Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 06-05-2002, 08:16 AM

Doesn't the Bible say that bats are a type of bird?

I wonder if randman and his creationist pals ever actually look at the big picture, and realize what they are trying to do?

They are trying to prove that an ancient story, written by primitive men before most scientific theories were discovered, written without knowledge of DNA, or fossil strata, or the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, or the heliocentric model of the solar system, is more scientifically accurate than science textbooks which have been written for the purpose of understanding and knowledge, based on data and observations, and re-written hundreds of times as new theories and observations are made???

I don't get it.

I think creationists should read any native american or some other non-christian <a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html" target="_blank">story of creation</a>, and argue with someone that wants to fit that story with modern day science. Then perhaps they will see the absurdity of what they are doing, when trying to mesh religious mythology with science.

Here's an example:

Quote:

Cosmic Egg (example: Finnish)

A teal flew over the primeval waters but could find no place to land. The Mother of the Water raised her knee above the water, and the teal made a nest on it. It laid six golden eggs and one iron egg, and then it sat warming them. The heat became so intense that the Mother of the Water twitched her knee. The eggs dislodged and broke. The earth formed from one half of a shell, and the sky from the other half. The sun formed from the top half of one yolk, and the moon from the top half of the white. Stars and clouds also formed from parts of the egg.

Here's a "finnish creationist" randman:

randman: Now see, the eggs were REAL, and the 6 eggs became what we know of today as limestone quarries. If you carefully analyze limestone quarries today, you will see that they exactly match the only one TRUE (TM) version of creation, made by the Mother of the Water.

See, the sun used to be an egg yolk too. If you study sun spots, you will see the evidence, which astronomers have hidden and deceived because they don't believe in the Mother Egg.

scigirl: but randman, the data you are using to "fit" your egg creation story was collected and analyzed by these scientists. If it is so obvious to a layman such as yourself, why haven't the scientists come to the same conclusion, that the earth was once an egg?

randman: Scientists know that the earth used to be an egg, but they are too indoctrinated in the evil atheistic communistic anti-egg ways to see it.

scigirl: ok, but then why do you even trust their data to support your theory? Why aren't you and your eggers collecting data yourselves?

randman: Oh, well I totally trust that the scientists' data that SUPPORTS my egg theory is true (after I twist it around), but the data that does not support my theory must have been messed up because the scientists don't believe in the Egg Earth Goddess, and therefore I throw it out.

scigirl: but. . . (realizes that hitting her head against a wall would be more productive than wasting her time with these 'eggers.' Hands randman a <a href="http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html" target="_blank">science book</a>, then returns to her evil atheistic communist laboratory for some more "indoctrination," I mean experiments.)

scigirl

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

randman · 06-05-2002, 08:21 AM

Sure, I can back that up.

Genesis 1, though not written in chapter and verse, states.

"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly..."
Genesis 1:20

Note the Hebrew word translated "fowl" here includes all creatures that fly, and are not insects basically, including bats.

Also, we can get into the word "day" if you want to, but take note of this scripture which summarizes all 7 days as 1 day, and thus indicates that 'day' here is not meant to be a 24 hour period, at least from our perspective.

"These are the generations [once again impying a very long period of time not one 24 hour period] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.."
Genesis 2:4

Then, go over and read Genesis 2:19.

"And out of the ground [not the waters] the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..."

The scriptures here obviously speak of 2 different kinds of flying creatures, one made from water, and one from the ground.
By the way, there even appears to be a difference in the creative mode. "Let the waters bring forth" sounds very much like theistic evolution, and God "forming", how ever it occurred, suggests more detailed effort. You get into all sorts of theological issues when talking about the scripures and God. For instance, the Bible speaks of God knowing all things before they happen, and also being surprised, and the skeptic just writes it off, but the true purpose is to give one a glimpse of something about God, and these true paradoxes actually help illustrate the nature and things of God, but only to the believer since the unbeleiver cannot grasp what is being said often.

Nonetheless, you can see here 2 creations of "fowl" and one from the waters bringing forth, and another more specifically crafted by God from the ground.

Also, Genesis 1 and 2 basically don't conflict with theistic evolution except in the creation of man, and even then in the 1800s, some extremely conservative and prominent theologians had no problem with theistic evolution. I think the hyper-Calvinist guy at Princeton who bragged they hadn't had an original idea taught in 150 years, referring to theology, wrote a prominent piece endorsing theistic evolution.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-05-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Job said the earth was a sphere hanging upon nothing. How did he know that?

As usual, you have it backwards. Many people in the ancient world deduced that the Earth was a sphere, but the Hebrews were not among them.

The authors of the Bible believed the Earth was flat and covered by a dome. And it's also described as being supported on pillars (they couldn't agree on that, just as they weren't sure whether the flat Earth was rectangular or disc-shaped).

Quote:

There is no difference in creationists' approach than evolutionists, and this is wht motivates people like me to post, the utter hypocrisy and self-delusion of evolutionists.

We happen to be right, Randman. And they are wrong.

If you object to "evolutionist dogma", check out the round-Earth dogma! Is there even a hint of "equal treatment" of flat-Earthism in the popular media? It even crops up in discussions which have nothing to do with the actual shape of the Earth: even economists talk about "globalization". How do you think this looks to a flat-Earther? Like some sort of sinister global (urk, sorry) conspiracy?

If you hold a crackpot view that involves denial of all contradictory evidence and no evidence whatsoever to support your own view, then you should expect a bias against you. Creationists are in the same boat as flat-Earthers, Holocaust-deniers, "pyramid power" advocates, and so forth. I haven't noticed that they receive less sympathy for their views than other loons.

randman · 06-05-2002, 08:37 AM

"Doesn't the Bible say that bats are a type of bird?"

This is typical of the disingeniousness of evolutionists. The HEBREW LANQUAGE has the same word for bird and bat, in terms of types of creatures.
Duh!

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
This is typical of the disingeniousness [sic] of evolutionists [sic]. The HEBREW LANQUAGE [sic] has the same word for bird and bat, in terms of types of creatures.
Duh!

So that's why nobody can define "kind."

randman · 06-05-2002, 08:42 AM

"If you object to "evolutionist dogma", check out the round-Earth dogma! Is there even a hint of "equal treatment" of flat-Earthism in the popular media? It even crops up in discussions which have nothing to do with the actual shape of the Earth: even economists talk about "globalization". How do you think this looks to a flat-Earther? Like some sort of sinister global (urk, sorry) conspiracy?"

Another typical, disingenious evolutionist argument that means absolutely nothing. As is pointed out here, the author of Job knew the earth was round long before the Europeans.
Also, not the stupid comment on what the writers of Genesis believed. Did you talk to them?

And, if they did misinterpret the meaning of the scriptures that God gave them, it wouldn't be the first time, and poses zero problems theologically and rationally.

Did not the disciples misunderatand Jesus's words?

MrDarwin · 06-05-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Nonetheless, you can see here 2 creations of "fowl" and one from the waters bringing forth, and another more specifically crafted by God from the ground.

Interesting. The KJV translates it this way, but none of the other translations do. So who is wrong?

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2002, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Also, not the stupid comment on what the writers of Genesis believed. Did you talk to them?

What's this: an acknowledgement that Genesis had several authors? That's progress.

randman · 06-05-2002, 08:50 AM

I have defined "kind" repeatedly, but please take note that even the definition of "species" is quite arbirtary. Different "species" can for instance interbreed, and different "species" in even different genera, AND SUBFAMILIES, have produced fertile off-spring.

Kind is simply the original parent species created by God. No big deal.

Oolon Colluphid · 06-05-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I have defined "kind" repeatedly

Sorry, must've missed it. Could you repeat it once more please?

Thanks, Oolon

Edited to say: just to be clear, I mean: how does it relate to normal taxonomy? Is it roughly species, genus, family, order, class... something in between, or something else?

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2002, 08:21 AM	#52
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Sure, I can back that up. Genesis 1, though not written in chapter and verse, states. "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly..." Genesis 1:20 Note the Hebrew word translated "fowl" here includes all creatures that fly, and are not insects basically, including bats. Also, we can get into the word "day" if you want to, but take note of this scripture which summarizes all 7 days as 1 day, and thus indicates that 'day' here is not meant to be a 24 hour period, at least from our perspective. "These are the generations [once again impying a very long period of time not one 24 hour period] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.." Genesis 2:4 Then, go over and read Genesis 2:19. "And out of the ground [not the waters] the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." The scriptures here obviously speak of 2 different kinds of flying creatures, one made from water, and one from the ground. By the way, there even appears to be a difference in the creative mode. "Let the waters bring forth" sounds very much like theistic evolution, and God "forming", how ever it occurred, suggests more detailed effort. You get into all sorts of theological issues when talking about the scripures and God. For instance, the Bible speaks of God knowing all things before they happen, and also being surprised, and the skeptic just writes it off, but the true purpose is to give one a glimpse of something about God, and these true paradoxes actually help illustrate the nature and things of God, but only to the believer since the unbeleiver cannot grasp what is being said often. Nonetheless, you can see here 2 creations of "fowl" and one from the waters bringing forth, and another more specifically crafted by God from the ground. Also, Genesis 1 and 2 basically don't conflict with theistic evolution except in the creation of man, and even then in the 1800s, some extremely conservative and prominent theologians had no problem with theistic evolution. I think the hyper-Calvinist guy at Princeton who bragged they hadn't had an original idea taught in 150 years, referring to theology, wrote a prominent piece endorsing theistic evolution.

06-05-2002, 08:37 AM	#54
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Doesn't the Bible say that bats are a type of bird?" This is typical of the disingeniousness of evolutionists. The HEBREW LANQUAGE has the same word for bird and bat, in terms of types of creatures. Duh!

06-05-2002, 08:42 AM	#56
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"If you object to "evolutionist dogma", check out the round-Earth dogma! Is there even a hint of "equal treatment" of flat-Earthism in the popular media? It even crops up in discussions which have nothing to do with the actual shape of the Earth: even economists talk about "globalization". How do you think this looks to a flat-Earther? Like some sort of sinister global (urk, sorry) conspiracy?" Another typical, disingenious evolutionist argument that means absolutely nothing. As is pointed out here, the author of Job knew the earth was round long before the Europeans. Also, not the stupid comment on what the writers of Genesis believed. Did you talk to them? And, if they did misinterpret the meaning of the scriptures that God gave them, it wouldn't be the first time, and poses zero problems theologically and rationally. Did not the disciples misunderatand Jesus's words?

06-05-2002, 08:50 AM	#59
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I have defined "kind" repeatedly, but please take note that even the definition of "species" is quite arbirtary. Different "species" can for instance interbreed, and different "species" in even different genera, AND SUBFAMILIES, have produced fertile off-spring. Kind is simply the original parent species created by God. No big deal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.