Search This Blog

Sunday, January 16, 2011

The Premise: A Creationist points out that Darwinists should be ticketed for reckless driving

This post is "The Premise."    The follow-up post will be called "The Promise."

If you are a "progressive" then you probably:
  • Believe that Barack Obama was running on Hope and Change rather than socialism.
  • Believe that Government-run healthcare is a good thing.
  • Believe that life somehow came from non-life.
  • Believe that abortion is a right.
  • Believe that "separation of church and state" is written somewhere in the Constitution.
  • Believe that man is causing Global Warming and that it is a problem.
  • Believe that the Bible is a book of myths.
  • Believe that people evolved from apes at least hundreds of thousands of years ago.
  • Believe that all life evolved from a simple life form many millions of years ago.
  • Believe that the sedimentary rocks were laid by uniformitarian processes over millions of years.
  • Believe that the Universe popped into existence via a Big Bang a few billion years ago.
  • Believe the assertions that the History Channel and National Geographic, etc.  make are true.
  • Believe that the assertions of Darwinists like Richard Dawkins are based on scientific facts.
(I would disagree with all of those statements)
  
Typically the commenters that like to say things in the comments threads fit into the general profile listed above.  Some do and some do not believe in God and there are Theistic Darwinists and/or Old Earth  Creationists.  Some are Secular Humanists and some are Atheists and there are even Atheopaths.   I have a few fans who are Jewish or Christians and in some way or another most of the people who say kind things are conservatives.   But the majority of those who comment are liberals of one stripe or another. 

agapingvoid

I am incredibly blessed to be alive and to be walking around.   As a high school senior I was surprised to win a combined athletic/academic scholarship that I was sure was going to a classmate.   The one-year scholarship  was in memory of Robert Gordes, a football star who died in a fall from a trampoline, breaking his neck.   A month later I was showing off doing a backflip off of a rope swing hung from a tree behind Mount Baldy aka Tower Hill, a giant sand dune on the South East shores of Lake Michigan, and my hands slipped and I went too far out, doing a flip and a half and landing on my neck.   I was knocked out and when I came to all I could move was my head.   They asked me if I was hurt.  I said, "Only when I laugh" and they laughed and I laughed and I immediately passed back out.  When I awoke from my conk-out I foolishly directed them to carry me up to the top of the hill away from everybody so people could have fun using the rope swing.   You do not pick up a potentially paralyzed injured person and carry him around.  But other than having a little extra bend to my upper back I wound up fine.    Years later, our homeowners association put out the pier for the sandy swimming area for our local lake and I went to the end and jumped in head first like I would always do.   But the water was no longer deep there, it was maybe three feet deep and I was stunned.   Again, I could have been a paraplegic or a quadraplegic but I just wound up with a sore neck.

I have been shot at but the bullet missed and hit the wall of my apartment building instead.   I survived an attempted murder by a combat-trained Marine who probably is amazed to this day that his sneak attack failed to kill me.   I had my ribs crushed back and front on one side and was unable to breathe after another accident but for some reason not one rib penetrated my lungs.   Another time I was hit broadside by a station wagon and it crushed the driver's side and pushed the driver's side transaxle right into the engine.   While the ambulance techs were trying to see whether the driver was alive I was walking around asking people questions.   I fell in an eight-story silo and hit metal knee-first, popping three discs and causing them to begin cutting my spinal cord in two.   But the surgeon managed to save my ability to walk although because I had two MCL tears I had a leg brace and crutches to help me move for a time but God provided for my family and I found a new business to replace the career I had previously.   I have a lot of scars from accidents that almost poked out an eye or paralyzed me or caused me to lose a leg or have a punctured lung and so on and so forth.

ouch

That's life.  It would be foolish for me to think that God preserved me from disaster because He had purposes and plans for me, and/or for my children.   I cannot know if He intervened at any time in any of those events.
I live in pain pretty much 24x7 but I yet live.   In fact I have produced children and grandchildren and hopefully all sorts of people much like me are growing into leadership roles in this life and making the world a better place.   Christians are the ones going on missionary trips and foremost in giving money to help people rebuild after disasters and also front and center in helping the homeless find shelter and direction.   This Adminstration's reaction?  To withdraw any support from faith-based initiatives designed to help the homeless!

Our own personal experiences help to shape us and our belief systems.   I was already a Christian before most of the accidents took place.   I could easily be blaming God for not protecting me from the accidents as I could be thanking Him for allowing me to live through them.  Heck, I was actually doing a good thing (climbing up Tower Hill) three years ago, getting exercise, when I caught a MRSA infection that put me in the hospital and nearly killed me.   Attitude could cause me to thank God or blame God or not include God at all.

Did God drive a station wagon with lights off, speeding and inebriated and T-bone me in an intersection?  Did He leave slippery stuff on a steel step causing me to fall over the edge and down onto a steel grid?  Of course not.   Did He cause my hands to slip off of the rope?   Did He cause the bullet to miss?   Did He shoot the gun?  Of course not!

I am not one of those people who believes that God is operating in the world strictly for my benefit.   I believe that He established physical laws, such as gravity and that He also established spiritual laws, such as the tendency to reap what you sow.   If you work, you will get a paycheck.   If you drive too fast, you might get a speeding ticket.    If you drop something, it will hit the ground.   If you eat rich foods and drink and smoke for years and years you will probably die early.  For that matter, if I flip a coin and you catch it, it doesn't hit the ground.   If you work and the company goes belly-up, you might not get that last paycheck.   What comes up must come down but right now there is a space station orbiting the Earth that is not coming down anytime soon. 

What I am saying is that God has the right and the ability to intervene into any portion of our lives at any time.  But it is not likely that He will do so.   I can pinpoint a lot of coincidences and some events that caused me to change my habits.    One that really hit home was when I was speeding to work and the road had slushy thick piles of wet snow on the sides and down the middle and one of my tires got into the thick (a foot, maybe, tall) snow slush and my car was thrown across the lane and into a farmer's field.   There were deep gullies on both sides of the road but somehow my car went across the tractor access.   That was the good news.  The bad news is that I was heading right for a telephone pole and turning the wheel seemed to do no good.   Just before I hit the pole I covered my head with my arms and prepared for impact...nothing...I looked up and I was still roaring through the farmer's snow-covered field.   I saw another tractor access that crossed the gully a little ways ahead so I headed for that and stepped on the accelerator and flung myself back onto the road, at which point I slowed WAY down and drove the rest of the way to work with my heart thudding in my chest like crazy.

Later on I discovered that on the same road on the same day a car had lost control and smashed into a telephone pole, killing the driver.   The driver was the guy who had moved into my old house on the East side of town.   So a driver with the address I'd had three years before was dead while I was alive.   Say what you want but I took that as God's order to slow down and be safe and now I no longer drive like I am being chased.

 whoa

Why Darwinism and Socialism have ruined science and society
Why this long rambling post?   Well, because I believe that there are logical physical laws and logical laws that were designed by God to work in the world.   Scientists used to believe that physical laws came from God and were therefore logical and dependable.   Therefore they could devote lives to studying systems and forces and expect that understanding could result.  Similarly society believed that God existed and therefore His Laws were true and so one needed to align one's life to them to some extent lest His judgment would kick in.

Then along came Darwin and Hutton and Lyell and others of their ilk.   Soon scientists began to believe that God did not make the Universe and life and they began to cast aside scientific findings that had been once called Laws like Biogenesis and Thermodynamics in order to accomodate the fairy tales that have become the basis for many scientific disciplines such as (seriously?) Astrobiology.   Astrobiology?   There is as much evidence for life on other planets as there is for the Tooth Fairy!

In the same way the 19th Century attack on God via Darwin and Marx and others led to the bloodiest century in known human history, the 20th, in which hundreds of millions of innocent lives were taken by dictators and The State.   Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot....all anti-God socialists who killed political enemies, people of the wrong race or religion or in some cases just to lower the population of peasants (Josef Stalin).   Here in America, established on the concept of liberty and freedom, our most vulnerable citizens are unprotected and murdered daily (they call it abortion).

Once Western society believed in a Creator God and in the Ten Commandments and believed that the Golden Rule needed to be respected.   Therefore there were lines that were not crossed.   It is a little bit like traffic laws.   In the USA we drive on the right side of the road, we have speed limits and stop signs and yield signs and traffic signals.   We go flying down the highway at 55 or even in some places 65 or 70 miles an hour and we have to trust the drivers coming the other way to not come into our lanes and you have to trust that the guy driving next to you will not decide to move into your lane and smack you in the side.  

yep

If we abandoned all traffic laws and let people decide their own speeds and let them drive on either side of the road and to choose whether or not they wished to obey stop signs, then we would have anarchy on the roadways and there would be death and destruction.   Pretty soon people would realize that the old traffic laws worked better and that abandoning them had led to needless heartache.  Yet the world has not looked back at the 20th Century and recognized the death and destruction that the abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethic in society and the abandonment of the concept of God by secular scientists has caused.  More innocent lives were taken by war and dictatorships and illness associated with war than any century before it.   The world has abandoned the societal traffic laws and death is the result.

But death is not the only result.   Honesty in science has been abandoned in favor of religion.   With all the lying and fabricating associated with the Anthropic Global Warming proponents a mask has been taken off of the world of science and the common man finds that, if he is wise, he will question anything scientists say.   One wonders how many times evidence of man and dinosaur living together has been hidden or destroyed by Darwinists?   Now that Mary Schweitzer revealed the finding of a fossil T-Rex with actual flesh still preserved, other findings of supposedly long-extinct creatures with flesh remaining have been revealed.   Has this been going on for years but hidden?   You  have to wonder.

Since I have begun writing this blog I have pointed out countless examples of various types of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms being drawn and carved and formed into statues.   Countless examples of dinosaurs being encountered by mankind and being recorded in official town documents.   All over Europe there are forests and fields and lakes named after dinosaurs or other extinct animals thought to have died off millions of years ago by Darwinists.   There are carvings of saurians found in churches and ancient temples.   If there was not a strong religious need for Darwinists to deny the possibility of a Creator God then evidence and common sense would tell us that man and dinosaur co-existed.   In China they named each month after a living creature and only the dragon is extinct now.   But Chinese history says they used to exist alongside of man.   I am not talking about one or two pieces of evidence, I am talking about many thousands of them.

If so many scientists were not elitist econuts who wish to kill off industry and keep third world countries from growing and hoping for a one-world socialist government nobody would be talking about Anthropic Global Warming at all because no one would believe it.   The evidence we have concerning climate tells us that it is a remarkably complex system that is not yet well understood, but certainly we can all see that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming and is beneficial rather than detrimental.  

Darwinists and Atheists and Econuts and their cohorts have pulled the rug out from under scientific research and the foundations of civilized society as well.   Abortion is the murder of an unborn fetus and we have legalized this.   Pedophile-promoting associations are bringing "teaching" about homosexual practices into grade schools!   I promise you that the pedophiles are to a great extent joined at the hip with some homosexuals (NAMBLA) and the goal of NAMBLA is to make sexual promiscuity of any kind legalized.   Now I think that the Westboro imbeciles are not in any way Christians and their actions are absolutely horrible and idiotic.   Christians should not hate homosexuals or bank robbers or adulterers or gossips or abortion doctors or habitual speed limit breakers.  Sin is something people will do but people are who they are and God loves all people.   So you will not see me being hateful to a homosexual.  But I will certainly fight any attempt by them to co-opt the institution of marriage!   I'd never attack an abortion doctor.  But I do hate what they do and support ending abortion in the USA.   What is happening in society is the overturning of morality to the detriment of all.   I blame Charles Darwin and his cohorts, the promoters of pseudoscience who have cast God out of society and shoehorned all kinds of sinful practices in.

What happens to science when we cannot trust the results that scientists publish?   What happens when we find out that scientists are faking data and deliberately using that data to promote falsehoods?   What happens to society when the nuclear family is broken to pieces?   We know that children that grow up in two-parent homes have happier, healthier lives but with marriage under attack and promiscuity being encouraged by our school systems there will be more single-parent homes and more stress on society and more crime and mental illness and children having children.

So this is the statement of the problem.   Society is broken.  Science is broken and since the news media and the academics are walking in lockstep with the high priests of Darwinism then we cannot trust the news media nor the teachers nor the various scientific organizations and certainly not the government agencies that have been a favorite place for Barack Obama and his cronies to park radical ideologues.  Anyone who is responsible needs to investigate the claims of science with a critical eye.   In fact, with socialists and Keynesians in charge of government, we have to watch every move the government makes, too.   We have now come to a time where big science and big government and academia and the news media have all abrogated their trust and we cannot depend upon them.   Acknowledge it and move on.   It is the age of information.   You can investigate things for yourselves on the internet and you should.  

What I hope to do is,  with the follow-up to this post (and that may not be right away) that there is a better way and that each and every individual man and woman needs to believe that they can make a difference and that they should be responsible enough to themselves and their children to be open to finding the truth rather than simply accepting whatever is presented to you.   Every time in human history that mankind allows elitists to rule, disaster follows.  

77 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"Typically the commenters that like to say things in the comments threads fit into the general profile listed above."

I know at least one who doesn't.

"Say what you want but I took that as God's order to slow down and be safe and now I no longer drive like I am being chased."

Hey, whatever works for you.

"Now that Mary Schweitzer revealed the finding of a fossil T-Rex with actual flesh still preserved,"

No, she didn't. No flesh was preserved, only what she thought was traces of organic molecules.

"Since I have begun writing this blog I have pointed out countless examples of various types of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms being drawn and carved and formed into statues."

No, you've pointed out one alleged case of this: the Acambaro figurines.

"Countless examples of dinosaurs being encountered by mankind and being recorded in official town documents. All over Europe there are forests and fields and lakes named after dinosaurs or other extinct animals thought to have died off millions of years ago by Darwinists."

These two are entirely new to me. Where did you get them, and why do you think they're true?

(I suggest you consider carefully before you answer, and be sure to take into account the fact that every existing name for a dinosaur species was assigned by humans, and many of them were named after local geographic features.)

"In China they named each month after a living creature and only the dragon is extinct now. But Chinese history says they used to exist alongside of man."

No, Chinese mythology says this. Chinese 'history' goes back so far and has been intentionally altered so many times that it's hard to know how much of it should be taken seriously.

"What happens to science when we cannot trust the results that scientists publish?"

That's easy: creationism and other pseudoscience seizes on this as 'proof' of their malicious lie that all science can't be trusted, and their superstition should be believed instead. Which is one of several reasons that I think scientific fraud should be punished like other kinds of fraud.

Jon Woolf said...

"Since I have begun writing this blog I have pointed out countless examples of various types of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms being drawn and carved and formed into statues."

In the time that I've been reading your blog, you've pointed out only one alleged case of this: the Acambaro figurines. Which is less than convincing.

"Countless examples of dinosaurs being encountered by mankind and being recorded in official town documents. All over Europe there are forests and fields and lakes named after dinosaurs or other extinct animals thought to have died off millions of years ago by Darwinists."

These two are entirely new to me. Where did you get them, and why do you think they're true?

(I suggest you consider carefully before you answer, and be sure to take into account the fact that every existing name for a dinosaur species was assigned by humans, and many of them were named after local geographic features.)

Jon Woolf said...

hmm, now that's a new wrinkle -- a comment that disappears, then reappears when I go to repost it. Apologies for the double post, folks.

highboy said...

There is actually more to that list radar:

believe that global warming is not caused by cyclical changes in climate but by soccer moms driving suvs, believe that the same school system that fails to teach kids how to read is qualified to teach them how to hav sex, believe that not owning a gun will deter someone from breaking into my house, believe that the hole blown in an assailant's head will somehow kill them worse from an M-16 than from a .22 rifle, believe that spending money one doesn't have will get them out of debt, believe that people are not responsible or intelligent enough to save their own money but smart and responsible enough to make life and death decisions concerning an unborn child.....the list goes on and on.

Anonymous said...

It is exactly this kind of low-brow us-vs.-them kind of thinking that Radar and Highboy have put on display here that makes it difficult if not impossible for them (especially for Radar) to ever be able to look at an argument objectively and to argue with anything in mind other than foregone conclusions.

highboy said...

Anonymous: the points made in my post are pretty accurate in terms of describing the thought patterns in mainstream progressive ideology. If you have some rebuttal that would somehow refute this I'd be interested to hear it. Otherwise, you're simply whining.

anonymouscoward said...

@highboy:

Do you have any verifiable evidence to prove that all these statements are actually true?

Otherwise, you're just stating a belief and asking people to prove a negative. ;-)

highboy said...

Of course I'm stating a belief. Even the points I made are "beliefs". I'm not asking for verifiable evidence, I'm asking for a simple rebuttal. Do you have one? Are you suggesting that the above points I made are NOT labeled as "progressive" in our modern society?

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting that the above points I made are NOT labeled as "progressive" in our modern society?"

How relevant is it when society labels something?

For instance: modern society labels creationists as anti-science and stupid. Does that mean it's true?

Also: people YOU label a progressive might label themselves entirely differently, or might have completely different ideas.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Are you suggesting that the above points I made are NOT labeled as "progressive" in our modern society?"

Well I would certainly suggest that. You're not making an attempt to describe progressive beliefs, you're caricaturing them or editorializing them to the extent that they are different from or have nothing to do with the actual positions.

Re. Radar's list above, I see maybe two or three items in the whole list that have anything to do with progressive beliefs.

Radar's just having a soapbox moment. Ask yourself if, once he has committed to this kind of black-and-white herd mentality, he could actually look at an argument that contradicts his beliefs and weigh it on its merits?

highboy said...

Anonymous, its pretty much common knowledge that modern day liberals believe in public education, global warming is caused by man, gun control is good, and that our spending to get out of debt is also good. That's simple common knowledge. If you know of a liberal/progressive that doesn't ascribe to at least 90% of those things, name them. If you have something intelligent to add that doesn't sound so much like whining that would be good too.

Anonymous said...

"If you know of a liberal/progressive that doesn't ascribe to at least 90% of those things, name them."

Myself.

And, judging from the first comment, Jon Woolf too (though I rather let him speak for himself).

highboy said...

Than most liberals would not agree with you. So exactly what makes you a progressive anon?

Anonymous said...

The question is if YOU would still label me a progressive if some of your attributes apply to you and some don't.

After all, this thread is about non-progressives labelling progressives, not about progressives labeling themselves.

highboy said...

you just lost me anon.

Anonymous said...

"Believe that Barack Obama was running on Hope and Change rather than socialism."

If memory serves, that actually was the theme of his winning campaign. And?

"Believe that Government-run healthcare is a good thing."

Even Obama's initial healthcare proposal didn't feature "government-run healthcare".

"Believe that life somehow came from non-life."

As does everyone, including you.

"Believe that abortion is a right."

You're referring to a woman's right to choose - that would be a progressive belief.

"Believe that "separation of church and state" is written somewhere in the Constitution."

You mean the actual words? It's not a progressive belief that those words are in the constitution. But the principle certainly is. It's right there in the first amendment. Having a Christine O'Donnell moment there, Radar?

"Believe that man is causing Global Warming and that it is a problem."

That would be a progressive belief.

"Believe that the Bible is a book of myths."

It's not a book of myths, it's a religious text, and yes, it does contain mythological material, same as other texts of its kind.

"Believe that people evolved from apes at least hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Nothing to do with progressivism, and you got it wrong to boot. Man didn't descend from apes, both descended from a common ancestor.

"Believe that all life evolved from a simple life form many millions of years ago."

Yep, as supported by all the evidence, but this has nothing to do with progressive beliefs.

"Believe that the sedimentary rocks were laid by uniformitarian processes over millions of years."

Again, what does this have to do with progressive beliefs?

"Believe that the Universe popped into existence via a Big Bang a few billion years ago."

Again, what does this have to do with progressive beliefs?

"Believe the assertions that the History Channel and National Geographic, etc. make are true."

Are you saying that everything on those channels is false? And again, what does this have to do with progressive beliefs?

"Believe that the assertions of Darwinists like Richard Dawkins are based on scientific facts."

Which ones do you think are not? He's written quite a number of books based on scientific evidence.

And again, what does this have to do with progressive beliefs?

radar said...

Ignorance of a subject does not make for a good interchange of ideas. For instance, Jon Woolf, you only have to read the posts that link to

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/04/beowulf-grendel-and-preponderance-of.html

and

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/04/behemoths-and-leviathans-and-dragons.html

For numerous mentions of dinosaurs and other supposedly long-extinct creatures in literature and records and carvings and paintings and pictographs and statues and grave coverings and in place names.

In fact not one assertion I made in this post is new for my blog readers. I have carefully over the years linked the progressive mindset with the onset of Darwinism and Eugenics. Marxism, Nihilism, Atheism, Existentialism...so many empty philosophies, so little time to confront them.

Actually, people, your recent comments tell me you really don't know what you are talking about. The old canard about various Darwinist talking points being "supported by the evidence" only works when you do not know the evidence. Because there is no evidence for Darwinism at all, really, just lots of suppositions.

When we do real-time experiments and observations of organisms we see that organisms conserve the kind rather than evolve it. Hard stops are built in to prevent macroevolution. And now that we know what it takes to form a living organism from non-living substances we have to admit it could not happen naturally.

Information also cannot come from natural sources. When you get to the bottom of Darwinism it is just impossible and preposterous. Other than that? Well, once you understand that Darwinism is impossible and that the rock layers were formed catastrophically, you begin to understand that, heck, that Bible might just be accurate human history rather than a book of myths.

radar said...

Jon Woolf,

"Which is one of several reasons that I think scientific fraud should be punished like other kinds of fraud."

Be careful what you wish for. Haeckel. Peppered Moths. Pakicetus. Ida. Nebraska Man. Modified Neanderthal skulls. Darwinists have been pushing fraudulent evidence for many decades now. Do you really want to see poor Richard Dawkins in jail?

It would seem you are not too fond of freedom of speech. Any chance you belong to the NCSE?

Jon Woolf said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/04/beowulf-grendel-and-preponderance-of.html

and

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/04/behemoths-and-leviathans-and-dragons.html


Read 'em both. They're nonsense. No one with any sense would use märchen as references of fact. Beowulf's dragon, Grendel, Fafnir, Fenris, Sleipner, Medusa, Leviathan, Basilisk, the Golden Fleece, Antaeus, the Lernaean Hydra -- all creatures of legend, conjured out of a talespinner's imagination. There's no substantive evidence of dinosaurs still being alive in historical times.

Information also cannot come from natural sources.

[snicker.wav] You know the worst problem with God-of-the-gaps arguments, Radar? It's how they sink so fast when the gaps get filled in.

Be careful what you wish for. Haeckel. Peppered Moths. Pakicetus. Ida. Nebraska Man. Modified Neanderthal skulls.

Someday, Radar, you'll learn the difference between fraud and honest mistakes. Doesn't look like this'll be that day, though.

It would seem you are not too fond of freedom of speech.

Doesn't look like this'll be the day you actually try sticking to the facts and discarding the ad hominems, either.

radar said...

Nebraska Man was an honest mistake and an example of how ludicrous the process is. The rest are all deliberate frauds.

As usual, Jon, you have all the answers but when it comes down to the basic questions and specifics you don't. How do you explain the acambaro figurines being more accurate than the paleontologists of the 1950's? How do you explain the stegosaurs on the ancient temple, the drawings of dinosaurs in churches, in caves, on rocks and etc?

By what right do you cavalierly dismiss the recorded man-dinosaur sightings from medieval times right up to the 1700's? How do you explain all the genealogies that fit the Biblical genealogy and that the names in Beowulf are of real people who lived at that time? Your derision is worthless.

After the Flood, by Bill Cooper. Those of you who are not afraid to challenge your personal belief systems should check it out.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

You yourself have been caught spreading lies and continue to endorse websites that even now display these lies as truth.

I don't think you are in any position to criticize anyone for telling lies or claim that you stand for 'scientific truth'.

Didn't the Bible say something about a splinter and a beam?

Jon Woolf said...

"The rest are all deliberate frauds."

I see. In your narrow view of the world, there is no room for human beings to make honest mistakes.

"How do you explain the acambaro figurines being more accurate than the paleontologists of the 1950's?"

They aren't.

"How do you explain the stegosaurs on the ancient temple, the drawings of dinosaurs in churches, in caves, on rocks and etc?"

In some cases, the resemblance is coincidental. In others, the resemblance may be from the fact that the drawings in question were based on dinosaur fossils. We arrogant westerners may believe we are the end-all and be-all of human knowledge and achievement, but there's plenty of evidence that humans of elder times had found fossils, knew about fossils, and developed stories to try to explain fossils. A lady named Adrienne Mayor wrote a couple of very good books about this subject, The First Fossil Hunters and Fossil Legends of the First Americans. She gives excellent reasons to believe that cyclops, griffins, thunderbirds, and other mythic monsters were based on fossils.

"By what right do you cavalierly dismiss the recorded man-dinosaur sightings from medieval times right up to the 1700's?"

Not by right, but by observation: humans like to make up stories.

"How do you explain all the genealogies that fit the Biblical genealogy and that the names in Beowulf are of real people who lived at that time?"

One very good way to make a fantastic tale sound more credible is to mix elements of reality into it. Every fiction writer knows this.

highboy said...

Jon's already proven himself less than qualified to speak intelligently about the reliability of the Bible so not sure why you're even bothering with that one radar.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, the acambaro figurines are certainly more authentic than the drawings of paleontologists at the time of their "discovery." For instance, the acambaro figurines had fins on many types of dinosaurs that science did not know had fins but now have discovered. Also, the body style of the Iguanadon statue is like the actual Iguanadon would have looked based on the information available to scientists now...but that information was not available in the 1950's, so you are just wrong.

Also, Bill Cooper's book looks at multiple genealogical tables and matches them to the Biblical table and finds that the people mentioned in the Bible as progenitors wind up in cultures as diverse as Chinese and Vikings!

Furthermore, Beowulf's method of defeating Grendel was precisely what another warrior in Egypt is pictured doing to a similar saurian, getting in under the massive and dangerous jaw and ripping the tiny foreleg off at the socket, causing catastrophic bleeding and death. I wouldn't want to try it but I wouldn't wrestle an alligator, either.

You like to naysay but you do not have anything to use as ammunition. Sorry. You have no coherent argument. There is too much evidence of dinosaurs and man co-existing to deny it unless it threatens your belief system, which it does apparently.

radar said...

Read the post again. I did not say all commenters believed all these things, but rather than the typical commenter believes many of them. By your own words the anonymous commenters have all claimed to believe at least one of each of those statements, often time and time and time again. I made those statements for commenters to either identify with or deny. But also to set up the worldview posts to follow.

Since I quit allowing the tail to wag the dog, a way to approach keeping the blog fresh is to have a theme for a time interspersed with new and interesting (to me) articles from various and sundry sites.

Anonymous said...

"most of the people who say kind things are conservatives"

If memory serves, whenever you had a personal calamity befall you and talked about it on this blog, the majority of people who had kind things to say to you (and certainly the ones who didn't drag their feet about it) were the people you would label progressives.

By the way, what is an atheopath, and who do you consider to be one?

Anonymous said...

"Radar's already proven himself less than qualified to speak intelligently about the reliability of the Bible so not sure why you're even bothering with that one, Jon."

Fixed it for you, highboy.

Anonymous said...

"But also to set up the worldview posts to follow."

Typical. As Radar is defeated on yet another unsupportable claim, he goes into cut-n-paste frenzy and then rants on about worldviews, facts be damned.

Anonymous said...

"If you have something intelligent to add that doesn't sound so much like whining that would be good too."

Well, highboy, it certainly is preferable to add something intelligent instead of whining, but you're in a poor position to make that complaint.

Do you notice, for example, how a statement like "believe in public education, global warming is caused by man, gun control is good, and that our spending to get out of debt is also good" is very different from your earlier lame caricatures, which certainly came across like immature whining?

These are positions one could argue intelligently if one were so inclined. For example, "spending to get out of debt" sounds counter-intuitive, but so does "lowering taxes to get out of debt". And yet there is more to both these arguments.

Same for the others. How exactly is gun control bad again? There are 2nd amendment arguments, but what are the actual arguments re. the negative effects of gun control?

Jon Woolf said...

"For instance, the acambaro figurines had fins on many types of dinosaurs that science did not know had fins but now have discovered."

Such as?

Look, the Acambaro figurines prove nothing. There's too much controversy about them, and too much history of Mexican peasants producing phony 'artifacts' to swindle gullible Westerners. The Acambaro story sounds entirely too much like some of the von Daniken 'ancient astronauts' nonsense for me to take it seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily reliable evidence, and the Acambaro figurines don't qualify.

Regarding Grendel: you can't say that he looked like a dinosaur, because Grendel is never physically described in the text of Beowulf. The nearest that the original poem ever gets to a description is a reference to Grendel as a descendant of the biblical Cain. More is said about Grendel's mother, but here there's a different problem: scholars differ on how to translate some of the Old English words involved. Some translations make her a monster, others simply a female warrior -- an oversized human woman. In any case, though, only someone with an ulterior motive would try to get from the poem's text to the ridiculous claim that "Grendel and his mother were dinosaurs."

Anonymous whatsit said...

"This Adminstration's reaction? To withdraw any support from faith-based initiatives designed to help the homeless!"

Can't find any mention of this via google. Got a link?

highboy said...

Well first anon, you didn't fix my comment for me, you actually just childishly did a "I know you are but what am I" sort of remark which was actually totally unsubstantiated. Your hero Jon has been proven to be horribly fallacious in his claims about the Bible, not Radar. Second, you're convoluted posts harping on my list of progressive viewpoints isn't even making sense. I asked how those beliefs were not suppose to be progressive beliefs in your eyes. That's what I want. You either have an intelligent rebuttal or you don't. Since you haven't given one, I'm going with the latter. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

highboy:So exactly what makes you a progressive anon?

anonymous::The question is if YOU would still label me a progressive if some of your attributes apply to you and some don't.
After all, this thread is about non-progressives labelling progressives, not about progressives labeling themselves.

highboy:you just lost me anon.


This thread is about how non-progressives (like Radar and you) label progressives. Why ask a progressive what makes him a progressive if you have already determined for yourself what he believes in?
And why should any progressive feel the need to correct you or rebut you? After all, you yourself stated that these are 'beliefs' and it's hard to argue with that.

To give an example: many christians think that atheists hate God or make atheism their God. It's pretty pointless to argue with people who have already made up their minds.

In short: just because 'society' attributes certain characteristics to certain groups doesn't mean they apply on an individual level.

highboy said...

So then the question is anon: while pretty much all of modern society defines those sets of beliefs as "progressive beliefs", exactly how then do YOU label them? Stop dodging what I asked: What beliefs, in your mind, make you a progressive? Why or why not are the above statements of beliefs progressive?

Anonymous said...

Stop dodging what I asked: What beliefs, in your mind, make you a progressive?

I just repeat what I said earlier: if you have already determined what makes a 'progressive', why should I justify my beliefs to you?

Is an atheist required to demonstrate what makes him an atheist when a christian says that he 'hates God'? Not at all.

In no way I am obligated to answer your question. You'll have to do with that. If you really want to know why people who label themselves do so, you should ask them BEFORE you go and attribute labels to them yourself.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy nattered: "while pretty much all of modern society defines those sets of beliefs as 'progressive beliefs'..."

Since when? Progressivism is a political philosophy, and items 3 and 8-12 on Radar's list have nothing to do with politics. I know 'conservatives' who accept modern geology and biology, and 'liberals' who reject it.

Oh, and item 13 may or may not have anything to do with politics; it depends on which of Dawkins's 'assertions' are being referred to.

Your understanding of politics appears to be as weak as your understanding of science.

For that matter, your grasp of linguistics appears no better, nor does Radar's. Whether it's true or not, the Bible is most certainly a set of myths: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

highboy said...

You can't just answer the question anonymous, which means you don't have one. No one asked you to "justify" anything, I simply asked what, in your mind, made your beliefs "progressive". That's it.

Jon: The post I "nattered" was in response to a post about MY list, which has plenty to do with politics, which makes pretty much every negative comment you just said about me outright hilarious, especially the part where you made another baseless speculation about the Bible without one ounce of supporting evidence. You never had a logical argument about the reliability of the Bible before so let's not pretend like you've grown in competence in the last few months to such an extent.

Anonymous said...

I simply asked what, in your mind, made your beliefs "progressive". That's it.

Yes, but you're not really interested in the answer. If you REALLY were interested in how progressives label their beliefs as 'progressive' you'd have asked them before you yourself started to label beliefs as 'progressive'.

I have an answer, you're just not entitled to it. And don't feel bad about that. I don't either.

Jon Woolf said...

Oops, my mistake. Your comments are usually so empty of content that sometimes I don't even bother to read them anymore.

highboy said...

I see, thanks for again playing into the liberal stereotype by pretending to use your Jedi Mind Powers in order to discern my true motives for asking the question anonymous.

Jon: you're a fraud. Why this little pathetic entourage of anonymous trolls continue to follow you around on this blog is beyond me, but its very clear why they remain anonymous. At every turn in these threads you harp about evidence yet when its time to pony up your own you either dodge, ignore, or smokescreen your incompetence with what you think is a witty retort. Nice try, but the fact remains you're not competent enough or qualified enough to discuss Biblical literature and its reliability with any sort of credibility. You've not even tried to prove any of your wild speculations and that's what they remain. You've been asked numerous times to answer and provide evidence for numerous fallacious statements you've made and you've ignored them all. The reason is simple: you don't know what you're talking about. But I know, maybe you bounced your theories on the Bible off the same "smartest people of the human race" that you supposedly bounced off theories concerning science. We believe you too.

Anonymous said...

"You can't just answer the question anonymous, which means you don't have one."

OK, fine by me. It's not really important to me of course whether you think I have an answer or not.

Also: like with Radar, that patronizing, aggressive and belittling tone is quite unbecoming. I mean, what's your problem? It's just a blog, you know...
Don't know if you are aware of it but if you go and try to insult someone on the internet it says more about yourself than the one you're trying to insult (i.e. you take things waaaaayyyy to seriously).

Never forget: you can't shame people into agreeing with you. Trying to insult someone basically is a waste of time and will eventually work against you when you DO try to engage in a serious, civilized discussion.

Take care!

Anonymous said...

"I asked how those beliefs were not suppose to be progressive beliefs in your eyes. That's what I want."

The first set you proposed (e.g. "believe that the same school system that fails to teach kids how to read is qualified to teach them how to hav sex") weren't, the second (e.g. "believe in public education") were.

See the difference?

"you didn't fix my comment for me, you actually just childishly did a "I know you are but what am I" sort of remark which was actually totally unsubstantiated."

No, Radar has stated that he will only accept one possible interpretation of the Bible, and that it is necessary as a prerequisite to believe everything in it before examining it in detail. He also dismisses HTC as some kind of atheist conspiracy without looking at the facts and arguments. I'd say from those statements that Radar has "proven himself less than qualified to speak intelligently about the reliability of the Bible".

Anonymous said...

"I see, thanks for again playing into the liberal stereotype by pretending to use your Jedi Mind Powers in order to discern my true motives for asking the question anonymous. "

That's a liberal stereotype, is it? Must be a lot of liberal stereotypes parading as wingnuts on the intertubes then, 'cos I see plenty of that on both sides. Anything for a dumb insult, eh highboy?

"Jon: you're a fraud."

You do know what fraud means, right?

And since I'm one of the anonymouses, I can tell you it's not Jon Woolf I'm following, it's to see the latest jaw-dropping pronouncements from Radar and occasionally yourself. Jon nailing Radar on facts that Radar can't respond to over and over again is just the icing on the cake.

You seem to have this weird thing about accusing posters of following other posters around. IIRC you used to obsess about that with Canucklehead as well. And yet here you are, following Radar around...

Anonymous said...

"Jon nailing Radar on facts that Radar can't respond to over and over again is just the icing on the cake."

I feel the same way about the numerous amount of points that Jon has been called to respond on concerning the Bible that he has continued to run like hell from or simply ignore. To each his own I guess.

As for the convoluted thoughts on progressive liberal beliefs, if anonymous whosits wants to completely redefine what political terms and the beliefs that result for themselves I guess that's their right, though it won't change anything. I merely was curious as to what anonymous whosits thought made a belief "progressive liberal" since they obviously took issue with what the political ideology is commonly known as by everyone else.

highboy said...

That last post was me by the way, this commenting link is really screwing up.

Anonymous said...

"As for the convoluted thoughts on progressive liberal beliefs, if anonymous whosits wants to completely redefine what political terms and the beliefs that result for themselves I guess that's their right, though it won't change anything. I merely was curious as to what anonymous whosits thought made a belief "progressive liberal" since they obviously took issue with what the political ideology is commonly known as by everyone else."

What I see up there are

1. some complaints about your initial lame strawman caricatures as opposed to an actual description of progressive beliefs,

2. some observations that most of Radar's list has nothing to do with progressive beliefs.

Where do you see an actual different interpretation of progressive positions? Are you willing to argue, for example, that, say, "believe that life somehow came from non-life" really must be seen as a progressive belief and that it doesn't make sense to argue otherwise?

Anonymous said...

"I feel the same way about the numerous amount of points that Jon has been called to respond on concerning the Bible that he has continued to run like hell from or simply ignore. To each his own I guess."

Must have missed those "numerous amount of points", I guess, but the Bible is hardly the thrust of Jon's arguments on this blog (nor is it particularly relevant to what he brings to the table re. evolution and geology), whereas Radar evangelizes about YEC up and down and still can't respond to numerous clear falsifications of YEC. He'll call people liars without specifying the lie in question and instead of addressing the problems with his own set of arguments.

Anonymous said...

"I feel the same way about the numerous amount of points that Jon has been called to respond on concerning the Bible that he has continued to run like hell from or simply ignore."

So does that mean it's something personal? Do you think everyone should respond to points being called on, or only Jon?

"I merely was curious as to what anonymous whosits thought made a belief "progressive liberal" since they obviously took issue with what the political ideology is commonly known as by everyone else."

Well, you don't always get what you want. Sometimes you'll have to do a little effort for it. ;-)

"That last post was me by the way, this commenting link is really screwing up."

Which made me think of something. IIRC, you criticize Jon for not backing up or defending statements he made. But 'Jon Woolf' is not a registered name; anyone can post as 'Jon Woolf'. How do you know it's even him posting a certain statement? For instance: if I would like Jon to look like a fool I could easily post some dumb comment here under the name 'Jon Woolf'. How can you be sure that the comments/statements you're attacking are even made by him?

highboy said...

anonymous: I haven't discussed radar's list one time, and if you disagree with the so called "caricatures" that I posted than explain how they are not progressive beliefs. Its hilarious that after all these posts anonymous trolls keep seeming to take issue with the list as representing progressive liberalism yet not one person has attempted to explain why. I even got a "you're not entitled to my opinion" response from one of you children. Awesome. I'll take that as a concession.

highboy said...

anonymous: I don't care what the main focus of Jon's points are on this blog, I'm responding to the fallacious and wild claims he's made about the Bible that when questioned on, he either ignored them or ran away or both. As for whether or not its him, um, okay. Sure. I guess its possible, though I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that its not him. No, its not personal, I just like pointing out the hypocrisy in Jon and his anonymous fan base in constantly calling on radar to back up his claims instead of running away while that is exactly what he's been doing in regards to the Bible. Get it yet?

As for "putting effort" into getting an answer out of an anonymous troll, please. The fact that you guys have evaded answering the question for so many posts is answer enough.

Anonymous said...

"I just like pointing out the hypocrisy in Jon and his anonymous fan base in constantly calling on radar to back up his claims instead of running away while that is exactly what he's been doing in regards to the Bible."

Point 1: AFAIK Jon does not have an 'anonymous fanbase'. As far as I'm concerned I'm not a fan of Jon and I couldn't care less about his claims about the Bible. Also, many commenters have challenged Radar even before Jon was here and even then Radar was running away.

Point 2: Do you think Radar should respond to points being called on instead of evading them? If it's really not personal, your position towards Radar should be the same as towards Jon. Is it?

"The fact that you guys have evaded answering the question for so many posts is answer enough."

As told before: it isn't really important for most people here what you think about them. If you're happy, I'm happy too.

Apart from that: congrats on the wedding anniversary!

highboy said...

"Jon does not have an 'anonymous fanbase'."

Yes, he does.

"If it's really not personal, your position towards Radar should be the same as towards Jon. Is it?"

Absolutely correct. Can you say the same thing? Because I've not seen one post by any anonymous posters asking Jon to stop dodging. Hmmmm.....

"As told before: it isn't really important for most people here what you think about them. If you're happy, I'm happy too. "

That's fine, as long as you know that nobody with common sense believes that you or any of the anonymous posters who've responded on this thread doesn't care. Of course they do. If you had an honest rebuttal you would have given it, and if it didn't matter, there wouldn't be post after post after post calling into question the list and its implications.

Thanks for the congrats.

Anonymous said...

"Can you say the same thing? Because I've not seen one post by any anonymous posters asking Jon to stop dodging."

Well, why should they? After all, this is Radar's blog and not Jon's blog. Has it ever occured to you that commenters might come to this blog for Radar and not for Jon?
Of course I can easily throw this back by saying that I have not seen one post by YOU asking Radar to stop dodging. And don't forget that Radar was dodging and you were commenting here WAAAYYY before Jon ever appeared. What's up with that?

"If you had an honest rebuttal you would have given it"

Yes, yes, that's about the fourth time you say that now. You can stop repeating that LOL!

Anonymous said...

Awe, look everybody, highboy is jealous of Jon and his apparent "anonymous fan-base". What, that whole "web evangelist" thing not going so well for you buddy? Sorry about that, fella. Tel us, hb, is it his vastly superior intellect/education/website or the lack of ugliness in his comments that gets you the angriest? LOL. Oh and, don't forget, hb is also REALLY mad that Jon refuses to be trolled by him. Maybe next time, you freaking weirdo. Calling him a Fraud though? Wow, angry troll sure is angry today.

Oh and your bible is chock full of contradictions by-the-way. If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Come on Tim, lets see you put that Canadian bible college education of yours to good work. I mean, this type of thing IS the reason you studied the bible in the first place, isn't it? To furiously white knight for the "good book" and other evangelicals on the web? What a christian you are. Talk about a fraud.

Oh and, in the spirit of your past reaction to my mentioning of the birth of my twins, congrats for fooling some poor chick into marrying your bitter-low-income-earning-ass. And it's even apparently lasted more than one year. That's truly amazing, good work man. Hmmm... too far perhaps?

Canucklehead.

highboy said...

LOL. Don't worry Canuck, some teenage Canadian with an inferiority complex isn't going to get under my skin. The link you posted by the way is full of the same list of contradictions that's been gone over on nearly every blog that ever brought up the subject including this one. You'll have to try harder than that.

Anonymous said...

Well, this was to be expected. If you see one, you can bet the other one will be here any time soon.

I've really wondered which of you two would show the restraint and discipline to stop taking the other's flamebait but it appears none of you are capable of doing so.

Get a room together...

highboy said...

Hey anonymous: describe the guy holding a gun to your head while forcing you to read our comments to the police. They may catch the guy.

Anonymous said...

Um, "when in Rome..."

Seriously though, sometimes I just feel compelled to respond to hb's insanity (take a look at his avatar again if you're not sure what I'm talking about). What can I say, other than, I guess I'm no Jon Woolf. ;) And considering every post of hb's (and Radar's for that matter) is essentially flamebait, there have been MANY times I've not "taken the bait" so to speak. HB has every right to be rude to me, and I could not care any less about that. It just bother's me when Tim says such rude and ugly crap to a guy that has tried to engage him in polite, honest debate and also clearly knows what he's talking about when it comes to science.

Some day we'll be friends, right Tim? Just as soon as you let go of all that bitterness and anger that comes with being wrong on so many topics.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

Canuck: Jon didn't engage me politely in the discussion over the Bible. He made baseless accusations and sweeping generalisations, refused to support the arguments, and ran away.

Anonymous said...

"He made baseless accusations and sweeping generalisations, refused to support the arguments, and ran away."

Well, why is that a problem? Radar has been doing that for years, right under your nose.

highboy said...

"Well, why is that a problem? Radar has been doing that for years, right under your nose."

Its not a problem, I'm simply pointing it out, and your only defense has been "radar did it first". LOL. Okay.

anonymous coward said...

"Its not a problem, I'm simply pointing it out, and your only defense has been "radar did it first". LOL. Okay."

Who or what am I defending?

Anonymous said...

He responded hb. Just not with anything you agreed with. I (and many/most/all non believers) would say that your own arguments (usually based on semantics) are just not that strong when it comes to the bible. I mean, using the bible to prove the bible just doesn't cut it for most people. Just like you dismiss all Dawkins arguments against the existence of god as childish (this apparently being an area where Jon and I disagree), so to do non-believers when it comes to your own infantile arguments (remember your response to the question of who designed your designer?). In the end, your god of the bible is no more real than the fire breathing dragon in my garage.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

And further to Anon above, by your own description of "running away" from debate, wouldn't Radar be a "fraud" in your eyes as well?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

Canuck, if that is your response, than you've not seen one single argument between me and Jon. Its just not possible. And no one used the Bible to prove the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Who or what am I defending, highboy?

Anonymous said...

So you haven't mentioned "eye witness" accounts from the bible when talking about Jesus' existence? And you haven't blathered on about the definition of the word "day" in genesis? Weird, must be that other fundie blog I visit.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Oh and just in case you missed it, further to Anon above, by your own description of "running away" from debate, wouldn't Radar be a "fraud" in your eyes as well? Don't you start running away hb.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

I have to laugh at a commenter who calls himself "anonymous coward." Nice sense of humor, thanks for the smile.

Some like to say that I "run away" but I look at my hundreds of blogposts and present them as evidence. I have completely slaughtered the Darwinists on the main points of information, fossils, uniformitarianism, the source of life and the beginning of all time and space. The only "running away" is when I refuse to chase people down rabbit trails and thereby get off the main path. I do not do that anymore.

Jon Woolf has a habit of throwing out about 15 things at once, half of them already answered and the other half not worth chasing as they would only be a problem if the main point were valid. It makes him happy. There are about five or six standard things some of the commenters say now and again which over time become kind of boring.

Now and then someone makes a good point. Not a lie. Not a fairy tale. Not a rehash. Do that and I might make a post about it. Otherwise realize that this is a comment thread about the post above and not directions to the writer from the editor. Capiche?

Anyway, the sense of humor was a nice touch. A rarity in the threads!

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, the sense of humor was a nice touch. A rarity in the threads!"

Au contraire, Radar. Just about anything you post can be categorized as 'humor'.

Anonymous said...

Like this LOL-er, for example,

"I have completely slaughtered the Darwinists on the main points of information, fossils, uniformitarianism, the source of life and the beginning of all time and space."

Man, if this was even remotely true you'd be famous. You aren't, by-the-way, in fact, the only people that want to talk to you about these subjects are ones that completely disagree with almost everything you say.

You are right in one aspect though, your blogposts certainly stand as evidence of your ability to counter arguments presented to you. Just not in the way you think it does.

- Canucklehead.

Captain Stubing said...

That Skeptics Annotated Bible of contradictions in the Bible is quite a find. That should put to rest highboy's insistent claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible once and for all.

Highboy's response was: "The link you posted by the way is full of the same list of contradictions that's been gone over on nearly every blog that ever brought up the subject including this one. You'll have to try harder than that."

Now something tells me maybe highboy didn't examine that list of 456 contradictions as carefully as he could have. The obvious contradictions in the creation accounts aside, I don't know what size blinders one has to wear to pretend something like these are not contradictions:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/aijalon.html

I know it's a sore spot for Radar because he likes to claim that the Bible is so amazingly accurate. But that's his cross to bear.

highboy said...

Hey Cap, before letting your keyboard write checks your brain can't cash do a search around the blog because you'll find I answered a whole slew of the "contradictions" listed and not one person on this site was able to respond to anything.

But let me school you:

1. The first link you posted was to a false contradiction that says the Bible gives two different ages for King Ahaziah. Wrong:

"26(A)Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel." http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2+Kings+8%3A26&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=49&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=35&Submit.y=4

" 2Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri." http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2+Chronicles+22%3A2&version1=49

Wow, looks like both passages say the exact same thing, but I guess those darn skeptics were too busy to actually look at the Bible, and so were you apparently. LOL.

As to your second link: http://cwhisonant.gotdns.com/documents/contradictions/015.html

That was too easy. Any harder ones?

Jon Woolf said...

It would appear the translation at bibleresources.bible.com is wrong.

The King James Version:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/bib1410h.htm

the Vulgate:

http://vulgate.org/ot/2chronicles_22.htm

and the Masoretic:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25b22.htm

all translate Ahaziah's age at his accession as forty-two.

I'm sure a master biblical scholar such as yourself doesn't need to be reminded that there is no more authoritative version of the Old Testament than the Masoretic text.

highboy said...

Jon, I was waiting for someone to bring that up. LOL. Sorry to school you again, but all you did was point out that different versions say "42". What you're not noticing, is that those versions say 42 in BOTH verses. In other words, whether your Bible says 42 or 22 in both verses, both verses are saying the same thing aren't they? No contradiction, plain as day, and all one had to do was read the Bible. (it also is worth noting most modern translations that say 22 have a foot note explaining that other versions say 42.) Either way, there is no contradiction here in the Bible. Both verses say the same thing, and the skeptics website is caught in a blatant misrepresentation.

But at least this time you made a half assed attempt Jon.

highboy said...

I'm also sure such a "serious student of history" like Jon knows that the NASB is pretty much the most literal word for word translation of all English translations.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy: What you're not noticing, is that those versions say 42 in BOTH verses.

They do?

[scratches head in puzzlement]

The Skeptics page compares 2 Kings 8:26 with 2 Chronicles 22:2.

Vulgate Bible, 2 Kings 8:26:

"viginti duorum annorum erat Ahazias cum regnare coepisset et uno anno regnavit in Hierusalem nomen matris eius Athalia filia Amri regis Israhel"

translation:

"Ochozias was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri king of Israel."

(http://vulgate.org/ot/2kings_8.htm)

Vulgate Bible, 2 Chronicles 22:2:

"filius quadraginta duo annorum erat Ochozias cum regnare coepisset et uno anno regnavit in Hierusalem nomen matris eius Otholia filia Amri"

translates as:

"Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri."

(http://vulgate.org/ot/2chronicles_22.htm)

Oh, and "the most literal English translation" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Not for a document being translated from an unrelated language like Latin or Hebrew

highboy said...

"Oh, and "the most literal English translation" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Not for a document being translated from an unrelated language like Latin or Hebrew"

Actually it is, but I wouldn't expect you to admit that. Bottom line: its clearly not a contradiction when both verses clearly say 22.