An amusing take on my battle with the Creation “Museum”: it was me against Jesus.
The good news is that I won. I had an edge, though, in that I’m not an imaginary being.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
cool!
Not as far as Jebus is concerned.
Who has the mangled foot again?
It’s a fight! PZ, show ’em who’s boss!
We know science won’t suffer a loss–
Still, it may not be easy,
So watch your chin, PZ–
Cos Jesus is known for his cross!
I, for one, would much rather have a beer with Jesus.
Beating an imaginary friend and then bragging about it right near his birthday, you should be ashamed.
As should I. I keep rooting for you.
And your evidence for this is what? Sure, you’re mentioned in wikipedia, but so are Vishnu, Odin and Huitzilopochtli.
you know… the first thing that came to mind after reading that was Hephaistos/Satan. only a few seconds later did I remember about PZ’s snowblower accident.
Is this another proof that PZ is in fact Satan?
Ok after a quick search i didn’t find anything regarding Hephaistos/Satan and a hurt foot.
Please expound upon that. Sounds interesting.
Hephaistos was lame (in the literal sense), and he’s also one of the main inspirations for the Christian Satan. the rest is the odd workings of my brain.
ahh
source material: homeric hymn (to pythian apollo)
Hear from me, all gods and goddesses, how cloud-gathering Zeus begins to dishonor me wantonly, when he has made me his true-hearted wife. See now, apart from me he has given birth to bright-eyed Athena who is foremost among all the blessed gods. But my son Hephaestus whom I bare was weakly among all the blessed gods and shrivelled of foot, a shame and a disgrace to me in heaven, whom I myself took in my hands and cast out so that he fell in the great sea.
I love this comment on the story that ran in the Citypages:
Geez, dissent sure gets squelched quickly in our new Fascist Empire.
It’s not “Anti” science. Nice smear term.
It may not be exactly “science”, but it’s not “anti” science.
C’mon, let those people go to the zoo.
Live and let live!
Posted by: eddie at December 23, 2008 4:14 PM
[He may not be exactly brainless…after all, he apparently still has a cerebellum…]
I wouldn’t worry about it. I understand he’s pretty easy to nail.
The Christfags hope so at least.
I hear he just hangs around.
“C’mon, let those people go to the zoo.”
NO ZOO FOR YOU!
Hey, now! My ankle will get better!
phht, you scientists with your theories.
Hey, now! My ankle will get better!
True, you’re not been defeeted, and the game is still afoot.
‘Look buddy, I don’t care who your father is. You drop that cross one more time and you’re out of the procession.’
Posted by: Volly | December 27, 2008 8:36 PM
[He may not be exactly brainless…after all, he apparently still has a cerebellum…]
Now i guess I have to tell ‘um
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my PhD
I’m a teen age lobotomy
You don’t even have to lay a glove on him. Just say “put ’em up!” while the Roman soldiers are within earshot.
The Ramones FTW
This is really quite funny – interesting that the creationists blame you, PZ, when there were thousands of people outraged about it.
And while you did play a role (for which you deserve credit), I am sure that even if you had not been involved the same thing would have happened – the deal was outrageous, and I am sure that this was the feeling of many involved with the Cincinnati Zoo once they got word of it.
Take that Jesus!” LoL ;-)
Ramases #24 wrote:
We did have one of the tour guides/volunteers come into one of the threads here, waxing wroth over the Creationist deal and supporting our efforts to throw it out, but as far as I know no official or employee connected with the zoo has made any statements on being outraged. I may have missed it, or perhaps they were told it’s too impolitic.
Cuttlefish, you magnificent bastard!
It’s a classic…
“My book says it, it must be true”
vs.
“Science and physical evidence makes it closer to being true”
To a rational thinker, it’s about weighing both sides and seeing which is the most logical.
To an irrational thinker, it’s about closing your eyes, plugging your ears, going “la-la-la” and having “faith” to carry you through those moments your brain, erm, Satan, tricks you into thinking rationally.
Great. Can I now tell my therapist that I really did meet you and I’m not actually suffering delusions of grandeur?
Rev. BigDumbChimp – Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, M.L. West, Oxford World’s Classics. Hephaestus was a son of Hera, and a club (lame) foot. He was married to Aphrodite, and set a trap for her when she cuckolded him. He is the patron of fires and blacksmiths. He made the shield of Achilles.
Same as vulcan i see.
What a heel.
And vulcan? Spock, Sarek, and T’Pring are Vulcan.
Sven #32: The internet is evil.
But, PZ, nobody fucks with the Jesus!
PZ has a twisted foot,
On this we can agree,
But twisted even more by far
Is the Creation Ministry
8 year olds dude
“IN this corner, the challenger: the Defender of Darwin, the Exonerator of Evolution, the Genius of Genes, the Mighty Mutant of Morris, the Big Cheese of Biology–Professor… P… Z… ‘Pharyngula’ MYERS!
“AND in this corner, fresh from the infamous Rumble at Herod’s Temple: The Fisher of Men, the Jawbreaker from Jerusalem, the Battler-Man from Bethlehem, you can knock Him down but He’ll be back up three days later–the Son of God Himself–Jesus of Nazareth, AKA Christ… The… LORD!”
…
“Christ… The… LORD.”
…
Sven – Just for mentioning T’Pring you deserve a titty-twister. Enjoy!
Said by Sastra: “but as far as I know no official or employee connected with the zoo has made any statements on being outraged. I may have missed it, or perhaps they were told it’s too impolitic.”
You haven’t heard such a thing because it’s not done. Zoo culture has evolved to be smart and keep the mouth shut. “Stay out of politics” is a zoo mantra, your every-day zoo-keeper much prefers cleaning shit over getting into shit.
Count on it, all the zoo-keepers knew about the stupid.
jesus never said he was god, just some other assholes out to wreck a good philosopher’s career.
Ray Fox said
I always thought that Jesus was more of a wine kind of guy.
Jesus Vs PZ Myers?
That’s a hard one to call. On the one hand you have that beared messianic figure with all those crazy followers, and on the other hand you have the carpenter from Galilee.
Next thing you know Mel Gibson will be making a movie where PZ dishes out some “ground and pound” to JC for 5 minutes straight before the ref finally calls the fight…
And Christians will walk away from the theaters in tears telling stories about how powerful the film was and how it recharged their faith in Christ.
I think that PZed’s logic and rational though would be torn apart, along with him, in the jaws of the T-Rex that Jeebus would be riding…. Unless PZed gets a rocket launcher, then all bets are off.
I seemed to have dropped a “t” in my bourbon.
Oh come on PZ, amputees have been defeating all of Jeebus best efforts and those of his followers for like EVER. And they’re even trying to lose!
So there are Talking Donkeys in the old testament….hmmm….using infallible biblical logic I must conclude, based on faith, that there were big green ogers as well…Man… faith is more awesome than LSD.
Well his followers are definitely more the whine kind of folks.
Ah, but could you have beaten Brian and all the cheesemakers?
That’s the real battle right there.
“Jesus is known for his cross”
Cuttlefist, that is the best thing I’ve heard all day. Next conversation I have about which fictional character would win in a fight, I’m stealing it.
Maybe more people need to check this one out: http://www.bandoli.no/jesustest.htm ?
Poor Jesus, you guys do blame him rather unfairly for what Christians and their churches do. As far as I can see from my reading of the bibble many years ago, Jesus was a nice guy who never claimed to be god or godlike and who preached a rather enlightened philosophy of life (to love thy neighbors rather than smite them, so help them rather than stone them). And he was a lot more tolerant than you guys!
And when Jesus got executed by the Romans, he realised then that he’d made a big mistake: the only bit of Aramaic in the Gospels is when Jesus cries “Lord, Lord, why have you forsaken me?” – what is that if it’s not Jesus saying “oh ****, I’ve made a really big mistake here, my fairy godfather / fathergod doesn’t seem to be much help here, er, perhaps he doesn’t exist?”.
So, I think it’s fair to turn around the atheists in foxholes story, and say that when nailed on a cross, even miracle-workers become atheists! Suck that Darwin-haters!
As for Jesus not existing, leave it out! Even if someone produced a birth certificate, you naysayers wouldn’t be satisfied (you’d say it was a forgery, wouldn’t you?). There’s no good reason (I think) to doubt that there was a charismatic preacher in Galilee called Jesus, which of course does not mean that the rest of the fairy stories are true. Be scientific: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is not an implausible claim that this guy existed. The stuff assigned to him, that’s a different matter.
Happy Crimble!
Samta Claws, except that this peacenik also apparently said, much like today’s cult leaders do, to paraphrase, I come first so if it comes to the crunch, screw your family and friends. Similarly, apart from the gospels, all written decades after his supposed death, the only historical mention is by Josephus approximately a century later. And it’s authenticity is in question, to say the least. Now whether there was an actual historical figure that the myth of Jesus was based on, who knows, but that is the best we can say with any certainty.
This video shows why moderate Christians are part of the problem. This video also shows why it’s immoral to respect religious beliefs.
The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions being made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn’t learn a lot about it.
Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says “I’m willing Lord, to do whatever you want me to do”. But since there are no actual gods talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas…
This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and recognize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.
If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and shear ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the millions of their fellow followers.
— Bill Maher, Religulous
“Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.”
Bill Maher sums it up so well.
I think he calls it “selling an imaginary product”.
BobC and Kel, I agree. Whatever one might think of the film in general, I found it OK but a bit hit and miss, it is worth it for that very powerful piece to camera at the end.
Religulous
Pity that the very blunt axe wielded bij Maher to drive the message home probably won’t penetrate the thick skulls of the religious ignoramuses that support the idiots who ruin our world in the name of their god. They are just too stupid to think outside their holy books.
But my son Hephaestus whom I bare was weakly among all the blessed gods and shrivelled of foot – Jadehawk quoting a Homeric hymn.
PZ’s foot isn’t shrivelled, it’s swollen. Hey, PZ, don’t go killing anyone who nearly runs you down in their auto!
Psychodigger said: “They are just too stupid to think outside their holy books.”
I agree.
“This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.”
And as has been proved here, rational discourse with the godbots goes nowhere. I’ve joined the camp of another poster here. I think the time has come to get in their faces and use their own tactics against them.
Homophobes are filth.
Go back to the Mideast where you belong and take that nasty little yahweh with you.
Intelligent design is a social disease.
Keep the stupid in church where it belongs.
Given that Maher is by his own account anti-vaccine i don’t think he is a good spokesman for the atheist viewpoint.
jo5ef, and what is the atheist viewpoint, apart from lack of belief in god/s that is?
J Phillips,
I think the Maher quote posted above describes an atheist viewpoint quite well.
Or, more bluntly: I’m sick of holier-than-thou deluded assholes claiming a moral high-ground when their “holy” books obviously lead directly to discrimination, torture, war and death.
Volunteering to be ignorant and deluded does not qualify a person to make rules for others.
And “faith” needs to have it’s guns and bombs taken away.
So shut up and go away, godbot, and take your stupid with you.
K, fuck off yourself for I am an atheist. The only thing being an atheist implies is a lack of belief in god/s. In fact, we have had plenty of battles here with theist trying to conflate atheism to be more than that, even going so far as to call it a religion. So who is being stupid?
Hint, atheism doesn’t automatically translate as anti-theism.
K @63
How does JP become stupid for pointing out the to conflate anti-vaccine with atheism does not make sense? Like John, I’m not anti-theist but I am most certainly an atheist. God botherers can do whatever stupid crapola they want in their homes and churches. Using it to define reality and make rules for all is quite another issue.
J.P
Sorry, we have a misunderstanding here, I was referring to the godbots in general, not name-calling you. I apologise for my poorly written statement.
“Hint, atheism doesn’t automatically translate as anti-theism.”
No, but I don’t know any atheists who find the outcomes of theism anything other than apalling.
‘As for Jesus not existing, leave it out! Even if someone produced a birth certificate, you naysayers wouldn’t be satisfied (you’d say it was a forgery, wouldn’t you?).’
Yes we most certainly would…seeing as Certified birth certificates are a fairly recent invention, common only since the 1900s in the United States.
And not common at all in the rest of the world …Europe started that documentation around 1400s !
Just because someone is right about one subject doesn’t mean they’re right about another.
It’s cool.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that. I just have a problem with automatically conflating atheism with anti-theism, even if on some issues I am as much an anti-theist as I am an atheist.
The difference is I suppose one of lack of belief versus belief or passive versus active. I.e. I lack belief in god/s (atheism/passive) but I do believe we would probably be better off without religion (anti-theist/active).
Yes, true, but unfortunately that’s only because he wasn’t hung.
There’s no good reason (I think) to doubt that there was a charismatic preacher in Galilee called Jesus, which of course does not mean that the rest of the fairy stories are true.
The doubts (and they are simply doubts) come from no contemporary records of this account. I have not met a single doubter who claimed absolutely that there was no central figure, but it is also very simply possible that a bunch of stories became conflated together about a single (real or imaginary) person.
“I have not met a single doubter who claimed absolutely that there was no central figure.”
If I feed you a big bullshit story, is it relevant that there’s a tiny kernal of truth in there somewhere? Perhaps there was a jesus dude. If there was, he was a nobody.
I think Saul of Tarsus made most if not all of this shit up. The L. Ron Hubbard/ Joseph Smith of his day.
I believe there was a fairly convincing theory that reconciled the oddly conflicting sayings of Jesus (on the one hand, the hippy who wanted you to turn the other cheek; on the other, the man who brings a sword, and not peace) by stating that most likey those where two people (the other was possibly John the Baptist, the other main messianic figure in the story) and the stories were conflated into one to avoid odd inconsistencies. If the stories of Jesus’ life are at all based on reality, it’s simply possible that they reflect two separate groups with local celebrity leaders which eventually merged into one and conflated their leaders.
John the Baptist seems an odd figure in the bible anyway. I have a hard time believing that his sole purpose in life was to baptize Jesus
Be scientific: take not just falsifiability but also parsimony into account.
The plausibility of existence depends on what you mean by “this guy.” A dude named Yeshua who did some preaching is one thing. The Son of God, but at the same time a manifestation of Gad, born to a Virgin, who raised the dead and turned water to wine and walked on water and was resurrected three days after being crucified? Quite another, in terms of plausibility.
Well, I’m a Christian, and a creationist. I have some things to say in defence of creation. If anyone wants to discuss them, argue with me, or whatever the case may be, please email me at [email protected]
“Be scientific: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
By that reasoning, you shouldn’t disbelieve in the Greek Gods. Why do you?
“It is not an implausible claim that this guy (Jesus) existed.”
I find it more implausible than plausible. I mean, he supposedly had followers that believed he was the son of God, and yet not one of them bothered to write down what he said! And then, we had to wait at least 20 years for some guy to have the good idea to write about him! That flies in the face of common sense.
Add to that the fact that the Jews don’t say anything about such a guy…
Imagine if today’s Muslims believed that in the 1920s a man lived in the US that was believed (by Muslims) to be the son of Allah, that he fomented trouble, that he was executed, and yet, you’d find no such reference in American writings. What conclusion would you draw?
I just wanted to add that as an atheist, Jesus’s existence has no implications with regards to my worldview: if he existed, it does not follow that he was the son of a god. However, for a Christian, Jesus’s existence has dire implications: if it turns out that Jesus never existed, then Christianity is wrong.
That is why that in this matter I do not trust Christian scholars – their core beliefs are on the line, so it is legitimate to doubt their objectivity.
check your “things to say in defence [sic] of creation” against this first. if you have any arguments left afterwards, please let us know.
ah, i lean something new. “defence” apparently is the way those silly brits spell it :-p
Jadehawk, I haven’t heard that one, but it would explain some of the inconsistencies. However, it also further erodes the Jesus myth.
Additionally, the poster I was responding to, like many xians do, was picking and choosing the bits that make Jesus look good, and taking a swipe at us atheist meanies in the process, while ignoring the bad. Assuming of course, that he is even aware of the bad. So the choice is that Samta Claws is ignorant, a liar or a bit of both. From experience, I refuse to bet on which of those three options apply :)
Wrong, actually. It IS evidence of absence, just not PROOF of absence, because there is plenty of evidence for even quite minor figures in that time and place.
oh I agree. I just figured I’d throw that little tidbit out there, because it DOES make sense and it’s very interesting.
I went through a phase of interest in different theories about the Jesus-stories. One of my favorite ones was that Mary Magdalene was an African sorceress (something like voodoo or magic with human blood, which would explain the cannibalistic undertones of the Last Supper) and Jesus’ partner in crime, and that the later Christians sanitized her out of the bible for witchcraft, being black, and being a powerful woman.
Jadehawk, re Mary Magdalene, well the xians, the Abrahamic cults in general come to that, either have to demonise their women, put them out of reach on pedestals or erase them. Anything in fact that allows them to justify their control of women.
Jesus is a historical person, ptahh.
I call bullshit.
Give me one tiny shred of evidence this person actually existed.
If he did exist, he was a nobody.
John, I agree. and the fact that Mary Magdalene was not only edited out of the bible, but also consequently portrayed as a prostitute, tells me she must have been pretty important in the original stories :-p
Why not state your case here?
Nothing in the bible indicates Mary of Magdelene was jebus’s booty call and nothing in the bible indicates she was a prostitute.
So the story that jebus had the hots for the prostie Mary Mag has no foundation in the bible. This must be ANOTHER worthless legend based on worthless bullshit legends that ‘must be true’.
But can PZ dance like this?
http://www.geocities.com/yossarian70038/PIANOSA9/jesusdance_PIANOSA9.html
I never heard of Satan having an ankle problem, but Jesus did.
How else can one explain, “Christ on a crutch!”? ;)
Please email me. I want to speak with you individually, that way I can answer everyone’s questions easier, and discuss it easier. If you want, I don’t mind answering a few questions on here, if any of you would like.
Jeremiah #91 wrote:
Welcome, Jeremiah. I’m assuming you’re the creationist from #76. I have a question I’d like to ask you.
Recently, someone from this forum (sorry, I forget who) posted a very nice list which breaks evolution down into 14 points, or parts. It’s very specific, which is handy. IF you have a problem with evolution, then this means that there’s at least one point here which you disagree with. There may be more.
Could you please run your eyes down the following list, and point out — specifically — which number or numbers you find unlikely? Thanks. This means we can all concentrate on just one issue in the science. The list is divided into 4 sections, to make it easier to read:
——-
VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over” during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6) These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
SELECTION:
7) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism’s offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9) Unrepresentative sampling can occur in populations which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as “genetic drift”.
10) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
SPECIATION:
11) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
SUFFICIENCY:
13) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.
There’s no good reason (I think) to doubt that there was a charismatic preacher in Galilee called Jesus, which of course does not mean that the rest of the fairy stories are true. Be scientific: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is certainly evidence (but not proof) of absence; otherwise, why not make the same claims about the existence of Mithras, just to name one of a myriad of other, obviously mythical savior or god-man figures?
Ah, but it’s that “obviously mythical” qualifier that separates Jesus from the herd, supposedly. It’s just special pleading, though. There is evidence, in the texts themselves, that we’re dealing with myth and not any sort of historical figure at all (and don’t confuse matters: I’m talking about the claim “that there was a charismatic preacher in Galilee called Jesus,” not any of the supernatural trappings).
Bayes’ theorem FTW.
I await your peer-reviewed scientific paper on the matter. Being a creationist in this day and age is going up against the entire scientific knowledge-base, so it doesn’t matter whether you can defend it on an individual level – you need to submit it for peer review.
Just think, if your ideas are valid, you’ll rewrite the entire scientific knowledge-base and should be awarded several Nobel prizes… Your name will go down in the history books as the man who proved creation.
So are you going to play by the rules of science or just try and engage people one-on-one as a means of legitimising your absurd position?
Well, none of you probably believe in anything the Bible says so first I want to show you that the Bible is far ahead of modern science. Over the past years scientists have found out that everything around us is made of atoms, science at the time of the Bible up until recently was ignorant on this subject. The Bible(written over 2,000 years ago) says in Hebrews 11:3 reation is made of invisible elements. It wasn’t until about the 14 or 15 hundreds when the world was proven to be round, but the Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 that the Earth is in fact round. Science used to believe that there were only 1,100 stars, but science now confirms what the Bible says in Jeremiah 33:22 that there is innumerable stars. Jog 26:7 says the Earth is hanging in space, science at the time thought it sat on the back of an animal, and that animal on another, and so on, and so on. Science now confirms the Bible’s truth. 1 Corinthians 15:41 says that every star is different. Science at the time said they were the same, science now confirms the Bible. Job 38:19-20 says light moves, science then said it stood still, science now confirms the Bible. Job 28:25 saysair has weight, science then said it was weightless, science now confirms the Bible. Ecclesiastes 1:6 says the air blows in cyclones, science then said it blew straight, science now confirms the Bible. Leviticus 17:11 says blood is the source of life, and health, science then said sick people must be bled, science now confirms the Bible. 2 Samuel 22:16,and Jonah 2:6 says the ocean floor contains mountains, and valleys, science then said it was flat, science now confirms the Bible. Job 3:16 says the ocean contains springs, science then said it was only fed by rivers, and rain, science now confirms the Bible. Leviticus 15:13 says when dealing with disease you should wash your hands with running water, science then said to use still water, science now confirms the Bible. So the Bible is very ture in a scientific manner
Sastra, I will try to get back to you on your list
And Sastra, like I said, you’re very welcome to email me at [email protected] if you want me to answer your question easier.
A Christian, you are just another Liar for JebusTM. As a working scientist, the only science in the bible is that projected there by idiots like yourself. It is not a primary source for anything in science. Or secondary, or tertiary. In fact, science ignores the bible because is a collection of myths from 2000 years ago. So saying that is scientific is the second of Mark Twain’s classification of lies.
kamaka – You are correct about the prostitute bit. Mary Magdalene being the lover of Jesus got thrown out of the bible with a whole load of other gospels. The story about Mary and Jesus being lovers is in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Even there some very important parts are missing.
A Christian,
It doesn’t say anything about elements. It just says “so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”.
The verse says “the circle of the earth” as in a circular disc. Also, the ancient Greeks knew the world was a SPHERE.
Citation please.
It just says “countless as the stars of the sky”. Either that means: (1) there are an infinite number of stars which is wrong or (2) that there are alot of stars, which anyone who has seen the fucking sky at night could tell you is true.
_ _ _ _ _
I can keep going, but I think you see the point. You are a best deluded or at worst completely intellectually dishonest. Why didn’t you include the verses implying pi is 3 and bats are birds? The bible is not even up to the science of its day!
Science hasn’t progress by looking at the bible. It progressed through hard work, experimentation and critical thinking. Scientists have NEVER made a breakthrough by looking up verses in the bible.
When the bible has had an influence on science it has been negative (see Galileo and theory of natural selection).
A few off you have asked me to stay on a scientific view, well, I would like to also go to a historic, and archeological view. First historical, to prove something historically, you must see how close is the original writing to what we have today. Today we have over 24,000 original copies of the New testament. Scientists such as John Warwick Montgomery have said that no other ancient document is as well atested bibliographically as the New Testament. And the New Testament is the part that tells us that Jesus is the Son of God, and has Godly powers, as many of you on here have made fun of, and said is false. And there must be no contridictions, to prove it historically. Dr. Gleason Archer once said: As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another, and have studied the alleged contridictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of scripture has been repeatedly verified and strenthened. Many people claim there are contrdictions in the Bible, but not one has been identfied. The external evidence is amazing as well, Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Joshephus, a Jewish historian, both support the historical accuracy of the Bible, for example, there were 17 secular historians who wrote about Jesus’ death on the cross. The could not have been concoted by a group of men:External historical records attest to the truth of the Bible. Also, the Bible accurately describes history down tothe last detail, and history attests to the accuracy of the Bible. For example, the rise, and fall of great empires such as Greece, and Rome(Daniel 2:39-40) And destruction of major cities such as Tyre, and Sidon(Isaiah 23)Tyre’s demise is recorded by ancient historians. They tell how-after King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon failed in a 13 year attempt to capture the seacost city-Alexander The Great laid siege to it for 7 months, and destroyed it, and it’s inhabitants. Inensive, and prolonged studies have shown that the historical accuracy of the Bible is FAR superior tothe written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations.
Now for the archeological evidence. There are over 25,000 archeological finds that provide support for the people, and their locations stated in the Bible. These finds reveal the Bible to be true. Nelson Glueck, a renowned Jewish archeologist, wrote: It may be stated categorically that NO acrcheological discovery has every controverted a biblical reference. Another archeologist, Millar Burrows said: The Bible is supported by archeological evidence again, and again. On the whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respectof scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents. I will go over the scientific evidence later. It goes along with the post I left science now confirms the Bible.
A Christian, your bible is a collection of myths. Yes, there is some some overlap with history, but there is also complete negation for some things, like the world wide flood. And if any part of the bible is wrong, it can all be wrong. So save yourself some grief and stay home with you mental masturbations trying to prove that the bible has any validity except to the delusional believers.
Posted by: A Christian | December 30, 2008
Jog 26:7 says the Earth is hanging in space, science at the time thought it sat on the back of an animal, and that animal on another, and so on, and so on.
Seems that A Christian is confusing “science” with Discworld. Also, I had no idea that the Earth is just hanging in space. How is it hung up; string, thumb tack, sticky tack, tape, wire?
How many bible contradictions would you like me to list?
I have all day.
Daniel 2:39-40,
That is NOT a “history to the last detail” of the Romans and Greeks. That is two vague predictions.
Historical records show a New York City exists. That doesn’t make Spiderman an historical documentary.
There is NO evidence for a massive exodus of slaves from Egypt, a world wide flood, a Tower of babel, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.
Feynmaniacc, this is a fun game. In the novel The Seven Percent Solution, Sherlock Holmes and Sigmund Freud appears. We have prove that Sigmund Freud existed. Therefore Sherlock Holmes existed.
Feynmaniacc – How interesting! Daniel 2:39, 40 is a rip off of the story told between lines 170 – 204 of Hesiod, Works and Days.
That’s probably the best chuckle I’ll have all day. ;o)
Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Joshephus, a Jewish historian, both support the historical accuracy of the Bible, for example, there were 17 secular historians who wrote about Jesus’ death on the cross.
Do you even know you’re lying, or are you just mindlessly repeating the lies you’ve been told?
Anyway, in a pack of lies, here we have a true howler. Tacitus was writing about the existence of Christians during the reign of Nero, which nobody disputes. The reference to the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is obviously just a report of Christian hearsay and not attested to in any contemporary Roman records, because Tacitus calles Pilate a procurator when his title was in fact Prefect of Judaea. He also calls your religion “hideous and shameful” and a “mischievous superstition.” I suppose those passages “support the historical accuracy of the Bible” too.
If you had read anything other than lying apologists, you would know that the passage in Josephus is widely regarded to be a later Christian interpolation, in part or in whole, and is thus entirely untrustworthy. Lying for Jesus has a long history, you see.
Finally, please list your “17 secular historians who wrote about Jesus’ death on the cross.”
What is an “original copy”? Surely something is either an original or a copy. Which is it?
What does it mean for a document to be well-attested bibliographically? It’s like saying Daisy the cow is well-attested bovinely. It’s either tautology or nonsense.
So what? The Tuatha Dé Danann says that the Fir Bolg went to live underground and became leprechauns. Does this mean that we’re to believe in leprechauns because they’re written about in a very old book?
Who the hell is Dr. Gleason Archer and why should I place any significance on what he has to say? From your report, it seems that the man is an imbecile without the critical reasoning skills of a pickled cabbage.
Try Googling for “contradictions in the bible”. Here’s what I found: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
No, this is simply false. Tacitus doesn’t mention Jesus by name, so his reference could’ve been to any of dozens of Jewish preachers known to have been wandering the Levant at the time. The passage from Josephus mentioning Jesus by name is now known, and admitted, to be a later Vatican forgery. There are no, repeat no! none! zilch! zero! contemporary accounts of Jesus’ death.
So what if it does? Ian Fleming’s novels describe 20th century London very accurately, does that mean that James Bond is real?
That is simply false. To the extent that anything in the Bible is historically corroborated, what do you think it’s corroborated with, you fucking moron?
Oh, really? Archaeology shows that the Nazareth was abandoned before 500BC and only settled again, when it became known as Nazareth, after 200AD. Where was Jesus from again?
Free advice: don’t waste your time. Go out and have a few beers instead.
Bible errors and contradictions
– Leviticus 11:13-19 lists bats as birds.
-Matthew 13:31-32 states that “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed… is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree.”
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. It’s not a shurb or tree.
-1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chron. 4:2: “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to another: it was round all about and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”
Pi= 30/10 = 3
– Jeremiah 3:12 “…for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.”
Jeremiah 17:4 “Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall be forever.”
– Genesis 1:24-27 says birds and beast as being created before man. Genesis 2: 18-19 says they were created after.
– 2 Kings 2:11 “…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up into heaven, except the one who came from heaven.”
– Genesis 32:30 “Jacob said, ‘I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'”
John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time.”
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 30, 2008
What is an “original copy”? Surely something is either an original or a copy. Which is it?
Must of missed the news of the great printing press industry of the Roman Era.
We are talking about historicity of Jesus now? Did you guys see this http://richarddawkins.net/article,3470,n,n ?
Just want to throw in some information from my field of study re: Mary Magdelane and the role of women in early Xtianity. (Please be assured that I don’t believe any of this except as a social, cultural and historical field of study.)
Thre’s no doubt at all that the patriarchal males who controlled the early church, and who wrote its history, de-emphasized the role of females in whatever circle gathered around Jesus and formed the nucleus of his movement. And there is reasonable basis to believe, even from the canonical writings, that certain women, including Mary Magdalene, probably occupied a more important role in the early movement than even 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Xtians gave credit to.
But please do not fall into the trap of saying on the one hand that the canonical writings are distorted and inaccurate, but such books as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene are not. All of these writings are written as propaganda, not history. And many of the “gospels” being touted as proofs against the established view (such as those of Judas, Mary Magdalene, Peter, etc.) are just as much a product of ideology than history than the canonical writings, if not more so. For one thing, they are mostly composed later in time, written by communities more on the fringe of the movement, and usually very idiosyncratic in their ideology.
This doesn’t mean that perhaps buried somewhere inside the texts is something with an historical basis – but usually it’s as difficult to recover as any substance in the verses of Nostradamus. And just as reliable.
There’s a reason why most Xians shy away from scholarly study of their own scriptures and history – it shows how fallibly human the whole thing is. And it’s a complicated subject if looked at only from the viewpoint of historical and literary criticism.
Don’t mean to sound preachy but some of the comments above just sounded like some of the bloggers here being as literal about writings like the gospel of Mary Magdalene as the findies are about the canonical writings.
I think A Christian didn’t realize many of us have read the bible in toto, not just selective pieces of it. We are familiar with it, as reading the bible cover to cover seems to be a leading cause of atheism. The bible bites its own tail too many times to be a logical, god inspired book. If that was the case, we would hear the voice of one author instead of the multitude of small minds that put ink to parchment.
A Christian, have you seen the Nova special The Bible’s Buried Secrets? Take a look at it.
Janine #107,
Maybe by showing A Christian maps and photos of Tokyo we can convince him that Godzilla exists!
Patricia #108,
I looked it up. The similarities are interesting.
Today we have over 24,000 original copies of the New testament. A Christian
Not one of them from earlier than the 4th century.
Feynmaniac, I can see trouble brewing already for this. Which Godzilla? The Japanese one or the big budget American remodel?
A Christian #97 & 98 wrote:
Thanks much, but I’d prefer to bookmark this page and wait for you to answer me here, in part because I suspect others are also curious as to which of the 14 ‘points’ you take issue with. The list is at #92, so I won’t bother reposting it. Each numbered statement is specific, but not particularly technical. I’m not a scientist, but I could follow along pretty well, I think. I’m particularly interested in the first statement you disagree with, since that may be the beginning of your misunderstanding or confusion with evolution.
I do think it’s going to be a lot of work for you, though, arguing for both creationism and Christianity. You may wish to invite others, if only to even out the numbers. Otherwise, you’re going to feel swamped. Most of us have seen all your arguments before.
And, of course, there are Christians who have no problem with evolution — to them, God is somewhere “behind” nature, He doesn’t directly intervene and tinker with what He began so perfectly.
Some very important parts are missing doesn’t sound too literal to me. ;o)
Today we have over 24,000 original copies of the New testament. A Christian
The earliest example of text from the NT is a small scrap of papyrus form Egypt, dated to about 130-140 CE, that has just a couple of words from the Gospel of Mark on it. As Nick Gotts points out, the earliest complete copies of the NT are from the 4th and 5th centuries CE. And even then, they contain a number of writings which the later Church dropped from the canon, like 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
And the texts of these earliest copies differs in some ways between each other, and certainly from the King James Version which is almost 1200 years later, and based on very incomplete or inaccurate sources. The KJV may be beautiful English, but an accurate translation of the originals it is not.
And many of the “gospels” being touted as proofs against the established view (such as those of Judas, Mary Magdalene, Peter, etc.) are just as much a product of ideology than history than the canonical writings, if not more so.
Who said otherwise? Non-canonical materials merely serve to illustrate the sheer diversity of eschatological theologies in the period, and incidentally, to cast doubt on the proposition that a single historical figure gave rise to so many divergent interpretations.
For one thing, they are mostly composed later in time, written by communities more on the fringe of the movement, and usually very idiosyncratic in their ideology.
There’s a long-standing tradition in NT scholarship to this effect, but it’s hard to read this statement as anything other than an apologetic for the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, may well be earlier than even Mark, and I find it hard to justify calling Egyptian/Alexandrian Gnosticism “fringe” or “idiosyncratic” over and above, say, the Johannine literature, which is canonical.
The problem with identifying the “fringe” of “the movement” and determining in retrospect what theologies were and were not “idiosyncratic,” is that there was no “the movement” in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. There were many movements, obviously, and a syncretic version of them emerged as an orthodoxy by the 3rd century. That’s about all you can say. The synoptics were no doubt considered “fringe” and “idiosyncratic” by many Gnostics, and before what is now known as Catholicism was beginning to be established, there was no objective way to say that one was the core of the movement and one was not.
Nerd – Is that Nova program on YouTube or out on DVD? Did you think it was any good?
Feyn – Yep, the most interesting part is that Hesiod lived in the late eight century BC. I’d like to hear some christian explain that coincidence. *grin*
CJO in #122
We are actually in agreement. If my comment was not as precise as it could be, please chalk it up to my tossing it off as a spur-of-the-moment contribution, and not a carefully phrased statement such as I would compose for a more sholarly outlet.
And if my comment showed any “bias” toward the mainstream, orthodox or canonical, that’s probably the result of the history being written by the victors. They usually have better preserved sources. It’s always been an interesting question as to what “Xtianity” might have looked like if one or more of the non-orthodox groups had had more success in preserving or promulgating their viewpoints.
Damn typo, *eighth* of course.
Well crap. They just don’t make many good christian trolls anymore.
Looks like the Bible Contradiction Game is over. You win this round Feynmaniac, but only because he quit before any of the rest of us got a shot off.
I found the program fascinating, and very well done. I heard that it was available for streaming from the PBS web site. I don’t know about YouTube. It’s two hours long. It is also available through other means.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, this is the same stupid crap list of bible crap that was posted just a while back.
The “only 1,100” stars claim apparently derives from the fucking Almagest; the al-kitabu-l-mijisti; the Mathematike Syntaxis; the Hè Megalè Syntaxis, by Claudius Ptolemaeus, who lived AD 83-c.168. The Almagest does not anywhere say that the approximately 1022 1 stars listed in the star catalogue section are the only stars that there are. The book predates the telescope by more than a thousand years, and is the source of the geocentric model of the solar system.
Ironically, when Galilei tried to argue heliocentrism, the Almagest was the authoritative source used against him.
_________________________________
1: different editions have slightly different lists, no doubt as a result of additions and/or corrections (due to stellar proper motion) by later astronomers
Thanks Nerd. A quick call to Hollywood Video, they don’t have the Nova special. I’ll try googling around some.
Patricia, with a little “bit” of work, you can find the program.
Just think in 2000 years time how many copies of the Da Vinci Code there will be. 24,000 copies of the same document is not 24,000 different sources – it’s still the same source.
No it doesn’t. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming: the progressive fossil record, the similarity of genetic code of all life, the morphology and distribution of species, etc. The bible doesn’t talk about evolution, it gets the basic facts wrong. The cosmology of the bible is wrong too. The bible’s cosmology: heavens, earth, light, plants, sun, moon, stars, birds, land animals. How it happened: big bang, light, stars, sun, earth, moon, plants, land animals, birds. Bible gets it wrong again.
I asked you to be scientific, not say the bible is a reliable historical document because the book clearly doesn’t fit with the evidence. It’s not a science textbook, it never was and it never will be. It was written by a people who thought that floods and droughts were caused by having sex the wrong way. I ask for scientific evidence: radiometric dating, a look at the fossil record, looking into DNA, that kind of thing. This isn’t a game of “read the mythology” science is done on actual empirical evidence.
And on the topic of biblicial history, check out “Who Wrote The Bible”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620
There was also a PBS Nova doco on how archaeology fits in with the bible, I suggest you watch that too. Turns out the bible doesn’t fit exactly with archaeology, it is misleading on some instances and flat-out wrong on others. Hell, even the story of Jesus’ birth doesn’t match up – Luke and Matthew both reference historical events that take place 10 years apart.
You can’t argue from the authority of the bible in science, I asked for scientific evidence, not a lesson on how you’ve warped your mind to think that the poor writings of goat herders is really true. Just remember, The Iliad is the 2nd best preserved historical book, but that doesn’t mean a greek goddess came out of the waters to comfort the troops before battle…
Look how well he sidestepped the scientific argument there. He completely ignored the science and went straight for history, then used the idea that the bible was historically accurate to prove the bible scientifically. It’s like he’s ignorant of biblical history, the state of biblical archaeology, and the process of science. I’ve only ever had a cursory look at the historical and archaeological evidence concerning the bible, and it didn’t take much to find the amount of contradictory evidence.
Even so, he should be admired for his tactic. Moved the discussion to his turf: the bible and from there all he has to do is argue the bible’s accuracy. Too bad that doesn’t cut it in science, it’s all about empirical evidence and building on what we already know. If you want to do science A Christian, you need to understand where we are at scientifically.
All right, there’s WAY to many questions for me to answer. Please, state your case in an email to me please. [email protected] I can’t answer 50 questions at once. And I want to discuss something on here: can someone please list the evolutionary chart(Lucy, etc) And once again, I ask, PLEASE email me! I will answer your questions. And seeing how this post is at the bottom of the page, it would be easier via email. And I’ll be right back, I have some things to show you about the flood, and some other things.
A Christian, either post here or shut up. We are not interested in talking to an obvious idiot on his site.
I asked one before: scientific evidence for creationism. Instead you gave me a bad history lesson. I’m not interested in how accurate you think the bible is, I’m interested in the science behind it all.
A Christian, you came to this blog. Answer questions here, that are posed here.
A Christian #133 wrote:
Then answer only one of the questions. Find something and focus.
It probably wasn’t a good idea to post a whole bunch of different stuff at once.
No, no… not more things. Focus on one thing.
And please don’t let the number of questions overwhelm you. Feel free to pick a couple that you think you can best answer and only go with them.
A Christian, the fact that the bible uses some historical geographical points as references does not in any way lend validity to the supernatural claims it makes.
Does the story of King Arthur mean that the lady of the lake is true and that Merlin really existed and had magical powers because of the references to actual geographical points in England?
nc th rly nntnth cntry hstrcl glgy hs dvlpd lng lns dfnd by th prsppstns f ntrlsm nd nfrmtrnsm. Th rvvl f n ltrntv schm, dstngshd by th prrty f sprntrl rvltn nd drvtv ctstrphsm, ws chrntly lnchd by th pblctn f Th Gnss Fld n 1961. Th fld f crtnst glgy hs chrd nd grwn snc thn. Th mmnsty f th tsk f cnstrctng vbl Bbl-bsd ltrntv t ccptd glgc hstry hs bn lttl pprctd by mny, nd hs prvn vn mr dffclt by th lck f wrkrs wllng t ndrtk sch jb. And yt, vr th pst 38 yrs, sm prgrss hs bn md by th ddctd ffrts f th nmrclly-lmtd crtnst cmmnty.
In kpng wth mkng th mst ffcnt s f lmtd rsrcs, crtnsts hv gnrlly ttmptd t fnd s mch cmmn grnd s pssbl btwn th dmnds f Bblcl hstrcl tchng nd nfrmtrn glgy. Th bvs dvntg f ths pprch ws th ptntl fr rltvly qck nd sy synthss f Bblcl hstry wth th bjctv rck rcrd. Mny ds hv bn prpsd snc ths tm n n ttmpt t brdg Fld glgy t mdrn glgy. Snc mdrn hstrcl glgy s dfnd nd smmrzd by th glbl nfrmtrn strtgrphc clmn (GUC), th lgcl strtng pnt hs bn th rntrprttn f th GUC wthn ctstrphc nd shrt-trm frmwrk. Th mn fcs f ths ffrt hs bn th mrgng f th frst lvn chptrs f Gnss nt th GUC (Fgr 1). Frm cncptl stndpnt ths pprch pprs rsnbl. Hwvr, th xprnc f th pst svrl dcds hs shwn tht ntgrtn s dffclt, prhps bcs th xtrscntfc prsppstns f ntrlsm nd nfrmtrnsm r prvsvly mbddd n th GUC. Ths th tsk f dfnng cnsstnt pprch t crtnst strtgrphy s mr cmplx thn ws ntlly thght. Erly wrnngs, sndd by Wdmrpp (1981), hv nt bn wdly hdd.
In th tm-wghtd frmwrk f th GUC, dntfyng tm prds n th rck rcrd ssms grt mprtnc. Clsscl nntnth cntry strtgrphy lls-trtd ths cncpt wth th grt dbts fcsng n th plcmnt f th bndrs wthn th tm/rck rcrd. Tdy, mny sclr glgsts r sng vnt nd nvrnmntl prmtrs t frthr rfn thr ntrprttn f rth hstry (Brggrn nd Vn Cvrng, 1984; Brtt nd Brd, 1997; Dnvn,1989; Erwn, 1993; Hllm, 1992; Wlgs, Hstngs, Kndll, Psmntr, Rss nd Vn Wgnr, 1988). Hwvr, s ntrlsts, thy cntn t prt wthn th frmwrk f th GUC nd ts frml tm/rck dvsns. Unfrtntly, mny ctstrphsts, thgh dvcts f yng Erth, hv dptd th nfrmtrn prccptn wth tm pr s. Thy hv dfnd thr synthss f Fld glgy nd th GUC by th crrltn f tm bndrs n th GUC t ths n Bblcl hstry (Astn, 1994; Astn nd Ws, 1994; Bmgrdnr, 1990; Snllng, Schvn, Grnr, Ernst, Astn, Grtn, Schvn, Ws, nd Tylr, 1996). Mny crtnsts hv ttmptd t sd mdfd vrsn f th GUC (.., shrtnng th tmfrm f th bsc systm) t dfn bth th pr-Fld/Fld nd th Fld/pst-Fld bndrs (Astn, 1994; Astn nd Ws, 1994; Grtn, 1996; Grnr, 1996, 1996b; Hlt, 1996; Rbnsn, 1996; Snllng, 1996; Tylr, 1997).
All f ths ttmpts hv shrd n mprtnt ssmptn–tht th tm-bsd strtgrphy f th GUC s cmptbl wth th vnt-bsd strtgrphy strngly mpld by th Bbl. Bcs th tm vlbl fr glgc wrk s s cmprssd by th Bblcl rcrd, ny ffrt t ndrstnd th rltnshps btwn th rcks nd tm my b ctlly msdrctng wrkrs wy frm mr prftbl nvstgtns f glgc hstry. A mjr shrtcmng fr crtnsts ttmptng t tlz th cncptl frmwrk f tm-bsd strtgrphy ccrs wth th pprnt dspstn t dd mltpl hgh-nrgy vnts t th sngl glbl Fld vnt f th Bbl t xpln th rck rcrd. In tslf ths ds nt ncssrly vlt th Bbl, bcs Scrptr ds nt ddrss mny thngs w fnd n glgy (.g., mtr mpcts nd thr rsltng crtrs, vlcns, tsnms, glcrs, s-lvl chngs, tc.). Hwvr th dsr t ccmmdt th GUC hs crtd dffclty n ssgnng ll f th hgh-nrgy vnts t th Fld.
A stdy f th nntnth cntry dbt btwn nfrmtrn glgy nd Chrstnty rvls clr trnd f cmprms n th prt f Chrstns tht ld t th bdctn f Bblcl thrty n rth hstry. W r cncrnd tht rly stps lng ths sm pth ppr t b ttrctng Chrstns n th twntth cntry, t. Ths pth fllws th stps f strtng wth th bblcl pstn f n nvrsl Fld, nd thn grdlly drftng twrd nfrmtrnsm by ttmptng t rcncl th Fld nd th GUC. Infrnc frm th Scrptrl ccnt, bsnt cnsdrtn f th GUC wld ttrbt th blk f th rck rcrd t th Gnss Fld. Hwvr, Chrstns tht ncrrctly ssgn n pstmlgcl qty btwn ntrl hstry nd th Bbl bgn t ln twrd th dynmc ccmltn f “fcts” spprtng th GUC. As th sphstctd cmplxty f th GUC bcm mr ttrctv, thr, lss-ctstrphc vnts wr ddd t th Gnss Fld t hrmnz “scnc” nd Scrptr. Fnlly, n ttl rtrt, Chrstns dvlpd th cnsnss tht nvrsl Fld ws n lngr rqrd, tht t ws nt vn wntd, nd tht t nccptbly ntrfrd wth Lylln strtgrphy. Sm Chrstns trd t prsrv dgr f Scrptrl ntgrty by rlgtng th Fld t th pprmst sctns f th GUC, ths llwng n nsy ccmmdtn f th nfrmtrn clmn, whl kpng thr blf n th Fld ntct. Hwvr, ths sd pth mrly ld t th cnclsn tht s th nmbr f vnts ncrs, th nrgy rqrmnts f ch n dmnsh, t th lgcl nd pnt whr n sgnfcnt nrgy vnt ws rqrd. At tht pnt, th grt bblcl jdgmnt f th Fld bcm n vrflwng f th Ephrts Rvr Vlly (Sr, 1996), th nfllng f thr th Mdtrrnn S (Mrtn, 1995) r Blck S (McInns, 1998; Ryn nd Ptmn, 1998), r vn tsnm ssctd wth th rptn f Sntrn (Myls, 1985). Frtntly, ll r ctstrphc vnts ccptbl t nfrmtrns (vn thgh th nfrmtrns r ncnsstnt t ths pnt [Rd, 1998]). Th ssnc f ths msgdd thght prcss ws cptrd by Flds (1976, p. 184) whr h lmntd:
“Thr sms t b n ssmptn tht f Chrstnty s t rlz ts fll ptntl f mpct n th scntfc cmmnty, th mssg tht n cnflcts xst btwn th Bbl nd nfrmtrn scnc mst b hrldd.”
W fr tht th frst stps f ths pth my b tkn nw n th twntth cntry by skng t hrmnz th Bbl wth th GUC. It s r pnn tht vbl crtnst strtgrphy rqrs dhrnc t Scrptr nd schws mdfctn f bblcl wrldvw t ccmmdt nfrmtrnsm.
Th Crrnt Dvd Wthn Crtnst Strtgrphy
W ssrt tht th Bbl tchs tht th glbl Fld nd ts ssctd vnts prdcd th grtst lvls f glgc nrgy (.., rsn, sdmnt trnsprt, dpstn, nw sdmnt prdctn, vlcnsm, tctnsm, trbdts, xtr-trrstrl mpcts, s-lvl chngs, tc.) vr xprncd by th plnt, nd rsltd n th frmtn f mst f th gns, mtmrphc, nd sdmntry rcks fnd n th crst drng nd shrtly ftr th Fld (Rd, Frd, nd Bnntt, 1996). Ths sm crstl ftrs hv bn rntrprtd by vltnsts s th GUC. A cls xmntn f th ntrlst wrldvw rvls tht th bss fr dng s s drvd frm nn-scntfc cnsdrtns, lthgh prsntd s scnc. Th vdnc fr th GUC s cnsdrd pwrfl by mny crtnsts, nd sm cntn t ttmpt rcncltn btwn th GUC nd th bblcl rcrd. W blv tht ths pprch css cnfsn, nd rmns ndfnd nd ncnsstnt n ts s wthn crtn glgy.
Th Bblcl pprch t ndrstndng Erth’s shrt hstry rqrs tht th physcl vdnc (.., th rck rcrd) ft wthn th cntxt nd cnstrnts f Scrptr. Thr r bsclly tw dffrnt wys f lkng t dvdng th tm/rck rcrd strtgrphclly: 1) Ths wh blv tht n ccmmdtn wth th GUC s pssbl, nd 2) ths wh rjct th GUC fr n ltrnt bblcl frmwrk. W fll nt th lttr ctgry, whch mst b ndrstd bcs t nflncs th mnnr n whch w ttmpt t rslv Fld-bsd glgy (Fgr 2).
Althgh th prsnt crtnst dbt hs pprntly bn drwn lng th lns f slctng spcfc nfrmtrn clmn “gldn spk” s Fld bndry, t hs bcm bvs s wrk prgrsss tht th rl ss s whthr r nt th GUC hs ny s wthn crtnst strtgrphy. Ths ss hs bn ddrssd n n ndrct mnnr by th flr f ll crtnsts dsrng pplctn f th GUC t rch grmnt n th plcmnt f sngl Fld-rltd bndry. It my b tr tht rsltn f th bndrs dspt rmns t b rslvd n th cntxt f th GUC; hwvr, t s ls pssbl tht th nblty t rch sch rsltn s tslf ndctv tht n rsltn cn b fnd wthn th crrnt cntxt f th dbt.
W prps t tst th cmptblty f ny hrmnztn f th Bbl wth th GUC by rfrnc t th Nrthrn Glf f Mxc Bsn (NGOMB) sdmntry wdg. Ths rtcl wll cmpr svrl prpsls md by yng-rth crtnsts fr th lctn f th Fld/pst-Fld bndry (bsd n pplyng th GUC) t th NGOMB strtgrphc clmn, wdly cnsdrd rltvly cmplt n th Mszc nd Cnzc rthms. W wll shw th nsrmntbl physcl prblms f ch prpsl. If cnsstnt Fld-rltd bndry cnnt b dntfd n th GUC, thn w blv tht th rgmnt t dvrc crtnst strtgrphy frm th GUC nd t dvlp n ltrntv synthss f glgc dt wth Bblcl hstry shld b cnsdrd.
Thr s n ddtnl bnft t ths xmntn. W fr n pstmlgcl mblnc btwn Scrptr nd nfrmtrn glgy. Cntrry t mdrn pstvsm, w ssrt tht bblcl rvltn s prmry nd sprr t ny ntrlst ntrprttn f hstry. Ths, thr cn b n blncd cmprsn btwn th “trth f scnc” nd th trth f Scrptr n n ttmpt t rcncl th tw. Rthr, ny ntrprttn f hstry tht rjcts bblcl rvltn shld n trn b rjctd nd ts ntrprtv rslts shld b crflly xmnd fr ll hddn prsppstns mplntd by th ntrlst frmwrk. A snd yng-rth Fld glgy shld nt fr crfl xmntn f prpsd hstrcl mdls, snc cnfdnc n th trth f Scrptr cnnt dpnd n ny wy n ntrl hstry.
Tbl I. Rgh stmts f sdmnt vlms fr th Mszc Er, th Cnzc Er, th Qtrnry Prd, nd th mdrn Msssspp Rvr dlt pln. Estmts fr th frst thr wr drvd frm crss sctns shwn n Fgr 3 f Jcksn nd Gllwy (1984). Th stmt f th mdrn Msssspp Rvr dlt pln ws drvd frm n rl xtnt f 13,300 sqr mls frm Fgr 2 f Klb nd Drnbsch (1975) nd mxmm thcknss f 1000 ft frm Gld (1970). Th mxmm thcknss ws sd t prtlly ffst dltc sdmnts trnsprtd ffshr by dstl sdmnt dstrbtn prcsss. Ths stmts, hwvr crd, rnfrc th nttv ntnt f th fgrs rgrdng th rt f sdmnttn ndd n th pst-Fld r t ccmmdt th vrs bndry prpsls.
——————————————————————————–
Rfrnc Unt Estmtd vlm f sdmnt (km3)
——————————————————————————–
Mszc Er 24,000,000
Cnzc Er 6,000,000
Qtrnry Prd 1,500,000
Mdrn Msssspp dlt pln (6000 y. stmtd) 100,000
——————————————————————————–
Tstng GUC-Drvd Bndrs n th Glf f Mxc Bsn
Th NGOMB prvds n xcllnt sttng fr tstng vrs Fld/pst-Fld bndrs bcs f ts rbst sdmntry rprsnttn f th Mszc/Cnzc rthms. Thr dffrnt prpsls r tstd sng th NGOMB sdmntry sqnc. Spcfclly, w wll xmn prpsls fr plcng th Fld/pst-Fld bndry t: 1) th bndry btwn th Plzc nd Mszc, 2) th bndry btwn th Mszc nd Cnzc nd, 3) th bndry smwhr n th Plcn/Plstcn. Estmtd vlms f Mszc, Cnzc, nd Qtrnry sdmnts r prsntd fr cmprsn n Tbl I, lng wth th prsnt dy vlm f th mdrn Msssspp Rvr dlt pln. Althgh ths nmbrs r crd stmts, thy prvd ddtnl nfrmtn t spprt th dgrms prsntd n fgrs blw. Any bblcl mdl f Erth hstry mst b bl t xpln fld vdnc (Rd nd Frd, 1997). W blv tht crfl xmntn f vrs yng-rth Fld strtgrphc mdls wll dsqlfy ny f thm tht r blt n ny ttmpt t hrmnz th Scrptrs wth th GUC.
Plzc/Mszc Bndry
Rcnt spprt fr Plzc/Mszc – Fld/pst-Fld bndry ws prsntd n spcl sympsm wthn th Crtn Ex Nhl Tchncl Jrnl (s Snllng 1996). Svrl rtcls prpsd nd dfndd th Plzc/Mszc bndry s mrkng th trmntn f th Gnss Fld. Nmrs rgmnts wr dvncd t hrmnz th GUC wth th glbl Fld f Gnss. Wdmrpp (1996) nd Frd (1997) tk ss wth ths pprch bcs f ts prcvd nhrnt spprt f vltn, nd bcs t rqrd mltpl lrg-scl (.., glbl) xtr-bblcl ctstrphs fllwng th Fld t ccmmdt th nfrmtrn clmn wthn yng-rth tm frm.
Hw ds ths prpsl xpln th sdmntry sctn n th NGOMB? Th Plzc/Mszc bndry wthn th NGOMB s prsntd n Fgr 3. If th mdl prpsng tht th Plzc/Mszc bndry rprsnts th nd f th Gnss Fld, t mst xpln th fllwng:
Th trmnds vlm f sdmnt dpstd ftr th Fld (th crss-sctn rflcts sdmnt wdg rngng p t 10 mls thck nd xtndng sm 720 mls t nt th NGOMB lng mch f ts ltrl xtnt),
Th drmtc vrtns n mn s lvl tht ppr t hv rngd frm th fll ln drng th Mszc t wll ffshr n th prsnt Glf f Mxc drng rcnt tms.
Th dffclty n jstfyng th hgh nrgy lvls drng pst-Fld tm rqrd fr ths vlm f sdmnt t b rdd nd dpstd n th NGOMB, nd
Th dffclty n dscrbng n dqt src fr th sdmnts prt frm Fld cndtns.
W d nt blv tht ny rsnbl xplntn cn b ffrd fr ths cndtns n th NGOMB. Ths, thr th bndry s ncrrctly plcd n ths prpsl rltv t th GUC, r th dffrnc btwn plsbly sttng th bndry t th bs f th Mszc n slctd lcls bt nt n th NGOMB sggsts tht th GUC cnnt b hrmnzd wth bblcl hstry. Smlr xmpls f mmns vlms f pst-Plzc sdmnt cn b fnd n Nrth Afrc, th Nrth S, Indns, tc. In-dpth dscssn f ths rs s bynd th scp f ths ppr, bt ffr vns f frthr rsrch fr ny ntrstd crtnst. Althgh xmpls cld b mltpld t dmnstrt th dffclts f dpstng th cmbnd glbl Mszc nd Cnzc rthms n ythfl, pst-Fld wrld, nly n s ndd t dmnstrt th flr f th prpsd glbl mdl. W fnd ths prpsd Fld/pst-Fld bndry ndqt n xplnng th Mszc nd Cnzc sdmnt sqncs n th NGOMB, nd nccptbl wthn th frmwrk f th yng-rth Fld mdl.
Mszc/Cnzc Bndry
Othr crtnsts spprt Fld/pst-Fld bndry t th Mszc/Cnzc bndry. Dr. Krt Ws, yng-rth crtnst, hs sttd tht “vrtlly ll crtn glgsts ccpt th ntr Cnzc s pst-Fld” (BSN, 1995, p. 18). Dr. Ws’s pstn pprs t stblsh th Fld/pst-Fld bndry t th Mszc/Cnzc cntct. Ths bndry s ls prpsd n Dr. Stv Astn’s bk n th Grnd Cnyn (1994, p. 58, Fgr 4.1). An vltn smlr t tht prfrmd bv frcs s t th cnclsn tht w d nt ndrstnd hw ths prpsd bndry cn xpln th sdmntry sqnc fnd n th NGOMB. W wlcm ny frthcmng xplntn frm thr Dr. Ws r Dr. Astn.
Hw ds ths prpsl xpln th sdmntry sctn n th NGOMB? Th Mszc/Cnzc bndry fr th NGOMB s prsntd n Fgr 4. Ths prpsl ls rqrs trmnds vlms f sdmnt t hv bn rdd nd dpstd nt th NGOMB fllwng th Fld. If th mdl prpsng tht th Plzc/Mszc bndry rprsnts th nd f th Gnss Fld, t mst xpln th fllwng:
Th trmnds vlm f sdmnt dpstd ftr th Fld (th crss-sctn rflcts sdmnt wdg rngng p t 6 mls thck nd xtndng sm 360 mls t nt th NGOMB lng mch f ts ltrl xtnt),
Th drmtc vrtns n mn s lvl tht ppr t hv rngd frm nr th fll ln drng th Cnzc t wll ffshr n th prsnt Glf f Mxc drng rcnt tms.
Th dffclty n jstfyng th hgh nrgy lvls drng pst-Fld tm rqrd fr ths vlm f sdmnt t b rdd nd dpstd n th NGOMB, nd
Th dffclty n dscrbng n dqt src fr th sdmnts prt frm Fld cndtns.
Lk th Plzc/Mszc bndry prpsl, w d nt blv tht ny rsnbl xplntn cn b ffrd fr ths cndtns n th NGOMB. Agn, thr th bndry s ncrrctly plcd n ths prpsl rltv t th GUC, r th dffrnc btwn plsbly sttng th bndry t th bs f th Cnzc n slctd lcls bt nt n th NGOMB sggsts tht th GUC cnnt b hrmnzd wth bblcl hstry. W fnd ths prpsd Fld/pst-Fld bndry ndqt n xplnng th Cnzc sdmntry sqnc n th NGOMB, nd thrfr nccptbl s vbl yng-rth Fld mdl.
Plcn/Plstcn Bndry
Mny yng-rth gscntsts spprt mvng th Fld/pst-Fld bndry wll p th glbl nfrmtrn strtgrphc clmn twrd th Plcn/Plstcn bndry. Of th chcs tht wld hrmnz th GUC nd th bblcl rcrd, ths pprch pprs t b th mst rsnbl whn lkng t th chngng glgc-nrgy lvls mpld by th strt. Hwvr, f sm prmtr thr thn tm (sch s chngng nrgy lvls) s th bss fr jdgng th gdnss f ft btwn Fld mdl nd th GUC, thn why nt bndn th tm-cntrd mthdlgy f th GUC. Fr mny yng-rth gscntsts th lctn f th bndry t th Plcn/Plstcn bndry s blvd t stsfy th trnstn frm th Fld nt th Ic Ag. Hwvr, prblms wth ths pprch ccr whn mvng ffshr n clstc sttng nd/r wth bgnc crbnts f ths “g” n rs sch s th Bhms, Flrd Kys (s Frd, 1999), nd th Grt Brrr Rf.
Hw ds ths prpsl xpln th sdmntry sctn n th NGOMB? Th Plcn/Plstcn bndry f th NGOMB s prsntd n Fgr 5. Ths prpsd Fld/pst-Fld dvsn s plcd nr th “tp” f th NGOMB nfrmtrn strtgrphc clmn. Ths pprch crrctly sggsts tht mst strtgrphc dpstn ccrrd drng th hgh-nrgy prd f th Fld. Th pst-Fld cntnntl nd nrshr dpsts r rltvly mnr nd rflct lwr nrgy lvls. Hwvr, n ffshr sttngs th Plstcn dpsts cn b mny thsnds f ft thck (bth clstcs nd crbnts). Wht prcsss rdd nd thn dpstd th thck blnkt f Plstcn clstc dpsts fr ffshr, nd cld ths hv frmd wthn th shrt tm cnstrnts f th pst-Fld wrld? Lkws, hw d crtnsts ccnt fr th hndrds f ft f Plstcn crbnt strt n pst-Fld sttng? W blv tht th vlm nd lctn f ths ffshr Plstcn dpsts prsnt smlr, thgh lss drmtc, prblms fr ths bndry prpsl rltv t th prcdng tw.
Anthr mprtnt ss rltd t th prpsd Plcn/Plstcn bndry s th mthd whrby ths ffshr dpsts r strtgrphclly dfnd. It s typclly dn by th trnstn f mcrfssl ssmblgs. Th ld prblm f dtng sdmnts by th vltn f bt nc gn s n ss hr. Prsntly, yng-rth crtnsts hv nt dvsd n nvrnmntl mns f sng mcrfssls t xpln sdmntry nts wthn th Bblcl frmwrk. Hnc, w rcmmnd tht th bss fr hrmnzng th GUC bndry wth th Fld bndry b rjctd ntl crtnsts cn shw tht thr s strtgrphclly sgnfcnt, bt nn-vltnry xplntn fr th mcrfssl ssmblgs.
Implctns f th Glf f Mxc Rcrd
Th pblctn f Th Gnss Fld n 1961 wll b rmmbrd s rvltnry vnt n crtnst hydrlgy nd glgy. Th dmnnt ntrlst-nfrmtrn prdgm ws chllngd n th mst fndmntl lvls, nd vn tdy th mplctns f tht chllng hv nt yt bn flly rlzd. Snc 1961, vn glgsts wh cntn t clm th ntrlst-nfrmtrn wrldvw hv bn ffctd by crtnst chllngs. Th mvmnt wy frm th strct nntnth cntry nfrmtrnsm f Lyll cn b prtly ttrbtd t Whtcmb nd Mrrs’ wrk.
Advncs n crtnst strtgrphy hv bn frstrtngly slw n th lst fr dcds. Thr hs bn n drct mpct n th sclr glgc cmmnty. Ths s bcs th ntrlsts hv bn qck t rlz th fndmntl ntr f th chllng f crtnsm nt jst t thr hstrcl scnrs, bt t thr vry wrldvw. Wth fw wrkrs, crtnst glgy hs bn bth slw t dvlp ltrnt ntrprttns nd cnfsng t ths wrkrs wh hv nsstd n th prrty f fllwng th GUC n thr wrk. Sm rsrchrs hv dscvrd tht th glf btwn th GUC nd th Bbl s wdr thn frst hpd. Sm hv nt bn bl t shft thr ssmptns twrd th Scrptrs, nd hv bcm dvcts f thstc vrsn f nfrmtrnsm tht ds n jstc t Gnss. Othrs hv nt vgrsly prsd thr mdls t lgcl cnclsns, nd ths wrk wth ncnsstncs n thr frmwrk.
Th strtgrphy cmprsng th NGOMB prvds sttng whr w cn cmpr th GUC t svrl crtnst Fld/pst-Fld bndry prpsls. Ths r prvds n xcllnt tst f th vrs thrs bcs t rprsnts rltvly cmplt nfrmtrn rck sctn spnnng th Mszc nd Cnzc. W cnsdr ths nt nly tst f th bndry prpsls pr s, bt ls f th ntr strtgc pprch f rcnclng th GUC t th Bbl. As xpctd, ch f th crtnst mdls td t th GUC fl t xpln th bsrvd strtgrphc sqnc n lgcl nd dfnsbl mnnr. Ths s bcs th nfrmtrn rck clmn mphss s n vltnry blgy nd “tm” nd nt n th trmnds glgc frcs xprncd drng nd fllwng th glbl Fld.
Assssmnt f Prvs Wrk
W r nt cndmnng th wrk f th lst frty yrs. Th rd t prgrss n knwldg ds nt lwys prcd n strght pth. Glvr (1984) clld Schlstcsm th mst frtfl flr n th hstry f ds bcs th prcss f crtclly cmprng th Arsttln nd bblcl wrldvws ws ncssry stp n mdrn wstrn thght. If th cmprsn f crrnt crtnst prpsls tht sk rcncltn btwn Scrptr nd th GUC t th NGOMB strtgrphc sctn s n dqt tst, thn th flr f crtnsts t rcncl th GUC nd th yng-rth Fld-dmntd glgc hstry f th plnt shld b cknwldgd, rcgnzd s prgrss, nd nthr strtgy prsd. Irnclly, Whtcmb nd Mrrs (1961) dscrbd nthr strtgy. Thy rlzd tht thr wrk wld rqr vst rssssmnt f glgy; nt n shllw lvl f rdjstng ntrprttn, bt n th mr fndmntl lvl f rplcng gvrnng ssmptns nd fllwng th mplctns f th nw strctr t lgcl cnclsn. Thy dvctd th rntrprttn f glgc dt wthn bblcl frmwrk, rthr thn th rntrprttn f th nfrmtrn frmwrk wthn th bblcl frmwrk. Hmn bngs ntrlly srch fr th mst ffcnt mnnr t chv gls. Hwvr, th gl f rfshnng glgy n bblcl wrldvw cnnt b dn n crsry fshn. It wll rqr xhstv rsrch t rntrprt tht dt, nt smply t rntrprt th ntrprttns.
An Altrnt Strtgy
Svrl thrs hv pntd t th ncmptblty f prsng rcncltn f th GUC nd th Bbl (Frd, 1995, 1998; Rd, 1996, 1996b, 1998; Rd nd Frd, 1997; Wlkr, 1994; Wdmrpp, 1981 – t ct th mst rcnt). A nw ltrntv rjcts th GUC bcs t rjcts th s f tm s th prmry prmtr n ntrprtng glgc hstry. Th mphss n ths mthd s n vnts nd thr ssctd nrgy rqrmnts (Frd, 1998; Rd, Frd, nd Bnntt, 1996). As wth ny prpsl skng t mtch th strtgrphc rcrd wth th Bbl, t mst ls b bl t sccssflly xpln th physcl rck rcrd n rdr fr t t b sd n yng-rth Fld stds. Rgrdlss f whthr r nt ths prtclr nrgy pprch s sccssfl, w blv tht nly n mv wy frm th GUC wll w b cpbl f dfnng crtnst glgy.
Or pprch t ndrstndng Bblcl glgc hstry s prsntd n Fgr 6. It xmns th chngng glgc-nrgy lvls s thy ffctd Antdlvn sdmnts, flr, nd fn (nd nw mtrls ddd drng nd fllwng th glbl Fld). It ds nt s trdtnl vltn-bsd mthds (.., bstrtgrphy) t dfn tm. It nstd nfrs th nrgy rqrd fr mtrls t b rdd, trnsprtd, nd dpstd, nd cmprs ths rltv lvls t Scrptr. Nt tht r nrgy-bsd strtgrphc clmn s cmpltly ndpndnt f th GUC. Th Fld/pst-Fld bndry s dfnd nvrnmntlly by th sbsdnc f hgh-nrgy Fld vnts nd th trnstn nt mr “nfrmtrn” dpstnl pttrns, rthr thn by crrltn t nfrmtrn bndry “gldn spk.” Althgh hgh-nrgy vnts ccrrng ftr th Fld my blr th bndry, ths Ic Ag nd Prsnt Ag Tmfrm dpsts cld b dgnsd by bng mr lcl n thr rl xtnt. W prps tht ths mnnr f ntrprtng th strtgrphc rcrd cn b rwrdng n rvlng th trmnds pwr f th Fld. At mnmm, t mts th ncssry crtrn f dvrcng crtnst strtgrphy frm th GUC, nd shfts th ntrprttn f Erth’s hstry bck t Bblcl pprch nd wy frm ntrlsm.
Cnclsn
Cncpts, mdls, nd ntrprtv thrs dpnd n th physcl spprtng dt. Th GUC s n llstrtn f th rlnc n nn-scntfc prsppstns tht my r my nt b rdly pprnt t th sr. Scntsts r trnd t dvlp mdls sng vlbl physcl dt. Hwvr, dffclty ccrs whn ttmptng t vlt th nn-scntfc cmpnnts f ths mdls. Exmnng th GUC “mdl” gnst th Bbl’s prsnttn f rth hstry dmnstrts th cmplt flr n nfyng ths tw wrldvws. Ovr th pst fr dcds vrs strtgs fr sng th GUC s frmwrk fr bblcl hstry hv bn prpsd by crtnsts. W hv xmnd thr f ths prpsls gnst th strt fnd wthn th NGOMB. All f ths pprchs fl thr bcs f th tm/nrgy dmnds f th sdmntry rcrd rltv t shrt pst-Fld hstry. Whl th Plcn/Plstcn bndry cms th clsst t wht w xpct wth vr-dcrsng glgc-nrgy lvls, t t flls shrt whn xmnng ffshr clstc nd crbnt ccmltns. Thr pprs t b t grt vlm f Plstcn sdmnts ffshr rqrng t mch nrgy fr t shrt prd f tm t dfn ll f ths strt s pst-Fld dpsts. Mny f th Plstcn sdmnts wr dpstd ndr hgh-nrgy cndtns tht cld nly hv ccrrd wth th clsng stgs f th Fld. Hnc, w prps tht crtnsts xmn th vrs sdmnts wth sm ndrstndng bt th nrgy ncssry t prcptt r grw thm (s n th cs f crbnts), r rd, trnsprt, nd dpst thm (fr clstcs).
Any ngng ffrt t jn th GUC t crtnst glgy mst by dfntn xpln hw t cn b hrmnzd glblly. If gvn mdl fls t th NGOMB, t hs fld. If ths ffrts fl (nd w blv thy hv) th mdl(s) mst b bndnd r mdfd! Flr t dscrd bd ds wll nly ld t grtr cnfsn n crtn scnc. Bth crtnst nd sclr scntsts rqr ntrnl crrctns t thr mdls nd ds. W blv nw pprch t crtnst strtgrphy s rqrd. W hp tht thr crtnsts wll fcs thr ffrts dvlpng cncpts nd mdls tht schw th GUC. By chngng ths cncptl frmwrk, w cn pn nw drs t ndrstndng glgy nd th Bbl, w cn fcs r stds n ndrstndng th Fld’s mpct n th Antdlvn wrld, nd w cn jttsn th vltnry bggg tht prmts th GUC. W hp ths wll ld t grtr prdctvty s w bs r nvstgtns mr cnscsly n Scrptr nstd f wrryng bt hw t mk th Bbl wrk wthn systm bsd n vltn.
Sastra has it exactly right. The reason you are being overwhelmed is that YOU said 50 stupid things all at once.
Focus. Make one claim and defend it, without running away to some new and completely different claim. And do it here in public.
Bet you can’t.
Or that Harry Potter is real because there really is a Kings Cross station in London?
Better yet, that the Da Vinci Code is true because it very accurately describes people and places? ;)
Always cite your sources if you are copy / pasting
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
BAD FORM A CHRISTIAN. Large cut and pastes are really bad form. Link to it but defend it with your own words.
A Christian #140:
Now, that was very naughty. You should know better than to cut ‘n paste so much material. Use your words.
Shame on you. Bad Christian.
And PZ would win that bet, if anyone was silly enough to make it with him. You won’t make one claim and defend it, because you can’t.
Jebus. He couldn’t.
Why do you freaking dishonest, plagiarizing gomers always fall back on copy-and-paste-without-attribution nonsense? No one is impressed. That’s stolen straight from a creationist site.
It’s also going to get disemvoweled. Knock that shit off, or you will be banned.
Dude, that’s just a cut and paste. (Tip: best to include the first letter of the crap you’re plagiarizing; otherwise it’s just excruciatingly obvious, rather than just run of the mill, oh, look what the liar and plagiarist (Creationist, in a nutshell) is doing now. The other big tip-off is that there’s lots of big words in there that you likely don’t understand. Add pig-ignorant to the list of common Creationist traits.)
If you just want us to read your favorite Creationist pile of shit, just link it, like this
A Christian, referencing work properly requires the authors, journals, volumes, pages, and years. Anything less is a sham, since people like myself, a real scientist, cannot verify your claims by accessing the primary scientific literature. Or even that the publication is considered a science journal, and is peer reviewed. Until you do proper referencing, all the data presented must be considered invalid.
He still doesn’t know how the whole “science” game works. poor guy, it’s not his fault he was taught to believe in old mythology. What’s worse is all the intellectually dishonest creationists who have build websites dedicated to exposing evolution so Mr Dickless here can quote them and think he’s doing real science.
A Christian,
Science is found in the scientific literature. Almost all scientific literature is peer reviewed, that is sent out to others in the field to confirm that the data appears accurate and the conclusions drawn are reasonable based upon the data. The journal titles usually, but not always, contain a word or two that convey the field found in the journals. This is the primary literature.
Science is only refuted by more science. Any paper can be refuted if evidence is published in the primary literature that shows the claims of paper to be false. But, science is not refuted by religion or the bible. Likewise, science doesn’t disprove religion or the bible directly. But the bible can look ridiculous if science shows its contents to be mythological rather than factual.
Also, SCOTUS has determined creationism to be a religious idea, not a scientific one. This means web sites that back creationism must be considered religious until proven otherwise. ID has also been declared a religion by a US district court, and any web site backing ID must be considered religious until prove otherwise. These sites and the contents therein cannot be used to refute science.
So if you can’t reference the primary scientific literature to back up your claims, it is time to fold your tent and stop posting.
Can’t… resist… too… much…. wrong…. on… the… internet…
Ignorant!? You’re ignorant! Whoever came up with the idea that you are so mindlessly repeating was ignorant!
The very word “atom” is a Greek one; the idea of atoms was first proposed by Greek philosophers living hundreds of years before Jesus was supposed to have been born.
And you don’t even know the book of your own religion. Hebrews 11 is talking about the invisible God! You know, the thing that you’re supposed to have faith in even though you can’t see it?
No! Wrong! The roundness of the Earth was first argued by philosophers from the evidence hundreds of years before Jesus was supposed to have been born.
Wrong! The underlined part is a complete and utter lie. No scientist or philosopher ever said such an obviously wrong idea in any seriousness.
Wrong! The astronomers of the time were far more aware of how the stars differ from one another than the ignorant religious fanatics who wrote the bible.
Bullshit! Complete and utter bullshit!
Wrong! The early philosophers who came up with the idea of atoms specifically used experiments with air to demonstrate that air has mass.
More bullshit!
Gah. Skipping more nonsense.
Only if “very ture” means “either wrong or copying what philosophers of the time had been saying for hundreds of years“.
Sheesh!
A Christian:
Is this the site where you have been getting your information?
http://www.sbea.mtu.edu:80/users/slstonge/Science.html
If it isn’t then the creationist network must circulate this crap among the faithful far and wide as propaganda.
Jesus Spotted Sphincter Christ, no wonder you guys are so stupid.
A Christian, I tell you as one human being to another: Go learn something about science and how the world works. The world is not as simple and easy to understand as your prayer group would have you believe.
Oh, and your ploy to get us to email you so that you can get into a closer correspondence with us and lead us to jesus . . . it won’t work. Trust me on this; it simply won’t work. As should be obvious by now, many of the regular commenters on this blog are far more knowledgeable than you are about your own religion–that’s the reason they rejected it.
And it should also be obvious that many of us who had the good fortune to be born to irreligious parents – and so dodged the bullet of indoctrination in the first place – are knowledgeable enough about both science and religion to see through the bush-league idiocy that you’ve presented.
Your god, if he exists, is the great deceiver; he either lied to the bible’s authors about how the universe works, or has manipulated reality to hide all evidence of his existence.
Oh right, I step out for some DVD’s and the tard comes back.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Just remember that 400 years ago, the bible was used to support geocentrism. Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 all state that the world is established and cannot be moved.
Isn’t it funny that every great advance that’s happened in science has been rationalised after the fact to be in the bible? Why isn’t that we learnt atomic theory from the bible before Bohr was able to give a proper model of the atom? Why is it that geocentrism prevailed until the likes of Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus changed the world through observation? Why is it that creationism still prevails despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
The bible predicts nothing, it’s all rationalised after the fact. If it turned out that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe I’m betting those people who claimed that the bible supports heliocentrism will change their tune and claim that the bible was right all along about geocentrism.
Are you having a laugh? Is HE having a laugh?
Imagine you’re Augustine of Hippo, a stunningly brilliant man. Obviously, you realise that religion is crock of shit, and you mention this to a few people. Word gets around, and eventually some hefty
hired goonschurch-types turn up with cudgels in hand and suggest that perhaps the church could benefit from that brain of yours – while it’s in your skull rather than splattered over the walls. Oh, and ‘praise Jesus’.Hence his writings. He knew how weak religion’s arguments were; he just didn’t want it advertised.
Shorter Augustine to scripture-twisters 1: Shut up, you’re making Christianity look bad.
Of course, a careful reading of scripture shows plenty that makes Christianity look bad. Augustine presumably tried not to think about those parts.
Or maybe he thought while reading them: “Shut up, Jesus, you’re making Christianity look bad.”
_________________________________________
1: I can’t call them literalists or fundamentalists or evangelicals; they’re even more wrong than that.
I think this was partially directed at me, so I’ll assure you that I don’t take any of the non-canonical gospels any more seriously than the canonical ones.
Like I said earlier, I’ve had a fascination with biblical theories a while back and read all kinds of material on it. some of it was good science, some of it was maybe one step down from The DaVinci Code, and I’ll count the “MM the black African sorceress” into this category, while the idea that the sayings of Jesus came from two sources (either from two cult-leaders, or from the original cult leader, and then from the writers of the Gospels themselves) is more reasonable.
Well, here’s one question I will answer,but not the only one. For #112, when I said original copies, I meant texts originally written, or one of the first.
– Leviticus 11:13-19 lists bats as birds.
Back then
-Matthew 13:31-32 states that “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed… is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree.”
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. It’s not a shurb or tree.
-1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chron. 4:2: “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to another: it was round all about and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”
Pi= 30/10 = 3
– Jeremiah 3:12 “…for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.”
If you would read before, and after this scripture it is talking to Isreal who repented of their sins, that He will not be angry with them.
Jeremiah 17:4 “Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall be forever.”
This one is talking about Judah who did not repent, and God stayed angry with them. You picked 2 verses that sounded different, and tried to contradict it, but you failed to see that God is takling to 2 seperate cities.
– Genesis 1:24-27 says birds and beast as being created before man. Genesis 2: 18-19 says they were created after.
In Genesis 2:18:21 you can see that God was talking about Eve in verse 18.
– 2 Kings 2:11 “…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up into heaven, except the one who came from heaven.”
– Genesis 32:30 “Jacob said, ‘I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'”
John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time.”
oh and A Christian, I’ve told you to check your talking point against talkorigins. if you had done that, you’d have spared yourself a barrage of predictable answers.
and it’s not our fault you brought up more and more unfinished talking points. if you had stuck to just one or two, we could have had a discussion. too bad you got stage-fright. but maybe that’ll teach you for the future that you shouldn’t try to perform unprepared.
A Christian, your whole bible is in doubt since we proved there was contradictions. So quoting the bible to us means you know you are a liar and bullshitter. Either show us some evidence from outside of your mythical book or shut up.
Sooooooo… Are you saying that big sky daddy did not know that the bats it created were mammals. Or are you saying that bats were avian and tuned into mammals?
A Christian,
Can you at least prove to us that your god exists by having him grant you at least a semblance of literacy? Your inability to type and/or spell, let alone your inability to format a post, makes my head hurt.
More time thinking and proof-reading, and less time cutting and pasting.
Or, you could get back to the issue that brought you in here — creationism — and answer my post at #92 (the 14 ‘points’ of evolution.) Just a suggestion.
ah, you came back. I take the “stage fright” comment back :-p
For #112, when I said original copies, I meant texts originally written, or one of the first. – A Christian
What does this piece of gibberish mean? Let alone the rest of that post!
I won’t answer the rest of your questions, because you’ll just keep not believing, and asking more questions, and trying to contradict the Bible. The Bible IS the true word of the living God. The Bible says For ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. It also says God commendeth His love toard us, inthat while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And it says that He arose, and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, NO man cometh unto the Father, but by ME. I challenge ANY of you to read the whole book of John in the Bible, and ask God, If you are real, reveal yourself to me. But you MUST to it with an open heart, and you MUST WANT to seek if there is a God. Jesus Christ died a horrible death, He was whipped with whips that had nails, metal, one shards, glass shards, you name it, and He was beat so bad He was almost unrecogniable as a person. Then He was nailed to the cross by His wrists, and feet, and died. He cried IT IS FINISHED! Because your sins have been paid in full, but YOU have to take it. If you don’t, you’ll go to a place called Hell, where there is fire that is never put out, and there you will be tormented for eternity, and NEVER escape the flame. Don’t reject His love. Accept it.
This will be my last post on here I believe, I will leave, and go on to others who might listen. Read the book of John, and with a sincere heart, if you really want to know if God exists, ask God to reveal Himself to you. Jesus is the answer. He’s the ONLY way to Heaven.
A Christian, we acknowledge when we are wrong, why can’t you?
Hm, no, I don’t think so. Augustine was very smart and very learned, but there were, at the time, philosophical schools which were for all practical purposes nonreligious (not exactly atheistic, but rejecting the idea of Gods as the sort who involved themselves with the lives of humans), which he could have joined.
No, like many smart people of that era (and this), I think he had a strong nonrational mystic streak that demanded that there be some sort of spirit-person out there who would take care of people’s souls after they died, and Christianity fit that need.
And again, if any of you want to talk to me, you’re welcome to email me at [email protected]
Bye! Cannot say that you be missed.
Just one thing though. All of us heard this last message you dropped here thousands of times in each of our lives. You gave us nothing new and you gave us no reason to rethink why we should accept jesus as any sort of savior.
Well, lets sum up all A Christian has said. Physical proof for the existence of god. None. Showing the the bible is inerrant and the word of god. Fail.
Just another Liar for JebusTM with no ammunition.
the originals of the New Testament do not exist, to my knowledge (and there certainly aren’t 24000 of them, unless the Evangelists and Paul were divinely protected from writer’s cramp). there are early versions, but even those are for the most part copies, they’re just early copies. it is not known how many edits those versions have undergone. (and the hypothetical gospel Q for example has never been recovered, not one piece of it), also, there’s no eyewitness accounts of the stories described in the 4 gospels, so even if we had the originals, they still would be ex post-facto descriptions, written for a particular purpose. this especially goes for the resurrection parts, which may simply be attempts to glorify an anticlimactic end of a cult-leader
Did anyone contact you the first time you left your e-mail?
Don’t reject His love. – A Christian
Or he’ll torture you for ever. Riiiiight.
I’ve asked God to reveal himself for weeks. I have a very simple test running: turning my water into vodka. I have a water bottle next to my desk so every few minutes I sip it to see if it’s changed from water to vodka. It’s around 2 months now and the water is still just water.
I say the God hypothesis is falsified
He cried IT IS FINISHED!
In John he did. But, curiously, Mark has him cry out “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”
Which is it?
And is this numbnuts actually claiming we have autographs of New Testament texts? Where do these people come from?
Why did the bible get it so wrong when it comes to biology? Why did the bible get it so wrong when it comes to cosmology? Why did the bible get it so wrong when it comes to morality? Why did the bible get it so wrong when it comes to history? That doesn’t sound like the work of an omniscient deity…
I’ve been running the same experiment as Kel. If I want alcohol in my drink, I need to buy it at the store. The water bottle always contains water. Failure on the part of mythical beings to show themselves to be real beings who can effect changes in the real world.
Owlmirror wrote:
Oh, okay. I didn’t do my research first; I was more focused – as I tend to be – on the facetious and not the factual…
Posted by: Kel | December 30, 2008
I’ve asked God to reveal himself for weeks. I have a very simple test running: turning my water into vodka.
Oh ye of little faith. Your vodka is already little water.
The bible contradicts itself, and reality. Why shouldn’t we ask questions about that, and disbelieve that?
If God is living, then he can speak for himself and tell us his “true words” himself.
You’re kind of superfluous, here.
Why? If God is real, God can speak without needing all the rigamarole.
I mean, when we read what you type, we don’t need an “open heart” or “wanting” to seek if you are real. We just read the words.
Not if he was God. God is eternal, and so cannot die. If God did die, then he wouldn’t exist anymore to be God. And of course, the story says that Jesus came back to life. If it’s not permanent, it isn’t really death.
Jesus had a bad weekend for our sins?
If God isn’t willing to do anything in this life to let me know that he exists, why should I believe that he’ll do anything in the next life, even assuming there is a next life?
Why that one in particular? Are all the other gospels wrong?
A Christian #169 wrote:
But we did listen. Then we told you why we thought you were wrong. You have to listen carefully to do that.
You don’t want people who will listen to you. You want people who will agree with you. In which case, I suggest you keep to the Praise and Worship forums. You are not cut out for discussion or debate.
Now, if a Mormon told you that he asked God to reveal whether the Mormon Church was the one true church, and God gave him warm, fuzzy feelings that said it was, you wouldn’t be convinced, nor would you think he ought to be persuaded. It’s very subjective. Emotions and hope bias our judgment; they don’t make it reliable. And a test which can’t have a negative result is no kind of test.
The test isn’t for God, you know. The test is for ourselves, to see if we’re wrong. Not to see if we can manage to believe something if we want to hard enough. A “sincere” heart will be prepared to be wrong.
This is the biggest thing we disagree on. Not God. Or the Bible. Or evolution. It’s on how reliable we should think we are, that we can trust our ‘faith’ so much, and objective evidence so little.
Sure it does – just not a kind, loving and infinitely just one. A vile dishonest monster that takes great pleasure in the confusion and misery of its creations, on the other hand, fits the description perfectly.
A Christian – I have already done what you suggested. Practiced it for 50 years, had god appear to me in person, and almost had a fear heart attack. I have a witness.
Guess what, it’s still all a lie. There is no god. None, nothing. It’s a frontal lobe seizure. I suggest to you A Christian, that you do to us what my old church is doing to me – shun us.
Or would you like to play another round of Bible Contradictions?
Kel #178 wrote:
Wait. Let me get this straight. You’ve been steadily sipping from a bottle of water that’s been next to your desk — for two months???
It’s a miracle!
I hate how Christians do this. They say you should ask God to reveal himself to you, we do so and nothing happens, and then what? It’s a failure on our part. What we class as extraordinary evidence (the physical manipulation of matter) would be trivial in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity, yet He can’t even do the trivial to reveal Himself. I call shenanigans on the whole concept of a god.
We have to, otherwise we would have a free source of vodka. ;)
Actually I have one bottle at work and one bottle at home. They both get refilled a couple of times a day. So I’m running two concurrent experiments and making sure the source material for the experiment is water when it comes out of the tap. I’m being quite thorough with this, giving God any opportunity to reveal Himself. Tonight would be really appreciated if he does something, I don’t want to have to raid my supplies for festivities tonight.
If you believe it, defend it. Don’t be a coward. If the Bible “IS the true word of the living God” then surely you can defend it, no?
So in order to believe in god you must…..
believe in god?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
you came to a skeptics blog and expected us to believe something…?
skeptics don’t believe in anything. ever. they will always question, and doubt, and discuss, and demand evidence, and look for evidence themselves. that’s what makes the skeptics. we have listened to you, have pointed out where we think you were wrong, and (if you were really willing to have a grown-up discussion) you should have pointed us to evidence that contradicts us, explained why our reasoning is illogical, and where the misunderstandings lie. If you could have made a logical, coherent, non-contradictory argument, which was supported by evidence which we could not prove to be a hoax or misrepresented… if we could test your statements in an experiment… THEN you would convince us that you were right.
but nothing you or anyone could ever say will make us believe something. skepticism just doesn’t work that way.
A Christian, have you seen god?
I’d enjoy hearing what he looked like when you saw him. Was he breathing? Did he have eyes? What was he wearing, and did he speak to you?
I would so worship that. ;-)
Kel #191 wrote:
Refilled? Oh. Never mind then.
as a matter of fact, I have spent most of the evening worshipping the gods of vodka, by eating Finnish chocolates filled with cranberry & vodka-liqueur
I wish they sold real alcohol-filled candy in this country… sigh. I miss the times as a kid when getting drunk on chocolates was still possible.
Silly Kel! god wants to give you vodka, but he knows if he did you would drink it in a sinful manner. He’s saving you from temptation, drunkenness, and gluttony.
*ducks*
I’ve got to get those chocolates when I’m over in Finland! Only 2 weeks 2 days until I arrive :D
Jadehawk, would you worship an ice sculpture of David pissing vodka?
I guess you can only get away with those things if you live in a monastery.
OT – don’t know if anyone’s mentioned it on any of the other posts but Terry Pratchett’s just been knighted.
Arise, Sir Terry!
now THAT is a phallus worth worshipping… mmmm, alcoholic blowjobs… though I suppose it would have to be goldschlager (or tequila, or whisky) for Golden Showers, so I’ll pass on that part of the festivities :-p
Just out of curiosity, I googled the e-mail address provided (wondering if “A Christian” was perhaps someone from the South Pacific whose first language was not English, so egregious were the spelling and composition errors, but I see that the Tokelau domain offers free domain registration), and the first hit was:
http://nailedband.wordpress.com/
I wonder if we were conversing with Jeremiah, Josh, or Tabetha? Or perhaps all three?
Hm. Looking at the additional hits, I’m guessing Jeremiah the drummer.
Wowbagger, you neglected to state that a golden god was also knighted.
Janine,
Robert Plant? He got a Commander of the British Empire, so he’s not ‘Sir Robert’, just Robert Plant CBE. It’s still good though.
Owlmirror, #204 – there’s only one thing lamer than being in a Christian rock band, and that’s being the drummer in a Christian rock band. In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, ‘All the best bands are affiliated with Satan.’
I think I have the answer
Janine – Do you mean Stephen Fry?!
Are we in poe land yet?
If Nail’d Drummer is a true christian, no one is allowed to give the drummer some.
Q)What’s the difference between a drummer and a drum machine?
A)You only have to punch the information into the drum machine once.
Rev. – No. I’m in hell.
We are trying to hook up the new DVD player, which required an adapter… that got purchased. The husband is fiddling with it, and the f*ing DAWG is chewing away on the adapter cables. *ROAR*
I think I’ll strangle the husband with the dawg, then feed them both to the chickens.
Oh come on Janine you vile bitch you, everyone knows this is really givin’ the drummer some.
Yikes, need any advice? All that stuff is up my alley.
Oh yeah, you big dumb chimp! Drum fight!
Amt Rigby was married to Will Rigby. Will played drums for the power pop princes, The dB’s, and now drums for Steve Earle. Plus, she is one of my favorite song writers.
Once where I lived, a christian group tried to break up a weekly drum circle on the beach because all that banging on bongos was satanic or something. (I think it’s the syncopation that’s evil, which I’m sure christian drummers carefully avoid. And I don’t think god likes minor chords, either)
Oh man, that cracked me up.
Yeah but that phrase is PURE James Brown.
vile bitch
Thanks BigDumbChimp – but alas too late. The damned Bulldog has eaten a good 12″ of the cables.
So now I go into my – make doggie barf mode.
New cables in the morning. Then I may need your help. If there was a god he’d do this for us. Stupid god. (My husband loves this new meme. Blame gawd!)
Just back from the pub and a little the worse for the alcohol coursing through my veins. Decided I’d check in to see if the ‘nozzle had replied, and I just have to say: I fucking love the way the creotards get a good pummeling in here. It’s so entertaining, I’m just grinning like a theist. I suggest a simple maxim for creationists with easily counted numbers of neurons: make your asinine claims one at a time: if you evacuate your cere-bowel of all 10 ridiculous claims at once, you will get 100 replies, which will overwhelm your frontal colon.
maybe we should write up some “rules of engagement” that get reposted every time a creotroll shows up, to make it easier for them?
though i suppose they’d just see that as us trying to censor them and stifle their creativity of thought or something.
Yeah it’s good entertainment for sure. I’m sipping some Knob Creek bourbon, listening to some Fred Wesley funk, editing some photos and cruising the various blog bashings.
Good stuff for a Tuesday night.
Yeah I’m dealing with a freaked out husky. It’s almost new years eve in SC. That means TONS of fireworks. Dog is shaking like a leaf. I feel like martin sheen in Apocalypse now. Minus the acid.
Anyone got any acid?
Looks like “A Christian” is definitely Jeremiah; he actually signs his name when crapping creationist copy-and-paste all over this (actually quite interesting) post on genetics:
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/10/30/the-defect-that-makes-us-all-human/
Note the dates on the comments: his first is 12-23-2008, despite the date of the original post. It looks like creationism evangelism is something that he has decided to start doing just last week.
Yep, looks like Jeremiah. Same cut and paste bullshit.
@OwlMirror, thanks for the link, much appreciated.
Following our exchange on my blog, Jeremiah has been sending the same exact stuff he copy/pasted here for the last week or so.
I was trying to figure out if I’m just a random target or if he does that sort of thing all the time. He followed me from another blog to my site.
I guess I an going to have to wipe out the cobwebs and get strange on your simian ass. I think that hotel is our next stop.
Nice Tea cozy
Oh shit here comes Tony Williams
Rev. BigDumbChimp – I worked the last 13 years at a veterinary hospital, and fireworks are a problem. If you can get any doggie dope for the hound that would work. Other wise if you have some lavender oil it will work too. Annoint the pooch on the bare belly and the brisket with about three drops of lavender oil. It’ll zonk the hound.
Hops and lavender buds sprinkled on the mutts bed will pacify them too. I don’t envy you putting up with a Husky in fireworks time. The only thing worse would be a Basenji or Malamute!
My Bulldogs are the most bitter dregs of the adoption chain. Hardcore abuse cases and amputee’s. So while I get angry that one of them chewed up a brand new cable, I can’t punish him. Who knows what he thought the cable was, or what it was doing.
Once again, back to good old loving gawd. He let’s people mutilate others and torture them, free will – what utter bullshit.
Thanks for the advice. Come 4th of July I’ll try it out for sure. We’re going to head north out of town to a friend of mine’s 200 acre property for NYE. The only loud noises will be me falling down. Plenty of room for the husky to run.
Patricia, kudos on adopting the dogs and on your forbearance.
I too have chooks, and my dog is a Rhodesian Ridgeback*, and I too treat them far more tolerantly than the purported Biblical god treats his pets (us).
Funny, how we show understanding and compassion, but the claimed benevolent being can’t.
* The dog (Flynn) chomped a chook, the chooks chomp the petunias…
Chimpy, ya need a serving of Drumbo.
Drumbo? Kinda sound fIREHOSEish
Mike Clark-o
talk about thread derail
Damn it Janine, you just have to prove you can be a vile bitch and go all strange on us.
This is my choice of drums. I don’t play as well as this, but I give it a hillbilly try!
Love those dogs.
Greg F,
I just came from your site: very nice!
You write well, and your topics are interesting. Rock on!
Damn, Chimpy. Drumbo was before fIREHOSE and The Minutemen. John French was the rummer for Captain Beefheart’s Magic Band back in the late sixties and early seventies.
Yeah, this thread got drummed off of the track.
Really? Damn. Good stuff.
Thank you John.
My Bulldogs are veterans of torture and abuse, but they are still kind and loving. My chooks peck them now and then.
Don’t even get me started on what havoc the girls do to my flowers, herbs and veggies! This week several of them have gotten stranded in the deep snow. They just stand there…stupid as a sheep…standing there, freezing to death.
Yeah my husky and my lab I had to put down a few months ago are/were both rescue dogs. Husky was abused, the lab was neglected to some extent. he kind of wandered up on my wife’s old job.
Holy shit! My YouTube link worked.
I’m almost inspired enough to try the bar fight scene. Buuuuut, I think I’ll wait and give it to Janine and tsg as a New Years gift.
*smirk*
Patricia, I can almost guess what you might be linking to. You slutty slut you.
Liked the mainframe. I was not really looking for drumming hillbillies. But I came across Wanda Jackson with Joe Maphis on guitar. I could not say no.
OK, you naughty vile bitch – here’s the bar fight.
http://www.youtube/watch?v=mHk86NsGIv8
It’s SO much fun!
Funny, this made me think of Christians. I wonder why? At least your girls have a being looking out for them who actually does something.
Dammit! My links suck. I’ll try one more time.
If that link doesn’t work – then tough shit on the catfight/barfight link. Dammit.
Sorry Patricia, is seems to be a broken link.
But, hey! Here is some more hillbillie music, Joe Maphis and friends on the Town Hall Party. And for Chimpy, there is a drum solo.
Wowbagger – That’s REAL isn’t it.
I love Marlene!
It’s amazing what actual existence will do for a belief system…
Janine, Marlene was the bees’ knees, but Greta was something else again.
Ninotchka is such a great movie! But you see John, I have a thing for Wiemar era cabaret. So it should come as no surprise that one performer I really love is Ute Lemper. The song gets cut off in the middle but you can find it on Berlin Cabaret Songs.
Finally I’m home, I can get into the alcohol… no thanks to God.
What on earth do you mean man?
Its 10pm here in Melbourne and I have nowhere near enough of the stuff in me yet.Then again,Im watching “Once upon a time in the West”,might be that.
Hell, I step off the computer for half a day and miss all the fun. I guess it’s fair since I got the opening shots at A Christian.
I was going to answer his counter claims of my biblical contradictions but it’s pointless now. Even if A Christian doesn’t stay away (they always seem to come back), he was never interested in debate. Plus, I have no idea how “Back then” is an argument against the bible listing bats as birds! Also, in Genesis 2:18 God is NOT making a reference to Eve….Damn it! Must stop……
Yes, people won’t necessarily be convinced by your arguments, you’ll have to defend your positions and you have hear arguments you don’t agree with. That’s called a debate! You claimed you were here looking for one.
“I won’t answer the rest of your questions, because you’ll just keep not believing…”
That, my friends, is what is called an “admission of defeat.” “I’m going to take my ball home because you never let me win.” LOL. Game over.
Plural?!!