Monday, April 17, 2006

The Simplest Explanation?

Let me suggest that Lerner advise his atheist-fearing congregants that they spend more time worrying about people like the Reverend Mark Creech. The last time we saw Mr. Creech he was calmly explaining that only someone who was insane could be a liberal.

This time he's lecturing us about the simplest explanation for the Biblical account of Jesus walking on water:

Nevertheless, not to be outdone among the skeptics, Professor Doron Nof of Florida State University claims it may have been ice Jesus stood on and not water. According to a recent article by Reuters, “Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret. Nof's study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived. A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice -- thick enough to support a human -- to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore ... it might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.”

It's hard to believe any such theories are ever taken seriously. Yet they often are. Why? Why is it so incredibly hard for some to believe the obvious -- a miracle took place?

As a graduate student I once attended a debate hosted by a Christian student group on the subject of whether God existed. During the debate, the theist made much of the assertion that Jesus' tomb was empty. This, he claimed, was a strong piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.

The atheist, who was a philosophy professor at Dartmouth (where I went to grad school), replied roughly as follows: “But let's suppose my opponent is right. Suppose that Jesus' body was placed in the tomb and then three days later the tomb as empty. Then we have two choices. We can either believe that roughly two thousand years ago one particular dead body behaved in ways no dead body before or since has ever behaved. Or we can believe that somebody moved the body.”

I don't understand a person who could seriously say that a two thousand year old account of a man walking on water is best explained by the assumption that a man really did walk on water.

Creech isn't finished:

Moreover, apologist Josh McDowell writes: “[W]e must remember that scientific laws neither dictate events nor do they explain them. They are merely a generalization about observable causes and effects .... The proper way of determining if something happened is not whether we can explain it. The first question to be asked is not can it happen, but rather did it happen .... If an event can be determined as having happened, yet it defies explanation, we still have to admit that it happened, explanation or not. The evidence for biblical miracles is as powerful historically as other historical events (such as the fall of Rome and the conquests of Alexander the Great). Just because miracles are outside our normal daily experience does not mean they have not occurred and do not occur.”

Still another reason why some people have a hard time accepting the miracles described in the Bible is because they compare them to Greek and Roman mythology -- tales of pagan miracle accounts that are clearly superstition. The difference, however, between the miraculous events recorded in the Bible and those in pagan religions are the firsthand accounts. In the Bible, miraculous events are always validated by the testimony of eyewitnesses.

But when a person comes to us with a story that stands in stark defiance of all natural laws as we know them, surely we are entitled to think that the person is mistaken about what he witnessed. A person seeing a magic act for the first time might return with fantastic stories of elephants disappearing from the stage, women being sawed in half, and rabbits appearing in hats that were previously shown to be empty. Something more than an alleged eyewitness account is required if we are to accept such stories, especially when we are separated from the events in question by thousands of years.

For that matter, I routinely see magicians perform feats that I can not explain. Is it just my naturalistic bias that leads me to believe there is a non-miraculous explanation for what I saw? I suspect neither Creech nor McDowell believes that it is.

We skeptics have a saying: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Two thousand year old hearsay testimony doesn't count.


At 3:36 PM, Blogger Alan Kellogg said...

I'm fond of the, "The water level was a bit high that year, and so a fellow would get his feet wet, whereas in other years he wouldn't." explanation. But that's mundane, and we can't let the SON A' GOD be mundane; now can we? :)

At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Biblical accounts are not eyewitness accounts -- that has been established by biblical scholars.

And it is also untrue that accounts of pagan miracles are not by eyewitnesses. Herodotus interviewed Athenian soldiers who said they saw Athena striding into battle beside them at the battle of Marathon. At Epidaurus, where there was a healing shrine to Asclepius in Classical times, there are hundreds of inscriptions left by visitors who experienced miraculous cures there. One can go on and on -- the number, and authenticity of authorship of such claims dwarfs those for the Bible -- yet they cannot be taken at face value either.

At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Joe Shelby said...

The evidence for biblical miracles is as powerful historically as other historical events (such as the fall of Rome and the conquests of Alexander the Great).

Is this guy completely ignorant about the totality of archeological evidence supporting the German presence in Rome and Alexander's presence in Egypt and the Middle East?

And then is he familiar with the utter lack of archeological evidence for Jesus beyond the various con jobs the crusaders fell for over the last 1000 years like the "pieces of the true cross" (every city had one) and the shroud of turin? Has anybody dug up the jugs that Jesus turned water into wine in? Have they found the body of Lazarus and were able to examine it for signs of coming back to life? Where is Jesus's burial cave today? If it was so important a site to the early Christians, you'd think they'd keep a better record of its location and possibly preserve the stone wheel/door that guarded its entrance.

Have they found a site where there are 5000 fish skeletons? ;-)

Beyond that, none of the miracles I can think of right now (including his walking on water example) could possibly have left any evidence to compete with the mountains of physical evidence we have for the Fall of Rome or Alexander. A book with an excessive history of mistranslations and errors isn't as reliable as a single physical specimen. There's more proof of Troy than there is of Jesus (or Moses or Abraham or Noah).

I don't mind - faith is what it is and I accept that; but then again, I'm not the one trying to assert that some burden of proof has been met.

I do agree with your last post on Creech that 1) he's a nutball, and 2) there are more like him (and they are more influential) than mainstream Christians would like to believe or are willing to deal with.

"Christians" or not, these people are ignorant morons with far too much political power and influence (and fear), and they need to be stopped for the sake of this country and this planet.

At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's hard to believe any such theories are ever taken seriously. Yet they often are. Why? Why is it so incredibly hard for some to believe the obvious -- a miracle took place?"

So the utter stupidity of a clamed "miracle" is harder to rationilize than that it "just didn't happen, it's simply untrue"?????
Damm, do I have a bridge to sell this guy!
Stupid is as stupid does......

At 7:11 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

I wouldn't call you an atheist, but rather an agnostic. What you have to say is not neccessarally a flat out rebellion against God, but you seek to understand and know the truth. I can understand that it can be difficult to believe in a god that you cannot see or believe a miracle that has no evidience linked to the laws of physics. I found your quote at the end of your last post interesting:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Two thousand year old hearsay testimony doesn't count."

In order to accept the miracles of Jesus Christ, you must be willing the accept (1)that God exists, and (2)that Jesus is the Son of God. It is a good start to hear about stories of Jesus and to know them, but merely knowing is not enough. It is also good to that you are willing to test the possiblity of the miracles in the Bible of even
happening, but you lack a critical element. Your writtings show me that you are willing to critically examine the evidence presented before you and then dismiss it as waste. I see that you search for an explaination for truth.

The key in seeking truth is that you must be willing to accept the evidence presented before you. For example, let's look at the miracle of Jesus walking on water. The evidence for this historical event is in the Bible. I don't know if you have one, but you can find a Bible online at
For this, I am going to be examining the text of this account in the Bible. You can find this story in the book of Matthew, chapter 14, verses 22-33. I'll let you read this to yourself. The key to studying history is a word called context. It is important to know what happens before, so that you can know who is envolved, where they are, and why they are where they are.

Basically in the part before verse 22 Jesus had just finished with one miracle, which does not concern us at this time, it just tells us what happened before Then he tells his disciples (his follows) to get in a boat and wait for him on the other side of the sea. This boat contains all twelve of the disciples (your eye-witnesses to account for this event). Then Jesus went up to the mountian to pray alone. Meanwhile, back on the boat, A storm came (verse 24) and there were waves tossing the boat around. This tells me that the water was not frozen,
so there is no possible way that Jesus walked on ice. Verse 25 is where the miracle in question lies. Jesus walks on the storming sea (not frozen sea). (Here the part where our special word context comes into the play). It is the part of the text the is after the evidence in question. After the 12 eye-witnesses (the disciples) see Jesus walking on water they at first of have doubt in what they see. As human nature goes it's only natural to doubt things, right? Then Jesus called out to them to identify Himself to the disciples. The next thing that happened was that Jesus commanded Peter to come to Him, after Peter having a little less doubt then everyone else on the boat
and so what do we have now. We have another person who walked on the same water that Jesus walked on (verse 29). Peter saw Jesus and jumped out of the boat, on the water
to meet Jesus, but then while out on the water Peter was distracted by the waves comming and he lost his focus on what he was doing and he began to sink (verse 30). Then Jesus saved Peter, and they all got back in the boat and at that time the storm stopped (verse 32).

Well, this is the evidence you have to work with. It is not a whole lot be you have to believe it if you want to test it. Belief is the key. This is makes a neat story in all, but I think there is a lesson to be learned by this. When Peter begin to sink not because he looked upon the
raging sea, but because the sea distracted him from believing that Jesus had the power to allow him to stay on top of the water. It is because of Peter's belief in Jesus as God that even made him get out of the boat in the first place.

A lot of times in life we must jump out of the boat and trust that things will work out without you having to force the puzzle pieces together that were never cut to fit together on their own. You have to be willing to believe the extraordinary evidence if you want to believe extraordinary claims. If you want other account of Jesus' miracles you can read about them in the Bible, in the other three gospels (books) of, Mark, Luke and John.

At 7:56 PM, Blogger RandomDNA said...

Social Outcast read the second post here again! There is no eyewitness accounts in the bible. They are all written after the death of Jesus. Paul is the earliest writer at roughly 55AD and "John" the last at around 90 AD or later. The apostlistic authorship of the four books are later attributions that is in no way factual.

To find out more, read "Misquoting jesus" by Bart Ehrman.

At 8:07 PM, Anonymous yeahyeah said...

This tells me that the water was not frozen, so there is no possible way that Jesus walked on ice.

Wha? Off the top of my head, here's a way: The "this" that you mention is not true. That didn't take long.

By the way, I walked on water last week. And I'm telling you now that the water was not frozen, so there is no possible way I walked on ice.

I know it sounds extraordinary, but you have to be willing to believe this extraordinary evidence.

It is because of Peter's belief in Jesus as God that even made him get out of the boat in the first place.

Or not.

At 10:14 PM, Anonymous CBBBB said...

I don't think the "ice walking" explanation is neccessary at all. What evidence do we have that this boat/water walking event took place at all?
The Bible. That's it!
That one document alone is not good enough for a reasonable person to accept that 2000 years ago a man walked on the surface of a lake with no physical support.

And this doesn't take into account the fact that the Bible is verifiably false in other parts (ie the formation of the Universe, Noah's Ark, etc.).
So why should we accept this book as the be-all-end-all piece of evidence?

At 11:37 PM, Anonymous darthwilliam said...

socialoutcast said:

"The key in seeking truth is that you must be willing to accept the evidence presented before you."

Actually, no. In fact, the opposite is true. The key to finding the real truth is to be skeptical of evidence presented, especially extraordinary claims. Have the evidence verified by a third party, duplicate the results of the experiment, find other corraborating evidence, etc etc.

The simplest explanation is that the walking on water story is apocryphal and never actually happened.


At 11:41 PM, Anonymous John M said...

the simplest explantion (it seems to me) is that someone made up the whole account. perhaps someone (jesus) waded out to a boat; then the story telling took off. Mr Creech is a good example of one who exagerates a story.

At 6:54 AM, Blogger JD Beatty said...

Social Outcast --

There is a difference between assertion and evidence. You should learn it. Assertion is untestable, has no demonstrable physical corrolaries, and is as substantial as any claim of faith. Evidence can be seen, tested, even replicated under certain conditions. Assertion is faith. Evidence is science.

At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like a chord has been struck.

And your failure to believe is why you will sink.

At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the evidence, Jesus is God. 'nuff said.

At 3:35 PM, Blogger David said...


The late dates for John, especially for Revelation, are not set in stone. There is considerable recent scholarship that favors a date in the reign of Nero, ca. AD 65.

You are merely stating that the gospels are fiction—that is no more a proof than my stating they are factual. You have to do better.

There is no way to explain Jesus’ walking on water—there is a reason they call them miracles rather than tricks.

Unbelievers simply say it never happened—believers should say it did happen and was supernatural—there is really no reason for anyone to try to explain it.

At 8:15 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Do you suppose God ever wonders where he came from and what his purpose is?

At 1:59 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

The evidence that I used to make my point is the same evidence that you skeptics mock and declair unacceptable or not good enough.

This evidence which I have presented comes from a perfectly valid historical document. You skeptics are so bent on your own arrogant knowledge of modern scientific methods and technology that you are forgetting about what really matters in an investigation--historical records and testimonies of people who are witnesses. Without these were do you even begin to gather your evidence? Certainly not the lab.

I proved that there were indeed witnesses to the scene when Jesus walked on water. But you skeptics fail to believe the only historical record which documents this event, you and say it is just a fairy tail because you skeptics deny the crucial piece of evidence that states those who where there at the scene.

And yeahyeah, I'd like to know what the environmental conditions were when you, as a mere human (not some (criter), allegedly "walked" on water and any equipment you may have used. For science of course.

At 7:33 AM, Anonymous jc said...

HEDDLE alert! Put on your hip-boots.
I guess someone should tell Professor Nof to stop looking at core samples. Apparently even if he found cast fossils of Jesus' sandles on the shallow lake bottom dated to the day of the supposed water walking it would mean nothing to a true beliver.
Whenever an event occurs it is always going to be more likely that there is a natural explanation. The burden of proof is always going to be with the beliver to rule out all possible natural explanations. So, no Heddle, YOU have to do better.

At 9:26 AM, Blogger Ginger Yellow said...

"I proved that there were indeed witnesses to the scene when Jesus walked on water."

You proved nothing, except the existence of a text postdating the alleged events by at least 25 years that claims there were witnesses. Now that is evidence for witnesses, albeit extremely weak evidence given the source, but it's about as far from proof as you can get. Would you accept as "proof" of Elvis's resurrection a claim by an Elvis fan that somebody saw him eat a cheeseburger with no hands 25 years ago?

At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

There are a number of problems (besides those already mentioned) with taking the Bible's account as actual eyewitness evidence.

1) The "witnesses" have a vested interest in the event. Can you trust someone who has a clear motive like that? Would you trust a new medicine whose only evidence is the eyewitness account of the drug company itself?

2) Eyewitness testimony is only helpful (and even then, only rarely), when the event itself is verifiable. For example, in a murder case there must be proof that there has even been a murder. With Jesus walking on water there is no evidence other than the highly suspect testimony. How do you know they didn't just make it up?

So what we have in the case of Jesus walking on water is a claim made by someone with a clear conflict of interest for an event that there is no evidence ever happened. (And, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the claim wasn't even presented until at least a quarter of a century later.)

If you have kids, would you believe them if they said they failed a class because God came down and took their homework to test their faith? Would you absolutely 100% believe them? And if the kid used similar excuses all the time, would you believe them every time? If not, why not? Why would you not believe your own child but believe a book that was written under cloudy circumstances nearly 2000 years ago?

So go ahead, have faith all you want, but don't tell me you have evidence.

At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your lack of belief and requiring proof for EVERYTHING makes you untrustworthy.

At 5:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way that I see how evolutionists can justify there scientific system is by complete discrediting the Bible.

At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Dear anonymous,
Good to see that your beliefs have made you such a wonderful, good and tolerant person. Yay God!

Oh, and way to avoid answering questions. Good going! Yay hiding from reality!

At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way that I see how evolutionists can justify there scientific system is by complete discrediting the Bible.

...and mocking the opposition.

it's no wonder that you evolutionist piss off so many people.

At 8:47 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

I see that I am going nowhere on the walking on water thing. But as far as witnesses go, somebody would have to be there at the time or have heard about the historical event to have recorded it-whether that was immediatly right after or 25 years after the event that may be debated. and there interpretation may also be up for debate, even among scholars.

Below is a URL which points out several non-biblical, historical documents which scholars have determined to be written by non-christians and have lived during or shortly after the time of Jesus. The referance to events and people in these documents amazingly point out someone who was a teacher or perhaps sorcer. There are also referance in these document which refer to roman leaders, events, and the customs of that time.

So you may consider the Bible a secondary narrative if you like.

non-biblical evidence here and other sources.

At 9:51 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

I was having a friendly discussion with some friends who I think do really believe in God and hell and that stuff....

and I said I was a rational person living in a real world and I wanted to know how anyone got to hell anyway...was there a bus or something that we could take?

At 9:56 PM, Anonymous kevin said...

"it's no wonder that you evolutionist piss off so many people"

ha ha... and creationist piss on so many people and tell them its raining.

At 10:14 PM, Blogger Collin C said...

Has anyone else noticed that the bible seems to be the end point in a really big game of telephone? Jesus is a good guy, dies, those who knew him say gosh he was a good guy, seems like he could just do anything he put his mind to, this gets repeated (a lot) and lo and behold 2000 years of telephone later jesus was walkin on water. Just wondering...

At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

social outcast said: But as far as witnesses go, somebody would have to be there at the time or have heard about the historical event to have recorded it

Says who? How do we know they didn't just make it up? What evidence or reason do you have for thinking they didn't? The walking on water story makes a LOT more sense to me as a metaphor than as reality. As a metaphor, it's very clever and well done. As reality, there are too many plot holes.

As for the link you sent, the opening line, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document" was a real turn-off. The number of accurate things in the Bible are no greater than in any ordinary fiction novel. Yes, there were Romans... yes there were Egyptians... etc. You can look at any Tom Clancy book (for example) and find "historically accurate" things too: Yes we have a President... yes there's a Secret Service... yes Russia was a Communist country... etc. I can easily picture a time in the far future when people might think some of today's fiction is actually non-fiction.

But there is NO evidence for the important things in the Bible (miracles, Creation, etc.).

At 6:03 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 6:12 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

Fred said, "Yes we have a President... yes there's a Secret Service... yes Russia was a Communist country... etc."

Fred, nothing gets past your own eyes. You only believe what you see. Your weakness is your narrow-mindedness. You are so blind that you cannot see the evidence in or outside of the Bible. For example, the Bible is not the only written evidence that there was a world wide flood. Look at the "Epic of Gilgamesh." The Epic of Gilgamesh, which was written long before the Bible and is perhaps is considered the oldest literary work as agreed upon by many scholars (fiction or non you decide). Anyway, Gilgamesh also mentions the idea that there was some type of event such as a flood along with other events which are also mentioned in the Bible. And Fred, if you really desire to educate your ignorant, arrogant brain (instead of riding the wave of modern thought) you will find that there are indeed other cultures throughout this world that also contain accounts, folklore or legends of a calamitous event of global flooding. And by the way, with todays science, we can explain how rainbows are made (that is a freebee).

You see Fred, history is important to modern science and modern thought.

For the rest of you skeptics, the differance between a miracle and a magic trick is that the magic trick is just an illusion which can be explained scientifically. And a miracle is an act of God that defies the laws of physics and science which cannot be explained. It has now become obvious that you skeptics do not believe that miracles happen, and yet at the same time you are amazed by some magic trick performed by mere people like yourselves. You are being fooled by your own science, it's only a trick. In non-biblical texts (old and new) Jesus was accussed of sorcery, magic and considered a fraud. So as you can see the augument of Jesus' miracles is not a new one. You skeptics are just burning the ashes of the dead horse that have been beaten long before YOUR existence.

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Social outcast: How do you know that the things mentioned in the Bible are miracles, not magic tricks? You are acting like it's a fact that they were miracles. Well, where's your evidence? If there are non-Bible texts from that same time that claim it was tricks, not miracles, why do you say they are wrong?

As for other cultures having had similar myths (such as flood stories), I say this:

1) They also worshipped other Gods. How do you know yours is real? Were their gods real too? Also, the details in the various myths don't support your assumption that they are all real and are all talking about the same event.

2) The general similarity in ancient myths is consistent with evolutionary theory. It is predicatble.

3) People tend to live near water, whether rivers, lakes or oceans. After all, water is neccessary for life. Plus, there's rain. How hard is it to comprehend that there would be a fear of flooding in all civilizations, and that myths would arise about great floods? Those myths would serve at least three purposes: 1) Entertainment (storytelling) 2) moral lessons (be good or the water God will be angry again), and 3) Control (obey me or there will be another flood).

At 8:51 PM, Anonymous CBBB said...

Social Outcast, have you ever considered the possibility that the Biblical flood story was inspire by the Epic of Gilgamesh (or similar flood tales) and not the other way around?

At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

socail outcast-- I just thought I'd point out one other thing: It is the skeptical people who are open minded, not people like you. YOU are the one who refuses to consider any other views. I am open minded enough to consider many views. It is narrow minded to believe only the Bible. It is open minded to be skeptical and look for other possibilities.

At 6:17 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

Then be open-minded and just consider the Bible as a valid source document and treat it as you would other historical texts--it's only fair as a science. You don't even have to believe in the whole God thing (that's your choice). You can even remain to your own beliefs that the person of Jesus was just a good man (again your choice).

Besides I don't see you presenting evidence which support your views. You are just critizing what I say and what I personnally believe. I am not trying to "convert" you. I am just presenting other evidence that pehaps has marit. After all, what I have said before I have declaired as fact but only presented evidence which supports my views. I am more interesting in hearing the evidence that you have that supprts your views instead you hear how "wrong" I may be.

Now to answer your question about how "know" that the miracle in the Bible are not magic tricks. Fred in order for my answer that I must first say that this is what I believe. I believe that the unexplainable acts of Jesus are miracles because of my belief in who Jesus is. I believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that the person of Jesus was part man and part God while he walked this earth. And because of His devinity, he was able to walk and calm storms. I also believe that because Jesus was the son of God His perpose on earth was to die on the cross for the sins of man kind and then be resurrected three days later. This why there are no Jesus fossils, but you are free to think that his body was stolen or moved. Jesus' death and resurrection is the key to what Christianity is today. And for this belief the church is under fire for its beliefs. Proof of this is that President Bush is taking flack from the secular community for his personal beliefs. With that said, as for as proof for Jesus' miracles ever happening, It is something that I have come to accept and believe. The evidence which I have presented in earlier posts only assures me of my beliefs.

Answer another question of yours, "If there are non-Bible texts from that same time that claim it was tricks, not miracles, why do you say they are wrong?" First off, I never said that those authors were wrong. I was only pointing out that in those texts that even non-christians can vouch for who Jesus was. And as a part of my open-mindedness I have also consided alternative evidence as to why the Bible is right or wrong.

And may I present a forth reason that to consider as to other cultures telling or recording stories/myths/folklore.
4)Civilizaions have stories that have been passed down from generation for the reasons you have mentioned, Fred, and also to serve as a record of events.

The Bible is just the Jewish record of the history of their culture that the christian community has adopted. differant cultures have their own way of recording history. This was what I was trying to get at with my comparision of Gilamesh's and the biblical account of a global flood--not just local rivers rising beyond their bounderies.

Also I was trying to show, as far as historical accounts go, when ever parallel accounts for the same event in history exist it shows 1) there does indeed exists more than one account for the event, 2)which lends stronger support to the possibility of people not making things up, 3)and each source validates each other for authenticity.

So Fred, this is why I believe. As I stated before I am more interested in the evindence that supports beliefs then hear you tell me how wrong I am.
Also, how does the whole Jesus walking on water thing make better since as a metaphor? Evidences?

At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Peter said...

I am just popping in because my traffic logs showed some incoming from here.

I think this quote by author Daniel Quinn in germane: "When a chemist puts water in a test tube and adds salt, an angel comes along and dissolves the salt into charged particles called ions. Because we perceive the universe to be self-governing according to internally consistent and comprehensible principles, the angel in this story seems completely superfluous to us. We therefore cut it away with Occam's razor."

One more point, who cares about the magic? I always found that stuff to get in the way of the message. That's why I highly recommend this article:

At 12:35 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

here I found some typos in my last post, I'll make some corrections so that what I mean is more clearly stated.
1) ...what I have said before I have not declaired as fact but only presented evidence which supports my views. I am interested in hearing the evidence that you have that supports your view..

2) answer your question about how I "know" that the miracle in the Bible are not magic tricks...

3)...because of His devinity, he was able to walk on water and calm storms...

4)...three days later. This is why fossils of Jesus can be found...

Now, you can go back to my previous post to place these corrections back into context.

:) I hope I didn't scare ya off yet :)

At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Social Outcast, you said, " far as historical accounts go, when ever parallel accounts for the same event in history exist it shows 1) there does indeed exists more than one account for the event, 2)which lends stronger support to the possibility of people not making things up, 3)and each source validates each other for authenticity."
That is true. But have you realized that if you accept parallel accounts for the Biblical flood, you are in fact saying that the Bible is wrong. You are saying that some people who were not on the Ark actually survived the Flood to pass on their stories to their descendents.

Never mind the fact that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for such an event, why do you discredit the Bible?

Ick of the East

At 5:36 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 5:54 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

I am not discrediting the Bible as being wrong by looking at evindince outside of it. I am looking at the evidence along side of the Bible. About the parallel accounts to one event, your missing the point. I was only showing that there indeed exists multiple accounts for a great flood happening. Don't be so stuck on the notion that there is simply no evidience for a world flood. But the evidence not only exists in ancient historical texts, but evidence can also be found in the geological record.

So while on the topic of geology,I ask the question, why can fossils of seashells and fish be found in a landlocked state such as Colorado (leaving evolution theory out)? And what about the Grand Canyon? Surely there isn't enough energy in the Colorado River alone to "carve" such a large canyon in granate rock even over millions or billions of years? Perhaps the Continental Drift theory/idea, might have been affected by a globel flood. Just consider it as a possiblity. If all the land masses on earth were once connected as one large mass, and considering there just might be enough energy in the waters that cover the earth in an event such as a global flood there just might be enough energy to reshape the earth completely? I know that the earth can also move around during earthquakes, but is that enough to support the Continental Drift theory and declair as fact so that such theory's can be taught in America's schools?

You see Anonymous, I am not discrediting the Bible, but only looking for evidience to validate it--the is me being open-minded. I will admit that if you were to look at all of the evidence, biblical or non, surrounding the person of Jesus, it will be quite contraversal depending on who you ask. This is why I search for evidence which supports my beliefs, and if I need some adjustment in what I believe, I am willing to do so.

At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there exist multiple independent accounts for the Biblical Flood, then indeed the Bible is wrong. The Bible says that Noah and his family alone survived. So if the Bible is true, these “multiple accounts” all derive from the survivors on the Ark and in fact are not independent at all. They are in fact a form of Chinese whispers that have changed dramatically from the original.. (None of the others mention Noah or Shem, Ham, or Japeth or the nameless wives. So how do you know that your derived version is the true one or that any of them bear the slightest resemblance to actual events?)

As for the evidence of the Flood, there are scientific journals perfectly willing to accept your papers on the subject. What is holding you back from publishing? Is it the fact that you have to actually do years of field research and supply evidence for other scientists to confirm? Or are you under the impression that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists (many of whom are Chrisitians) who have conspired to keep the truth unrevealed?

As for why fossils of seashells and fish can be found in landlocked areas…oh my. It is because landlocked areas were not always landlocked.

We’re talking about land that was not only covered with water, but land that was at one time (and for a very long time) seabed itself. Land that is actually made up of seashells and microscopic sea life – not land that has been briefly covered by sea.

Take a look at this image of the stratigraphy of a portion of the Grand Canyon and explain (as you would have to do in your paper) how all of these deposits happened at the same time (along with uplift and erosion) and then were carved into a canyon…all within one year.
Note that the limestone layers were deposited as seabed, the shale as mud, and the sandstone as desert.

And why in the world would the Colorado River not have enough power to carve the Canyon? If it removed only one single milimeter ever year, it would carve to a depth of five kilometers in only five million years. That is trivial.

You also show the depth of your ignorance of plate tectonics and physics. The amount of energy that it would take to break apart the continents and move them to their present position in one year would absolutely melt the entire Earth.
Never mind the mountain ranges of evidence that show that the process has been going on for billions of years. Never mind that the time when the continents were all together (Pangea) was only one of the more recent stages.
See here for the arangement during different eras:

And of course the continents are still moving today at a speed that perfectly matches the historical record. You would have to do a lot of highly original explaining in your paper.

And I notice that you bold the word theory as if it is something less than a fact.
Theories do not become facts once they have more evidence. Theories explain facts. They put facts in context so that we can understand and make predictions as to where and how new facts may be discovered.
Theories are always theories and will always be theories.

Ick of the East

At 4:11 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

So maybe you have more knowledge of geology, buy you really let your ignorance of anthropologyand the Bible shine through on this one.

First off I was trying not to get too envolved in the geology of the matter, so I keep my ideas vary general.

The biblical account of the flood story wasn't recorded until several generations after Noah's Ark, As the story goes, to remind you of what the bible says about it (in short), Noah had with him his wife, his sons (Ham, Shim, and Japhith) and each of their wives and two of each animal on the boat so that the species could populate the earth again.

So when the boat came to rest in the mountains of modern day Turkey, as experts say because they believe they found Noah's Ark (further validatin the Bible), Noah and his family (his sons and their wifes' included) had to repopulate the earth. Make since so for? So this took place and each of Noah's sons had traveled to distant lands (such lands like Africa in the west, Asia in the East, and Europe in the North) to repopulate. So as a result these families had a testimony of the flood to past down to generations. Thus the source of sources of other flood accouts including the biblical accout and Gilgamesh. Does this still make the Bible wrong?

But I'm not done yet. The Biblical account does not have to be the first to be recorded chronologically speaking, but the point is that multiple accounts of the same event do indeed exist. And because each person is different, each person who recorded their testimony to the event will naturally add their own flavor.

I also know that the biblical account of the flood was written by a man named Moses who wrote the book of Genesis in the Bible. (you should look up the word "genesis" in the dictionary) A bit more info on Moses is that his life did not begin right after the flood but several generations after (this is called Genealogy. (Do some research on the Egyption king Ramses II). So, if flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh was recorded before the biblical flood story and are other cultures around the world that have known flood stories written or spoken, wouldn't you think all of these testimonies of the same event might be valid evidence to a flood? Does this still make the Biblical account wrong?

Just consider this as a theory, then you can go back to the Colorado river idea. Maybe all those layers you see in the Grand Canyon were not deposited in a span of a million years. Maybe an event such as a global flood contains enough energy to reshape the entire earth. After all that's a lot of water and a lot of tide action.

At 4:20 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

Theories explain facts.

Facts are undisputed.

A Theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I'm debating a theory here.

At 5:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That is the common usage, but it is not how the word is used by scientists or by people who know any better.

The·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is how the word is used by scientists.

See? Even a creationist can learn something new every day.

Now the next time you hear a creationist say, "It's only a theory," you can cringe with the rest of us who know what we are talking about.

Ick of the East

At 5:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Noah’s Ark has been found has it?

That wouldn’t happen to be that outcropping of rock that I saw circled in red?
Wow. Amazing what constitutes evidence among the faithful.
Has anybody thought of mounting an expedition to bring back a piece or two? Or is a red circle around a rock enough for you?
It’s not enough for me.
You need to go there and excavate your boat. You need to explain why Australian animals, for example, are found only in Australia – along with the fossils of their ancestors.

As for Shem, Ham, and Japeth repopulating the Earth….good lord man.
Just when are you claiming that this took place? Which one of them made it to Australia 60,000 years ago? Which was in America at least 13,000 years ago? Whose kids built the Pyramids and whose built Stonehenge?

If each person gave a different flavor to his flood story, why do you choose the eventual Hebrew story as true? Why not the Gilgamesh tale?

I have absolutely no problem believing that multiple stories of floods are valid evidence for floods. All ancient civilizations grew up along rivers. Egypt, Mesopotamia, China. Flood stories are no mystery.
But a world-wide universal flood is backed by no evidence. How is it that several hundred thousand yearly layers of Arctic ice sheets were not destroyed in this flood that, according to you, managed to throw continents around the world?

And the idea that all of those layers in Colorado (and around the world) were deposited in one event is beyond the fringe. Layer after layer of different types of stone are deposited, compressed, uplifted, eroded, and then new layers of different types of stone are deposited on top of them, each with their own fossils not found in any other layer.

I really have no more words to say how wrong you are. This is not a matter of opinion – “I have my theory and you have yours”. This is the matter of mountain ranges of hard evidence versus a Bronze-Age fireside story.

It is the 21st Century, and here I am arguing with someone who actually believes in Noah’s Ark. I don’t want to sound cruel. Some of my favorite people believe as you do. But my mind still boggles.

Ick of the East

At 3:45 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

...why do you choose the eventual Hebrew story as true? Why not the Gilgamesh tale? I think the point of the comparisions of these two stories(Gilgemesh and the Bible) was once again missed. The point, I think, was not to show which one was right (as being true) and other being wrong, but rather only to show that multiple accounts of one event exist. After all, Science has to start somewhere.

How is it that several hundred thousand yearly layers of Arctic ice sheets were not destroyed in this flood ... [and] managed to throw continents around the world?
I think scientist are under the assumption of the polor ice caps were always there. But if they did get destroyed, Then it would make since that they melted which would contribute to flooding. But we just don't know for certain that the artic region was destroyed completely or at all. But we do know that the polor regions on this planet have a lower average temperature to take into account. And as far as the flood reshaping the earth, that was speculation. But I think the Contenetal drift theory may still has marit with the tectonic plates shifting.

As for as Noah's family having to repopulate the earth, there is a theory that basically says that the time before the flood people lived longer (about a 1000 years), due to a protective canopy of water (or water vaper) in the atmospere which served as shield from the suns harmful UV rays. And when this flood came, this water that was stored up in the atmospere rained down, and at the same time underground springs came up. And maybe the polor ice caps melted too. So after this flood, this canopy of water was no longer there and therefore from exposure to the suns rays and the enviromental change, the life-span of humans gradually decreased over generations. Once again, this is also a theory to explain how the whole earth could be flooded.

At 8:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You talk about the ice sheets melting and causing the flood, but I mentioned the hundreds of thousands of yearly layers in the Arctic (Greenland) ice. These are layers similar to tree rings. That means that Greenland has not been free of ice for several hundred thousand years. It is these ice layers that scientists use to understand ancient climates.
This is a fact that you can’t get around.

NO scientist is under the assumption that the polar ice caps were ALWAYS there. Where in the world did you get that idea?

How does the length of life before the flood have anything to do with the question of how the world was repopulated after the flood? (please understand, that I don’t for a minute accept the idea that people lived for 1,000 years).

A water canopy? Do you have any idea what that would do to the air pressure of the surface of the earth? Have you ever been under water? It would be the same.
And sure, it would shield the UV rays. But it would also shield every other ray. Photosynthesis would be impossible.

And you are still misusing the word “theory”. These stories that you are spinning are not theories. They are mere speculations. See the definition I posted above to the other guy. That is how the world’s scientists use the word “theory”.
Ick of the East

At 12:23 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Hey "Social Outcast", where do the races come from? Was each person in Noah's family a different race? For example, was Noah white and Shim black?

Just wondering.

Also, didn't the in-breeding have negative consequences?

And does God condone incest?

At 2:16 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

Click here for a definition of Theory.

here is a list of dictionary definition for you for "theory." You must be using the first definition on to base what a theory is )note the word devised). Well I'm using the Sixth definition (noting the word spectulation). So I don't think my usage is is wrong at all. Both definitions are not wrong, but rather both are accepted. Perhaps the your saying the first definition is what the scientific community uses Just go to the link above and look it up.

So, therefore this theory of a water canopy is idea which explains where so much water came from to flood the whole earth and expaned life-span. Just as the theory of evolution is an idea which explains the origin of the species. They are both theories, but the choice is yours to believe whichever you like. Whether you believe we evolved from monkeys, or I believe in a great flood, they are both ideas which attempt to explain things and also are accepted by different communties of people. I personally hope that I am not debating with a monkey.

Fred, it's nice of you to drop back in. And to answer your question: Yes, fred, in order for Noah's family to repopulate the entire earth, one would have to believe that some in-breeding took place. And I don't think God condones incest. At least from my view of God, I don't remember any Scripture saying that incest is bad. Atfer all, from what I belief anyway, it was up to Adam and Eve to do the same thing in the first place. So after te flood wiped everyone else out Noah and his family had to restart the cycle. I think that incest is gross, but that's the American thinking in me.

At 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I know very well the differing definitions of “theory”. But it hardly matters. We are talking of science and so we should be using the scientific definition. Wouldn’t you think?

If we were talking of metals, which definition of “lead” would you use? The one which means to walk in front or the one which means a heavy, soft metal?

Your water canopy is, therefore, not a theory in the scientific sense. It explains no facts. There is no evidence that it ever existed. It makes no predictions. And, as I explained, it would render the surface of the earth unlivable to humans.

You say that the water canopy explains where all the water came from and it explains the extended life spans of antedilvian humans. What water? What life spans? You have no evidence for either and yet you offer something else, for which there is no evidence, to explain them?

This “theory” of yours, which is no theory, is not even remotely equivalent to the Theory of Evolution. Your very limited knowledge of the subject may lead (there’s that word again) you to believe that they have the same amount of evidence behind them, but you would be so wrong that it isn’t even funny.
Well, maybe a little funny. Except that it is possible that your vote could determine who sits on a school board.

And no, I am not a monkey. I am an ape. Cousin to other apes and a more distant cousin to monkeys. And so are you.
These are very basic facts of nature that are explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Ick of the East

At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Social Outcast, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, and Adam & Eve, then Noah and his family poulated the earth, and all of them lived very long lives (a thousand years or so), when was there time to populate the earth twice?

More importantly, we know for an absolute fact that inbreeding causes huge problems-- look at the problems that dog breeders face with too much inbreeding. So how come there was no problem with the animals from the Ark inbreeding? After all, if there were only two of each animal then every animal alive today is decended from the same ancestor. So how come they're not all screwed up or extinct?

At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 7:19 AM, Anonymous jc said...

Social Outcast:
Don't go! I love it when people like you show-up to provide entertainment.

At 4:14 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 4:18 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

"Good scientists will not allow
pre-conceived notions to taint their
work, and evolutionists will wag a
finger at creationists and intelligent
design proponents and accuse them of
biased research. [more]"

Dear Ape-men and Ape-women,
It has become obvious to me that my posts have become quite entertaining to some of you Ape-people out there. So in effort to self-perpetuatly entertain you further, I have done some homework which has potental of keeping you Ape-people busy for a while. Below is list of links for your enjoyment.

Half a Mousetrap Doesn't Work

Davidson & Erwin: Neo-Darwinism Doesn't Work for the Cambrian Explosion

"Science is the search for the truth..."


google search for anti-evolutionist"Results 1 - 10 of about 49,700 for anti-evolutionist. (0.12 seconds)"

google search for pro-evolutionist"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550 for pro-evolutionist. (0.37 seconds)"

*note the stats here, I think the're interestion.

At 11:18 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Social outcast: Half a mousetrap DOES WORK! It is typical of the ID people to ignore that FACT. You name the mousetrap, I'll show you how half-- or less works just fine.

Want an example? I knew you would.

Take the ordinary mousetrap, the kind that's a rectangular piece of wood with a spring and a pin to hold the "smasher" down. If you give me just the wire I can use that to pick a lock or pin a note to the wall. If you give me the wooden base I'll use it to hammer a thumbtack in. If you give me the cheese I'll throw it on my burger.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The items that ID people claim are irreducible might-- I repeat, MIGHT-- not be irreducible with their same current function, but no one is saying that they must be. For example, an eye without the ability to focus would seem (to an ID person) to be useless. However, there are plenty of animals with eyes that can only sense whether it's light or dark out and they find that quite useful enough.

Plus, there's the scaffolding concept. Ever look at the Golden Gate bridge and wonder how it was made? After all, it's irreducible-- take away the towers and there's nothing to hold the cables, and therefore nothing to hold up the road. Take away jus the cables and, again, there's nothing to hold up the road. Take away the road and the weight of the swinging cables will ruin the towers. So how was it built if every part had to be there at once for it to work? The answer is that there were various support structures in place at various times during construction. When construction was finished, those structures were removed so now you just see the "irreducible" bridge.

Likewise, who's to say that some of the things that the ID folks are claiming to be irreducible didn't have other parts-- "support" parts-- that eventually disappeared through the eons of evolution? We have plenty of examples of things disappearing or in the process of disappearing, such as our appendix.

At 2:55 AM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

take another look at the examples you provided again, but this time look even closer at the "parts". I think your still missing the point.

Yes, the Golden Gate Bridge is complex. Yes, if either the towers, the cables, or the road were to disappear, the bridge would indeed fall. Here is where you miss the point. Take another look at that bridge example and look only at the towers, only at the cables, or only at the roadway. Now think for a moment, please use that advanced ape-brain of yours (or is the ape getting in the way of your congnitive thinking abilities?). The towers, the cables, and the road can each be further broken down (reduced) into smaller parts, such as steal, asphalt, concrete, paint, and so on. Do the same process again until you can't reduce the componants anymore. Then it is these irreducible componants that the bridge cannot coninue to stand. It is these componants that have "evolved" into the building meterials for the bridge. If any one of these irresistable componants just dissappeared do to a "process of evolution," then we would no longer be able to build anymore bridges, thus bridge building would now longer exists. This same princple can be applied to biological life too. I am also aware that it is the role of science to attempt to find out how such componants work. But until such mysteries are discovered, ID is like a black box idea for our finite human minds (or finite ape-minds, which ever is greater).

Surely, the Golden Gate Bridge could have been built out of some other meterial like popsicle sticks, or titanium, but then it may not be as strong, or not last as long, or perhaps much more expensive to build.

fred said... "support" parts-- that eventually disappeared through the eons of evolution? We have plenty of examples of things disappearing or in the process of disappearing ...

take note of the Law of Conservation of Matter which states "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed."
In other words, your support parts simple just cannot disappear. Therefore, these irreducible parts just cannot go away, without affecting the entire organism either to result in the death of the creature or to manipulate it. But manipulation isn't the point of of the Mouse Trap article. The point of that artical is that without these irreducible parts, the simplist of mechenisms, which perpetuate life throughout its life-cycle must be present to sustain life, even through an evolutionary cycle.

At 3:40 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Social, it doesn't matter whether the Golden gate can be broken down further than just "road, cable, and towers." The point is still the same: It might look irreducibly complex, but it isn't.

As for your comment about the disappearance of support structures violating the Law of Conservation of Matter, come on, are you really stupid enough to think that when I said that the support parts disappeared that I literally meant that they went *poof* and were gone? Come on, give me at least SOME credit will ya? I meant that they evolved away, just like the appendix we all have is in the process of doing. (Or please tell me why God or the ID being gave us an appendix.)

And now it's your turn: Please show me one single completely irrefutable example of IC. Just one. And here's a hint: the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting mechanisms have been shown NOT to be IC.

PS: Why do you use science (such as conservation of matter) in your argument but on the other hand not believe science? The same scientific method that discovered that is what has discovered the mechanisms of evolution. It's all the same. Are all scientists credible to you *except* those who study evolution? That seems like a very shaky piece of ground you're standing on.

At 4:49 PM, Blogger Social Outcast said...

...irreducible parts, the simplist of mechenisms, which perpetuate life throughout its life-cycle must be present to sustain life, even through an evolutionary cycle.

Duh Fred,
I am using science to back up my claims because I do believe in good science--science that has been proven, not science that is speculative. Once again, take a look at the scientific definition of the word theory, and notice the word devised. (Just click on the word and it'll take you to the definition.) Therefore a theory is an idea which is planned, or designed in ones mind to explain facts. (As you see I have accepted the scientific definition of theory.)

Fred said:Are all scientists credible to you *except* those who study evolution?
Take a look at the quote a posted before; "Good scientists will not allow pre-conceived notions to taint their work, and evolutionists will wag a finger at creationists and intelligent
design proponents and accuse them of biased research."
I other words in my studies of the topic I have to convience myself of what is correct before I deside to ride the wave of popular thought which may or may not be correct.

Once again you failed to see my point about me using the Law of Conservation of Matter. But I will be graceful and let you figure that one out, unless your ape-brain is to premative to do that sort of thing.

At 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, I have to set something straight. Everyone saying there are no eye witness accounts don't understand how the New Testement and Gospels were written. When Jesus rounded up his 12 disciples he was at the age of 30. He rounded up fishermen and others. He took them from their work and their dad's as clearly stated. These disciples were not old like Jesus, they were young teenagers of about 14 or 15. So, you add about 50 years or so to that and you have the 12 disciples being of the age of about 60 or so. So, you have these old dicsiples, who where taken from their work very young, and also their work did not require reading or writing of any kind. So, here you have nearly illiterate aging disciples. Well, the gospels are not written by these aging disciples since they have little ability to do so, but they are rather written by their followers and their students. So, the gospels are truly eyewitness accounts, not just someone saying something. This is the reason the Gospels are written the way they are, because someone is telling the stories as they saw them and someone else is writting them down.

In comparison....if your parents or possibly even your grandparents, tell you a story of their life, and your wanting to write it down. Do you take their word for it even though there is no written evidence on what they are claiming? And when you go back and look at that story to you claim it to be volubale even though you weren't there to witness it first hand?! Well I'll leave that up to you.

Also...I suggest reading the book "The Life of Jesus" by Marcello Craveri. It was originally written in latin and has been translated. But it looks at Jesus and his life and time period without any stocks in beliefs or religion. It takes accounts of non-believers and even romans. It shows that even those without a belief in Jesus have to concede to the miracles he performed. So his miracles are not only chronicled in the Gospels but also outside of them, although not to the extent as they are in the Gospels

At 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the Bible is not the only written evidence that there was a world wide flood. Look at the "Epic of Gilgamesh.""

Yes but the flood narrative in Genesis is talking about an event in the past. The Epic of Gilgamesh is just extrabiblical evidence of the flood, along with the thousands of other flood myths throughout the world.

Here's a Celtic Legend from Talk.Origins:

Heaven and Earth were great giants, and Heaven lay upon the Earth so that their children were crowded between them, and the children and their mother were unhappy in the darkness. The boldest of the sons led his brothers in cutting up Heaven into many pieces. From his skull they made the firmament. His spilling blood caused a great flood which killed all humans except a single pair, who were saved in a ship made by a beneficent Titan. The waters settled in hollows to become the oceans. The son who led in the mutilation of Heaven was a Titan and became their king, but the Titans and gods hated each other, and the king titan was driven from his throne by his son, who was born a god. That Titan at last went to the land of the departed. The Titan who built the ship, whom some consider to be the same as the king Titan, went there also.

Guess those nasty Hebrews stole off the Irish too, eh?
And before all you chance-worshipping evolutionists try to refute me with geology, I don't actually believe that the flood was global. I think it was anthropologically universal but geographically local. Man didn't spread until the Tower of Babel, so God wouldn't have had to cover the whole world with a flood. The Hebrew word eretz often refers to a local area.

At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Amy said...

The floating ice argument is HILARIOUS!

I'm neither a theist nor an atheist, by choice. We are naive human beings that have a lot to learn. It's good to question things, but at the same time I believe it's also good to keep an open mind about "non-scientific" events such as miracles.

Otherwise we'd be closing our minds to so many possibilities...

At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I liked the article and you made some excellent points. But if your redecorating you need to start with area rugs. They are the basis for your color choices that will dominate the room. Rugsale can provide area rugs for every area of your house.

At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many flaws in Darwin's theory. Before I go into that I'd just like to tell you all a story. A little girl asked her father, "How did the human race appear?"The father answered, "God created Adam and Eve, they had children, and so the human race came to be" Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question, and her mother answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys in which the human race evolved" The confused girl went to her father, and said, "Father, how is it possible that you told me that humankind was created by God, and Mother told me they developed from monkeys?" The father answered, "Well, it's very simple sweetie, I told you about my side of the family, and she told you about hers"
That should give you a laugh!
Anyways, here is an essay I wrote about Creationism vs. Evolutionism.
First of all, there is no explanation on how that first cell came to be. There are no fossils on the transitional species. What do you say to that?

At 8:27 PM, Blogger Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.

At 2:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

msn nickleri
msn nickleri
msn nickleri
msn nickleri
abiye modelleri
blogger templates
supremacy showtime

At 2:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

first off, as a former evolutionist i can totaly see where you all are coming from. but after finding out that ALL the world leaders are in fact "religous" my curiosity was sparked. because their actions dont represent normal religious beliefs i wanted to know what religion they are. if you read their books or listen to their speeches or visit their retreats, it wont take long to understand the are luciferian. most of them dont go real far to hide it either. so if they are satanists, im in a world of trouble. i wanted facts not theories. evolution has never been proven right, but in fact gets proven wrong over and over.
lets take one fact and you tell me what you think. as an evolutionist, you must believe science has the way of explaining all things. well science proves that their was a world wide flood 4000 years ago. their is a chalk line every place on every continent on the face of this planet with the same timeframe. try to prove that wrong! evolutionists dont want to believe this part of science because that would mean that everyone and everything evolved in only 4000 years. ouch!!! it looks like some people are choosing what facts they want to use and keeping the others that prove their "THEORIES" wrong, hidden or not acknowledged. if you want to know more on this FACT check out the lectures by Dr. Walter Veith in the "Genesis Conflict" series. who was once an evolutionist, teaching evolution at a university in south africa. he breaks it down more then an average joe like me can. good day to you all and God bless

At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Buy penis enlargement pills said...

I am very impressed with the overall presentation of the post.

At 3:28 AM, Anonymous Free anti aging female product said...

hard to believe any such theories are ever taken seriously.

At 8:24 AM, Anonymous Sam Premium said...

I was interested to read your article! Thank you!

At 2:51 AM, Anonymous Fill said...

I completely agree with Josh McDowell. Our mind is not to understand, so do not come up with alternate myths.

At 9:14 PM, Anonymous Natural breast enhancement pills said...

This is reality. Nicely elaborated. Hats off to the author.

At 3:10 AM, Anonymous Best penis enlargement device review said...

Is it just my naturalistic bias that leads me to believe there is a non-miraculous

At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Male Extra penis augmentation pills said...

It is well said that the key to finding the real truth is to be skeptical of evidence presented, especially extraordinary claims.

At 1:20 AM, Anonymous Maxocum increase low sperm count pills said...

This article has simplest explanation . I appreciate it .

At 2:27 PM, Anonymous How to increase penis size said...

The atheist, who was a philosophy professor at Dartmouth (where I went to grad school), replied roughly as follows: “But let's suppose my opponent is right.

At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Best Washing Machine 2012 said...

Do not take in vain the name of god!

At 9:35 AM, Anonymous M190va-Review said...

I dont think that there are simple explanation but our job is to find them and offer to people who need explanations...

At 4:01 AM, Anonymous Vigaplus erectile dysfunction medicine said...

Social Outcast read the second post here again! There is no eyewitness accounts in the bible.

At 11:47 AM, Anonymous As seen on TV said...

The simplest explanation is always the hardest to say to someone, for me at least. Never understood why its called the simplest...

At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

means you can return to self-discovery with your dating. Life gave you ups and downs, and now you can use the found knowledge to find someone compatible.

At 12:20 PM, Blogger Curtis M said...

Well said.

This looks like a case of "the simplest explanation is the best one... Unless that would require me to rethink my worldview in which case a convoluted and unecessarily complicated explanation about why my worldview must be correct is the best one.

At 7:49 PM, Blogger cecillia said...

indeed a cool website like this must, always puts a lot of satisfaction and benefit its visitors. yamaha yzf r


Post a Comment

<< Home