Messed-Up Bible Stories: Cain and Abel
18 June 2009 by StardustHere’s a little something to break up your afternoon. Someone I know gave me the link to these Messed-Up Bible Stories from ebolaworld.com. Put down that beverage before watching. There are three other “episodes” here at this link:
19 June 2009, on 10:32 am
LOL, Star! I especially loved the cultural and social touchstones they threw in, like dinosaurs and IDiots, gays, atheism, and GlobalFlooding-deniers. That only served to further illuminate the Anachronism of Belief.
(Yes, I’m still here. Your son shared with you the frequent chaos of trucking, I’m sure…)
19 June 2009, on 11:22 am
Oh yes, he has many stories to tell!
How about the Flinstone theme…wasn’t that a hoot?
19 June 2009, on 5:59 pm
What is with the eyes? When did the nose move to between the eyes instead of to the right of the nose asd in this video. LOL
21 June 2009, on 2:44 am
Excuse me but are you not the same bunch of pathetic ignoramuses who read RICHARD DAWKINS poppycock screeds against INTELLEGENT DESIGN do you realy think all that evolution hogwash you read in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC,TIME and NEWSWEEK is absulutly the truth? YOUR SO DARN PATHETIC
21 June 2009, on 1:54 pm
Flu-bird…if you are not goofing around, then it is you who is pathetic for not understanding what evolution is, for Richard Dawkins being too complex for your thinking, and that people here rely on the magazines you mention for their educational information. You are deluding yourself if you believe in an invisible grand cosmic designer and believe it without even a shred of scientific evidence to back up those beliefs. You call evolution hogwash when you don’t even have a clue about what it is.
23 June 2009, on 12:58 am
Flu-bird;
Pray tell, please: what DOES intelligent design explain? Think there’s “holes” in the theory of evolution that you can fill with theology? What do you use to fill the “holes” in the “theory” of Intelligent Design? The fallacy of incredulity and a little wishful thinking?
Intelligent Design’s proposals can be broken down into two sub-groups: Those that are not scientifically testable (and therefore hold the same theoretical muscle as Snow white and the Seven Dwarves) and those that are testable, have been tested and repeatedly failed to stand up to even the most basic material evidence.
As for truth, yes, since a scientific theory is a concept used to explain a fact/set of facts, one that is supported by insurmountable evidence, evolution is fact–it is truth.
And I, like most people interested in science, get my info from sources other than mainstream periodicals. I suggest you vary your reading material a little–get a basic biology book and learn the tenets of the theory of evolution before you get into this discussion again. As for a good critique of the Intelligent Design movement (it is a movement, not a theory in the strict, scientific sense), read “Intelligent Thought” edited by John Brockman. You’ll even find a poppycock essay by Dr Dawkins himself.
23 June 2009, on 2:32 am
Flu-Bird,
What Stardust means to say is that Stardust doesn’t understand what evolution is as you can tell from previous posts. There is scientific evidence for a Creator. The fact that Stardust and others says there isn’t shows a further lack of understanding of science. They clearly can’t even interpret the bible correctly as is evident from this post.
23 June 2009, on 10:39 am
Joe B, perhaps you would care to tell us what this scientfic evidence happens to be for a creator?
What are ID’s scientific predictions?
What are its unifying principles?
What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.
When you can provide that information, and it can be verified, then we can call it science. Until then, evolution is science, and ID is THEOLOGY. Most god believers acknowledge that their god cannot be verified and must take it on “Faith” because to date, there is no scientific evidence for ID or even the existence of your god. To make claims of intelligent design, first you must start with evidence for a supernatural creator.
Your Bible (mythology book written by flawed and ignorant humans thousands of years ago) does not count as scientific evidence any more than a book about Santa Claus proves his existence. Your book is not science, it is theology/mythology.
Now, for what any school kid knows about evolution:
From Wiki (not a great source, but provides sources to back up its info, unlike Bible thumpers)
“Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain causes”
Again, what theories for ID have been developed and tested…and documented…to prove your claim?
23 June 2009, on 12:14 pm
Stardust,
I was refering to Big Bang Cosmology which has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt. According to physicist Alan Guth “Those who doubt the Big Bang are now considered by the scientific community as being crack pots”
http://www.goodreads.com/videos/show/3448-big-bang-crack-pot
I agree that IDer’s have no testable creation model but they are working on one. Regardless, what are some of the theories that have been developed and tested that show macroevolution is a fact? I agree that microevolution occurs. I even agree that evolution occurs. I don’t agree that it all occurs bt random accident.
To find a testable creation model from a creationist perspective look at the book: More than a Theory by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross. Also, check out the Craig vs. Hitchens debate here:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/225u6w
23 June 2009, on 12:35 pm
I agree that IDer’s have no testable creation model but they are working on one.
Ahhh, I expected the answer you gave along with the distractions when asked to prove the statements you make so loosely. In your first comment you wrote:
Then you went on to say
Then you go on to say they only have a “creationist perspective”, and provide a random linkie of a video authored by asshat idiot Ray Comfort.
WTF, you are showing that you, yourself really do not know what you are talking about.
If you did, and if IDers want to consider ID a science, then you should be able to answer the following questions I posted above.
What are ID’s scientific predictions?
What are its unifying principles?
What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.
IDers keep ignoring these simple questions. (Because ID is NOT SCIENCE, IT’S THEOLOGY BASED ON FAITH)
23 June 2009, on 12:58 pm
IDers have been “working on one” for a long, long, long time. Of course, we don’t see any signs of progress, just their insistence.
23 June 2009, on 1:09 pm
Regardless, what are some of the theories that have been developed and tested that show macroevolution is a fact?
*************************
If you sincerely accept microevolution, you accept macro evolution by default. Macro evolution is just lots and lots and lots of microevolution over lots and lots and lots of time. The exact mechanisms and processes that changes a bird’s beak to be able to successfully catch and eat certain bugs that are predominant in a specific ecosystem is the exact same mechanisms and processes that change a land animal into a whale over lots and lots of time.
23 June 2009, on 4:04 pm
Once again, when an Id’er is asked the three simple scientific questions which would support their claims of intelligent design, they take off and don’t come back.
23 June 2009, on 5:19 pm
Stardust,
I’m not an IDer. I’m an Old Earth Creationist. For a testable creation model from a creationist perspective look at the book: More than a Theory by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.
23 June 2009, on 7:43 pm
Joe B, IDer, Old Earth Creationist…same thing.
Why can’t you simply answer the questions I posed instead of telling me to read one book from someone “perspective”. I am not asking for one person’s “perspective” or “idea”, I am asking:
What are ID’s scientific predictions?
What are its unifying principles?
What experiments have been done to support your ID theory?
If it states so in that book, then you should be able to answer those three questions.
You can’t because the answers are none, none and none.
23 June 2009, on 8:43 pm
No Stardust there are some. It would take up a whole book to list them. Please get the book that I mentioned.
I’m not an I.D.er
24 June 2009, on 2:09 am
Joe B:
& where, pray tell, did they piss away all those millions of denaro? Why, on political intrigue, of course!
The baconeater pointed this out already: micro-evolution EQUALS macro-evolution. It’s an approach based on scale. The larger something is, the rules change.
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. . So some of it is up to chance, but only the mutations that benefit survival.
As for the evidence, here are 29+ pieces of proof for ya:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
No, it only seems that way. Closer analysis shows an appalling amount of design flaws.
Dude, you bring it. I’ll wallop it.
The bible is codswallop. It’s bollocks on a grand scale. Archeology’s destroying it’s long-unchallenged idiocy. It is in no way anything other than a book of tribalistic Iron Age fables, & has no place in a discussion of science of any sort.
As to Hugh Ross, I addressed some of his nonsense here.
Because, buddy-me-boyo, you’ve made a series of brash assumptions when you came here. You presupposed not only an invisible sky daddy, you also guessed we hadn’t heard any of these naive arguments prior. Or that we don’t know how to deal w/the likes of you.
So be warned: it’s YOUR cage that’ll get rattled.
Or to quote Samuel L. Jackson from Jurassic Park – “Hold on to your butts.”
24 June 2009, on 2:17 am
Joe B:
Geez, so you refuse to list even FIVE of each? How about ONE of each? C’mon, you came to play, did you not? You’re the minority opinion: back up your assertions for the public record.
So…you’re saying that the universe (or the world) isn’t ‘intelligently designed’?
Do man up sometime soon, please.
24 June 2009, on 8:04 am
K.A.
I don’t go alond with the I.D. movement becauase they don’t have a creation model. Here’s a few predictive tests of one Old Earth creation model
Predictive Tests for the Creation Model
1. As astronomers discover more extrasolar planets and learn more about their planet stars, evidence for the rarity of solar system features that permit advanced life will increase, as will the need for intervention miricles to explain them.
2. Astonomers’ measurments of the universe’s age will become more accurate, more consistent, and more certainly fixed on about 14 billion years.
3. Evidence for ongoing star and planet formation and for star extinction will increase.
4. Evidences for an actual beginning of space and time will grow stronger and more numerous. These evidences will continue to place the beginning of space and time at about 14 billion years ago.
5. Evidence for fine tuning in the laws and constants of physics and in the gross cosmic features will become stronger.
6. New more precise cosmic expansion measures will confirm that the universe has been expanding for about 14 billion years and that the expansion rate is extraordinarily (supernaturally) fine-tuned.
7. Astronomer’s and physicists will continue to accumulate evidence that the laws and constants of physics have remained extraordinarily fixed over the pst 14 billion years – from present back to the cosmic creation event.
8. Both the number and characteristics of the Local Group galaxies that must be fine-tuned and the degree of fine-tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase.
9. The proximity of galaxies to one another will prove to be proportional to their distance from earth.
10. New discoveries will continue to increase the evidence that humans exist at the ideal moment in cosmic history to foster advanced civilization and to observe the cosmic creation event and measure cosmic design features.
11. Both the number of characteristics of the Milky Way Galaxy that must be fine-tuned and the degree of fine-tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase as astronomers learn more about the Milky Way Galaxy.
12. As astronomer’s learn more about the physical requirements for advanced life, they will find increasing evidence for the anthropic principle inequality.
13. Both the number of characteristics of the solar system that must be fin-tuned and the degree of fine-tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase as astronomers learn more about the solar system.
14. Both the number of characteristics of Earth that must be fine tuned and the degree of fine tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase as astronomers learn more about the earth.
15. Both the number of characteristics of the moon-forming collision event that must be fine-tuned and the degree of fine-tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase as astronomers learn more about the moon-forming event.
16. Both the number of characteristics of the late heavy bombardment that must be fine-tuned and the degree of fine tuning in those features to make the existence of advanced life possible will progressively increase as astronomers learn more about the bombardment.
17. Future solar system discoveries will reveal the remains of life on all solar system bodies in proportion to how efficiently meteoric impacts can transport such remains from earth and to how well conditions on the the respective body allow the preservation of such remains
18. Ongoing research increasingly will demonstrate that the habitable zones for life and intelligent life in particular are narrow.
19. As astronomers discover more planets, they will find increasing evidence that analogs of the solar system and Earth simular enough to permit the existence of advanced life are either rare or nonexistent.
20. Evidence will become increasingly more compelling that no laws of physics exist that cause extreme local violations of the thermodynamic laws that complexity and order spring from simplicity and disorder to such a degree that life spontaneously arises from nonlife.
21. As scientists learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and laws of physics, they will find increasing evidence against any natural law that spontaneously and instantly self-organizes nonorganic matter into viable organisms.
22. Astrochemical research increasingly will establish the inadequacy of any possible natural source of prebiotics to provide all the chemical building blocks in the necessary concentrations and stabilities for a naturalistic origin of life.
23. Astrochemists increasingly will establish that there are no natural reservoirs of concentrated, perfectly homochiral amino acids and sugars.
24. Geneticists increasingly will establish that the simplest possible independent life forms are nearly as complex as the simplest independent life on Earth today.
25. Scientists increasingly will establish that origin of life took place within a very narrow of time billions of years ago.
26. When scientists recover from the moon some fossils of earth’s first life they will find that these fossilized remains are as complex or nearly so and diverse as the earliest fossils of life found on Earth.
27. Research on the components of the Drake Equation increasingly will demonstrate that the probability for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is indistinguishable from zero.
28. Future searches for extraterrestrial intelligent life will continue to produve null results.
29. Chemists will find increasing evidence for chemical barriers blocking naturalistic pathways to the assembly of nucleobases and sugars into all the life-critical DNA and RNA molecules within realistic time scales.
30. Chemists will find increasing evidence for chemical barriers blocking naturalistic pathways to the assembly of amino acids into all the life-criticle proteins within realistic time scales.
31. Biochemists will find increasing evidence for a very complex level of efficient organizational design in the interrelationships and functions of molecules within cells.
32. Chemists will find increasing evidence for elegant, efficient, and optimal designs of molecules within cells. These designs will continue to prove to match or exceed the quality of man-made machines.
33. The goal of making a sinple life-form in the lab from nonorganic compounds will prove increasingly extreme in its technological demands, expense, and design intricacy.
34. Reaserch increasingly will show that the speciation events and abundance levels of life over the past 3.8 billion years have been designed to maximize the quantity, quality, and diversity of biodeposits for the support of human civilization.
35. Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years except for very brief intervals after mass extinction events.
36. Research increasingly will show that specific species were removed and introduced at specific epochs throughout the past 3.8 billion years to perfectly compensate for changes in the sun’s luminosity.
37. Research increasingly will show that the quantity and diversity of sulfate-reducing bacteria have been carefully regulated to provide vital-poison metals of the just-right levels and types at the just-right times for advanced life.
38. Research increasingly will show that bacteria indeed provided humanity with optimally rich, extensive ore deposits and that the speciation and growth of such bacteria must be specified.
39. Research increasingly will show that symbiosis, organization, extent, and timing of cryptogamic colonies must be highly specified to prepare landmasses within a specific time period for advanced life.
40. Research will increasingly show that specific species were removed and introduced at just-right times to alter the kind and extent of land erosion so as to compensate for changes in the sun’s luminosity.
41. Research increasingly will show that the kind, extent, and duration of photosynthetic life must be highly specified to form, at the just-right time, the optimal amount of free oxygen for advanced life.
42. Research increasingly will show that natural disasters have struck Earth in a manner that is highly fine-tuned to remove the just right species at the just right times to compensate for changes in the solar system and prepare Earth for humanity
43. Research increasingly will establish that the cambrian explosion is truly explosive in bringing many phyla suddenly and simultaneously on the terrestrial scene with intact optimal ecological relationships.
44. Research increasingly will confirm that earth’s biological history and geological processes were optimaly designed to provide humanity with the richest possible fossil fuel deposits.
45. Research will increasingly confirm that Earth’s biological history and geological processes were optimally designed to provide humanity with the richest possible fossil fuel deposits.
46. Research will increasingly confirm that explosive mass speciation events have occured, events in which thousands of new species suddenly appeared on the terrestrial scene without any apparen connection to previously existing species.
47. Research increasingly will confirm that the time interval between some mass extinction events and subsequent mass speciation events is far too brief for any possible naturalistic cause.
48. Research increasingly will show that large-bodied species with small populations and long generation times manifest extinction times far briefer than any epoch during which they could naturally evolve into a distincly different species.
49. Research increasingly will confirm that deleterious mutations, natural disasters, and changes in the terrestrial and solar system environments imply brief extinction times for large bodied, small population, long generation time species.
50. Research increasingly will show that significant animal speciation, thogh prolific before the advent of humanity, ceased with the arrival of humanity.
51. Research increasingly will provide examples of repeated optimized designs in species that are distantly or not related from an evolutionary perspective.
52. Research increasingly will show that apparent “transitional forms” appear more frequently and rapidly in the fossil record for large-bodied, small population, long generation time species than for small bodied, large population, short generation time species.
53. Research increasingly will establish that the probability of humans arising from bacteria even granted optimistic evolutionary assumptions is for all practical purposes zero.
54. Continuing DNA analysis increasingly will establish that humans could not have descended from previously exdisting hominids.
55. Research will increasingly show that humans, and only humans, among all species, past or present, possess a spiritual nature and manifest spiritual capabilities.
56. Research increasingly will show that humans, and only humans posses all the brain structures neede to service spiritual activity.
57. Research increasingly will establish that no significant change has occured in either human or Neanderthal DNA over the historical and geographical ranges for both species.
58. When DNA is recovered and analyzed from Homo sapiens idaltu and other archaic Homo sapiens, it will prove to be so distinct from human DNA as to rule out these species as natural human ancestors.
59. Research increasingly will show that no significant changes have occured in the morphology of humans or any of the hominid species preceding humanity over their historical and geographical ranges.
60. Research will increasingly will establish a very narrow window of time within cosmic history during which an intelligent physical species could exist.
61. Research increasingly will establish a narrow window of time within cosmic history during which an intelligent physical species manifesting high technology could exist.
62. Research will increasingly show that natural disasters are optimally designed to protect and provide for life’s needs and for humanity’s in particular
24 June 2009, on 10:33 am
Wow, Joey, that’s some list. A lot of it is…well, pretty hysterical. Let’s go bottom up:
That by itself is a huge joke. So Katrina, the Chinese earthquake, the tsunami in Asia, that was to ‘fine tune’ the planet? So your crazy-ass deity can’t protect everybody? People get killed, women get sold into slavery, orphans get screwed? Real fucking nice.
I’m betting a lot of this junk is simply borrowed from simple scientific observations & added to the recipes.
60. & 61 are redundancies. Nothing like repetition, ey?
This is simply denial @ it’s worst. This has been shown AND proven scientifically for well over a century. Research has increasingly shown that is EXACTLY what happened.
58 is simply 59 repeated differently. So is 57.
You can’t even prove that the ’spirit’ exists in a lab. Next.
55 is a repeat of this.
54 is a repeat of 57, 58, & 59
Omne ignotum pro magnifico. Evolution neither rises nor falls over the abiogenesis problem.
You need to spend more time over @ Talk Origins. Significant animal speciation is a fact of reality, & you’ll need to admit this. It happens constantly, on macro- AND micro-levels.
Those are some rose-colored glasses you’re wearing. Are you kidding? ‘Optimized designs?’ Do you even have the slightest inkling of biology? The human body is 1 of the worst designs in nature.
48 & 49 are mirrors of each other, & still insufficient argument for a supernatural source.
That’s just stupid. Let’s blame (or praise!) your sky daddy for hitting the earth w/a meteor? Or the plague?
So ‘gawd’ gave us gasoline to fuel our SUVs?
When will you people get over the childish notion that the world was not put here to be our entertainment center?
AH, the Pre-Cambrian explosion. Ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium?
44 is a repeat of 45.
43 is a repeat of 46.
42 is a repeat of 62.
My, that’s a whole lotta redundancies, isn’t it?
Let’s shorten this up:
The universe isn’t really ‘fine-tuned’ for our existence – otherwise, there’d be a whole lot more places in the universe where we could not only live, but thrive. In fact, the universe tends to be 99% more inimical to our existence.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson pretty much skewers this in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI
24 June 2009, on 11:29 am
KA,
I find it odd that you think peer reviewed scientific journals are laughable. Is this how you respond to all your commentors? No wonder you are in the minority.
24 June 2009, on 11:48 am
Joe B. I think you haven’t read anything that KA wrote if that is all you have to say. Is this because you have no argument?
24 June 2009, on 11:53 am
KA…
That’s my absolute favorite Neil DeGrasse Tyson clip.
He “skewers” so well, indeed!
On behalf of the rest of us GifSters, with (I’m assuming) our jaws (metaphorically?) wide open in total shock at the ridiculous display of Joe B’s stupefyingly amazing list of “ID Prophesies”…thanks for your diligent patience in actually wading through and responding so well to such crap.
Were you wearing your evolutionary hip boots?
In other words, stuff which I can only describe as…
“Wholly Shit”!
It’s like the ID interpreted version of a new “Book of Revelations” with all the “WILL this and WILL thats”.
It brings, out of the murky crypt of my memory, the old Criswell Predicts ploy… things like “there will be bedbugs in Boston!”
For anyone not familiar with Criswell, here’s a little OT reminder from the intro to that amazing (and all time worst?) “classic” movie…
“Plan 9 From Outer Space”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA
And, as a somewhat oblique(?) and fond tribute to Ed McMahon’s “passing”; this’ll bring back some memories for you fellow, and older, GifSters:
“CRISWELL PREDICTS 1966: JOHNNY CARSON’s TONIGHT SHOW (NEW YEAR’S EVE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar7E4q6NyYE&feature=related
24 June 2009, on 12:13 pm
Research increasingly will establish
I find this phrase amusing. You don’t state that anything HAS been established, just that it “will”…like “Jeebus will come again”…wishful thinking is not scientific research and experimentation. Joe B expresses lots of “predictions” based on wishes, and offers no results or evidence.
Joe B, now that you have thrown out a bunch of random predictions, please answer the next two questions…(you can just insert “creationism” in place of ID.)
What are ID’s scientific predictions?
What are its unifying principles?
What experiments have been done to support your ID theory?
24 June 2009, on 2:26 pm
So your crazy-ass deity can’t protect everybody? People get killed, women get sold into slavery, orphans get screwed? Real fucking nice.
KA, good points. And I see that our visitor Joe B hasn’t managed to provide an explanation of how those things are ” optimally designed to protect and provide for life’s needs and for humanity’s in particular”. It’s absurd to think that a god is wiping out thousands and thousands of people “to provide for life’s needs” and “humanities in particular”. Do these people even listen to themselves and what they are saying? Nope, many just drone out the crap they are told and don’t question the absurdity at all. Fortunately, some of us do question and realize the absurdities of what these under-educated people like Ray Comfort are pooping out of their mouths.
Basically, Joe B has a book that he finds will verify what he wants to believe and is going to go around telling others that is it true. Hopefully, Joe B will start researching other sources and start thinking for himself.
24 June 2009, on 3:38 pm
Joe-EEE!
I find it odder still that you neglected to cite any of them. Closest possible is #58, Neanderthal vs. Homo Sapiens DNA. Jury is still out on that 1. I’ll repeat myself:
I’m betting a lot of this junk is simply borrowed from simple scientific observations & added to the recipes.
Only the ones that say truly idiotic things.
Ayuh, because most of us don’t do touchy-feely-ooh-your-opinion-is-as-good-as-mine bullshit. The supernatural is stupid. If you believe in the supernatural, you have a stupid opinion.
Mind you, a stupid opinion isn’t necessarily held by a stupid person.
Just because you’re smart doesn’t mean you’re not stupid, is all.
24 June 2009, on 3:43 pm
Star:
It’s an old salesman’s trick – lead w/a positive, or a positive conclusion. It’s God-of-the-gaps meets Rusty the used car salesman.
People tend to be able to rationalize what they want, when they want.
When they’re religious, strangely, it seems to double up.
24 June 2009, on 8:56 pm
It’s God-of-the-gaps meets Rusty the used car salesman.
KA, It certainly is!
People tend to be able to rationalize what they want, when they want.
True, especially of religious folks. They make their god and their interpretations of their religious texts any way that suits them, according to what they want to believe, or in many cases told to believe. Just had a discussion with a family member about adultery and divorce. They used their Bible to say that it is okay to divorce in certain instances of adultery and went on to say there are many kinds of adultery blah, blah blah…then when you bring up Leviticus and that if people took the Bible literally as they say they do then the adulterers would be dead, stoned to death. Of course, then you get the reasoning “that was then and this is now”. Whatever they want it to be. That’s all it is.
The Old Earth Creationists are the same. They want to make information “fit” in an attempt to prove that what they want to believe is true when there really isn’t any evidence what-so-ever. They invent “proof” when there is none. Like when my kids were little and we did the Santa Claus thing and made reindeer “tracks” in the snow, and Easter Bunny “paw prints” on the basement floor with charcoal.
25 June 2009, on 2:29 am
After reading Joe B’s “predictions” of ID, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that “old earth creationists” are crazier than their “young earth” counterparts. Where does the science and and the faith begin? The whole “theory” seems disingenuous. At least young earth creationsists are being intellectually honest, in so as far as their intellect is able to take them.
And quite frankly, the notion of any supernatural being “guiding” evolution/natural selection makes said supernatural being viciously red of tooth and claw. Natural selection is grizzly, and so is this “old-earth creator.”
And Jesus Henry Christ on a Cracker, I am so sick of that goddamned false dichotomy of “micro” and “macro” evolution being bandied about by every ID numbskull who think they’ve hit on some kind of intellectual compromise. Thank you to BEAJ for dispatching of that one quickly.
BTW, Joe, those are not scientific predictions: that’s a wish-list.
25 June 2009, on 10:31 am
that’s supposed to read “where does the science END and the faith begin?” Lack of sleep
25 June 2009, on 12:30 pm
I see Joe B still hasn’t returned to answer the other two questions and back up some of those “will someday happen” predictions in the lame book he keeps telling us to read instead of answering questions on his own. He hasn’t been able to give any answers from his own brain. He simply tells us to read this one book and provides a link from idiot Ray Comfort. No respected scientists, no scientific journal sources, no credible information what-so-ever.
Fritzy, your question will also be ignored “where does the science end and the faith begin”.
As far as a supernatural being “guiding” everything, perhaps Joe B might want to consider conjoined twins. What is the benefit to humanity when two people must go around stuck to each other at the head, chest etc for their whole lives? What benefit is it for a cow or any other animal to be born with two heads? To say that a god is doing this purposely for whatever reason would make this god a very sadistic bastard.
And there is little difference between an “Old Earth Creationist” and a “Young Earth Creationist”…they both believe that an invisible sky genie zapped everything into existence with a magic wink.
You sum it up Joe’s “predictions” nicely, Fritzy…they aren’t predictions, it’s a wish list.
25 June 2009, on 1:13 pm
The only reason “old earth creationists” exist is because the evidence from the archaeological strata is so overwhelmingly convincing that the earth is older than 6,000 years (or whatever) as to render even faith in the “biblical account” moot. The evidence in the ground and in science is so convincing that it has caused the pendulum to swing to the middle for believers, and so now we have people that want to hold on to BOTH views: old earth AND the biblical cosmogony. But…
…and this is a BIG “but”…
THE PROBLEM WITH THE MIDDLE GROUND IN THIS IS THAT NEITHER THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT NOR CHRISTIAN TRADITION ALLOW FOR IT. So, “old earth creationist,” you are essentially putting words in God’s mouth. How dare you! Are you greater than God?
I am, because I exist. I can prove it.
25 June 2009, on 8:03 pm
Hey, is Joe-EEE! still around? Still waiting for them thar durned sci-yen-tific ci-TAY-shuns that he claims puh-ROVES his gawd, hall-lay-LOO-yah! Hyuk.
Or did he just pick up his marbles & go home?
25 June 2009, on 9:17 pm
Seems he slunk back into the shadows to lurk because he has no sci-yen-tific ci-TAY-shuns. No proof…only that one little book he is getting his “will happens” from.
3 July 2009, on 3:45 pm
David J. wrote:
“I am, because I exist. I can prove it.”
I bet you cannot prove it to my satisfaction??? I am pretty stringent on what I will accept as evidence. LOL.
3 July 2009, on 4:43 pm
Daniel, I bet I can prove I exist to the satisfaction of most scientists and rational-thinking people. You can see me, touch me, talk to me and I actually answer back. If you are about to walk in front of a moving truck and there is the great imaginary friend and myself, you can bet who is actually going to be able to save you from being run over.