Creationist museum opens in Kentucky
posted at 1:06 pm on May 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
It’s super high-tech, too, to make sure it makes a strong impression on the kids.
Evolution is derided at the 60,000-square-foot facility, packed with high-tech exhibits designed by an acclaimed theme-park artist, animatronic dinos and a huge wooden ark. In this Old Testament version of history, dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.
The museum also contains fossils, hung in large glass cases in a room visitors spill into after taking a tour of Old Testament history. Ham said most fossils were created by the massive flood detailed in the book of Genesis…
Fancy might best describe the facility’s multimedia rooms, where no expense is spared. After a stop at its digital planetarium, museum guides steer visitors into a 200-seat special-effects theater with seats that quiver as the sound system rumbles. Up on the screen, two angelic characters proclaim to the audience that “God loves science!”
But the creation story found in Genesis is the centerpiece of the museum. Patrons walk through a lush recreation of the Garden of Eden, see life-sized models of Adam and Eve frolic and then get banished. Then it’s on to the era of the Great Flood, where animatronic workers are busy building Noah’s giant ark, which rises two or three stories inside the museum.
Ham enlisted Patrick Marsh, designer of the animatronic “Jaws” monster at Universal Studios in Florida, to oversee the exhibits.
Apparently dinosaurs actually end up on the boat in the Noah’s Ark exhibit. No word on how they went extinct given that they apparently survived the flood.
Update: Behold, my friends, the new tyranny.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Does Kirk Cameron do the banana demonstration, every half hour, or is that only on special occasions?
lorien1973 on May 26, 2007 at 1:09 PM
And so sayeth the Lord, “let there be Dinosaurs and let their bones appear to be sixty-five million years old.”
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Christians have to let go the idea that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. There are misconceptions and mistatements in the Bible.
The Bible was written by men trying to understand God. Their understanding is imperfect. You have to think critically and honestly about whatever you read.
I personally believe in God. I also believe in Evolution. How is the possible ? Because I dont believe that they are mutually exclusive beliefs. Science no more explains the Universe than religeon does. We as humans tend to be so arrogant to assume we know the truth about everything.
Just because Bible Scholars got things wrong and Darwin got things wrong doesnt mean that we should throw away all of religeon or all of sceince.
William Amos on May 26, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I suggest everybody seriously take a look at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
These are run by P.H, D trained scientist who have been ostracized, b/c they no longer believe in Million year old earth and what-not.
I’m working toward getting a Bachelor’s in Biology(have an assoc.)
and i used to believe the whole millions on years thing, someone referred me to this site, and i started reading some of their articles and reading some of their feed back, and i was amazed at how blind i was. Start with these articles
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter4.asp
read about the various biograhies of the scientists there
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
mainmann on May 26, 2007 at 1:29 PM
LOL that’s my home state!
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 1:35 PM
This is marketing 101, give the people what they want to see. Like the carbon credits scam, this is filling a niche. It will make lots of money.
I would go, just to see the fun exhibits. A huge Noah’s ark and cool Dinosaurs? I am there, because it sounds fun. I don’t buy what they are peddling, but seeing the Bible come to life seems interesting.
I love all the interactive exhibits at science museums, like the Earthquake machine and the planetarium. It makes the trip enjoyable.
Stormy70 on May 26, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Tyranny
Noun
S: (n) dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))
S: (n) absolutism, tyranny, despotism (dominance through threat of punishment and violence)
I fail to see the correlation.
A museum where someone elects to buy admission — or not — is tyranny?
Right.
.
The Machine on May 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Actually, I think that people don’t need to let go of the idea that the Bible is accurate as much as they need to realize that a lot may have been lost in translation.
For one example, in the original Hebrew, a “day” does not necessarily mean a “day” as we read it in the English King James version. Given that, it obviously doesn’t take much of a leap to realize that a day in Genesis doesn’t necessarily have to be a 24-hour period, and voila! You have the basis to accomodate a much longer period of time in the creation story without questioning the accuracy of the Word.
Rather than ignite a controversy or type a twenty-page sermon, I’ll just say there are a lot of resources and sites out there that can help folks understand these things, if they really want to. Unfortunately, many stubbornly refuse, which leaves them with far more in common with seventh century Islam than twenty first century Christianity. (You know who you are)
wccawa on May 26, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Did you click the link on “new tyranny”? It has absolutely nothing to do with the museum.
Do you guys actually read the posts or do you just comment based on the headlines?
Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Then Christians would have to give up their belief in God, too. If God is a liar (or a lie), then there is no reason to continue to follow Him. If you can’t believe one part of the Bible, why should you believe any of it?
Untrue. There are parts that are difficult to understand or are misunderstood by people today. Worse still is the misrepresentation of parts by skeptics.
Which is a concept that is completely denied and contradicted in the Bible. The Bible was written by men, yes, but they weren’t writing it to try to understand God. They were writing it to share the understanding that God provided them. It wasn’t based on their own understanding, but God’s.
Finally something we can agree on – and it’s even supported by the Bible.
JinxMcHue on May 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I read this as someone trying to accommodate The Bible to the modern day. You’re trying to attach reason to religion. Let me guess; when The Bible said people were 400 years old they really meant 40, right? Or when The Bible said the world was flooded they really meant one small section of the planet, right?
Enough of that type of reasoning can make anything look rational, even The Bible.
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
the atheist aren’t going to open their minds to anything other than Darwinian Evolution(which has zero proof), they need this creation theory to be true because to them it would disprove God, as anti-science as it is: the “something from nothing” and “order from disorder” theories. For God beleivers however it still wouldn’t disprove God, because God has done much more amazing things than the theory of Darwinian evolution.
You can prove God’s existence easily and philosophically, specifically the Triune God, in Metaphysics, Morals and Epstimology. It has the answers to questions all philosophers have searched for and could not find, like unity and diversity within infinity.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Myself… I don’t read your posts that are Christian religion related any longer. I got tired of your quips and jabs aimed at my faith a long time ago. (On this occassion however, I checked the links, and the reader links as well. I wish I lived closer to Kentucky.)
Maybe some are just assuming what’s to come if they follow your links when considering your track record with what has been your style regarding the Christian faith related posts.
SilverStar830 on May 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM
He literally wrote three sentences. The rest were links.
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Given how overwhelming the Christian majority in America is, some of you are awfully thin-skinned about “quips and jabs.” The fact is, my posts about religion are actually exceedingly mild. And I hasten to remind you that there’s nothing in this post hostile to Christianity per se, only the literalist view of Genesis. You seem to conflate the two. I wonder what non-literalist Christians would think of that.
Allahpundit on May 26, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Like I said… “track record”
And it was literally 5 sentencs, but let’s not quibble.
SilverStar830 on May 26, 2007 at 1:59 PM
That is not what I meant, nor what I said.
I chose that specific example to show that the Hebrew “yom” does not necessarily have to equate a 12 or 24 hour “day” as was translated into English. I don’t feel that is accomodating, nor do I intend that example to be used as a rather large blanket to cover any other portion of the Bible. It is (or was meant to be) quite specific.
However, I do not see a problem with attaching reason to religion, which you accuse me of doing, and to which I happily confess. God asks us to believe in him and his Word. He does NOT ask us to blindly follow the teachings or interpretations of the latest preacher/priest du jour, which is how we got into this problem in the first place. (See: Medieval Europe)
In my opinion, one’s beliefs are only as sound as the tests you apply to them. And if you refuse to test your faith, or if you go out of your way to PREVENT others from testing your faith, it speaks volumes about the quality or merit of said faith. (See: Islam)
wccawa on May 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I believe the dinosaurs died out because of their homosexual lifestyles.
frankj on May 26, 2007 at 2:03 PM
At least they made it interesting. Even if I am picturing a very bloody ark, and t-rex steering with his teeny arms.
Eep. I missed that. Which three?
Tanya on May 26, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I bet he made really good grades in school.
AtomicAmish on May 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I agree with AP. Many Christians are notoriously thin-skinned when their faith is questioned. As I stated above, one’s faith must stand any test put to it, or really, what’s the point?
As for me, I am quite content in defending my faith to AP or anyone- politely, openly and with respect for both sides.
You raise an accurate point, and I did not sense any hostility in your original post.
wccawa on May 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Darwinian evolution is a theory, not fact and has gaping holes and distortions, this being the theory of one organism suddenly turning into another.
adaptation evolution however is fact, and has been observed.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I fall into that category. Only my opinion but the bible is divinely inspired but written by flawed humans. Taking it too literally is not a good idea. Those who are believers find sustenance in their faith and trust that God is there and listening.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Evolution has holes in it, but, scientifically, Creationism is nothing but holes with very few facts tied together by thin strands of conjecture. It’s like any conspiracy theory (and just as hard to convince someone away from it).
frankj on May 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I don’t know why their must be “quips and jabs” aimed at the Christian faith to begin with. And, I admit that your posts about the Christian religion are mild, compared let’s say, to what a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth aethiest could post. I just don’t understand why you have to quip and jab to begin with. We all know you’re aethiest, and that’s fine if that’s whom you want to be. I’m just somewhat offended by it I guess. I’m far from thin-skinned about it though. I guess it’s more like, I’m disappointed by it. It’s in every post you make regarding the Christian faith, for the most part.
I think you can make the informative posts without the jabs just as well as with, and you won’t offend anyone in the process. But heck, I’m just a guest here. I was just offering one man’s observations.
SilverStar830 on May 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM
given that you can not scientifically get “something from nothing” and “order from disorder”, I think Creationism stands up better rationally speaking.
study the Triune God in relation to Metaphysics and Epstimology sometime, deep and empowering stuff can be found there.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 2:15 PM
This explains it all
lsutiger on May 26, 2007 at 2:16 PM
You’re talking philosophically, but there’s nothing scientific to “Poof! Now there’s a dog!”
frankj on May 26, 2007 at 2:17 PM
in the second paragraph I was talking philosophically, re: Triune God in relation to Metaphysics(Unity within diversity) and Epstimology.
but in first sentence I’m talking scientfically, and Science has never observed anything to refute that you can not get something from nothing and suddenly get order from disorder which is exactly what Darwin’s Orgin of Species is all about.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Wasn’t a Creation Museum like this once featured on “The Simpsons”? Must have been several years ago.
Blacklake on May 26, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Wait I cant disagree with parts of the Bible that means I have to throw it all out ? That doesnt make sense. For example The Bible teaches that God killed all the first born Egyptians when they refused to let the Israelites go during Passover. SO if IM to believe that part of the Bible then God kills Children. That is nonsense. Simply put because some Israeli preast misunderstood or misrepresented what happened at that time then I have to accept God as a Child Killer. That is simply WRONG and harms my beliefs.
Thats why people have to read the Bible. You have to sort through what is and isnt wrong in there. The word of God is in the Bible but so too is the Hand of man.
That is true. ITs easy to misrepresent anything including the Bible. But God asks us to do more than just accept him based on Faith. Faith is meant to help us overcome doubts its not meant to then be turned around and used to stiffle any questions.
This is where the Jihadist make their mistake. Men cannot completely know the mind of God. We dont have all the answers. And Holy Books do not fully capture God and his plan. To arrogantly assume they do and that only a strick interpretation of the a holy book is nothing more than a blantant attempt by men to assume they speak for God. The Bible is a pathway to God it isnt God itself. Dont confuse the two.
Yes the Bible tells me to ask questions. And to not assume that the Bible alone holds all the answers.
William Amos on May 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM
I found the new tyranny link interesting and well written. Thanks AP.
Buck Turgidson on May 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM
~Frederick Temple, Lord Bishop of Exeter, The Relations Between Religion and Science: Eight Lectures Preached Before the University of Oxford, 1884. (Full text available at Project Gutenberg.)
VerbumSap on May 26, 2007 at 2:32 PM
The delusional moral relativism of atheism. Soak it up. Atheists are the religious equivalent of libertarians. Self righteous, hypocritical snobs, living purely in the realm of theory, looking down their nose at people who don’t think like them.
forged rite on May 26, 2007 at 2:38 PM
The evangelicals at World, who are a smart and literate bunch and always worth reading on these matters, don’t sound very convinced about this deal.
They point out that Christians beleive in dinosaurs, and that’s more or less true. But one teacher who attended my (fundamentalist, literalist) church simply refused to teach about dinosaurs in her second grade classroom because she couldn’t reconcile scientific and religious views of them. I have heard some people in the same denomination suggest that dinosaur bones are simply frauds planted by Satan in the geologic strata to tempt us.
Perhaps it worked; I’m not what they would call a “young-earther”.
see-dubya on May 26, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Perhaps you’re just stating this as a fact, and not a complaint… but it is a complaint many Darwinists have had… but why? This wasn’t state funded and no one forces anyone to go. You have to pay to go there.
There’s word, but if you rely on an article by a secularist who’s just giving the basics on the museum, then you won’t hear it. Even if someone sympathetic to the cause was writing the article, it’s just not something to highlight in a brief article. I suggest boning up on the topic before declaring “no word” on things. You may not even agree with, or think the “word” on it is down right stupid, but it’s not “no word”.
I love how people can’t get over Kirk Cameron, who has virtually nothing to do with the creationist movement, and as far as I know absolutely nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Anytime some scientist brings up evolution should I mock Haeckel’s drawings? I do when it’s related, but it’s not a go to response every time.
Things aren’t always as they appear. How many “living fossils” have we found? Things thought dead for tens and hundreds of millions of years (based on the “fossil record”) suddenly turning up today? In fact they just caught another fish like this off of Indonesia the other day. Yeah, it “appeared” to have died off with the Dinosaurs, but they’ve found a handful in the last 80 or so years. How about activity on planets and moons in space that contradict how they should act based on their assumed ages, etc.? How about when scientists recently decided that, in light of more study, some of the oldest rocks on the planet must actually be some of the youngest:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070103a
I can’t count the amount of times long held (AND TAUGHT) beliefs held religiously by Darwinists have been overturned. No one bats an eyelash over the fact that they lied to generations about one thing or another. The evolutionist side would say “they went on the best information at the time”, but that’s crap. They went on assumptions based on a story that isn’t allowed to be questioned.
I know you’re joking, but why would they have evolved “gay”? I mean, what benefit does that mutation have towards furthering a species?
Thin skinned? We take a beating in the media constantly. It’s the same way it’s open season on any majority in the country now, but dare say something about a minority group and you’re the devil. Though I agree, generally speaking, AP is pretty mild.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 2:55 PM
By the way, I briefly mentioned this in my post above, but does anyone understand why the Darwinists care so much? This wasn’t paid for with tax money, the government has no ties to it, you have to pay to go there, and in all likelyhood are already a Creationist if you’re going.
So why all the anger from the Darwin camp?
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070523b
And that’s only scratching the surface. These people are vicious and angry… but why? What difference does it make to them? Why are they constantly writing in science journals and holding conferences to complain about the fact that the public still isn’t buying their fairytale? Why should it matter to them?
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Pardon my derision, but that’s a very tired, ignorant, BAD attempt. The Hebrew day means day, everywhere it’s used.
Those are 24-hour days, thank you very much.
As for dinosaurs, I still don’t understand why people have so much difficulty reconciling a young earth with large lizards. It went unquestioned when people explained that pigs and wild boars continue to grow as long as they live, well the same is true of most lizards.
Give the earth a dense atmospheric vapor layer blocking the vast majority of UV radiation, and surface-dwelling creatures ages much more slowly, allowing them to live much longer, and you get very large creatures. Dinosaurs neither prove evolution nor debunk Genesis, and in fact, I can’t think of a Christian school I know where they are afraid to mention dinosaurs.
Big deal. All that says is that science can’t explain God. Of course there’s nothing scientific to God’s creation. I can see how that’a a problem for those who’d rather worship a learning method than a Creator, but it’s no problem for the rest of us.
Freelancer on May 26, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I would argue it is scientific, God being infinite and everything he created being finite….most people have to come from the premise that God has to exist to view it scientifically, whereas the same is true of darwinist(No God) therefore the universe had of just formed from nothing.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 3:16 PM
95% of Americans are Christians. A couple of Atheists get a little attention for refusing to hedge or cowtow to the majority. Such tyranny! Oh the horror! It’s absurd to equate Harris’s arguments with the Inquisition. It’s the Inquisitors that he say’s may need snuffing out. I for one have no problem seeing a parallel between the Medieval Inquistion burning people in pits and at the stake for heresy and the Taliban head cutters of today.
ronsfi on May 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I hope this helps. And so long as we’re quibbling it’s spelled “sentences.”
Let me explain what “science” is. It isn’t a concrete thing. In “science” evidence can be used to contradict a previously held statement. For example, currently we believe that we have earthquakes because the lithosphere rests on the asthenosphere, but if it were discovered tomorrow that earthquakes are really caused by a man who lives under the ground and shakes the earth “science” would use that to justify earthquakes. But the evidence you use is very selective (and I notice you always link the same sites over and over). For example, you don’t take into account the hundreds of thousands of other rocks that prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old (ignoring them is so much easier). You ignore the fact that mountains need billions of years to form to what they are today. You ignore the fact that the “fossil record” and geological rock layers aren’t subjective, they are objective measurements of time. But I can understand–evidence contradicts the beliefs you think are infallible and you just can’t accept that.
Rightfully so. Anybody who attempts to refute the principle of half-lives to fit their religious view on the Earth should take a beating in the media. It isn’t sane to believe what you believe in, even some Christians can accept that the Earth isn’t less than 10,000 years old or that man never lived to be older than 300. It really frightens me to see that people like you exist in America.
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 3:28 PM
RightWinged, in your mind has anything in The Bible ever been proven wrong?
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Well put! Have you also noticed that they always use Christian standards of behavior by which to judge others?
Mojave Mark on May 26, 2007 at 3:36 PM
“They” being the aethiests.
Mojave Mark on May 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Bradky,
Likewise, after many years of careful study I have come to the conclusion that many parts of the bible were never meant to be taken literally, but instead allegorically or metaphorically. As pointed out by wccawa the word “Yom” does not have a literal translation to a 24 hour day. It is instead an allegory for an undefined period of time.
The most difficult aspect of biblical study is determining which is meant to be taken literally and which is allegorically. The story of Adam and Eve is a good example. Were they really the first human beings or is their story an allegory for human reproduction? How could it be allegorical, let’s see. Snake plus apple equals loss of innocence and expulsion from paradise. Or Sperm plus egg equals end of childhood and birth of responsibility.
The Genesis account of creation states that the earth was created in seven undefined periods of time. It then describes a sequence of events that coincide minus the imaginary 24 hour day references with the sequence of events accepted by science as the evolutionary model.
It states that man once lived upwards of 900 years and that mans life expectancy went down in direct correlation with the parents age when they reproduced. Oddly enough science has recently discovered that the longer individuals put off reproducing the longer their offspring tend to live. So again is it allegorical or literal?
doriangrey on May 26, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I was unaware that “harming others is bad” is a Christian behavioral standard because I’m positive that view was around long before The Bible.
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 3:44 PM
You know, I’m pretty orthodox even if I’m a sinner like everyone else. I don’t think it’s necessary to believe in evolution, or to disbelieve it, to have faith in God and the Bible’s truths. I’m not exactly sold on macro-evolution, either.
But I draw the line a dinosaurs in the Ark. That is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
I’m Catholic, so I don’t attach fundamentalist literalism to a lot of the Bible’s words. Most Protestants, absent a teaching Authority like the Catholic Tradition, go WAAAAAAAY overboard on literalism in the Bible, especially in places where it’s really not necessary. And I’ll never be able to figure out why they’re so literal until they get to the words: “This is my body.”
Sydney Carton on May 26, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Freelancer,
No it doesnt, I suggest that before you assert that you know something you do at least a little research.
Yom……….
doriangrey on May 26, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Uh… no. This is actually what I posted.
What you wrote is how you INTERPRETED what I posted. Which leads us right back to the main question here. You read a statement I wrote in English, only to misunderstand it mere minutes later.
Is it not possible, therefore, that the original Hebrew MAY have been misinterpreted into English over a period of hundreds- even thousands- of years and many, many translations and reprintings?
wccawa on May 26, 2007 at 3:56 PM
this is embarassing.
jummy on May 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM
ronsfi,
95% of Americans are Christians.
Closer to 80%. Of that 80%, few are young earth creationists.
Krydor on May 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM
So a bunch of diversion? And attacking a site that constantly links to an cites top science publications (instead of the sites like Answers in Genesis which preach more to the choir)? Then you list a bunch of evolutionary assumptions that could easily be overturned, as they constantly are.
Anyway, this is standard for you guys. You want to divert the debate and make it about each and every one of those little issues you tried to raise, which have plenty of answers and alternative theories, but you know it has nothing to do with what I was talking about at all.
Well, then count the vast majority of the country “insane” pal, poll after poll shows mine is in fact the majority opinion. What frightens me is that people like you exist period, ass. But you prove my point that atheists are angry at a site that wasn’t funded by tax dollars and has nothing to do with state or federal governments, and that you have to pay to go there. Of course you’re just a douche who hangs around this blog to degenerate threads, it’s much more disturbing that real scientists actually hold conferences to discuss the “problem” of people not buying their story.
Nonfactor, in your posts have you ever not diverted because you have nothing of substance to add?
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and ask you to support that Krydor. You keep saying that in these threads, but never back it up.
I on the other hand say that the vast majority actually agree with creationists, whether they call themselves that or not.
I’ve actually seen probably a dozen polls in recent years on this, but a brief search pulled this one up which is about what they all say, give or take:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
…
I’m pretty sure I’ve actually seen polls where the “created in present form” number is closer to 70%, but I could be wrong. Either way, how is 50% of the country “few” Christians who are creationists, when you admit that 80% of the country are Christians?
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 4:18 PM
wccawa,
The answer here is yes and no. You tread across many an unstudied individuals misunderstanding of biblical translation. The bible isn’t and hasn’t been translated from one language into another and from the second into a third and so on and so forth. Copies of the original texts of both new and old testaments exist that are thousands of years old.
The oldest copies still existing of the Torah were written in the 15th Century B.C.E while the oldest surviving copies of the New Testament are from the 1st century C.E. Modern translations of the bible are still done from those original texts or from copies of those texts. Where the translation problems come from is the problem of translation as opposed to transliteration.
The only way to really get a good idea of what is being said in the bible is to compare your copy of the bible to a good Greek or Hebrew interlinear. Since most bibles are translation rather than transliterations it is up to the individual or group of individuals doing the translation to choose which of the many possible words for any word are used.
This has the distinct disadvantage of slightly blurring the exact meaning of any given phrase being translated. You end up getting what the translator or group doing the translation thinks the passage is suppose to mean rather than a direct transliteration of the passage.
doriangrey on May 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I did. Interesting article.
As for the museum, well, I guess I always run into the same problem with fundamentalists, whether they’re atheists or Christians. And that is that they all tend to abandon common sense and critical thinking way, way too easily.
I laugh at secularists who jump up and down and insist that evolution is fact. Most who think that don’t even understand the theory. There is no question at all that there are some real problems with the idea of macroevolution – and almost all of those screeching loudest confuse microevolution with macroevolution. In short, evolution most definitely does *not* answer the question of the origin of life.
But then I also laugh myself silly at fundamentalists who insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. (or whatever date they choose). It’s too silly to even argue – and it’s unfortunate that they cling to that particular point, because if they open their minds a little on that single point, they might have something useful to offer the scientific discussion.
What do I think? I think I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know the answers – and neither does anyone else.
I think that there are things we don’t know. I think that it’s likely that there is some force behind life that we don’t understand. Does that mean it’s God? I don’t know. Not necessarily. But it’s something.
As for evolution, it’s obviously – if you’re open to it – at least part of the answer. But to insist it’s the whole answer requires being just as stupidly narrow-minded as any redneck Bible thumper. No offense to redneck Bible thumpers. :)
It really is too bad. Both sides should join forces and work together to find some objective truth. Instead, the whole debate has become politically divisive, with people more interested in defeating the other side than finding real answers.
Kind of – no, exactly – like the global warming debate. Except Al Gore hasn’t made a movie yet.
Professor Blather on May 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM
The non-belief in the actual age of the earth is an easy concept to hang onto because there are no real consequences for it.
The only reason this is an issue is that it is so incredibly close-minded to most of us. Who really cares if an entire group of people refuse to accept science?
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I wish people would stop throwing this number around because it is absolutely false. Saying you’re a Christian does NOT mean you ARE a Christian. Being a Christian means accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, following his examples and obeying his commands. 95% of Americans do NOT do this.
calirighty on May 26, 2007 at 4:52 PM
So every single word, concept, historical fact, etc., written in the Bible is literally 100% true? Is that what you’re saying?
Out of curiousity … how do you square that with the various Biblical texts and Gospels that were subsequently removed or changed or omitted from the modern Bible. Were those texts literally accurate, too?
And also out of curiosity – and I really don’t mean any offense – but if you actually DO believe any book is literally word-for-word infallible truth …. how can you possibly “think critically” about it? I’m particularly curious on that point, from a logical perspective.
In my world, if there is something that I refuse to consider might be at all inaccurate or biased … I’d have a little trouble thinking “critically” about it. For example, I think the Dallas Cowboys are the greatest sports team in history; I think Jessica Alba is the perfect woman. Thus, I am incapable of having an honest “critical thinking” kind of discussion on either subject.
So how does that work with the Bible? Just wonderin’.
Professor Blather on May 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Absolutely golden! Everyone has their “religion”……. especially those who claim to have none.
csdeven on May 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM
For example, I think the Dallas Cowboys are the greatest
sportsfootball team inhistoryTexas;Correction helpfully provided by the Raider Nation. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want that blasphemy to catch on.
Krydor on May 26, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Best comment in the thread.
Professor Blather on May 26, 2007 at 5:10 PM
With all due respect – which in your case is very, very little – the fact that you actually took the time to do that, to actually argue how many sentences there were and then create a little visual aid … is maybe the single most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen on the Internet. The lamest Internet geek-off ever.
Ever.
It’s trite, it’s cliche, I hate to use it, but it is just tailor-made for you: dude – get yourself a life. Seriously.
Admit it. If you’d seen someone else do what you just did, you’d think they were the biggest tool in the universe – wouldn’t you? (Disclaimer: the universe is somewhere between 6000 and 20 billion years old).
Jesus wept. And by Jesus, I mean my gardener, Jesus Ramirez. He’s reading over my shoulder and laughing at Non-Factor. It’s making him weep. Three tears. Or maybe five. Maybe someone could analyze that for me and link to their results?
Sheesh. I’m keeping this as a monument to the lamest thing I’ve seen in my life. It’s just beautiful.
I will not honor your blasphemy with a response.
At least you had the good sense not to diss Jessica. Even atheists know she’s a goddess.
Professor Blather on May 26, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Sez YOU! Who are you to say who is or is not Christian? Anyway 70% 80% 90%. It’s a butt load. The point is Madelene is hyperventilating about “hysterical” atheist authors while in the same breath hysterically accusing a VERY small minority of of Tyranny. It’s laughable. Really.
I can’t tell you how entertaining it is to watch the worhipers of a 1700 year old Roman God twist themselves into pretzels insisting that in essence the world is flat.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Now go let faith drive you to your picnic.
ronsfi on May 26, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I think we are largely in agreement on this one.
Some have considered the possibility that when the monks were doing all that work in the dark ages that their recognition that homosexuality could destroy the discipline and order of an all male enclave, it is possible that an emphasis was put on defining the behavior as immoral, possibly influencing the religious tenets.
I’m sure a bible scholar will quickly add their two cents and that is great but it is just an example of how man can muck up just about anything even with the best of intentions.
Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 5:24 PM
>my posts about religion are actually exceedingly mild
Hahahahaha! That’s pretty funny.
I guess it’s all relative.
Doghouse on May 26, 2007 at 5:26 PM
It takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution and global warming than the creation story. If God
said it happened, you better believe it. They are just starting to understand in a scientific understanding of how
God did it. I think that when the time comes, and we understand it, it will blow us away! If you don’t want to go to this exhibit, then don’t! Look up Dr Dino and see what he has to say about it. Dr Kent Hovind is an exhaustive resource on the subject.
Vanquisher on May 26, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I suggest looking beyond Hovind. He is on the right side, but he says some stupid stuff and is rather embarrassing to our side at times.
Anyway, obviously no one has anything of substance to say in response to anything I’ve said, but Krydor I’ve got to ask you specifically if you’ll concede that you’ve been preaching some bogus numbers on these threads for some time, and I took 10 seconds to debunk you. Will you admit that you are WRONG when marginalizing creationists as some fringe group, even among Christians. I see you’ve commented since I posted that, but you didn’t have anything to say about it, so I’m just curious if you’re willing to admit you’re wrong (details at 4:18 PM if ya just missed it)
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Riiiight.
emmaline1138 on May 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Devil planted them there Dino bones to confuse and take souls! But Carl Baugh has the answers!
Drtuddle on May 26, 2007 at 5:50 PM
WOW! An evolution vs. the God of the Bible debate right here on Hot Air!
Who’d have thought it possible.
Anyway, here is a the good news and the bad news. The idea that the earth is “young” and that the dino’s lived during biblical times is NOT what the Bible “specifically says”…but it IS the interpretation of the biblical account of creation events in the minds of those we might refer to as “young earth creationists”.
There are other Bible believers who we might refer to as “old earth creationists”, who believe it possible that their interpretation of the biblical account might be the truth. Their interpretations range from the “long day” theory, all the way to the one I happen to like best, that we are actually living in the 2nd “creation” here on this earth, the first being the one that the dinosaurs lived and that Lucifer ruled…and it being destroyed somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
But regardless of which theory that comes out of the Bible to those who reverently fear the Lord, the one thing the Bible believer knows for certain is that God did it, and regardless of how lacking our comprehension of the events are, even with what God tells us about it in scripture and with what the scientific evidence looks like(regardless of how it is interpreted) today, it did NOT happen the way that the God haters and the evolution pushers would like to think it did…because theirs are theories based on one single foundation, that there is no God. The Godless will reap their reward in the end, and in the meantime they will look for, and interpret, evidence to bolster their Godlessness. And that is a given.
I personally hope that in the end(which is coming far sooner than mankind would ever believe it appears), I hope that the young earthers turn out to be right and it happened exactly as they happen to interpret the events…that would be sheer irony. One thing for certain that believers can count on though is what God says about those who ignore Him and His word…”…thinking themselves wise, they became fools“.
Maranatha!
NRA4Freedom on May 26, 2007 at 6:13 PM
RW,
Missed it. I was busily correcting a blasphemy relating to the Dallas Cowboys.
Well, after reading your link, I have to say I was mistaken. Now, I’m a bit creeped out and a trifle saddened. Sometimes I forget that the USA is a totally different kettle of fish.
Krydor on May 26, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Haha, I almost forgot about the T-Rex (among others) soft tissue. I loved how when the story was first coming out (I think a couple years ago now, when they broke that bone to be able to carry the massive thing somewhere), the scientists who believed that soft tissue was lucky to hang around for a few thousand years, looked at the soft tissue of the T-Rex and without a second thought said “it must be able to survive for 70 million years”, rather than consider the possibility that the T-Rex wasn’t that old (but assumed to be, based on evolution story telling). I believe they found soft tissue, etc. in other dinosaur bones since, because they started looking for it. They admitted at the time of the T-Rex find that this phenomenon may actually be more widespread, but because they hadn’t been looking for it (once again, evolutionary thinking hindering science) they never found it. They assumed there couldn’t be soft tissue present, so they just didn’t bother.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 6:22 PM
frankj… evolution has more holes in it than a moon sized block of Swiss cheese and you got no fossil record on top of that.
There is no hole in believing that all that exist was created, that is perfectly logical. We all know that complex things do not fall together by themselves, so where is the hole in creationism ?
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Speaking of degenerates…
It was an honest question: do you believe anything in The Bible has been proven wrong?
I aim to please. Tell me, how much of a waste of time is this?
I have a picture to represent what I’m feeling right now: Here it is.
You just had to ask (it’s 4 by the way).
The hand of God, no doubt. You’ve found the piece of evidence to contradict the world’s scientists crazy belief that Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. This proves Dinosaurs walked among us a mere 4,000 years ago. But not only does this discovery disprove that theory, it also validates the theory of Noah’s Ark! Brilliant!
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 7:02 PM
This is great! I actually use to believe in evolution when I was in school, until I read a book by Scott M. Huse called The Collapse of Evolution.
To my sadness (back then) I realized that perhaps there was more to the culture of Christianity than I had perceived, and with my former faith in Darwin shot down, I decided that if the Bible was true then I would follow it–which I did.
Darnell Clayton on May 26, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I believe in God and evolution. It’s not that hard to do, really.
And thanks all you social cons for turning Nonfactor into the most credible poster on the thread (besides FrankJ, of course).
docob on May 26, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Evolution serves only one purpose, it’s a very feeble attempt to explain all that is without God.
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 7:27 PM
WTF?
docob on May 26, 2007 at 7:29 PM
God serves only one purpose, it’s a very feeble attempt to explain all that is without science.
I think that fits a lot better, Maxx; not only because evolution and God can coexist (according to many Christians), but because traditionally when people don’t know how or why something happens they look to the supernatural (i.e. sunrise and sunset, earthquakes, et cetera).
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 7:31 PM
So at some point long ago, the earth was sterile, absolutely no life of any kind. Then by some “miracle”, for lack of a better term, just the right elements came together to form the first living thing. It is now the only living thing on the planet. What did it eat ?
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Microbes that generate energy from non-organic compounds are called autotrophs. Living examples can be found in the world today.
Blacklake on May 26, 2007 at 7:54 PM
OK… fair enough. I see that autotrophs are things like algae and various other types of plant life. I don’t know what is the simplest type, so lets just say it was something like algae if you don’t mind. Then the next question becomes how complex is the simplest type of algae ? Does it have DNA ?
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 8:13 PM
life from non-life is Scientifically impossible.
jp on May 26, 2007 at 8:22 PM
And to be fair Blacklake, you can of course see where I am going with this. I’m trying to get to… just how complex is the simplest living thing. It’s a place that most evolutionist don’t like to go.
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Nonfactor, you’re missing the entire point… Why would I waste time answering one of your questions and getting off in to some other side debate, since virtually all you do is divert, when you feel the need to often respond to me, though it’s almost never actually in response to anything I’ve said. Generally you quote me as if you’re responding to me, but your response is a bunch of unrelated questions and sarcastic comments that are intended to fly off on a half dozen tangents.
Let me explain… You started out with some kind of sarcastic comment about things that “appear” to be 65 million years old. I in turn point you to a discovery that a rock formation in Africa that had been previously thought to be on of the oldest, was actually one of the youngest on the planet. This is just one example, though one that is relatively important, showing that things aren’t always as they “appear”, especially when things often “appear” certain ways only because some authoritative scientist tells us so, simply because his career often requires such things and because it fits in line with an assumed evolution story, not because evidence supported it.
The point is, I was responding to your specific comment.
What did you start off doing?
Again, where I specifically responded to someone who said that Christians are thin-skinned, I talked about how we’re anything but, considering we sit here and take media bashing all day long, simply because there’s open season on the majority, but commenting in a negative way on minorities is frowned upon.
In response to me pointing out that Christians take a beating in the media, you went off on some thing, saying “rightfully so” and talking about half-lives, etc. While Creationists get smacked around in the media, that’s different than the fact that you can mock Christians. You’re talking about the science end of things, which Creationists have responses for, and that’s a valid thing to raise… but don’t act like it was in response to me, because the beating that Christians take in the media has nothing to do with the the evolution debate 99% of the time. I’m talking about in the media and mainstream PC world, you’ve got crosses being taken down from public places, teachers being told not to wear cross necklaces, constant Catholic Church bashing over the molestation scandal (which is completely valid), but you show some Danish Cartoons and suddenly we’re the bad guys, and Muslims are justified in rioting and murdering. Even the Rosie blowout… She refused to argue because she didn’t want it to be (slightly paraphrasing) “Poor little Christian Elisabeth being attacked by big fat mean lesbian Rosie”. What if Elisabeth had said “The left bling blogs will say this was ‘poor fat ugly lesbian Rosie being attacked by vicious Christian Republican Elisabeth.” The gay community would have been up in arms over her bringing up Rosie’s lesbianism, where as the Christian community shrugs their shoulders, as they do all day long. These are just quick examples off the top of my head… But the point is, I was clearly talking about Christianity in general being open for attack, but most of the time it has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution debate because that’s just more complicated of an issue than most want to get in to.
Anyway, the point is, your response wasn’t to my comment… yet you quote me as if it is. This is your MO. When you aren’t busy taking things out of context to respond to (and then pretending that context never plays a role, saying “don’t write it if you don’t want me to respond), then you’re busy quoting someone, and then pretending to respond to them, even though you’re talking about something completely different.
What I’m saying is, don’t expect me to follow your “simple questions” off on these other diversions which will become debates in and of themselves, when you can’t respond to anything I said in the first place. Why do I owe you the courtesy, when you constantly argue with me, even though you’re really arguing against something you came up with to argue against.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 9:08 PM
We’re learning all the time that it’s even more complex than we thought too Maxx, check out the latest:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070520a
Crazy stuff (again, you Darwinists can whine about the source, but they’re referring to a paper in PLOS… you can complain about the commentary if you’d like, but the original source is actually your friends).
Of course we won’t even get in to the fact that the idea of “junk DNA” and all those “evolution leftovers” are being debunked all the time.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Yes! Thank you for posting that. I’m putting it on a postcard and sending it to the creation museum.
RightOFLeft on May 26, 2007 at 9:24 PM
The answer, ultimately, is “we don’t know.” What’s wrong with that?
Blacklake on May 26, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I’ve never understood the “belief” that so many seem to have that the two must be mutually exclusive. I’ve often recommended the writings of atheist-turned-Christian Francis Collins. Known is scientific circles as the Director of the NIH Human Genome Project, he explains how one respected scientist in the world of genetics views Genesis and discusses the false premise of evolution and God being mutally exclusive. A good place to start might be his book, “Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”. I’d suggest it both for those who think that being a Christian means they can’t “believe” in evolution, and for those whose belief in evolution (and science) is proof to them that God does not exist (as least not as Christians view him).
taznar on May 26, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Maxx says:
Nonfactor Responds:
Maxx corrects Nonfactor’s statement:
There… I fixed that for you Nonfactor. You see, you can’t put the word “science” where I put the word “God” because then you are saying that “science” is the creator. Science was not there to create anything and according to you, God wasn’t there either, that means all you are left with for “the Creator” is haphazardness and random circumstances.
And since science has not explained, nor can it duplicate how the first living thing crawled out of the mythical primordial soup, that seals the deal that you can’t substitute the word science where I used the word “God.”
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 9:44 PM
If the dinosaurs got berths on Noah’s ark, how much room was left once the brontosauruses climbed on board and wouldn’t they have to be very careful about the center of gravity of the boat when those brontos started moving about? If one of those brontos rolled over in his sleep, the ark would capsize.
And how would you stop those tyrannosaurus rexes from gobbling up all those other tasty animals?
A cow or a horse eat about a bale of hay every two days. If the ark is floating on the flood for 150 days, that’s 75 bales of hay for each big herbivore, which is a cube of bales eight feet on each side. Goats and sheep need half of that. Giraffes and elephants are gonna need more. Noah would need a couple more arks to carry the fodder for the herbivores.
A lion eats about 15 pounds of meat per day. For each lion, that means half a ton of meat during the Deluge. Since I recall nothing in the Bible about Noah having refrigeration, that means he needed to carry live prey for all the big cats and carnivores. That’s probably another couple arks.
The low number of species of living animals and insects etc on Earth is 30 million, the high figure 100 million. Now how did Noah fit thirty million species on the Ark? Let’s say one person could feed and tend a hundred species per day. The ark would require a crew of 300,000 to take care of the animals.
Must I continue?
The story of Noah’s ark is a distorted version of what appears to be an actual event where a flood on the Euphrates in Sumeria caused a barge full of cattle to be carried away and grounded downstream about 2900 BC, carrying the king of the city-state Shuruppak.
Here are details. The story was embellished and changed as it passed from storyteller to storyteller, scribe to scribe.
Tantor on May 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Have you ever wondered why the Muslim Turkish government refuses to allow exploration on Mt. Ararat? They did in the past, but when climbers came back with gopher wood pieces and stories of the Ark being there, the government stopped explorers from seeing for themselves. The mountain is only 16,000 feet high. I’ve been up to 19,000 ft in the S. American Andes so 16k should be no big deal for climbing studs.
Just wondering.
Mojave Mark on May 26, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Tantor on May 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM
The quick answers to your questions are: 1) Noah’s ship was really big… 2) The animals were probably young and small and 3) hibernation times for some of the animals
The details are here, fascinating stuff.
Maxx on May 26, 2007 at 10:54 PM
What’s amusing to me is how many people have to “prove” something that they weren’t there to see themselves, or to knock the Bible as “inaccurate” because it doesn’t explain things to their level of satisfaction; or, on the surface, has apparent discrepancies.
All well and good, I suppose. The continual arguments and posturing on this issue give a lot of people something to do.
Evolutionists criticize Christian Fundamentalists (“CF’s”) for, among other things, taking the Biblical account of Creation on faith. Yet Evolutionists depend on just as much faith to support their story as do CF’s. Anyone forget about the Big Bang that just seems to have “happened” on its own? And don’t get me started on the contortionist arguments that Evolutionists use to conveniently ignore the laws of Thermodynamics in their theory.
Yet when CF’s argue their side of the story, sometimes it’s almost as painful to watch as it is when Elizabeth tries to respond to Rosie on the View. It’s easy to say “I believe the Bible as it’s written”, but to me, if that is the extent of the response, it’s a cop-out.
Theologians throughout recent history have attempted to wrap their heads around God in some fairly amusing ways (at one point, scholars really did try to figure out how many angels would fit on the head of a pin). I’ve read people arguing that trees in the Garden of Eden, if one could have taken a core sample of them on the day of Creation, would have no rings – because if they did, it would mean that they would have been created prior to that day. Again, silly.
Despite so many people’s attempt to shun the Bible as a literal document (instead of being merely figurative), the narrative in Creation is clear, even in English, regarding what constitutes a literal day (“and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc.] day”). Beyond that, though, the Bible leaves out an awful lot of detail. But there are a lot of clues as to the breadth of that missing detail all through Genesis, and more is scattered through the other 38 books.
I’ll toss out a couple of them as meat for a discussion, should anyone wish to take them up:
1. The Book of Genesis discusses the creative week, creation of Man and Woman, temptation in the Garden, and the fall (and punishment) of Man in the first three chapters – the tone of the narrative suggests that very little time passed between the Creative Week in Genesis 1 and the expulsion of Man from the Garden at the end of Genesis 3. Yet the story glosses over almost 2000 years of history (timeline gleaned by the geneologies listed in Genesis 5) and then suddenly, Mankind is so bad that God wishes to flood the planet and get rid of everyone, in Genesis 6. A key to this change of heart can be seen in the first verses of Genesis 6.
So, some questions: What came of the forbidden liaison between the Watchers and mankind? why is this little detail tossed out just before the narrative goes on to discuss the reasoning behind God wishing to destroy humanity?
2. Next, Genesis spends three chapters discussing the Flood (ch. 7 – 9) and further events are given spotty treatment in the chapters afterwards. There are some clues as to the enormity of change: one, where lifespans are markedly reduced (compare lifespans listed in Genesis 11:10-32 with those in Genesis 5). Also there is a glancing comment as to someone named Peleg, “for in his days was the Earth divided” (Gen 10:25, KJV).
More questions: what caused the lifespans to be reduced so markedly after the Flood? What about the comment regarding Peleg?
My point here is that while I do believe the Bible stands as a literal document, there are many gaps or holes in the timeline presented. It is somewhere in those holes – both in the timeline, and in Man’s understanding of the power of God – that answers regarding things like dinosaurs and determination of the age of the planet may be found. For all we know, either the planet is much older than the Genesis account leads one to believe because of a) the “gap theory” regarding the transliteration of Genesis 1:2 (transliterated from Hebrew, the verse better reads “and the earth [became] without form and void”); and b) we simply do not know how “old” the planet was created to be on the day of Creation.
Without having been involved in the Creative process, those are questions we will likely never answer. Yet to ignore them, to presume we know the answers when we don’t, causes us to put God in the same kind of Box as do Evolutionists who “know” answers when they were not around to have observed things either.
C.S. Lewis once remarked that it was better to remain in a lifetime of doubt than to provide arbitrary answers for things we do not know (see “The Pilgrim’s Regress”). While I have a lot of ideas about how things might have happened, I will not disparage anyone else’s ideas – so long as they will admit that those things are ideas. For the moment someone puts their ideas on creation out as fact, presumes they can authoritatively support their answer on grounds that, whether they believe in the Biblical narrative or not, simply cannot prove.
Wanderlust on May 26, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I’m not going to get in to the whole Noah’s ark thing here Tantor, but there is the argument that (given what the Bible says) there were two of every “kind” of animal. Obviously the families and groups we place them in today are not the same as what they were at the time. This would require many fewer animals. I’m not sure exactly what I think of all of the details of the great flood because I sometimes wonder if it was massive, but still more local than global, however it is odd that so many ancient civilizations around the world have a global flood story… even stranger that many have their own Noah character, yet were not anywhere in the region. Also a quick side thing, the source of the water (as written in the Bible) was not simply “rain”, it came from the “fountains of the great deep” bursting forth, which interestingly coincides with findings in recent years that there are massive underground seas all over the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
There was some recent finding of another of these that was really interesting, but I can’t remember where I read about it.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Interesting stuff to think about Wanderlust… I’ll just quickly respond to a few. I believe if you read the Peleg part, they’re saying that he was named that because “in his time…” There is a lot of “he was named this because…” in the Bible, because I think (just like today) people’s names “meant” things. I don’t know that he was anyone of particular importance, just that his parents named him that in relation to what was going on at the time.
That, and a lot of your points are interesting and to me point out the lack of writings at the time period. Later it was written. Then as years went on there were more writers so many more books were written as time went on. Just like 100+ years ago, a lot of people may have been writing, but compare that to how many journalists, authors, kids with diaries, and BLOGS are out there today, and it’s like a few generations ago they were living in the stone age. Today there is a record of almost everything we do (and I’m not even getting in to cameras, video, YouTube, etc.) Plus, when these books were written, you have to imagine that many of the “holes” weren’t holes to people living at the time, perhaps just common knowledge. Like we can make Bill Clinton jokes or Paris Hilton jokes, and most of the time we don’t need to go in to detail explaining the context to someone because it’s part of modern pop culture. This reminds me of something I always think of when I hear the stupid “but the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs”… While there are other arguments that are a little more difficult to deal with, that one is just stupid. Do I need to list the other animals not mentioned in the Bible, either because they didn’t live in the region where the author lived, because they played no role in a story, because they were just something that was dealt with on a daily basis and not worth mentioning, or perhaps they were grouped in with a different kind of animal and not referred to as “giant lizards”. Again, folks can come up with tougher arguments (which I still don’t buy) about dinosaurs not being there, but the “why aren’t they mentioned” argument is just beyond stupid.
RightWinged on May 26, 2007 at 11:16 PM
This is a joke, right? I asked a simple question: do you believe anything in The Bible has been proven wrong? Something that could be answered in one word (yes or no), and you don’t answer because you don’t want to “waste time”? Just look at how much you write after saying that. It’s like one huge walking contradiction.
I make a joke (on topic may I remind you) and you proceed to talk about the age of a rock in Africa? And you accuse me of going off on tangents? Hello? On the topic of rock ages though–do you like ignoring contradictory evidence? When you find that we have thousands of rocks proving the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old (through half-lives and zicron crystals) do you purposefully avoid it or do you cover your eyes when you accidentally click on those sites? You seem to agree with science when they say the age of a rock is XXX years old and it supports your belief, but when science tells you the age of a rock is XXX (4.5 billion years old) you immediately disregard it. Logic wins again!
In my post I went on to explain to you that science can be wrong, but they can correct their statements when contradictory evidence comes into place.
Damn those authoritative scientists who aren’t letting the truth of The Bible influence them! They’re like the fascists of truth!
Wow… Rosie O’Donnell, Catholic Church molestation, Muhammad cartoons? Tangents, oh where have you gone?
You’re a hypocrite at best. You quote a joke post I make where the only thing of substance I asked you was “do you believe anything in The Bible has been proven wrong?” (you still haven’t given a simple one word answer yet) and you wind up taking about Rosie O’Donnell! What the hell? You don’t see the irony in this?
It’s funny because reading this I could swear you don’t understand what the word “science” means. Science is an explanation based on fact and observation. God is an explanation based on belief without fact.
Science has always explained things we weren’t there to see. We know dinosaurs exist because we’ve found fossils, before that we didn’t. We know the continents used to be together due to observation of continental drift. Et cetera. And The Bible doesn’t have “discrepancies” on the surface, it’s riddled with them. Man simply did not live to be older than 300 years old. The world was not flooded 4,400 years ago wiping off all life save for that on Noah’s Ark. Woman was not created from the rib of a man and man was not created from the dirt.
This argument is so tiring. No scientist claims that the Big Bang just “happened;” scientists can determine what was happening at 10^-48 seconds (I think that’s the time), but they aren’t aware of what happened at t=0; and this does not explain “god” (and especially the Christian God).
What about the other books omitted by the Church? Did those not meet the “influenced by God” standard?
Nonfactor on May 26, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Ok let me get this straight. All the life forms that have been, those that live now and those that are no more, all existed at the same time all together until an all knowing and all powerful being from another dimension who also looks quite like a human male but bears no resemblance to Zeus at all and who by the way created, with his voice, the entire universe and all things in it including physical laws and geography etc, which cleverly make the universe SEEM billions of years older than the 6000 years that it is, Destroys his favorite planet in an oddly all to human fit of childish rage killing all those living things all at once in a magic flood that sifted and sorted the remains of these creatures and place chronologically, the simplest at bottom and progressing upward through the strata layer upon layer advancing steadily through more and more complex life forms
occasionally inserting fake extinction event layers and once this ruse was organized, mystically turned them all to stone.
That God. Ha Ha. What cosmic joker.
ronsfi on May 26, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I know I’ve asked you before, but can you really be that retarded, or is your liberalism just forcing you to be dishonest to such an unbelievable degree?
Those Rosie, Catholic Priest, etc. comments weren’t tangents. They were to explain what I’m talking about when I say Christians are fair game in the media, yet others are not. A point you pretended to respond to earlier, though you actually didn’t. I had to explain at length, because as always we need to break things down like you would for a child in order for you to understand just what you’re doing. Again, you quote people and act as if you’re responding to them, when in reality you’ve just got something you want to say that has nothing to do with the person you’re pretending to argue with. It’s not exactly a strawman (though you love those too), but it’s strawmanesque.
All those other ages of rocks, etc. are much deeper debates… Your “joking” comment, may have been a joke, but you were being serious too, when talking about how old things SEEM to be, mocking what others believe they are. All I said to you was that things aren’t always what they seem. And it wasn’t “a rock” by the way. And it is a big deal when you move something from being oldest to newest on their scale of millions of years. All those authoritative scientists you talk about CONSTANTLY make mistakes, more often than not simply because they assumed certain things based on the evolution mindset and many other related assumptions.
It was a simple comment that things aren’t always what they “seem”, because often what we’re told they “seem” isn’t at all what they “seem”, it’s what they are assumed. Again, we can have an argument about the details of dating methods, etc. but that’s a lot deeper of a discussion and would require more reading and getting back to you than I’m willing to put in (I know you think it takes a long time for my rants here, but these usually take 5 minutes at best, I just type fast).
All I am saying, again, is I respond to specific things you say. You quote me, acting as if you intend to respond to things I say, and then you go off and talk about something different, and expect me to do you the courtesy of answering your questions? Why? You aren’t answering mine or addressing anything I’ve raised… why do you deserve any respect back? Get it?
RightWinged on May 27, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »