we accept your challenge
Offline hey everyone.....i go to liberty university. this past wednesday night one of our campus pastors, Ergun Caner, had a message where he talked about and directly to the RRS about the blasphemy challenge. everyone needs to see this video. here is the link......
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/liberty/cpo/campuschurch/20070207_cc_ec.wvx
[MOD EDIT: OUR LETTER TO ERGUN CANER.
Our challenge is to speak with us on our show, we can give you the same fairness decried to us in your video. No edits. Furthermore nobody from Liberty has properly contacted us, get us a phone number for Ergun Caner. We will not travel to Liberty, I know Dawkins wont either, maybe call Sam. Brian Flemming has re-issued a challenge to take Caner on one on one in a moderated discussion on our show. Furthermore we would talk with Caner, Falwell, and one more on our show with our whole team. Challenge accepted, now make it happen as if you really want to do this and have the big bosses actually contact us.]
- Login to post comments
Again, this is a dishonest reply.
It's not about liking or disliking the system. It is about trying to use the claim of 'number 1 ranking' to imply that the school is a good debate team, when it is not.
again:
When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The poster in question said that the school was dumbing them down. True, this doesn't make Liberty students dumb, just ignorant about things like science.
Answer: Whoops! "tough" not "good"...thank you for the correction.
On bats being birds: www.helives.blogspot.com/2006/01/bats-are-birds.html
www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/comments/51v.hti
On rabbits chewing cud: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2192
On the shape of the earth: The Hebrew word used in Is. 40:22 (choog) can mean "sphere". What is the problem?
And I don't see any issue with Matt. 4:8...Why is it even listed here?
I do not disagree with you on this ranking issue.
Are Liberty students "ignorant about things like science (chemistry, physics, biology and etc.)?
Do we have proof of this?
If they think the universe is only a few thousand years old, then yes.
The link you gave us, didn't work.
But for the record I don't believe everything MSNBC posts or any news organization posts, it still deserves cross referencing.
How about you pull up records of the actual debate and use that as proof?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
BUT YOU USED IT AS EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE A GOOD DEBATING TEAM. THE REALITY IS THAT THEY ARE NOT A GOOD DEBATING TEAM.
You also take a lot of stock in their 'beating harvard', can you tell me what the topic of the debate was, or anything else about their 'beating Harvard"?
It sounds cool to say, but it doesn't change the fact that as a debating team, they aren't very good.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I read two of those links. I though those were interesting explanations. I was wondering doesn’t it bother you that you have to make excuses for the bible in the first place? Does it gall you just a little bit that the people who wrote the bible could write things that are clearly inaccurate and you have to come in here thousands of years later and make excuses for it?
Because I’ll be honest with you, if in order for me to believe what I wanted to believe I had to offer explanations for why somebody would say that a bat is a bird I would probably just say fuck it, it’s not worth the embarrassment.
I’m not saying that you should be embarrassed; I just want to know how you deal with that. This isn’t meant to be a snarky remark or anything it’s a serious question.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Pay for it, and I'm there. I'm not even worried about being surrounded by theists. I have been all my life. But a trip to Lynchburg, Virginia is a bit outside my capabilities. Since you don't want to come to us, you must accept that you may have to pay for some of us to be able to come to you.
Oh, btw. That music at the end was a nice presentation touch. I hope you can be more substantial than that in a debate, and wonder what you needed it for in the first place.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
i live in hampton,Va and im more than happy to give a hand if need be to help with this situtation,now i wouldnt say im the smartest or most "learned"athiest out there but ive been known to research a few things in my day.
Please state where the bible is scientifically inaccurate
Lets take the very beginning, Genesis 1, as an example.
Let us be fair and assume that "day" is a translation of a Hebrew concept meaning period of time. Let us also ignore Ussher creationism, which is not mentioned. In other words, let us assume the bible does not mention anything about the fact that the earth is in reality 4.57 billion years old. I am being extremely fair.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Wrong. In the beginning, when the planetary genesis was taking place, the Earth had no water. Hydrogenesis would not take place for another billion years.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Actually, this is true. The sun, the giver of "day and night" has been around for exactly the same amount of time as Earth, as it is the sun's gravity that formed the Earth, moving on...
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Again, wrong. It would be a long long time before the hydroxl/hydrogen bonds formed, that the Earth had cooled enough to make water.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Again, we are still on "day" 2. Far too early. The earth was still a nuclear fireball.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Wrong. It would take millions of years of gas shift brought on by litotrophic prokaryotes to alter the atmospheric concentration enough for plant life to exist. The first life forms were viruses and prokaryotes. Plants did not appear on the picture until after the Mesoproterozoic, because plants require Nitrogen to survive, which did not fill the air until after the mesoproterozoic. It would take two days (if one day is about 650 million years) Plant formation required the eukaryotic endosymbiosis with ancient chloroplast bacteria. Also, notice that it says "created kinds". The plants that man eats were brought about by artificial selection. Man created them himself. Fruit was around before man, so was vegetation, but edible vegetation was a man made creation of agriculture.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
If we are still on the fourth day we have a problem. It says God created the sun and stars here, yet plants on the third day. Unfortunately, all life will die without the sun, and plants are definitely no exception, as they are phototrophic. Also the "lesser light" is obviously the moon. The moon is not a light. It recieves light from the sun. The only thing that seperates light from darkness is the Earth rotation, the moon still follows us in the daytime.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Again, a problem. It says God created the plants first on the third day, and now on the fifth day sea creatures and birds. The first creatures were prokaryotes and viruses, also the birds did not appear until a very very long time after the sea creatures. In fact, if we assume the timescale by matching it to the modern scientific one, the birds did not come into existence until sometime around 10:00pm on the sixth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And of course, the "created kinds" has been debunked by observed speciation.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
We are still on the "fifth day", which is somewhere around the start of the Cambrian (I am being EXTREMELY generous in incorporating the geological timescale into the Biblican word "days", in reality I SHOULD be blasting the Bible for being off by a factor of almost one hundred billion percent). Humans did not appear until the very very end of the cenozoic era, which is roughly around 11:58pm on the sixth day.
That is just the errata in Genesis 1, the first section of the first book of the first bible. I do not have the time or energy to debunk the whole thing.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The Hebrew word "yom" for "day" can only mean a 24 hour day in that passage. If it didn't, morning and evening would be meaningless.
The Hebrew word "yom" for "day" can only mean a 24 hour day in that passage. If it didn't, morning and evening would be meaningless.
thank you, You just helped me. Now, in addition to all of my statements above, the bible is off by the amount of time required from planetary genesis to the creation of man by over one hundred billion percent. I retract my generosity of etymlogical interpretation.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Matt 4:8 is listed because it said that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. That can only be possible if you have a flat earth concept. All the earth can't be seen because the earth is a sphere.
You'd think that if your God created everything, he'd be able to provide correct information to the guys ghostwriting his book. That way there wouldn't be a need to provide rationalizations.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
These are no problem for me.
So...they had a different classification system than we do and grouped all winged flying things as birds. Why is that a big issue?
On the scale of things, I believe that the lack of feathered dinosaurs, despite museum exhibits and paintings in prominent science journals depicting them, and evolution assuming them (but there is no scientific evidence for their existence other than assumption - ask Dr. Alan Feduccia of UNC)...This is a much bigger issue (than rabbits ruminating and bats v. birds and etc.) that gets swiped aside via assumed conclusions (contrary to the scientific evidence) in the name of evolutionary science.
Feduccia says that there is no evidence that therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds or that feathered dinosaurs existed at all but go to a Natural History Museum or read Nature and so forth and you will see their definitive pictures (Feduccia's report/study appeared in the Journal of Morphology, Oct. 10, 2005). He said that this isn't science but comic relief.
Are you not embarrassed by this?
That is a good question. I am not embarrassed by that because it is a reasonable assertion that follows from the theory, available evidence and the fact that birds do no predate dinosaurs.
Second Feduccia did not make that statement he was commenting on the fact that creationist have used this assertion to attack evolution (like you’re doing now). What he actually said was:
"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common, But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.”
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm
So, in order for me to believe that I am not required to deviate wildly from known fact or the scientific consensus that birds evolved from reptiles. I don’t have to say “Well, when they said dinosaurs had feathers they really meant dinosaurs didn’t have feathers.” I can just say that it was an assertion that reasonably followed from the theory but turned out to be wrong.
But with your bat, bird thing you have to say that they classified all thing that fly as birds but they knew that they were not really birds when you have no idea if that’s true or not. You’re putting yourself in a position where you now have to defend things that you know are false by saying other things that may also be false. And that would embarrass me.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Again, pby.
Don't you think that the God who created everything would have given correct information to the people who wrote the book puporting to be his holy, incontrovertible word?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Also, don’t you think it’s disingenuous to quote a person out of context and then use the quote to defend a position that they disagree with?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Your asking a creationist. If there's anyone who excels at taking quotes out of contents it's "creation scientists."
If anyone doubts me google "creationist quote mining".
Your assertion is incorrect. The Bible makes exception for flying winged things - called INSECTS. If a bat is a bird, then a locust is a bird. However, the Bible knows that it is not.
It is patently obvious that the person who said that the bat is an unclean bird just had no idea that a bat is a mammal with fur instead of feathers that gives birth to live young instead of laying eggs.
Kick, wham, stunner. Moron.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
I am glad that I could be of assistance.
Did you see my response on your "History of God" thread?
Even given the 4.5 billion years (I believe that this duration has been significantly increased), according to some scientists, this is still not enough time for the earth to cool and for abiogenesis and evolution to occur in a way that produces all of the observeable variety of life today. In part, that is why Dr. Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner (co-discoverer of the DNA double helix), offered his Directed Panspermia theory in which aliens, via their rocket ships, seeded Earth with life (see Dr. Crick's book, Life Itself..He even has illustrations of the alien's rocket ships).
I would like to add one thing here. Here God creates stars. But the elements used to make most of the previous things created (water, earth, sky, the moon, vegetation) are made inside stars. Ergo, the Genesis account is full of crap.
Many, if not the majority, in science are still saying that dinosaurs had feathers and the exhibits are still in the museums (and the illustrations are still in science magazines and in new science textbooks).
This incorrect assumption is not being righted in science...It is still being defended and advanced.
Biblical truth is not dependent on today's system of classification. By the way, what is the Hebrew word for "bird" in that passage and what does it mean?
What matters is what the scientist who research in this area are saying. If some physicist is saying it, then he/she is just out of their league. Where's you statistics about who's saying this?
Yes, there's plenty of magazines and museums that have got it wrong (and textbooks too). Maybe the error hasn't be recognized by all of them? Often these things are done by non-experts, so maybe they just don't know yet.
There are some experts righting this. They were quoted above. The rest of the non experts just need to know, and stop trusting what Jurassic Park told them.
It's funny you criticize scientist for being slow about correct errors, but you claim the understanding of the world in the Bible is timeless. Do you think that the universe is 6K to 10K years old? Do you think that the mathematical constant Pi equals 3? Do you think that our thoughts and emotions come from the heart instead of the brain? Do you think the earth is a disc (the "circle of the earth" bit is talking about the edge of this disc)? Do you think that disease is caused by sin? It can be argued that the Bible supports these outdated understandings of the world.
Scientist do correct their errors. Those who believe the Bible is inerrant don't. You're criticism of science seem to be a projection.
Can't help you there. But, when Bible defenders get argued into a corner they start wanting to do Hebrew/Greek word studies. What's wrong with all these translations? Can't those scholars render the meaning of the text in English?
Where's the refutation of the assumption?
The point is that the bible contradicts even its own classification system.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Again, jcgadfly...
It doesn't bother me that the inspired Hebrew word used in that passage (owph) means winged flying thing. Is a bat not a winged flying thing? How is classifying a bat as a winged flying thing incorrect?
Because Moses did not use our current taxonomy does not create the problem that you are making it out to be.
How does the Bible contradict its own classification system?
It calls a bat a winged flying thing (owph).
But if Moses wrote with divine inspiration, why didn't God inspire him with correct information? Or are you saying that God thought that his crowning creation (as many theists claim man is) was so stupid that they couldn't handle more than calling all flying things "flying things"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, for starters that article was from October 2005. So basically your gripe is that science books and museums are a year and a half out of date according to this information (which is petty). We don't have a system where everything can be in compliance with new information instantly and that's good because we need time to review the evidence, make further observations and compare the data to previous finding.
Second, some dinosaurs may have had feathers. The jury is still out on that so why should everyone scramble to conform to something that's not a solid consensus?
Third, if you really considered this to be an egregious error then the assumption that a bat is a bird should send you right through the roof. You're showing your bias here, you wont give the scientific community an inch but you'll give the bible mile.
I'm not an expert in this area but as far as I know there are not multiple and contradictory versions of the truth so the phrase "biblical truth" holds no meaning for me. There is not pby's truth and everybody else's truth. Somebody is wrong here and my guess is that its the person who said that a bat is a bird.
I think that the lesson to be learned here is that when you hold to a position that is wrong instead of admitting your error you make youself an opponent of truth and you saddle yourself with the burden of having to use lies and deceptive tactics to defend your position.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I am glad that I could be of assistance.
Did you see my response on your "History of God" thread?
Even given the 4.5 billion years (I believe that this duration has been significantly increased), according to some scientists, this is still not enough time for the earth to cool and for abiogenesis and evolution to occur in a way that produces all of the observeable variety of life today. In part, that is why Dr. Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner (co-discoverer of the DNA double helix), offered his Directed Panspermia theory in which aliens, via their rocket ships, seeded Earth with life (see Dr. Crick's book, Life Itself..He even has illustrations of the alien's rocket ships).
I am aware of Panspermia theory. The thruth though is that life's origin is a scientific question mark. We dont know. Anyway, you're missing the point (yes, the Earth is probably over 4.5 billion years old) the bible is very scientifically inaccurate. I gave a detailed account of the why just using the first section of the first book of the first testemant.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thank you for calling it an assumption (and as it turns out, a very poor one) because that is the accurate term...given that there was/is no scientific evidence.
The refutation of the assumption (or exaggeration, nonsensical as Fedduccia states) was cited in my post referencing Dr. Alan Feduccia. Fedducia said, "With the advent of 'feathered dinosaurs', we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology...Just as the discovery of a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs..."
He also said that prominent scientific publications stated, definitively, that proto-feathers, or dino-fuzz (that were not feathers, or related at all...but collagen fibers), were evidence that birds were descended from dinosaurs..."Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence of dinosaur 'feathers'--either structural or biological--..."
Fedduccia said that, "The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution...This isn't science...This is comic relief."
He calls the theory "close to being non-Darwinian."
You are right...Life's origin is a scientific question mark.
You missed the point of my gripe completely.
The gripe is that the "theory" was advanced at all without any evidence at all (as Dr. Feduccia said). Why is it even in prominent scientific journals, natural history museums and textbooks?
He said that there is no scientific evidence for proto-feathers, dino-fuzz and/or feathered dinosaurs. He says that it doesn't make sense...it is exaggerated...a fantasy...close to being non-Darwinian and etc.
It was bad, bad, bad science (complete lack thereof), caused by a, missionary zeal to advance assumed conclusions and a philosophy about evolutionary theory, performed in the absence of any evidence.
Many critics of Scripture point out the most inane items like the bat v. birds passage and declare contradiction (Hebrew word "owph" meaning winged flying thing) but at the same time have no problem with the contradictions and falsified assumed conclusions inclusive of the evolutionary theory....go figure.
Because you missed my gripe you concluded incorrectly.
Your great evidence against the inspiration of Scripture rests on this?
You are in trouble.
You are right...Life's origin is a scientific question mark
Yep. Not a theological hypothesis. So in light of my genesis post, is the bible scientifically inaccurate (note I did not mention life's origin, just the timescale associated with it, plus the evolution after it and the planet formation before it, all things the book of genesis got completely wrong.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I thought that it was a given that we were talking about bats and birds and not insects.
As it pertains to that...Thanks for the clarification.
You assume the rest and do not have specific knowledge or evidence to back up your claim.
Where did I quote Feduccia out of context?
Forget the age of the Earth for a moment (the Bible doesn't outright declare it)...Do the same comparison as if the days are literal days (as I stated).
If the origin of life is a scientific question mark, how can you concretely conclude that it is not a theological hypothesis?
You're right about the age of the earth. It seems like in Genesis 1:2, the earth is already there.
But if you believe that the creation days are literal days, then the Bible does say how old everything else is. Everything else includes all life on earth, the oceans, and all heavenly bodies (stars, planets, etc), and even light. If you add it up, using all the genealogies, it's less than 6000 years or so. This is obviously wrong.
The only way to escape this is to re-interpret the days of creation as something other than literal days, which has its own problems.
Either the Bible is dead wrong about the age of everything (except maybe the earth? because it seems to be preexisting) or you have to take creation figuratively. Which is it?
It's this problem that led me to give up Christianity. The Bible has errors in it.
Your defense of the inspiration of Scripture rests on "The God I believe knows everything and created everything (because the Bible tells me so) didn't give Moses and the other writers of the Bible correct information? So what? It really doesn't bother me."
Didn't John Wesley say "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth"?
And somehow I'm the one who's in trouble? It is to laugh.
Apologies for font size problems - I use a magnification program.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Your gripe is still not valid because it wasn't advaced without any evidence it was advanced with evidence. There are dinosaur fossils that appear to have feathers. Some scientists disagree with Feduccia. Here is a link to an article where a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History challenges those claims.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/tech/main931079_page2.shtml
The quote was taken out of context because you said this:
But the article says this:
"The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"
You are attributing the words of one person to another person who commented on what they said.
And you are using this quote to advance a position that this person clearly does not agree with.You are implying that the theory of evolution is flawed in some way and that this scientist agrees with you when he doesn't.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Typical creationist quote mining. They can't actually do science, so they twist scientist's words to make scientist seemingly agree with them.
Then how is an ostrich a bird, according to this system? Deuteronomy 14:11-18 lists an ostrich as a bird.
Can you answer this now:
Where's the refutation of the assumption?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
And bats are birds.
Leviticus, 11:19 surrounding verses:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Now pretend the bat was an afterthought of a diatribe about birds, which are somehow detestable. Go on, APOLOGIZE for God's words.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Good point...given that maybe their classificaton system was just winged things. I think that the cited article addresses the translation of the Hebrew word "owph".
Do you know for a fact that calling a bat the Hebrew word "owph" is incorrect?
Are you an expert in Hebrew and know definitively that a bat is not a "owph"?
I didn't ask about the age of the Earth. I asked for the same side by side analysis to be done given that "yom" (morning and evening) is a literal day. I don't take the days as figurative, or an epoch, given the meaning/context in Genesis 1 and also Exodous 20:11.
I'd like to see that same side by side analysis performed given a literal day.
Why are you glorifying your God for implying that his crowning creation couldn't handle being told that a bat is a flying mammal?
Or are you saying that your omniscient creator God himself didn't know that a bat was more than just a "flying thing"?
You forget - God didn't create language, man did.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin