A fun day out for all the creationists

[emad]

James Russell
Monday January 2, 2006
The Guardian


Do you have doubts about Darwin? Does the Big Bang leave you cold? Then why not pay a visit to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, the UK's premier creationist attraction? Not that the place is advertised like that. Instead, people are tempted by "The Rhinos of Wraxall", a fine example of alliterative branding in the competitive world of family attractions.

However, when Anthony and Christina Bush, who had farmed in the north Somerset village for almost 40 years, launched Noah's Ark in 1999, they had two aims. The first was to show people where food comes from, the second to teach creation science. An Oxford-trained mathematician, Anthony Bush is no fire-and-brimstone evangelist, but he is committed in his beliefs. In the 1980s he was a founder of the revolutionary Send A Cow programme, and it was, he says, the long-term study of livestock that first suggested to him the limits of evolution.

More than 80 types of animal now live on site, including two white rhinos, monkeys and reptiles, as well as sheep and goats, but it doesn't feel like a zoo. Not that the animals are mistreated. Far from it. Rather, they are presented in a different way from, for example, nearby Bristol Zoo, where a powerful environmentalist message dominates.
When I visited Wraxall with my son's nursery group, we went to the animal show and learned the difference between a cow's horn and a deer's antler. We learnt that ewes have udders, and we watched the presenter milk a ewe and drink the milk. Then events took a curious turn. A donkey was led in and the presenter traced a marking on its back. Did we know that the domesticated donkey has a dark cross marked on its back, he asked us casually, whereas the wild donkey doesn't? Did the cross not remind us that the donkey carried Jesus?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1676558,00.html

[Hubris Heaver]

1. Does it strike anyone else as ironic that

people involved in the field that most demonstrates evolution (farming) are running a "creationist" zoo? If not for genetic aminpulation over the centuries we would have no crops or livestock as we know it.

I just about spit my coffee out at the donkey comment too. OH, for hte good ol' days of medieval theology permeating every thought and driving away any hope of logic.

[SkiGuy]

4. Maybe to you farming most demonstrates evolution

but to me farming demonstrates creation.

[Zebedeo]

7. I agree

I live in a rural area, on a farm, and to me, it is impossible to believe that the wonders of nature somehow created themselves. It is obvious to me that there was a Creator, and it seems that one would have to take a staggering leap of faith to believe that there was no Creator. That notion is completely nonsensical to me.

As for farming demonstrating evolution, I cannot agree. Farming proves that hybridization can occur, such as to produce a hardier grain or heavier livestock -- of the same species. However, I have never seen any evidence of a chicken turning into a horse, or a dog into a human being. From what I understand, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that animals can evolve into a totally different kind of animal. If this were the case, there would be fossil evidence of the intermediate animals. Yet there is no such fossil evidence.

When people ask me for evidence that God exists, I like to invite them to take a walk around my farm. There is abundant evidence of an incredibly intelligent Creator, if you are willing to see it.

[SkiGuy]

8. good post

Wish I could word it lke that sometimes. :)
I'm just amazed that out of this little tiny seed comes flowers, pedals, roots, stamen, vegetables, etc.

[Silent3]

10. Ever try out Occam's Razor?

I live in a rural area, on a farm, and to me, it is impossible to believe that the wonders of nature somehow created themselves.

Fortunately for all of us, nature isn't limited to the scope of your imagination.

It is obvious to me that there was a Creator, and it seems that one would have to take a staggering leap of faith to believe that there was no Creator.

So the reasoning goes something like this?

1) Life is amazingly wonderous.
2) Such wonderousness just couldn't happen by itself -- it had to be Created by a Creator.

Yet isn't a Creator even more wonderous than that which it can Create? If so, doesn't the same "logic" demand that the Creator have CREATOR, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

The problem with using God as an explanation for where life came from is that God is an explanation which doesn't explain anything -- the so-called explanation of "God did it" obviously has emotional appeal to a lot of people, but that's it. There is no explanatory power in evoking God. All you're saying is that the explanation for something you can't understand (life) is something even bigger and grander (God) which you can't explain any better and which you understand even less.

There is no act of "faith" in simply bypassing explanations which explain nothing in favor of an explanations rooted in physical evidence and reasonable theoretical extrapolations which require nothing more than known and objectively available properties of the physical universe.

From what I understand, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that animals can evolve into a totally different kind of animal.

Then what you understand is terribly limited and completely wrong.

If this were the case, there would be fossil evidence of the intermediate animals. Yet there is no such fossil evidence.

There's plenty of such evidence. You are either ignorant of the wealth of available evidence, or you're one of those people who conveniently and with no regard for reasonable expectations for evidence act like nothing less than an fossil record so complete that it would play like a full-motion special-effect morphing of each and every connection between each and every species would be "enough" to "prove" evolution.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I used Occam's Razor just this morning

and it gives a hell of a shave. But seriously, I am with you the lengths people will go to to try and avoid the obvious.

[Zebedeo]

20. You are postulating a straw man god

You assume that God is a creature. That is not the God I worship.

Yet isn't a Creator even more wonderous than that which it can Create? If so, doesn't the same "logic" demand that the Creator have CREATOR, etc., etc., ad infinitum? The problem with using God as an explanation for where life came from is that God is an explanation which doesn't explain anything -- the so-called explanation of "God did it" obviously has emotional appeal to a lot of people, but that's it. There is no explanatory power in evoking God. All you're saying is that the explanation for something you can't understand (life) is something even bigger and grander (God) which you can't explain any better and which you understand even less.

This, to me, is a straw man argument. You have postulated a Creator that is Himself created. I do not worship such a Creator. Moreover, I do not know of anyone who does worship such a created Creator. The Creator I worship is the uncreated Creator whose name is "I am." To ask who created the uncreated Creator is, to me, nonsensical. It is a logical impossibility for the God I worship to be both uncreated and created. Since He is uncreated, it makes no sense to ask who created Him.

So your attempt to show that God has no "explanatory power" only works if you postulate that God is created -- which is not the God that I or anyone I know worships.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Was that as painful to type

as it was to read ?

I really hope so.

[SkiGuy]

22. Why do you feel you have to prove

there is no God to a poster who obviously believes differently? If you don't believe in God, can't you just leave well enough alone?

[trotsky]

27. Because people who don't acknowledge the reality of evolution

are destroying science in our public schools and turning the U.S. into a laughingstock around the world.

Whether they are Republicans or Republican enablers.

[SkiGuy]

31. What reality?

Where are all the transitional fossils then?

[trotsky]

32. Everywhere!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

It's a creationist LIE that there are no transitional fossils. Why should someone have to LIE to promote their ideas? Doesn't seem right, does it?

[SkiGuy]

33. thank you for that info

I'll check it out later (after work)

[beam me up scottie]

42. Why do you have to accuse other posters of untruths?

:eyes:

Besides, why would an atheist need to prove that deities aren't real?


The burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of supernatural beings.



Don't pimp science because of your faith and don't aid those that do and I won't care what you believe.



Oh, you might not want to misrepresent atheists, either.

Some of us get a little grumpy when that happens.

[Goblinmonger]

23. Since we are talking about logic

and you at least mention it (even though you don't follow it), here's the rub.

I don't care what you claim your creator is. Believe what you want to believe. That being said, your claim for an intelligent creator is that nature is just too damn skippy to have happened on it's own. Nothing that awesome could just happen; it had to be created. So, basically, your argument is:

Anything that is wonderous must have been created.
Nature is wonderous.
Therefore, nature was created.

Now, if we take your "logic" as stated above, and substitute your creator for nature, your creator must either be "not wonderous" or be "created." You take your pick, but you set the standard in your original post. I would make the argument that your syllogism is flawed because of your major premise being a crock of shit, but perhaps that is just me. Though I do take a little joy from the fact that your major premise puts you in a sticky situation concerning your creator.

Again, believe what you want, but if you come here and make logically inconsistent statements in regard to your position, don't act all confused as to why somebody would call you on it. A big part of me is telling me that you are going to come back and say that your creator isn't bound by the laws of logic. Please dissappoint me.

[Zebedeo]

37. Now we are getting somewhere

Thank you for your thoughtful response (except for the "crock of shit" remark). However, you have proposed a syllogism that is not what I have ever said.

If I were to put my point of view into a syllogism format, it would probably go something like this:

1. Where a universe is observed to have unmistakeable indicia of having been created, it is a reasonable inference to conclude that it was created by the original, uncreated Creator of the universe.

2. The universe we inhabit is observed to have unmistakeable indicia of having been created.

3. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that this universe was created by the original, uncreated Creator of the universe.

If you were walking down a path and discovered a working TV, I would bet that you would conclude that the TV had been designed and built by someone. You would not even entertain the possibility that the TV formed by itself out of its component parts. Why not? Because a TV has unmistakeable indicia of having been designed and built. Its complexity of form and function are such that it would be highly improbable - ludicrous, even - to suppose that it formed on its own without design or assembly by some entity outside itself.

How much more complex in form and function is the universe, than a TV?

For a discussion of observed attributes of the universe that unmistakeably indicate that it was created, see

So it is a logical conclusion that the universe was created by the original, uncreated Creator of the universe. However, your proposed application of this syllogism to the Creator Himself is illogical. It is not logical to ask who created the original, uncreated Creator of the universe. He, being uncreated, has no beginning and no end. The universe, on the other hand, is observed to have had a beginning - a time of creation. This is apparent from observing the process of radioactive decay.

[Goblinmonger]

38. Wow

and I'm sorry to say that I don't mean wow in a good way. Here is your biggest problem:

You don't understand syllogisms. They always follow this format in their basic form:

a=b (major premise/universal truth)
c=a (minor premise)
c=b (conclusion)

You fail at the level of universal truth. You commit (BIG TIME) the fallacy of begging the question in your universal truth. Your "universal truth" is no different in form and function than this one:

"1. Where a universe is observed to have unmistakeable indicia of having been created, it is a reasonable inference to conclude that it was shot out the ass of Goblinmonger."

Do you see how that is begging the question? And you beg the question not once, but twice. You state "it was created by the original, uncreated Creator of the universe." Two things are not a "universal truth" in your statement and seriously beg the question:
1. created by the creator--how exactly do we know that to be true.
2. uncreated Creator--Oh, yeah, that is universal truth.

I'm not even going to go into how much I hate that TV (usually "watch") analogy.

OK, I lied, I am. How stupid of an analogy is that? I mean, you pick something that is OBVIOUSLY manufactured by humans because I can go down to the TV plant and watch them making them. Then you compare that to nature and say it was created by god. Sorry, I lost the directions to the "universe creation plant" can you please give them to me again so I can put them into google maps (double true) and go watch some universes being created. Then, you make the ENORMOUS leap to saying that the universe is then created since the TV is. Well, why is that the logical conclusion? If I saw a tiny duck in the forest, I would most likely think it was created by the bigger, older ducks that were right by it, I would not think that god came down and made that one duck.

[Zebedeo]

39. You beg the question with your assumptions

You accuse me of begging the question, but you do the same. You assume that there is no uncreated Creator of the universe. Without that assumption, you cannor arrive at that conclusion.

Also, may I respectfully suggest that it is you who does not understand syllogisms? There is no requirement that the major premise be a "universal truth." It is a premise. You can either accept it or reject it. What follows the premise, follows logically, if you accept the premise. The classic example of the Aristotelian syllogism is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first statement is the major premise "all men are mortal." There is no proof that this statement is true. You either accept it or you don't. If you do, and if you also accept that Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal. Either the major premise or the minor premise "Socrates is a man" could be untrue. If you don't accept the premises, then the conclusion does not follow for you. If you do, then it does.

What our little dispute comes down to is that we have different premises.

[Goblinmonger]

44. So much to say, so little time

First, I find it kind of funny/ironic that you tell me I don't know anything about syllogisms and then you act as if the concept of a universal truth is foreign to you in the world of logic. Look up deduction. It is going from a general to a specific. The only way to make sure that your conclusion in a syllogism is correct is to ensure that your major premise is true (hence the term universal truth).

There is no proof that all men are mortal? All evidence points to the fact that all men are mortal. We can apply the scientific method and come to that conclusion. We can look at ALL examples before us and find that, yes, indeed, all men have died. In much the same manner, I say that there is no uncreated Creator. There is no proof of such. That is not begging the question, that is applying logic correctly. You include the uncreated creator in your major premise and use that major premise to prove the fact that there is an uncreated creator. I cannot POSSIBLY think of a more clear example of begging the question.

[Zebedeo]

45. You continue to make assumptions, while accusing me of

making assumptions. You assert that all men have died. Your assertion is flatly untrue. I am a man. I have not died. Therefore, your statement that all men have died is false. There's a syllogism for you. ;-) But really, I know what you mean. You mean that all men that have lived more than 120 years ago are now dead - or something like that. Yet how could you possibly know that? I think you are just making an assumption about that, which is fine, but you certainly have not come close to proving it.

Also, FWIW, I never set out to prove the existence of the uncreated Creator. I only commented that such existence more adequately accounts for what is observed in the universe than your alternate hypothesis. To me, the observable attributes of the universe are far more consistent with the universe having been created by God than not having been created.

Creation by God accounts for all of the magnificent wonders that exist in the universe. Your alternative hypothesis does not.

Furthermore, you have no valid proof that God does not exist, because in order to arrive at your conclusion that there is no uncreated Creator, you must make the ASSUMPTION that there is no uncreated Creator.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zebedeo]

50. You did it again

Thanks for your response. I am enjoying this discussion. However, once again, it appears that you are begging the question.

Your two premises, taken in combination, are that God does not exist. From those premises, you arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist. That is begging the question, I would respectfully submit.

I don't agree with either of your two premises. In fact, they are preposterous to me. These are what you call "universal truths"? If you have to postulate as a "universal truth" that there is no proof of the existence of God in order to arrive at your conclusion that God does not exist, don't you see that your argument is a tad circular?

Interestingly, we could use your major premise to prove that God does exist just as easily as to prove that God doesn't exist.

1. If there is not clear proof for something, it does not exist.

2. There is no proof of the non-existence of God.

3. The non-existence of God does not exist.

4. God exists.

The only way out of this distressing conclusion would be for you to assert that you do not agree with the major premise (which is your own premise from your prior post) or for you to dispute the minor premise "There is no proof of the non-existence of God." To dispute this minor premise, you would be required to present proof that God does not exist - which you cannot do. Or can you? If so, I and billions of others would like to see it. :)

[Silent3]

26. You really don't get it.

You assume that God is a creature. That is not the God I worship.

No, I am not making that assumption. I am showing you that either way, making that assumption OR NOT, saying "God did it" answers and explains absolutely nothing.

If God isn't a creature, all you're doing is answering one mystery ("Where did all of this amazing complexity of life come from?") with another, bigger mystery -- proposing there's some extra entity which gets to be complex all on its own without the need for something to create it and make it that way.

So, if anything at all in the universe gets to be so complex all by itself and simply be that way, why add God? Why not assume it's the universe itself which is capable of such complexity? Otherwise you are "needlessly multiplying entities" -- adding complexity to your answer while adding no real explanatory depth. The answer "God did it" only seems like it answers a question because humans respond emotionally to invoking characters and personalities as explanations.

[beam me up scottie]

11. It takes a "staggering leap of faith" to NOT believe in creationism?

:rofl:

What does it take to believe in "intelligent" design, a lobotomy?

Haven't I seen your LTTE's in the Cincinnati Enquirer ?

It puzzles me why public schools want to follow such a rigid line on teaching the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other theories. Oh, that's right! It involves God, which is verboten in our schools today, while sex education and all aspects of it are taught as a core subject. If we evolved from apes, then how in the world did we end up with all the different races of the world? Were there Chinese apes, Latino apes, Caucasian apes, etc.? Humans and the universe are far too complex to have happened by mere chance. As the noted astrophysicist Fred Hoyle once said, "The notion that the universe came about by the 'big bang' has the same odds as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747."


http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051117/EDIT0202/511170322/1022/EDIT

[SkiGuy]

24. Yeah, like molecules-to-man

doesn't take any faith???? Please.

[trotsky]

28. The only faith it takes

is the "faith" that the universe worked the same 5 billion years ago as it does today.

Partial Ingredients For DNA And Protein Found Around Star
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051229112518.htm

[Zebedeo]

40. Uh, uh

The "discovery" in the link you posted is a discovery that there is acetylene and hydrogen cyanide gas, as well as carbon dioxide gas, orbiting around a particular star some 375 light years from Earth. This discovery is unremarkable, because such gases exist outside Earth in our own solar system (as the article notes), and there is no indication of any spontaneous generation of life from such gases. Moreover, the discovery of acetylene and hydrogen cyanide utterly fails to explain how inanimate materials such as these could, all by themselves, form living organisms.

The statistical probability of such an occurence is, for practical purposes, zero.

Existence of God

We have not yet touched on the greatest "miracle" in our terrestrial narrative of origins. While we have noted the remarkable provision of a suitable universe with a local habitat that is ideal for life, the most remarkable artifact in our universe is life itself. While biological evolution, including macroevolution, continues to have a larger constituency than is justified by the evidence (in my opinion), all major researchers in the field of chemical evolution (i.e., the origin of life) acknowledge the fundamental mystery of life's beginnings from inanimate matter. The enigma of the origin of life comes in the difficulty of imagining a simply biological system that is sufficiently complex to process energy, store information, and replicate, and yet at the same time is sufficiently simple to have just "happened" in a warm pond, as Darwin suggested, or elsewhere.
Complex molecules, such as proteins, RNA, and DNA, provide for essential biological functions. These biopolymers are actually long chains of simpler molecular building blocks such as amino acids (of which there are 20 different types--see Figure 5), sugars and bases. Their biological function is intimately connected to their precise chemical structure. How, then, were they assembled with such perfect functionality before the origin of life itself? If I stand across the street and throw paint at my curb, I am not very likely to paint "204," which is my house number. On the other hand, if I first place a template with the numbers "204" on my curb and then sling paint, I can easily paint "204" on my curb. Living systems contain their own templates. However, such templates did not guide the process before life began (i.e., under prebiotic conditions). How, then, did the templates and other molecular machinery originate?

To illustrate the staggering degree of complexity involved here, let us consider a typical protein that is composed of 100 amino acids. Amino acids are molecules that can have two mirror image structures, usually referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" variants, as seen in Figure 6. A functional protein requires the amino acids from which it is built to be (1) all left-handed; (2) all linked together with peptide bonds (Figure 7), and (3) all in just the right sequence to fold up into the three-dimensional structure needed for biological function, as seen in Figure 8. The probability of correctly assembling a functional protein in one try in a prebiotic pond, as seen in Figure 8, is 1/10190.{48} If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected. Some non-random process or intelligent designer must be responsible. However, there are no apparent nonrandom processes (such as natural selection is claimed to be in evolution) that would seem to be capable of generating the required complexity and information for the first living system.

The exponents did not translate correctly in my cut and paste above. In the original article, the figues are 1 divided by 10 to the 190th power, 10 to the 13th power interactions per second for five billion years, and 1 divided by 10 to the 60th power - probabilities so unlikely that to believe life formed by chance from inanimate components requires a leap of faith orders of magnitude greater than simply believing in God.

[Silent3]

41. All of these supposed astronomical improbabilites...

...have been well debunked. These computations ignore the possibilities for multiple solutions to the same chemical problems, ignore interdependencies in chemical reactions which greatly reduce the combinatoric excesses of treating each and every placement of each amino acid or individual atom as entirely independent events, they ignore the vast scale of planet-sized chemical playgrounds (wherein 10^13 interactions per second would be a pitifully low rate of reaction -- a single tiny puddle can contain on the order of 10^28 molecules), and they the well-documented existence of self-organizing chemical systems.

Further, no matter how probable or not the chemical reactions leading to life are, left unanswered is the probably of the God you pretend is a way out of the puzzle. How do you compute the probability of that God? How complex is the internal construction of the intellectual apparatus of God, and how likely is that apparatus to simply have spontaneously formed, or to have just somehow been there all along? I'm supposed to ignore such issues or assume they simply don't apply in exchange for the convenience of a all-in-one of packaging-up all the unexplained complexity and mystery of life into one nice big Father Figure package?

Again -- Occam's Razor. If something has to have been here all along from the very start with the inherent capability to produce all of the order of life, why not assume that that this thing is the observable universe itself? What good does it do to concoct an extra entity, one that carries a whole lot of cultural baggage and extraneous meanings, none of which has anything to do with explaining origins of life and matter, and which only moves the same degree of mystery from one place to another, and which then piles more mystery on top of that?

[trotsky]

46. Sorry, but that's the trademark creationist abuse of statistics again.

Basically it's the faulty "747 from a tornado in a junkyard" analogy repackaged to try and counter the latest information which strikes yet another blow to literal creationism.

When you are ready to actually discuss issues like this without completely misstating them, please let me know.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. Am I a bad man if my reply to you is "yes?" -nt

[beam me up scottie]

51. Didn't you read your owner's manual?

All atheists are bad.

No rubber chicken for you.

[Goblinmonger]

16. I grew up on a farm and I agree

and I think you are missing the other point a farm teaches us. Everytime that I went outside, I was amazed at how flat everything was (I grew up in Eastern North Dakota). Nowhere did I every see any indication that the world is round. I am amazed how many people there are that claim the world isn't flat. Just go out and look around and you will see your proof. The abundance of evidence for a flat earth is must right outside your door.

And in case you didn't get it--:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[MikeH]

17. God Might Have Used Evolution

Whatever feelings of awe, reverence, or any other warm feeling that might be inspired by working on a farm, I don't see that they would have anything to do with demonstrating or disproving either evolution or special creation.

However else anyone might regard the Bible, one thing that is obvious is that it is religious in purpose and in character. It is not in any sense a scientific textbook. And I don't see how it is an insult to anybody's faith to say this. I know many Christians agree with this. And I think anybody with any intelligence would agree with this.

However it seems like some people want to make the Bible something it is not in saying that because the creation story (two stories, actually) in Genesis is part of God's absolute word, it must be true. It seems like some people feel that God is very touchy and offended at any question of what is supposed to be his absolute word.

I don't think the creation stories in Genesis have anything more to do with biology than astrology has to do with astronomy.

It is my understanding that the theory of evolution is as well established by science as, say the theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity.

In fact, I think the only reason for questioning evolution at all is just because of the obsession of some people with the idea that anything in the Bible must be absolute truth, even scientifically. And people who are so obsessed are, unfortunately, in a position of power and influence in society. (Such people are largely responsible for * being in office.)

Just like the only reason for questioning the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke is because of the powerful tobacco industry denying any such harmful effects. And the only reason for questioning the reality of global warming is because so-called "scientists" paid for by the oil and other polluting industries deny that it is real.

And if anyone is offended by the comparison with the tobacco industry or polluting industries, I do not apologize. I think the comparison is fair and apt.

I don't see how it is irreligious or unChristian to think that God might have used or worked through the process of evolution.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Or we could just use the razor again

and shave away the complicating component of god and just go with evolution happening all on its lonesome.

[MikeH]

36. You might do that

Or we could just use the razor again and shave away the complicating component of god and just go with evolution happening all on its lonesome.

You might do so if it suits you.

As a former Christian, my response was to the Christians who would add to the faith the extra baggage that the account in Genesis, because it is in what is supposed to be God's absolute infallible word, is an account of the way things actually happened, never mind that the Bible is not a scientific text book.

I myself am not an atheist. I would consider myself closest to being a deist. There are web sites about deism which are easy to find. One thing about which I strongly agree with the deists is that any alleged revelation of God (the Bible, the Koran, etc.) is at best second-hand, or hearsay.

[trotsky]

29. Well said. n/t

[FM Arouet666]

53. I have to wonder

I realize that you are a believer, and from your posts a very devout person, and I am sure you know that I am not. Be that as it may, and I am not trying to attack.

You dismiss the theory of evolution in favor of a creator. But I wonder what do you really know of the theory? For that matter, what is your concept of a scientific theory?

As to your conclusions thus far posted, I would suggest that you consider these two pages, contradictory, both enlightening.


http://www.gospelway.com/topics/god/creation_evolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[Silent3]

54. Well, if one is going to be ignorant and stupid...

...one might as well be as bluntly ignorant and stupid as in that gospelway.com screed <shudder>.

[FM Arouet666]

55. Yes, a nice little page is it not

Yet, I find that those which oppose evolution often do so in the extreme. Denying a scientific theory with as much supporting evidence as evolution requires a astonishing degree of faith that science is in error or a bluntly ignorant and stupid individual.

[zbdent]

2. Fools and their money

are filling the turnstiles . . .

even at the one south of Cleveland . . .

[zbdent]

3. Dinosaurs as the "behemoth"

Fundies tend to point to a reference to "behemoth" when confronted with the "Why didn't the Bible say Dinosaurs?" question.

Stating that the word Dinosaur didn't come around at the time of the bible.

But didn't the names of the dinosaurs come from Latin? (Tyranosaurus Rex - terrible lizard?)

Plus, didn't God bring all the animals of the Earth to Adam for him to name?

[China_cat]

5. didn't God bring all the animals of the Earth to Adam for him to name?

In English no less.

Yes, I have had creationist/young earth/fundamentalists tell me that of course Adam and Eve spoke English...after all, that's the language the bible is written in. (King James seems to be the bible of choice of these people)

[grumpy old fart]

6. Now that's a bit of a stretch..........even for a fundie.............n/t

[SkiGuy]

9. I doubt it was English

But God brought all the animals to Adam to name them

[Strong Atheist]

13. .

:eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

14. hmm ok

Guess you have never heard of a parable, or metaphor or abstraction.

[trotsky]

30. So, did God invent the first language, or did Adam?

Because that's a pretty impressive feat, creating a whole language all by yourself. And if God created a language, wouldn't that be a perfect language, and if so, why aren't we still speaking it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Oh, that's due to our own naughtiness too

We got ideas above our station, and thought we could build tall buildings. So they (this is where 'God' is acting as several personalities - but remember there is only one god) indulged in a bit of creative destruction, and decided we should be prevented from understanding each other. It's amazing he ever condoned the translation of the Bible, after that.

[trotsky]

35. So is it that tall buildings today don't bother them/him/it anymore...

or were stone-age peoples able to erect structures that dwarf today's skyscrapers of steel?

And exactly how high up IS heaven - does the space shuttle touch it?

[beam me up scottie]

43. More importantly,

can Superman still hear me up there?

[trotsky]

48. Silly! Superman isn't real!

Otherwise he would have been mentioned in the bible! Adam would have had to name him, duh.

[beam me up scottie]

52. But I saw Homer praying to him...

:cry:

[NMMNG]

12. Oh look at the Christian donkey....how sweet!

:sarcasm:

Not half as cute as the little goat with the satanic horns on his head. :evilgrin:


Amazing how these people will see "symbols" in everything from a donkey to a damn tortilla. :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

18. Look at this donkey

it has the fishy thing on it's back

<>

It's a miracle.

[salvorhardin]

19. Those damn parasitic fish

You've got to be careful which watering hole you let your farm animals drink out of.