Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Kent Hovind may be in prison but that hasn't slowed down his production of moronic arguments. On his blog he posts a letter he wrote to Frank Lay, the principal of Pace High School in Florida who seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between his school and his church. In that letter, Hovind suggests a brilliant legal strategy:
From what I can glean from the newspaper articles that have been sent to me (I know, never trust what you read in the paper - I quit taking it when my parakeet died), it seems that Judge Rodgers ruled that school officials could not endorse religion or talk about their religious beliefs within the school's cases or at school sponsored events. If what I read on LifeSiteNews.com, June 4, is true, ACLU attorney Benjamin Stevenson said school officials have a responsibility to "protect the silently held religious views of others" and to be sure that no one will "impose their religious views" on others. One headline read, "Religion Banned from Santa Rosa Schools."If this is indeed what the court and the ACLU intend then you need to begin removing the religion of evolution from your school's textbooks, tests, classes, and videos shown in class immediately! You certainly don't want to be held in contempt of court!
Evolution (not the misnamed micro-evolution that we all agree happens) is a religious world view that is not supported by science or common sense. You have been ordered to remove religion. This will be a great challenge since this particular religion is very thoroughly mixed into nearly all of your science and history books (not to mention math and literature).
To help you with this huge task, here is what I propose you read over your school's intercom, post on all bulletin boards, and publish as your official school policy:
"To all Santa Rosa County School Staff and employees,
In order to comply with the recent Federal Court ruling, banning religion in our schools, we will begin immediately to remove any reference to religious ideas that cannot be proven scientifically. While some teachers, textbooks authors, and even some scientists may sincerely believe that the earth and universe are 'billions of years old' there is obviously no way this scientific. Effective immediately, all statements about 'millions' or 'billions of years' are to be removed, eliminated, expunged, cut out, or blacked out in all school materials used in all grades. This includes, but is not limited to, textbooks, study guides, quizzes, tests, posters, class discussions, and any and all school-sponsored events or publications.
"Also, since about 60% of the US population believes the earth and universe is about 6,000 years old, textbooks will not be allowed to include religious statements like 'millions of years ago.'
"In addition, since many believe that the layers of the earth were all laid down during one world-wide flood as described by nearly every ancient civilization, whereas others believe these layers represent eras or ages that are millions of years different in age, no religious dogma about them being 'millions of years old' will be allowed in our school district. The so-called 'geologic column' does not exist on earth except in the textbooks, so anyone teaching this as fact would be promoting their religion at taxpayer's expense.
"Lastly, some sincerely believe that plants and animals all come from a common ancestor, however, there is no scientific evidence that any plant or animal is now or ever has been capable of producing offspring of a different kind. Any reference to any plant or animal 'evolving' from a different kind of ancestor should be treated as a religious statement and be removed, in keeping with the recent court decision.
"Obviously, in America, the land of freedom of religion, anyone is welcome to believe in evolution, billions of years, humans being related to apes, etc., but these people should teach this religion to their children in church or at home. No tax dollars in this district are to be used to promote this or any other religion until the appeals process is complete.
"If you see or hear anyone 'using their official position to promote their own personal religious beliefs' like the items named above, please report them to me immediately. Since Daniel Mach, the Director of Litigation on Freedom or Religion and Belief for the ACLU and ACLU attorney Benjamin Stevenson have already demonstrated their great concern that religion not be taught in our district, we feel certain that they will be glad to investigate any violations of this policy and sue any offenders who do not wish to comply with this order.
"Thank you for your help and support as we work to create a "religion free" school here in Santa Rosa County."
This kind of idiocy sounds quite convincing to his credulous followers, I'm sure. Then again, I suspect so did his rantings about why he didn't have to pay taxes because all of his money really belonged to God. How'd that legal theory work out for you, Kent? Not very well. I don't think I'd be taken advice on legal strategy from a guy in prison, would you?
Politics
Comments
Please please please PLEASE tell me it's this Pace High School:
Porn web site address almost identical to Pace High School's
Posted by: Jeff | August 28, 2009 9:37 AM
OK, so the article I linked to mentions Principal Frank Lay... it's the same one. This makes my day for some reason.
Posted by: Jeff | August 28, 2009 9:40 AM
Legal help from Kent Hovind = Research help from Andrew Wakefield = Firearm safety lessons from Dick Cheney = Class and race sensitivity etiquette from Barbara Bush
The list is endless but fun...
Posted by: MikeMa | August 28, 2009 9:43 AM
Sadly its the same school Jeff
It is nice to know that parakeets can help you read between the lines of Newspapers. I think I will need to get one so I can read this blog better.
Now thats crazy!
Is it correct then to assume this guy is in the psyche ward verse the general jail population?
Posted by: theroachman | August 28, 2009 9:44 AM
So....let me get this straight. If something is not scientifically credible, and contradicts the religious views of the majority of Americans, that makes it a religion? Hovind apparently doesn't have much respect for religion, then. Even if evolutionary theory is utterly wrong, wronger than any wrong that has ever been wronged, that doesn't nudge it any closer to being a religion than the belief that purple frogs live on the moon. And even if 60% of Americans believed that that's heresy, and it's actually green antelopes who live on the moon, that doesn't make it any closer to being a religion.
Hovind has basically defined religion as everything which is a) not true and b) contradicts the beliefs of the majority, which is pretty funny. Either that, or my brain just isn't functioning properly yet this morning. Possibly both.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 28, 2009 9:49 AM
So Kent's argument basically seems to boil down to, "A lot of people believe one thing: religion. A lot of people believe another thing: science. Therefore, science is religion."
Argh!
There are some things that are materially correct, and others that are not. Science is not religion for a whole slew of reasons (which I'm sure many - if not all - of the regular commenters know).
Even the argument, "the majority of of group X thinks Y is true, therefore Y is true" doesn't even work in areas that aren't science. If you said, "The majority of rapists think that rape is justifiable, therefore rape is justifiable," you would easily be able to say, "uh... no."
Of course, that's a minority (in terms of a population) viewpoint, and Kent is speaking about Americans in general. However, the topic to which he is referring (evolution) is something that has world-wide significance. Therefore, the selection of "America" is the selection of a minority.
However, if you choose a majority of the world's population, you can easily say something like "The majority of the world's population don't believe Christianity is true, therefore Christianity isn't true." (I wonder how Kent would like that one.)
Kent fails. Again! Too bad he didn't make this into a video to post to YouTube. Thunderf00t and others would have a field day.
Posted by: mercurianferret | August 28, 2009 10:00 AM
@ Gretchen, perhaps his parakeet was holding the last shreds of his sanity together. Kind of makes you feel sorry... for the parakeet when it was alive.
Posted by: Umlud | August 28, 2009 10:02 AM
I love the way he quickly moves from "you can't teach something not supported by science" to "you can't teach something most Americans don't believe". It's almost as if he's not very secure about the evidential basis for creationism.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 28, 2009 10:07 AM
I don't know who Kent Hovind or Frank Lay are. After reading this, I believe it's not worth expending any effort to find out.
Posted by: Mandrake | August 28, 2009 10:10 AM
Mandrake
Hovind is a jailed tax cheat, YEC, evangelical asshole.
Frank Lay is a high school principal in Florida who promoted religion in school even after signing an order agreeing to forbid that illegal practice. It is possible he will soon join Hovind behind bars. In fact, that outcome is more likely than removing evolution from science class at Pace HS.
You really have to work to keep the loonies straight.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 28, 2009 10:16 AM
What is really idiotic about Hovind's advice is that, from what I've read about the high school, I doubt evolution was really taught that much, if at all, to begin with.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | August 28, 2009 10:23 AM
Wrong! Kent fails. Still.
Posted by: pough | August 28, 2009 10:32 AM
No, Ferret, it's simpler than that. To a frighteningly large segment of the population, "religion" is the sum of all truth. It's not another way of knowing, it's the way of knowing. Therefore, to them banning "religion" from anywhere means wiping every bit of knowledge and belief.
Thus we get the "without God you can't act morally" meme and all of the other batshit insanity.
The whole religion-is-my-world-view mentality is prevalent all over the world [1]. I suspect that to some degree it's like height: you're born with a tendency in that direction and environment can only do so much.
[1] It's not just the children of Abraham, but we hear about their mishegoss more than others.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 28, 2009 10:34 AM
Hovind is a jailed tax cheat, YEC, evangelical asshole.
Its not Kent's fault. Kent's employer (um, The Employer?) forgot to mail Kent's W-2 to the IRS. Clearly, the IRS went after the wrong megalomaniac.
Heh.
Posted by: eric | August 28, 2009 10:35 AM
@MikeMa:
And it's a stupid notion, IMHO. He should lose his job beyond all doubt. But to go to prison for it proves our need for prison sentencing reform beyond all reasonable doubt. Being an idiot and a tax cheat like Hovind is one thing. Being an idiot who never deprived the state of rightful taxes nor actually, meaningfully HARMED anyone is nowhere close to being a prison-punishable offense. Let's make him do community service for a non-denominational charity to show him that you can do good without religion, but he'll learn nothing from being locked up, and the "persecution complex" community will see it as yet another example of the war on Christians.Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 28, 2009 10:39 AM
MikeMa@10: Thanks. I better start filling out my scorecard o'loonies to keep up. In my naivete, I thought there might only be a handful.
Posted by: Mandrake | August 28, 2009 10:47 AM
Paul,
I agree that prison might not be the correct punishment but willful disobedience of a lawful judge's order he signed and agreed to (though not with apparently) could indeed be a cause for harm. Harm to our justice system and the respect for the rule of law.
However, I'd much rather see him carrying a "There may be no god" placard while cleaning up town parks and roadways for a year.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 28, 2009 10:50 AM
MikeMa and Paul
I think a compromise could be made here. How about a year working the soup line for a Catholic Charity?
Posted by: theroachman | August 28, 2009 11:23 AM
I always thought the "science is just another religion" argument was quite weak, even aside from the evident differences between these "ways of knowing"(to use a bit of postmodernist jargon that I find rather cringe-inducing). If you use the term "just another religion" for an opposing belief system, doesn't that imply that your own beliefs(which in the case of creationists are clearly religion-based) are on equal standing with a potentially unlimited set of false claims?
Posted by: Emily | August 28, 2009 11:25 AM
@Paul Lundgren #15
Frank Lay has indeed done harm. He ignorantly caused non-christian students in his school to suffer through religious readings over which they had no control. He probably even harmed many christians not of his religious flavor as well.
He should go to jail, however, for disobeying the court order. 28 days or later...
Posted by: JimNorth | August 28, 2009 11:25 AM
Way too logical!
Hovind calls evolution a religion because scientists defend it with what he feels is '[scientific] dogma'. It all started with Hovind and his ilk rightfully being charged with being dogmatic creationists. That is, they held their beliefs despite being shown convincing evidence to the contrary.
Hovind or somebody got sick of the charge, and deploying a cunning plan, accused scientists of being dogmatic about evolution, and just ignored the complicated sticky part about evidence and the definition of dogma.
For Hovind, who thinks binally a lot, science is therefore the evil mirror-image of his YEC religious beliefs - it is a religion because it uses dogma instead of the word of God, has Darwin as its religious icon, uses faith because there are no transitional fossils or forms, and scientists exploit their religion of science to fleece taxpayers out of lots of money, just like Ken does with his flock.
More importantly, calling evolution a religion just plain plays well. To, you know, the marks.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 28, 2009 11:30 AM
Oh please, please PLEASE let them adopt these Hovind recommendations. To have this fight break out now, in that manner, with the synergistic ineptitudes of Lay and Hovind, would be a dream come true. If they want to draw this Maginot line now, let them; it makes our job that much easier.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | August 28, 2009 11:35 AM
gingerbaker said:
The binary of religion vs. science is recruited a lot, and it really bothers me-- especially when pro-evolution people use it. A belief which a person holds for religious reasons may still be scientifically credible, and a belief which is not scientifically credible is not necessarily religious. An unfortunate side-effect of the establishment clause when talking about what we're allowed to teach in science class, I think, is that it makes the question of whether something is religious more important than whether it's science. People like Hovind make stupid arguments about evolution being a religion because they're trying to co-opt what they see as the evolutionist's framework, which says that religion is not allowed no matter what. But I think that in order to forestall that, we need to place the emphasis on being skeptical rather than being anti-religious. Does that make sense?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 28, 2009 11:51 AM
Posted by: Deen | August 28, 2009 12:51 PM
That's link worthy. If Hovind didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him for the sheer entertainment value.
Posted by: DarkSyde | August 28, 2009 1:09 PM
Without devolving (evolving?) a thread on Ken Hovind into a thread on the religious accomodationst wars, ;D I do see your point. But I'm not sure I can agree.
First, Hovind et al are the folks trying to exploit what is a constitutional bias protecting religious sensibilities to further their creationist proselytism efforts. Their designs, arguments, and standing are held in poor esteem by the people who count and eventually their legal options will ineluctably wither. I don't think we need to act defensively to bad arguments promoted by moronic people.
Second, I do think that being skeptical implies being chary of religion, because religious claims do not hold up to rational scrutiny. And science is the ultimate skeptical process. I do feel that the practice of science and the practice of religion are based on two mutually-exclusive thought processes.
Science, IMO, could have a LOT to say about religious claims. But, at the same time, I don't see how this would support Hovind's claim that science is anti religious. The NIH is not working in concert with the WHO to remove the establishment clause. Science examines claims - that is what it does. It's like the snake in the Aesop tale who bites the fox who helps him cross the river - that is his nature.
However, from the Constitutional perspective, all science has to be in the classroom is secular. All science class need be about is science, and that is all anybody who cares both about science and the establishment clause is ever going to dare to ask of a science class. Which, in my opinion, sucks! :D
Religious claims can not be examined in a science class, despite the fact that many are quintessentially unscientific, and many of them can be tested. Quite a shame, really. Because this is how religion needs to be refuted, IMO. By examining its premises.
Atheism asks for proof of a seemingly absurd deity. Modern forensic archaeology could be publicly saying quite a lot about the outright historical lies about the events and personages crucial to most peoples faith in the Bible. It seems highly unlikely that Moses existed, or that the Jews were slaves in Egypt or roamed the desert. It is doubtful that Jesus Christ ever existed at all.
So, yes, I have difficulty with the scientific credibility of nearly all religious beliefs that I can think of! And I am frustrated with the reticence of academic/scientific entities to communicate the lack of scientific credibility of religious beliefs - even when asked outright. I feel they actually do a real disservice to the religiously-inclined because of their fears of causing insult or political repercussions.
I am afraid I am not the level-headed moderate you would need on this issue, Gretchen! :D
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 28, 2009 1:59 PM
Jeff, the article to which you linked mentions that one of the people investigating the porn website is "Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Deputy Lt. Tommy Gunn".
Tommy Gunn? Seriously??? Please tell me that's his name when he works in adult movies.
Posted by: mutzali | August 28, 2009 3:01 PM
@Gretchen:
I think you do have a central point, which I have to agree something underling what gingerbaker @21 said: dogmatism.
Scientists can easily become as dogmatic in their viewpoints as "religionists" are with theirs, including on topics that are not related to science per se, for example whether one recording artist is better than another. Some argue that the means by which a conclusion is reached is as important (or more so) than whether the conclusion is correct. However, I would argue that many people would just be happy with the correct conclusion, and would prefer that the old man in the corner would just shut up.
On example of this has been in the environmental debates between environmental scientists and evangelical churches. What was a stalemate of arguing against each other was changed with the notion of "creation care" and the softening of the viewpoint of scientists to recognize that conservation by one name is better than no conservation at all.
Was this an acceptance of religion over science? No. Just a recognition (on one level) that the old ways (the dogmatic ways of science vs. religion) weren't gaining anything for the goals of conserving natural resources and environment.
Posted by: Umlud | August 28, 2009 3:27 PM
An unfortunate side-effect of the establishment clause when talking about what we're allowed to teach in science class, I think, is that it makes the question of whether something is religious more important than whether it's science.
A much under-appreciated point, Gretchen. There's a constitutional bar to teaching religion, not one to teaching bad science. If state educational authorities became enamored of phlogiston chemistry out of sheer, but undisputably secular, ignorance and mandated that it be taught, a federal lawsuit challenging it would be dismissed. Somewhat more realistically, if alternative medicine advocates got their hands on the levers of power and required teaching quackery, same result. By and large, however, there's no effective, non-religious constituency pushing bad science for secular reasons. You sometimes see challenges brought against the teaching of "bad" history or social studies, which are often political, but secular, propoganda pushed by some dominant or noisy group with an agenda. They generally fail.
Not endorsing, just describing.
Posted by: CJColucci | August 28, 2009 4:33 PM
Posted by: Steve | August 28, 2009 4:52 PM
What always baffles me about letters like this is that the fundie authors fail to grasp even the basic strategic concept of knowing your enemy. For some reason people like Kent seem to be afraid of even verbalizing their opponents' position. Even if Kent thinks evolution is religious, smart advice would be to say something like: 'the courts have ruled in the past that evolution is not religious, so when you strip it out of the curriculum, make sure you can explain why we think it is religious.' But he doesn't say that. He doesn't even acknowledge that a non-religious view of evolution even exists. That is terrible strategy. Even a creationist should understand that you're going to have to confront non-creationist arguments in court, and be prepared for them. Pretending those arguments don't exist isn't going to help you win. Its just baffling how he can think this is good advice.
Posted by: eric | August 28, 2009 5:02 PM
So where did K. Hovind get his Masters in Teh Stoopid? You've got to train to become that ignorant, haven't you? It can't be natural, can it?
Posted by: MadScientist | August 28, 2009 5:46 PM
Hovind is a convicted criminal. A felon. And a moron.
The 1982 Supreme Court decision in McLean vs Arkansas ruled that the theory of evolution was NOT a religious argument.
Kent knows this just as he knows he should pay taxes. It explains why he's in prison.
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 28, 2009 6:20 PM
Dear big bang,
We come before you today to thank you for giving us rage against Kent Hovind. He showed people that we are stupid enough to say we came from a rock and that monkeys are our fathers. Oh big bang bless are bank acounts and thank you for the corrupt teachers, politians, judges, lawyers and media that fight daily agianst the Hebrew God and his son Jesus. Thank you that a child rapest named John D.R. Atchison helped put Hovind in jail.
Thank you for throwing the bible out of school. Thank you for abortion on demand. Thank you for teaching us your way and giveing us your darkness. Thank you for Presidents that loved Satan like FDR, LBJ. Thank you for Freemasonry and Albert Pike. Thank you, you used George W Bush to put a bad name on christians. Thank you for the spirit of antichrist and we beseach thee to bring thy Antichrist and his false prophet to power, so we can be lead into hell by our master Satan. Thank you we lie to the world and say the dinosaurs are extinct even though they still live in the Congo. We thank you for these evil men and woman who will follow you with blind faith oh big bang.
Oh big bang!!!! Oh big bang!!!!! live forever!!!!
In Satan's name we saym yes we can!!!!, Amen
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | August 28, 2009 6:57 PM
Considering how brilliantly Hovind's defense went for his tax evasion trial (e.g. huge FAIL), I don't know if he should be offering legal advice to anyone - least of all to people he allegedly likes.
Posted by: CHV | August 28, 2009 7:09 PM
See? Religious claims are often empirical, and can be tested in their own right.
P.S. What the hell?!?!
Posted by: Gretchen | August 28, 2009 7:38 PM
Bogosity alert!!
The man with the striped sun tan writes:
That should read more along the lines of:
. . . those who silently hold religious views have a personal responsibility to assure that they are not flung ass over teakettle because some one else silently, or loudly even with a cacophony, holds some other religious views. Or none at all, so there. As in the market place, caveat emptor and hold your wallet close.
Like the old song says,
*no sympathy for wimps*
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 28, 2009 7:38 PM
Off-topic:
Heavens Janitor, #34: ...child rapest named John D.R. Atchison....
You know, when I read this I thought to myself, "I bet the guy was a Republican." A little Googling showed that I was right.
A, the GOP: the party of Family Values.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 28, 2009 7:42 PM
Whoa... dinosaurs in the Congo? That's a new one on me.
Posted by: Imrryr | August 28, 2009 8:36 PM
And where's your whole big pile of evidence for that claim...?
You don't honestly mean that one blurry photograph that people were trying to pass of as the leg of a sauropod a few years back, are you? Are you? Seriously? My dear fellow, you cannot be serious.
Posted by: Josh | August 28, 2009 8:39 PM
I think it's especially funny that "Heavens Janitor" (a bizarre tag if I've ever seen one - every tear wiped from every eye, but heaven needs a janitor?) is implying that atheists worship the Big Bang (which is patently absurd: who worships events?) given that Georges Lemaitre was a priest.
Oh, and the bit about GWB was funny, too. Although I think it's more likely that people like HJ are responsible for putting GWB into a place where he could make Christians look bad.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 28, 2009 9:18 PM
Chiroptera
Can you show me where it says the republican Party is Christian in the bible? Bible says it better to tie a stone around your neck and drown yourself then it is to hurt a child. The republican party hates christians and just uses christians to vote for them. Thats why Sarah Palin is hated by her own party. The good old boys don't want her in office.
Josh
Nope I am talking about the storys I heard the natives to the Congo speak of when shown the sketches of Dinosaurs. Also that photo of that dead dinosaur pulled from the sea years ago and photographed.
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | August 28, 2009 9:28 PM
Generally, I prefer legal advice from people who manage to stay out of jail.
Posted by: MPL | August 28, 2009 9:45 PM
Heavens Janitor, #42: Can you show me where it says the republican Party is Christian in the bible?
Why? Would it be relevant to anything I wrote?
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 28, 2009 9:52 PM
Heaven's Schroeder:
I read your comments and it appears that english may not be your native language. It is also apparent that logic is not your native thought process.
Posted by: democommie | August 28, 2009 10:07 PM
... unless the child disrespects their parents, in which case it's best to throw the stone at the child.
The basking shark? BTW, someone needs a geography lesson.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Posted by: pough | August 29, 2009 1:34 AM
Janitor* - And exactly where in the bible does it mention 'Congo Plesiosaurs'^? Surely you get that arguing from biblical authority is a non-starter, especially in this case.
The Republicans identified themselves as 'the party of god' to capture Christian vote (the so-called 'Southern Strategy'; supposedly guaranteed to generate a perpetual Republican majority), thus the number of Christians within the party increased, reinforcing the idea that the Republican party was 'the party of god', and round and round it went 'till Georgie brought the merry game to a shuddering halt.
George the Least didn't need help from anyone to fail, he did it all by himself, and by loudly proclaiming his Christian faith while do was doing it, brought down his idiotic evangelical church (and the RRR captured GOP) right down on top of him ( he didn't even need a haircut!)
**********************
As to Mr Hovind and his free legal advice (worth every penny), I hope that more Evangelical Christian stacked school boards follow it, get sued, forced to back-down due to the legal rulings (since the law is clearly not in their favour), get themselves fired, and are replaced by school boards that actually care about education not indoctrination.
Just my opinion. - DJ
____________________________
*Yes, we've been here before. We are aware of the Latin root, and the fact that Janus is the god of beginnings and new enterprises too. We are also aware of your hubris that begins with your handle and just gets worse from there. Beware of nemesis. (In this case jokes and references to 'janitorial staff', on top of general mockery of your puddle-shallow ideas).
^Or, in this case, where are the biblical references mentioning rotting Basking Shark carcasses found in the Sea of Japan?
Posted by: DingoJack | August 29, 2009 3:19 AM
I foresee no downsides to taking legal advice from a man who's view of the law has him currently residing in jail.
Posted by: tincture | August 29, 2009 4:24 AM
Where is the support for this claim of yours*? What were the sketches? Who drew them? Can we see them? Did anyone record the conversations?
A dead dinosaur pulled from the sea, that lived in the Congo? What?
Where are the photographs of this dinosaur?
*Before you think I'm being unreasonable here--if I was claiming that one of the horses in my stable had four wings in addition to its legs, do you not think it would be reasonable for someone to ask to, I dunno, see the horse?
Posted by: Josh | August 29, 2009 6:24 AM
If this is the critter to which you refer, HJ:
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
not only has that myth been rather badly trounced, but to my knowledge no one was advocating that this animal was a dinosaur. Plesiosaurs and dinosaurs are not the same thing. And no, I'm not being overly pedantic here--this is a science blog. I fully expect someone to take my arguments far less seriously if I'm running around referring to turtles as amphibians.
Posted by: Josh | August 29, 2009 6:31 AM
Or, as they say in arabic, "hezbollah".
Posted by: DaveL | August 29, 2009 7:14 AM
DaveL - Precisely. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 29, 2009 7:19 AM
DingoJack:
Our ol' buddy, JD, is back at that thread from 8/20 about the military officer who complained about being harassed by KKKristians in the military. I think he might be using a sock puppet or two.
Posted by: democommie | August 29, 2009 8:31 AM
If it is true that 60% of us believe a 6,000 year old earth (or anything close to that or admit to being unsure that its billions) then the US is in serious trouble.
Please say it ain't so...
Posted by: James Brown | August 29, 2009 11:41 AM
James Brown, GOOD LORD!!! I thought you was defunked!* :) - DJ
__________
*Sadly I fear it may be so. But in a brave new world, with just a hand full of men... We'll start all over again!!
Posted by: DingoJAck | August 29, 2009 11:48 AM
Dingo, I have that album! Moody Blues and the War of the Worlds! I can hear the oooooolllaaahhhh....
Posted by: MikeMa | August 29, 2009 12:24 PM
@Josh:
Yes, I'd like to see the four winged horse. But in case that horsed live millions of years ago: thousands and thousands of fossil records will do just fine. Especially if they appear in the correct strata and historical period and have transitional forms like we find all over the world.
But maybe it makes more sense to believe what some bronze-age herders wrote about the the world. I bet they knew better than the combined scientific community of today...
Posted by: Andreas | August 29, 2009 3:32 PM
Actually as we all saw today, most of this creatonism has nothing to do with the values and beliefs of mainstream religion, or the real teachings of Jesus.
These nut cases only like selective passages of the Bible, which they get to interpret, as they wish, and they reject anyone else who may choose to interpret them differently.
These are basically greedy, self serving, and often very un-Christian con artists, who use their unique interpretation's of "God's" word, to try to gain control and power over others, through the powerful emotions that religion exerts.
Posted by: BOB2 | August 29, 2009 3:34 PM
As for Heaven's Janitor's odd screed on worshipping the Big Bang, I would like to say that his point of view would not be shared by the mainstream Christian denominations which have definitive social statements embracing science.
In fact, there is a Lutheran trained pastor in a church nearby me who is also a PhD phycisist. He did his dissertation on the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang.
How does that compute in Heaven's Janitor's fantasy universe?
Posted by: Chiefley | August 29, 2009 3:39 PM
Apparently the Tree of Knowledge, unlike the Tree of Liberty, has not been watered with the blood of Biblatriots for way too long.
Posted by: democommie | August 29, 2009 5:54 PM
"The Tree of Knowledge" was last watered with 'the blood of Biblatriots' in 2006. :( - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 30, 2009 1:09 AM
For a pastor, Mr. Hovind seems singularly unfamiliar with Matthew 22:21.
Posted by: Shay | August 30, 2009 1:34 AM
I think the most confusing part of this letter to me is where he claims math has been "thoroughly mixed" with evolution.
Science and history, sure when he equates evolution with "older than 6000 years" it is hard not to run into that. I'll even give him literature even though that tends to go both ways and very often have no reference to it what so ever.
Math though? How? Calculus, algebra, geometry, etc. have nothing to do with evolution.
Posted by: Rhino of Steel | August 30, 2009 2:24 AM
@Andreas from #57:
Why would it even take "thousands and thousands" of "fossil records?" If I found one skeleton of a four-winged horse, then I'd be advocating that horses at one point probably bore wings.
Indeed, anyone who needs "thousands and thousands of fossil records" of that horse to accept it is pretty much beyond our help. That person is hoping for/demanding something that the fossil record won't deliver for animals like horses (nor do we claim it will). Fact is, very few extinct vertebrates are known from "thousands and thousands" of specimens*. For example, when the small predatory dinosaur Compsognathus was first described in the late 19th century, it was known from a single skeleton (I think there are now...two). But that one skeleton still offered compelling evidence that a small bird-like dinosaur lived along a coast, in what is now Germany, about 145 million years ago.
Of course none of this helps the case of the four-winged horse and our good Janitor, since I was asking him about an extant hypothetical horse. That might not have been clear. Either way though, Janitor, Andreas just augments my point: if I said four-winged horse or four-winged fossil horse, wouldn't you ask to see evidence of said critter...?
*And for the mast majority of those, to say "thousands and thousands" requires me to be talking about every single known bone and piece of bone as an individual "fossil record." We can't do it by just counting every known skeleton or partial skeleton. I actually have to think of the known skeletons as a collection individual ribs, vertebrae, limb and cranial elements, and count each element as an individual "record." And even then, relatively few fossil vertebrate genera are known from "thousands and thousands of fossil records" (and they are mostly fish). If we're restricting the count to actual skeletons and partial skeletons, then we're almost exclusively talking about fish and maybe one or two fossil bird taxa, if we're very generous with the word "thousands."
Posted by: Josh | August 30, 2009 7:48 AM
DingoJack:
Sorry about the "Tree of Knowledge", but in the course of exploring things Australian, I came across this:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25991756-421,00.html
Someone should alert the GOP that they are looking at their new mascot--then of course the CADL (Cockroach Anti-Defamation League will weigh in.
Posted by: democommie | August 30, 2009 7:49 AM
"Evolution (not the misnamed micro-evolution that we all agree happens) is a religious world view that is not supported by science or common sense."
I love the juxtaposition of "science" and "common sense". Obviously, for Mr Hovind, both are more or less the same thing, and they should go in the same direction. Or else, science is wrong.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 31, 2009 6:30 AM
Demo - I favour this cute little guy for the GOP (or is that the PoG) mascot. - DJ
____________
PS: 35 grams (1.23oz) and 8.5 centimeters (3.35 inches), that's nothing mate, I've see bigger cockies at the local hamburger joint! [I jest].
Beautiful animals, still prefer spiders though.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 31, 2009 1:03 PM
Found the PoG (the religious right splinter group of the GOP) mascot. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 31, 2009 1:11 PM
You said the child rapest John D.R. Atchison who helped put Hovind away was a republican so you put his and the Republican partys sins onto christians. If the reublican party was christian why did they not tell the feds to back off Hovind?
Replie
"unless the child disrespects their parents, in which case it's best to throw the stone at the child"
Sorry but bible doesn't say anything about stoning a child who doesn't do his dishes. Its only refferring to children who were evil and refused to obey God's law. But evil is good in your eyes so evil children can do no wrong before you.
This is what a basking shark looks like get some glasses or did your brain not evolve enough to use your eyes properly? http://www.gla.ac.uk/marinestation/graphics/basking_shark_feeding_425.jpg
I use to think Bush was a chriatians for a time, but I never voted for him. And since 2005 I have known that he is not a christian.
Job 40 Behemoth (brontosaurus)
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
Having a PhD does not mean you love Jesus.
Josh
Get me a plane and the funding and we can go to Congo and ask natives ourselves.
Posted by: Heveans Janitor | August 31, 2009 4:47 PM
Well, Janitor, you and I will likely disagree on many things, but I enthusiastically support that act.
You mean Apatosaurus, of course, right? You do realize that there isn't actually a dinosaur called Brontosaurus, right?
Also, let's actually look at Job 40:
What does "as an ox" mean? Is this implying similar digestive strategies...?
Why don't we find grass fossils or grass pollen in Jurassic-aged rocks, if Apatosaurus ate grass?
Is this actually trying to imply that Apatosaurus had a navel? Why would that be?
Okay, this definitely could imply something with a big thick tail, such as an Apatosaurus, but it doesn't actually provide evidence for this animal. I've also seen some discussion regarding the translation of the Hebrew word in this passage as having nothing to do with a tail...
18 is discussing strong bones; I don't think that this directly implies any particular type of animal, other than a strong one (i.e., I don't think that this passage can be used to rule out something like an elephant).
This doesn't argue for any particular type of animal, except something that can lie under trees (which rules out lots of tree types if we're talking about a bloody Apatosaurus) near aquatic environments.
I can't find any definitive reference to Jurassic-aged willows. That makes Apatosaurus substantially less likely, I would think.
Okay, certainly something with a big thirst. I'm presuming we're not interpreting this literally (as in actually drinking a whole river, because that moves us into the same realm of animal as a unicorn...). And I don't see how this makes a sauropod more likely than some other large animal.
True statement. Jesus never came up during my defense.
Dude--I am so there.
Posted by: Josh | August 31, 2009 6:03 PM
So, wait, if we raise enough money, we can fly down to the Congo and search for dinosaurs with Heaven's Janitor? Why don't we invite mrroberts and JD too, for a real party?
(Also, doesn't that sound the premise of a horror movie...?)
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 31, 2009 6:23 PM
It does, but I think it would be a fucking blast. The dinner "conversations" alone would be worth the trip.
Posted by: Josh | August 31, 2009 6:28 PM
Josh
Brontosaurus is all I ever heard it called by. This Apatosaurus name they call it now is news to me. Just like Babylon Became Iraq and Persia became Iran.
"Why don't we find grass fossils or grass pollen in Jurassic-aged rocks, if Apatosaurus ate grass?"
I don't really undertstand this question cause I would think when Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) died all that would be left is his bones. You would think you would have to find one frozen standing up like the Mammoths to see what was in his belly.
Job (KJV)
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him
As far as I know he is the biggest and this would fit with this scripture.
Job 40:23 (New International Version)
When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth
This is a better inturpertation then the King James. It sounds like it has nothing to do drinking an entire river. Its the fact he so big the Jordan river can't push him over even when its at full force.
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 1, 2009 8:34 PM
Janitor in a conundrum:
Here's the problem, bub: you use a book of fables as evidence for you arguments. Not much else can, or need be, said.
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2009 10:01 PM
Re: #73...
The change to Apatosaurus was due to priority of naming. You could look it up. The official change was done quite some years ago. Perhaps you need to update your reading materials?
As for grass & grass pollen. Please reread the what you commented on for comprehension... *IF* Apatosaurus ate grass, *THEN* where are the grass and grass pollen fossils in the strata of the same age as Apatosaurus? (Hint: There aren't any because apatosaurus lived before grass evolved. See also fallacies involving hydrologic sorting.)
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | September 1, 2009 10:06 PM
Janitor, you're really reinforcing the negative stereotypes about your profession.
Fossil grass has been found. Fossil pollen has been found. But no fossil grass or fossil grass pollen or any fossil traces relating to grass whatsoever have ever been found in proximity to fossils of this dinosaur you claim ate grass. They are separated by millions of years of rock strata. There WAS no grass at the time this creature lived, if there had been it would have left traces, no such traces exist. How could it have eaten grass if it lived in a time when grass did not exist?
Of course, like all creationists, I know you'd rather die than learn, so you'll just pretend those fossils don't exist and go on wallowing in ignorance, bearing false witness.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 2, 2009 12:25 AM
The Amplified Bible suggests hippopotamus.
'Cedar tailed' might refer, not to the size, but the shape of the tail (I can't, of course, know what was on the mind of 6th century Judean clerical scribes). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2009 12:51 AM
Several people responded to Janitor before I got the chance to (thank you), but:
It's been called Apatosaurus for more than 100 years. Plenty has been written on this, so I won't belabor it. However, you might see:
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/*
Incidentally, Bakker has never made a really good case for his position, and certainly not to the ICZN, so Apatosaurus stands.
Others have already addressed this. Basically, we have fossil evidence of grass (mostly pollen, but some macrofossils as well). So, if the critter referenced in Job was A., a real animal, and B., one that ate grass, it's reasonable to predict that we would find fossil evidence of grass where we find fossil evidence of this animal. Since we do not find evidence of grass in the same rocks that preserve the bones of Apatosaurus, it seems that Job 40:15 argues for an animal that is not Apatosaurus. At the very least, I can argue that Job 40:15 provides no support for the Apatosaurus hypothesis.
Do you mean that you think that Apatosaurus is the biggest? Biggest what? Animal? No. That's a whale. Biggest terrestrial animal? That's not right either. Seismosaurus (and I think Diplodocus) was longer, Brachiosaurus was taller, and a host of titanosaurids (e.g., Argentinosaurus) were more massive.
Okay, but again, this doesn't argue for Apatosaurus in particular, or even, I would say, for a sauropod. I mean, it's not like the Jordan River is the most impressive waterway one has ever seen...
http://www.gonzagajil.org/pdf/volume1/Hudes/Hudes.pdf
Posted by: Josh | September 2, 2009 11:32 AM
It's a very ancient theme to associate power, strength, and male fertility/virility. Now, given that the word used in Job actually translates better to extremity than tail, let's take a second look at these passages, with a little emphasis added to the imagery of male power:
Think about it.
Posted by: DaveL | September 2, 2009 11:42 AM
DaveL
No does not make any sence as a man is not heavy and strong enough to stop a raging river. And mans body is not likes steel and can defend agianst a lance.
Josh
Dinosaurs could get bigger before the flood as they lived longer abd kept growing. After the flood when mans life lengh shortend, he and dinosaur shrunk. Thats why they have found mens bones to be 12-16 feet tall. Since then the tallest man I have heard ever recorded was Goliath at over 9 feet. In modern times though I think I heard it was over 8 feet. How does evolution explain mens bones being that large when evolution says we keep getting bigger yet the bones show the opposite.
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 3, 2009 6:20 PM
If that had happened, we would expect to see a clear trend of decreasing dinosaur size over time. We do not see this in the fossil record.
A larger problem of course, is that we don't actually see any evidence of the flood at all. According to the scenario you describe above, we should see a rock record that has a pre-flood history with large dinosaurs, a clear record of the flood event, and then a post-flood history, with small dinosaurs.
We don't see this. In fact, we don't see any evidence of a worldwide flood. Sedimentology is a rigorous discipline; we've been doing this for more than two centuries. We know what floods do; we know the kinds of rocks that they produce. We watch it happen in real time, all over the world. Not only is there no evidence of a worldwide flood, but the rock record that we do have screams loudly, with one voice, that there was no global flood.
We're left with two basic possibilities:
1., the flood never happened.
2., the deity responsible for the flood event erased all evidence of it and created a rock record that screams, in no uncertain terms, that there was no flood.
Which was it?
A third option that the rocks do support the idea of a flood simply doesn't exist. I know that there are "geologists" out there who insist that the rock record supports a flood. They're lying. Worse, they know they're lying. I have been studying sedimentary rocks for most of my life. I have been all over the world and have seen these deposits in dozens of countries. I have thousands of colleagues and together we have published hundreds of thousands of papers, all of which have provided evidence against a single global flood. The rock record simply does not support the hypothesis of a worldwide, Noachian-type flood. Period.
Again, the fossil record of dinosaurs (if we look at the group as a whole) doesn't reflect any single trend toward decreasing size.
Can you provide citations for these giant humans?
How does evolution explain mens bones being that large when evolution says we keep getting bigger yet the bones show the opposite.Where does evolution say humans should be getting larger over time?
Posted by: Josh | September 3, 2009 7:06 PM
Not a man, you idiot, a bull elephant or hippopotamus. A human male would not have an extremity like a cedar.
Posted by: DaveL | September 3, 2009 7:10 PM
And if you doubt this is true, how is it there are pygmies and dwarfs?
Posted by: argystokes | September 3, 2009 7:33 PM
Josh
On one of Hovinds dvds he gave the info about the bones of 12 feet tall men. But I don't remember which one its on. I could send them to you if you need them.
argystokes
Not sure what pygmies and dwarfs have to do with my statments of mens size before the flood. But ever heard of microevolution? Changes within a species can occur, but a banana can not become a man.
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 8, 2009 12:22 AM
The Mop-Jockey nearly got it right (a stopped clock and all that) the tallest man, according the the Guinness Book of World Records, is Bao Xishun who measures 2.361m (approx. 7ft 9in) tall, but of course this is an outlier in the range of human heights.
speak for yourself, pee-wee!(The whole 'pygmies and dwarves' thing is a joke, based on the idiotic creationist argument that the existence of monkeys and humans disprove evolution. An argument that has been debunked countless times, and yet rose again, from the foggy, miasma-laden swamps of creationist 'thinking' like some kind of undead hydra tweaked on PCP.)
DaveL posted:
[Dingo sniffs own crotch before murmuring "Mmmm...cedar fresh!] :)
Posted by: DingoJack | September 8, 2009 1:11 AM
PS: speaking of dwarves. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 8, 2009 2:11 AM
Let me hunt around first and see if I can track down any data on this.
Posted by: Josh | September 8, 2009 5:05 AM
DingoJack
So your a pervent then who worships his crotch? So Satan tells you to worship your crotch and it makes you a good person? So let me guess you think the more woman you whore around with makes you a great man?
Let me guess you would rather stand around looking at yourself naked in the mirror then fight against evil? You must be so big you think men should worship you and that you are big bang's gift to woman huh? The fact you have to bring up your crotch shows how insecure a man you realy are to hide behind your crotch. I don't care if your twice my size or half my size your crotch I repect ervyone en love Jesus.
So your Penis size is not going top get you into heaven, sorry.
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 8, 2009 10:16 PM
DingoJack rewrite
I don't care if your twice my size or half my size. I respect everyone and love Jesus. So your Penis size is not going top get you into heaven, sorry
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 8, 2009 10:21 PM
Hovind talks about the men being 12 Ft Tall on his Dvd the Garden of Eden.
Here is on reference from the Dvd but I don't know if its outdated.
The Unexplained By Karl Shukar page 151
Todd Jurasek
7311 S. Utia. Apt 802,
Tulsa, OK 74136
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slides/Part%202a%20Garden%20of%20Eden_files/frame.htm#slide0254.htm
918-481-1710
Posted by: Heavens Janitor | September 12, 2009 8:22 AM
Heavens Janitor @ 90 - I can assure you that your link here in no way comes anywhere close to validating your claim of 12 ft. men.
This is a ScienceBlog.com forum, if you want to make an assertion that's considered, please provide a link presenting empirical evidence that's also been independently validated by those qualified to do so. That would require being published in a relevant peer-reviewed publication.
What you've presented here is merely a claim. I too can make a claim, "I once saw a 2 inch man walking down the street singing 'Take It Easy' in a deep baritone voice." See how easy that was?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2009 8:47 AM
HJ,
But where is Hovind's actual evidence of 12 foot tall men? You know, an actual set of bones that could be examined by real scientists? Why should anyone believe third hand stories of about bones that were found, but conveniently reburied so that we can't look at them now? Did you know I once caught a 200 lb. largemouth bass? Really!
As it turns out, people sometimes make stuff up. That's what we like about science. When someone makes a claim we can demand to see the evidence to ensure that they're not simply making it up. There's no evidence here, just fish stories.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 12, 2009 8:49 AM
I then saw James' swallow my 2 inch man and then the fish leaped out of the boat and back into the water.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2009 8:52 AM
@ 93 was supposed to say,
I then saw James' 200 lb. bass swallow my 2 inch man and then the fish leaped out of the boat and back into the water.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2009 8:54 AM
Did you know I once caught a 200 lb. largemouth bass? Really!
Hey I think I got that one too. It took two of us. Ummmm, me and Megan Fox. Yeah, that's it...
Posted by: 386sx | September 12, 2009 8:58 AM
I can independently validate the 12 foot tall giants. Me and Megan Fox saw them once when we were on a fishing trip, so I do have a witness who can independently validate them also.
Posted by: 386sx | September 12, 2009 9:08 AM
You guys are being weird today.
Posted by: JohnV | September 12, 2009 10:54 AM
What's so weird about a 200 lb. bass, a 12 foot giant, a 2 inch man walking down the street singing Take It Easy, and Megan Fox? I don't see what's so weird about that.
Posted by: 386sx | September 12, 2009 11:36 AM
JohnV - whadda ya mean we, paleface? :)
MopJockey - I wasn't talking to you*, but thanks for playing anyway &etc. - DJ
________________
*nice to see your humour bypass hasn't been rejected, but keep taking the drugs just to be sure. I forget, was it a triple or quadruple?
Posted by: DingoJack | September 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Michael,
Wow, you threw me for a loop there! I spent several minutes trying to puzzle that one out before glancing to the next line and seeing your correction.
For what it's worth, I warned you it was dangerous to take such a little guy fishing. He had "fishbait" written all over him (in really small type, of course).
Posted by: James Hanley | September 13, 2009 11:08 PM
*Attention for all of those who believe in the religion of evolution, class is in session, I do this for your benefit and hope you appreciate it!*
Using reason and logic to support a view for the existence of God as found in the Holy Bible.
Here are some points to consider when discussing the subject from a pro-intelligent design or creationist perspective:
1) The Classical approach which includes cosmological and teleological arguments as well as the Evidential approach and the Pre-suppositional approach (all of which I will elaborate on) are essential in order to enhance the Classical approach. It is important to acknowledge that the ontological argument has a place in making the case for the God of the holy bible also. The ontological argument states that the idea for an infinite God in the finite mind of man is only possible if God put it there to start with. Still the ontological argument is ultimately an assumption which can’t be proven, so a very limited application.
2) The cosmological argument considers why something exist whereas the teleological argument considers the nature of what does exist. For instance the reasoning goes since an event happened there must have been a cause and that cause was God because all things in the physical universe appear to be subject to natural laws as expressed in Newton’s observations and the law of conservation of energy within a closed system. Still ‘special pleading’ (another way of saying one reserves the option of including an exception to the rule which can be viewed as a contradiction) is ultimately invoked when applying the cosmological argument; like stating that God who is independent of this closed system introduced the energy to initially set all things into motion, but God is not the result of a cause like everything else observed. Although it is reasonable to postulate an infinite being as the cause since it is greater than a finite being it can not be proven conclusively. This must be acknowledged as being in the realm of speculation and can’t be shown to occur through the use of the scientific method (within the cosmological argument) which is postulating a hypothesis about something, making observation, collecting of data, testing against a known standard (a control) and the establishing of trends by way of repeated independent application to see, if for example God is the cause.
3) The scientific method has its limitations and can not be used to verify God, creationism or evolution for that matter. In fact, it clearly points out the contradictions in other belief systems such as evolution. The scientific method can be very helpful indirectly in making the case for the God of the holy bible by eliminating other possible explanations. An example would be what Francesco Redi in 1668 did and Louis Pasteur in the 1850’s and 1860’s did, both proving in experiments that spontaneous generation (or life coming from nonlife) is a false view, many before these experiments believed life came from nonlife. Still, evolutionist today although acknowledging these experiments to be a part of science believe life did ultimately come from nonlife, if one just goes back billions of years in time. Clearly a belief system because of the faith it exhibits. The scientific method in totality can not be applied to verify evolution, only observation and the collecting of data within the scientific method are fully used, everything else is in the realm of speculation. The same would apply to the theory of creationism (ultimately the individual must decide which one is more plausible).
4) There are also many examples in science that possibly violate Newton’s laws of motion and the law of conservation of energy which occur in nature as well as in the universe (ultimately a closed system) that have traditionally been used by creationist to defend their position. The following examples need to be examined more closely within the context of a creationist framework. Some examples would be the splitting of the atom and the release of great amounts of energy, gravity which performs an action (which the work function attempts to account for, but is unable to do so, resulting in a bigger contradiction), or light as it enters a prism and slows, then as it exits continues at the original speed. All of these examples have no known power source to draw from. According to accepted laws in science a power source would be needed and as the energy is used in the performance of work it would result in a transformation into a less available form (possibly back into the subatomic realm, where the atom is split for example performing work on the atomic level), eventually running all things down into a complete state of entropy or disorder. Perhaps a continuous cycle set in motion possibly by a god of some kind rather than everything being like a watch winding down? So the cosmological argument makes some contributions, but is incomplete, requiring more ways to hopefully make a case for the God of the holy bible.
5) This brings us to the teleological argument which points to nature and the design found in nature, one could conclude there must be a designer. Included in this idea is the observation that there is a moral law in the hearts of men, therefore a moral law giver. Some critics of the teleological argument state that design in nature is being assumed because we cannot describe what a universe without design would be, at least in the functional way we are use to seeing it. It is also claimed that theist select some features in the universe to demonstrate that God must have made them like the structure of the cell, but gives other characteristics of the world such as evil and suffering to have been caused by man (forgetting that God is ultimately the first cause if all powerful). This picking and choosing of examples in the world by a theist again is ‘special pleading’ and can lead to contradictions in a person’s position if not careful. So the cell structure could be an example of no design, if we had an alternative to compare it to, but we don’t, therefore we assume it to be design. Sometimes this argument could be seen in relative terms based on what is being compared as evidence for design. An example would be a watch in a field. Yes, proof of a designer for the watch when compared to the field. However, in such an example the watch could be considered the exception to the rule, if the field is what is used as evidence for a lack of design (an island of design in an ocean of chaos, or lack of order and design). Framing the teleological argument in an inductive way (reasoning from specific to general) rather than a deductive way (reasoning from the general to specific) would be best. In other words use the teleological argument as one of the more likely explanations for apparent design. So much of what is observed implies not only a designer, but an intelligent designer of ordered and functional things with a purpose. The teleological argument doesn’t lead necessarily to a belief in biblical monotheism. It could for instance also support polytheism (belief in multiple gods) which is why more is needed from Evidential and Presuppositional approaches.
6) Looking at things up to this point shows we’ve made progress, that there is a certain burden of proof required for the one claiming the statement. An example would be me claiming that superman just flew behind you. The burden of proof is greater on me making the claim than the one who doubts it to prove it didn’t happen.
So what we can say so far is that man is limited to a finite understanding of an event, which is existence. It has occurred through something outside of man causing it. This existence, as understanding of it increases and functions of it are confirmed in purposeful ways in many and possibly all the parts which make up this existence, imply an intentional design.
7) The Evidentialist argument confirms the holy bible as a reliable history book because other sources apart from the holy bible agree regarding geography and non-Christian historical facts. The accounts of Jesus in the gospels also do not contradict each other and give a clear description of who Jesus claims to be. Showing the accurate fulfillment of prophecy in the holy bible by comparing dates written with the dates such events occurred, along with secular history books which confirm many of these events and dates also is very powerful in showing a supernatural hand at work in the writing of the holy bible. The probability of such events occurring compared to other events, makes it a unique document implying that this intelligent designer played a part in the development of the holy bible thereby condoning what is written about god in it(of course the flawed interpretation of things written in it doesn't mean the document is flawed). However, one has to be prepared to take from this that everything spoken about on a supernatural level regarding the holy bible will not be accepted automatically by everyone. It involves a leap from reason and logic to a 'reasonable faith' which the God of the Holy Bible must ultimately provide. So yes at this point it becomes a religion, leaving the objective for the subjective, but really no different than evolution a religion also with really no 'reasonable faith' to be able to cling to, and definitely not science. In fact it goes back even before Darwin to the Greeks. At least the Greeks worshipped knowledge above evolution because they knew the contradictions of evolution. Anyway, the Holy Bible now in capital letters from my perspective because it has been determined to be real like me or you based on the line of reasoning applied.
8) Allow me to digress for a moment and speculate among fellow believers. For unbelievers this may actually be fun because they get to see where logic and reason collide with faith regarding some of the belief systems within Christianity.
Here we go, since God consist of spirit among other things and we are not capable within our own abilities to know the things of the spirit as written in 1 Corinthians 2:14, and we also lack the understanding or desire needed to achieve salvation outside of God’s influence as written in Romans 3:10-12; then a requirement for God to be the first cause in the process of salvation is necessary. An analogy would be the following, when someone is drowning you don't just offer them a choice to be saved from drowning, you actually save the person who is drowning. This has been done for all of humanity by what Christ did as found in Romans 5:18. A lack of basic understanding for this principle among believers regarding the limitations of man, in need of a 100% Savior or Redeemer (not Christ 95% and me 5% or however you want to break it down) due to our fallen or flawed condition needs to be honestly addressed. Such matters result in a serious misinterpretation of scripture as it relates to who is responsible for salvation. I think this is the result of a lot of division among believers and resentment among unbelievers. The obvious question raised when claiming that the individual is responsible for their salvation from the condemnation of hell, by first accepting God’s son, is the following; how can God send someone to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ when God is the one who gave the individual his abilities to accept or not accept to start with? God must be the one who initiates and follows through with it, not man, since according to scripture man is not capable due to a fallen condition. Any other take on this brings into question, and rightfully so the justice of God in the sense of fairness.
In applying reason, such a distinction between believer and unbeliever has to do more with salvation from the oppressive nature of negative influences rather than who goes to hell and who doesn’t. An example would be me, I am both going to hell regarding my old nature which are those things which are rooted in wickedness and evil and I am going to heaven which are those things that make up the new nature that Christ is working in me more and more, a kind of transition (I know for you unbelievers you see such a view more along the lines of a transition into insanity, right?). Unlike what is commonly preached among fundamentalist and that is all of me one way-hellbound or all of me the other way-heavenbound. By being a believer and having the hope that comes with it I'm saved from the oppressive bonds of bad habits (or demonic influences) depending on what term one wants to use. I simply have a greater awareness of what God is doing in my life because I am a believer. We all are going through this process both unbeliever and believer, just aware of it from different perspectives. So then both the individual as well as humanity are being shaped ultimatey into the image of Christ. In fact all of Romans 7 as well as other places in scripture mention the duplicity of man, as having both a good and bad nature working within each of us in which Christ ultimately rescues us from the duplicity or hypocrisy of doubleminded thinking.
To make the claim that God gives free will to the individual to choose is not logical either, because if true free will existed I would be able to get to God any way I wanted apart from Jesus Christ. So God has placed limits on free will. When interpreting the will of God as well as other things, doubt is ultimately caused in unbelievers regarding the accuracy of the Holy Bible because of such blatant disregard for reason. Let us be honest, there can be no true free will (only a limited free will within the greater will of God for the individual if an all powerful God who is the first cause in all things exist). I think we fear that concept because the way the God of the Holy Bible has been interpreted coupled with a flawed nature of man makes it easy to be that way. The result is a patch work of doctrine which ultimately appears to show a schizophrenic God as well as what those who believe in the God of the Holy Bible practice.
9) In conclusion, it is understandable for unbelievers to expect evidence outside of the Holy Bible. Still much of what is written in the Holy Bible can be independently verified outside of it. As a result the importance of the Presuppositional approach must be considered by looking at things from the position of an unbeliever and reasoning with them to show that they do not provide an adequate reference point for reasoning their point of view; and how their reasoning ultimately would result in an illogical conclusion as compared with the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview as presented through the various arguments already mentioned in a comprehensive way (as well as excluding some of the incorrect interpretations which have played a part in corrupting the message of the Holy Bible) remain consistent and without contradiction. In this way the deductive method being applied (reasoning from the general to the specific) shows that the God of the Holy Bible is the true God who exist as well as the God who created and redeemed us in all probability.
10) Thank you for being a true liberal and reading my comments, not blocking it out or responding with the standard party line. Continue to expand your thinking beyond the limitations imposed on us freethinkers or true liberals from so many places!
Posted by: Stacey | September 15, 2009 8:36 PM
Stacey, #101: Here are some points to consider when discussing the subject from a pro-intelligent design or creationist perspective:
I prefer avoiding the pro-intelligent design and creationist perspective. I prefer a perspective that is based on facts, reasoned conclusions based on those facts, and further testing of those conclusions through the further examination of facts.
Thanks, though.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 9:12 PM
Stacey: A fine summary of the Creationist argument. I am a christian myself, and believe in a Creator God. Nevertheless, your argument that belief in evolution is a religious viewpoint is absurd: The distinction is between believing in the Bible as a scientific text (it isn't) or believing in a Theory which has been confirmed (literally) millions of times through observation.
Evolution is real, and by far the best theory to account for the facts at our disposal. That it fails to account for theories of abiogenesis is interesting, but irrelevant: For what it purports to describe (the development of living beings on Earth, the TOE wins hands down.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 15, 2009 10:02 PM
Stacey,
You refute your own arguments in (1) and (2), so we'll leave those aside. (3) is completely wrong. Evolution has been verified by science, with mounting evidence over the past 150 years.
It's amazing that a solid block of stupidity this large can squeeze through the internet. The release of energy from atomic reactions was solved quite some time ago by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I have no idea what you're talking about with your gravity example. Every high school physics student can do the calculations to show how a massive body's total energy is conserved as it moves about a gravitational field. I have no idea where you get the idea that light passing through a prism violates the conservation of energy (Relativity and QM take care of that, too- also high school level stuff).
Seriously, you seem to lack the knowledge of physics that one would expect from even a bright high school senior. I'm sure it's never occurred to you how insulting it is for you to throw this wall of ignorance at professional, practicing scientists and tell them they've got it all wrong.
Acutally, according to the accepted laws of science that's complete bullshit.
Strangely, moral laws that nobody can seem to agree on! Seriously, 'moral' behavious can be observed in just about any social animal. It's an evolved trait- no need or use for invoking the divine.
Worse, the argument that we can distinguish items that are designed from items that are not defeats the very notion that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent designer. If that were true, it should not be possible to make distinctions between things that were designed and things that were not, because everything would have been designed.
Demonstrate that this purpose exists (as opposed to function), then we can talk.
Enough said.
Fixed it for you.
You are aware, aren't you, that Darwin didn't publish until 1859, right? By that time Greeks had been Christian for some time.
I'll leave (8) alone because you specify it's for fellow believers. As if your other argument had ever flown outside such circles.
Much of it can be shown to be complete rubbish. What's your point?
Horseshit. How is reasoning from evidence inadequate? It's a damn sight better than just picking a bronze-aged text and dogmatically denying it could be in error.
Oh, by all means, go right ahead. I'm waiting.
Posted by: DaveL | September 15, 2009 10:28 PM
It's still there, Stacey. So are the rebuttals that demolish it.
Seriously, enough with the necrophiliac evangelism. It's very poor form to go into a dead thread, blow your load, and then flee.
Posted by: DaveL | September 17, 2009 9:29 PM
Stacey @ 105:
Your comment @ 101 is where it was when it was originally posted. Meanwhile we're waiting for a direct, honest, informed, response to DaveL's rebuttal of it in his comment @ 104. If your browser is not working on comments, I suggest using another browser. Safari is currently working on all blog threads, Firefox is not working on some blog threads.
If you want people to read and consider your comment I suggest the following:
1) Don't make assertions framed as certainty that lack overwhelming empirical evidence and can not be independently validated.
2) Embrace the use of paragraphs. Readers will get lost trying to follow your writings.
3) You are patronizing us merely because we don't accept your faith and beliefs. You will get no sympathy here for faith and beliefs. We respect cogent rational arguments based entirely on evidence that's been validated, then independently validated, and is overwhelming while having also falsified other competing explanations.
4) Arguments that are not based on the type of overwhelming evidence mentioned in the previous point should be appropriately humble, i.e., the strength of your certainty should correlate to the strength of the evidence.
5) Do not avoid the central points and best arguments of your opponent by using a rhetorical fallacy to win some sort of debate in your mind. We can see through bullshit.
Your previous comment were exercises in ignorance and contained at least a dozen logical or rhetorical fallacies, follow the rules I provided above and you'll do much better. If you are unable to create a cogent argument whose position is both arguable and lacking rhetorical or logical fallacies, please ask me for help; I can recommend a book on developing critical thinking skills and also provide a comment post on the rhetorical fallacies I track and have corresponding definitions.
And for the record, evolution is a fact. We can validate the mechanisms that cause evolution to occur. So please, if you are not aware of the evidence that validates these statements, please catch up first. I recommend starting with Jerry Coyne's new book, "Why Evolution is True", which unlike creationists screeds such as those written by Behe, Dembski, and Wells whose notions have been falsified by the physical evidence, does not make mere arguments of his notions, Coyne's book instead explains peer-accepted scientific findings and explanations of those findings, where his explanations are coupled to the appropriate doubt based on the weight of the evidence and the amount of independent validating evidence supporting such.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2009 9:46 PM
so is there any scientific reasoning why some of the planets rotate backwards while the rest of them spin normally? i still haven't gotten one reasonable answer from a astronomer. :)
Posted by: 229 | September 21, 2009 5:34 PM
229, #107: so is there any scientific reasoning why some of the planets rotate backwards while the rest of them spin normally?
Are you speaking of Venus? Computer models have shown that tidal forces acting on an exceptionally thick atmosphere can cause the retrograde rotation.
There may be a few satellites around the major planets with retrograde rotations -- some of these may be explained either by being captured bodies or by a collision with another body.
I would think that most astronomers would know these answers, but my work was more in the planetary science part of the business not in in extra-solar astronomy, so maybe I don't really know what astronomers would know generally.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 21, 2009 5:43 PM
Chiroptera: The Bible refers repeatedly to both the Morning and Evening Stars, thus they both must exist. Further, you cannot explain how a planet the size of Venus could have moved from one horizon to another over the course of a single day: This defies all known laws of energy.
As for the retrograde motion, that is easily explained through the use of epicycles. Your confusion appears to be based upon not placing the Earth at the center of the solar system, as God and Einstein intended.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 21, 2009 6:50 PM
What the heck does "backward" even mean in space? As far as I can tell, planets and moons have no front and back.
And "retrograde" sounds so demeaning, like they're, um, backwards...or something.
Can't we just allow them to all rotate to their own individual drummers without having to label them?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 21, 2009 7:06 PM
Dave,
Here is my response to your comments that I shared in entry 101 last week. Sorry for the late response, but since you believe in evolution which involves millions and billions of years I’m sure your religion has taught you well the virtue of patience.
With regards to point #1 and point #2 in which you claim I refute myself, well if you want to use such terms that is fine. I see it more as describing both sides of the argument.
With regards to your point under #3 in which you claim there is mounting evidence to the contrary of what I was stating, well let’s take a look at just some of that mounting evidence.
Two ways of seeing the same thing like in Geology and Paleontology for instance (other disciplines with many believers of the religion of evolution as well as believers in the religion of Christianity).
Millions of years to fossilize living organisms all other the world or by way of catastrophic occurrences which must happen in order to preserve them-like a world wide flood? How about the millions of years to form the Grand Canyon or the result of receding waters from a world wide flood resulting in sedimentary rock? Three quarters of the earth’s continental surface is composed of such rock laid down by water, the rest by igneous or volcanic activity. Yes it goes on, radioactive dating methods and what assumptions or factored in when determining the age of fossils within the geologic column (I will give an example later). The geologic column (simply layers of strata already predetermined in age based on a uniformitarian way or old world view point) all of which rarely are found occurring together and usually only 2 or 3 layers, many times not even in the right order thanks to catastrophic events which require tremendous forces like a world wide flood. These are the other side to some things old earth advocates use. Of course, there are many points they ignore completely because they point even more to a young earth such as characteristics of the magnetic field and salt levels in the sea.
Take radioactive dating methods such as Carbon 14 in dating fossils up to about 40,000 years supposedly. In this process cosmic rays bombard the upper atmosphere producing fast moving neutrons which then collide with atmospheric nitrogen atoms producing carbon 14, it like ordinary carbon combine with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. The carbon 14 contained in the carbon dioxide is absorbed by vegetation during photosynthesis which animals feed on and add to their bodies. At present about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 atoms = carbon 14. After death the ratio will slowly decrease as the carbon 14 continues to decay and not be replenished by feeding. The amount of carbon 14, in a dead animal, shows how long it has been dead, provided one can be sure of the amount of carbon 14 in it when it died. However, the theory assumes that carbon 14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere, that it is being broken down at the same rate it is being produced. Carbon 14 dating assumes that the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere has always been constant. This is very interesting since we hear in the news all the time that it is increasing due to man made activity, so possibly not constant. In fact calculations made to test the assumption of it being constant suggest that carbon 14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. If the earth before the flood was surrounded by a layer of water vapor, as the bible suggest, this would have prevented many cosmic rays from reaching the atmosphere, being absorbed by the water canopy. The cosmic rays would have also been deflected away from the earth’s magnetic field if stronger in the past which I haven’t even discussed.
By the way uranium and potassium/argon dating to get millions and billions of years for the age of objects which is used to date not the fossils which are in all sedimentary rock, but the igneous rock associated with them (because these methods can’t be used on the fossils or sedimentary rock themselves) have similar assumptions already factored in which can and do throw off the accuracy of the results even when shooting within an old world view point. Thank goodness we have the old reliable geologic column we can put things in that get different dates from these methods (I can go into this more some other time).
With regards to point #4 in which you were amazed at my level of stupidity in the examples I gave of possible violations of Newton’s laws of motion and the law of conservation of energy I would like for you to show me the error of my way since you are an expert in the field to at least the standard I just did under point #3 when explaining the carbon 14 dating method. You should not have to refer me to any other sources of reading because you are the expert and can teach me-a willing student.
When you do this please answer considering the following question in it; are you saying that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explain the examples I gave so that Newton’s laws of motion and the law of conservation of energy aren’t violated?
If yes, then do you agree with creationist, who use these laws to explain how all things are winding down from a point when it was all set in motion within the universe, an ultimately closed system as stated in point #2 of the cosmological argument (cause and effect)?
If no, then aren’t we saying the same thing from a different standpoint? Please ‘Oh Great One’ connect the dots for me. I hope you are honest about any assumptions you factored in and any speculation you end up with.
The reference I made about moral law in the hearts of men, therefore a moral law giver, in which you stated, “Strangely, moral laws that nobody can seem to agree on! Seriously, ‘moral’ behavior can be observed in just about any social animal. It’s an evolved trait-no need or use for invoking the divine.”
My response to that is I think there are some universal laws due to a moral law giver, if universal is the standard of proof you put forward, an example would be how people even animals don’t want to be lied to or be murdered because of the sense of injustice or unfairness in it, but unfortunately because of our flawed nature more willing to do it to others (sure you could call it a survival mechanism, but you could call it what I’m saying too, along with the bigger implication of a God.
With regards to point #5 and point #6 in which you stated, “Worse, the argument that we can distinguish items that are designed from items that are not defeats the very notion that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent designer. If that were true, it should not be possible to make distinctions between things that were designed and things that were not, because everything would have been designed.” My response to that is just because we are at a point of not fully understanding the design of one thing verses another doesn’t mean some of it wasn’t designed. It would be like a child only living in a house of man made design growing up to eventually understand that all things in it are designed, but possibly doubting that until fully realizing it.
You also stated, “demonstrate that this purpose exist (as opposed to function), then we can talk. O.K. it would be like a native American Indian on the western plains seeing a train for the first time, they may rationally conclude it is something with function but not something of purpose. Would they be correct or just at a certain state of ignorance?
Under point #7 in which you reduced the Evidentialist argument to equating the Holy Bible to Harry Potter books was a bit funny, but also an incredible display of ignorance. Still, it is O.K., because you have been doing that a lot. By the way, my point about the Greeks was in reference to the great philosophers before the time of Christ.
One big difference is that the Holy Bible (a book made up of 66 smaller books) actually has many authors, 40 to be exact (guided of course by God), over a little more than 1500 year period with an amazing amount of coherency from Moses around 1450 B.C. to the time of Malachi around 400 B.C. in the Old Testament (made up of 39 smaller books) on into the first century after the time of Christ in the New Testament (made up of 27 smaller books). In order to provide proof of it, for example who Jesus Christ was according to the bible one has to use other methods rather than the scientific method like the legal historical proof method, which is the preferred and dominate method in a court of law. By the way, the reliability of the biblical documents, as historical fact, has been examined intensely over the last 200 years. Such as the belief by critics that the writings are basically myth or legend, especially the last 27 books in the New Testament, thought to have developed during a lengthy period between the time of Jesus and the first writings. However myth and legend takes many generations over centuries of time to take place. Through archaeological discoveries and research such criticism no longer has any solid basis for dating any book after about AD 80, only 2 generations, not long enough for myths to develop. During this time the gap filled by oral conveyance is reliable, because of the Jewish tradition of recording by memory after hearing an account and passing it on to the next generation by way of the spoken word. In fact other writings which historians accept as accurate such as two of the earliest biographies of Alexander the Great that were written by Arrian and Plutarch are more than 400 years after Alexander’s death. After the two biographies of Alexander the Great it took even more time for the legends about him to fully develop. Some other accounts outside of the bible well into the second century when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear have within them legends about Jesus during his boyhood and the start of his ministry which the bible never mentions. Mark is the earliest gospel and he most likely got his information such as the suffering and death of Jesus, the Passion Story from earlier sources like letters written from church to church, some found from Paul in the book 1 Corinthians (found in the New Testament) within 5 years after the death of Jesus, even written before the gospels (4 books within the New Testament) were put together concerning various aspects in the life of Jesus such as his teachings, Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Luke who wrote the book of Acts, and even though he possibly was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus seemed to have traveled with Paul, especially in Jerusalem and had the opportunity to interview many people that were witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus. The accuracy of Luke as a historian in the book of Acts is meticulous and shows how the gospel of Luke must also be accurate. The other gospels do not contradict the gospel of Luke.
The legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the laws of the legal evidence administered in courts of justice show no contradictions either. The eye witness accounts of Jesus resurrected are the following: 1) to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, early Sunday morning, John 20:14,16, 2) to Peter in Jerusalem, during the day Sunday, Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5, 3) to the two travelers on the road to Emmaus, midday Sunday, Luke 24:13-32 (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), 4) to the ten disciples in the upper room, Sunday evening, Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-25, 5) to the eleven disciples (including Thomas) in the upper room, one week later, John 20:26-31, 6) to more than 500 people, sometime later, 1 Corinthians 15:6, and 7) to Paul on the road to Damascus 1 Corinthians 15:8. The testimony of the apostles are also convincing based on their martyrdom, 11 out of 12 were killed on the basis of two things, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the belief that Jesus was the Son of God. The reasoning goes that if they had fabricated a hoax they would not have been willing to die for a lie. There have been some critics who have come at it from another angle, that all of the accounts are based on illusions or hallucinations, however this is unsupported by psychological principles governing the appearance of hallucinations when examining the testimony of those in the scriptures. So there is internal consistency of the accounts within the writings which is one of the ways to verify reliability of historical documents.
Another is to look at external documents such as what has been recorded by historians who were unbelievers like Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian during the time of Jesus to see if historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents. Finally, an examination of the bibliographical evidence should take place which is the number and time of copies from the original events, more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today, which makes the New Testament the best-attested document in all ancient writings. After looking at all of the information; the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has to be one of the most proven events in history.
Looking at just prophecy as it pertains to Jesus written between 500 B.C. and 1000 B.C. within the Old Testament (4 of the 39 books) and comparing it to the accounts of the life of Jesus in the New Testament (2 of the 27 books) including his birth, life, death, and resurrection, one can do an interesting study in the science of probability. Take as a given the events laid out in the Holy Bible, which is easy to do since it is a book that is reliable as shown earlier based on historical evidence. Even though 60 major prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, many beyond human control, if you take just 8 of them the chances of anyone fulfilling them is 1 in 10 to the 17th power or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.
Take the following analogy to compare these numbers and the chances of one man fulfilling them. It would be like taking that many silver dollar coins and laying them out over the entire state of Texas two feet deep. Then mark one of the coins differently and stir it in thoroughly with all the others. Next blindfold a person and send that person out to pick up the right one the first time. Jesus Christ did this in fulfilling just 8 prophecies. I personally picked out 8 prophecies I thought no one could read about ahead of time in the Old Testament and then go duplicate through their own ability. The 8 prophecies in the Old Testament with the corresponding fulfillment of them in the New Testament which I picked are: 1) place of birth Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1-2, 2) betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9, Matthew 26:49,50, 3) sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12, Matthew 26:15, 27:3, 4) threw money into God’s house Zechariah 11:13, Matthew 27:5,7, 5) piercing of hands Psalm 22:16, John 20:25 (1012 B.C. 800 years before crucifixion was put into effect) and pierced in side Zechariah 12:10, John 19:34, 6) bones not broken Psalm 34:20, John 19:33, 7) crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12, Matthew 27:38, and 8) buried in rich man’s tomb Isaiah 53:9, Matthew 27:57-60.
One last thing concerning myth and legends as it pertains to the time after the world wide flood and Moses, one can use Abraham as a reference point born (factoring in various sources on the subject) between 2000-2200 B.C., probably closer to 2165 B.C. In the land Abraham inhabited which was Ur of the Chaldees, a wealthy, populous, and sophisticated center of southern Mesopotamia (220 miles SE. of Baghdad) which during Abrahams life was the most prosperous and literate era made it more than possible for Moses to have oral and written records of early history.
Thank you for considering these points.
Posted by: Stacey | September 21, 2009 9:37 PM
Stacey - Concerning C14 dating: you are aware that we are talking about ratios of carbon to nitrogen, right? The actual amount we started with is not the least bit relevant.
The C14 atoms decay thus: C14 ► N14 + e- [β particle]
Let's start with 12g of carbon, this contains approximately 6.02x10^23 atoms. Let's assume that 6.02x10^17 (1 in a million) are C14. At one half-life (~5,730 years), half has decayed, hence there are 3.01x10^17 atoms of C14 and 3.01x10^17 N14. A ratio of one is to one.
Now let start with 1.9933x10^-11g (about 1 trillion atoms) of carbon. Assume that there are 1 million atoms of C14 (1 in a million). After one half-life, half have decayed into N14. There are 500,000 atoms of C14, and 500,000 atoms of N14. A ratio of one is to one.
Same age, same ratio of C14 to N14, independent of the initial amount.
Of course this is a very simplistic explanation, you can research it in more detail yourself. In fact I would encourage you to do so. Thinking for yourself is a very powerful tool in avoiding falsehood. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 21, 2009 11:22 PM