"Evidence of Hobbits found:" Topic

LOL @ John OFM

You are exactly right!

A lot of "scientific" grants and research amounts to a form of what I like to call "white-collar welfare."

Who gives a d@mn about the mating habits of prehistoric rat monkey tree sniffers? What purpose does it serve?

Personally, I find the fact that this idea that the sole reason scientists do research is for grant money, and that all scientists are just "coming up with theories and then making stuff up to prove themselves right" (quoting a ill-informed coworker) to be so much tripe as to usually avoid comment. Tell the people that are on a mad dash to find help for cancer and aids patients that you'd rather they just left everything up to the invisible man in the sky.
I know of several thousands of people that might just disagree with you. When you get to your afterlife happy place, tell Mr. Reeves that you're sorry, too, won't you?

"Never stoned one myself. Typical argument brought up by anti-Chritian types. Old hat really."

All due respect, Nimrod, I'm Christian and I often bring up the same argument. I never could reconcile the god of genocide and putting city's inhabitants to the sword of the OT with the god of love in the NT who is supposed to be the Christian god, so I dismiss the OT completely as a pile of crap that was included for sentimental reasons (while many other books, the gospel of Peter, for example were excluded) at the Counsel of Niacia when it occured sometime in the 5th century. And... such determination of what was to be included was done by VOTE.

To say: "Scientists make mistakes, the Bible - never. Mind you humans trying to follow the Bible quite often do." can easily be transposed.

Ultimately, the wrongness of clerics versus the wrongness of scientists is comparing centuries versus days and years and even hours with respect to being able to abandon an interpretation if it fails fundamental tests.

Tim Marshall

---All due respect, Nimrod, I'm Christian and I often bring up the same argument. I never could reconcile the god of genocide and putting city's inhabitants to the sword of the OT with the god of love in the NT who is supposed to be the Christian god, so I dismiss the OT completely as a pile of crap that was included for sentimental reasons---

With respect also Tim, I am very sorry that you, as a Christian (follower of Christ), feel that the OT is 'a pile of crap' when Christ himself, and the apostles, often quoted from the OT. Maybe He didn't think it was 'a pile of crap'.

Before Christ, after Christ - different dispensations.

Just because people make mistakes with Bible interpretation doesn't make the Bible (OT & NT) wrong. Just because people cannot understand it, doesn't make it wrong.

Alan Saunders

Maybe that quote from Sir Arthur Keith is wrong, maybe not. Maybe Darwin recanted, maybe he didn't. But thanks very much for the link to the AiG site. Excellent stuff! Ta very much.

I just can't work out why some people are so hell-bent on finding 'proof' that we came from monkeys or slime or whatever, instead of believing we were created in the image of our Creator and will be restored to perfection at the return of Christ. I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor. Bad enough having 'convicts' in the family tree. ;)

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

One man's evolution is another man's "scale creep".

you know there are time when I think the Editor should make us get off TMP, go outside and take a breath of fresh air... cause man, (woman, or missing link as the case may be) some of us are losing it.

"Maybe that quote from Sir Arthur Keith is wrong, maybe not. Maybe Darwin recanted, maybe he didn't. But thanks very much for the link to the AiG site. Excellent stuff! Ta very much."

Actually AiG is as big a load of cobblers as all of the other creationist websites. It's just that unlike the others they actually have the merest fraction of an ounce of integrity when it comes to admitting certain arguments may be wrong and try to encourage people not to use them. They, at least, don't actually *want* creationists to look stupid.

"Darwin himself repudiated his own earlier theories on his deathbed."

Darwin's last hours are well documented. He did not such thing. This particular lie has been traced to a Christian TV show and has been doing the rounds of credible Funies ever since.

Straight lie.

"This is one debate that will never end until until the Second Coming, and then we'll all know the truth."

So apparently unless the fairy tale comes true, we'll NEVER KNOW! LOL!

"So therefore you only research one side of the debate. Where is the 'test' there? Where is the checking all sides of the debate?"

Actually there is no debate, any more than there is a debate is history with Haulocaust deniers. That a few people hold views for religious reasons does not a scientific debate make.

I'm wondering whether you reject flight, electricity, internal combustion etc - or only the discoveries of anthrolologists, archeologists, geneticists...

And yes, I get deeply worried by religious fanaticism of all complexions. it leads to burning 'witches', torturing heretics and flying planes into skyscrapers.

"A scientist is no more infallible than a priest."

Absolutely true. Of course, science does not claim infallibility. Quite the opposite. Only religious extremists claim infallibility.

"I have seen scientists hold on to a disproven hypothesis with every bit as much fervor as if it were a tenet of faith of a fundamentalist religion."

Indded. The difference is tha science is testable and contestable. You do get charlatons like Lysenko but they are discovered eventually.

Science can recognise and correct its mistakes, even if some scientists cannot.

"Who gives a d@mn about the mating habits of prehistoric rat monkey tree sniffers? What purpose does it serve?"

Lol. Is this a deliberate and knowing joke? The same question "What purpose does it serve?" was famously asked at an early demonstration of the strange properties of the newly discovered 'electricity'?

The answer given at the time was "What purpose does a new born baby serve?"

"I just can't work out why some people are so hell-bent on finding 'proof' that we came from monkeys or slime or whatever,..."

Nobody is. There are just many people 'hell-bent' on investigating and understanding the universe in which we live.

"I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor."

Here we have the crux. I'm afraid the Universe just doesn't organise itself around what you, or I would 'rather' be true.

I would rather be taller. Doesn't mean I go around asserting I am despite the clearly-observed facts.

Actually, Nimrod, the Bible can be wrong. The current interpretations turn on the idea of continued revelation to the Apostles, as there's a fair amount of evidence that the gospels were written in three stages: the first stage was a recounting of what the Rabbi Joshua actually said, and was contemporary of him; the second and third stages were written significantly later and transformed him into Jesus Christ. For these second and third stages to be valid, the Apostles must have been granted a continued revelation, because they weren't witnesses to the added events.

There are a number of interpretations of this: the least forgiving view is that the second and third stages were cynically incorporated into the gospels to generate a following. This view certainly does explain the many similarities between Mithras and Christ, but does not repudiate the direct teachings of the Rabbi. (See the Gospel of Thomas for what's believed to be the closest extant copy of his words, i.e., the "first stage.")

The most mystical view is that God continues to reveal himself to his imperfect vessels -- to be a strict follower of that approach, you really need to be a Quaker or possibly a Mormon. This view implies that the Bible should be seen as a living document, and that prophets can still walk the earth. (It also implies that Genesis can be incomplete, and is simply how the early Jews could see the universe.)

Finally, there's the view that God decided his message was complete in the 3rd Century. I dislike this view, myself -- nothing in God's history really supports the idea that he's just going to shut up all of a sudden. Of course, this is the only view that really supports the Council of Nicaea and a fixed, perfect, Bible.

Consider also that the period between the writing of the gospels and the Council of Nicaea was one of many prophets -- prophets that were then persecuted as "false" by the Roman state after the Council was concluded. Why would none of these prophets be granted a true revelation?

And I will point out again that believing in evolution does not mean that one cannot believe in God.

The Vatican position (for instance) is that belief in evolution is not a herasy if one believes God created the SOUL of man. (And yes I do realise many Fundamentalists do not regard Catholics as Christians.)

nazrat 28 Oct 2004 12:07 p.m. PST

---"This is one debate that will never end until until the Second Coming, and then we'll all know the truth."

So apparently unless the fairy tale comes true, we'll NEVER KNOW! LOL!---

nazrat 28 Oct 2004 9:32 a.m. PST

---Please, for God's sake, SPARE US!!!---

You're funny nazrat! 'Fairy tale', and then 'for God's sake'. Can't make up your mind?

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Whattisitgoodfor

---Actually there is no debate, any more than there is a debate is history with Haulocaust (sic) deniers.---

Surely in any rational debate one would need to see both sides to come to a conclusion of what is the truth. That the Holocaust happened has obviously been proved to be the truth.

---That a few people hold views for religious reasons does not a scientific debate make.---

There a quite a few scientists who are Christians and don't believe all the twaddle about evolution. You'd leave them out of the debate?

---I'm wondering whether you reject flight, electricity, internal combustion etc - or only the discoveries of anthrolologists, archeologists, geneticists...---

I've flown a fair bit, I've turned on light switches and drive a motor vehicle, what's to reject? I've not seen or experienced any proof of events that happened *12,000*, *1,000,000* or whatever years ago.

---Here we have the crux. I'm afraid the Universe just doesn't organise itself around what you, or I would 'rather' be true.---

Did I say that the Universe should organise itself around me? What I 'believe' or what 'I would rather be true' is my own view. I am not trying to force anyone else to believe as I do. It seems that the evolutionists are not the same, as they try to force their views on schoolchildren in a variety of countries, without giving the opportunity of hearing the Creation side.

---Indded (sic). The difference is tha (sic) science is testable and contestable. You do get charlatons like Lysenko but they are discovered eventually.---

I am sure that one day soon, all the scientific charlatans will be found out.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

"There a quite a few scientists who are Christians and don't believe all the twaddle about evolution. You'd leave them out of the debate?"

Actually no. There are no scientists with any standing in the biological sciences who believe creationism. There are however many honest Christian scientist who understand and accept evoltuion and Darwin without feeling it is a threat to their faith.

" I've not seen or experienced any proof of events that happened *12,000*, *1,000,000* or whatever years ago."

You have not seen a sub-atomic particle either, but we routinely accept the implications of their existance.

Of course, you happily accept that a man rose from the dead (actually two men, counting Lazarus) more than 2,000 years ago, and I bet you never saw or experienced that either.

"Did I say that the Universe should organise itself around me? What I 'believe' or what 'I would rather be true' is my own view.

What you said was "I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor."

"I am not trying to force anyone else to believe as I do. It seems that the evolutionists are not the same, as they try to force their views on schoolchildren in a variety of countries, without giving the opportunity of hearing the Creation side."

I am more than happy for my children to learn about creationism. Indeed I would be very upset if they were not -in a comparitive religion class.

I just can't see why your particular creation story should be taught in a SCIENCE class however. There are many creation stories. There is only one scientific method for investigation the origins of physical - as opposed to spiritual - life on Earth.

I would have the same objection to them being taught entrail reading, or how to control the weather by human sacrifice, or any of the other religion masquerading as science.

Actually, I know of a Catholic priest who has a pygmy elephant skeleton on his landing . . Complete with its child. The elephant is only a metre tall at the shoulder, and comes from Malta. The priest is also a leading scholar in mammalian evolution.

Right, now I've offended both sides :) This has been an intriguing discussion, considering that the news is rather recent. And just to recap, scientist always use uncertain language, because we always accept that we may be wrong. As opposed to the always correct professions like accountants for ENRON, White House advisors and so on.

Oh, sorry, I forgot: Nimrod, if Christ was perfect, why couldn't he remember the Ten Commandments?

"Actually, I know of a Catholic priest who has a pygmy elephant skeleton on his landing . . Complete with its child. The elephant is only a metre tall at the shoulder, and comes from Malta. The priest is also a leading scholar in mammalian evolution.

Right, now I've offended both sides :) "

You haven't offended me. I see no inconsistancy between being a scientist and having faith in God.

"Oh, sorry, I forgot: Nimrod, if Christ was perfect, why couldn't he remember the Ten Commandments? "

He couldn't?

I still reckon my comment on making Jurassic Park 4 with pygmy elephants would be cool.

"You're funny nazrat! 'Fairy tale', and then 'for God's sake'. Can't make up your mind?

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS"

In fairness, I'm including this linguist's (read: me) input:

Although all words are traceable to their etymology, language is an ever evolving creature. The use of "for god's sake" has become so commonplace as to lose varying degrees of it's actual religious reference, depending of course mostly on the speaker and those hearing him/her. So, in short, the use of "for god's sake" and the infamous "g.d." do not necessarily connote that the speaker holds or doesn't hold any religious views.

In fact, several commonly used explatives in the American English language are descendants of terms with a strictly religious denotation. To "damn" someone for example. Or the tacking on of "holy" to things ranging the gamut from bovine animals to what they excrete.

Sorry to mess up your cheap shot like that. :)

Hi

Arrogance abounds. Presuming the literal truth of the bible for a moment: When God visited that shepard to reveal the bible, he was talking to a human with no number in his vocabulary bigger than 1000. (That first "bigger" term was Myriad, meaning 10k). So, he did not explain evolution over billions of years. Nor did he show the math behind thermonucular phyiscs. He Said "Let there Be Light". Inspiration can only do so much!

An entity that can supposedly encompass the entire universe down to the sub-atomic level or below, and YOU want to explain that you can speak for and understand this!

Don't believe in evolution? Fine, don't take This Year's flu shot.

Rocky

kreosus: Is there any "little people" legends out there that are not from isolated islands, Ireland, australia, indonesia etc ?

I've read in Thomas Mails that the Cherokees have a "little people" legend. That would be from east Tennessee.

Covert Walrus

---Oh, sorry, I forgot: Nimrod, if Christ was perfect, why couldn't he remember the Ten Commandments?---

But He did.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Come to think of it, the Germanic legends about Dwarfs are thoroughly continental.

RockyRusso

---Presuming the literal truth of the bible for a moment:---

---An entity that can supposedly encompass the entire universe down to the sub-atomic level or below, and YOU want to explain that you can speak for and understand this!---

And there's no arrogance and presumption on the part of scientists?

---Presuming the literal truth of the bible---

---An entity that can supposedly encompass---

I seem to remember from another post that you are a Catholic, though I may be wrong about that. Doubting the literal truth of the Bible, and talking of an entity that can SUPPOSEDLY encompass the entire Universe? Ah well, I suppose that does fit in with Catholic theology. I'm sorry, I just forgot for a moment there that the popes know everything.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

"Just because people make mistakes with Bible interpretation doesn't make the Bible (OT & NT) wrong. Just because people cannot understand it, doesn't make it wrong."

Hi nimrod - I think you missed my point entirely. What i meant to say with respect to trasnposing your statement which was:

"Scientists make mistakes, the Bible - never. Mind you humans trying to follow the Bible quite often do."

I would transpose it as: "Clerics [interpreters of the bible] make mistakes, while true science is absolute. Mind you scientists chasing incorrect hypothesis often do"

I hope that makes it clearer. 8)

I stand by my comments that as a group, scientists are much more willing and quicker to question their work and interpretations that church leaders have been.

Whattishegoodfor

---Actually no. There are no scientists with any standing in the biological sciences who believe creationism. There are however many honest Christian scientist who understand and accept evoltuion and Darwin without feeling it is a threat to their faith.---

What arrogance to speak for the whole biological scientific world! In the excellent book, "In Six Days: Why 50 scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" (Edited by John F Ashton PhD - New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd.) there are 11 of the 50 scientists whose explanations appear who are in the biology field. You said 'of any standing'? These people work at some pretty prestigious places. 'Standing' in whose eyes? Yours?

---You have not seen a sub-atomic particle either, but we routinely accept the implications of their existance.---

But I have heard enough of the explanation and seen diangrams of it to believe it. Amazing Universe God created, isn't it?

---Of course, you happily accept that a man rose from the dead (actually two men, counting Lazarus) more than 2,000 years ago, and I bet you never saw or experienced that either.---

If you are going to tell me what I believe, please get it right. Besides Jesus Himself, there was indeed Lazarus. But maybe you didn't read past that. Don't forget the son of the widow in Luke 7. So ACTUALLY there were more than two. Scientists do like to go off half cocked, without getting the story right, don't they?

---"Did I say that the Universe should organise itself around me? What I 'believe' or what 'I would rather be true' is my own view.

What you said was "I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor."---

Absolutely true. So what? I don't see your point.

---"I am not trying to force anyone else to believe as I do. It seems that the evolutionists are not the same, as they try to force their views on schoolchildren in a variety of countries, without giving the opportunity of hearing the Creation side."

I am more than happy for my children to learn about creationism. Indeed I would be very upset if they were not -in a comparitive religion class.---

Yet evolution is taught in schools as the TRUTH, when evolutionists cannot make up their minds and disagree on many things.

---I just can't see why your particular creation story should be taught in a SCIENCE class however. There are many creation stories. There is only one scientific method for investigation the origins of physical - as opposed to spiritual - life on Earth.---

Not my particular creation story, the Biblical creation story. Only ONE scientific method? Why then do we have evolutionists coming up with differnet theories and different ages, etc. all the time?

---I would have the same objection to them being taught entrail reading, or how to control the weather by human sacrifice, or any of the other religion masquerading as science.---

Nothing at all to do with the current debate. Competely fallacial argument.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Tim Marshall

---Hi nimrod - I think you missed my point entirely. What i meant to say with respect to trasnposing your statement which was:

"Scientists make mistakes, the Bible - never. Mind you humans trying to follow the Bible quite often do."

I would transpose it as: "Clerics [interpreters of the bible] make mistakes, while true science is absolute. Mind you scientists chasing incorrect hypothesis often do"---

I think I did miss your point, Tim, and I apologise for that. IMO, you are quite correct on that, though I still like the OT. :)

Glynn

"What arrogance to speak for the whole biological scientific world! In the excellent book, "In Six Days: Why 50 scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" ( Edited by John F Ashton PhD – New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd. ) there are 11 of the 50 scientists whose explanations appear who are in the biology field. You said 'of any standing'? These people work at some pretty prestigious places. 'Standing' in whose eyes?"

Of the 50 scientists ( actually fewer than that as some have scientific training but do not work as scientists ) , 9 are biologists, 13 others have training in related fields. The remaining 28 have no training or experience in the life sciences at all.

One doesn't even profess a belief in creation incidentally – only that he believes in God. ( Presumably he's there to bring up the numbers ) .

Of the 9, 5 were trained entirely at religious institutions.
None of them are world-famous biologists ( although a couple have some notoriety precisely BECAUSE they are creationists ) . None have had articles on biology accepted in 'Nature'. None have Nobel prizes.

A more complete critique of the book can be found at:

link

The title of the book is telling. They CHOOSE to believe in creationism. The 10s of thousands of scientists who approach the subject with an open mind find they have no choice but to believe the evidence of evolution and Darwin.

What you said was "I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor."---

Absolutely true. So what? I don't see your point.

My point is that you, like the creation 'sceintists' are letting what you would 'rather' be true colour your perception of evidence.

---"I am not trying to force anyone else to believe as I do. It seems that the evolutionists are not the same, as they try to force their views on schoolchildren in a variety of countries, without giving the opportunity of hearing the Creation side."

I would oppose any scientist who wanted equal time in your Bible Studies Class or your Church to explain evolution, and I oppose anyone who wants to teach religion as science.

"---I would have the same objection to them being taught entrail reading, or how to control the weather by human sacrifice, or any of the other religion masquerading as science.---

Nothing at all to do with the current debate. Competely fallacial argument."

Actually this is the core of the argument. Creationism is not a science. Creation is not science because science is a process of finding out. Pseudoscience is a process of collecting evidence to support a prior belief.

I would not want re-incarnation taught as science in schools. There are many people who believe in it – including many scientists – particularly say in India. There is even 'evidence' for it; I know – I saw a program about past lives on the Discovery Channel the other night. This evidence is about as strong as most of the 'evidence' trotted out by Creationists.

The point is religion is a matter of faith. Cool. Claiming the infallibility of stories written thousands of years ago, translated and transcribed by fallible men, edited on ooccassions by fallible men, and open to multiple interpretations by fallible men is not science.

Teach it in Bible class.

"Yet evolution is taught in schools as the TRUTH, when evolutionists cannot make up their minds and disagree on many things...

... Only ONE scientific method? Why then do we have evolutionists coming up with differnet theories and different ages, etc. all the time?"

Sigh. If you only wanted subjects taught in schools that there was no disagreement in, there would be precious little taught. In the field of my own academic training, history, there would be pretty much nothing taught at all!

The fact that scientists often disagree and their findings are open to review and examination is part of what makes science stronger. And one of the reasons why Creationism is not a science.

Whatsishegoodfor

---What you said was "I know I'd rather have God as my Father than some 'clyde' as an ancestor."---

Absolutely true. So what? I don't see your point.

My point is that you, like the creation 'sceintists(sic)' are letting what you would 'rather' be true colour your perception of evidence.---

What evidence? There is absolutely no evidence that a random event(s) was responible for any life on Earth. NONE. Scientists have never made 'life' from 'non-life' have they?

---"What arrogance to speak for the whole biological scientific world! In the excellent book, "In Six Days: Why 50 scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" (Edited by John F Ashton PhD - New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd.) there are 11 of the 50 scientists whose explanations appear who are in the biology field. You said 'of any standing'? These people work at some pretty prestigious places. 'Standing' in whose eyes?"

Of the 50 scientists (actually fewer than that as some have scientific training but do not work as scientists)---

They are still scientists are they not?

---, 9 are biologists, 13 others have training in related fields. The remaining 28 have no training or experience in the life sciences at all.---

There is more to the debate than just biology. These people are still scientists, whether you like it or not.

---One doesn't even profess a belief in creation incidentally - only that he believes in God. (Presumably he's there to bring up the numbers).---

Maybe.

---Actually this is the core of the argument. Creationism is not a science. Creation is not science because science is a process of finding out. Pseudoscience is a process of collecting evidence to support a prior belief.---

That is exactly what this thread started on, collecting evidence (from Flores Island) in order to try and support a prior belief (evolution). Evolutionary scientists, and to be fair, Creationist scientists, use any discovery to push their 'prior belief'.

---I would not want re-incarnation taught as science in schools. There are many people who believe in it - including many scientists - particularly say in India. There is even 'evidence' for it; I know - I saw a program about past lives on the Discovery Channel the other night. This evidence is about as strong as most of the 'evidence' trotted out by Creationists.---

I do not believe in reincarnation either, but if it were true I know that Kurt Cobain would come back as a dolphin - he already has the hole in the top of his head. :)

---The point is religion is a matter of faith. Cool. Claiming the infallibility of stories written thousands of years ago, translated and transcribed by fallible men, edited on ooccassions (sic) by fallible men, and open to multiple interpretations by fallible men is not science.---

I know that religion is not a science, have never claimed it be a science.

---Teach it in Bible class.---

Maybe in both evolution class and Bible class there should be a rider stating that the child should have both sides of the creation/evolution before they make up their own minds.

It seems that I will never convince you, and I am wary of any academics and eggheads, and none will demolish my faith.

In closing my participation of this thread, I would just like to ask you a question, or two actually, and leave you with a quote from the book:

1. What are the odds that the earth and all living things on it were created by a Divine Creator, and how did you work out the odds?

2. What are the odds that all living things happened through randonm chance, and how would you work out the odds on that?

"... for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origins of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

BTW, that quote was from Robert Jastrow's 1978 book, God and the Astronomers. p116 That final sentence of the quote should have the word 'is' between 'he' and 'greeted'. My mistake completely, or maybe my typing fingers are devolving.

One final question, Whatishegoodfor, did you read the whole book, or rely on that website?

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

Hi

My growing up Catholic has nothing to do with the discussion. We are talking science, evolution and our human limits.

1)you ignored the whole point that your mind has zero chance of saying you understand the mind of GOD even with "divine inspiration". You aint big enough guy.

2)The bible, and other holy works is big on "this happened" and short on "how it happened". See the "myriad" comment above.

3)If any biologist says he doubts evolution as a FACT, please accept he is a nut case. Every year, your flu vaccine is predicated on exactly THIS point. If the flu strains did not evolve, there would be no need for a new vaccine. Ditto bacteria. Ditto any animal with a quick enough generation development to observe incrimental changes over human observable time spans.

4)"odds of" cute, This may interest you that a mathmatician earlier this year did indeed do your sums for you on this. Interesting read on Statistics and probabilty. S&P is a good subject for wargamers to study.

5)what you believe: I don't care! I tend to follow St Jerome's dictum "there should be an 11th commandment: 'Thou Shalt Not Intellectualize thy faith'".

Rocky

For my part, in closing, I want to say I would not dream of attacking your faith. Faith is precious and I respect it utterly.

I just do not want religion taught as science.

RockyRusso

---1)you ignored the whole point that your mind has zero chance of saying you understand the mind of GOD even with "divine inspiration". You aint big enough guy.---

My mind does indeed have the capability of understanding God's written Word, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I do not have the lack of self-thought that is bred into Catholics. I rely on the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Scriptues, not some misguided priest that takes his cue from the vatican. And yes, I am big enough! Big enough on faith.

---2)The bible, and other holy works is (sic) big on "this happened" and short on "how it happened". See the "myriad" comment above.---

This is where faith comes into it.

---3)If any biologist says he doubts evolution as a FACT, please accept he is a nut case. Every year, your flu vaccine is predicated on exactly THIS point. If the flu strains did not evolve, there would be no need for a new vaccine. Ditto bacteria. Ditto any animal with a quick enough generation development to observe incrimental changes over human observable time spans.---

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Plain and simple. Nutcase - beware the pot calling the kettle black. It was my understanding that flu strains, viruses, bacteria and the like mutate. Some evolutionists believe that a series of mutations is responsible for human evolution. Were they all beneficial mutations? Mutations are usually detrimental, aren't rhey?

---4)"odds of" cute, This may interest you that a mathmatician earlier this year did indeed do your sums for you on this. Interesting read on Statistics and probabilty. S&P is a good subject for wargamers to study.---

So don't keep me in suspenders, what are the odds?

---5)what you believe: I don't care! I tend to follow St Jerome's dictum "there should be an 11th commandment: 'Thou Shalt Not Intellectualize thy faith'".

You don't care? Good answer, Rocky, you'll go far with that attitude.

Glynn - Nimrod (F)SS

"Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory"

Friendly advice. You might want to look up what a 'theory' is before using this line again.

Hi

"My mind does indeed have the capability of understanding God's written Word, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I do not have the lack of self-thought that is bred into Catholics. I rely on the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Scriptues, not some misguided priest that takes his cue from the vatican. And yes, I am big enough! Big enough on faith."

So, what do I take from this? That you understand the word of GOD as written? In which language do you read it?

AND, You asssert that anyone who disagrees with your vision is apostate or what?

"---2)The bible, and other holy works is (sic) big on "this happened" and short on "how it happened". See the "myriad" comment above.---

This is where faith comes into it."

Not really. When talking Evolution we are discussing HOW it happened. Trust me, when the sun burns, it is described by Physics, not "let there be light".

---3)If any biologist says he doubts evolution as a FACT, please accept he is a nut case. Every year, your flu vaccine is predicated on exactly THIS point. If the flu strains did not evolve, there would be no need for a new vaccine. Ditto bacteria. Ditto any animal with a quick enough generation development to observe incrimental changes over human observable time spans.---

"Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Plain and simple. Nutcase - beware the pot calling the kettle black. It was my understanding that flu strains, viruses, bacteria and the like mutate. Some evolutionists believe that a series of mutations is responsible for human evolution. Were they all beneficial mutations? Mutations are usually detrimental, aren't rhey?"

Thus you show how blinded you are by your insistance on your point. Most mutations are detrimental...and the creature DIES. Those that are favorable show up all the time. There are strains of bacteria that evolved from other species simply because by mutuation they were able to survive penecillin. You are regularly exposed to old viruses that fail. you never notice, they are not propegated in your body. HOWEVER, new strains evolve from old strains that do attack you and, thus, you need that NEW innoculation.

"---4)"odds of" cute, This may interest you that a mathmatician earlier this year did indeed do your sums for you on this. Interesting read on Statistics and probabilty. S&P is a good subject for wargamers to study.---

So don't keep me in suspenders, what are the odds?"

Go read the book! I believe he calculated it at 50/50

---5)what you believe: I don't care! I tend to follow St Jerome's dictum "there should be an 11th commandment: 'Thou Shalt Not Intellectualize thy faith'".

"You don't care? Good answer, Rocky, you'll go far with that attitude" What I don't care about is that you insist that evolution is false. For you, it is a matter of misguided faith. Your life, your loss. Please ignore all modern medicine and please your self with never geting a "shot".

R

I just read the article by Richard Dawkins in the times today about this discovery.He begs us not to call them Hobbits.

In his opinion the most important part of this discovery is how close to us in timespan(16000 years at most)these creatures lived.The point being that at a time when we were starting to create our first cities these beings were alive and well.

This brings the possibility that on some other island there maybe survivors from the same branch of human ancestors still living.He asks wheather this would change opinions about man being special, would these animals have human rights.They cooked food and used tools but were probably no smarter than chimps.So what would this do to the way we treat apes.

Um sorry, Nimrod(ss), but according to my King James, He only came up with five. And made a sixth one up completely.

As for the Bible never being wrong - The description of the Mustard seed as the smallest known seed, from which the largest tree grows, is rather innacurate; Even in the time of Moses smaller seeds were known to herbalists, and I don't see the mustard as rivalling the Sequoia. As for the bat being a bird, show me a bat eggshell.

Matthew 13:31-32, to be precise in my previous epistle.

Please note: No-one, including me, could fault the Bible as the greatest work of moral philosophy and religious history on Earth. But it does contain some innacuracies that, if one is willing to grant the use of violence to negate the argumane of Pilates mentor's school of though, are indeed obviously so.

Ok, I did try to keep this light….

But if people are talking about the bible being literally true and not making mistakes, in I Kings 7, 23 it says

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about."

Now using those dimensions it would make pi = 3. Doesn't seem very accurate to me…..

if you want to read more this page has some info:

link

I just read, READ, mind you, all 96 posts. From many,
I actually gained knowledge, if not absolute fact, then
certainly knowledge of the poster.

From some, I gained actual information - whether or no
'tis useful is open to speculation, but information, none
the less.

From a few, sadly, I gained reinforcement in my belief
(hypothesis ?) that many of us stumble through life with
our minds firmly closed...

Thanks to all who posted sincerely and insightfully, on
all sides of the issue...

Ed Mohrmann, thank you for that. I think;), but from my life experience, I am under an obligation to be neither a fanatic nor persecutor of religion, just a level-headed person of faith.

ChickInChainmail, that is an obvious one. But the ancient Hebrew mathematics did not believe in the subdivision of numbers, as the Greeks did early on, so rounding errors are frequent.

Hmmm... If their maths are that wonky, for a sufficiently large value of seven, I wonder how long creation actually took?

Seriously, whatever the problems with writers mathematical skills, it does not change the fact that it isn't 100% accurate.

I would imagine that even if the ancient hebrews didn't know about fractions, that god would have at the time.

Sir Able Brush,

What do you think of the latest news?

TMP link
TMP link

CC