Table of Contents
Links_to_Good_Web_Sites_on_Intelligent_Design
Missing_Links_Disprove_a_Theory
Intelligent_Design:_Not_So_Intelligent_After_All
The_Beastly_Beauty_Show_in_Depth
Responses_to_my_INTELLIGENT_DESIGN
Links to Good Web Sites on Intelligent Design
Video: Professor Ken Miller, a good public speaker, cell biologist, and author of many text books on biology, gives an easy to understand refutation of Intelligent Design.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Missing Links Disprove a Theory
|
Missing Links Disprove Creationism Mark Smith April 2008 Set Free! www.JCnot4me.com |
||
|
|
-vs- |
|
|
REAL T-Rex
"One large rare steak to go, dammit, with
|
Missing Creationist T-Rex "Oh golly, I am so hungry! Please give me a carrot, and I shall share it with my bunny friends while we all watch Veggie Tales on TBN"
|
|
|
Creationists claim that before the "fall of Adam" there was *no death or killing. Let’s assume that’s true. Therefore, the T-Rex’s of that era must have had flat cow-like cud-chewing teeth, suitable for eating vegetation. Massive fangs, useful for ripping out large chunks of flesh, would be quite useless for chewing grass. That being the case, WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS WHICH SHOW THIS??? If the book of Genesis is correct, the facts in the fossil record should back it up. The ratio of herbivore to carnivore T-Rex’s in the fossil record, were Creationism true, should be more than 1000 to 1, seeing how the T-Rex's wouldn't have even become meat eaters until after October 23, 4004 BC**. For the millions of years prior to that all the T-Rex's would have been herbivores, and only since then would they have eaten meat. Yet in all of history there has never been ANY vegetarian T-Rex dug up, not even one.
Such remains are totally, completely, and utterly MISSING from the fossil record, and ditto for the ancestors of all the carnivores that have survived to our present day. In REAL science, one makes a theory, and presents some concrete evidence to back it up. If there is no evidence AT ALL, the theory gets yanked. Thousands upon thousands of fossils have been dug up in the last 200 years, and not even ONCE has a carnivore (T-Rex, Lion, Shark etc) been found with the kind of teeth the "Intelligent Design" theory demands. The same goes for snakes. Not one “Creationist rattlesnake” skull, among the thousands that have been dug up, has ever been found with non-hollow fangs, which would show that before 4004 BC rattlesnakes weren't squirting deadly poison into their victims. These are the facts, and these facts are a direct contradiction of Creationism and the Bible. -------------------------------------------------------- * “People and animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no meat-eating before the Fall, whether by man or by animal. The carnivorous part of the present ‘food chain’ did not exist.” Ken Ham, #1 Creationist in the world, founder of the Creation Museum http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp **Bishop Ussher |
||
|
Missing Links??? Fish Don't Walk??? |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tiktaalik Roseae A walking fish, complete with wrists, elbows, and a neck. |
The Infamous Darwin Fish Mocked by Fundies No More |
||
| I honestly feel sorry for the Creationists aka
"Intelligent Designers". Really.
When I was one, we never had to deal with what they've had to deal
with in April 2006. In just one month, scientists dug up, if not
the friggin "Darwin Fish" (pictured at right in new form) then its close cousin. They
also dug up the remains of a snake with hind legs, a bird with hands
at the end of its wings, and to top it
off, they also dug up yet another transition in the evolution of man from primates. Any
one of these is enough to put Ken Ham in the unemployment line or as
the lead for "Thank You For Smoking II", but
all in one month! Science hasn't dealt the Fundies and their
book of religious ju-ju a blow this severe since Columbus failed to
sail off the edge of the world! |
|||
Intelligent Design: Not So Intelligent After All
Mark Smith March 2005
Intelligent Design, aka "I.D", is the latest attempt by Creationists to repackage their religion and slip it into the public schools. The lies and deceptions of "the good Christians" attempting this were well documented in the famous 2005 court case in Pennsylvania. But as dishonest as their attempt was, it's exceeded even MORE by the title Christians have given their theory to make it more palatable: “Intelligent” Design. For what they're really proposing is not an intelligent designer (such as might work at GM, Ford or Boeing), but rather a perfect designer, and "coincidentally", they just happen to have one handy in their Bible (Deut. 32:4). Their claim, however, falls far short when we see their perfect designer coming up repeatedly with less than perfect designs.
According to the Christian story of creation, way before "The Fall", in the initial "Garden of Eden, Release 1.0" Biblegod Joe Hovah designed mates for all the animals, but it somehow slipped his mind to do so for the human. Maybe this supposedly eternal god, after billions of years, was having a "senior moment". You’d think that Biblegod could do the math: Adam + testosterone = needs a mate, but I guess math wasn't his best subject. Or you’d think that creating females for all the other male animals would have been a hint, but the "perfect designer" remained perfectly oblivious. Every morning, year after year, Joe watched Adam and his morning you-know-what walking around naked, yet remained clueless. Even watching all the other animals having sex (Genesis 1:22) sparked no clues in his clueless mind. But somehow, somewhere, eventually Joe had a "Eureka!" moment and it dawned on him that he had screwed up, for we read of him exclaiming in Genesis 2:18 "It’s not good for man to be alone!"
In his excitement, however, his fix was worse: bestiality, as evidenced in "Garden of Eden, Release 2.0" where we have Biblegod parading all the naked animals in front of Adam, like some sort of beastly beauty contest, so Adam could apparently find a wife (Genesis 2:18-20) out of all the cows, chickens, and goats. When nothing got a rise out of Adam (gee, what a surprise!), Biblegod came up with yet ANOTHER idea, and in taking his third swing at bat he finally hit the ball with the creation of Eve.
But who was the genius who bungled "The Garden of Eden", designing it without a mate for Adam in the first place? And who then tried to fix the screwup with an even worse one of cows, chickens, and goats? And who was the one perfectly oblivious for so long to the fact that it was an imperfect (per his own words: "not good") design? In short, who swung at the ball- twice- and missed? Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't a PERFECT Designer such as required by the Christian's mis-named Intelligent Design theory. Joe Hovah screwed up twice in a row- so much for being a Perfect Designer. And that bit with the animals- as far as "Intelligent Design" goes, wasn't even very smart, much less intelligent. In the end, all they’re left with is a fallible “Not-So-Intelligent Designer” that makes, and sometimes corrects, mistakes. Maybe they could call their new theory… evolution.
For further information, Ed Babinski has put together an excellent essay on the stupidity of Intelligent Design: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html
The Beastly Beauty Show in Depth
Mark Smith August 2005
Some Christians, ignorant of the Bible as most Christians are, have disputed my contention that the parade of beasts in front of Adam was for him to pick out a mate. The text from Genesis shows otherwise. Please note:
Genesis 2: 18-22 The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names. None of these was the right kind of partner for the man.
So the LORD God made him fall into a deep sleep, and he took out one of the man's ribs. Then after closing the man's side, the LORD made a woman out of the rib. The LORD God brought her to the man, and the man exclaimed,
"Here is someone like me! She is part of my body, my own flesh and bones. She came from me, a man. So I will name her Woman!"That's why a man will leave his own father and mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person.
Contemporary English Version, by the American Bible Society http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20;&version=46;
Note the section highlighted in yellow, "None of these was the right kind of partner for the man." It would not have stated this save for the fact that was the major reason for the Beastly Parade in the first place.
What about the naming? Why was that done? Well, in case he found one he had the hots for, how else would he ask for it? There are zillions of different animals currently on this planet, and ten times that amount which have since gone extinct. Therefore, for ALL these animals to have been gathered together from the whole world, from below ground, above ground, in the water, not to mention the sky, and lets not forget all the variety of insects, to feed and organize and house all these critters (fish require aquariums, worms require dirt etc), and cleaned up after, then paraded in front of Adam, would have taken a VERY long time. How long? Well, if we conservatively estimate the number of species on this planet that have ever lived at 10 million, and then allow each species just one second on the "cat walk" for this ancient beauty show, and if we ran this show 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would have taken... over 9 months. Nine months, hour after hour, watching these critters slither, crawl, fly, swim or trot their way in front of him... how else was he to specify almost a year later WHICH of these critters caught his fancy, unless he had names with which to specify each one? So that is why he had to name them, just as in today's beauty pageants they put numbers on the contestants.
In short, Biblegod admitted he screwed up in creating man alone. Then he tried to fix it via the beauty show but only failed again. Then he hit upon the idea of creating Eve. Intelligent designer, or Cosmic Dumbass- YOU decide!
The following are snippets from articles covering the Intelligent Design trial in Pennsylvania.
Closing Arguments Made in Trial on Intelligent Design
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 5, 2005, New York TimesHARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 4, 2005 In his blunt closing argument, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Eric Rothschild, accused the intelligent design movement of lying, just as he said the school board members had lied when they testified that their purpose for changing the science curriculum had nothing to do with religion.
They lied, he said, when they testified that they did not make or hear religious declarations at board meetings, and when they claimed they did not know that 50 copies of an intelligent design textbook were bought for the school with money collected at a church and funneled through the father of a school board member, Alan Bonsell.
This week, the judge himself grew agitated as he questioned Mr. Bonsell about whether he had lied about the books. Mr. Rothschild reminded the judge of that interchange and said that the board's dishonesty "mimics" the intelligent design movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/science/sciencespecial2/05design.html
Judge Says "Intelligent Design" Is Not Science
By Henry Weinstein, L.A. Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, front page & page A-18, Dec. 21, 2005. Comments by Judge John E. Jones III.The overwhelming evidence has established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
The judge said school board officials had LIED in their testimony.
It is ironic that several of these (school board) individuals who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public would TIME AND AGAIN LIE to cover their tracks and DISGUISE the REAL purpose behind the intelligent design policy... We find that the secular purpose claimed by the board amount to a PRETEXT for the board's REAL purpose, which was to PROMOTE RELIGION in the public school classroom... Any asserted secular purposes by the board are a SHAM and are merely secondary to a religious objective.
Most, if not all of the board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they... do not know what intelligent design is.
Once again, we see that Fundy Christians must resort to lies and deception to defend their "truths". Times have certainly changed. Back when I was a Fundy Christian, we were always told that "as cream rises to the top, so also would the truth" and that truth, REAL truth, never ever would need lies and deceptions to defend it. In fact, if someone HAD to resort to lies, that was a sure sign they didn't HAVE the truth. Like I said, times have changed.
The Fundies driving the "Intelligent Design" movement have religion, and ONLY religion, as their motivating factor. Period. Anything else is a blatant and self-serving LIE. Therefore, any Christian that tells you his interest in "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with his religion is automatically a BAD Christian, a FALSE Christian, someone who sees no problem in "lying for the truth", which used to be a policy used by the Watch Tower organization but apparently adopted by Fundies now.
Before these Fundies try to push their religion down our throats, they should learn how to live it themselves. Lies and deception only go to indicate that their REAL "heavenly father" sure as HELL (hint hint) doesn't live in heaven. Their constant and continual LYING shows that they are the children of BibleSatan, the "father of lies".
|
65
Million Years Ago, Way Before Humans Evolved, a Massive Asteroid Struck The Earth Killing Off Almost All Living Things... |
|
 Epicurus, ~300 BC |
Did
Biblegod at least try to deflect the asteroid from hitting the Earth, but wasn't able? Then he's a wimp. Was Biblegod able to, but didn't want to? Then he's not a wimp, but he IS a bastard. Was Biblegod able to AND really wanted to as well? Then he's a fuck-up cause he didn't do it. Or was he both unable and unwilling to stop it, and instead just enjoyed watching the ensuing death & destruction? Then he's an evil wimpy bastard, so why bother calling him "God"??? My apologies to Epicurus for what might be a piss-poor paraphrasing, but dear religionists, it's been 2,300 years since Epicurus asked these questions, and you are STILL avoiding giving us an answer. The logic is still as airtight as it was in 300 BC. Your gods- be they Jesus, Joe Hovah, or whatever, are either wimps, bastards, fuck ups, or evil wimpy bastards. That's it. Those are ALL your choices. You have no other choices. So which do you worship- which piece of shit deity do you kiss the ass of and try to talk others into kissing as well? Will you answer the damn question, or will you stall for yet another 2,300 years??? |
Responses to my INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Responses to my Intelligent Design: Not So Intelligent After All
Table of Contents
Subject: My Position
Date: 8/11/2005 3:22:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5@aol.com
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Mark,
Concerning I.D., it is quite possible that God was teaching Adam something that
we are not aware of.
Mark Smith here} Such as how to get horny looking at animals? What else could it be- the poor guy hadn't gotten laid in... never! He's probably walking around with a petrified woody, then your Biblegod sits him down to parade all the animals in front of him. What- was he supposed to "try them on" as well???
For instance, before I become married, I want to be financially stable, complete my education, be satisfied with my maturity level, etc. I believe that it is very well possible that God did not want Adam to have a mate immediately. He was not ready.
Mark Smith here} If not, why not? None of the things you mentioned about you apply here. Adam lived in a perfect state of being, in need of nothing, right? Besides, all the other animals had mates. Whatever arguments you make for Adam would have to apply to them as well.
Furthermore, for it is said, " For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the will become one flesh. Now, granted, I do not see any indication of sex happening during the garden of Eden era.
Mark Smith here} Why? Would it upset you if you did? After Eve was created, just exactly WHAT was Adam supposed to DO with her vagina- just view it to paint a nude of her? Use it as a bottle opener? Put change in their for their trips on the toll road? Come on! As soon as she walked in, they got started. Remember- perfect. That means perfect bodies combined with perfect sex drives.
However, do you see the correlation? Prior to the context of the scripture
man is alone for a while, and later united to his wife.
Just because God said, "It is not good
for man to be alone", by no means implies that he is imperfect. It simply
indicates that he reinforced what he already knew. I believe that God meant it
is not good for man to be alone forever. But, prior to "It is not good for man
to be alone," it was essential that man ought to be alone, in order to become
equipped for marriage or a "mate," one might say. Is that a logical argument? I
will repeat myself again. Do not take a few verses from the Bible and attempt to
disprove God's existence. Yes, I could be wrong, but so could you! Incidentally,
try to be more optimistic.
Mark Smith here} Your Biblegod created a "state of being" that was "not good". How else would you define "not good" other than less than perfect? Any situation that is "not good" is by definition NOT PERFECT. This is just plain common sense. And you Biblegod created this imperfect setup, which he later had to correct. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Biblegod fixed it, so therefore it must have been broke.
Subject: (no subject)
Date: 8/25/2005 6:25:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Mark.
Let me make this clear to you. Adam was not perfect as you perceived him to be
according to what you think the bible reads.
If Adam was perfect he would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent,
etc., etc. He did not even know what evil was until he had eaten from the tree
of life.
By no means was he perfect.
Be sure to email me back on this one. Do not slide between the cracks like you
did with my other arguments and making some lame excuse not to answer them just
because you could not refute them.
Mark Smith here} Huh? How did you ever confuse the word "perfect" with omnipotent etc etc? Please learn to use a dictionary. The word "perfect" in the Greek comes from the word "telios" and all it means is that something is the way it should be. Period. A hammer that functions as it should is perfect. It doesn't have to rule the entire universe.I don't have time to argue with someone who can't even use a dictionary. Grow up.
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: 8/26/2005 6:17:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Ok... Look. You have no clue what I mean. We have lost each other in
understanding one another. Your answer does not pertain to what I was trying to
relay to you. I am not even going to try to retrace my steps in making you
understand what I mean. Sometimes it is very difficult to get a point across in
words. I wish I could talk to you in person or on the phone. Anyway, you
mentioned the word perfect and what it means in Greek. Who cares what it means
in Greek. You need to know what it means in Hebrew because the old testament,
which the word perfect is found in was written in Hebrew. Now I know my
arguments are clearly stated. It is just you that does not know how to
understand them! Moving right along, how is it possible for a human to fully
understand what the term perfect means in view of the fact that we are finite
creatures? Hmmm. Also, you are just like everyone else. Brace yourself Mark.
This one is going to sting. You say I do not know how to use a dictionary. You
have added to the meaning of perfect in order to justify your argument. Look up
perfect again and know where does it say "Biblegod can not be perfect. A perfect
being, by definition, has no needs or desires or wants to be met." Hence,
youuuuu need to grow up! Validate your argument before you pose your position
all over the internet! However, going back to what you said the word perfect
means in Greek is interesting because you said "The word "perfect" in the Greek
comes from the word "telios" and all it means is that something is the way it
should be." You are right. Everything is the way it should be. Just the way God
created to be. Gods creation is perfect in its own way. You can use any kind of
fancy logic that you wish to disprove the existence of God, but again, humans
are imperfect. Therefore how in anyone's right mind make a ludicrous claim such
as, "Perfect means this and that." We do not know what it fully means. It is
like this. Is a man with psychological problems going to take advise from a
psychologist who has read a bunch of books, or is he going to listen to the
psychologist who has "experienced the problems" and read a bunch of books? Mark,
I am not going to listen to what you profess the word perfect means. Whyyy?
Because you are imperfect!!! Now, please... go back to Jesus.
P.S. Please write back. It will be interesting how you try to deflate this
argument.
Mark Smith here} You know, you are suffering from a problem that seem epidemic among Christian Fundies that email me. You put forth statements, usually based upon nothing, with not one whit of evidence, logic, or reasoning to back it up, then expect to use that "nerf " sword of the spirit to defeat my logic and evidence. My original argument in my essay on I.D., in essence, was as follows:
1) Fundy Christianity's version of I.D. requires a PERFECT (not just an intelligent) Designer.
2) Biblegod is not perfect, as evidenced by his screwups and own admissions in the Garden of Eden.
3) Therefore, Biblegod can not be Christianity's "Intelligent Designer".
I fleshed out each point, logically tied them together, provided references as needed, and the whole essay flowed logically and rationally towards making a POINT.
Your very first email to me, on the other hand, bounces from topic to topic, NONE of which is even SLIGHTLY related to what the FUCK I wrote about in the first place!!!!!! You GUESS (with no evidence or purpose whatsover) that Biblegod was trying to "teach Adam something we are unaware of". That has nothing to to with anything, and you have ZERO evidence to back it up. It is a totally wild ass guess. On top of that, why bring it up? You might have well said "the price of beans in China is 39 cents per pound".
Then you said that before you got married you wanted to be financially stable. SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! Again, the price of beans in China is 39 cents a pound!!!!
Then you say something about Adam fucking or not fucking Eve. ARRGHHHH!!! What god-damn planet are you LIVING on for it sure ain't the Earth where I live because your brain isn't even in the ball park. WHAT THE FUCK DOES ADAM FUCKING OR NOT FUCKING EVE HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I WROTE??? N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Then why do you bring it up????? Price of beans in China!!!!
Your last paragraph of your first email is actually the ONLY place you even REMOTELY sound sane. But then you go and tell us the "inside scoop" on what Biblegod was REALLY thinking, as if there really WERE a Biblegod, he would confide in you his inner thoughts from that day, like you're his drinking buddy or something.
Bottom line is this: I ain't going to bother to even touch your latest email above, because I see no sense in it whatsoever. Your emails can stand as yet one more embarrassment to those Christians that are able to reason, and just cringe when they see an email from someone like you, because people might mistake their level of mentality with yours.
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design- final email
Date: 8/27/2005 5:40:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Ok... You do not have to email me back on this one if you do not want to, but listen to this breakdown in Genesis 2:18-19. "The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all of the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Notice in this verse that he brought them to the man to see what he would name them, not to see which one would be suitable for him. This is were I think you may be confused. You think God screwed up right here, but you are reading it wrong. I have more to say about the following verses, but I before I continue with them I need to know whether or not I understand you correctly.
Mark Smith here} I noticed where you happened to STOP your quotation of scripture (see the yellow)- how convenient!!! You stopped RIGHT BEFORE the verse that would blow your position (in green) out of the water. How intellectually dishonest is THAT???? The very next verse (the one you deliberately left out) reads:
"None of these was the right kind of partner for the man." (C.E.V. translation)
Which is a 100% contradiction of what you said above in green. You said Biblegod didn't conduct his Parade of Beasts "to see which one would be suitable for him", yet THE VERSE YOU LEFT OUT says exactly that! It says "none of these was the right kind of partner for the man".
Thank you for exposing to the world a fine example of Christian trickery and deception, as well as a VERY good example of taking something out of context, for the place you stopped your quotation at radically changes the whole meaning.
Also thank you for motivating me into adding a new section to the original essay. I just added "The Beastly Beauty Show in Depth", which would have taken care of your deception from the get go. So thank you for helping me to refine my arguments.
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design- final email
Date: 8/27/2005 3:20:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Sorry Mark, I need to back up bit from the last email that I sent you. Your initial problem is in 2:18. "The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."Mark Smith here} No, my "initial problem" is that you've TOTALLY ignored my calling you on the carpet for your blatent DISHONESTY which I proved in my LAST email to you. In fact, you ignored every single point I brought up.
If I understand you right you believe this indicates that God is imperfect because he should have already known that it is not good for man to be alone. God did in fact already know that it is not good for man to be alone.
Mark Smith here} Then you are admitting my point!!! The whole ENTIRE point of the essay was to show that your Biblegod screwed up. Your so-called "perfect" god did something imperfect. Whether he knew it was a screwup beforehand (and you never say how you KNOW what your god was thinking- what are you, Kreskin?) or not, doesn't matter. BIBLEGOD FUCKED UP. He did something less than perfect. You have admitted your Biblegod did something he knew to NOT be good. Therefore, your Biblegod is not good, and your Biblegod is not perfect.
He was simply reinforcing the point, so that humans would understand this. Here is why I believe God already knew. Much prophecy has been fulfilled. God has announced many things which he said would transpire and they have. Do not quote me on this, but there is a book called 25,000 facts of the Bible. It simply proves the Bible to be accurate in all that it proclaims.
P.S. Write back if you feel this is a logical argument. I would really like to know if I am wrong because if you can disprove the existence of God then what am I doing? I should stop being a Christian. Thanks. Hope to here for ya.
Subject: ID byte
Date: 11/7/2005 7:55:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Magus Solitudo
What is wrong with teaching 'intelligent design" in the classroom? Well, for starters "ID" only makes sense if one keeps the scientific discussions very superficial. Real science is not something you can break up into sound bytes for those ignorant of the scientifc disciplines involved. A moron can ask "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? but 'answering a fool according to his folly' is not so simple. An actual scientific discussion is extremely involved and most people do not want to do the necessary thinking and learning in order to follow along.
These same people have often been to college and university for some other scientific specialty, and from their studies realize that real science is mult-faceted, complex, deep, and highly involved. They know their particular scientific specialty cannot be explained properly in a few sound bytes for the ignorant. Yet these same folks expect the most complex scientific disciplines on the planet (i.e., origins) to be pablumized into convincing and intelligent sound bytes.
Perhaps I am making myself a bit more clear this time around.
If you are an ID advocate, I am willing to bet a whole poop-load of money that you have never read any anti-creationists books written by teams of scientists from the various specialties involved. If you go to Google, you can find a number of such sources available online, as well as books that can enlighten you. I'm not going to do the impossible and try to write Origin Sound Bytes here on the forum.
Okay boys and girls. I'm gonna write some stuff about Genesis
and science, especially for Homer Simpson. That's a helluva thing
for a guy who runs a tavern and makes book, but what the heck
I'll give it a shot. Pay attention Homer, this one's for you.
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.
Here we have the first recorded reference to baseball. In the
Big Inning. Seriously though, God is outside the scope of
science. If God isn't outside the scope of science, then "God"
should be a valid subject for public schools. So, evolutionists
such as myself should watch our step here.
Was there a beginning? Current cosmogony says yes. The Big
Banger. Back when Carl Sagan filmed that way cool "Cosmos"
thing, the Oscillating Theory of the universe was in vogue.
What's that? This theory states that the universe has been
eternally undergoing "Big Bangs" followed by "Big Crunches" as
the universe expands and then collapses in upon itself, only to
be "born again" (hehehe) in another Big Bang. That's a helluva
thing too.
Actually, Homer, I never stopped having faith in the Little
Oscillator That Could, even though science left it behind.
Recent developments are promising a return of this elegant and
perfect model of the universe, a model that makes the questions
"Who?" and "Why?" irrelevant since an eternal universe needs no
explanation, it simply
is.
The problem with the Oscillating theory of the universe was the
inadequacy of the mass of the universe to slow down, stop, and
finally reverse the expansion of the universe. (Yeah, the
universe is expanding. Google "red shift" Homer 'cause I ain't
gonna go into the red shift here) In other words, there just
wasn't enough "stuff" in the universe to generate sufficient
gravity to slow the damn thing down and stop it and bring it
crashing together again. I hope you're enjoying all this
technical science jargon and stuff.
What are the recent developments which I mentioned? I'm glad
you didn't ask. First, the discovery that neutrinos (with which
the universe is brimming over) do in fact have mass after all.
So little mass as to be virtually nonexistent when you're
dealing with a single neutrino, but fill the universe with them
and you've got a source of mass to be reckoned with.
Dark matter. It exists. Hey, Google it 'cause I ain't gonna
explain it here Homer. It exists and has mass and therefore has
a gravitational effect.
Hubble telescope. A number of photographs taken with the Hubble
telescope of sections of the "sky" that were thought to be
devoid of galaxies have been shown to contain hundreds if not
thousands of galaxies. In other words, the universe contains
hundreds and possibly thousand (possibly more) galaxies
than anyone figured. Go figure. So, the universe generates
hundreds, perhaps thousands (or more) times the gravitational
forces than previously thought. Even the low end, hundreds, is
more than sufficient to reverse cosmic expansion and bring about
a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang.
The extra gravitational attraction has also been confirmed by
the discovery of the filamentary structure of the universe.
Galaxies are not flying apart all crazy like, but instead
display a pronounced gravitational relationship expressed as a
filamentary structure.
Taken together, these findings are more than sufficient to
revive the Elegant and Perfect Model we call the Oscillating
Universe. So there.
Evolutionists, ZERO. Creationists, ZERO. Carl Sagan and me,
ONE.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters.
"Tohu and bohu" would be better rendered "chaotic and vacant,"
or "chaos and vacant" than "waste and void." The "ruach", wind
of the elohim, the gods, does not carry any of the Christian
connotations of the "Spirit of God" in this verse. Young's
Literal reads "fluttered" where the ASV says "moved." My own
vote is for "vibrated." Why? "Vibrated" is every bit as
descriptive as "fluttered" but has the added advantage of being
somewhat suggestive and salacious.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was
light.
I have seen some criticisms of the Genesis story because it
states that light was created before the sun was created. I'm a
convinced evolutionist, but I have to side with the Bible
Thumpers here. Light came into being at the moment of the Big
Bangeroo, "billions and billions" of years before the sun. So
far, evolutionists ZERO. Creationists ONE. Carl Sagan and me,
TWO.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
Okay, now we're starting to get weird if we're going to take
this Creation Myth as literal science. What did the elohim, the
gods, make that separated the light from darkness? We now
know the Earth is a globe, and that the axial rotation of the
globe accounts for the separation of light from darkness
(Speaking in terms of phenomenology and whatnot, you
know?) However, if one is a Trekkie "Lost In Space" it's pretty
evident there is no Cosmic mechanism of separating light from
darkness. There ain't some big blankie out there keeping light
on one side of the universe and dark on the other, k Homer?
Verse five is a further Revelation (Oooh..I couldn't resist!) of
this fact. Light and darkness made night and day possible. The
ancients who wrote Genesis had no clue this was due to the axial
rotation of the globe, they just knew there was "dark" and
"light." Personally, I think Genesis is a lot more fun if you
take it as an allegory. Remind me to post some stuff about this
in the neat future. Okay I'm not losing anybody here by being
too technical and stuff am I? No? Good.
5and God calleth the light `Day,' and the darkness He
hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a
morning -- day one.
Is it "nighttime" in interstellar and intergalactic space? Of
course not. If you're hanging out in space it's dark AND light
all the time. Obviously, night and day have only to do with a
rotating globe, a planet. So, this verse, like verse 4, makes
no sense unless you confine it's meaning to the earth. Confined
to the earth, this account really has nothing to say to us
scientifically as to the structure of the universe (cosmology)
or to how it began (cosmogony). Since it ain't
science, don't be dragging it into science classrooms, k?
Evolutionists, ONE. Creationists, ONE. Carl Sagan and me, TWO.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided
the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which
were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God
called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was
morning, a second day. 9 And God said, Let the
waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place,
and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
This is really "out there" now if we take this as science.
"Firmament" (rawkeeah) is literally "stretched out thinness"
very much like a lot of creationist arguments. Ha ha. Jesus I
crack myself up. Okay, here we go. A good argument can be made
that rawkeeah should be translated as "dome" and in fact a lot
of Bibles do exactly that. Its a hell of a lot better than
"firmament" which tells us precisely nothing. We're out in
space now, checking out all the orbiting space junk and
debris. We don't see a firmament separating waters above the
rawkeeah from the waters below the rawkeeah. Why is that?
Well, Homer, it's like this: The rawkeeah is very much like
Santa Claus on account of it not existing. Sorry to burst your
bubble.
This is very simple to understand if you stop being a MODERNIST
and trying to make Genesis say MODERN things. Stop being
an ANACHRONISTIC MODERNIST trying to force your MODERN concerns
and understandings on a venerable ancient SPIRITUAL book. You
peeps who think you're honoring the book of Genesis by remaining
clueless here, you need to understand that you're destroying
Genesis. It can't stand up to the demands you're making on it
and the views you're trying to force out of it because THEY AINT
THERE. Eventually, if you leave Genesis in the scientific pen,
the Pit Bull of Science will rip it to shreds and it will be
forever discredited and that will be a shame.
What creationists are doing is a lot like someone who judges a
legal document by standards of poetry, or a poem by legal
standards. You either wind up with bad poetry or a legal
document that ain't worth the powder it would take to blow it to
hell.
I am a CONSERVATIVE when it comes to Genesis as I wish to
CONSERVE the original meanings intended by the ancient authors.
I am not
a MODERNIST who reads modern concepts and concerns back into an
ancient document. The authors of Genesis were concerned
with spiritual concerns and stuff. In their world, the
sun-moon-stars were all GODS with their own domains of
influence. The authors of Genesis wanted to de-sacralize the
world, show that it isn't a God or gods but merely the creation
of a God or gods. Believe it or not, it was this de-sacralizing
of nature by Genesis that made science possible! Are you still
with me Homer? Before Genesis, people were too afraid of
nature, since it was made up of various gods, to "do science."
Genesis made science possible through its' spiritual message,
but it isn't in itself a scientific document.
I hold Genesis in very high regard because of this. Because of
Genesis, modern science was made possible, and I am alive today
because of it. What, you think there would be cartoons and The
Simpsons without science? Get your head out of your butt
Homer. Plus, it's de-sacralizing of nature makes for a much
more beautiful and elegant Myth than the theogonies of the pagan
world. I think anyway. Maybe thats just old Moe.
Okay. Back to rawkeeah. This whole scenario is simple when you
understand the ancient Semitic world view. They understood the
earth to be round but flat, supported either by four pillars, or
nothing, depending on who was telling the story. Placed over
the earth was a blue metallic dome, a rawkeeah. The stars and
planets were little holes in this dome through which the
Light of God shone. Above this rawkeeah, this dome, was water.
So, this rawkeeah separated the waters that were above it from
those below. Rain resulted when the literal "windows of heaven"
were opened and some of the water above the rawkeeah was allowed
through by God. "Windows of Heaven" is understood as poetry
by modern people due to our scientific knowledge and mind-set,
but it wasn't poetry to the ancient Semites. The windows of
heaven were a literal fact to them.
If your religion can't handle Genesis being a spiritual book
with spiritual truths to teach, and not science, you and your
religion are confused. Religion ain't science and science
shouldn't be religion.
Okay, now we're gonna skip a few verses. Just a quick comment
on the goombas who try to make the days of Genesis into ages:
Duh. It says EVENING and MORNING. A period of time separated
by evening and morning is not an age. Sheesh. The Hebrew word
olam could have been used here if an "age" were in view. If
these "days" are really "ages", I pity the fool that got stuck
in that long ass night.
Okay. Evolution, TWO. Creationists, ONE. Carl Sagan and me,
THREE.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Oh yeah. This is great science. Not. This is exactly what I was talking about. The lights in the rawkeeah. So, according to Biblical literalists, hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars, so far away that none of their light is ever seen on the earth, and therefore they play no role in dividing day from night, or in mapping out days and months and seasons and years, are nonetheless there for that purpose. RRRRight. Stop kicking Genesis into your space-bucket pal.
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of
heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ditto for this verse.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also.
Oh man. The earth precedes the sun! Back this up with actual
SCIENCE. Ya cant. This is a faith assertion, much like
claiming little green goblins live on a planet billions of light
years away. Its an unfalsifiable claim and therefore irrelevant
to the scientifc method which deals with ideas that can be
tested and falsified (shown to be false). "He made the stars
also." Yeah, they were just an afterthought. Pretty little
lights in the sky, not gigantic balls of thermonuclear violence
that could hold millions (and some, billions) of earths. They
don't have their own worlds circling them! No! They're just
pretty little lights in the sky. See? This is what I mean by
sticking Genesis where it don't belong, Homer. It belongs under
the heading SPIR-I-TU-AL not SCI-ENCE. Leave it where it was
never meant to be and it will get the hell beaten out of it.
This verse is half right in that the earth did precede the moon.
EVOLUTIONISTS..hmm...FOUR. Creationists, ONE and a HALF. Carl
Sagan and Me, FIVE.
Whew. Okay Homer. Come back some other time, k? I got a tavern
to run.