MrDarwin

I wish they would get over themselves and address the more significant issues. Not once did she say plants were not alive. She's simply distinguishing between plants and animals (or "creatures") and saying that the Bible makes a similar distinction. The people ridiculing her and trying to put words in her mouth are only making themselves look foolish, and she knows it.

OrderedChaos

Look at the post she is responding to that started this nonsense. I was saying that there was death before the fall because people ate plants. Then she goes on this "they are not living creatures' deal. If she still sees them as alive (creature or not), then my orginal point remains unaddressed. Then the distinction she is making is absolutely pointless. So she is either saying plants are not alive or she is going on and on about nothing without once addressing the orginal point. I for one can see why there would be some confusion.

Arikay

Well, if there was no death before sin, and if my math is semi right, it would take bunnies only around 16 years to completly cover the entire planet. And thats just bunnies. (since after all, god did tell them to be fruitfull and multiply.)

Jimmy Higgins

16 years, huh? Well, we know the answer to that. The Fall must have been very quick. And that is the exact answer they'll give you. "It had to be"

Strangely, man and woman did not "multiply" themselves until after being booted. They never even had "relations" with each other. So perhaps the animals were the same way. Oh forget it, I just don't need to be making the arguments for these creationists.

I'd ask, myself, what sharks ate prior to the Flood. Or even better, what about octopi and squid?

To be honest, I think the best way to go against this is to use the argument of multiple creations. The first story is clearly from a group of people who thought that the worst thing was a flood, ie chaotic waters. The second story is by people who thought the worst thing was a drought, ie dry land.
And then, ironically, God uses opposite measures to cure the land of its ill, seperating waters in the first, and creating a flow or flood in the second story. I believe creationists even have an answer for that, but I feel it is atleast a more intelligent argument than dealing with time and animal populations etc... It uses the scripture given to go against the scripture, atleast in a literal interpretation.

Arikay

I agree, we should probably thank Adam and Eve for Sinning.

I found info that a pair of Eastern Cottontail Rabbit can turn into 25 in a year. So rough calculations of breeding and of the surface area of the earth gave the rabbits around 16 years before they covered the entire surface area, including SCUBA Bunnies.

Thats not to mention the amount of insects that would be buzzing around if they Were fruitfull and multiplied and didnt die.
Adam and Eve would have been Inhaling them, and Poor Adam and Eve couldnt kill themselves even though they lived in a Bug breathing hell.

Arikay

To add to that I think the best parts of that thread are when she

suggests that christians that believe in evolution are going to hell.

Suggests that The Bear (A Mod) either isnt really christian, or doesnt believe in parts of the bible.

Makes comments about knowing she is right, or other versions of thinking she knows all.

Jimmy Higgins

On the same note, that person could easily be an atheist or theist troll who's just out there to mess with people. I'm learning that dealing with such people is pointless. PZ is right on that account. I mean if you really want to cause yourself pain, you could just take a pair of pliers and rip out pubic hair by the clump and save yourself some time of responding to some of those posters. There really is no gain by posting with some people.

Arikay

I agree. Its usefull to a point in educating the people who are lurking. I for one thought the "The Bear Trap" was a very good point that The bear patiently showed.

However, after awhile you either have to go through the thread as entertainment or Bang your head against a wall.

And at the rate of some creationists, we would run out of heads, or walls Very fast.

Valentine Pontifex

In this case, cut the creationist a bit of slack. Indeed we should try to avoid the equivocation fallacy.

The Bible is not and was never intended to be a "scientific" text. Indeed modern ideas of "science" and science itself postdate the Bible.

We should not try to pigeon hole words as they are used in science to an ancient text. (And indeed sometimes even to modern texts that are not about science.)

This goes especially for "breathing." That word does not mean the same thing as "respiration" in all contexts. Yes plants do convert CO2 to glucose and O2 to water and in doing so exchange gas with the outside enviroment. But as others have already pointed out in this thread many living things do not "breath" in a way that an ancient would have recognized as "breathing."

This is not unlike restaurants selling lobster as "fish." In science that would be an inane mistake, but sometimes words are properly used outside of a science context. Similiarly there are some contexts (certain aspects of the law for example) which insects are not animals. Again that would be ignorant and outright stupid in biology.

In any event, don't make the same mistake that the fundies make and try to treat the Bible as some kind of proposed science book. And remember context is as all-important in understanding what fundies are saying as it is in understanding what real scientists are saying.

foLtage

It never ceases to amaze me what blind faith accomplishes... Granted the Bible is probably the most influential work in history, but how can any sane human being accept the words of ancient writers over what is clearly around them?

And will someone please tell me that jaelfromFR is a joke? Please...? :banghead: