what the bible didn't see

157 views
Skip to first unread message

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 14, 2010, 8:31:16 AM2/14/10
to
creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because it's not mentioned
in teh bible

yet the bible never mentions quantum mechanics. so, according to
creationists, computers can't work.

the bible never mentions relativity. yet gps systems still work.


so if we base our beliefs on what's NOT mentioned in the bible, then
none of modern science is possible.

AND creationists say that what happens in the bible is the ONLY thing
possible. 'each after its own kind'.

yet the bible never mentions any quantum observations, which we know
DO happen.

so where is the consistency of biblical literalism?

Free Lunch

unread,
Feb 14, 2010, 11:01:15 AM2/14/10
to
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:31:16 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in
talk.origins:

For the literalist, it is literally what they want it to mean.

TomS

unread,
Feb 14, 2010, 12:21:25 PM2/14/10
to
"On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:31:16 -0500, in article
<7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."

Because the Bible is silent about evolution, a Bible-only Christian
cannot say whether evolution is either true or false.

The Bible likewise is silent about the majority of life: microbes.
As well as some larger forms of life: fungi, marsupials, giant tube
worms. It doesn't confirm or deny the existence of the Loch Ness
monster or Big Foot.

The Bible is silent about irreducible complexity, fixity of species,
the Cambrian explosion, whether birds are related to dinosaurs, the
vertebrate eye (its origins or structure), natural selection, random
variation, genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, taxonomy,
fossils, the Grand Canyon, ...


--
---Tom S.
Be not ashamed to inform the unwise and foolish, and the extreme aged that
contendeth with those that are young: thus shalt thou be truly learned, and
approved of all men living.: Sirach 42:8

Davej

unread,
Feb 15, 2010, 5:18:08 PM2/15/10
to
On Feb 14, 7:31�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because it's not mentioned
> in teh bible
>
> yet the bible never mentions quantum mechanics. so, according to
> creationists, computers can't work.

Good grief, does the Bible even get simple geometry right? Does it
mention that the world isn't flat?

Otto

unread,
Feb 20, 2010, 2:10:00 PM2/20/10
to
"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in news message
news:7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com...

The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist would dream
of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when they talk about the
truth of evolution they must mean something else than what they mean when
talking about the existence of McDonald's.

Otto


Mike Painter

unread,
Feb 20, 2010, 3:38:27 PM2/20/10
to
Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from the
lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Free Lunch

unread,
Feb 20, 2010, 4:14:04 PM2/20/10
to
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:38:27 -0800, "Mike Painter"
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.origins:

Do creationists claim that the moon used to keep a different schedule?

Darrell Stec

unread,
Feb 20, 2010, 11:15:28 PM2/20/10
to
Free Lunch wrote:


Impossible. When the moon was made from green cheese, PDAs hadn't been
invented to keep its schedule on.

--
Later,
Darrell

JTEM

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 3:03:27 AM2/21/10
to

bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> it's not mentioned in teh bible

Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
is true because they claim to believe that the bible
is literally true, and the bible does include a
creation story. So, according to them, that creation
story is literally true.

Darrell Stec

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 3:53:01 AM2/21/10
to
JTEM wrote:

The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.

Creationists tend to mix and match, confusing the stories, depending upon
the version of "truth" they believe.

--
Later,
Darrell

jillery

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 4:06:35 AM2/21/10
to

Yes, and creationists consider both creation stories mutually
exclusive to evolution.
On top of that, they have other entirely different stories to say why
evolution is false.
No wonder creationists can't keep their stories straight.

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 4:05:11 AM2/21/10
to
In article <7ucajd...@mid.individual.net>, Darrell Stec
<dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
> >
> > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
> >
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
> even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.

Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 4:56:17 AM2/21/10
to
In article
<fbdac4af-a1ac-4d0b...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, well, I have other
principles" - Groucho Marx.

Otto

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 7:52:33 AM2/21/10
to
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news message
8LXfn.31441$OX4....@newsfe25.iad...

To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a star
like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been called the
Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible in the day sky, and
its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more familiar - if the fact of our
Sun being a star is the point you are trying to make ?

Otto


Steven L.

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 9:05:08 AM2/21/10
to
"Davej" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed3c4804-dad5-4a3d...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Isaiah 40:22 states, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
earth"

After it was firmly established that the earth is roughly spherical,
Christians reinterpreted this line to mean that the earth is a sphere.


--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.

Frank J

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 10:04:59 AM2/21/10
to
On Feb 14, 11:01�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:31:16 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote in

But notice how literalists are "evolving," increasingly making excuses
for those whose "literal" interpretations clearly contradict theirs.
Even those who don't make excuses (e.g. WND's Joseph Farah, a YEC who
admitted to me by email that he thinks OECs are just as wrong as
"Darwinists") rarely *volunteer* to remind anyone that other "literal"
interpretations contradict theirs.

If "literalists" regularly challenged other literalists, it could be
easily dismissed as widespread self-delusion. But there must be
something else going on.

jillery

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 10:27:02 AM2/21/10
to

This is an expressed part of ID's Wedge Strategy. It's also an
example of the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The differences among different creationists are viewed as normal
denominational nitpicking when compared against the blasphemy of
godless evolution.

Free Lunch

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 12:10:24 PM2/21/10
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote in talk.origins:

It's like a dysfunctional family. They fight fiercely among themselves,
often splitting into ever smaller denominations, but when the general
ideas of their doctrines are challenged, they pull together against the
threat.

Frank J

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 12:20:46 PM2/21/10
to
On Feb 21, 12:10�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>

And in the process, shouting as loud as they can, in so many words:
"of course you are right that we have no alternate science, but as
soon as our target audience figures that out they either join the scam
or become critics like you."


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Mike Painter

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 5:36:13 PM2/21/10
to
Otto wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist
>>> would dream of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when
>>> they talk about the truth of evolution they must mean something
>>> else than what they mean when talking about the existence of
>>> McDonald's.
>> Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from
>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>> also.
>
> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
> trying to make ?
This is allegedly the word of god that is telling this story, human
perspective does not apply.
The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star, contrary to
what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light, just a reflection, one
that shirks it's duties for most of the month and isn't evn in the night sky
part of it.

Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume that
the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.

JTEM

unread,
Feb 21, 2010, 7:55:57 PM2/21/10
to

Darrell Stec <dars...@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> >creationstory. So, according to them, thatcreation
> > story is literally true.
>
> The bible contains TWO creation stories,

That's okay, NOBODY accepts the bible as literally true,
not even creationists. They say they do, but it don't
exactly take a lot of digging to prove otherwise.

Take Leviticus, for example. That's the book which bans
eating any part of a pig (bacon, ham, pork sausages) or
even shellfish. It also dictates the appropriate sacrifice
one is to make at the temple. Leviticus is routinely
ignored as "Quaint Jewish Cultural Law" AND wielded as
the very word of God -- all depending on whether or not
they are applying the food & sacrificial bits to themselves
or what they mistakenly interpret as a condemnation of
homosexuality to gay people.

> Creationists tend to mix and match, confusing the stories,
> depending upon the version of "truth" they believe.

I'm not about to accuse them of consistency either.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 22, 2010, 10:20:28 PM2/22/10
to
In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> >
> > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > and
> > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> >

And a partridge in a pear tree.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

Michael Siemon

unread,
Feb 22, 2010, 10:56:59 PM2/22/10
to
In article <proto-76EFC9....@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam &
> > > Eve
> > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > and
> > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> > >
>
> And a partridge in a pear tree.

Please cite chapter and verse... :-)

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 23, 2010, 1:25:17 PM2/23/10
to
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:20:28 -0500, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > and
> > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...

> And a partridge in a pear tree.

It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22

jillery

unread,
Feb 23, 2010, 2:11:12 PM2/23/10
to
On Feb 23, 1:25�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:20:28 -0500, Walter Bushell
>
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <210220101905111112%j...@wilkins.id.au>,

> > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > > and
> > > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> > > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> > And a partridge in a pear tree.
>
> It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!

NO. Cast off your shoes!

>
> --http://desertphile.org

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 23, 2010, 3:06:38 PM2/23/10
to
In article
<41241ecb-10aa-4789...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sinners of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your shoes!

rmacfarl

unread,
Feb 23, 2010, 6:14:25 PM2/23/10
to

"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-671357....@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net...

The Gourd! Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!

Paul J Gans

unread,
Feb 23, 2010, 6:44:53 PM2/23/10
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

>> >
>> > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
>> > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
>> > and
>> > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
>> two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
>> >

>And a partridge in a pear tree.

Actually, I think that was left out. No room left...

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Darrell Stec

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 12:09:22 AM2/24/10
to
jillery wrote:


I just checked out a book from the library called The Genesis Enigma: Why
The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate by Andrew Parker. The blurb on the
cover says "Andrew Parker is known by many as the scientist to best explain
biology's Big Bang theory of the diversity of life that emerged during the
Cambrian period (542 to 488 million years ago). Now he has a powerful,
profound, and more personal discovery to report. Simply put, he has found
the divine within the confines of scientific thought." The blurb goes on
and on ending with, "The Genesis Enigma is an unprecedented rational
argument for the existence of God that is sure to fascinate intellectual
curious believers and nonbelievers alike." It extols his virtues as one of
the foremost evolutionary biologists/scientists of modern day, though not in
those words.

The glaring problem of a very brief perusal of this book shows he is using
the same poor translation of the bible to prove his point. He ignores the
fact that there are two creation stories and uses verses in a hodgepodge
order from either account depending upon the point he wishes to proselytize.

I wonder if I will be able to get to the end of the book without vomiting?

--
Later,
Darrell

jillery

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 4:09:02 AM2/24/10
to
On Feb 23, 6:14�pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:proto-671357....@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <41241ecb-10aa-4789-b6eb-66b753ec5...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,

Splinter!

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 8:20:31 AM2/24/10
to

Oh good bloody grief! Something that contradicts itself many
hundreds of times cannot be accurate, let alone scientifically
accurate. Scientists tend to hate contradictions.

> cover says "Andrew Parker is known by many as the scientist to best explain
> biology's Big Bang theory of the diversity of life that emerged during the
> Cambrian period (542 to 488 million years ago). Now he has a powerful,
> profound, and more personal discovery to report. Simply put, he has found
> the divine within the confines of scientific thought." The blurb goes on
> and on ending with, "The Genesis Enigma is an unprecedented rational
> argument for the existence of God that is sure to fascinate intellectual
> curious believers and nonbelievers alike." It extols his virtues as one of
> the foremost evolutionary biologists/scientists of modern day, though not in
> those words.

So he is an Old-Earth Creationist who wants to deceive rational
people into believing the gods exist by claiming his occult
beliefs are "scientific." Golly, he's the sixth one I've seen do
that this morning.....



> The glaring problem of a very brief perusal of this book shows he is using
> the same poor translation of the bible to prove his point. He ignores the
> fact that there are two creation stories and uses verses in a hodgepodge
> order from either account depending upon the point he wishes to proselytize.

Like "Chariot of the Gods?" no doubt.



> I wonder if I will be able to get to the end of the book without vomiting?

It depends on how much insulting of your intelligence you can
take.


--

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 1:26:02 PM2/24/10
to
In article <hm1ngl$f6b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"rmacfarl" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

We have to untie the Gourdian not.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 1:26:40 PM2/24/10
to
In article
<aa437bb3-3340-4ee0...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Splingter!

Mike Lyle

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 5:25:37 PM2/24/10
to

Somewhere among my books is a rather old "Holy Land" flora, but I can't
tell where. So I can only ask, was _Pyrus pyraster_ or _P communis_
actually found there in Biblical times?

--
Mike.


John McKendry

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 5:46:38 PM2/24/10
to

"The common pear, Pyrus communis L., native to Russia, is now cultivated
in the Holy Land and even occurs there subspontaneously, but could not
have been known in Biblical days. The Syrian pear, P. syriaca Boiss.,
occurs on rocky hillsides throughout the area..." - Moldenke and
Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, Chronica Botanica Company, Waltham,
MA, 1952.

John

Paul J Gans

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 10:49:45 PM2/24/10
to

If it isn't in the King James Version, it isn't real.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Feb 24, 2010, 10:50:34 PM2/24/10
to

Seems like a bit of post hoc agriculture...

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 12:03:25 AM2/25/10
to
In article <hm4s0p$8ir$7...@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

No other books are needed, for they will either contradict it, in which
case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are
superfluous. Therefore all other books should be used as tinder for the
bathhouse.

Steven L.

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 10:04:04 AM2/25/10
to

"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7ujqk4...@mid.individual.net:

Take Dramamine one half hour before reading.


-- Steven L.

Bob Berger

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 1:40:20 PM2/25/10
to
In article <hm4s2a$8ir$8...@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...

Could be post hoe, or maybe even post hole?

Dan Drake

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 2:03:56 PM2/25/10
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:49:45 -0800, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <hm4s0p$8ir$7...@reader2.panix.com>):


Funny you should mention that. Just last night I ran across something I
decided to mention here: a new scholarly edition of Darwin's very
controversial piece (which I now know better than to call his most
successful):

http://www.ianmonroe.com/index.php/portfolio/writing/the-_____-of-_____/

This edition, available through Lulu as a bound book or free download, gives
the full text of
The --- of --- By Means of Natural ---;
Or the --- of Favoured --- in the Struggle for Life

in which all words not present in the King James Version are blacked out.
(Creative Commons license) Thus, a famous passage with deleted words
represented here as "gggg",

It is ggggg to ggggg an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many
kinds, with birds
singing on the bushes, with ggggg ggggg ggggg about, and with worms ggggg
through the ggggg earth, and to ggggg that these ggggg ggggg forms, so ggggg

from each other, and ggggg on each other in so ggggg a manner, have all been
ggggg
by laws ggggg ggggg us. These laws, taken in the ggggg sense, being Growth
with
ggggg
; Inheritance which is almost ggggg by ggggg; ggggg from the ggggg
and direct ggggg of the ggggg conditions of life, and from use and ggggg; a
ggggg
of Increase so high as to lead to a ggggg for Life, and as a ggggg to
Natural ggggg,
ggggg
ggggg of ggggg and the ggggg of less-ggggg forms. Thus, from the war
of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are ggggg
of conceiving, namely, the
ggggg
of the higher ggggg, directly ggggg. There is ggggg in this view of life,
with its
several powers, having been ggggg breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one; and that, whilst
this ggggg has gone ggggg on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being,
ggggg.

--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com


Eric Root

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 3:06:28 PM2/25/10
to
On Feb 21, 3:53�am, Darrell Stec <dars...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
> > �bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
> even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> Creationists tend to mix and match, confusing the stories, depending upon
> the version of "truth" they believe.
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell

or depending on what's coming out both sides of their mouths at the
current time.

Eric Root

Paul J Gans

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 3:19:24 PM2/25/10
to

Exactly, which is why so little remains of many native literatures
that were run over during the Christian Religious Conquests. These
obviously include native American material, but also thata of several
Baltic cultures, much Celtic and Basque material, and so on.

Indeed if the religious would have had their way, little or nothing
would survive of Greek and Roman material either. Luckily Charlemagne
had a different view. But we came THAT close...

Of course today we are totally sophisticated and so we only ban
pornography and philosophers, both being dangerous to the established
order.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 3:33:21 PM2/25/10
to

That's what you posted, so it must be so.

Michael Siemon

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 3:47:53 PM2/25/10
to
In article <hm6m0c$jjo$2...@reader2.panix.com>,

Yeah -- but Wilkins was in fact quoting the (apocryphal...) words of
the early Muslim conqueror of Egypt, with regard to the Library at
Alexandria... :-)

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 5:08:33 PM2/25/10
to
In article
<mlsiemon-04ECCF...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:

Written 300 years after the supposed event, by a Christian critic.
Irony...

Steven L.

unread,
Feb 25, 2010, 8:20:55 PM2/25/10
to

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hm6m0c$jjo$2...@reader2.panix.com:

Actually, more than those I'm afraid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

-- Steven L.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 28, 2010, 11:05:54 AM2/28/10
to
In article
<24698140-0497-46d4...@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:

Satyrically speaking they do tend to blow hot and cold from the same
mouth.

James Beck

unread,
Feb 28, 2010, 1:14:13 PM2/28/10
to
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:05:54 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article

I read a story like that once that involved ice cubes, but I always
thought it would hurt too much.

Otto

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 10:10:03 AM3/5/10
to
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news message
news:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>
> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
>> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> is literally true, and the bible does include a
> creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> story is literally true.
>

Even if you don't interpret the Bible as being literally true, the creation
story even if not taken literally still is a creation story of some kind.
There is still the aspect of a conscious being being behind the creation.

So you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe in a spiritual cause
behind the existence of matter.

Otto


Otto

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 10:15:44 AM3/5/10
to
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news message
news:wzign.38281$Ee1....@newsfe12.iad...
> Otto wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist
>>>> would dream of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when
>>>> they talk about the truth of evolution they must mean something
>>>> else than what they mean when talking about the existence of
>>>> McDonald's.
>>> Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from
>>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>>> also.
>>
>> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
>> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
>> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
>> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
>> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
>> trying to make ?
> This is allegedly the word of god that is telling this story, human
> perspective does not apply.

What I meant to say is, the human perspective as I wrote it here doesn't
invalidate what you were quoting from the bible, whether you think it is the
word of God, or you don't.

> The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star, contrary to
> what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light, just a reflection,
> one that shirks it's duties for most of the month and isn't evn in the
> night sky part of it.

It is not contrary to what the bible says. The bible calls it - a certain
people did in ancient times, not just the bible - the greater one of the two
lights, which it is, and which tallies with what I said was from the human
perspective. There is no contradiction, whether you know the Sun is in fact
a star or you don't. There are basically, apart from the countless stars in
the night sky, two lights in the sky, a greater one which lights the day,
and a lesser one during night time. What more is there to say about it ? You
are just splitting hairs.

>
> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume
> that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.

What two different stories of creation ?

Otto


Darrell Stec

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 11:41:12 AM3/5/10
to
Otto wrote:

>> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume
>> that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.
>
> What two different stories of creation ?
>
> Otto
>


Is that a serious question? There are the bible is a somewhat expert
blending of four different traditions each with similar but differing
stories.

In one creation story the Elohim, the sons of god (the god El), also called
the council of god, worked the earth and world that already existed. In the
other story of of the 70 sons of El, called Yahweh who because the tribal
god of the Hebrews, filled up the earth.

In one scenario Adam and Eve were created at the same time from the dust of
the earth and then the animals were made and the couple named them. In the
other story the animals were made first and then Adam. Adam tried mating
with all the different animals but was disappointed. So Adam was split in
half (Adam was a hermaphrodite) and Eve was created from his feminine side.
Note that the common usage of rib is an incorrect translation and facade or
side is closer to the meaning.

The order of the creation differs in the two stories too.

There are also two different Noah and the Ark stories interwoven. And at
least two of the same stories of Abraham (including the Abraham and Isaac
story where in one Isaac is saved and in the other his death is insinuated).
Since you are most likely depending upon a translation and may not have
studied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts much of that has been glossed over
and is not apparent. However in Hebrew it is as apparent as if you were
reading two stories interwoven one by Dr. Seuss and the other by William
Shakespeare.

Biblical scholars have been discussing this for about two centuries now.
Bill Moyer's Genesis separates the two creation accounts side by side, so
you can see the different but somewhat parallel story lines and then the
continuity becomes obviously. One story is definitely poetry and the other
more prose.

--
Later,
Darrell

Wombat

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 1:14:12 PM3/5/10
to
On Mar 5, 4:10�pm, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.org> wrote:
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news messagenews:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> Even if you don't interpret the Bible as being literally true, the creation
> story even if not taken literally still is a creation story of some kind.
> There is still the aspect of a conscious being being behind the creation.

The creation story in Genesis is a rewrite of an older Sumerian
creation myth. Then add in the flood purloined from the Epic of
Gilgamesh and some invented history to give the Israelites some
background and voila, the first book of the Bible is born.

Wombat

JohnN

unread,
Mar 6, 2010, 4:47:04 PM3/6/10
to
On Feb 20, 2:10�pm, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> "bpuharic" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in news messagenews:7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
> > creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because it's not mentioned
> > in teh bible
>
> > yet the bible never mentions quantum mechanics. so, according to
> > creationists, computers can't work.
>
> > the bible never mentions relativity. yet gps systems still work.
>
> > so if we base our beliefs on what's NOT �mentioned in the bible, then
> > none of modern science is possible.
>
> > AND creationists say that what happens in the bible is the ONLY thing
> > possible. 'each after its own kind'.
>
> > yet the bible never mentions any quantum observations, which we know
> > DO happen.
>
> > so where is the consistency of biblical literalism?

>
> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist would dream
> of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when they talk about the
> truth of evolution they must mean something else than what they mean when
> talking about the existence of McDonald's.
>
> Otto

The Bible will never mention McDonald's because the cheeseburger is an
abomination onto the Lord.

JohnN

Mike Painter

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 3:33:46 PM3/5/10
to
Otto wrote:
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news message
> news:wzign.38281$Ee1....@newsfe12.iad...
>>>> Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from
>>>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>>>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>>>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>>>> also.
>>>
>>> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
>>> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
>>> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
>>> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
>>> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
>>> trying to make ?
>> This is allegedly the word of god that is telling this story, human
>> perspective does not apply.
>
> What I meant to say is, the human perspective as I wrote it here
> doesn't invalidate what you were quoting from the bible, whether you
> think it is the word of God, or you don't.

Perhaps you have a different meaning for "invalidate" than I do. When I say
the world is flat and somebody shows me that it is an oblate spheroid, I
caonsider that does invalidate my belief.

>
>> The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star,
>> contrary to what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light,
>> just a reflection, one that shirks it's duties for most of the month
>> and isn't evn in the night sky part of it.
>
> It is not contrary to what the bible says. The bible calls it - a
> certain people did in ancient times, not just the bible - the greater
> one of the two lights, which it is, and which tallies with what I
> said was from the human perspective. There is no contradiction,
> whether you know the Sun is in fact a star or you don't. There are
> basically, apart from the countless stars in the night sky, two
> lights in the sky, a greater one which lights the day, and a lesser
> one during night time. What more is there to say about it ? You are
> just splitting hairs.

Who called the sun the greater light in anciet times?
How can you make a flat statement that the sun is the greater light when the
moon is not a light.
Do you call mirrors lights? When I shine a light on a car and it reflects
light, do you now call the car a light?

>
>>
>> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to
>> assume that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither
>> were true.
>
> What two different stories of creation ?

The one i Chapter One and teh other one in Chapter two.

>
> Otto

bpuharic

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 3:34:04 PM3/5/10
to
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:10:03 +0100, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org>
wrote:

you do have to be a fundamentalist to believe the spiritual power
caused it directly instead of using a natural process like evolution


>Otto
>

Eric Root

unread,
Mar 6, 2010, 11:05:16 AM3/6/10
to
On Mar 5, 7:10�am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.org> wrote:
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news messagenews:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

But you have to be a fundamentalist to think you have actually
evidence for it, so that people who disagree with you must be
suppressed.

Eric Root

Mike Painter

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 3:36:28 PM3/5/10
to

You don't have to be but the bible is no different from any other creation
story that came from that and earlier time periods. A bird, a fox, a wolf,
or one of the gods made things from existing material.

That is, in fact what the christian bible says.
The idea of creation from nothing came much later.

Otto

unread,
Mar 5, 2010, 1:20:25 PM3/5/10
to
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news message
news:7vcqha...@mid.individual.net...

What you are saying is very interesting. I know the four gospels each gives
a somewhat different version of Jesus's life, with different emphasis, but I
suppose that's not what you are talking about when you mention the Elohim.

You explain the word "Elohim" as "the sons of God" which you say is "El".
But "Elohim" is the plural form of the word "Eloha". I don't think "Eloha"
means "son of God".

Could you show where the Bible says Adam and Eve were created at the same
time ? Your claim of the existence of two different creation stories is
interesting, but you should show where it says so. Same for Noah.

Otto


Darrell Stec

unread,
Mar 9, 2010, 10:54:11 AM3/9/10
to
JohnN wrote:

I think he had cheeseburgers in mind when he formulated boiling a kid in its
mother's milk. That was an abomination for which the penalty was stoning to
death. Still researching if you can have fries with that. Mickey D's
started out with a simple menu -- hamburger, fries and shake. Mixing dairy
and meat is a no no.


--
Later,
Darrell

Darrell Stec

unread,
Mar 9, 2010, 11:35:58 AM3/9/10