An update on Homo floresiensis, a.k.a. the "Hobbit" Part 2

[nextthought]

Much is said about recovery of very old dna and we seem to be a tipping point and maybe in the near future we could bring back one of these it would really remove debate about the characteristics.

The hobbit creature seems quite recent and villagers say they are still in memory...

Could it really be possible that we have recent contact with another intelligent spices?

[mddawson1]

@nextthought I wouldn't put much faith in what the villagers say as it is anecdotal evidence. If they had existed in more recent times you would expect to find more recent remains.

[nextthought]

@mddawson1 Your probably right but you never really know... If there is nothing to remake maybe instead it might make a good movie?

[blankslate3]

@nextthought no

[mddawson1]

Starting a new thread as its getting too messy up there ↑

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Even christian apologists like Matt Slick don't accept this. The argument goes "Can god make a rock too heavy for him to lift?" This is a logical absurdity & also proves that god is not all powerful.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson, let me give you an example. 11QMelch ("Heavenly Prince Melchizedek") = 11Q13 <----- Check that out. That's the title of one of the scrolls from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This only verifies the Bible, because Melchizedek was the High Priest, and is named in the Bible. Jesus is in the order of Melchizedek, so this very scroll verifies the words in the Bible. Same goes with a lot of the others that were found. It only supports the Biblical history.

[mddawson1]

In "Gone with the Wind" they mention Lincoln, Gettysburg, the Civil War - none of that means Rhett & Scarlett were real people.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "In "Gone with the Wind" they mention Lincoln, Gettysburg, the Civil War - none of that means Rhett & Scarlett were real people."

It's called faith. One must come to Jesus by faith - not by proof. Abraham was found righteous by faith. Noah by faith. Without faith, how can you believe? You can't. It's in the heart that one believe in Jesus. Also, Gone With The Wind is not supported by archaeology, history and Dead Sea Scrolls.

[mddawson1]

I believe there are many archaeological sites that prove the Civil War took place & there are many sources outside Gone with the Wind that support the historical reality of Lincoln & Gettysburg. Give it another 2000 years & people may believe Rhett & Scarlett were real as well.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "I believe there are many archaeological sites that prove the Civil War took place & there are many sources outside Gone with the Wind that support the historical reality of Lincoln & Gettysburg. Give it another 2000 years & people may believe Rhett & Scarlett were real as well."

I doubt it. Rhett & Scarlett didn't rise from the grave in three days and ascend into heaven in front of 500 people on the Mt. of Olives. Comparing the Bible to Gone With The Wind is historically delusional.

[mddawson1]

Think back to before the internet when information wasn't immediately at our fingertips. Now go back further to before the printing press. If Gone with the Wind was written in jesus time (appropriately changed to cover a contemporary war) - how could we tell that Rhett & Scarlett didn't exist? There would have been other writings about the war & the famous places & peoples mentioned. That doesn't mean the authors couldn't have woven a fictional tale about fictional characters in a real setting.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "There would have been other writings about the war & the famous places & peoples mentioned. That doesn't mean the authors couldn't have woven a fictional tale"

Yes. I know what you mean. But, there's problems with that view: the Bible is entirely supported by what we know of Jewish history, times, places, archaeology and several irrefutable evidences authenticated by the world's greatest minds. You can say Jesus is not Lord, but you never can say Biblical history is not true.

[mddawson1]

Actually there is a lot of evidence that Jesus did not exist, at least not the one in the bible. Check out the website jesusneverexisted. com

[mddawson1]

The whole jesus being crucified story is full of holes when you look at non-biblical historical accounts of the Romans in that era. They did not kill people for their religious beliefs as they were pantheists so what was 1 more god to them? That behaviour only started when they adopted christianity as the state religion. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low with the bodies left to rot, respectful burial was denied. Also why did no one else notice the zombies: Matthew 27:51-53

[mddawson1]

I noticed you have not responded to this NT error:

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Even christian apologists like Matt Slick don't accept this. The argument goes "Can god make a rock too heavy for him to lift?" This is a logical absurdity & also proves that god is not all powerful & thus an error in the bible.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Even christian apologists like Matt Slick don't accept this. The argument goes "Can god make a rock too heavy for him to lift?" This is a logical absurdity & also proves that god is not all powerful & thus an error in the bible."

Well, that's easily answered. That's taking the scripture out of context. If one has faith in Christ and it is His will, all things are definitely possible. But, notice that scripture is speaking to us - not to God. God can talk to himself anytime.

[blicksflicks]

There is no rock God cannot lift. He is God. Our understanding of His power and His very being is flawed. We can never fathom such a power, especially one who created our universe. If we cannot even understand (in full) what He has created, how in the world do you imagine we ascertain the unlimited powers of a divine, spiritual being of Holiness? We are only ants or grains of sand in time. We are nothing. Surely you jest? All that we know is pitiful. All we assume despicable.

[mddawson1]

From carm org: "The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc." - it then continues on about how this isn't proof of no god but that isn't the point here - you claimed the bible is without error which you later modified to the NT is without error - this is an error in the NT - the passage is clear & is disagreed with by christian theologians.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "From carm org: "The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature"

No. Don't you see? You got it wrong. In Luke 1:37, it does not mean that. It is referring to Elizabeth being barren, and thinking she couldn't have a child. But, when it says that all things are possible with God, it means that she will have a child, because nothing is possible without God. That's all it's saying. Simple to understand.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "I noticed you have not responded to this NT error:

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. "

See, what you're doing is reading one verse and that's all. You must remember this verse (Luke 1:37) is referring to Elizabeth having a child in old age. It's verse preceding the one you've given. Luke 1:37 does not refer to God himself. It is referring to Elizabeth having a child in old age and that it is possible through God. See how you took it out of context?

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1, let me make a suggestion. The major reason people take the Bible out of context is they single out a specific verse without even reading around that verse to see absolutely what it means. Such an act of reading the entire chapter to get the full meaning is referred to as hermaneutics. For instance, you can't just read one sentence in a novel and expect the other sentences not to clarify. Same goes with the Bible. You can't just pick one verse and say it means that without the others.

[blicksflicks]

Instead of looking for ways to disprove the Bible, I would suggest looking for reasons that the Bible is true. Think outside the box for once and open your heart, because I'm telling you - as college educated as I am - that the Bible is the Word of God and only teaches love, wisdom and truth. Jesus died for our sins and rose on the third day. We are all sinners. We all fall short the Glory of God. However, Jesus paid the price for our sins if only we repent and ask Him to be our Lord and Savior.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Check it out. Elizabeth was barren, but with the Lord it was possible for her to have a child. That's what it meant. It's easy to understand.

[mddawson1]

In todays context making a barren woman pregnant is no big thing. Humans will in the near future be able to genetically engineer life from scratch. Japanese scientists are on the verge of creating a universe. I can cope with the idea that god is a science geek in a parallel universe but his isn't all powerful or all knowing.

[mddawson1]

If the god exists then he is not worthy of our worship. If we had the power to stop the boxing day tsunami we would. If god exists & has the power but didn't then god is a dick.

Epicurus 2nd Century BCE:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot.

Or he can, but does not want to.

Or he cannot, and does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, then he is wicked.

If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked.

[ariannahiggins]

Even MORESO, god isn't just a dick, but a cruel sociopath of mammoth proportions. He not only condones slavery AND child abuse but lauds them, he kills crowds of children for slight infractions, rapes and tortures women, and judges people negatively for things they can't even help. He and his psychotic Old Testament can *suck my goddamn ass*, because I have more morals in my pinky than your God has in his entire history.

[Skr3wy]

well, certainly very very interesting, i heard some scientist speculating that there may still be isolated populations of these.....people. Doubt it but would be cool.

[mddawson1]

Highly unlikely as there would need to be a sizeable population of them to remain to today. This means they would leave evidence such as more recent remains, feces & even the occasional meeting with modern humans. Its the same reason we can conclude that bigfoot & nessie don't exist as a species cannot survive this long without a sizeable breeding population. Such populations leave evidence.

[blicksflicks]

It's a midget. Get it nerds? Nothing more than a single midget who was deformed. They can't even find one other instance in the same areas. Can't find even one more of them. Man, I've seen midgets. They can be very small.

[mddawson1]

It isn't, it is an entirely new humanoid spieces possibly related to Australopithecus afarensis (the famous Lucy skeleton). Many experts have studied this skeleton & they would know a dwarfs skeleton when they see one. None of them, even the ones who think it might be modern human with a genetic disorder, have proposed dwarfism as a cause.

[blicksflicks]

Sorry to tell you, but Lucy was a hoax. It's a lie in the college textbooks. One of my professors in college wouldn't even teach the prehistoric part of the book. He skipped it. Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away." ([3], p.83)

[mddawson1]

I am sure your college professor is an expert in human anthropology. He wouldn't happen to work in a "christian college"? If so then he is more than likely lying to defend his religious views.

[blicksflicks]

Not a Christian college. A regular State University. He was a history professor--not human anthropology. Look, why don't you ask some of these people to let you hold one of these ancient skulls. Try to get them to let you. You won't. They'll never allow it. Two college degrees, and I've never seen a single caveman fossil that can be tested and dated. My Mom's got a lab. Show me. I'll show how it's a fiction. I guess people don't realize how much fame and money a person gets for a major find.

[mddawson1]

So your professor is not an expert in the field of anthropology & therefore hasnt the background knowledge to make an educated comment. The lecturer in this video series has handled these skeletons & is a acknowledged expert in anthropology (check out Wikipedia). He doesn't get much fame or money for his work, certainly a lot less than the Ted Haggards of this world.

[blicksflicks]

I don't know about you, but until I hold something in my hands--verifying it for myself--I'm not going to base my soul on it. However, it seems like the atheists and evolutionists do this very thing. Recently I heard of a Japanese archaeologist found planting stone tools in a dig. lol Still, the Bible's histories continue to be verified and explained. The histories true forever. People just don't want Christ's free offering of salvation. The ultimate sacrifice. It's sad.

[mddawson1]

Did you see the archaeologist plant the stone tools? Did you witness biblical historical events? Have you seen Christ or god? No so how can you claim to only accept things you can hold & verify for yourself? Some parts of biblical history are true & some parts like all of genesis are myth with no basis in reality. What is truly sad is that your beliefs dont come free as the cost is not accepting reality for what it is but hungering for myth & pseudoscience in its place.

[blicksflicks]

Well, I know Christ exists. I've experienced Christ. He changed my life. Trust me. I'd be down at the bar right now get'n drunk if I had any doubt that there is indeed a Jesus Christ who is coming back with the clouds. Did I see him plant the tools? Well, no. But, man things have been taken out of textbooks because they were hoaxes. Piltdown man for example? Evolution has never been proven. It's only a theory. Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. No way species can involve that fast.

[mddawson1]

1: Congrats on overcoming your addiction.

2: Many people overcome addiction without christ, maybe you did too?

3: Yes piltdown man was a hoax but was immediately suspected & proven to be a hoax by science when they had the tech to do so - the same tech that proves the hobbit bones to be real.

4: Everything in science is a theory to allow for the input of new evidence that may prove or disprove the theory. Do you doubt electro-magnetic theory, nuclear theory or the theory of gravity?

[mddawson1]

To quote a work of fiction other than the bible, Stargate season 3, ep 19: Nyan: "Teal'c. I'm a scientist. If I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it's as exciting as if they were correct. Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance."

[mddawson1]

I am guessing from your comments that creationist material is where you get your info from. Unfortunately they use the same old disproven arguments, misinformation & outright lies to promote the authors religious views & have nothing to do with science. Can I suggest reading about piltdown man, the cambrian explosion, any science for that matter on wikipedia. The articles are very good & a lot higher standard than you find in creationist literature. Also Google Bonnan understanding evolution.

[mddawson1]

Thanks for the video link (one of venomfangx's) as it illustrates how little about science he knows. Firstly intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a failed hypothesis. No research has been done to support it, it does not support & is not supported by any other area of science, it is not predictive. It is based on the logical fallacy Ad ignorantiam - because I am unable to figure out how complex organisms evolved, they didn't & were created by god (or an advanced alien race).

[Skr3wy]

old discussion i know but just wanted to chime in, Isnt any belief in god whether for or against a faith? Im not a scientist but doesnt science function on disproving? and since god can neither be disproved or proved for that matter, any attempt to promote either view would be doctrine. Also does evolution disprove god? i mean if there is a god would he be so simple as to just magically make man, or simply provide the means and methods. Having radical absolute views either way is simplistic imo.

[mddawson1]

Science does not function on disproving something, it is all about explaining the natural world. A scientific theory must explain what has been observed, must be predictive and be fasifiable, that is it must be able to be disproved. God is by definition a supernatural being so is beyond nature & therefore untestable by science. What science does provide is a natural explanation as to how we got here & in the process remove the neccessity for a god to explain this.

[ariannahiggins]

1. Your lack of doubt there is a Jesus Christ doesn't make him exist.

2. The hoaxes were found to be such BY scientists themselves once they had greater scientific knowledge.

3. Gravity is a theory too. Nothing that exists can be proven anyway, only disproven. How do you prove the "theory" that you love your mother/spouse/best friend? Nothing can be proven technically. You can only disprove less likely theories, look at the evidence and then assume the most likely explanation for something.

[ariannahiggins]

Also, you really should read a bit mroe about evolution, it's interesting as heck anyway- species can very much INDEED evolve that fast, you should read S.J. Gould about it. Just because something doesn't SEEM likely to your current knowledge or you don't understand it, you shouldn't discredit it. You should examine all the evidence and give the possibility a second chance.

[blicksflicks]

Evolution is disproved. Check out the modern day insects trapped in amber? So, are we now saying that only certain animals can evolve, and others aren't allowed to? That's funny. I like that one.

[mddawson1]

If you had even the smallest understanding of evolution you would realise what a stupid statement you just made blickflicks. Evolution is driven by external pressures. If a spieces lives in an environment that has changed little over time then the pressures on it to adapt are not there - there is no need for change. Note that the individual does not change during its life but the selection of the offspring cause those traits to be passed on. Google 'fence lizard fire ants' to see what I mean.

[ariannahiggins]

I'm sorry blicks, I honestly didn't understand your statement at all. How was evolution disproved? By what?

[blicksflicks]

I read enough during my ten years in college. I know all about evolution and have read more than I can even explain. Evolution is a total lie. If you can't respond to the modern day insects trapped in billion year old amber, then I really can't explain anything to you. You can't pick which species evolve over time. They all must evolve to some degree. They never reach a sort of plateau. Why are you being so obtuse?

[mddawson1]

I googled modern insects in amber & found only references to modern forgeries. Can you provide a link or name of the examples you a specifically referring to. BTW how can creation account for the reason that humans & chimps share over 98% of our DNA & the over 19000 endogenous retrovirus fragments (junk DNA left by past viral infections) that are found in exactly the same position on Human & chimp DNA. This can only be possible if we both shared a common ancestor. Also Wiki human chromosome 2.

[blicksflicks]

Wow! You really have bought into the evolutionary theory, haven't you? Do you believe everything you read? Well, why is it so difficult to believe in the Bible? JUNK DNA has been disproved. Look it up! I am stunned. Also, chimps do not share 98% of our DNA. They share 96%. It's a couple percent less, and that is a lot of difference! If you don't believe me, try speaking to a chimp. I'm sure he won't respond fluently in your language.

[mddawson1]

Why do you not believe the Koran or Bhagavad Gita? I take all stories written in the bronze age as the best they could achieve with the limited knowledge they had.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1, there's never been any proof to tie the chimp to humans. All the evolutionary finds you are think you believe have been found are not supported by 101% factual proof. It's all theory. Homo habilis was even inconclusive and found to be riddled with holes. If evolution were true, don't you think we would have found millions, billions, zillions of intermediate/transitional fossils that support the billions and billions of years of evolutionary proof? Yep. But, we don't. It's all lies.

[mddawson1]

"there's never been any proof to tie the chimp to humans" except the physiological similarities, the behavioral similarities, their DNA similarities, etc - no nothing at all.

[blicksflicks]

No, adaptations cannot create a new species, nor can one species transform into another species through minor variations in adaptation. You need to look up the definition of adaptation. It's very minor changes such as turning black because of the sun? Like Africans in the desert? Things like that. Has nothing to do with DNA code changing and recoding itself into a separate and altogether species. Impossible. DNA has coders, readers, writers and copiers. It is like computer code in a program.

[mddawson1]

But the copying can cause errors or elements can be switched on/off.

[blicksflicks]

Well, think what you want, but everyone meets their Maker eventually. And, we only live one life. There's only one who ever died for the sins of mankind, and His name is Jesus. Each man is appointed to die once and then the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). I would rather my soul depend on a Holy, loving God than the accuracy of theories proposed by men in this world. I know you think you're highly intelligent, but in the end, we really know nothing, mate. We're just men. Not gods.

[mddawson1]

Only if you are right. If the mulsims are right then you will be meeting the wrong creator & suffer the same fate as me. I don't have a soul, my mind & body are temporal & when they are gone all trace of me (apart from my YouTube comments) will also be gone. BTW How can a soul exist without defying the laws of energy?

[ariannahiggins]

We're just men. Not gods.

Hmmmm. Yet...us "men" created the gods. Interesting.

[blicksflicks]

As for the insects trapped in amber, it is already been done. They are identical to the insects today. Did you see the link to the video I sent? I mean, you can even look for yourself at the pictures of amber trapped specimens and soon come to realize that you see those every day. It's not a brain buster. They didn't evolve.

[mddawson1]

Encarta: "In the mid-90s researchers announced that they had apparently extracted ancient DNA from insects & bacteria preserved in amber that was millions of yo. However, scientists working in other laboratories were unable to find ancient DNA in any organisms preserved in amber samples they tested & concluded that the original ancient DNA claims likely resulted from modern contamination. Most scientists now think DNA breaks down over time and cannot survive for millions of years in amber."

[blicksflicks]

Man, do you really believe everything you read out of an encyclopedia? I guess you think that they just wrote it all truthfully, and nothing is hidden in our books today? About the only book you can trust today is the Bible. I hate to tell you, but it's true. Man, I went to school for a long time. I use to be an pantheist - not a Christian. I've been down many a road with the Lord, and through hard times. There's only one Savior. His name is Jesus. And, indeed, God created everything.

[mddawson1]

Encyclopedias are a quick way to find recent research without reading the entire paper. Its a good start but then science is a dynamic process with new evidence coming along all the time. It isn't a static concept like say religion.

[blicksflicks]

Why you want to run from Lord Jesus? All He did was get nailed to a cross for your sin (paid your penalty He did; mine, too) and rose from the grave in three days. He then appeared to many. Five hundred people saw Him ascend into the heavens from the Mt. of Olives. Men have died who knew Him, because they would not turn from Him. All the apostles were martyrs, because they knew Him personally. He is the Lord, mate. Life is short. Don't run from the Lord for too long. He loves you. He's all love.

[mddawson1]

I don't believe that the person decribed in the bible as Jesus ever existed. Why - reasons too numerous to fit into 500 characters. Google jesusneverexisted

[blicksflicks]

The Q'uran? I did answer the question, but I answered you so much that it wouldn't let me send it. As for the Q'uran and Islam, I would think anyone could see that cutting off someone's head and raping women for insane reasons is not very admirable. As for Jesus. He died for our sins. Muhammad didn't. Jesus was the Word made flesh. Nothing in that Bible has ever been disproved. They try and always fail - at least from my thirty-seven years of life on earth.

[mddawson1]

So much of the bible has been proven erroneous, just google Skeptic's Annotated Bible (the Koran & Book of Mormon are there as well). Yes the Koran is a barbaric book but so is much of the old testament. Have you stoned your kids for being disobedient & do you avoid wearing clothes of 2 different materials?

[ariannahiggins]

the Bible is more trustworthy than books based science? How.

[blicksflicks]

ariannahiggins: "the Bible is more trustworthy than books based science? How."

Well, that's easy to answer: because the Bible has never been caught in a lie and science books have. Okay, class over.

[mddawson1]

Which version of the bible? Why are there different editions of the bible? Did god get it wrong it the King James Version so it needed to be revised (twice)? Or is sort of like DVDs, the first bible comes out as a flipper lacking any extras. Then later on the special ed comes out with study footnotes & color coding for all the sexy passages. Finally the ultimate ed will be released containing all the books previously missing from the bible (gospels of Philip & Thomas, etc) with a leather cover

[blicksflicks]

Mate, the verses aren't much different either way. However, the King James version is usually considered the most accurate for English speaking peoples. I've read other editions like the NIV, and if you put a verse beside the other, it's saying the same thing. I have no trouble reading the Zondervan next to the King James version. Sounds like they are saying the same thing in the end. Still, most people criticizing the accuracy of Bible scripture usually haven't even read much of it.

[mddawson1]

I contend that just a single difference in a book that many have a literal belief in is a problem. Look at Isaiah 45:7

(King James Version)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(New International Version)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

These passages do not mean the same thing.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "(King James Version)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(New International Version)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

The King James Version is the most accurate in translation. However, both of those verses are trying to basically say the same thing. Only, I wouldn't trust the NIV. It is not the authoritative Bible like the KJV.

[blicksflicks]

The NIV Bible has been known to contain many flaws, inaccuracies, etc... So, you're telling me if I start writing my own Bible and change some words that the Bible itself is inaccurate (the King James version) because some idiot tried to change it? Afraid not. Nice job. lol

[blicksflicks]

But, what I was trying to say is that the verses basically try to say the same thing. Now, I do think a mistake like the difference between prosperity and peace is not good at all. However, the NIV is not the original Bible. It's a translation that many have criticized. Google it if you don't believe me.

[blicksflicks]

You must remember that the Book of Isaiah is very old. The Old testament is 85% accurate in translation, and the other 15% is relayed to you via asterisks at the bottom of the page. That's because in those ancient times words like prosperity/peace could mean the same thing. As for the New Testament, the bulk of it is translated from Koine Greek, which is better able to be translated into other languages. Therefore, the New Testament is a perfect translation. OT was from Hebrew. Different family.

[mddawson1]

I would have thought that the NIV would be more accurate given its recent origin & thus better understanding of ancient language than was available in KJV times. Also of issue is that there were no original bible texts used in any translation, only copies in Greek or translated into latin. What was found in the Dead Sea scrolls were several different versions of the same OT texts - who chose the most original or accurate?

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "I would have thought that the NIV would be more accurate given its recent origin & thus better understanding of ancient language than was available in KJV times."

Nah. It's not. In fact, the KJV has always been used as the authoritative and most accurate translation of the Bible. Any scholar will tell you that. Mate the NIV was made in the 20th century. You should know it's not going to be as accurate as the KJV.

[mddawson1]

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Hares don't chew cud, they actually chew their own poo.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Hares don't chew cud, they actually chew their own poo."

Hares do chew cud. What are you talking about? Just like cows chew cud. Check it out: The alimentary canal of ruminants, such as the cow, goat, sheep and antelope, is unable to produce the enzymes required to break down the cellulose and hemicellulose of plant matter. Rabbits eat plant matter, goofy.

[mddawson1]

Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. - Note regurgitated not excreted.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. - Note regurgitated not excreted."

Yes. I know. I've been reading constantly about this since you asked me. You must remember. They may be referring to another type of animal. This is Leviticus we're talking about? Thousands of years ago? Even long before Christ.

[blicksflicks]

I guess you think they've called the "hare" the same word we call it since ancient Hebrew times? Hmmm... How do you know they're talking about a hare in Leviticus as we know one today? I mean, come on. Even in Australia, you guys have words for things which mean something different to us Americans. Such as the word "root?"

[mddawson1]

I thought the KJV was an accurate translation. As for errors in the NT: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; - For an evolutionist who accepts an old earth 2000 years is a short time geologically speaking, however how do young earth creationists cope with revelations not coming true despite the short time being 1/3 the age of the universe in their opinion?

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "For an evolutionist who accepts an old earth, 2000 years is a short time geologically speaking, however how do young earth creationists cope with revelations not coming true despite the short time being 1/3 the age of the universe in their opinion?"

A day to God can be as a thousand years, but that doesn't mean exactly a thousand to us is a exactly a day to God. The Bible never says the earth is 7,000 years old. Man? Sure. But, the Earth could have been here for millions beforehand

[mddawson1]

"root" the part of plants covered in soil that asorb water? ;-D I believe you Americans have only 1 meaning for the word rubber.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson: ""root" the part of plants covered in soil that asorb water? ;-D I believe you Americans have only 1 meaning for the word rubber."

Nah. Rubber on a tire. Rubber during sex. Two actually. lol

[mddawson1]

There is a root directory on my computer to. BTW I have started a new question about Luke as this area is getting too messy.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Read the third paragraph on wikipedia about the scrolls."

I read that paragraph. There's only one problem. The Book of Isaiah out of the BIble was found. The other stories you're talking about are not Biblical. They do - however - verify the history of the Bible and the Jewish people. This only supports the Bible. It doesn't tear apart in anyway Biblical history.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "There is a root directory on my computer to. BTW I have started a new question about Luke as this area is getting too messy."

Yeah. It is getting pretty messy. lol

[blicksflicks]

Joseph's genealogy is recorded because our Lord Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, who was a son of David.

When you adopt a child, you take him home with you and he legally becomes your child, your heir, and that child takes on the family name. An adopted child becomes a part of the family and the parents treat him as their OWN.

So it was with Jesus-- Joseph cared for Jesus as if Jesus was his own child.

[mddawson1]

That is a different explanation to others I have heard. One christian told me that one genealogy was his fathers side, the other his mothers. Another reason is that Jewish scolars were employed to write Matthews one but they included all the people from the OT that had been banned from heaven by god. When this was discovered the text had been in use too long so a second genealogy was written to cover up the first.

[blicksflicks]

mddawsson1: "Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. - Note regurgitated not excreted."

Yep. And, indeed, rabbits chew their cud. They eat, poop it out and then eat their poop. They chew the cud in even more of a specific sense. Just because it's coming out the other end to be eaten, doesn't mean a thing.

[blicksflicks]

Also, you keep going back to the Old Testament. They may have had "cud" as a word for movement. Granted rabbits "reflect" instead of ruminate. However, you're trying squeeze too much out of that verse. That argument is all over the place in Google. I found out the ultimate answer to your problem in Leviticus 11:6, too. It simply is referring to rabbits eating carrots, plant matter, etc... It's just a word for movement. The actual Hebrew phrase means "raising up (chewing) what has been swallowed.

[mddawson1]

Jesus genealogies in Matthew & Luke do not match.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Jesus genealogies in Matthew & Luke do not match."

They don't have to match. They're two different lines of Jesus. Answer: The Gospel of Matthew records Josephs genealogy and the Gospel of Luke records Jesus genealogy through Mary. (Joseph cannot have two fathers-- therefore we must conclude that Heli was Joseph's father-in-law, recorded in Luke 3.)

[blicksflicks]

Matthew points out Jesus' place in the royal succession. Luke gives us His actual physical ancestry through Mary's bloodline. That's why there's two.

[mddawson1]

That does not really follow as women in those days were viewed in the same way the taliban view women now.

[blicksflicks]

Well, when I was in Australia, you guys had untold numbers of words which were beyond me to learn entirely.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1, thanks for confronting me with that "hare" passage. I learned something night because of you. I never have thought about that verse specifically. Now, I know the answer if a skeptic brings up that verse as a contradiction. :) Thanks.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Hares don't chew cud, they actually chew their own poo."

Your argument here is only based on the fact that the hare back thousands of years ago was the same hare we call a hare today, and by all means, it probably wasn't. It may have even - like some say - have been a rock badger in their day. We just don't know. Doesn't mean it's not true as a verse.

[blicksflicks]

You're wrong about the Dead Sea Scrolls. That only proved the Bible's accuracy in translation. There were no different versions. Nope. Wrong.

[mddawson1]

Read the third paragraph on wikipedia about the scrolls.

[mddawson1]

Speaking of the scrolls, see if you can find a copy of the scifi novel "Mission" by Patrick Tilley. I am not saying its story is true but it does provide a different way to think about things.

[ariannahiggins]

The gospels accounts of the resurrection are all different, what matthew mark luke and john say differ about facts in mutually exclusive ways.

I learned that in Catholic school haha.

[mddawson1]

It ain't necessarily so

It ain't necessarily so

De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible

It ain't necessarily so

(George & Ira Gerswhin)

[ariannahiggins]

who knows what's been lost in translation... or added....

[ariannahiggins]

the bible can't be caught in lies since it doesn't say anything concrete. If I say, for example, "the pink rain falls flat on the elephant in the field", could you say that's a lie? NO BECAUSE IT'S UTTER NONSENSE.

Plus, science books have never been caught in a lie, only misunderstood data.

[mddawson1]

There have been scientific frauds such as piltdown man but these have uncovered by science. What believers fail to understand is that as soon as a scientist gets a paper published in a decent peer reviewed mag like nature, dozens of other scientists test the claim to prove them wrong. Usually these tests confirm the paper. Creationist & IDers never test their claims as they are usually untestable. If they could produce some verifiable evidence then their hypotheses may be taken seriously.

[mddawson1]

You haven't answered why do you not believe the Koran or Bhagavad Gita or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russells Teapot, etc?

[ariannahiggins]

I not only believe (based on "faith" alone) in the Flyring Spaghetti Monster, but also Worship the the majesty of his noodly appendages

[mddawson1]

Ramen to that sister!

[ariannahiggins]

um, what are you talking about? Like, nothing you are saying makes sense. It's all wrong information.

I hereby give up.

[blicksflicks]

You seem to be referring to Chromosome #2, and this also only proves creation. Just because apes have nearly as many chromosomes (considering fusion and all) doesn't mean they are kin to us. We did not evolve from apes. Try checking out a tobacco plant sometime, and you'll find they have near the same number of chrosomes, too. Fusion has occurred! Where's the free cigarettes? Can't we smoke a finger? Man, you read too many lies and books that are based on theories and not observable fact.

[mddawson1]

The fusion of those chromosomes was predicted by evolutionary theory - the addition or delection of 2 extra chromosome would cause severe problems but the fact that they fused & match the seperate chromosome pairs in chimps is proof of a common ancestor. If god did it why?

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "if God did it why?"

Heck if I know. Who am I to question a Holy God's motives? Perhaps he made the chimp so that we would have something cool to look at? Something not as intelligent, but somewhat intelligent? I mean, maybe entertain us and amaze us? Give us something to study? I mean, I don't think it's our place to question His motives seeing how we're human beings, and He's God. How can you question a God who is Holy? Planet earth would be less interesting w/o chimps.

[ariannahiggins]

that's exactly the problem with the way that creationists think- you assume that "observable fact" is what you see in everyday life and the conclusions you make from it (even if they are wrong) - and that "lies and books based on theories" are what are wrong because you don't understand them properly, despite them using ALOT more logic and conveying ALOT of empiric and testable data.

[blicksflicks]

Well, I guess that's why many scientists who have come to the same conclusion have been fired from their jobs. The argument for evolution is absolutely debunked.They've even tried to recreate the process. How do you think life started? A lightning bolt struck some goo? Get real. Something cannot come from nothing. As for God, He is omnipresent and rules over ever dimension (time, space, etc...). The physical laws of the universe do not hold power over the spiritual God who created them.

[mddawson1]

You obviously buy into the fraudulent movie Expelled. Note that the acedemics supposedly sacked weren't, they just didn't get tenure because they were slackers who didn't produce the work to deserve it. Also life didn't start with lightning hitting goo - this produced the amino acids required for life (DNA is made from amino acids). You have no idea how ignorant you sound with your denial of evolution. How about you do some research like watching the YouTube videos of Potholer54.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1: "Also life didn't start with lightning hitting goo - this produced the amino acids required for life (DNA is made from amino acids). You have no idea how ignorant you sound with your denial of evolution."

I keep wondering if you are serious when admitting your belief that lightning produced the amino acids required for life and then assembled themselves into a cell. I hope you are not serious. If you are, I feel for you, man. lol

[mddawson1]

Makes more sense & is far more impressive than an invisible, intangible god snapping his fingers to do it. Its also a testable theory which the god hypothesis isn't.

[blicksflicks]

Also, I just wonder why you haven't considered the amount of time it will take for the chimps to evolve into us. I mean, they are still eating bananas in the rain forest. When exactly do you expect them to evolve into human beings? I just want to hear. Please tell me.

[mddawson1]

Why would they evolve into humans? We shared a common ancestor & evolved our seperate ways. Evolution does not have a predestined goal - it just happens. BTW evolution = descent with modification - thats it. Your kids aren't exact clones of you & their kids won't be clones either. Given enough time & external pressures on the population eg: say a low ozone atmosphere with high CO2 levels, then all humans in the future may be dark skinned with a different breathing system to cope with low oxygen.

[ariannahiggins]

modern chimps don't evolve into us. We evolved from earlier chimps (roughly 6.8 mya) and they evolved themselves along a different 'tree branch' during that same period of time.

Now, the reason that they evolved separately from us -that they didn't ALL turn into modern humans eventually, has to do with "speciation", there were certain populations which became isolated and began slowly over time to change from the original ones since they lived in a different environment with different

[ariannahiggins]

selective pressures on them.

[ariannahiggins]

Please someone who knows more than I do on the matter, correct me if I am wrong in any detail of my explanation.

[blicksflicks]

You don't know that we evolved from chimps roughtl 6.8 mya. You just buy into theories. You are only theorizing. There's no absolute proof in all of science to suggest such a thing. I give up. Keep believing the lies strewn throughout all our textbooks. Even things that have already been debunked are still found in our school textbooks. I'll leave my faith in God's Word. You leave yours in the theories of other men. Men fail. God doesn't.

[mddawson1]

A scientific theory is a much more acceptable thing to accept as truth than a book of bronze age myths written by scientifically illiterate people. One doesn't need faith when they use reason & logic to understand reality. Good luck in your makebelieve world.

[ariannahiggins]

His "imaginary friend" will keep him company I'm sure.

[ariannahiggins]

So let me get this right: you are saying that it's *not* ok to buy into theories (which have a *HUGE* amount of evidence backing them), but it *is* ok to buy into a faith-based belief (which there's *NO* evidence for)?? Is this what you are seriously saying?

[blicksflicks]

ariannahiggins: "So let me get this right: you are saying that it's *not* ok to buy into theories (which have a *HUGE* amount of evidence backing them), but it *is* ok to buy into a faith-based belief (which there's *NO* evidence for)?? Is this what you are seriously saying?"

No, I'm saying Jesus died for your sins, and if you don't have Jesus as your savior, you'll be paying for your own sins while Jesus already died on the cross for them. It is by faith that we come to Christ in our hearts.

[mddawson1]

What about all the people who died before Jesus or all the people who never had the opportunity to know about him like indigenous Australians prior to 1788 or people in Islamic states where it wouldn't be tolerated? If god were real & jesus was the 1 & only true path then you would think everyone would know about him.

[mddawson1]

I also think that to accept jesus as your savior because he died for our sins is a logical fallacy - a Non-Sequitur. Should I worship a soldier because he died defending my country? I may thank his family & respect him doing this but as I did not ask him to do it means there is no requirement for me to do anything about the sacrifice. Same for jesus but then he didn't really die did he, he went home to live with dad so there is the sacrifice - having your 33yo son move back in with dad.

[mddawson1]

And did jesus really take away our sins? No because now instead of just worshipping god we now also have to worship his son - we are worse off now. In some religions you also have to worship the holy ghost & mary - got to love monotheistic religion???

[ariannahiggins]

so let me get THIS right: you are being perfectly insane and not even answering the question. You guys just all hide behind your religion when anything gets too sticky for you don't you (apparently including reality.) Mothers apron.

[GnosticHumanist]

@blicksflicks

In other words you worship Yahweh out of FEAR. You have been spiritually blackmailed, just like all Christians and followers of Abrahamic religions.

[blicksflicks]

@GnosticHumanist Ummm, who wouldn't fear the wrath of a Holy God? Do you realize who you're talking about? A sovereign God of the universe who has the power to destroy body and soul. Some men fear other men for fear of being beat up, maimed, tortured or killed. But, men can only kill the body. God can eternally damn you to face His Holy and just wrath. Read the Bible and you'll see why I fear Yahweh.

[GnosticHumanist]

@blicksflicks

THANKYOU! You have just demonstrated perfectly why Christianity is a mental illness. Think about it: would an omnipotent graceful loving "God" send someone to be eternally tortured merely because they didn't worship him when there wasn't even any real proof of his existence anyway, like a jealous toddler?! There's only two possibilities: either Yahweh doesn't exist, or if he does, he is a psychopath sadist of unbelievable malevolence and evil.

[blicksflicks]

@GnosticHumanist I think you're missing the point. We have all sinned against God. God is Holy. He is all things good. His honor is without measure. His wisdom infinite. His love and mercy are incomprehensibly perfect in every way. God is good. We are the ones who have sinned against Him. We are the clay. He is the potter. You are missing the point. You see, we are the ones who are wrong. He is right. His mercy hung on the cross at Calvary. He who believes on Jesus is not condemned. 

[blicksflicks]

@GnosticHumanist Just as God is all things perfect, so is His justice perfect, too. No one is going to receive anything they don't already deserve by His Holy law. Those who don't believe are condemned already, because they have not believed on Jesus, the Son of God. It's all grace. Unmerited favor before God. God has mercy on some, but he didn't have to have mercy on anyone, because we're all guilty before Him.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson, also, did you know that dogs share 75% DNA with human beings? I just know there is a wagging tale somewhere in my belly. Where could it be? lol Considering chimps have bodies more similar to ours, it's easily understandable why: they have two eyes, mouth, butt hole and crap in the woods. However, if you look at one, you'll soon realize it's an altogether different animal far from a human being.

[mddawson1]

We both have a vestigial tail (wiki it). We also share DNA with tapeworms. Evolutionary theory predicts that the closer the DNA then the more we resemble our relatives in the animal kingdom. Humans, chimps & dogs are all mammals yet seperated from each other at different times. That is why the DNA matches more closely than if you compared it to fish DNA. Your figures confirm evolution.

[blicksflicks]

Your CO2 theory (i.e. dark skin, etc...) has nothing to do with evolution. This is what we refer to in Biology as "adaptation." You are saying that an organism can adapt to its surroundings. However, adaptation has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Overtime, in cold weather, people could gain hair or lighter skin pigments in other instances. Still, these small variations in aesthetics are far from an evolutionary transformation (Darwinian in nature) to an entirely different species.

[mddawson1]

Yet given enough time the adaptations add up to creating a new species. Why do creationists have problems with an old Earth? Thats right, in their book of myths & legends the age only adds up to 6000 years (or 10000 years according to some). A 40% variation in figures means that the myth isn't very clear about this.

[blicksflicks]

mddawson1, if the"closer the DNA than the more we resemble our relatives in the animal kingdom" were true, we would be very similar to a dog. They have 75% similarity in DNA to us. We didn't evolve from dogs and gain the other 25%. It's just - frankly - hilarious to believe so. In essence, what you are saying is that you determine how God creates animals, DNA and all the other ancient mysteries of the planet. You just take men at their word for it that this is how it is? Based on man's theories?

[blicksflicks]

Why do creationists have a problem with an old earth? I don't know. I don't. I believe that God's time is not our time. In fact, even the Bible says a day to us can be a thousand years to God. And, that doesn't just mean a thousand years either. It has to do with any amount of years. It's saying that we just don't know God's time table. But, even if the earth has been here ten billions of years, it doesn't mean evolution is true. Evolution and Darwinism is absolutely preposterous.

[ariannahiggins]

I am under the impression in fact that bananas have half their DNA in common with us. Don't you understand that a tail is a part of the anatomy that only a tiny fraction of DNA codes for?

[blicksflicks]

As for giving you proof of modern day insects being trapped inside of amber? There's videos on YouTube. If you don't know that scientists have found modern day insects trapped inside of amber (claimed to be billions of years old) then you need to look it up. We're talking everything from a scorpion to a dragon fly and more. They never evolved. Never.

[mddawson1]

So the insects of the past resemble modern day insects. Evolutionary change is driven by environmental changes that some members of a species survive better than others thus pasing on their DNA to the next generation. It would be interesting to find out if these old insects DNA was identical to modern insects. Only then could you claim that evolution has not occurred.

[blicksflicks]

So, mddawson1, let me get this straight. You and I are going to make a wooden table. You make yours, and I make mine. I make my table one inch shorter with the legs, and you make yours one inch taller in legs. So, I guess they both evolved from one another because they look slightly similar? So, you're saying the God who created the universe can't create a chimp and then make us? That there is no doubt they evolved from one another? No way. You have no proof. Chromosome #2 is already debunked.

[mddawson1]

A wooden table is not alive - it cannot reproduce itself so cannot evolve. Its a supid analogy. Yes god could do it that way but it would be a retarded way to create humans.

[ariannahiggins]

The consensus of anthropologists is that it's not microencephalic..btw you're confusing dwarfism/midgets with deformation

[blicksflicks]

Oh boy! Not again! Piltdown man all over again! lol

[proximacentaurywalk]

ELOHIM...