight, ever said the code was optimal for all criteria, yet you idiots harp on this as if it's some kind of flaw in the research. The researchers have done an admirable job of examining the code against a plausible bilogical backdrop, and they have found that the code is an optimal code that was fixed before the LCA. "The best of all possible codes". Yet you drooling macaques screech and howl that they didn't compare the code to any implausible codes. What's the matter morons? Why does it make you monkeys mad that the research was limited to REAL PLAUSIBLE BIOLOGY? I'll tell you why - because you are a bunch of tadpole brained idiots, programmed to follow, not to think.

chunkdz said: Hi robert van bakel,

robert van bakel said: Demagoguery? Hateful insults? Name calling? Listen here you brain dead twerp. The moment, the very moment you produce in the lab of god anything vaguely representing research you will no longer be called vacuous shite, and not a moment before.

Yet it took me, a supposed "brain dead twerp", to point out eric's error. I didn't see any of you "defenders of science" rush in to correct his mistake.

chunkdz said:

Mike Elzinga: "You know damned well that you came here to provoke a fight. That is what you phony “Christians” do. It has been your shtick ever since you started posting here. And you still haven’t learned any science."

To the contrary, I come to defend science from scientismists like eric. And I've learned enough science to know that abiogenesis is not a testable hypothesis.

Thanks for being so polite and pointing out the fact that brain-dead should be hyphenated. We sometimes lack a clear point of view here at PT and whenever clear thinking christianists arrive they never fail to put us on the right track; cheers! How's the ark hunt going?

Not real plausible biology but biology matching the prebiotic conditions since the hypothesis is that stereochemistry of the prebiotic environment was responsible for the origin of the genetic code. An ‘intelligent designer’ would not have been constrained by such. Of course, now we know that most any code would evolve to a code with similar ‘error correction’ capabilities. I am glad to hear you are familiarizing yourself with the facts, which show that there are much better codes out there, although such codes would not match the hypothesized prebiotic pathways. So yes, given the prebiotic conditions and selection, the code is doing quite well, as would almost any other code, and many of them would do better. So the ‘best code’ is a somewhat misleading concept that may easily lead people to conclusions… I am glad to have been of help

chunkdz said:

didymos: "Ah, sweet hypocrisy!"

Hi didymos, No hypocrisy here, as I've never claimed to be civil. In fact, I've rather enjoyed making monkeys out of you all in the past. However, seeing how IBelieveInGod has reduced you all to a bunch of seething rabid defensive posturing fools simply by virtue of being calm and polite, I might be inspired to do the same.

Still no ark chunky? Not to worry, apparently if you go to 'area 66 (58?) in the desert there is a little man, who does brain experiments on civilians for the federal government, and some invisible sky ferry. True story! I googled it, saves having to do real research or heaven forbid, read a book.

Quibble. Fight. Fuss. Don't you all know the answer? I mean THE answer? It is found in the Holy Bible, Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10, verse 19: "Money is the answer to everything." What more need be said?

Dale Husband said: I believe we can title this episode "Attack of the Killer Creationists". Looks like we need some RAID, some mousetraps, and lots of flypaper, among other weapons.

Now's the time chunky where you give us along list of all the really big books you've read. You know, 'Finding God', Finding a Personal God', 'God is Just Super', If There Is No God, Why Am I Here?', God and Cookery', How God Found My Carkeys.'

chunkdz lied to everyone:

Dale Husband: What error or mistake?

Claiming to have a reductionist account of abiogenesis. Please pay attention. Read the thread again and take notes if necessary.

VERY delusional! LOL! Scientismists is not even a proper word!

It is a neologism. If you wish to equate neologisms with delusion I shall require some actual evidence to back up your assertion. I don't believe Theodore Roosevelt or Kurt Vonnegut were delusional, though both were fond of neologisms.

chunkdz said:

robert van bakel: "Still no ark chunky? Not to worry, apparently if you go to ‘area 66 (58?) in the desert there is a little man, who does brain experiments on civilians for the federal government, and some invisible sky ferry. True story! I googled it, saves having to do real research or heaven forbid, read a book."

Fascinating! Did you also know that eric thinks he can explain how non-life turns into life? Did you also notice that the only ones to question this were IBelieveInGod and myself? I did.

We've never observed a new star ignite. We know gravity can create massive pressure and temperature. We know under great pressure and temperature, hydrogen can fuse. We know that fusion, once ignited, can start a chain reaction if its contained by some other force. So we can explain how stars ignite without watching it happen. And we can similarly explain how life forms from non-life. CHON atoms form compounds that self-replicate in certain chemical environments...

chunkdz said:

Dale Husband: "eric made no such claim"

All No evidence to the contrary, of course.

he merely offered an idea that could be examined to see if it was plausible. How did you discredit it? Oh, you didn’t, you merely denied it.

As Carl Sagan famously said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I see the no extraordinary claim, but I'm wondering where all the extraordinary evidence is, so I see no need to discredit that.

Comparing yourself with Theodore Roosevelt or Kurt Vonnegut is a classic sign of megalomania.

Pointing out two non-delusional authors who also invented neologisms makes me a megalomaniac? Now you are simply lashing out in frustration, Dale. How embarrassing for you.

chunkdz said:

Dale Husband: "Do you also deny how stars form, evolve, and die out? Why? You really ARE a megalomaniac to claim to know more about astronomy, physics, and biochemistry than most scientists! LOL!"

Now you are reduced to putting words in my mouth. Sad.

And by CHON, eric probably was referring to Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen atoms, which do indeed form long, complex molecules of unlimited length and complexity. Such molecules are routinely made and used in industry. Ever heard of nylon? Nothing extraordinary about such chemistry at all. And the same chemical laws and processes that govern artificial chemicals in industry are also responsible for what happens in all life forms. I said that before; sorry if you missed it.

chunkdz said:

Dale Husband: "Making up a word out of nowhere to insult people is not the same as a useful neologism."

Wrong again, you puzzlewit!

chunkdz said:

Dale Husband: "Why dodge my question? Can you not answer it? Or will answering it directly discredit you even more?"

Lol! No, Dale, I don't "deny how stars form".

Gee, I wonder if didymos is really PvM in disguise?

didymos said:

Gee, I wonder if didymos is really PvM in disguise?

Nah. Just an AtBC commenter who mostly lurks on PT and recalled chunk's prolonged conniption fit of yore because Dr. Dr. Dembski thought it was actually worth blogging about, which was of course duly noted on the Uncommonly Dense thread.

My neighbor believes that a scientist from the future created God and that God (omnipresent and able to alter the laws of physics at her whimsy) thereupon created the universe. Where then does my neighbor fit into this discussion? Creationist? Scientismist? Puzzlesoloverist? Daesintgivashit? Happy-Go-Lucky son-of-a-bitch? With this recession, we're all going to end up in the same camp anyway: impoverished!

What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

What would the reason be for any explanation of the origin of life by science, considering there would be no way of ever confirming any explanation?

harold said: IBelieveInGod said -

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

This is good argument against creationism. Thank you. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of cellular life. It explains the subsequent evolution of cellular life, and post-cellular self-replicators like viruses. Creationism claims that new species are magically created. This has never been observed. Evolution of new species, on the other hand, has frequently been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation But how did cellular life itself originate? That field of study is known as "abiogenesis". Raven mentioned some progress which has been made in that field. Again, IBIG, thank you for your helpful critique of creationism. On another thread, you made another good pro-evolution argument. You pointed out that all of life shares common carbon-based biochemistry. Naturally, although magic could do anything, we would expect life that shares common ancestry to share common biochemistry. Keep up the good work. It's good to see that we can agree on something after all.

IBIG, you still haven't got any proof you have a brain.

You've never seen your own brain. In fact, you've probably never seen anyone else's brain, either. So on what basis can you possibly believe you have a brain?

Show us the evidence!

Harold, how do you know that new species are frequently observed? http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/fish/coelacanth/ Coelcanths were believed to be extinct for millions of years until they were discovered still living. So, how can you claim that new species are frequently observed? How do scientists know for certain that they are indeed observing a new species, and not just an old species that is newly discovered?

Forgot to add that the implication of the example of the coelacanth is that the modern species are different from all known extinct species.

chunkdz said:

Dale: "Such molecules are routinely made and used in industry. Ever heard of nylon? Nothing extraordinary about such chemistry at all."

Except that it is intelligently designed? Lol! Not too bright, are you Dale?

chunkdz said:

Dale: "So is puzzlewit yet another “neologism” of yours?"

LOL! I'm having trouble believing that you've never heard the word before. It seems like a word you would be used to hearing a lot. Especially from your teachers. :)

chunkdz said:

Dale Husband: "Then your objections to eric are without any logical basis. He compared how astronomers explain stellar origins and evolution with how biologists explain how life might have arisen and evolved and you went off on some lame misapplication of Carl Sagan’s skepticism."

So you don't think life from non-life is an extraordinary claim? Sounds suspiciously scientismic.

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

I'd like to add to this erudite round of ad hominems and creationist evasions, "Neener neener neener." Panda's Thumb is lousy with trolls these days... How often does it get like this?

CS Shelton said: How often does it get like this?

IBIG, on the last thread you participated in, I asked you two questions, both of which you didn't answer. You had not left, as you continued to post. (becoming more belligerent, if I recall) I think you need to address these questions, so I'll report them here. If you want to appear credible, you really need to address them, because they are fundamental to the discussion:

Perhaps it’s time that IBIG state his/her background in science, so that the discussion can take the appropriate tone. So, how ‘bout it, IBIG Guy? Let us know what science you have done, and the degree(s) or last level of instruction at University, so we can formulate our answers to your questions in language we all understand.

and

Opposing scientific views are welcome. You have yet to explain how your view is scientific, in spite of being asked specific questions regarding your “theory”. Sorry, to be scientific it must follow the rules for science. Otherwise, too bad. Do you know how the scientific method works? Do you understand terms like “repeatable” “falsifiable” “evidence”? Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Please, for our benefit, define "theory", "hypothesis" and "evidence" for us. (last sentence added today for clarification)

CS Shelton said: Panda's Thumb is lousy with trolls these days... How often does it get like this?

Dale Husband said: I believe we can title this episode "Attack of the Killer Creationists". Looks like we need some RAID, some mousetraps, and lots of flypaper, among other weapons.

Paul, you forgot the multiple versions of the 10 Commandments.

I think speculation is wonderful. I’d never be arrogant enough, however, to claim that I have a scientific explanation like eric did. I believe eric fails the moment he invokes reductionism to explain the origin of life. The sum being so much greater than the parts where life is concerned, I suspect a more holistic approach is needed. Just my opinion though.

Harold, how do you know that new species are frequently observed? http://animals.nationalgeographic.c[…]/coelacanth/ Coelcanths were believed to be extinct for millions of years until they were discovered still living. So, how can you claim that new species are frequently observed? How do scientists know for certain that they are indeed observing a new species, and not just an old species that is newly discovered?

As far as abiogenesis is concerned, this little experiment from last year is fascinating: the synthesis of RNA from simple compounds and conditions that were present on the pre-life earth.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

We do not know how life originated. It may have been a supernatural event. If so, as you suggest, it is not amenable to scientific study. On the other hand, it may have been a natural event. If we assume origin of life was a natural event, we can study it. Even if we are wrong, we will learn new things. A considerable body of scientific literature on origin of life has been produced.

I don't like using life as a noun, but would rather talk of "living things", were it not so clumsy to do.

I'm less impressed with carbon based biochemistry as evidence for single origin of life as I am by the universality of the genetic code. Carbon is a unique atom and no other element could serve as a basis for life as we know it. On the other hand, one can picture a quite different genetic code which would work fine. There are a few examples of small deviations from the universal code, Tetrahymena, for example.

chunkdz said:

Frank J.: Holy FSM. Now there are 2 trolls.

You are rude.

Paul Burnett said: ...Biblical absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions: ...

Multiple sources have been given to demonstrate that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are NOT contradictory. Here’s one more, just for fun: Dr. Gleason Archer.

— FL

Jim Thomerson said: We do not know how life originated.

It may have been a supernatural event. If so ... it is not amenable to scientific study. On the other hand, it may have been a natural event.

Mr. Chunkdz has been banned from PT. I do not know whether he has a new IP address, but I just spent what felt like a whole morning classifying his comments as spam. I did not bother sending replies to the Bathroom Wall, but I will be very grateful if people refrain from feeding the Chunkdz troll (or for that matter the IBIG troll) unless they uncharacteristically write something truly worth responding to. In the meantime I will check with the webmaster and find out why Mr. Chunkdz's comments are getting through.

Paul Burnett said: I'm compiling my own Palm WebOS app of Biblical absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

What would the reason be for any explanation of the origin of life by science, considering there would be no way of ever confirming any explanation?

OgreMkV said: Forgot to add that the implication of the example of the coelacanth is that the modern species are different from all known extinct species.

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said: IBelieveInGod said -

Life creates life billions of times per year, and this is observable and testable, never has non life ever been observed becoming life.

This is good argument against creationism. Thank you. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of cellular life. It explains the subsequent evolution of cellular life, and post-cellular self-replicators like viruses. Creationism claims that new species are magically created. This has never been observed. Evolution of new species, on the other hand, has frequently been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation But how did cellular life itself originate? That field of study is known as "abiogenesis". Raven mentioned some progress which has been made in that field. Again, IBIG, thank you for your helpful critique of creationism. On another thread, you made another good pro-evolution argument. You pointed out that all of life shares common carbon-based biochemistry. Naturally, although magic could do anything, we would expect life that shares common ancestry to share common biochemistry. Keep up the good work. It's good to see that we can agree on something after all.

Harold, how do you know that new species are frequently observed? http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/fish/coelacanth/ Coelcanths were believed to be extinct for millions of years until they were discovered still living. So, how can you claim that new species are frequently observed? How do scientists know for certain that they are indeed observing a new species, and not just an old species that is newly discovered?

The CSI shows on TV are quite popular. What we do when we try to understand how things are in nature, and how they got that way, is analogous to CSI. I'm not sure I like to think of the universe as a Crime Scene, however. Anyway, it s very interesting and a lot of fun.

Matt Young said: Mr. Chunkdz has been banned from PT. I do not know whether he has a new IP address, but I just spent what felt like a whole morning classifying his comments as spam. I did not bother sending replies to the Bathroom Wall, but I will be very grateful if people refrain from feeding the Chunkdz troll (or for that matter the IBIG troll) unless they uncharacteristically write something truly worth responding to. In the meantime I will check with the webmaster and find out why Mr. Chunkdz's comments are getting through.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

There is absolutely no evidence that you have a brain. You've never seen your own brain, have you? Has anyone else? Have you ever seen anyone else's brain?

Show us the evidence!

IBelieveInGod said: HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

IBelieveInGod -

Since you are still here, at risk of wasting my time writing a comment that will be deleted, I have some quick questions for you.

1) When and how did life on earth begin, in your opinion?

2) Another poster objected to the formulation of testable hypotheses about how life might have begun naturally. But when I asked him went and how life began, he said he "didn't know". What do you think of that? How can that be an acceptable answer?

I noticed that you skipped some of my earlier questions, but let's settle this first.

chunkdz said: Actually, claiming that you have in your possession a plausible explanation for abiogenesis is not science until it is testable (See Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959)

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

bobsie said: BTW, Jack Szostak is the recipient of the 2009 Nobel in Physiology. Quite a bit more credible than anything chunkdz could spout, wouldn't you say?

Alex H said:

Dale Husband said: I believe we can title this episode "Attack of the Killer Creationists". Looks like we need some RAID, some mousetraps, and lots of flypaper, among other weapons.

Are they irreducibly complex mousetraps?

RWard said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

IBIG, what alternative hypothesis can you provide that doesn't involve magic? Magical explanations - e.g., 'God done it' - are impossible to rule out and are thus outside the boundaries of science.

What evidence would convince you that God created evolution, IBIG?

IBelieveInGod said:

RWard said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

IBIG, what alternative hypothesis can you provide that doesn't involve magic? Magical explanations - e.g., 'God done it' - are impossible to rule out and are thus outside the boundaries of science.

You have every right to not believe that God created all things. What evidence could possibly convince you that God created all things? If God created the natural with His Word, then what evidence would you expect to find to confirm this?

MrG said: What evidence would convince you that God created evolution, IBIG?

IBelieveInGod said:

RWard said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

IBIG, what alternative hypothesis can you provide that doesn't involve magic? Magical explanations - e.g., 'God done it' - are impossible to rule out and are thus outside the boundaries of science.

You have every right to not believe that God created all things. What evidence could possibly convince you that God created all things? If God created the natural with His Word, then what evidence would you expect to find to confirm this?

MrG said: IBIG, you still haven't got any proof you have a brain. You've never seen your own brain. In fact, you've probably never seen anyone else's brain, either. So on what basis can you possibly believe you have a brain? Show us the evidence!

I'm working on the JFK assassination and this reminds me of a gag circulating in the field. On Judgement Day, all the conspiracy theorists are resurrected, and after discussing matters among themselves they send a representative to talk to the Lord.

The representative goes to the Lord and asks: "Lord, we'd really like to know: who killed JFK."

And the Lord replies: "Oh, really. It was Lee Harvey Oswald. He was acting alone. There was no conspiracy."

The representative goes back to the crowd and they ask: "Well, what did the Lord say?"

He looks around carefully, leans forward, and whispers: "This is bigger than we thought ... "

John Vanko said: MrG has responded to IBIG in kind: "Biggy, show me your brain. SHOW ME YOUR BRAIN!!"

OgreMkV said: Forgot to add that the implication of the example of the coelacanth is that the modern species are different from all known extinct species.

Whether or not that's correct...

Phillip Johnson and others have tried to paper over those irreconcilable differences by advising evolution-deniers to wait until after “naturalism” is defeated, after which they can have a great time debating the “when” questions.

"In the meantime, getting back on topic, I’m compiling my own Palm WebOS app of Biblical absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions....Troll comments solicited."

Pi = 3.000… - I Kings 7:23

"CMI"? Didn't ring a bell. Wikipedia disambiguation did give some interesting candidates:

Chronic Mental Illness (tempting but no)

Cold Meat Industry

The Curse of Monkey Island (amusing but still no)

Campus Mission International (getting warm)

Committee for a Marxist International (getting way cold)

Creation Ministries International (DING! That's gotta be it.)

FL, why should we automatically assume that a literal interpretation of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible, i.e., "Young Earth Creationism," is a viable alternative to Evolutionary Biology (and Geology and Astronomy, and the rest of science) when even Philip Johnson knows that it isn't?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30 http://www.icr.org/article/524/ FL

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

RWard said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence is there that life actually arose from non-living matter?

None that a Creationist bigot would accept.

HA...There is absolutely no evidence that life came arose from non-living matter. What I have heard some evolutionists say in the past was, " life is here now, and that is the evidence that life arose from non-living matter"

IBIG, what alternative hypothesis can you provide that doesn't involve magic? Magical explanations - e.g., 'God done it' - are impossible to rule out and are thus outside the boundaries of science.

You have every right to not believe that God created all things. What evidence could possibly convince you that God created all things? If God created the natural with His Word, then what evidence would you expect to find to confirm this?

Life forms that look like they were actually created by an intelligence. Ever notice that there are no vertebrates with six limbs, like centaurs? Why not? Why not vertebrates with four eyes instead of two? Why not a digestive system much more efficient so that we would only have to poop once a month or so instead of every day? Why not two separate hearts with six or more chambers between them instead of only one heart with four chambers (or less, in many vertebrates)? Because your designer is, quite literally, an idiot, having no mind. You actually blaspheme God as a Creator when you claim to be his direct Creation, when it is much more enlightened to see him as simply the creator of the universe and maker of the physical laws that govern it. Most human designers would have done much better with life forms.

IBelieveInGod said: Would you have done a better job of creating life forms? Why don't you go ahead and create some life forms and show everyone what great, perfectly designed life forms you created??? I'll be waiting with excitement:):):)

IBelieveInGod said: If God created the natural with His Word, then what evidence would you expect to find to confirm this?

IBIG, you should not post anything else until you have answered the questions posed to you.

FL, you don't see scientists (believers, or what you call "theistic" OR nonbelievers) inject magic, God or anything else into science. Scientists disagree all the time about the details, but they are united in this.

YEC, Old earthers, etc disagree on the fundamentals, such as the age of the earth. This is not a small detail that can be set aside for the greater picture.

You said: "But do you evolutionists try to put aside their differences and work together to achieve (spelling corrected) pro-evolution results in terms of public educational policies? Of course you do."

The differences debated by scientists are not part of the public school realm-they debate details at the leading edge. Only accepted ideas are taught in school. University students, especially in grad school, will work with the conflicts.

I think you need to answer the questions I gave IBIG. You don't seem to understand what science is, or how it is done. What is your background? Can you define "theory" "evidence" and "hypothesis"? Do you know what "falsify" means?

A first step in creating synthetic life forms is reported here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100520131435.htm

Before you criticize, you should remember that no one has criticized the Wright brothers for not inventing the space shuttle.

Would you have done a better job of creating life forms? Why don’t you go ahead and create some life forms and show everyone what great, perfectly designed life forms you created??? I’ll be waiting with excitement:):):)

KL said: I think (FL) need(s) to answer the questions I gave IBIG. You don't seem to understand what science is, or how it is done. What is your background? Can you define "theory" "evidence" and "hypothesis"? Do you know what "falsify" means?

Well, FL, if this is the case, you have no more business here than a kid with a pellet gun has on the front line in Afganistan. You are out of your league, and have shown no interest in learning.

I suggest the wall.

IBelieveInGod -

I don't understand why other people assume that you think God created anything.

You haven't got the guts to state your own opinion.

Now, I'm going to ask you again, you slithering little weasel.

In your opinion, how and when was life created? ANSWER, you weasel, or everyone reading this will mock and jeer at your hypocrisy.

FL said: Likewise, Phillip Johnson was simply suggesting that non-Darwinists must likewise learn to put aside their differences and learn to work together in order to reach common goals, including public educational policies. Nothing wrong with that suggestion.

* or any other deity for that matter.

harold said: IBelieveInGod - I don't understand why other people assume that you think God created anything. You haven't got the guts to state your own opinion. Now, I'm going to ask you again, you slithering little weasel. In your opinion, how and when was life created? ANSWER, you weasel, or everyone reading this will mock and jeer at your hypocrisy.

Matt Young said:

Would you have done a better job of creating life forms? Why don’t you go ahead and create some life forms and show everyone what great, perfectly designed life forms you created??? I’ll be waiting with excitement:):):)

Further comments from Mr. IBelieveInGod will be sent to the Bathroom Wall. Please do not respond to this troll.

It’s true that YEC’s and OEC’s don’t agree on everything. Do theistic evolutionists and atheist evolutionists agree on everything? NOPE, (and certainly not from what I’ve seen on Pandasthumb and elsewhere over the years.) But do you evolutionists try to put aside their differences and work together to acheive pro-evolution results in terms of public educational policies? Of course you do. Likewise, Phillip Johnson was simply suggesting that non-Darwinists must likewise learn to put aside their differences and learn to work together in order to reach common goals, including public educational policies. Nothing wrong with that suggestion.

— FL

IBelieveInGod said: Would you have done a better job of creating life forms? Why don't you go ahead and create some life forms and show everyone what great, perfectly designed life forms you created??? I'll be waiting with excitement:):):)

Alex H -

1) Yes, but then IBIG comments came through anyway, and IBIG has actually not been banned before, unlike Chunk-E-Cheeze.

2) IBIG had plenty of chances to state his/her actual belief. He/she cynically cheered on the nihilism of chunkdz.

Let's not give this type of thing the credit of even confusing it with traditional Christianity. It's some kind of latter day cult of over-the-top narcissism and dystopic right wing politics. It's NOTHING BUT denial of scientific reality. It doesn't appear to be coupled to any kind of sincere faith or adherence to any kind of ethical code. Occasional sadistic fantasies of imposing harsh Biblical punishments on others do not amount to an ethical code.

The specialization of knowledge among scientists and the discoveries which have been made by the scientific community since I graduated high school 35 years ago are nothing short of phenomenal. It seems like every day something new is being brought to the forefront, whether it is Dr. Doris Taylor growing beating hearts in a laboratory, Dr. Rebecca Saxe demonstrating how moral judgments can be swayed by magnetic fields or the millions of other tremendous advances being made in the natural sciences -- like the genome project, the discovery of giant tube worms living in complete darkeness at unfathomable depths in the Pacific Ocean and the work being done with the large hadron collider in Switzerland. Imagine what we will be talking about in another 35 years!

Theists err when they attempt to apply the tools of their trade to natural science. Whether we believe in a god or gods or none at all or shrug our shoulders with an "I dunnoh," all of us must come to some kind of conclusion as to why we should continue day in and day out to struggle to survive and stay healthy and grow strong all-the-while knowing our days are numbered; we will not survive and despite our best efforts, time will whittle away at our flesh and bones until it finally chokes the breath of life from our being. So why go on? Now that's a good topic for theists. But leave the science to the scientists; they're pretty good at it.

IBelieveInGod said:You have every right to not believe that God created all things.

FL said:Well, Frank, that's what I'm waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.

FL said:

Pi = 3.000… - I Kings 7:23

Again, this is an alleged contradiction where multiple sources can be called in to take care of it. Gleason Archer addresses it in his textbook, but to save typing time let's just surf online: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html

My favorite is the New Testament's version of Michael Jackson's, "Thriller":

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Matthew 27:50-53.

KL said: I think you need to answer the questions I gave IBIG. You don't seem to understand what science is, or how it is done. What is your background? Can you define "theory" "evidence" and "hypothesis"? Do you know what "falsify" means?

They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

yeah, but did they DANCE?

that's the real question.

:P

ah, yes...

Dancing Zombies...

KL said: IBIG, on the last thread you participated in, I asked you two questions, both of which you didn't answer. ... Perhaps it’s time that IBIG state his/her background in science, so that the discussion can take the appropriate tone.

FL said: Well, Frank, that's what I'm waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. If my information is not correct, then you should be able to show me specifically how it's not correct. So far, nobody's done that yet.

I read Kitchen. His “evidence” consists of saying, over and over again, “it is so consistent”, as if by simple repetition he can make it be untrue that in 1 Genesis human beings are created last of the animals and in 2 Genesis they are created first of them.

Dave, FL has fled to the "Future of This Country" thread in order to gloat about how teaching Creationism to children somehow "improves" them and this country.

Apparently by making them laughing stocks.

Mike Elzinga said: These jerks don’t deserve the protection of the Constitution or being defended by our laws and our military. These are con artists, pure and simple. They belong with the Taliban or any other fanatical religious sects that seek the destruction of society.

You do realize that two of these ‘arguements’ against the contradiction in the Bible are mutually exclusive and they ALL require an INTERPRETATION of the scripture that YOU claim is literal.

If the Bible is literal, then any interpretation is incorrect.

OBSERVATION = What does the Bible text say? INTERPRETATION = What does the Bible text mean? APPLICATION = How does the Bible verse or passage change me? ---hat tip to Vern Poythress, "Defining the Three Steps".

"The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise." -- Dr. Hugh Ross, Reasons To Believe

Dave Luckett said: As Larry Flynt remarked of the laws: "If they'll protect a guy like me, they'll protect you, too." Funny how close that is to "Inasmuch as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me."

I know, I know, it would feel soooo good. Just once, to be able to make a fool like FL shut his stupid wicked mouth. Only it wouldn’t be just once.

In other words, FL says that the Bible must be read word for word literally, only except when he says otherwise.

I mean, seriously, where in the Bible does it say that it's a science book?

Or, what parts are we supposed to take literally, and which ones are we supposed to assume are metaphor?

Like the parts where the Bible inaccurately describes biology, like four-legged grasshoppers, bats being birds, wheat seed dying prior to sprouting, or hyraxes/rabbits allegedly chewing cud?

Or why should we assume that God magically drowning the entire world is literal, but "windows of heaven" is a figure of speech? Why should we assume that Lot's wife literally turned to salt when "to turn to salt" actually happens to be an ancient Hebrew figure of speech?

Oh, wait, no, FL is just being an arrogant, lying idiot as usual.

FL said:

Whether or not that's correct...

Well, Frank, that's what I'm waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. If my information is not correct, then you should be able to show me specifically how it's not correct. So far, nobody's done that yet. (Dale Husband: Like all the evidence for evolution is not sufficient?)

Phillip Johnson and others have tried to paper over those irreconcilable differences by advising evolution-deniers to wait until after “naturalism” is defeated, after which they can have a great time debating the “when” questions.

It's true that YEC's and OEC's don't agree on everything. Do theistic evolutionists and atheist evolutionists agree on everything? NOPE, (and certainly not from what I've seen on Pandasthumb and elsewhere over the years.) But do you evolutionists try to put aside their differences and work together to acheive pro-evolution results in terms of public educational policies? Of course you do. Likewise, Phillip Johnson was simply suggesting that non-Darwinists must likewise learn to put aside their differences and learn to work together in order to reach common goals, including public educational policies. Nothing wrong with that suggestion. *** Paul Burnett says,

"In the meantime, getting back on topic, I’m compiling my own Palm WebOS app of Biblical absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions....Troll comments solicited."

Okay, compiling your own Palm app is a reasonable activity. That's what the thread is about, people on each side of the fence making use of the new technology. (But I gotta ask you this: at the end of your post, why call people "trolls" if you actually WANT them to respond to your post? Hmmm.) Anyway, let's do one of your alleged "contradictions" just for fun. We all like math, so how about:

Pi = 3.000… - I Kings 7:23

Again, this is an alleged contradiction where multiple sources can be called in to take care of it. Gleason Archer addresses it in his textbook, but to save typing time let's just surf online: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30 http://www.icr.org/article/524/ Okay, contradiction eliminated! That's that! FL

I think (FL) need(s) to answer the questions I gave IBIG.

I suggest the wall.

Dale Husband said: All a con artist needs to make profits is at least a few people foolish enough to beleive in his lies. You are a perfect example of such con artistry at work, FL.

aside from the other brainless Creationist trolls.

have you even seen that?

I've rather been under the impression that for years, FL's soapbox act was for his benefit alone.

...like an internal monologue he's been having with himself since he was about 5 years old, that's never changed.

Never did see why anybody here put up with him for so long.

Yes, shame on KL for thinking that FL has the backbone or inherent decency to answer the questions posed to IBelieve.

Shame, shame, shame. Answering those silly questions would eat into the precious time FL spends trolling here with his lies, ranting and inane, catty gossip.

Ichthyic said: aside from the other brainless Creationist trolls. have you even seen that? I've rather been under the impression that for years, FL's soapbox act was for his benefit alone. ...like an internal monologue he's been having with himself since he was about 5 years old, that's never changed.

Never did see why anybody here put up with him for so long.

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said: All a con artist needs to make profits is at least a few people foolish enough to beleive in his lies. You are a perfect example of such con artistry at work, FL.

I disagree: I don't see anyone on this website fooled by FL, aside from the other brainless Creationist trolls.

Well, Frank, that’s what I’m waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. If my information is not correct, then you should be able to show me specifically how it’s not correct. So far, nobody’s done that yet.

You did see how he, chunkdz, and IBIG were patting each other on the back, or how he was all fluttery-eyed with Ray Martinez, right?

actually, no.

must have missed that.

...and now that I think about it, I myself have agreed with FL on one thing:

His version of religious thought is most certainly incompatible not only with evolutionary theory and science, but reality itself.

I sometimes wish he actually would move to a BIGGER playground, where his inanity would speed his religion to the inevitable end it deserves all the faster.

He that is not against us is for us. Luke 9:50.
He that is not with me is against me. Luke 11:23.

Which of these two verses you tend to remember says more about yourself than it does about the Bible, eh FL?

Sojourner said: He that is not against us is for us. Luke 9:50. He that is not with me is against me. Luke 11:23.

Dave Luckett said:

FL said: Well, Frank, that's what I'm waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. If my information is not correct, then you should be able to show me specifically how it's not correct. So far, nobody's done that yet.

Sigh.

I read Kitchen. His “evidence” consists of saying, over and over again, “it is so consistent”, as if by simple repetition he can make it be untrue that in 1 Genesis human beings are created last of the animals and in 2 Genesis they are created first of them.

First posted on July 3 2010 at 11.43. Ignored, of course, as FL ignores everything that doesn't suit him. And as for the ridiculous assertion that there are not two distinct and conflicting accounts of the creation of life asserted in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 because the second of them doesn't speak of the creation of the sun and the moon, words fail me. I don't think I've seen anything quite so abject since that loon IBIG cut-and-pasted hoax photos from photoshopping competitions, yet, as "evidence" that there were giants. I repeat, in Genesis 1, human beings are created the last of all things, after the plants and animals, and man and woman are created together. In Genesis 2, a man was created first, before there were even plants, the animals were then created, and he named them, and then after that, God created a woman from Adam's rib. There's simply no getting around this plain fact. A plain literal reading of the text admits of no other meaning. These are two different stories. This is myth. It is folklore, not history. But what do we see? FL, desperate to preserve the obvious untruth that the two versions do not conflict, resorts to the most weaselly of evasions from fellow-deniers. But by doing so, he torpedoes himself amidships. In his desperation to preserve literality, he throws it away. The words of the Bible don't actually mean what they plainly mean, they mean something else. Anything to give the impression that they're not internally contradictory, when they plainly are. But it is impossible logically to maintain that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly means, and at the same time to maintain that it must be interpreted plainly and literally. Or at least, it would be impossible for a rational person to do that. FL can do it, though, because like all fundamentalists, he can shut down whatever parts of his mind are inconvenient to his core beliefs.

Stanton said: In other words, FL says that the Bible must be read word for word literally, only except when he says otherwise.

I find it interesting that FL has somehow not found time to respond to Dave Luckett's posts in this thread.

FL said: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are NOT contradictory. Here's one more, just for fun: Dr. Gleason Archer.

...Search all the cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas---none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture, and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. --Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 68-69.

Seems clear enough.

IBelieveInGod -

So you can post, but you can't answer my questions?

IBelieveInGod said: There is absolutely no way of actually knowing when, or how life was created/arose.

FL said:

Whether or not that's correct...

Well, Frank, that's what I'm waiting for: somebody to post a supportable and sustainable refutation to the information that I offered regarding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. If my information is not correct, then you should be able to show me specifically how it's not correct. So far, nobody's done that yet.

Phillip Johnson and others have tried to paper over those irreconcilable differences by advising evolution-deniers to wait until after “naturalism” is defeated, after which they can have a great time debating the “when” questions.

It's true that YEC's and OEC's don't agree on everything. Do theistic evolutionists and atheist evolutionists agree on everything? NOPE, (and certainly not from what I've seen on Pandasthumb and elsewhere over the years.) But do you evolutionists try to put aside their differences and work together to acheive pro-evolution results in terms of public educational policies? Of course you do. Likewise, Phillip Johnson was simply suggesting that non-Darwinists must likewise learn to put aside their differences and learn to work together in order to reach common goals, including public educational policies. Nothing wrong with that suggestion. *** Paul Burnett says,

"In the meantime, getting back on topic, I’m compiling my own Palm WebOS app of Biblical absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions....Troll comments solicited."

Okay, compiling your own Palm app is a reasonable activity. That's what the thread is about, people on each side of the fence making use of the new technology. (But I gotta ask you this: at the end of your post, why call people "trolls" if you actually WANT them to respond to your post? Hmmm.) Anyway, let's do one of your alleged "contradictions" just for fun. We all like math, so how about:

Pi = 3.000… - I Kings 7:23

Again, this is an alleged contradiction where multiple sources can be called in to take care of it. Gleason Archer addresses it in his textbook, but to save typing time let's just surf online: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30 http://www.icr.org/article/524/ Okay, contradiction eliminated! That's that! FL

There is absolutely no way of actually knowing when, or how life was created/arose.

I believe God created life, I don’t know actually how He did it.

Many here believe life arose by natural causes, but this is not any more valid a explanation then that of life being created by a living being. It is more valid to those who are atheists, because they chose not to believe in a Creator.

Life has never been observed arising from non-living matter by natural causes, so to say that this is how it came about is not any more valid.

To use science to attempt to explain the origin of life, or that there is no Creator would be scientism.

I have found many here who clearly demonstrate scientism. PBS states scientism this way: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Can you tell me how the origin of life could be determined with certainty through scientific method?

Should the true origin of life be considered an unknowable truth by science?

Dave Luckett said: A plain literal reading of the text admits of no other meaning. These are two different stories.

The earliest Sumerian creation account, the Eridu Genesis, contains no reference to the creation of the sun/moon/stars/seas.

A different text recounts the strange way in which the moon was created. When this story begins, the gods have apparently already established cities, for Enlil, the goddess Ninlil ("lady wind" or "lady air") and her mother Ninshebargunu are dwelling in their temples in the city of Nippur. Ninlil's mother warns her that if she bathes in the canal called Nunbirdu, Enlil will see her and want to make love to her. Naturally, Ninlil goes down to the canal the next day to take a dip. Enlil sees her and asks for a kiss. Ninlil refuses, saying she is too young to make love, so Enlil devises a plan. He obtains a boat, floats over to where Ninlil is bathing, and rapes her, impregnating her with the future moon god Nanna (or Sin). The other gods, dismayed by Enlil's outrageous conduct, demand that the "sex offender . . . leave the town!" (Jacobsen, Harps 174). Enlil walks out of town in the direction of the underworld, and the pregnant Ninlil follows him. Since Enlil does not want his son the moon to reside in the underworld, he concocts a rather bizarre plan. Enlil impersonates a gatekeeper, a man in charge of the underworld river, and the ferryman to the underworld, and as each of these personages, he has sex with Ninlil, impregnating her with three deities who will reside in the underworld as substitutes for Nanna the moon, who will thus be free to rise to heavens where he belongs. Apparently, Ninlil consents to go to bed with what she thinks are three minor underworld officials because she, too, sees this as a way for Enlil's child Nanna to "go heavenward."

But where did heaven (An) and earth (Ki) come from, you may ask? According to another text, it was Nammu, the sea, "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth" (Samuel N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology 39).

IBelieveInGod said: To assume that all life forms came to be through the evolutionary process, then you also have to answer the origin of the original life form that all life ultimately evolved from.

IBelieveInGod said: Your explanation for the origin of life would not be any more valid then mine.

I was not using the God of the gaps argument, I believe that God created life, that is my personally held conviction. You have a right to believe anyway that you want. Truth is that science can’t and never will be able to determine with certainty how life was created/arose.

To assume that all life forms came to be through the evolutionary process, then you also have to answer the origin of the original life form that all life ultimately evolved from.

According to God’s Word He created man from the dust of the earth, and He breathed life into him, this would not be Abiogenesis.

Sojourner said: My favorite is the New Testament's version of Michael Jackson's, "Thriller": And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Matthew 27:50-53.

Funny how ancient defenses of religion sound so much like newage* "I feel it, so it's real to me" po-mo relativist flakery.

*rhymes with sewage.

I actually have no objection to someone claiming to be a creationist. No law against it. If told that science doesn't support their position, they can always answer: "Science is bunk." Not much else to say there.

The problem is that they immediately try to use science to support their position while simultaneously dissing science.
Sorry, agree with science or not, it doesn't support creationism. Claiming it does is like saying Mexicans speak French.

To assume that all life forms came to be through the evolutionary process, then you also have to answer the origin of the original life form that all life ultimately evolved from.

So...

..on the science side: 200+ years of fossil hunting, genetics, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, pretty much all of chemistry and physics, and so on and so on...

... on the anti-science side: a 2000-year-old book of campfire stories and garbled oral history, told and re-told in a credulous and superstitious world, by the kind of folks who would these days rather watch "Ghost Whisperer" than "Nova".

Teach the controversy, indeed.

IBIG -

Alright, one more comment.

Plenty of people are religious.

You have decided, almost certainly for social and political reasons, that in addition to being religious, or even if you are not sincerely religious, you wish to deny science and condemn the scientific method. These are two completely different things.

IBIG -

You may or may not have had a spiritual experience, that is your business.

You did not have a spiritual experience that involved a god telling you exactly how life originated. That's BS. That's you serving a political faction and calling it "religion".

IBelieveInGod said: No it isn't a God of the gaps argument, I didn't state that since the origin of life can't be explained that God did it, and I didn't choose to believe God created life because science can't explain it. I am a witness to the presence of the Almighty in my life, I am a witness to the power of His Holy Spirit.

IBelieveInGod said: You have every right to doubt what I believe and what I have witnessed, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

That's it? You think that one Hebrew verb can be translated in the past pluperfect, and that solves the entire problem?

It doesn't, of course. The first verses of Genesis 2 state that plants did not exist when God made man. It states that a male human was created first and a female last of all creation, while Genesis 1 says, (v27) that both male and female were created together, last. Last is explicitly specified.

Hebrew doesn't use tenses, exactly. Its verbs have moods, one of which refers to completed actions. But this doesn't change the fact that Genesis 2: 19, only makes sense in the past perfect throughout. The actions in creating Adam, forming the animals and showing them to Adam are all given in the same mood. The natural and ordinary translation is the perfect, and this agrees with the sense. God completed these three actions in the sequence given. It tortures the sense to say that He created man, but before that had created other things, and (later) brought them to man to name, only the writer inexplicably didn't specify (or even hint at) this sequence, despite the strong reliance on narrative sequentiality throughout.

So why is this tortured reading insisted upon? Why, because the natural and ordinary meaning of the words would display inconsistency with chapter one, an inconsistency of which the original writers were almost certainly perfectly well aware, and were not concerned with. It is the modern fundamentalist who insists it's all literal, and it is he who must find some way out, no matter how unlikely.

But as soon as he starts casting around for such an exit, he destroys himself. He ends up saying that the Bible's words cannot always be read in their plain, obvious and ordinary meaning.

Which is the very idea that he most desperately wishes to deny.

It is really rather amusing to watch these people industriously boring holes in their own canoe, while wondering why it is sinking under them.

IBelieveInGod said: No, not denying real science, or condemning scientific method, but attempting to use scientific method to determine the origin of life is not real science.

Please respond to the IBIG and chunkdz trolls on the Bathroom Wall.

OK, let's get back to the medieval peasant, who sayS: "Men will never go to the Moon." Was there any prospect of doing so in 1010 CE? Could anyone have even suggested or imagined a sensible means of doing so at the time? But he was wrong.

And suppose for purposes of argument that we say we have no idea of how life might have began and no clue as to figure it out, any more than a medieval peasant could think of going to the Moon. You have no more basis for claiming that we will not understand the origin of life by 3010 CE
than the peasant had for believeing we would never go to the Moon.

The peasant was arguing solely on the basis of his ignorance on a matter on which he had no facts. I do not see you as different from him.

IBelieveInGod said: I admit that I believe that God created life by Faith! The problem is that those who believe that life arose from non-living matter by natural causes, claim that it is based on science when in truth is is faith also. That is the point of my argument, if something is truly unknowable then you would have to believe it by faith.

FL said: Nobody can be sure that the fragments we DON'T have, "contains no reference" to sun/moon/seas or stars.

So, in fact, Gleason Archer's specific point remains valid after all. Eridu Genesis does not overturn it.

the Sumerians DO already have a creation story about the moon

A different text recounts...

According to another text...

MrG said: OK, let's get back to the medieval peasant, who sayS: "Men will never go to the Moon." Was there any prospect of doing so in 1010 CE? Could anyone have even suggested or imagined a sensible means of doing so at the time? But he was wrong. And suppose for purposes of argument that we say we have no idea of how life might have began and no clue as to figure it out, any more than a medieval peasant could think of going to the Moon. You have no more basis for claiming that we will not understand the origin of life by 3010 CE than the peasant had for believeing we would never go to the Moon. The peasant was arguing solely on the basis of his ignorance on a matter on which he had no facts. I do not see you as different from him.

phantomreader42 said: Modern creationists...are willfully ignorant, lying to themselves to prop up a faith built on lies.

FL said: JohnK, to his credit, took time to do some homework and try to refute what Dr. Gleason Archer said. JohnK wrote,

The earliest Sumerian creation account, the Eridu Genesis, contains no reference to the creation of the sun/moon/stars/seas.

But there's a clear reason for that. Eridu Genesis is fragmentary, and the fragments we have primarily talk about the Flood instead of the creation of the sun, moon, or seas. Nobody can be sure that the fragments we DON'T have, "contains no reference" to sun/moon/seas or stars. That's all the more true, btw, because the Sumerians DO already have a creation story about the moon (which is also on Archer's list there, you'll notice.)

A different text recounts the strange way in which the moon was created. When this story begins, the gods have apparently already established cities, for Enlil, the goddess Ninlil ("lady wind" or "lady air") and her mother Ninshebargunu are dwelling in their temples in the city of Nippur. Ninlil's mother warns her that if she bathes in the canal called Nunbirdu, Enlil will see her and want to make love to her. Naturally, Ninlil goes down to the canal the next day to take a dip. Enlil sees her and asks for a kiss. Ninlil refuses, saying she is too young to make love, so Enlil devises a plan. He obtains a boat, floats over to where Ninlil is bathing, and rapes her, impregnating her with the future moon god Nanna (or Sin). The other gods, dismayed by Enlil's outrageous conduct, demand that the "sex offender . . . leave the town!" (Jacobsen, Harps 174). Enlil walks out of town in the direction of the underworld, and the pregnant Ninlil follows him. Since Enlil does not want his son the moon to reside in the underworld, he concocts a rather bizarre plan. Enlil impersonates a gatekeeper, a man in charge of the underworld river, and the ferryman to the underworld, and as each of these personages, he has sex with Ninlil, impregnating her with three deities who will reside in the underworld as substitutes for Nanna the moon, who will thus be free to rise to heavens where he belongs. Apparently, Ninlil consents to go to bed with what she thinks are three minor underworld officials because she, too, sees this as a way for Enlil's child Nanna to "go heavenward."

Source: "Sumerian Myths", http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm#Sumerlinks By the way, this same source also points out:

But where did heaven (An) and earth (Ki) come from, you may ask? According to another text, it was Nammu, the sea, "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth" (Samuel N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology 39).

So right there, on top of the Sumerian creation story of the moon, you have an IMPLIED reference to the creation of sun and stars, courtesy of the Sumerians. ****** So, in fact, Gleason Archer's specific point remains valid after all. Eridu Genesis does not overturn it. FL

The theology being practiced by Christian fundamentalists today is a "theology of The Book." Everything originates from the text and the meaning of anything is to be found in the text. When one reads the text, however, one encounters people interacting with their god and interacting with one another with seemingly little, if any, attention being paid to a written text. After all, very few people could read 2000 years agp. Christian fundamentalists who today repeatedly look to, and cite from, chapter and verse are therefore behaving in a manner markedly different from the way the people we read about in the Bible behaved. I think I could hang out and be friends with most of the folks I read about in the Bible, but I can't stand being in the presence of Christian fundamentalists. There is something very, very unholy about them.

Sojourner said: The theology being practiced by Christian fundamentalists today is a "theology of The Book." Everything originates from the text and the meaning of anything is to be found in the text. When one reads the text, however, one encounters people interacting with their god and interacting with one another with seemingly little, if any, attention being paid to a written text. After all, very few people could read 2000 years agp. Christian fundamentalists who today repeatedly look to, and cite from, chapter and verse are therefore behaving in a manner markedly different from the way the people we read about in the Bible behaved. I think I could hang out and be friends with most of the folks I read about in the Bible, but I can't stand being in the presence of Christian fundamentalists. There is something very, very unholy about them.

It has a mixture of just about everything in it, as does history itself.

Which doesn't actually address the issue- most of the so called heroes were pretty unpleasant folks- Sampson posed a riddle, and, when someone correctly guessed it, he murdered several people in order to pay the prize; Moses ordered the slaying of all prisoners except for girls too young to have known a man when Jericho fell; speaking of virgins, Lot offered up his two daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom when they came to his house looking for the angels.

I'll admit that my knowledge of other cultures is limited. In what culture (going back 2000 - 6000 years) do you find rich stories of generosity, kindness and empathy which you don't find when reading the Bible?

Right--it's just not fair to judge people of long ago by our moral sensibilities today. And it's especially irrational to judge them by the stories someone else wrote about them centuries later. It's like calling Darwin a racist even though, by the standards of his society, he was much less racist than most of his contemporaries.

Did Moses really do all the things attributed to him in the Bible? We have no way of knowing. He has no presence in history outside the Bible. And if he did those things, were they pretty much standard practice for the time? Were there others in similar situations behaving any better (by our standards)?

Today, many of his actions would be crimes--even crimes against humanity. I wouldn't want to be his buddy. And I warrant you, neither would our resident Christian fundamentalists. Nor would they want anything to do with Jesus, if he were here today, acting as he did then.

The irony (and danger) is that the fundies want to go back to the good old Old Testament days.

Just Bob said: Right--it's just not fair to judge people of long ago by our moral sensibilities today. And it's especially irrational to judge them by the stories someone else wrote about them centuries later.

Alex H said: Moses ordered the slaying of all prisoners except for girls too young to have known a man when Jericho fell;

PS: And, were someone to make a case against Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin for keeping slaves, I would reply: "They deserve the death penalty!"

"But they're already dead."

"Serves them right."

Don't overlook Qoheleth, the writer of Ecclesiastes; he's like most of us in that he just can't get no satisfaction. And remember that young carpenter who attended a wedding party; when the kegs ran dry, he made the beer run. And as far as eccentric uncles go, uncle Noah has gotta be up there near the top. It kinda reminds me of the old sitcom, "Cheers."

OgreMkV said:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30 http://www.icr.org/article/524/ FL

You do realize that two of these 'arguements' against the contradiction in the Bible are mutually exclusive and they ALL require an INTERPRETATION of the scripture that YOU claim is literal. So which is it Floyd? Is the Bible literal or is it open to interpretation? We've had this discussion before and you refused to answer this question. Do you see the problem Floyd? If the Bible is literal, then any interpretation is incorrect. If the Bible is open to interpretation, then any part is open to interpretation. Sorry Floyd, but you don't get to pick and choose.

Leszek said: What I find most amusing about this issue of Pi being = to 3 is that it doesn't require an explanation to any normal sane person. The bible doesn't say "Let Pi = 3". It is instead a description of a human made pot basically. This pot is not going to be perfectly round, nor do the measurements have to be perfectly accurate. (How often do you talk about your 10 foot 2.3 inch deep pool?) This SHOULD be a non issue even if you believe the bible is litterally true.

I agree with you on this point, and I can give an example of inappropriate measurement conversion in the modern world.

Matt Young said: Possibly more relevant example: Why is our body temperature always quoted as 98.6 °F? Surely we do not all maintain the same temperature within 0.1 °F. Hint: Convert 37 °C to degrees Fahrenheit. Do not round to 2 significant figures.