we accept your challenge
Offline hey everyone.....i go to liberty university. this past wednesday night one of our campus pastors, Ergun Caner, had a message where he talked about and directly to the RRS about the blasphemy challenge. everyone needs to see this video. here is the link......
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/liberty/cpo/campuschurch/20070207_cc_ec.wvx
[MOD EDIT: OUR LETTER TO ERGUN CANER.
Our challenge is to speak with us on our show, we can give you the same fairness decried to us in your video. No edits. Furthermore nobody from Liberty has properly contacted us, get us a phone number for Ergun Caner. We will not travel to Liberty, I know Dawkins wont either, maybe call Sam. Brian Flemming has re-issued a challenge to take Caner on one on one in a moderated discussion on our show. Furthermore we would talk with Caner, Falwell, and one more on our show with our whole team. Challenge accepted, now make it happen as if you really want to do this and have the big bosses actually contact us.]
- Login to post comments
Again you presume to know what the Hebrews understood the "owph" to be. Do you know? Please let us all know what the Hebrews, Moses and God understood the "owph" to be.
And is calling a bat an "owph" incorrect?
Whatever they understood the "owph" to be...we don't know...But we do know that they clearly understood what the "bat" was and that they were not to eat it.
Then is a fly a bird? Flies have wings.
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging a good point. My key point here is that the bible will end up contradicting it's own system because it's methodolgy is too simple.
So, can you answer this now:
Where's the refutation of the assumption?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You're going to sit and tell me that the Hebrews who created the Hebrew language really didn't know what a word in their language meant?
You know those mental gymnastics I accused you of in the defense of your God? This is a prime example.
They apparently had a word for "bat" and it differentiaited the bat from other birds. Otherwise it wouldn't have made the list. The chances are good that they probably saw one (they are very common in Israel). But apparently (according to you) they trusted in God when they were writing his book instead of using their own eyes and thinking "this isn't a bird".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"owph" refers to the "bird" not the "bat".
The passage refers to a bat as an "owph".
So how did the Hebrews define "owph" at that time. There is no mental gymnastics, here.
What if they defined it as a creature with wings? Is that a contradiction and error?
You presume to know how the Hebrews defined "owph" and concretely call this a contradiction and a refutation of inerrancy...So how did the Hebrews define the word, here?
If you don't know for certian how the Hebrews defined "owph", how are you definitively labeling this a contradiction and error?
Hey todangst,
No...They, as someone pointed out above, differentiated between the "owph" and the insect.
Doesn't the fact that their classification system appears to be simple mean that it was just simple (and maybe broad)...but not contradictory? Is it always true to say, "If it is simple, it will be contradictory"?
And...it may not match up to our classification system (has there ever been disputes within our classification system?)...but does that mean that it is contradictory within their own classification system? (no.)
Everyone seems to be defining the word "owph" in terms of our current English language and in terms of our current classification system...In order to definitevely conclude that this is indeed an error, we must know, specifically, how the Hebrews, at that time, defined "owph". Do you know? Is there an expert in Hebrew in the house?
I cited Dr. Feduccia's (UNC evolutionary orinthologist) study and associated press release as a refutation of the assumption. He says that there is no evidence (biological or structural).
If you recall, I accepted "winged thing" as a possible definition for "owph". You were the one who first brought it up so you're bitching at me for agreeing with you.
What I aked then was why your God thought his ghost writers (who you believe were his crowning achievement) so stupid as to leave them with such a vague description.
Are you saying that you accept such intentional vagaries from an book you claim to be inerrant? From a God you consider perfect? Why? You wouldn't accept them from your fellow humans. Why is your God allowed to be intellectually lazy?
More mental gymanstics from you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't understand are you saying that you know what the word "owph" means or are you saying that you don't know what it means?
If you know then why not just tell us and clear up the mystery and show how it's not a contradiction? But if you don't know then how can you say it's not a contradiction?
You can't just say that you don't know something but you know it's not a contradiction. You have to know what you're talking about first.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Ok, but I'm just going by your statement above: 'winged things' would include flies, and planes, unless you ruled them out.
The point I'm making here is that any simple attempt at classification may fail because classifications without stipulations can be both too broad (applies to other concepts) or too narrow (does not apply to all the things that it claims to define). Oddly enough, some definitions can be both too broad and too narrow at the same time. For example, defining a fish as "a thing that swims in the ocean" is both too narrow - some fish live in fresh water and too broad - other things swim in the ocean.
So again, my point here is that these biblical categories tend to have these sort of problems.
Well, if a category is too broad, (Glad we are thinking alike here) then it will include members it intends to rule out.... too narrow and it will rule out members it should include.
So it leads to errors... as to whether these errors are contradictions, I suppose this would be the case if any set included a member that clearly violated the inclusionary rules.
As you already know, yes, of course.
Ah, but depending upon what the rules are, it may be.
I am simply responding to the inclusionary rules you provide. In each case so far, the rule you have provided leads to problems for the animals included on the list (flying things: ostrich) or that would heed to be on the list, given your rule (winged things: flies)
If you give me the entire set of inclusionary rules, we can examine whether any animal on the list violates the rule(s).
Oh, and is there a reason you aren't replying to this:
Where's the refutation of the assumption?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
pby, when that ostrich thing came up you should have said that ostriches could fly in the past but they lost their ability to fly because sin came into the world. You see, I could be a creationist if I wanted to. By the way you can use that in the future if you like but please don't cite me.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Maybe this will help both of us...
(and don't scare me by saying that we are thinking alike
)
I came across an Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
"owph" (ofe)
fowl (used 59 times); bird (used 9 times); flying (2 times); flieth (1 time); and used 71 times in these contexts: flying creatures; insects; winged insects.
So I have to take back the insects comment because "owph" apparently has been used in conjunction with insects.
It seems like a pretty broad term covering winged creatures. Given the broad nature of this word:
Is a bat an "owph"? Yes.
Is an insect an "owph"? Yes.
Is an ostrich an "owph"? Yes.
Is any of this contradictory? No.
Forgive me for being so obtuse on this...but did I not provide to you the posted citation where Dr. Feduccia refutes the feathered dinosaur asumption?
Hey Gauche,
I just posted an Old Testament Hebrew Definition for "owph" (ofe) to todangst with the number of times used in the OT.
Oh...so your problem, now, is not that it is a contradiction or error but that "owph" is too vague of a description for you.
Maybe to you, in English and given our classification system, it seems too vague...This allegation, even if accurate, certainly does not make it an error, nor is there any contradiction...
Furthermore, despite your protests over the alleged "vague" nature of the word, the Hebrews clearly understood what was unclean and thereby unfit to eat.
I appreciate the offer, and that you thought to suggest it to me, but I don't think that I will use it in the future.
Thanks,
Newsflash - that's always been my problem. Vagueness gives opportunity for error. Correct information never does.
Why are you willing to accept intellectual laziness from you Omni- (fill in the blank) God?
If I came to you and told you that I saw a winged creature in the zoo, would you be content with that or would you ask me about what kind of winged creature I saw?
If I responded with "I saw a winged creature", wouldn't you ask me to be more specific?
Why would you want specificity from me and not ask for it from the being you claim to worship? Why do you think humans should be held to a higher standard than your God?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Be specific instead of vague generalizations...
Does your allegation of this word being to vague lead to an error or contradiction? No...It doesn't.
There is absolutely nothing in the passage that suggests that God is being intellectually lazy...That is just your bias and poisoning of the well attempts after you can't demonstrate that a contradiction or error exists.
Your zoo analogy falls way short...Thus, it is flawed. Read the passage it gives specific detail in regard to the "owphs" that were unclean...It was not vague. By way of God's specific instruction, the Hebrews knew exactly, and specifically, which winged creatures they were not to eat.
You, for some reason (perhaps personal bias), don't like that these creatures are all referred to as "owphs" but obviously there is no ambiguity or lack of specificity in that the Hebrews clearly understood what not to eat.
Where is the vague nature in the instruction?
To make your analogy more of an apples to apples comparison...If you said:
"pby, I saw several winged creatures at the zoo today. I saw an ostrich, an eagle, a vulture, a falcon, a raven, a horned owl, a screech owl, an osprey, a cormorant, a stork, a heron, and a bat. (This is an apples to apples analogy.)
I think that I, and most others, would understand you. It is full of specifics and not vague in nature, at all. We would all have a firm grasp of what you saw (just like the Hebrews firm grasp on what they could not eat).
So then there's a problem
The problem is that the term is too broad. It refers to winged animals and flying animals. This could include insects, and any flying animal.... but it also refers to non flying animals with wings, i.e. ostriches do not fly.
No. Can you cite where he does this for me? I'd like to see what the refutation is...
So far, you listed this. This is an assertion. Where is his evidence?
The refutation of the assumption (or exaggeration, nonsensical as Fedduccia states) was cited in my post referencing Dr. Alan Feduccia. Fedducia said, "With the advent of 'feathered dinosaurs', we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology...Just as the discovery of a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs..."
He also said that prominent scientific publications stated, definitively, that proto-feathers, or dino-fuzz (that were not feathers, or related at all...but collagen fibers), were evidence that birds were descended from dinosaurs..."Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence of dinosaur 'feathers'--either structural or biological--..."How do I know this is true. I need to examine this claim.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
There is no problem/error/contradiction...The ostrich is a bird and a winged creature (an "owph"
.
Here is the citation from ScienceDaily:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm
Yes there is, the definition is too broad.
But it can't fly. And "owph' is used to denote flight, even in insects.
And so on....
I'm not saying that this alone refutes the bible, I'm just saying that these ancient typologies had problems with being too broad/narrow.. it is a problem, even within the system itself.
I'll take a look.
I already see a problem.
Your quote says that no evidence exists.
However, the article states that Feduccia believes that no GOOD evidence exists:
No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are theearliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, arenowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear tobe bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen toresemble feathers to a modest degree.
and here he agrees on common descent:
"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology inUNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were theancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside todaybecause we would like them to be is a big mistake.
and this statement marks him as a crank:
Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds'wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and thensomehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said
This is nonsense... Scientists have no problem overturning errors in dinosaur study... they've done it before.
This page notes how Feduccia tends to be taken out of context (on a related matter)
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_feduccia.html
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
We could argue the "too broad" issue...but it remains that no error or contradiction exists because of the Hebrew word "owph" in this passage.
My reference to "evidence" was Feduccia's quote relative to the Sinosauroptyrex. From the article, he states, "The photo susbsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought 'definitive' evidence of dinosaur 'feathers' and that birds were descended from dinosaurs...Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence [no evidence, at all...good or otherwise]--either structural or biological--that these structures had anything to do with feathers."
He also said, "With the advent of 'feathered dinosaurs', we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology."
Thank you for the article. (Though, I do not believe that I have quoted Feduccia out of context.)
Without evidence (even in spite of the evidence), the theory should have not even taken hold.
"Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get proper hearing."
I say "in spite of the evidence" because Feduccia points out that, "Also, the current feathered dinosaur theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years agoin the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.
That's some 25 million years after the time of Archaeoptyrex, which already was a bird in the modern sense...Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."
And you cut the quote about current dinosaurian dogma short...Feduccia ended it with, "That is close to be non-Darwinian."
is anyone going to respond to the errors i pointed out in genesis 1?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html
This review of Feduccia's book "The Origin and Evolution of Birds" by American Scientist should clear up this issue nicely.
You should take note that Feduccia's argument doesn't discredit evolution, it relies on it. Also, Feduccia's opinion is in the minority and contested by his peers.
Hear, hear!
pby is so concerned about the bat/bird thing, and the word "owph." I don't give a damn about the bat bit! Why should I care when Genesis 1 is wrong?
But pby continues to harp on owph. He/she even asked (not of me),
No, pby, it doesn't! I've told you why I don't hold to the inerrancy/inspiration of the Bible any longer, and it's because of Genesis chapter 1. But you just blew off my points.
deludedgod also made a much more substantial points than I did. But pby just keeps harping on the owph. Are you going to answer some real questions pby?
Since pby can't do it, is there anyone who can answer deludedgod's points? Is there anyone who can tell me why we see light from stars millions of light years away, when the Bible (with a literal, traditional reading of Genesis) gives us stars less than 6000 years old?
The light from the stars was created at the same time as the stars.
The light from the stars was created at the same time as the stars.
So what? The stars are still millions of light years away. Are you going to comment on the numerous errata I pointed out in Genesis 1? Are you really a young earth creationist?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thank you for the link.
I am not sure what it clears up...It was written in 1996 and Feduccia's cited press release was from October 2005. Additionally, the review you cited does not provide evidence for 'feathered dinosaurs'--structural or biological, which was the majority of the issue being addressed in Feduccia's press release.
I understand that Feduccia is an evolutionary orinthologist (I think I stated that in an above post) and that he relies on the theory of evolution and does not discredit the totality of the theory...I was not attempting to discredit the totality of the theory...just demonstrating that the 'feathered dinosaur' portion of the theory includes false assumed conclusions, without evidence/despite the evidence, that are advanced as fact.
By the way, the "dream team" that originally reviewed China's Sinosauropteryx (Martin and comapany) did not believe that they were feathers, either. I guess caution was just thrown to the wind because it sounded better to have "dfinitive evidence" for 'feathered dinosaurs' rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.
I spent time on "owph" because it was brought up to me, by another poster, as an issue, a perceived contradiction, that needed to be addressed. Okay...so it wasn't an issue for you...
How do you know that Genesis 1 is wrong?
You have empirical scientific evidence that Chirst did not create the universe in six days? Were you there?
I didn't ignore deludedgod's analysis...I commented on it and said that the Bible supports a literal day interpretation over an epoch of time (note: "morning" and "evening" and Exodous 20:11). I even asked for the same side-by-side anaysis to be done on a literal day basis.
Is it always true to say that creationists can't do science?
So what?
This is what...The light was immediately visible because the light and the stars were created at the same time..."And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night and let them serve as signs to mark seasons, days and years..." (Genesis 1:14)
Yes...the stars are still millions of light years away.
i dont mean to help pby here cause i stand agains the bible but as for the light from the stars issue,now i contend that there is no confirmed evidence yet but ive studied it enough to see that i think they are closer to the truth than what it seems but to answer the question the reason for light from the stars is that over space the light increases speed past that of which the speed of light.
http://wildcard.ph.utexas.edu/~sudarshan/pub/1970_008.pdfEveryone has the ability to think, not everyone does. Most believers(incert label here) dont like it when someone says, "Hey that's not true".
I am quite sure YOU can understand science if you really want to. But you cant use dogmatic goggles to do it anymore than a Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.
Science is not a religious tool to be used by any group to cheerlead for any team.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are (surprise) not thinking this through. The light that is reaching earth today from stars, was, if God isn't tricking us, emmitted a million years ago from a star a million light years away! There have been people to try to claim that God created the light in transit, but that would mean that God put into transit light from events that never happened! For example, say we were to see a super-nova that, by our calculations, show it to have happened a million years ago. That means the star doesn't exist now, it didn't exist 6,000 years ago, or whenever God created the universe. The only thing that exists is the light from a super-nova of a star that never existed!
Some have tried to say, well, maybe the speed of light has changed over time. Interesting, even Answers in Genesis, a Young-Earth organization, says they find this theory implausible. I can dig up the link if you want.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
I think caseagainstfaith handled this pretty well. Most serious creationist (e.g. Answers in Genesis) would claim that God made the light in transit.
I know, and I probably came across as rude. So be it. I just think that topic is a waste of time when compared to the problems with creation account in Genesis 1. I think it's so much more important because it ties in with central Christian theology about the meaning of Christ's death.
Was I there? No. But there's plenty of evidence stars are much older than 6000 years old, which makes a literal, traditional reading of Genesis wrong.
The "Where you there?" question is silly, and a standard creationist cliche. We don't have to have been there to find evidence that Genesis 1 is wrong, just like we don't need to witness a murder to determine who the murderer was. As a matter of fact, when we observe objects in space, we're looking at things that happened millions of years ago.
I don't need to prove that Jesus Christ didn't create the universe in six days. The burden of proof lies with you, and all that jazz.
I agree the the Bible supports a literal day interpretation. Moreover, the literal reading is the traditional interpretation. Non-literal interpretations are an attempt to retrofit modern ideas into the Bible.
The analysis you asked for is futile, because modern cosmology doesn't work with the Genesis account.
I should've been clearer. Creationists can't do "creation science." Of course there are creationist who are also scientists.
pby it is extremely hypocritical and unreasonable that you are saying "how do you know Christ did not create the world in six days, were you there?"
No. But I can provide massive chemical, geological, paleontological, astronomical and cosmological evidence to the contrary. Your request for direct observation shows pathetic understanding of the scientific induction process. Especially when you accept the bible as true for no other reason except that it says so in the Bible.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Wow, pby, if we were to teach science with your methods, we would have never invented penicillin.
No they weren't. "Let there be light" comes from Genesis 1:3. That was the first day. It is then when he supposedly created the separation between day and night.
We are also told that "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" - which happens on the FOURTH DAY. (Genesis 1:16)
You have just been proven wrong.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Do you know about red shift?
Galaxies are moving away from each other. Consider the Doppler effect when you listen to a car moving away from you. The sound becomes a different pitch as it passes you on a highway. This is because the sound waves are altered by the speed of the car.
Same thing happens with light. As stars move away, light moves down towards red on the spectrum of visible light.
This is how we know the big bang occurred.
It makes no sense to say that the stars were created in a steady state.
Besides, SAYING THAT THE STARS AND THE SUN AND THE LIGHT CAME AFTER THE EARTH IS JUST PLAIN RIDICULOUS, AND IT'S BASED ON A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE MODEL.
Have we learned nothing from the Galileo debacle?
Galileo (and astronomers even before him) knew the world was round and that the Earth revolved around the sun. Catholic authorities forced him to recant his belief and publicly state that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Since then, the Catholic church has issued a formal apology for the ordeal.
MOREOVER, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges evolution and considers it compatible with Christianity. (Although I doubt they ARE compatible.)
Why don't fundamentalists acknowledge these most basic points of science?
Are you a member of the flat earth society too?
What is your standard for evaluating scientific data? Whether or not it conforms to biblical dogma?
A much healthier thing to do would be to "reinterpret" the bible to something that fits with science, like the Catholics do.
After all, Christian interpretations are classic for spinning everything in the Bible for whatever purpose is needed. Surely, you acknowledge that science requires a radically different interpretation of the bible to fit the facts.
Once you acknowledge that, then let's debate hermaneutics.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
People didn’t believe in the geocentric model because they were religious, they believed it because of the lack of visible parallax.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I really beg to differ. Sure, Greek philosophers may have believed in a geocentric model because of empirical data that they interpreted incorrectly. BUT; later on, the Catholic church enforced the dogma on the basis of Genesis.
I think we will both agree that SOME believed in the geocentric model because of "lack of visible parallax" (even though they ascribed to the scientific method); and SOME believed in the geocentric model as the basis of religious dogma.
Are you claiming that ALL people prior to the popularization of the heliocentric model based their belief on empirical data that was interpreted wrongly?
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I wasn't trying to say that. I'm saying before Galileo lots of astronomers did accept it and not for religious reasons. It seemed like you were implying that everybody knew and they were just afraid of being labeled a witch or something. But since you're not saying that it doesn't really matter.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
How does that discredit evolution? His argument isn't even about evolutionary theory, but the path of evolutionary change.
All you are doing is promoting a fallacy that evolution is controversial amongst scientists, when in fact it is widely accepted.
I thought that it was a given, and obvious, that the issue being discussed was star-light (not light in general)...Apparently you didn't pick that up (...therefore, nothing has been "proven wrong".)
No...you are still missing the point and I never said it discredited evolution. (it does give science a "black eye", though (on this issue)...to advance a theory so full of holes that even creationists jump on it, as Fedduccia stated) I said it discredited "featherd dinosaurs", which Feduccia says has been advanced in the absence of scientific evidence.
I brought it up because a poster questioned the Bible's complete accuracy and inerrancy based on bats/birds and other alleged contradictions. Another poster questioned why I wasn't embarrassed because of these allegations (and others). I asked him/her if he/she was embarrassed about the "feathered dinosaur" assumed conclusion (which is incorrect and also bad science).
Your link did not clear anything up.
Invented penicillin?
Are you aware that Fleming, in 1928, accidently discovered it by being sloppy and leaving a culture plate out while going on vacation?
www.time.com/time/time100/scientists/profile/fleming.html
Feduccia argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs, and he's in the small small minority. This in no way gives science a black-eye.
You are still missing the point...
Claiming "feathered dinosaurs", without evidence, which is what Feduccia's press release was about, does give science a black eye (The assumed conclusion went to press, with missionary zeal, due to the desire to offer definitive evidence when there wasn't any definitive evidence for feathers...just like when National Geographic went to press with definitive "evidence", which turned out to be a scientific fraud and a forged fossil.)
Where Fedduccia believes birds descended is not a part of the issue I brought up...I already stated that Fedduccia was an evolutionary orinthologist (see above post)...The issue that was being addressed in Fedduccia's press release, that I cited, was lack of evidence for "feathered dinosaurs" (and specifically the Sinosauropteryx).
Then...provide the massive evidences that Christ did not create the universe in six days. (Age is not an evidence as Adam was created as a mature man, for example.)
Well, how about for starters, the issue of light from starts millions and billions of light-years away? Note, again, I refuted your earlier supposition on this topic, to which you remain silent. And you were silent on my earlier refutations of you as well. I probably won't waste my time on you anymore, why should I bother to give you any information if you'll just pretend it didn't exist and continue posting your nonsense? You theists can be so annoying.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide proof. You cannot ask someone to prove a negative.
And, uh, who is it you claim created the universe?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Evidence that Christ did not create the Universe in six days
Sure. Firstly. Define Universe. Genesis states that everything from the very beginning right up to mankind was done in six days.
Spectroscopic measurments, telescopic and optic observations, astrophysical mathematics and cosmological photography all say otherwise. The ancient universe formed over billions of years, with ionized hydrogen forming large galactic clusters and the other elements, with shifting quark soup making up the Dark Ages of the universe (the period approx 10 billion years ago). Stars were formed and continue to be formed by gaseous cooling and flow, with nuclear cycles such as the proton-proton chain catalyzing the reaction. Planets are formed by the supergravity pull of the centric stars. (Genesis states that God made the stars, yet we can see them being formed by natural process) we can also see them die by this process.
Planetary formation takes millions of years, as evidenced by gaseous analysis of atmospheric contents and gas pockets trapped deep inside the Earth, experiments done in Ozone formation and the Carbon exchange cycle all attest to this. gaseous shifts and exchanges, especially the catalytic process of photosynthesis which is the basis for all non-lithotrophic life, takes millions of years. The book of Genesis states plants were created in one day, and animal life the next. If that was true, even if God had smothered the Earth in green plants pumping out oxygen, everything would die immediately, the shift takes millions of years.
I'm sorry, but to state that the universe was created in Six days is utterly ridiculous.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Let me try and put it to you in a way that hasn't yet been done. We already know the stars are millions of light years away, or at least many of them are. Most of them. Yet we can see them. If light and the stars were created at the same time, 6000 years ago, then our sky would be almost completely black. Only stars within 6000 light years would be visible. And that cuts out 99.99999999999999->% of them.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.