Palin said humans and dinosuars walked the earth together

[Popeye]

Caribou Barbie...the nationwide laughingstock. Here's some more of Palin, just for giggles.

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

[NO Obamanation]

okie dokie matt

[Andy]

Wow. That improved my view of her beyond anything she's said yet. Poppy is doing more to increase my support of Palin, than anything the republicans have done.

[TruthAboveAll]

Caribou Barbie...the nationwide laughingstock. Here's some more of Palin, just for giggles.



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

Your post, as usual, is nothing short of pathetic. Actually, the article was pretty good. After reading the WHOLE article instead of nit-picking parts as you do to feed your petty agenda, it's obvious that you did not read it all.

Not surprising, as ridicule seems to be not only your weapon of choice, but your only weapon. But your ridicule fails to anger me. It suffices only to prove to me that it's all you can rely on, instead of facts and substance. I need not go into a battle of wits with you: it's not nice to attack an unarmed person.

[Mr. Carpenter]

If only the "I hate religion worse than a flaming case of the clap" crowd were half as considerate of others beliefs as Palin is, the world would be a MUCH nicer place.

[bododie]

Ooh, I like playing the selective quote game. Here are a few from another potential V.P. that don't get to go away just because that was then and this is now. Are these quotes and general mindset funny like Palin? Hell no. Not funny at all.


“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

“I think we sort of have lost track of the fact this is a government that has to be accountable to the people of our country,”

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them".

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president".

"We're their parents, and it is up to us to protect them." "There is no such thing as other people's children."

“No government can love a child, and no policy can substitute for a family's care”.

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." (Actually Bill said this)

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian".

I'll take foolishness over issues that don't make a rat's a** bit of difference to anyone, over tyrant anyday.

[Popeye]

Your post, as usual, is nothing short of pathetic. Actually, the article was pretty good. After reading the WHOLE article instead of nit-picking parts as you do to feed your petty agenda, it's obvious that you did not read it all.

Not surprising, as ridicule seems to be not only your weapon of choice, but your only weapon. But your ridicule fails to anger me. It suffices only to prove to me that it's all you can rely on, instead of facts and substance. I need not go into a battle of wits with you: it's not nice to attack an unarmed person.

I read the entire article which, outside of the portion I posted, consisted primarily of denials by Palin aides...chief among them Palin's spokesman Bill McAllister insisting that Palin would never think of pushing her belief in creationism upon others.

Unfortunately for Mr McAllister and Sarah Palin, that doesn't appear to be the truth...from the Anchorage Daily News (10-27-06): (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Maybe you think it's all right to teach religion in science class but I don't. This is America not some theocracy.

[bododie]

Maybe you think it's all right to teach religion in science class but I don't. This is America not some theocracy. No, but it IS a place where anyone else's ideas mean as much as yours. No one said you have to agree, but you don't have a right to get in anyone else's way about anything that isn't illegal. That my dear is what liberalism is about. Why don't liberals get that?

[GenSeneca]

Maybe you think it's all right to teach religion in science class but I don't.

Unless of course its a religion you follow....
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Goran_Climatologists.jpg

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow. That improved my view of her beyond anything she's said yet. Poppy is doing more to increase my support of Palin, than anything the republicans have done.
You "conservatives" will believe anything....which explains your support for The Idiot Son. :rolleyes:

"The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars - one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c004.html

These are the same folks who insist public-schools are responsible for dumbing-down children. :rolleyes:

[Vyddo]

Maybe you think it's all right to teach religion in science class but I don't. This is America not some theocracy.

I'd have no problem if science is what we kept to in schools. Yet, that's not the case..

When discussing Evolution, many now forget to tack on the theory... Evolution, despite all of the scientific chatter is a theory.. not scientific fact. When a person really takes the time to investigate the theory of Evolution, they find a myriad of holes and assumptions.

[bododie]

These are the same folks who insist public-schools are responsible for dumbing-down children.

Lol. Well I believe in God, and I can tell you for a fact that it isn't the schools responsible for dumbing down children. It's their dumb parents who are passing on the let the government take care of your a**, and cry prejudice for whatever reason if it's too hard for you at first swipe, mentality. The schools are simply adjusting to federal laws designed to keep the inadequate appeased. If you think kids are being prepared for life as an individual as we were decades ago, you're either young or not a native.

Don't worry though, no child is going to be left behind. Stupid, illiterate, self pitying young adults will be rampant though. People of faith who blame the public school system for the less prepared generations are probably in the minority. Kinda like liberals who know what they're talking about. LOL.

[Andy]

You "conservatives" will believe anything....which explains your support for The Idiot Son. :rolleyes:

These are the same folks who insist public-schools are responsible for dumbing-down children. :rolleyes:

Given how little people know when they get out of public schools, I think that is a legitimate claim.

Moreover given what I now know about global warming, compared to what I was taught, it's amazing they consider it 'education'.

Finely, when you look at evolution, it's as much based on faith, as any class on religion.

Just a comment in passing, go watch the video on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Then talk to me about which of us will believe anything. Go read the Rockafeller report on the evidence against Saddam prior to the war. Then talk to me about which one of us will believe anything. In fact, just get educated about any topic, and we'll see which one believes anything. Pick an issue, and the left believes the most wacky unsupportable crap, that any rational thoughtful person would laugh at them for.

[Mr. Carpenter]

These are the same folks who insist public-schools are responsible for dumbing-down children. :rolleyes:

Actually, the ones that are holding the public schools responsible for dumbing down the kids, are the ones who were educated in that public school system before the federal government took it over, and then watched what they didn't teach our children. Take the time to go down to your local library and look in the reference section at some of the school books from the mid to late 19th century and you'll quickly discover how badly the school system failed you.

[Libsmasher]

This is based on the uncorroborated claim of a leftwing kook name Philip Munger, who has a blog called Progressive Alaska. That the LA Times would pass along such garbage just shows how far they've sunk. Since Palin was nominated, she has been accused of everything but child molestation by the leftwing internet defamation blogs, and this is just another bit of sewage. Credibility of this crapola? All together now .....:D .....ZERO.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Palin is a dinosaur so I guess she is right.

[Mr. Shaman]

I'd have no problem if science is what we kept to in schools. Yet, that's not the case..

When discussing Evolution, many now forget to tack on the theory... Evolution, despite all of the scientific chatter is a theory.. not scientific fact. When a person really takes the time to investigate the theory of Evolution, they find a myriad of holes and assumptions.
Don't forget about all o' those bones (mixed with the assumptions), in those holes. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&feature=related

[Mr. Shaman]

Lol. Well I believe in God, and I can tell you for a fact that it isn't the schools responsible for dumbing down children.
Yeah.....the believers' logic has been soooooooooooooo helpful, regarding the whole dumbing-down syndrome. :rolleyes:

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

If you think kids are being prepared for life as an individual as we were decades ago, you're either young or not a native.

Unfortunately (for you), I actually remember those decades-old preps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Tu8KHBwAA&feature=related

[Mr. Shaman]

Given how little people know when they get out of public schools, I think that is a legitimate claim.

Moreover given what I now know about global warming, compared to what I was taught, it's amazing they consider it 'education'.

Finely, when you look at evolution, it's as much based on faith, as any class on religion.
Yeah.....I've heard.....

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/creationscience.html

[top gun]

Caribou Barbie...the nationwide laughingstock. Here's some more of Palin, just for giggles.



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

It's truly scary!:eek:

Sara Palin's mindset goes from being prayed over to keep her safe from "WITCHES"!!!

To speaking in tongues!

To believing Alaska will be the place to go to avoid Armageddon... end of days!

To the Creationist ludicrous fairy tail to fill huge gaps in the known Biblical time-line. Squeezing in dinosaurs with man even though they were millions of years apart is so stupid it doesn't even have to be scientifically disproved.

It's about the most simple thing to understand imaginable... except for the Republican VP candidate I guess.:)

We know from fossilized record that there were without any doubt 1000's of species of dinosaurs. Some as big as jet planes. Many meat eaters that would devastate (eat) anything that moved. And they were just roaming around with man. Do ya think somebody might have noticed them... might have written a lot about them. They write about donkeys and camel and sheep but not a single mention at the time Biblically or otherwise about these huge monstrous creatures EVERYWHERE! If T Rex were running around eating everybody I'd think that might get CONSTANT mention.

They didn't of course because they weren't there and since the fossilized remains had hot been discovered and recognized for what they where the people of the time couldn't write about them.

Sara Palin... UNSAFE AND INTELLECTUALLY VOID AT ANY SPEED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

[Vyddo]

Palin is a dinosaur so I guess she is right.

Seems you've taken it upon yourself to simply be insulting. You realize how foolish you come across I hope?

[Vyddo]

Don't forget about all o' those bones (mixed with the assumptions), in those holes. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&feature=related

bones in and of themselves do not prove the theory of Evolution... Even the scientific community concedes this.. as after all it is a theory.

[Dawkinsrocks]

I'm sorry. You are right.

I apologise to all those dinosaurs who might have been offended by my post

[bododie]

I apologise to all those dinosaurs who might have been offended by my post No prob. We actually got to live to be dinosaurs, growing up in a much better world than it is today. No amount of disdain will ever give that world back to you if you are under 30.

[Dr.Who]

So this thread is about a completely unsubstantiated rumor and someone here backs it up by posting a lie that she wants creationism taught in science class.

If this is the best dirt that people can fabricate then she is definitely the best candidate for POTUS, er, um I mean VP.

But if McCain should die while in office she will be the countries first woman president.

And if he does not die then she can run for POTUS in 2012.

[bododie]

It has nothing to do with Palin. Libs NEED the first woman president to be a lib It doesn't matter if she is a lying woman with no pride, she just has to be a lib. Since the dems seem so afraid that McCain is too old, which he probably is, I think that before the next election we should demand a "top" age limit too. I think it should be 63. Too bad Hitlary! LOL.

[top gun]

bones in and of themselves do not prove the theory of Evolution... Even the scientific community concedes this.. as after all it is a theory.

The fact is Creationism is a way to try and fill gaps in the Biblical record. The Creation Museum even has little plastic dinosaurs walking up the ramp of the ARK.

Now maybe my King James is just out of date... heard nothing of this.

Maybe everyone just overlooked thousands of species of creatures, many carnivores and many as big as City Buses and Jet Planes.

By every measure dinosaurs are older than Creationism would ever allow for. Actually they are millions of years older but if they were only 50 thousand years older that's plenty old enough to completely debunk the time-line.

What kills me is this spoof was already made into a movie way back when I was a kid.

What young boy didn't love Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roK5_GtFzo4

[pocketfullofshells]

Wow. That improved my view of her beyond anything she's said yet. Poppy is doing more to increase my support of Palin, than anything the republicans have done.

why you liked people who are retarded?

[pocketfullofshells]

bones in and of themselves do not prove the theory of Evolution... Even the scientific community concedes this.. as after all it is a theory.

you know thing is , Science Theory has a differnt meaning then your normal theory. You know what else is listed as a Theory? Gravity.

[GenSeneca]

why you liked people who are retarded?
Plenty of people believe in crazy stuff... for instance:
Man Made Global Warming.
You know what else is listed as a Theory? Gravity.
You know whats not treated as the theory that it is but as fact?
Man Made Global Warming.

Plenty of "retardation" to go around. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

If only the "I hate religion worse than a flaming case of the clap" crowd were half as considerate of others beliefs as Palin is, the world would be a MUCH nicer place.
I guess we'll be finding-out (http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/) how considerate The Believers are. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Carpenter]

I guess we'll be finding-out (http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/) how considerate The Believers are. :rolleyes:

Anybody who has watched Bill Maher more than once already knows how much of a bigoted and intolerent piece of trash he is, and anyone who considers anything he says to be more than mindless prattle for the liberal "useful idiots" isn't to be taken seriously on any issue.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Don't forget about all o' those bones (mixed with the assumptions), in those holes. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&feature=related

Unfortunately, bones aren't evidence either for or against evolution, they're only evidence that something that once lived, has died, and it's remains were quickly covered, and over subsequent time became fossilized. What about all of the species who still exist, and the almost identical fossilized remains of their predecessors are found?

This is one of the many challenges with the theory of evolution. If evolution is an absolute, as it is taught, then how is it possible that species that are known to have existed many hundreds of millions of years ago, and they still exist, unchanged, today? Did they simply not get the memo? Is it because they weren't taught the theory of evolution in a public school, and simply didn't know that they were supposed to "evolve"? Or is it simply that they haven't needed to "evolve" because they are already best suited for their environment, and that environment has remained consistant throughout the past hundreds of millions of years?

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is a long line of fossils showing gradual change of an evolutionary kind.

It is a fact.

[Mr. Carpenter]

There is a long line of fossils showing gradual change of an evolutionary kind.

It is a fact.

No, there is a long line of fossils that is perported to show adaptation of a species to it's environment. The problem is that we only have the bones, and not the DNA to prove if the "changes" are evolutionary, or adaptive. How are we to know that the "long line of evolution" isn't in fact merely evidence of many different species of the same genus just as the 50 lb. Bulldog is a different species of the same genus 'Molosser' as the 200 lb. English Mastiff.

Further, let's take Darwins finches for instance. He claimed that they had "evolved" by growing stronger and larger beaks to adapt to the changing food supply, but what isn't addressed is the fact that decades later, the beaks of subsequent generations returned to their ancestors original size once their original food source returned in abundence. The change was no different than someones bones strengthening due to extreme manual labor (beaks are after all bony materiel), and then years later losing that bone mass when one is no longer doing extreme manual labor. The body changes and adapts to meet the challenges of it's environment and needs (within reason), but that is not proof of "evolution".

No, the bones in and of themselves show nothing, and even when taken in the context of where they are in the geologic strata, all we know is that a creature of this type existed in a particular place at a particular time.

If one is going to be intellectually honest, then you have to always remember to ask yourself these questions, "what do you think, what do you know, and what can you prove. Thinking something doesn't mean anything, knowing something is good, but not nearly as good as being able to PROVE it, and evolution has not been proven, or it would be the Law of Evolution.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You really are desperate aren't you?

The science is overwhelming.

Darwin was right, he is revered as one of, if not the greatest scientist of all time.

And you are the equivalent of the last of the flat-earthers desperately trying to stop yet another piece of nonesense in the bible being exposed by science.

When Darwin arrived at his brilliant discovery he had to be careful how he presented it for fear of upsetting the church.

Now the church is trying to say that god made evolution.

And some of the more ridiculous christians are still trying to deny it.

Sooner or later their offspring will evolve into accepters of the fact of evolution or they will die out.

Either way is fine.

That's evolution for you.

[Mr. Carpenter]

You really are desperate aren't you?

Not at all, but you obviously are.

The science is overwhelming.

I've heard that before, right before it's been proven WRONG!

Darwin was right, he is revered as one of, if not the greatest scientist of all time.

The word you're looking for is GOD, which is why you pray at your Evangelical Evolutionary Church.

And you are the equivalent of the last of the flat-earthers desperately trying to stop yet another piece of nonesense in the bible being exposed by science.

And exactly where have I invoked religion or the Bible in any of this? Nowhere. The word you're looking for is nowhere, and this is further proof that you 1) don't have the first idea what you're talking about, 2) can't discuss anything rationally or politely, and 3) are incapable of rational thought.

When Darwin arrived at his brilliant discovery he had to be careful how he presented it for fear of upsetting the church.

Now the church is trying to say that god made evolution.

And some of the more ridiculous christians are still trying to deny it.

Sooner or later their offspring will evolve into accepters of the fact of evolution or they will die out.

Either way is fine.

That's evolution for you.

Tripe. Utter nonsensical tripe. You haven't even addressed any of my points, all of which are scientific facts, so you continue to resort to ad homs and attempting to ascribe words to those who have not used them. Hang it up, it's over, you lost.

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you expect me to believe that the scientific community has got it wrong on evolution and you have got it right you are sadly mistaken.

You may as well deny gravity and explain how Newton et al got it wrong.

[Mr. Shaman]

Anybody who has watched Bill Maher more than once already knows how much of a bigoted and intolerent piece of trash he is, and anyone who considers anything he says to be more than mindless prattle for the liberal "useful idiots" isn't to be taken seriously on any issue.
Gee.....that almost sounds like an original-opinion (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/03/17/catholic-league-bill-maher-a-bigot-for-dismissing-christian-dogma.htm). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Unfortunately, bones aren't evidence either for or against evolution, they're only evidence that something that once lived, has died, and it's remains were quickly covered....
....And, where does Adam & Eve fit-into the whole trip?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Well Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs and then spoke to a talking snake and then did a really bad thing. She ate an apple that the talking snake said tasted good and as result lost of people will burn in hell.

And everyone lived sadly ever after.

Yep, makes perfect sense that does.

[Mr. Carpenter]

If you expect me to believe that the scientific community has got it wrong on evolution and you have got it right you are sadly mistaken.

You may as well deny gravity and explain how Newton et al got it wrong.

Now what are you talking about? Do you ever watch the Science Channel (I know that actually reading a book, with all of that polysyllabic verbiage is out of the question for you)? Even the best and brightest in the are of anthropology can't agree on a lot of what the geologic record "proves"! They sit around and talk about this, that, and the other thing, argue back and forth, and finally come to a concensus on what they can PROVE, and agreeing that the rest of it (including most of what you're attempting to imply about the bone record) will have to wait for more evidence.

What you've done is take some of what they've said, morped it with other aspects of the discussion, and suddenly come up with your OWN "theories" that bear no resemblence to the reality. I believe the accurate term for your condition is delusional.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Well Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs and then spoke to a talking snake and then did a really bad thing. She ate an apple that the talking snake said tasted good and as result lost of people will burn in hell.

And everyone lived sadly ever after.

Yep, makes perfect sense that does.

And what does that have to do with anything?

[Mr. Shaman]

Well Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs and then spoke to a talking snake and then did a really bad thing. She ate an apple that the talking snake said tasted good and as result lost of people will burn in hell.

And everyone lived sadly ever after.

Yep, makes perfect sense that does.
You forgot the incest-part.

How'd one couple manage to populate the entire planet??

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/flintstones.jpg

[Dawkinsrocks]

Good point, I kinda thought the talking snake eclipsed most of other plot irregularities.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Gee.....that almost sounds like an original-opinion (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/03/17/catholic-league-bill-maher-a-bigot-for-dismissing-christian-dogma.htm). :rolleyes:

I can't say that it's an "original" opinion as I don't know if someone else had it before I did, but it is my opinion. I used to think that as a comedian, Bill was ok (not great, but ok), but since he's started constantly going off on his anti-religion skreeds, he's only shown himself to be even more hypocritical as he claims everyone else is.

[calidem411]

yeah, Fred Flinstone was her neighbor... so what!

[Libsmasher]

Why do people insist on perpetuating in the U.S. POLITICS section, with endless back-and-forth, this exceedingly stupid thread? Popeye's dimwit defamations should be allowed to just drop down the list and fade away. Geez. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Why do people insist on perpetuating in the U.S. POLITICS section, with endless back-and-forth, this exceedingly stupid thread?
Hey....you know....it only takes a stupid-politician (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y) to prompt such considerations.

[Mr. Shaman]

Good point, I kinda thought the talking snake eclipsed most of other plot irregularities.
Whew.....this is the first-time I'd attempted to find-out, on my own! :eek:

"Yes, Adam's children married each other. But incest was not viewed as a forbidden activity (http://www.new-life.net/faq023.htm) until the time of Moses."

[Dawkinsrocks]

But Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel

As far as we 'know'

So the whole of the human race descended from two incestuous homosexuals.

I guess the talking snake just got eclipsed.

Funny how christians are so anti-gay

[Mr. Shaman]

But Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel

As far as we 'know'

So the whole of the human race descended from two incestuous homosexuals.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm......wouldn't that make Sarah Quayle a heretic?!!!

PRAY the Gay, away!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAK4DQphFVg)

[Dawkinsrocks]

Must be tricky for the funda-mentalists dealing with the belief that all of their ancestors are a pair of gay brothers

[Dr.Who]

But Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel

As far as we 'know'

So the whole of the human race descended from two incestuous homosexuals.

I guess the talking snake just got eclipsed.

Funny how christians are so anti-gay

Genesis chapter 5 verse three says that Adam had other sons and daughters. But you read the bible TWICE so you know that. Additionally there are several other verses that discuss the wives of Cain and Abel. But you read the bible TWICE so you know that.

[bododie]

No, Dr. Who, you are wrong. All people of faith and all books of faith say EXACTLY and think EXACTLY as Dawkinsrock says they do, because some scientists said so. He believes in evolution, but after being asked numerous times to explain why, he can't.

He's a labeling lib, but if someone gives his action back, he runs away, and pretends that any questions posed to support his beliefs didn't exist. Next year when he enters the third grade maybe he will be better able to express himself. Until then, enjoy the humor of human grandiose. You know another "great" human being from man's ever "evolving" history would definitely ask this person about unresolved feelings for his mother.

[Mr. Carpenter]

But Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel

As far as we 'know'

I see you've never bothered to read the book. According to scriptures, Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel, and SETH.

It also says where Cain and his WIFE left Eden before Adam and Eve had Seth, which means that there were obviously other people around at that time. The fact that they're not mentioned in the Bible is simply because they weren't important to the substance of the story being told.

I just love the way the intellectually dishonest, and frankly ignorant try to mock something they have no understanding of, just like small children.

[bododie]

I just love the way the intellectually dishonest, and frankly ignorant try to mock something they have no understanding of, just like small children. Childishness is a personal issue and problem in adults that is fine until they expect me to pay or respect them by law. This is the lib mantra. If I am wrong about something, I will push to pass a law to prohibit you from throwing it in my face.

[Vyddo]

Must be tricky for the funda-mentalists dealing with the belief that all of their ancestors are a pair of gay brothers

You are a spirit of antogonistic dissent aren't you. Your commentary is disrespectful to everything that's contrary to your own personal belief. Simply makes you impossible to take seriously.

[bododie]

It isn't his spirit, it's his lack of knowledge.

[Andy]

Actually he fits quite well with the style or lack of argument that the real Dawkins employs. Short, snippy, debate style answers and statements, that fail to address the issue, or fall short of investigating all the information.

Like the person he named himself after, Dawk here fails to ever go any deeper into a topic and a superficial snide remark, that never addresses the hard facts or data presented. Thus, just like his idol, he will never convince anyone open minded or informed, of his points. Only those already prejudice toward his bent, or completely ignorant of the topic at hand, will ever agree with him on anything.

[BigRob]

But Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel

As far as we 'know'

So the whole of the human race descended from two incestuous homosexuals.

I guess the talking snake just got eclipsed.

Funny how christians are so anti-gay

If you are going to Bible bash at least get the info right.

Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).

[dragonfly5]

palin is a dinosaur so i guess she is right.

I don't know about being a dinosaur, but she is as dumb as one, that's for sure. :p

[pocketfullofshells]

If you are going to Bible bash at least get the info right.

Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).

thats still incest

personaly I dont see how anyone can take the Bible as Literal...and make any sense at all of it.

[Mr. Carpenter]

thats still incest

personaly I dont see how anyone can take the Bible as Literal...and make any sense at all of it.

No it's not incest pocket, and it's already been asked and answered HERE (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64288&postcount=56)

[NO Obamanation]

thats still incest

personaly I dont see how anyone can take the Bible as Literal...and make any sense at all of it.

Gen chapter 4 vs: 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

Notice this is before Seth is born, Seth is the third son and before any daughters are born to Adam and Eve.

He is worried that people will kill him, in the land of nod he meets and marry's his wife.

Its the 4th chapter of the first book, my gosh its not that hard to get that far :)

[pocketfullofshells]

[QUOTE=Mr. Carpenter;64388]No it's not incest pocket, and it's already been asked and answered HERE (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64288&postcount=56)[/QUOTE

Sooo God made Adam and eve....but not just them....but Adam and eve where the first on earth....but not the only people....because god made like a bunch of them someplace else before hand so there would be no incest? Or he made adam and eve,...then said damn I need more people so they dont sin and just added a few more? Just like the idea of all the animals on earth being on one boat for a flood...it makes no logical sense to me unless you dont view it as literal. ..

the earth is not 6000 years old
I believe at some point the bible said people lived for like hundreds of years ? I may be wrong on that....
If I wanted to be literal, I should have to go out and stone gays to death?
Then again it only said if a man lie with another man ,....I don't recall is saying a woman with another woman,....so Lesbians are ok? ...Unless they do sodomy, and that would be oral , thus meaning I should also stone 99% of America ....

[pocketfullofshells]

Gen chapter 4 vs: 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

Notice this is before Seth is born, Seth is the third son and before any daughters are born to Adam and Eve.

He is worried that people will kill him, in the land of nod he meets and marry's his wife.

Its the 4th chapter of the first book, my gosh its not that hard to get that far :)

I still have no idea what that just ment. And I have never read the bible...I know to many followers of it that make me not care to.

[Mr. Shaman]

It also says where Cain and his WIFE left Eden before Adam and Eve had Seth, which means that there were obviously other people around at that time. The fact that they're not mentioned in the Bible is simply because they weren't important to the substance of the story being told.
LOL!!!!!!! So....there was a mini-population-boom (in The Begining), but it was so insignificant, God decided it didn't need mentioned, huh? :p

I just love the way the intellectually dishonest, and frankly ignorant try to mock something they have no understanding of, just like small children.
Yeah....we're much-better-off taking the word of people who insist they know what happened, when "humans" first walked-the-Planet. :rolleyes:

[Dawkinsrocks]

Adam and Eve had children and they reproduced (allegedly).

That is incest.

Then, when the population got going god drowned everyomne cos of how bad it was going.

Then Noah's family had to do the incest thing all over again.

Then god had to have a son to be murdered cos of how bad it was all going.

0/10 for planning, god.

[Mr. Shaman]

If you are going to Bible bash at least get the info right.

Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).
Was all-of-this before God created (other) animals (Gen 2:18,19), or after He created the (other) animals (Gen 1:25,26,27)???? :rolleyes:

[BigRob]

Was all-of-this before God created (other) animals (Gen 2:18,19), or after He created the (other) animals (Gen 1:25,26,27)???? :rolleyes:

Just pointing out that if you are going to Bible bash at least get your facts straight.

[NO Obamanation]

I still have no idea what that just ment. And I have never read the bible...I know to many followers of it that make me not care to.

Why would you make negative comments on the context of something you admit you know nothing about and wish never to know anything about?

It should not have been hard to understand, I underlined the only parts you needed to notice.

There were other people, Cain left his parents home and went where there were other people, there is where he got a wife

[Mr. Carpenter]

No it's not incest pocket, and it's already been asked and answered HERE (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64288&postcount=56)

Sooo God made Adam and eve....but not just them....but Adam and eve where the first on earth....but not the only people....because god made like a bunch of them someplace else before hand so there would be no incest? Or he made adam and eve,...then said damn I need more people so they dont sin and just added a few more? Just like the idea of all the animals on earth being on one boat for a flood...it makes no logical sense to me unless you dont view it as literal. ..

the earth is not 6000 years old
I believe at some point the bible said people lived for like hundreds of years ? I may be wrong on that....
If I wanted to be literal, I should have to go out and stone gays to death?
Then again it only said if a man lie with another man ,....I don't recall is saying a woman with another woman,....so Lesbians are ok? ...Unless they do sodomy, and that would be oral , thus meaning I should also stone 99% of America ....

You're being banal 'pocket', and obsequious to boot.

[Mr. Carpenter]

LOL!!!!!!! So....there was a mini-population-boom (in The Begining), but it was so insignificant, God decided it didn't need mentioned, huh? :p

:rolleyes:And you're being banal too. As I said, the Bible is a compilation of the stories of the HEBREW people, not the entire population of the world, so why would the authors mention anyone else except as to their interactions with the Hebrew people?

Yeah....we're much-better-off taking the word of people who insist they know what happened, when "humans" first walked-the-Planet. :rolleyes:

You mean like people like YOU? Your "story" explaining the origins of mankind is no more, and no less valid than the one in the Bible. The difference being that at least the stories in the Bible have some evidence to support them, paleontology has NONE except the ones that are made up to explain what is found.

Oh, and one other thing "Mr. Shaman", the alleged "quote" you have in your sig line was not written by Thomas Jefferson, in fact is a complete fallicy, and has been utterly and totally debunked by none other than the Jefferson Library at Montecello! (http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html) Jefferson never said anything of the kind, or why would he have gone to the trouble of putting together his own version of the Bible? It's hateful incompetent liars like you who subvert and defame our history with your fabrications because you know that being intellectually honest would render your entire thought process null and void.

[pocketfullofshells]

Why would you make negative comments on the context of something you admit you know nothing about and wish never to know anything about?

It should not have been hard to understand, I underlined the only parts you needed to notice.

There were other people, Cain left his parents home and went where there were other people, there is where he got a wife

I was simply saying I dont think it can be taken as Literal, I dont see that as Negiitive.

And taking it Literaly I think takes some giant leaps of logic and means you have to overlook alot of science.

[pocketfullofshells]

It should not have been hard to understand, I underlined the only parts you needed to notice.

There were other people, Cain left his parents home and went where there were other people, there is where he got a wife

So adam and ever where first , then he made a bunch of other people as well? Then why not have done that from the start, rather then just make 2 and hope they dont sin? Was it the same with other animals he made 2 then said later more? Or did he just make all of them at once...And as I stated, then he killed off many of them, then had noah put them all on a big boat.....

[bododie]

then had noah put them all on a big boat..... Lol. and it's a good thing too! If goats hadn't been saved, you might actually try to.... never mind.

[BigRob]

Was all-of-this before God created (other) animals (Gen 2:18,19), or after He created the (other) animals (Gen 1:25,26,27)???? :rolleyes:

Of course in the book of Genesis as well there are actually two creation stories back to back. I am sure you were aware of this however.

[Vyddo]

Just out of curiosity.. I don't care if someone's athiest, buddhist, christian, mormon, satanic, etc..

The greater question is:

Why do people feel the need to belittle others for a particular belief system that happens to be different than there own.

Could it be an insecurity about there own beliefs?

or is it simply that some people like to antagonize others?

Either way, some of the responses here are insulting and I'd appreciate it if we'd at least make an attempt at respecting one another. No, you don't need to agree. Yes, you can debate the topic. There's absolutely no sense to ridiculing someone just because they have a belief system that differs from yours. I assure you, we all have'm and if we carried that attitude throughout our daily lives.. well, it simply wouldn't be a pleasant world to be in. Not calling anyone out specifically, just a request for decency.

[Andy]

Of course in the book of Genesis as well there are actually two creation stories back to back. I am sure you were aware of this however.

Um... no. There is only one creation story. In chapter one, it says how God created everything in six literal days.

In chapter two, it goes back to the sixth day, and fills in more detail about how man was created. That man should no be alone. That He brought all the animals, that God created from the dust of the ground, to the man to see what he would name them. Then after this, man was still alone. So God created woman (yay!).

The purpose of mentioning the animals (created on day 5 and 6) were made out of the ground is that, man being made in God's image, had dominion over the animal, even though all were created from the dust of the ground. This is further supported by the fact Man named all the animals.

Point is, they are not separate stories or different accounts. They are the same story. Neither contradicts the other.

[Mr. Carpenter]

So adam and ever where first , then he made a bunch of other people as well? Then why not have done that from the start, rather then just make 2 and hope they dont sin? Was it the same with other animals he made 2 then said later more? Or did he just make all of them at once...And as I stated, then he killed off many of them, then had noah put them all on a big boat.....


OK 'pocket', pay close attention, because you obviously have NO idea what you're talking about.

The stories in the Bible, especially Genesis, originated before anyone had a written language, and were handed down through the oral tradition over centuries and generations, and were exclusively about that tribes own history, exclusive of all others unless their inclusion was essential to the story. Eventually, once the written laguage was invented, the stories were committed to stone, papyrus, and so on, and it is those translations of the stories that we have today.

Given these facts, are there errors in the Bible? Of course, just as there are errors in the "official" records of our own Civil War, so the Bible is not a perfect 'history', but it does convey the general story, and as the time line got closer and closer to the time of Jesus, there is more and more 'factual' and archeologically proven aspects to the stories. We know for a fact that the man we know as Jesus did in fact live, that he did in fact deliver his Gospels, that he did in fact mightily piss off the Scribes and Pharisees, that he was in fact arrested, that he was in fact tried by Pontius Pilote, that he was condemned to death, and he was in fact crucified. None of that is in question, as it was written about, at the time, and later documented by Josephus.

Now, if you're not a believer, that's entirely up to you and whatever "gods" you pray to, but this constant bashing of those who do believe is extremely tiring, and indicitive of intellectual dishonesty.

[Andy]

thats still incest

personaly I dont see how anyone can take the Bible as Literal...and make any sense at all of it.

The law of incest wasn't given until the time of Moses. There was no prohibition against incest at the time of Adam and Eve. Logically there would be no need of it, since genetic defects from incest does not appear until after a dozen or so generations.

[Andy]

So adam and ever where first , then he made a bunch of other people as well? Then why not have done that from the start, rather then just make 2 and hope they dont sin? Was it the same with other animals he made 2 then said later more? Or did he just make all of them at once...And as I stated, then he killed off many of them, then had noah put them all on a big boat.....

There was Adam and Eve. They had sons and daughters. There were no other humans created from the dust. All are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

He created all animals on the 5th and 6th day. I do not see that it is explicitly stated either way as to the specific number of animals of each type created. I don't see that it's important either.

[Andy]

LOL!!!!!!! So....there was a mini-population-boom (in The Begining), but it was so insignificant, God decided it didn't need mentioned, huh?

Actually there was likely a major population boom. Given the conditions prior to the flood, that people lived to be 900 years old, even if you assume they were reproductive for only half their life time, and didn't have a first child until age 50, within the first generation, the population could easily hit into the billions.

That said, no it isn't exactly significant to the main points of the story. The Bible is not a historical chronological documentary. It is historical, but not for the purpose of giving a play by play of interesting pointless dates and times at which irrelevant things happened.

The God inspired Bible is to give us a accurate view of who we are, and where we came from, and what led to the situation we live in. To that end, the book of Genesis tells us all we need to know.

Yeah....we're much-better-off taking the word of people who insist they know what happened, when "humans" first walked-the-Planet. :rolleyes:

Odd since the other side of this discussion would claim they know what happened supposedly billions and billions of years ago. You take them on faith, but not this, and with no reason.

[NO Obamanation]

The law of incest wasn't given until the time of Moses. There was no prohibition against incest at the time of Adam and Eve. Logically there would be no need of it, since genetic defects from incest does not appear until after a dozen or so generations.

Abraham the father of the nation of Islam as well as Judaism was married to his half sister Sarah. It was not considered a big deal back then. Its not a big deal in some places even today :)

[Mr. Carpenter]

Odd since the other side of this discussion would claim they know what happened supposedly billions and billions of years ago. You take them on faith, but not this, and with no reason.

It's the hypocrisy of liberalism Andy. That's why Michael Savage calls liberalism a mental disorder. That's why Ann Coulter wrote a book entitled "If liberals had any brains, they'd be Republicans". That's why Ronald Reagan called their masters in Moscow the "Evil Empire", and that's why we've spent over 70 years fighting them, because they're just plain wrong, and everything they believe is anathama to America and the constitution.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yes, the right wing American way is best.

Attack 50 countries since WW2 most of them democracies that were not attacking the US.

Get the poor at home to try to eat themselves to death

Let the ecopnomy run riot until it implodes and then steal money off the poor to give to the bankers.

Get a 3rd of the working population on less than $9 per hour

Steal the natural resources of other countries killing hundreds and thousands of their citizens

Spend trillions of dollars on war rather than give medical help to the poor

Etc

An example to us all

[Mr. Carpenter]

Dinkyrocksforbrains, I would ask you if you're on drugs, but it would be a rhetorical question. Carry on, you make me feel better and better about some of the people that I work with. It's good to know that they really aren't the dumbest people in the world.

[Mr. Shaman]

The law of incest wasn't given until the time of Moses. There was no prohibition against incest at the time of Adam and Eve. Logically there would be no need of it, since genetic defects from incest does not appear until after a dozen or so generations.
I'm sure you can point to a medical/biological-document that supports that (Bush-style) science. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Dinkyrocksforbrains, I would ask you if you're on drugs, but it would be a rhetorical question. Carry on, you make me feel better and better about some of the people that I work with. It's good to know that they really aren't the dumbest people in the world.
.....Not with that bar lowered, by the Palin-nomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snvUA_smXwo). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes, the right wing American way is best.

Attack 50 countries since WW2 most of them democracies that were not attacking the US.
Actually, we got started a little earlier-than-that (http://www.zompist.com/latam.html).

[Dawkinsrocks]

Indeed

The US is the most dangerous nation on earth. And the most hypocritical practising just about all the human rights violations it accuses the countries it attacks of.

Thank non-existent deity its empire is coming to an end and despite its jingoistic grandstanding as the world's most powerful nation China could destroy it with just a small change to gold reserves and loans.

[Mr. Carpenter]

.....Not with that bar lowered, by the Palin-nomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snvUA_smXwo). :rolleyes:

Keep on lying Mr. Shaman. Everybody knows that nothing you say has any veracity whatsoever, including THE LIE IN YOUR SIG LINE!

[Dawkinsrocks]

Mr Carpenter, it is a pity you are not as gifted at debating as you are insulting.

In fact there seems to be an inverse correlation

[Mr. Carpenter]

Mr Carpenter, it is a pity you are not as gifted at debating as you are insulting.

In fact there seems to be an inverse correlation

You're one to talk about insulting D, but then someone as dense as you are can't be expected to comprehend even the most basic concepts.

[Mr. Shaman]

Mr Carpenter, it is a pity you are not as gifted at debating as you are insulting.
Hell, that's all they've got.

You want 'em to discuss The ECONOMY??!!! :D

[Mr. Shaman]

The US is the most dangerous nation on earth. And the most hypocritical practising just about all the human rights violations it accuses the countries it attacks of.
Hey.....you know.....it's the ol' Heritage-trip. :rolleyes:

"And once the ties with the crown had been broken

Westward in saddle and wagon it went

And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean

Many the lives which had come to an end

While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland

We began the slaughter of the red man (http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html#AMICA)

Our cities have turned into jungles

And corruption is stranglin' the land

The police force is watching the people

And the people just can't understand

We don't know how to mind our own business

'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us

Now we are fighting a war over there

No matter who's the winner

We can't pay the cost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgFmcHRcQc&feature=related)..."

[BigRob]

Um... no. There is only one creation story. In chapter one, it says how God created everything in six literal days.

In chapter two, it goes back to the sixth day, and fills in more detail about how man was created. That man should no be alone. That He brought all the animals, that God created from the dust of the ground, to the man to see what he would name them. Then after this, man was still alone. So God created woman (yay!).

The purpose of mentioning the animals (created on day 5 and 6) were made out of the ground is that, man being made in God's image, had dominion over the animal, even though all were created from the dust of the ground. This is further supported by the fact Man named all the animals.

Point is, they are not separate stories or different accounts. They are the same story. Neither contradicts the other.

Actually most bible scholars disagree with you on this.

They will tell you that indeed their are two creation stories. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 come from different sources.

They can be compatible without a doubt, but the idea that they did not come from two separate stories or sources is widely held to be wrong by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

[Andy]

Actually most bible scholars disagree with you on this.

They will tell you that indeed their are two creation stories. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 come from different sources.

They can be compatible without a doubt, but the idea that they did not come from two separate stories or sources is widely held to be wrong by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

I understand that. Then again, if I based my views and understanding of any issue on popularity, I'd be an ignorant liberal... right? :D

The two stories are compatible, and as I understand it, this is the view that orthodox jews hold for the torah. Since the Bible is self described as infallible, and since God said he would protect his word, it is more likely that in the process of translating a more complex language, to a less expressive language, some of the finer points may have been lost.

Nevertheless, of those that study the Hebrew, the context in which it was written, and common writing practices of the day, are more than not, in agreement, it is one story.

I believe this is why God instituted the church, and a position of teacher to research and learn the finer points of biblical doctrine. God knew that, although the basic truth that, Jesus came and died for mans sin as a free gift of salvation, might be easy enough for any to understand, other issues though are more complex and need full time study to learn, and to convey. Of the little Hebrew I know, it is enough to know I can't learn Hebrew.

[BigRob]

I understand that. Then again, if I based my views and understanding of any issue on popularity, I'd be an ignorant liberal... right? :D

The two stories are compatible, and as I understand it, this is the view that orthodox jews hold for the torah. Since the Bible is self described as infallible, and since God said he would protect his word, it is more likely that in the process of translating a more complex language, to a less expressive language, some of the finer points may have been lost.

Nevertheless, of those that study the Hebrew, the context in which it was written, and common writing practices of the day, are more than not, in agreement, it is one story.

I believe this is why God instituted the church, and a position of teacher to research and learn the finer points of biblical doctrine. God knew that, although the basic truth that, Jesus came and died for mans sin as a free gift of salvation, might be easy enough for any to understand, other issues though are more complex and need full time study to learn, and to convey. Of the little Hebrew I know, it is enough to know I can't learn Hebrew.

I do not mind your interpretation of it all. All I am saying is that they are put together from two separate stories written at different times, thus having two creation stories present in Genesis.

It does not make them not compatible or make the bible wrong, it just is what it is.


I wrote some pretty good liberal rebuttals on the financial thread, its easy to make no sense. :D

[Andy]

Hell, that's all they've got.

You want 'em to discuss The ECONOMY??!!! :D

Sure. Under Clinton, our economy was in a recession. The democrats attempted to block a tax cut that rebounded our economy from the recession Clinton left us in. Bush is leaving us in a growing economy. A slow economy, but still a growing one. The two issues that caused our current slow down were policies of Alt-A loans being purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were left over from the prior administration, and a change in general accounting practices legislated by congress as a knee-jerk reactions to Enron.

So, yes I have no problem talking about the economy. The question is, what evidence do you have to support anything you say? Because I can back all mine up with documentation. Go watch the video on Proof that Democrats lied about Fannie Mae, and you'll see first hand video recorded evidence of the democrats supporting the policies that have caused this issue.

[Andy]

I do not mind your interpretation of it all. All I am saying is that they are put together from two separate stories written at different times, thus having two creation stories present in Genesis.

It does not make them not compatible or make the bible wrong, it just is what it is.


I wrote some pretty good liberal rebuttals on the financial thread, its easy to make no sense. :D

That's fine. I just don't see any evidence of them being two different stories. The orthodox jews don't see it either.

Anyway, yeah, you clearly had the completely illogical liberalism factor down pat. Of course you did a better job at making it look like there was substance. The average liberal can't string 2 thoughts together without looking like an elementary school child trying to say that because he found his crayon, he should get ice cream.

[Dawkinsrocks]

The bible can't be wrong.

A talking snake told me so this morning when I went for a stroll on the lake

[NO Obamanation]

That's fine. I just don't see any evidence of them being two different stories. The orthodox jews don't see it either.

Anyway, yeah, you clearly had the completely illogical liberalism factor down pat. Of course you did a better job at making it look like there was substance. The average liberal can't string 2 thoughts together without looking like an elementary school child trying to say that because he found his crayon, he should get ice cream.

Think of it like a news paper

Headline God creates all things

then you go read the story and its more detail of how it was done

[Dawkinsrocks]

Can god create a problem he can't solve?

[Andy]

Can god create a problem he can't solve?

Like asking if ocean waves can create a sandy beach it can't wash away.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Erm no nothing like that actually.

You won't answer the question because either way god is logically proven to be incapable of omnipotence.

[Andy]

Erm no nothing like that actually.

You won't answer the question because either way god is logically proven to be incapable of omnipotence.

Anything God can make, obviously he can unmake. It's impossible for something to be impossible for God. That's logical.

The idea that God can not be omnipotent, because he can not create something that defies his omnipotence, is circular reasoning, and a logical fallacy in itself.

[Dawkinsrocks]

He cannot be omnipotent because if he is omniscient he must know the future and to know the future the future must be fixed (ie god can't change it)

See, he can't be omnipotent and omniscient.

It just doesn't work.

Nasty god, making himself impossible to believe in.

[Dawkinsrocks]

oh and BTW I can create a problem I cannot solve so where does that leave god?

[Andy]

oh and BTW I can create a problem I cannot solve so where does that leave god?

That only proves you are not God. Your limitation has no bearing on God, anymore than saying since I can't spell, you are obviously illiterate.

[Andy]

He cannot be omnipotent because if he is omniscient he must know the future and to know the future the future must be fixed (ie god can't change it)

See, he can't be omnipotent and omniscient.

It just doesn't work.

Nasty god, making himself impossible to believe in.

God does not just know "The Future" but also all possible futures. He knows how all of his actions, or inactions, and all of our choices on any subject, will change the out come of the future. There is no reason to believe that he can not change one possible future to another.

The problem here isn't that God is impossible, but rather that the (g)od you have created in your limited mental box, isn't possible. If god was limited the way you have limited him, then yes, that's impossible. Thankfully God isn't limited by you.

[Dr.Who]

The stories in the Bible, especially Genesis, originated before anyone had a written language, and were handed down through the oral tradition over centuries and generations, and were exclusively about that tribes own history, exclusive of all others unless their inclusion was essential to the story. Eventually, once the written laguage was invented, the stories were committed to stone, papyrus, and so on, and it is those translations of the stories that we have today.

That's one theory. Another one is that Moses, and occasionally one or two others, wrote the Genesis stories as told to him by God.

Given these facts, are there errors in the Bible? Of course, just as there are errors in the "official" records of our own Civil War, so the Bible is not a perfect 'history', but it does convey the general story, and as the time line got closer and closer to the time of Jesus, there is more and more 'factual' and archeologically proven aspects to the stories. We know for a fact that the man we know as Jesus did in fact live, that he did in fact deliver his Gospels, that he did in fact mightily piss off the Scribes and Pharisees, that he was in fact arrested, that he was in fact tried by Pontius Pilote, that he was condemned to death, and he was in fact crucified. None of that is in question, as it was written about, at the time, and later documented by Josephus.

There are some minor transcription errors in the copies of the bible but no one has shown any significant errors to date.

[Dr.Who]

The law of incest wasn't given until the time of Moses. There was no prohibition against incest at the time of Adam and Eve. Logically there would be no need of it, since genetic defects from incest does not appear until after a dozen or so generations.

You may be better informed than I am.

The last I heard incest concentrated defects (and strengths) that are already present but it does not create any defects at all. Mutagens cause defects. I have no reason to think that incest causes mutations.

[Dr.Who]

There was Adam and Eve. They had sons and daughters. There were no other humans created from the dust. All are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

He created all animals on the 5th and 6th day. I do not see that it is explicitly stated either way as to the specific number of animals of each type created. I don't see that it's important either.

This bolded statement is not a biblical statement I am familiar with. Does the bible state that no other humans were created other than the line of Adam?

[Dr.Who]

Odd since the other side of this discussion would claim they know what happened supposedly billions and billions of years ago. You take them on faith, but not this, and with no reason.

Good point Andy.

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is carbon dating which is slightly more reliable than the bible.

And that is but one of many internationally accepted methods of dating stuff.

But why don't you guys nip out and ask a snake. I am sure it will tell you

[Dr.Who]

They can be compatible without a doubt, but the idea that they did not come from two separate stories or sources is widely held to be wrong by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

1) Can you support this statement that the two creation stories are widely held to be from two different sources by the majority of bible scholars?

I am not denying that there are not stylistic differences between the two. Nor am I denying that they may even have been separate manuscripts (J, E, P, D) once. I am proposing that they are probably separate works by the same author at different times in his life. With our most recent copies being dated to divergent centuries. The stylistic differences are cited as reasons for them to be from two different authors but one author can choose to write with different styles for example when writing a textbook versus writing a poem.

The two accounts also have great similarities. Similarities that appear to be both intentional and below consciousness, lending credence to the idea that it was the same author.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05009.htm

It is my opinion that the discussion of the two sources as from one author or two is based entirely on analysis of style with no hard evidence and that analysis is completely interpretative.

2) Then after you make your case, can you show that regardless of consensus that the alleged majority opinion is the best one?

[Dr.Who]

Can god create a problem he can't solve?

Yes.


Because the bible never uses the word "omniscient" which was not even a word when the bible was written. The bible does not claim that God is omniscient. It does claim that he knows more than you though. :)

[Dawkinsrocks]

The question was about omnipotence

[Dr.Who]

The question was about omnipotence

My mistake. Here is the amended answer.

Yes.


Because the bible never uses the word "omnipotent" which was not even a word when the bible was written. The bible does not claim that God is omnipotent. It does claim that he is more capable than you though. :)

[Dawkinsrocks]

and omnipotence and omniscience both derive from latin words that were in existence around the time of the bible

[robert hawkins]

to obamanation,

you have incorrectly stated the democratic motto. better research on your part would have revealed that the correct motto is...ABORT A REPUBLICAN AND SAVE THE NATION.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Indeed

The republicans are taking America down.

[Stalin]

Anything that gets Raquel Welch back on the tube in a bikini gets my vote..

Has anyone seen Larry Flint's film using a look-a-like ?

Das Kameraden Stalinismus

[Andy]

This bolded statement is not a biblical statement I am familiar with. Does the bible state that no other humans were created other than the line of Adam?

In a round-about way yes. Romans 5 says that through one man, sin entered the world. Through one man a sin nature passed to all men. And even that 'just as by one man did all become sin, through one man [Jesus], all will be saved'.

Since the sin nature is passed on or inherited, if God created another person, or group of people, they could possibly be sinless. This would also pose a problem that if both sinned, Chirst would have to die twice for both human lines. Or it would violate 'for all have sinned' statement since one linage would be without sin.

Further, if there were other people created, it would be logical that at least one of the genealogies in the Bible would be traced back to a different.. "adam".

[Dr.Who]

and omnipotence and omniscience both derive from latin words that were in existence around the time of the bible
The earliest known use of latin was in 753 BC. The Old Testament was written long before that. As far as I know the New Testamant does not say anything about God's level of power while the Old Testament does.

So I stand by my statement that the latin words omni-... did not exist when the OT was written and are never used in either the OT or the NT.

Does it feel good when you get these minor victories and I have to amend what I said to clarify that it is only the OT that was written before the words existed? It is a meaningless victory.

Meanwhile, the existence of the language is irrelevant since it is still true neither of those two words were ever used in the original bible. The authors never said that God was either omniscient nor omnipotent so you arguing that He is not contradicts only a strawman.

[Dr.Who]

In a round-about way yes. Romans 5 says that through one man, sin entered the world. Through one man a sin nature passed to all men. And even that 'just as by one man did all become sin, through one man [Jesus], all will be saved'.

Since the sin nature is passed on or inherited, if God created another person, or group of people, they could possibly be sinless. This would also pose a problem that if both sinned, Chirst would have to die twice for both human lines. Or it would violate 'for all have sinned' statement since one linage would be without sin.

Further, if there were other people created, it would be logical that at least one of the genealogies in the Bible would be traced back to a different.. "adam".

You have persuaded me. The bible says Adam and Eve must have been the ancestors of all in one way or another.