home
RSS
Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?
Camels, shown here in the Liwa desert outside Abu Dhabi, are the subject of a surprising new discovery.
February 11th, 2014
01:56 PM ET

Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?

Opinion by Joel Baden, special to CNN

(CNN) - It’s been a rough 2014 for the book of Genesis.

First a Noah’s Ark discovery raised a flood of questions, then there was the much-hyped debate over life’s origins between Bill Nye the Science Guy and creationist Ken Ham.

And now this: a scientific report establishing that camels, the basic mode of transportation for the biblical patriarchs, weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said to have wandered the earth.

Using radiocarbon dating of camel bones that showed signs of having carried heavy loads, Israeli archaeologists have dated the earliest domesticated camels to the end of the 10th century BCE.

But according to the traditional biblical chronology, the patriarchs were schlepping around Canaan on camels over a millennium earlier, all the way back in 2100 BCE

Taken on its own, this may seem a rather minor problem.

After all, this is Genesis, in which some people live to be 900 years old (hello, Methuselah), all of humanity emerges from Babylon, and the Dead Sea is created from the backward glance of Lot’s wife. (Not to mention the six-day creation story and the stuffing of all land animals on a single boat.)

How important could camels really be?

For those who believe the Bible to be fundamentally true, this is hardly going to change any minds. For those who believe it to be entirely false, this is surely not the most damning piece of evidence.

What the camels in Genesis reveal, in fact, has nothing to do with the “truth” of the biblical story at all.

Instead, the presence of these camels in the story highlights, in a very clear way, the essential humanity of the biblical writers: like the best authors, they simply wrote about what they knew.

The patriarchs are depicted as nomadic, never settling for long in one place, but moving constantly from location to location throughout Israel (and beyond).

An ancient Israelite, wanting to tell the story of the wandering of his ethnic and national ancestors, would have naturally looked to the nomadic peoples around him as models. And indeed, throughout the Bible camels are commonly associated with those tribes who lived in the desert: Midianites, Ishmaelites, Amalekites, Kedemites.

The biblical authors simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past.

There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present.

They had no real alternative. In ancient Israel, in the period when the Bible was written (which ranges, conservatively, from the 10th to the third century BCE), no one had any way of knowing that camels had not always been domesticated pack animals. After all, we didn’t know that for sure until this past week.

Without any evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly natural to assume that things have always been the way that they are now. Today we have more information about the past than any other moment in history. In ancient Israel, they had virtually none.

And yet we still fall victim to this basic, very human, historical fallacy.

It has been suggested that this anachronism in the biblical text is akin to importing semitrailers into the medieval period. But this is a level of ridiculousness too far.

I would suggest that it is more similar to describing a medieval Italian as enjoying pasta with tomato sauce. How many people, even today, know that tomatoes only came to Italy from South America in the 16th century?

The camels in Genesis may be “wrong,” but they are not a “mistake.” We all imagine the past to the best of our knowledge, the biblical authors included.

The lasting lesson of the camel controversy, such as it is, is a simple one: no writing, not even the Bible, is timeless or without context. Views of the past are contingent on both what we know and how we know it.

The Bible is a historical record, but it tells us just as much, if not more, about the people who wrote it as it does about the people they wrote about.

Since the stories of the Bible remain so central to who we are as a culture, even today (and even for those who dismiss it), it seems entirely fitting that we should be equally interested in the ancient people who composed them.

Despite their lack of historical knowledge — and, equally, because of it — they, more than the characters in the Bible, are our true cultural ancestors.

Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Judaism • Middle East • Opinion

soundoff (3,276 Responses)
  1. thesamyaza

    evil does exist, it exist just like time. its an illusion a construct of our cognitive mind. how ever i except the lie of morality only of of he truth of self preservation. if you live your life in absolute truth the rest of humanity will Ostracize you and since we humans are a social creature we need each other in order to live healthy lives. the only truth is what nature dictates. make no mistake morality is a human construct. this is why the other animals do not adhere to it. but you do see hint of a moral incline in animals who are highly social.

    February 16, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
    • igaftr

      thesam
      You clearly have not studied animals in depth. They do in fact have morality...not just a hint, but the same moralities we have...just a it different here and there, but overall, the same...we ARE animals after all, that is where OUR morality comes from...our animal ancestors.

      February 17, 2014 at 8:31 am |
  2. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w&w=640&h=360]
    1

    February 16, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
    • igaftr

      Computer generated boring "music"
      Complete waste of time

      February 17, 2014 at 8:33 am |
  3. bostontola

    After explaining what science does numerous times to wolf and why the BB is an accepted scientific fact that doesn't include the first moment, I tried 1 more time:

    bostontola
    wolf:
    "Ok so when and where was the big bang recreated? No lab, no collider, no individual has ever tested the EVENT of the big bang. If it is not testable, it is not a theory... just a hypothesis. Testing PREDICTION is not at all testing the event. Other mechanics could bring about these very same predictions. We need a TESTABLE hypothesis to allow it to transform into viable theory."

    I can't tell if you really can't understand my numerous posts on this or are just continuing to throw out red herrings. It really doesn't matter either way. Other members of this community really do want to understand the answers to these questions, so it's worth answering them for the people with genuine questions.

    Science doesn't take phenomena and recreate them in a laboratory, that would have little value. Science creates a theoretical hypothesis based on mathematical equations (or models). It is a scientific hypothesis if it makes predictions of measurable parameters in the model that are new and can be tested. When the money is found to conduct the tests work is done to design the test to be conclusive and not confounded. If the results confirm the prediction, then the test must be reproducible by other scientists.

    The BB is a great example where all hurdles have been met. In fact, it has gone through much more than most theories because it was/is unpopular by many scientists. Many scientists did all they could to dis-prove it. Einstein himself was against the BB because he didn't believe in a changing universe. He modified his equations (that predicted an expanding universe) to eliminate that annoyance. Many others put in a lot of effort to find the error. All that happened was that they found more and more evidence for the BB.

    I expect wolf to restate his question again, have scientists recreated it in a lab, but please don't follow his lead, it will only drag you into his ostrich hole.

    wolf then proceeded to do exactly as I predicted:
    wolfbitn
    I dont care how widely accepted it is... if you cannot show that the event has been tested, you have to then admit it is only a hypothesis.
    It was once widely held the earth is flat... Was that a hypothesis or is it a falsified theory?

    February 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

    wolf proves that it doesn't know what science is or how it works. Not only that, it proves that it is incapable of debate. I present an argument with backup data and different examples numerous times. Wolf then restates a position, over and over, never addressing the points and arguments made, never showing the flaws in my arguments, just restating the same red herring position that no scientist has recreated the first moment in the lab, even though the BB doesn't address the first moment. That is not debate, that is demagogue asserting.

    wolf's example of the flat earth is actually a great example of science. You could have a scientific hypothesis that the surface of the earth is flat over relatively short distances. Your model would then predict that any triangle within that distance would have the angles sum to 180 degrees. You could then commission a surveyor to test that. It would be shown to be true. If you go outside the bounds of that theory (too long of a distance) the prediction would fail, the angles would sum to more than 180 degrees. A broader theory would then be required. The new theory would predict the larger angle sum, but would reduce to the original flat earth theory over short distances. In the same way, when we have a more comprehensive cosmological theory, it will reduce to the BB predictions in the appropriate time periods by and large. Why, because it has to, it has been sown it those time periods to be true, just like relatively small triangles have been shown to have angles sum to 180 degrees.

    February 16, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      "Science" is methodical. Part of the definition of a theory is that it MUST be testable. If it is NOT testable it is only a hypothesis.

      The Big Bang is a perfect example of a hypothesis that has NEVER been tested as an actual event that may have actually taken place. The ONLY thing that has been tested are a few predictions, SOME of which were falsified. The math fails before they can reach the moment of the event, and they have cried for years "ONE DAY!!!" but that day has never come.

      For decades atheists jumped onto the string theory band wagon. We kept saying BUT ITS NOT TESTABLE... and they said "JUST WAIT UNTIL WE GET OUR COLLIDER... THEN WE'LL SHOW YOU BAD CHRISTIANS".

      So we give them the super collider. But that failed and string theory was again falsified... when we pointed this out they said JUST WAIT UNTIL WE GET A BIGGER COLLIDER" ...so we gave them an even bigger collider, but again, string theory failed.

      We finally gave them a collider bigger than a city... and once again, string theory failed.

      You have a hypothesis and A FEW PREDICTIONS were tested... the event itself is so far untested.

      February 16, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
      • hotairace

        Wolfie, as we are coming to understand more each time you post, you are wrong:

        "Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work

        Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

        Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

        Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

        Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circu.mstances.

        Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

        Source
        The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences"

        February 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          What weak definitions. If you dont KNOW that a theory has to be testable you have no business acting like you know anything about the subject. I dont care if you post a book,.... a theory is testable.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • hotairace

          So now the National Academy of Sciences is wrong. The delusions and conspiracy theories continue to grow. . .

          February 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Scientists test hypotheses and draw conclusions.
          Only in your evil little mind do scientists have to recreate cosmic events to understand them.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • bostontola

          A scientific hypothesis must be testable. What it must test is a new predicted thing.

          A scientific theory is an already tested and validated hypothesis.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
      • bostontola

        The BB theory regards what happened after the first moment. Predictions:

        Prediction 1. Stars and galaxies will recede from earth with their distance proportional to the velocity at which they are receding.
        Telescopes with spectrometers have validated this over and over with earth bound and space telescopes at many wavelengths and using many different phenomena.

        Prediction 2. The cosmic background radiation will be at a temperature corresponding to the expansion rate and age of the universe predicted.
        Earthbound and satellite radio telescopes have found the exact temperature predicted and the exact distribution of temperatures predicted.

        Prediction 3. Given the model of nucleosynthesis and age of the universe, there should be specific amounts of hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc in the observable universe.
        Spectrographic analysis of the universe has corresponds to that value.

        Prediction 4. The universe should be flat if there is conservation of mass/energy.
        The cosmic bag round radiation pattern measures the flatness to be flat to within measurement accuracy (parts per billion).

        Prediction 5. The cosmic background radiation pattern should correspond to the pattern of galaxies and superclusters in the observable universe.
        Analysis of both patterns correspond as predicted.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yet it's foundation is non-existent. If no one can present a testable theory to actually BASE it on then you have very little. And certainly no more than a hypothesis. Why does it go back to a few seconds AFTER the supposed event? Because they tried and FAILED to carry it back to the beginning. FAILED many times, by many men more brilliant than most of us.

          They BEGGED for the great colliders to be built and used their lac of a collider as an excuse... they GOT colliders, HUGE MASSIVE colliders and still failed. Thats what you actually have

          February 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • bostontola

          That is exactly the point you don't get. The BB theory does not describe the first moment. Your inability to accept that is perplexing. The BB theory describes what happens after the first moment. Every theory of physics we have is valid over a defined region. If that is unacceptable to you, then you reject all science. That is your choice of course.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          @bostontola
          Honest question... Why do you think they worked out the math up to several seconds after the ectual event began?

          February 16, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • bostontola

          For purely practical reasons, it works in that region. Science is very pragmatic, it makes claims in regions that it can validate. Our technology is developed in those regions and it works just like the models predict.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
        • hotairace

          Only a person who often asks dishonest questions needs to preface their question with "honest question" . . .

          February 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          @ hotair
          I know you dont understand the idea of showing respect... but I was showing respect to bostontola

          February 16, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • hotairace

          I completely understand the concept and reality of respect, and that is why you get none.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          @bostontola... wouldnt you agree that they have taken it back to the first few seconds because they COULD? And doesnt it then stand to reason that for how many decades they have continued to try?

          I think youd agree that the only reason it has not happened is simply no one, throughout all the decades with the theoretical math, colliders, telescopes, our computing abilities... we have VAST resources that have already been put into this. We still are not close to an answer.

          Here is my point.

          I LOVE science of nearly every sort. I believe science has given us unimaginable potentials. When science is good baby she rocks. I hold science to a very high standard, and with the OLD SCHOOL tenaciousness. With the BB we are working things BACK as far as we can but when the math breaks down we keep excusing it EVERY TIME. You know i know predictions have been tested and thats FINE... but you cant plant that on a workable foundation of math or experiment. To me it is intellectually dishonest to over hype the big bang, and after all this resource spent on it for all this time, and it is STILL unworkable to the moment... dude It is time to open up this field to a little more broadmindedness.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • bostontola

          wolf,
          What is a flaw to you, is not a flaw, it is a limit to human intellect. Newton's Laws stood for centuries until Einstein came along.

          Key point: limited theories don't turn out to be wrong in the region they were validated, they get extended. The same will happen for the BB. It's predictions will continue to work, but the new theory will explain the results in a new light and will extend them.

          February 16, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Is it necessarily a limit to human intellect Bostontola, or is it also possible that something about the BB is simply wrong? Also wouldnt you agree it is possible they cannot take it all the way back because they are missing key pieces to the puzzle? Wouldnt you say these are both valid possibilities?

          February 16, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie seems to think that science must be able to explain everything perfectly, right now, to his personal satisfaction. If he actually read and understood the scientific definitions he so casually dismissed above, he would understand that science, by design, is constantly updating, refining and discarding theories. Compare this to the Babble Humper's who get stuck after "some god did it."

          February 16, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • bostontola

          wolf,
          Since science doesn't prove things it is possible that the BB is wrong and the validations are found to be flawed, but the likelihood is infinitesimal. It would be the first time in history that a theory so validated was found to be wrong with the validations being flawed. Same goes for the possibility we never can extend it. Humans have been able to every time so far, but anything is possible. If your money is on such a long shot, I would submit that could only happen if a powerful bias pushed you to that position.

          February 16, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Its too bad Hotair, that this is all you bring to the table... its been a very good and civil intelligent discussion until now...
          Are you suggesting that Bostontola myself and a few others here are wrong about this? The BB has no issues? There is no possibility it is missing vital information? They come from your side dude, take it up with them

          February 16, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • hotairace

          I believe the BB is way more credible than The Babble because one is based on scientific research under the scientific method and the other is nothing more than unsubstantiated myths. I also know that the BB is incomplete but believe that reputable scientists will continue to push back the limits of our knowledge and refine, extend and discard theories as more data becomes available. And I know there are many mentally ill, delusional Babble Humpers who will never discard their unproven, silly, childish beliefs.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          @bostonola,
          Thank you... this was all I wanted, was clarification that it IS possible that bb is simply wrong, but it is also certainly missing key information that would resolve the actual event.

          This is an honest criticism and it is refreshing to see this small admission come from your side. I salute you and your manner of discussion.

          I think you would agree that string theory has completely failed the BB thus far in resolving causation or even coming to the moment of the event. Since you agreed it may be missing key elements that make everything work out... a basis for the moment, How is "God did it" a lesser explanation than "String theory"? Both ideas are popular, and certainly you would say neither can be tested. In this respect, BOTH are a matter of some sort of faith.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • bostontola

          wolf,
          String theory is a nice mathematical construct but it hasn't predicted discriminating experimental results to distinguish itself. A generalization of String theory, M-Theory, and Supersymmetry are more promising but it will take time to get their predictions verified.

          February 17, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, is it possible there are no gods, not even just one?

          February 17, 2014 at 8:35 am |
      • Woody

        "and they have cried for years "ONE DAY!!!" but that day has never come." – wolfbitn

        Much like the second coming of Christ, the end of days, the rapture, Judgement Day and all the rest of the Fundie nonsense has never come, and never will. The entire world is waiting for one single shred of evidence that your Christian god, or any other god, exists. So far, ZERO!!! Meanwhile, you keep throwing out red herrings about the alleged lack of evidence of the Big Bang as if that will somehow prove the existence of a god created by illiterate mid eastern Bronze Age nomads. If someone with your obviously superior intelligence can provide indisputable evidence that your god exists, you'll be the first person in the history of the world to do so. You'll be the most famous person in the world. You'll be the lead story on every TV news program. Your picture will be on the front page of every major newspaper in the world. You'll certainly be a prime candidate for a Nobel Prize. All hail wolfbitn, we're obviously in the presence of greatness!!!

        February 16, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • hotairace

          NOT! As in, not in the presence of greatness. Wolfie is just another mentally ill, delusional Babble Humper that will not, because he cannot, defend his claims.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          i dunno what you mean... the end comes 3 days after his death, and we are in the 3rd day... The bible never speaks of Him returning until after SEVERAL events occur, some of which are still to occur. They occur in the morning of the 3rd day... now if you know anything about the bible and hebrew references, tell me the passages I just referred to and what they mean according to traditional Jewish... orthodox or messianic teaching.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:49 pm |
      • dandintac

        It is true that the BB theory has some weaknesses, and it may be refined or revised as new evidence emerges.

        So fine Wolf. Let's just set aside the BB for a minute. What is your alternative theory that is superior? Please describe your scientific theory that has been tested more? That has been found to be more reliable?

        Certainly–it is possible for scientific theories to be proven wrong. That's why we go with the best theory we have–knowledge in science is generally held as provisional. Let's hear your alternative theory that has more evidence.

        February 16, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          @dandintac
          Its good that we agree there are problems and shortcomings and that there may be some evidence missing from the equation. I think this is a reasonable stance.

          Ok, also I am happy to present a few things. You will excuse my method i hope and allow me to make a few things very clear..

          I am going to ask a few things, and see where you personally come from in this so I know how to address this better for you if you dont mind.

          Do you generally believe that the earth is very old and experienced cycles of life and extinction?

          Do you believe the earth has suffered great cataclysm in ages past? Specifically for example, do you believe evidence indicates roughly 65 million years back, an asteroid or large comet struck the Yucatan peninsula?

          Could you briefly describe the theorized effects upon the earth and it's atmosphere, and life on the planet?

          I will come to the point in the next post if youll indulge me.
          Thank you

          February 16, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
        • dandintac

          For the sake of argument, let's say yes to your questions. In fact the best evidence indeed seems to indicate yes. However the last paragraph–I do not know enough to give a good answer, and a complete answer would probably require several books. Now, what is your theory? Have you presented scientific evidence for it? Has it been tested?

          February 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          In that case lets go straight into a lesson in Hebrew..

          Genesis 1

          1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

          Now lets go to important key words in the Hebrew language:

          Was = Hayah

          Become, come to pass happen.

          without form = Tohuw
          desoltation... empty..

          void = Bohuw
          An example of it's usage is:
          Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

          So what chapter 1 says thus far, is that the earth was created... and then went on so suffer a cataclysm... the earth was laid waste and destroyed. The key word in this is WAS in the translation, but BECAME or CAME TO PASS in the Hebrew.

          We can go on to Ecclesiates where we are told that one age comes, another age goes, but the earth is still here and goes on. We are told in other passages about ages past, beyond our remembrance

          We can go to Jeremiah 4

          4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

          4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

          4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

          4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

          4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

          4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

          4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

          Here we see that in this nearly identical beginning to Genesis in the Hebrew, that it goes on to describe LIFE in that past age... all of it extinct or nearly extinct... and yet He says He will not make a full end.

          So ALL of this is evidence that the bible THUS FAR is COMPLETELY in line with what we find in our geological past. We KNOW from the bones and scripture confirms many cycles of life and extinction, and in the end of jeremiah 5, He brings it into the future fortelling another coming extinction, and yet not a full end.

          Ok so... now we see Genesis 1:1 and 2 tell us briefly that there was a past age and a period of extinction.

          Now lets look back in our earths ages to see ANYTHING that might have brought such destruction, an d one certainty and in the not too distant past, we have this asteroid you believe hit this earth.

          Now... what effects on this atmosphere did this have?

          February 16, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • hotairace

          The Wolfie Two Step has started. For a glimpse of how it might go, see:

          http://talkspotcentral.com/index.php?/topic/1799-creation-vs-the-theory-of-evolution-one-on-one-debate/

          February 16, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Wolfie's entire premise is based on his personal interpretation of the bible. I wonder why he is the only one who reached this particular translation, especially since he stated earlier that he has no credentials.

      I suspect that we either have a very cunning troll or just another christian, as others have said, with delusions of grandeur.

      February 16, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        There again you show yourself pretty ignorant theologically... very large portions of the church are completely aware of what Genesis 1 says and are in agreement that this word is hebrew and means became, this word is hebrew and means destroyed and on and on through to the end. Most Christians are not the uneducated backwood hacks youd like to portray us as.

        Take a hebrew lesson, or i will be happy to give you one.

        February 16, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
  4. hearthetruthonline

    http://www.Hear-The-Truth.com and http://HearTheTruth.imgur.com

    February 16, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
  5. Alias

    As the article correctly states, this will not change the minds of anyone who believes in the bible.
    As the comments below prove, if you accept a foregone conclusion of "god did it' no amount of study will convince you otherwise.
    There are even christians who will pick one bit of information that science hasn't found yet, and challenge everyone to a debate of that tiny little point. Of course, there will be rules so you cannot bring up anything else. This does not prove genesis, it just makes the challenger a foolish troll. These are the same people who continually state that since we cannot replicate the Big Bang in an experiment, science must treat it as a hypothesis and not a theory. Right, nothing on a grand scale can be scientifically proven!

    February 16, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      Lets talk about insane mindsets. Would you say it is insane to recognize that evil exists, or is it insane to deny that evil exists?

      February 16, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
      • Creationists say the darndest things

        Lets talk about insane mindsets. Would you say it is insane to recognize that evil doesn't exist, or is it insane to deny that evil doesn't exist?

        February 16, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • hotairace

        What is your definition of evil?

        February 16, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          This might simply be a case of arguing whether or not it's reasonable to think of the word evil (regardless of origin, traditions or culture) as a noun.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Feel free to define it while you answer the question

          February 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • hotairace

          Nope! You asked the question, it's up to you to define what you mean. Looks like you are afraid to. . .

          February 16, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Actually, I go along with what thesamyaza said on a newer post. If you define evil as [quoting thesamyaza] "an illusion a construct of our cognitive mind.", then, in that sense, I find it reasonable as a noun. Similarly for its usage as an adjective or adverb.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • hotairace

          And I might agree with you, but I'm still waiting for wolfie to tell us how he defines evil.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
        • hotairace

          3+ hours have elapsed and wolfie still hasn't answered the simplest of questions. I guess he must be formulating an argument to explain why "hypocrite" does not apply to him.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
      • Alias

        EVIL DOES EXIST.
        Your posts prove it.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          and this is why youll never get me in a debate with an atheist unless it is MODERATED... they wont answer a thing, they change their own definitions at will, and nearly everything they say is trollish.
          If they cant handle this little discussion they cant handle a real debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • hotairace

          You just have to love wolfie! First he refuses to define evil but then accuses someone else of changing definitions when in fact they didn't define anything. And he accuses them of not answering questions when presented with a very clear, easy to read and comprehend, answer. He is surely living in a different world – the world of the mentally ill Babble Humper.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitn
          You asked if evil existed.
          I said "evil does exist".
          That is what sane people call answering your question.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        I am not the one afraid of this simple question... does evil exist or not... Am i insane to believe it exists, or are you insane for believing it doesnt?
        Easy Peasy

        February 16, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Dude? I just think you're insane.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          So you DONT believe evil exists? (No i dont feed the trolls lol)

          February 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
        • dandintac

          I'll answer this. It depends on how evil is defined. I do not believe evil is some sort of thing out there, waiting to strike. The notion of "evil" is to a large degree a subjective construct–at least on an ontological level. This does not mean it's not important. I think if we want to objectify evil, we can do so, by understanding that it is best defined as that which is detrimental to human welfare. Then we can set objective standards by which to hold ourselves and others, and also measure the virtue of past and present cultures, thus avoiding nihilism. So it's just a matter of agreeing that life is preferable to death, health preferable to suffering, literacy and education better than ignorance and illiteracy, freedom better than slavery, prosperity better than privation, and so on. The net long term furtherance of the former is morally good, and causing the latter is morally bad.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        sorry this goes here

        evil does exist, it exist just like time. its an illusion a construct of our cognitive mind. how ever i except the lie of morality only of of he truth of self preservation. if you live your life in absolute truth the rest of humanity will Ostracize you and since we humans are a social creature we need each other in order to live healthy lives. the only truth is what nature dictates. make no mistake morality is a human construct. this is why the other animals do not adhere to it. but you do see hint of a moral incline in animals who are highly social.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Thank you for answering Thes...
          I do understand the thought of evil being a human construct, but do you think evil can be larger than this? By this I mean, if a society views rap and murdering innocent people as "sure no problem"... is it then not a problem or is it still an evil act?

          February 16, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • Alias

          If allowing a few innocent people to die saves hundreds of live, then it is not evil to do so.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          dolphins rape, and lions kill their innocent young.

          i actually used to raise rabbits for sustenance, and when one of the of the does find out this fact she butchered her children and her neighbors children. this was not an act of evil,.. was it.

          also i believe your God called for murder and rape does that make him evil

          2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB
          Judges 21:10-24 NLT

          February 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      yeah watch the atheists try to bury this one now...

      What... afraid to answer?

      February 16, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Troll.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Honestly, you had me fooled, but your inability to present anything but your own opinion pretty much shows that either you are a troll or just so completely egocentric that you may as well be a troll.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I still see no answers to the question... and its a very simple question. You guys are always so talkative, lets talk.

          Does evil exist according to YOU?

          February 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Define evil. And while you're at it, please explain how you are qualified to interpret ancient languages and why your personal interpretation of your personal translation should be considered authoritative.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        well i don't know about the atheist but i believe i answered it well enough how ever neither of us are crazy, well crazier then other, humans need fantasy to live healthy lives.

        February 16, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I believe us both to sanely believe that evil exists. I believe it is insane not to when we seem surrounded by it.

          It is odd though that an atheist cannot bring themselves to say that any particular act is evil.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          wolfy: "It is odd though that an atheist cannot bring themselves to say that any particular act is evil."

          Oh please try harder to claim what atheists do or do not say. Your original question regarding evil was about whether or not it exists. An answer to that question could address a construct within our minds or a theistic opinion, but that would not necessarily answer the question about how actions of people that we can observe, does it?

          February 16, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
  6. Dalahäst

    "Sources confirmed today that the brainwashed morons at First Baptist Assembly of Christ, all of whom blindly accept whatever simplistic fairy tales are fed to them, volunteer each Wednesday night to provide meals to impoverished members of the community."

    hahaha

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/

    February 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      "“Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in town who have fallen on hard times and are unable to afford to put food on the table, so we try to help out as best we can,” said 48-year-old Kerri Bellamy, one of the mindless sheep who adheres to a backward ideology and is incapable of thinking for herself, while spo.oning out homemade shepherd’s pie to a line of poor and homeless individuals.

      “It feels great to share our blessings with the less fortunate. Plus, it’s fun to work alongside all the members of our [corrupt insti.tution of propaganda and lies] who come out each week.” As of press time, the brainless, unthinking lemmings had donated winter clothing they no longer wore to several needy families and still hadn’t opened their eyes to reality."

      Holy moley!

      February 16, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
        Be free of extremist atheism and other supersti.tions.
        http://SOME-atheists-are-super-silly.com/

        February 16, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      And, just to be fair: the other side of the extremist coin:

      Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

      "KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. "

      ""Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. "

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

      February 16, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
    • Akira

      Of course you know that The Onion is a satirical site.
      And that none of their stories are to be taken at face value.

      Thanks for the laughs.

      February 16, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Yes. A pastor posted the first one on Facebook and some people didn't get it was making fun of absurd atheists, not Christians. Who doesn't know The Onion is fake and no one is off limits?

        February 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • Akira

          Apparently some of the people who read the pastor's FB...and those who don't understand that all humans are absurd.

          The Onion. Love it. Taking condescending folk down one topic at a time.

          February 16, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A good lesson in "don't take yourself so seriously."

          I'm just glad their knee jerk reaction is to complain, not riot in the streets (over a cartoon drawing).

          February 16, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
    • otoh2

      One of my favorite stories from The Onion:

      "Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

      According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

      "I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

      "Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

      Historians believe that, immediately following the biblical event, Sumerian witnesses returned to the city of Eridu, a bustling metropolis built 1,500 years before God called for the appearance of dry land, to discuss the new development. According to records, Sumerian farmers, priests, and civic administrators were not only befuddled, but also took issue with the face of God moving across the water, saying that He scared away those who were traveling to Mesopotamia to participate in their vast and intricate trade system.

      Moreover, the Sumerians were taken aback by the creation of the same animals and herb-yielding seeds that they had been domesticating and cultivating for hundreds of generations.

      "The Sumerian people must have found God's making of heaven and earth in the middle of their well-established society to be more of an annoyance than anything else," said Paul Helund, ancient history professor at Cornell University. "If what the pictographs indicate are true, His loud voice interrupted their ancient prayer rituals for an entire week."

      According to the cuneiform tablets, Sumerians found God's most puzzling act to be the creation from dust of the first two human beings.

      "These two people made in his image do not know how to communicate, lack skills in both mathematics and farming, and have the intellectual capacity of an infant," one Sumerian philosopher wrote. "They must be the creation of a complete idiot." "

      February 16, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
      • Akira

        Lol...funny!!

        February 16, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        That one probably made me laugh the most!

        February 16, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
  7. letmeeatcake

    ...horses were domesticated 2000-4000 bc? cows domesticated 8,000 bc? i'm not sure scientists have all the information yet...

    February 16, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
  8. Salero21

    God Created in 6 days and He will throw it all away and burn it in just ONE day! How's that for Power? 😉

    February 16, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • Yoda

      The trolling is weak with this one...

      February 16, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
    • enessfellenz

      This is just another dumb, erroneous article on religion by CNN. I just read the related NY Times article based on some radioactive carbon dating by the two archaeologists of available camel bones they found. Based on their limited research, they maintain that camels weren't domesticated until around 1000 B.C., several centuries after the period of the patriarchs, and "decades" after King David. The fact that they maintain that camels weren't domesticated until several decades after King David using a dating process covering thousands of years raises serious questions regarding their claims. How do you carbon date so precisely, by decades? Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on "camel" claims that camels were domesticated around 3,500 B.C. Why the discrepancy for an animal that has been around for appx. 50 million years and for at least a few million in its present physical state. The Wikipedia article further states that the camel was used for military purposes well before the 1000 B.C. time frame referenced by the Times article as it notes, "By at least 1200 BC the first camel saddles had appeared, and Bactrian camels could by ridden." Of course Genesis doesn't specify Dromedary or Bactrian, but it's clear camels had been domesticated well prior to the date concluded by the Times' article. Another problem for the Israeli researchers is in concluding that the camel bones found were representative of all camel remains for any period prior to 1000 B.C. How do we know whether the same is true? Moreover, against the overall history of the camel spanning tens of millions of years, as well as the fact that the animal is easily domesticated and had obvious contact with man going back tens of thousands of years or more, etc., it would appear that there is some obvious error in the new findings. It seems that the researchers went to one accessible, ancient garbage dump and drew their research and conclusions from there. Maybe they should read the Wikipedia article and do some better research instead of letting the enemy of God direct them in their obviously poor research intended to derail God's holy word.

      February 16, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
      • Akira

        It's an opinion piece by Joel S. Baden.
        Although the science behind it is pretty awful.

        February 16, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
  9. Salero21

    The stupidity of atheism/evolutionism/idolatry is complete and Total!!! 😉

    February 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
  10. Creationists say the darndest things

    Especially the young-earth variety.

    One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
    ==========

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

    Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

    Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

    For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

    These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

    Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

    There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

    Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

    But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

    (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

    (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

    Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
    Snelling 1

    For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

    Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

    Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

    CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

    "(A) PRIORITIES

    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

    (B) BASICS

    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

    5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

    (D) GENERAL

    The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

    (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

    (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
    (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

    (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

    These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

    Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

    From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

    This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

    Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

    "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

    "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

    Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

    "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

    Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

    "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

    Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

    "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

    Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

    "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

    It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

    DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
    READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.
    SNELLING 2

    If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

    The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

    In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

    "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

    For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

    "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

    There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

    One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

    There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

    1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

    2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

    3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

    Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

    The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

    One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

    Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

    I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?

    POSTSCRIPT

    Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

    I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

    For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

    In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

    February 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      This post is fairly ridiculous since most Christians do not believe the earth is young and most Christians believe ken ham to be a well meaning hack. He does not represent most christian thought past or present.

      February 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
      • hotairace

        You of course can prove all of your assertions above?

        February 16, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          more-so than any atheist here yes.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • hotairace

          Then where's your proof that the article is fairly ridiculous, that most Babble Humpers don't believe in a young earth, that most Babble Humpers think Ken Ham is a hack and that he does not represent the views of most Babble Humpers?

          Or are you just throwing out junk claims exactly like your claim you can prove "some (as yet unproven) god" is the best explanation for creation?

          February 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
      • Austin

        you might be right but Christians still believe in creation, and that God used millions of years to create. Either way, the creation story is absolutely credible in the gospel truth.

        In fact, there is nothing spiritual value in dating a prehistoric rock. If we want to advance chemistry fine, but who cares about old dates?

        February 16, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Austin

          I believe that God's presence aged the half life, or that there was binary pulsar or some variable that sped up the speed of light or decay.

          I believe every word of the bible, that it is all i need. I don't need a car or a computer or a ventilator to get to heaven.

          He is risen, and there is no greater possession than the Holy Spirit, no greater wisdom or knowledge than a personal relationship with the creator redeemer.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Austin

          I also have personal proof of God, through a spiritual gift. This is an ongoing manifestation of spiritual power. and a sovereign God who gave us every one of the biblical prophets.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          As for who cares about old dates, those who wish to understand how the earth and universe formed rather than rely on explanations from the imaginations of men who lived thousands of years ago.

          You say "I believe that God's presence aged the half life, or that there was binary pulsar or some variable that sped up the speed of light or decay." When we look into the night sky with the naked eye or telescopes we don't just see pulsars and Cepheid variables, but a wide range of stars including our closed neighboring stars, Alpha Centauri A and B, which are not much different in size than our own sun. Pulsars and cepheid variables don't change the speed of light. The speed of light from pulsars, cepheid variables, G-type main-sequence stars like our sun, and other stars does not vary; you seem to be making a supposition that contradicts what we know about the universe in an attempt to explain away some perceived conflict between your religious beliefs and what we know from astronomy and physics. And you suggest that your god is a trickster god, a deus deceptor, who has deceived mankind by making the universe look much older than it is.

          February 16, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
      • Creationists say the darndest things

        Most Christians don't keep their children from obtaining needed medical care.

        Most Christians don't still sacrifice people as some still do.

        Most Christians don't think American soldiers are doomed to die because of tolerance shown to homosexuals.

        Most Christians don't think the Pope is the Antichrist.

        Most Christians don't still think women are to be subservient to men.

        Most Christians don't contribute to disease in the world by having an unrealistic stance on use of contraception.

        Most Christians don't believe that Christ will return to both Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri. Do they?

        But as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, some of these other minor details are of no consequence to you, right? They are just not "you."

        "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson

        February 16, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          and millions of humans have been killed in the name of atheism... Mao, Stalin, on and on.

          As for the rest, youre right... most Christians do not believe those things, so why are they accused of it?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Lol – "in the name of atheism"? Right. Let's see how many more things you can conflate. You would have to have been a mind-reader to understand all the motives behind the dictators you mention. Really the most we can say is that anything that was an obstacle for them in increasing their power became an issue for them, whether it was religious institutions or otherwise. On the other hand, the things I mention above, in several cases, are currently strong-held beliefs representative of large numbers of Christians.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • Austin

          why do all of these external circu.mstances matter anyway?

          Galatians 2:17
          of Galatians 2:17.

          But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          "and millions of humans have been killed in the name of atheism"

          False. When people like Hitler claim he is doing what he is doing for the almighty creator...he does it BECAUSE of his beliefs.

          In the case of Stalin and Mao, the political and economic issues were what killed the people for the most part. It was not because of or in the name of atheism...that is absurd.
          They did not do what they did because they did not believe in gods (though there were some killed for not abandoning ther practice of their faith)...they did not do it BECAUSE of a non-belief in gods.

          Stop misrepresenting history. When people site their reason for doing something IS their belief ( Hitler, Crusades, killing of "witches") or site reasons the bible said it is OK ( such as slavery, and the black people are the cursed people of Ham, turned black to atone for the sin of the first murder)
          The starvation and famine you claim was in the name of atheism....just plain false...failed economic and political policies is the blame, not disbelief in gods.

          Why do you guys always try to misrepresent histroy the same way you try to misrepresent science?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Austin: "why do all of these external circu.mstances matter anyway?"

          Thank you for backing up my point, Austin.

          Children are dying who need medical care but aren't getting it because of the parents' beliefs.
          People are dying unnecessarily from diseases that could be prevented if contraception was not shunned.
          Funerals are being picketed.
          Gays are being thrown in jail in Africa by Christians.

          But oh – hey, let's not say anything bad about them because they are in good Christian standing.....
          :eyeroll:

          February 16, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • Austin

          "and millions of humans have been killed in the name of atheism"

          False. When people like Hitler claim he is doing what he is doing for the almighty creator...he does it BECAUSE of his beliefs.

          @igaftr fanatical people try to use Christ as an insurance plan, it makes them feel better. and when you say, they do it because of their beliefs, sjuch as the catholic inquisition /antisemitism us this example to along side hitler

          you have to understand that evil is the ACTUAL REASON, and that any murder is caried out on a mental belief. a belief that if you stab someone you can get a fun rush ect. is the belief of a satanist.

          Now if you want to talk about justified Christian doctrine, then you cant say that hitler had christian belief that led him to kill Jews, because anti semitism is shared by evil popular demand, and not christian doctrine.

          Christian doctrine advocates becoming a martyr, and not killing people . but rather being willing to suffer for the gospel. The gospel is a sacred, holy mission, and Hitler is the opposite of what the new testament says.

          you cant find a new testament verse condoning killing anyone, anywhere. The new testament is the new covenant. no prophets ordain war in the new testament, or during the time of the gentiles or the mystery of the church time period. There is no physical war for the sake of Christ.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Austin

          "Gays are being thrown in jail in Africa by Christians."
          now I don't find any biblical basis for this, can you find a verse that would agree with this.?

          none of these extreme things are biblical. and i say "who cares" because people are fanatical and sometimes very evil.

          this should be no surprise. its going to continue. In fact the prophecy states that antichrist will deceive the apostate church and there will be a "falling away" and deception.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Austin

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9f2aRTbKM&w=640&h=360]

          February 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          And Austin, I contend that your "falling away" began as soon as it started, much less the in-fighting that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. witnessed in their day in the U.S. How much of those initial Christian stories were verified? How much subjective human agenda has been injected each step along the way, from the earliest unauthored texts to the most recent?

          February 16, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Austin

          This is all a secondary issue to the salvation of the Holy Spirit. We can point the finger at humanity period.

          Christ is not the minister of sin. Mans ways are evil. Christ put the roman soldiers ear back on, and He died for our sins.

          And man and country is not a holy situation.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • Award Notification Dept

          Congratulations, Austin! By continuing to use the same unverified basis for pointing fingers, you have easily clenched today's first award for the Fundy Method of Inquiry and Verification! For those who are not familiar with the Fund Method of inquiry and Verification, it is easily demonstrated via this graphic:

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c&w=640&h=360]

          February 16, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • Alias

        Oh admit it.
        You just hate when your bible and its supporters are called out as what they are.

        February 16, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I dont know what youre talking about, but i know youre hating the fact none of you can stand for a moderated debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Whaaa?? Let me guess – you're also hating the fact no one from here or other blogs will join you for Farmville on Facebook.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          (last comment was for wolfy)

          February 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
  11. otoh2

    In other news:

    "Reality show snake-handling preacher dies - of snake bite"

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    I guess ol' snakebtn won't be posting here...

    February 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • Alias

      That doesn't prove the bible is wrong, all that show is that his faith wasn't strong enough.

      Amen?

      February 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        No.. it proves another idiot misrepresents his faith through lack of education in it. He forgot one of the great commands "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"

        February 16, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Yeah, that's gotta be it...when no other explanation can be come up with pull out the 'god had a reason for it' and skip reality!

          The moron shouldn't be handling snakes to begin with!

          February 16, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Truth prevails said: "The moron shouldn’t be handling snakes to begin with!"

          This may be the one thing we agree on. But I dont blame God for human stupidity. 🙂

          February 16, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          "it proves another idiot misrepresents his faith through lack of education in it"
          Really????...You know this man's background, his education, his faith that well that not only do you call him an idiot, but then claim it is proof?

          That is bearing false witness...is it not?

          February 16, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I know enough of his background to know we shouldn't blame God for this mans stupidity. Don't reasonable people (educated non-idiots) know not to play with rattlesnakes?

          February 16, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Anthony Crispino

          I'm pretty sure it means his faith wasn't strong enough. Once it gets below a certain level and the devil gets his foot in the door, it doesn't take long for him to be making himself at home if you know what I'm talking about.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          of course you would take hacks and pretend they represent most christian teachings... we could do the same and say you guys believe the earth is flat, but I try to extend fairness in discussion... you guys are obviously too insecure to grant this courtesy.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • sam stone

          "I dont blame God for human stupidity. "

          Why not? Are we not made in the image of god?

          February 16, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No we are not... remember we fell from our first estate. Now many of us are prone to stupidity. But he is no more ignorant of the bible than those who say the Big Bang is 'proven'.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • sam stone

          i think every one of his congregation should allow themselves to be bit, to determine who is truly annointed by god

          February 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • sam stone

          "Don't reasonable people (educated non-idiots) know not to play with rattlesnakes?"

          Yes.

          Reasonable people also don't believe a spirit can knock up a virrgn, that a snake can talk, that a man can live in the belly of a whale, that a man cannot be dead for 3 days and then come back to life

          But, we are not talking about reasonable people

          February 16, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Do you believe in right and wrong or good and evil?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • igaftr

          "those who say the Big Bang is 'proven'."

          It is proven. Proven by MANY different pieces of the puzzle. from the work in the forties, on through to today, including two Nobel prizes in physics, (1978 and 2006)..all combine to prove it.

          You can argue with the Nobel Prize Commitee if you like.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          And what noted scientist can you quote making the claim that the big bang is a 'PROVEN' event? Paste it right here lol... i predict nothing of the sort will be posted...lets test my theory

          February 16, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          I already sited two of the proofs.
          But if Nobel Prizes aren't good enough, I do not know what you would accept.
          I don't know any scientist that would disagree with the FACT that the Big Bang did in FACT happen.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No no no... no cheating here. I want you to post ANY prominant scientist stating that the Big Bang is PROVEN... You said it, I am holding you to it bruddah. I want to see ANY such quote. The scientist, theoretical, particle, scalar, astro, ANY such physicist who would make this claim would be laughed out of their field.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          Can you find any doctor that claims that germs don't cause disease?
          Germ Theory, by your requirements is not proven, since it is only a theory ( you would probably call it a hypothesis)

          The only part of the Big Bang Theory that is not proven is the cause.

          But to satisfy your whining:

          "The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."
          – Lawrence Krauss, physicist

          Is that one good enough for you or do I have to make some phone calls?

          I wonder, did you put your god hypothesis through this much scrutiny...oh of course not...there is nothing to look at.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I dont see anyone at all producing ANY quote from ANY scientist saying the big Bang is PROVEN yet this is the claim... post the quote or admit it isnt so or you who are holding to this are simply intellectually dishonest.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          Are ye blind?

          Once again:

          "The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."
          – Lawrence Krauss, physicist

          That is one.
          Most don't come out with declarations using the specific words you require, but if you read the material they publish, you will find MANY scientist agree that it is fact, just the cause is really what is in question.
          Try reading Hawking, Degrasee Tyson, or any other prominent physicist, or better yet...write them. Suprisingly many respond.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          How many different ways, how many different events and conditions could reproduce that background radiation? I read Hawking... everything he has done.

          Tell me what Hawking said about the finite nature of the universe and lets see how much you have read... but answer the above questions too please..

          And show me where HAWKING said the big bang has been proven lol... no scientist out there would be so stupid as to make that statement.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          You have not yet acknowledged that i gave you one prominent scientist who said the Big Bang was proven.

          Also, I am not going to answer any of your questions, you don't have any authority I recognize. You will likely claim this as some sort of victory, no ...it is just my natural reaction to bullying tactics by you and I will not fall prey to them. I showed you what you asked for...so now you:

          State you god hypothesis with any and all supporting iniformation.
          Should take less then ten seconds.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I have read every post Iv seen and saw no such quote from any scientist at all stating that the Big Bang is PROVEN. This is what was claimed. So where did you post that?

          February 16, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Woflie has somehow convinced himself that rhetoric equals proof. Most of us understand that a new translation does nothing to change the source of the original material. Bronze age myths remain bronze age myths, no matter what translation you use.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I'm not the one that says the big bang is proven... It is the atheist side making this ridiculous claim even though there is not a quote from any scientist of note stating that it is proven.

          I said i can prove Genesis 1 is a more viable theory than the big bang in ANY MODERATED FORMAL debate, and i get no takers there either.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          seriously?

          for the THIRD time

          "The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."
          – Lawrence Krauss, physicist

          saying that we KNOW IT HAPPENED isn't good enough for you?
          You want a debate? hilarious. You would never get to the podium since you will not even accept information you requested...perhaps he didn't use the exact words you want, so it isn't acceptable, or he phrased it differently than what you wanted to hear.

          Since the TV show, it is difficult to find anything on the internet that does not have to do with the show, and I don't have time to go back through all of the interviews etc.

          I gave you what you asked for THREE times. Quid pro quo...where is the information I asked for?
          Failure to provide will show you to be a troll ( is that the way you worded it earlier?)

          February 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You can say you believe in the Easter bunny... that doesnt make Mister Bunny real lol.

          And iv HAD the debates with much better men who were actually credentialed, so I dont need a platform with someone who isnt.. I just made the offer since there was so much trolling saying we are an ignorant people.

          I'm just showing who has the courage to actually debate this (me) and who doesnt (none of you thus far)

          February 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • igaftr

          I provided a noted scientist stating as a fact that we know the big bang happened...you have not addressed that, only said not provided.
          I gave you the opportunity to state your hypothesis...only another empty promise.

          Thank you for telling us all that you are in fact a troll. I gave you the SAME opportunity you were affording others, and yet you could not come up with ANYTHING other than not accepting info you asked for when provided, and in turn NOT providing any inforrmation from your side.

          Do you even know what a debate is? I'll give you a hint...YOU must provide information stating your position and anything you have to support it...so far you asked me for info...provided each time.
          I ask you...never provided. If you aren't a troll ( and there is strong evidence for that conclusion) what are you?

          February 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          uhh yeah i just did... Since he does NOT know that the big bang happened, he is a hack to state he DOES know it. He cant even test the event to turn it from a hypothesis to a theory. Nor is he considering that there did not have to be a big bang for there to be background radiation in the universe. So he either got carried away in rapture and exaggerated what he knows, or he is a hack

          February 16, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          wolfy: "And iv HAD the debates with much better men who were actually credentialed"

          wow – i'm impressed. that's almost as impressive as Austin Luther King saying "I had a dream..."

          February 16, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Are you attempting to degrade Dr Martin Luther King now too?

          February 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Not at all. It's just a play on words. If you dig around, you'll find a lot of play on words with regard to the one who is strong with dreams the their importance. I guess you could say I was being a bit Austintatious.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          that just made no sense at all.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • Alias

          Trying to find where a noted scientist said the Big Bang is proven is very much like trying to find where a prominent mathematician said “1+1=2”.
          They don’t bother publishing the obvious.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ahh yeah thats pretty brilliant einstein lol. Trying to find one scientist to say it is proven is more like trying to find someone in the academic field that doesn't care about their credibility at all.

          February 16, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "I want you to post ANY prominant scientist stating that the Big Bang is PROVEN". I suggest you view or read the Nobel Prize acceptance speech of NASA's John Mather, astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work on NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite. You can find the speech at the Nobel Prize organization's website http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/mather-lecture.html

          I've excerpted a small portion of relevant remarks from that speech below:

          "The COBE observed the universe on the largest scales possible, by mapping the cosmic microwave and infrared background radiation fields and determining their spectra. It produced conclusive evidence that the hot Big Bang theory of the early universe is correct, showed that the early universe was very uniform but not perfectly so, and that the total luminosity of post-Big Bang objects is twice as great as previously believed....In the beginning was the Big Bang, so we now say with great certainty. The COsmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, proposed to NASA in 1974 and launched in 1989, provided very strong evidence for it...The fact that the radiation is isotropic to such a high degree is key evidence for its origin in the Big Bang....The COBE mission started in an era when slide rules were common and aerospace designers used pencils and large sheets of paper, led to a revolution in our understanding of the universe. It confirmed the Big Bang theory, and discovered the primordial density fluctuations that formed the large-scale structure of the universe.".

          February 16, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I once suggested for one of our adult sunday school forums, we surprise everyone by releasing live snakes and scorpions and try walking on them to see who gets bitten as a test of our faith in Jesus.

        They wouldn't do it. Apparently that is not what those verses meant?

        February 16, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • derado8

          I used to wonder why those things bit, now I try and see it from their perspective.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
  12. yukon12

    I believe are answers are very far away yet. No one knows. Too complex for even our brightest scientists or biblical scholars to figure out. I like science, but..... found this little tidbit reminding us on just how little we might know.

    Example of scientific limitation:

    Suppose a spaceship could travel outside the Universe. Ship legend had it that the universe existed. On it a scientist was born. He set about investigating it. Since quantum particles are the sole medium of perception, and assuming that the gravitational mass of the universe prevented any to get out, his eyes and instruments registered nothing. So he proclaimed that the universe did not exist. As a scientist within the house rules of science, he was right. But in the great reality, he was very wrong.

    February 16, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • doobzz

      It's just like the devil standing with Jesus on top of a mountain looking at the "all the kingdoms of the earth". The goat herders only saw to the horizon all around. They thought that was the extent of the earth, but they were very wrong.

      February 16, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
      • yukon12

        Yes doobzz , I agree with you totally. I should have put a reference in for religion also. But this blog seems to have more people with the idea that science is infallible,thus the reason for the post.

        February 16, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • doobzz

          Really? I've never seen anyone state here that science is infallible.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      We can't prove we are not all 'brains in vats'....so what?

      February 16, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
  13. Alias

    We know gay people exist and we don't know if god exists, but people are willing to deny gays equal rights in case it makes god angry.

    February 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      I do not believe that happy people deserve to enjoy the same rights enjoyed by those who are miserable.

      February 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Alias

        Perfect example of how you intentionally change the meaning of a word amd then argue against a statement that was never made.
        You are a liar.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          WHAT??? I used the ORIGINAL CLASSICAL meaning lmao... What grade are you in?

          February 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • Alias

          exactly my point.
          Everyone knew what definition was appropriate, and you chose another.
          you are a liar and a troll.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
  14. bostontola

    The cosmological theory of the early universe, the Big Bang, is in no way inconsistent with the existence of God(s). It does show that religious creation stories across the world are not to be taken literally.

    People going to extremes to deny the fact of the BB simply reveal their lack of confidence in their own beliefs. Denying facts to retain quaint stories is revealing of the individual, not the truth of the facts. The same is true for evolution. It doesn't conflict with God(s) either, it shows the creation stories are not to be taken literally.

    Strident argument against fact shows more about the individuals than anything else.

    February 16, 2014 at 11:40 am |
    • kudlak

      However, great part of what people know about God comes from their creation stories, which are included in their sacred scriptures, and deemed as being equally factual by many. If those are inaccurate, isn't it only logical to suspect that other parts of scripture are as well, casting doubt on all that is known about God, even his very existence?

      February 16, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • bostontola

        Even leaders of many religions' sects say that sacred texts are allegorical in large part.

        February 16, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • igaftr

      Yeah Boston, but there is a lot of willful ignorance out there.
      Have you checked out answers in genesis...their belief statement is hilarious but the last part is:
      "■By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

      Declaring that if it goes against the bible, it is not true.
      That is as closed minded as one can get.

      February 16, 2014 at 11:50 am |
      • bostontola

        Very true, I find that as irresponsible to the people you are leading. Luckily, only a minority follow that extreme.

        February 16, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • bostontola

          Intended:
          Very true, I find that as irresponsible to the people they are leading. Luckily, only a minority follow that extreme.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
  15. igaftr

    Very simply...this isn't enough information, and far too samll a sampling to try to make any conclusions. Besides, if the people that think the bible is real will just find some other thing to try to nullify it, like they do with the whole Noah myth...so many branches of science proving it never happened, yet some continue to try to claim it is reality.
    Some people will never accept fact over their beliefs.

    February 16, 2014 at 10:20 am |
    • derado8

      If I believe the entire cosmos is nothing more than a micro-organism located on the brush of a giant bottle of mascara...what could anybody possibly say to refute me?

      February 16, 2014 at 10:41 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        "...what could anybody possibly say to refute me?"

        That you are talking out you a$$ and claiming to "know" things you don't "know".

        February 16, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • derado8

          Exactly nobody "knows" something like that. It's why anybody is free to talk out of their dollar sign about it, or their percent if you prefer.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          There is a big difference speaking about "possibilities" in general and making statements of "fact" that can't be demonstrated. One is opinion, the other is dishonest.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • derado8

          When it comes to a point that contains absolutely no verification process the only thing you have is possibilities. Some are more likely than others.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        Those who put all their eggs into the big bang hypothesis have as much evidence for that moment of expansion as you would for that giant bottle of mascara. Both equal a hypothesis, neither qualify as a scientific theory.

        February 16, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • derado8

          The beauty of it is that the mascara bottle idea doesn't even eliminate the big bang, it would just depend on how small of a microcosm we all were.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • bostontola

          No scientist would argue with your comment. The BB is not a theory of the first moment. There are many speculations regarding the first moment. So there is no controversy.

          The BB is a validated theory of what happens after the first moment and has been rigorously analyzed, predictions made, billions spent to test those predictions, and all predictions have been shown correct.

          A good analogy is the entire field of chemistry. All the rules of chemistry are simplifications of laws in physics that would be too unwieldy to be of practical use. Within its valid range, the rules of chemistry work extremely well. If you try to apply those rules outside the valid range, they will likely fail. That doesn't make chemistry false. All the physics models are consistent with chemistry, they support chemistry. When a more comprehensive cosmological theory is developed and validated that includes the first moment, it will be consistent with the BB in the BB's range of validity. It has to because that is how the universe works in that range.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I am curious... Do you have any estimates of how long this hypothetical point of energy/matter sat stable before it's sudden expansion?

          February 16, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • igaftr

          Continuing to try to downgrade the Big Bang Theory only shows your willful ignorance.
          We know it happened. The final proof gave two Americans the Nobel Peace prize in Physics in 2006.
          No one has all their eggs on the Big Bang Theory. Science continues to refine , theorize and hypothesize, but as yet, do not know the cause.
          At this point, trying to refute that the Big Bang did in fact happen, is just silly.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Ok so when and where was the big bang recreated? No lab, no collider, no individual has ever tested the EVENT of the big bang. If it is not testable, it is not a theory... just a hypothesis. Testing PREDICTION is not at all testing the event. Other mechanics could bring about these very same predictions. We need a TESTABLE hypothesis to allow it to transform into viable theory.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I think of the evidence for the BB like the giant Chicxulub impact crater. We have the proof of the event the moment it happened, but we don't have any clue as to the asteroids true origin. We can study the physical evidence and make guesses based on the elements found at the impact site, but it would be almost impossible to verify.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          The problem is we have absolutely nothing when it comes to the MOMENT of the BB. All the math that works out to that point, fails seconds after the event takes place and nothing thus far has taken us there, nor is there anything on the horizon that even looks hopeful... various string theories have tried for decades to prove the BB origin and though people not wanting to believe in God jumped on strong bandwagon after bandwagon, it all has failed to explain it. With all our computing power, if we cant work it out, we should allow for other possibilities. Until this event can be tested, it is not even a theory but a hypothesis.

          If atheists can demand of a Christan they use the proper definition of a theory, why do they bulk at using that same definition when i comes to the BB?

          February 16, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • bostontola

          wolf,
          I have no idea, and scientists have various speculations regarding what was going on at that moment. Until there is a hypothesis that encompasses that moment that predicts some new phenomenon that can be verified, it will remain speculation. We don't have to speculate about what happened after that, we have a validated theory.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          What cosmic events took place BEFORE the BB?

          February 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          " Do you have any estimates of how long "
          No. You are trying to ask a question based on linear time, and time is not linear. So your question CANNOT be answered.
          Your question is invalid. How about asking one that takes the physics of non-linear time into account.

          It could have been there for billions of years, or trillionths of nanoseconds. time is relative to the obseerver as well, so what could be trillions of years to us could be the tiniest fraction of a second to the event.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Ok so when and where was the big bang recreated?" Same thing with the Chicxulub asteroid crater, you can't. You can however examine the evidence an event leaves behind and come up with hypothesis on its origin.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          you cannot PROVE the BB ever occurred... No one has done this. So what we are left with is an unprovable hypothesis, that cannot be recreated. Pure and simple. You have no more evidence than the Christian who says "God created".

          February 16, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • bostontola

          wolf:
          "Ok so when and where was the big bang recreated? No lab, no collider, no individual has ever tested the EVENT of the big bang. If it is not testable, it is not a theory... just a hypothesis. Testing PREDICTION is not at all testing the event. Other mechanics could bring about these very same predictions. We need a TESTABLE hypothesis to allow it to transform into viable theory."

          I can't tell if you really can't understand my numerous posts on this or are just continuing to throw out red herrings. It really doesn't matter either way. Other members of this community really do want to understand the answers to these questions, so it's worth answering them for the people with genuine questions.

          Science doesn't take phenomena and recreate them in a laboratory, that would have little value. Science creates a theoretical hypothesis based on mathematical equations (or models). It is a scientific hypothesis if it makes predictions of measurable parameters in the model that are new and can be tested. When the money is found to conduct the tests work is done to design the test to be conclusive and not confounded. If the results confirm the prediction, then the test must be reproducible by other scientists.

          The BB is a great example where all hurdles have been met. In fact, it has gone through much more than most theories because it was/is unpopular by many scientists. Many scientists did all they could to dis-prove it. Einstein himself was against the BB because he didn't believe in a changing universe. He modified his equations (that predicted an expanding universe) to eliminate that annoyance. Many others put in a lot of effort to find the error. All that happened was that they found more and more evidence for the BB.

          I expect wolf to restate his question again, have scientists recreated it in a lab, but please don't follow his lead, it will only drag you into his ostrich hole.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wow, you keep calling it a hypothesis and in doing so you prove your lack of comprehension of the facts. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, more so than 'god did it'.
          You still have not defined what you call Atheistic Cosmology? (I bring this up here because we have people like bostonola who are far better at correcting you than I am)

          February 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I dont care how widely accepted it is... if you cannot show that the event has been tested, you have to then admit it is only a hypothesis.
          It was once widely held the earth is flat... Was that a hypothesis or is it a falsified theory?

          February 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You're a moron. No matter how you twist this, you won't change the fact that the science holds up whereas your imaginary friend and the only book that speaks of it, don't.
          Saying you don't care only shows your ignorance, nothing more.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes... only its funny that it is the Christian here sticking to the definition of "THEORY" and demanding that the atheist follow suit.

          The EVENT of the BB has never been tested. You know it, we all know it, and you cant point to a single one... all you can point to is testing of one or 2 PREDICTIONS... not the actual event.

          You pretend you have a WHOLE lot more than you do, but youll present not one thing but more rhetoric... i know this much about you now.... prove me wrong and post the testing of the event itself or admit it has never been done.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          "you cannot PROVE the BB ever occurred... No one has done this"
          Well, I Can't prove it since I don't have the equipment, but it has been proven.
          The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded and pretty much showed the Big Bang to be fact.
          This did not happen all at once. SEVERAL different things were verified before it was accepted as fact.
          From the work done in the 40's to the confirmation of the background radiation in 1965 ( leading to Nobel Prize in 1978)

          If you wish to refute The Nobel Prize commitee, or the myriad other scientific minds, by all means...you may attempt it ( you WILL fail though)
          Since I have studied and comprehended that which I have seen, I will accept the word from the finest scientific minds in the world, and my own confirmation of key elements, over yours.
          The Big Bang Theory remains a theory regardless of your incorrect assessment.
          The god hypothesis will remain a hypothesis until someone can find some way of observing or testing for "his" presence.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          "pretty much showing" is not testing the event of the BB... and do you realize how many Nobel prize lariats have been proven WRONG after receiving their prize? Very flimsy. "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."

          February 16, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Arguing the definition of theory does not change the data in support of or contradicting the the big bang or creationism.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          True... it only keeps things honest and in perspective.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • igaftr

          ""If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."

          I find it highly ironic you went there. This statement was in defence of a murderer. Those particular gloves fit VERY precisely. in order to preserve evidence, he had to put on latex gloves. Between the texture of the gloves and their fit, it would be difficult to get them to fit while wearing latex gloves. The prosecutor accepts that this was a mistake to have him try the gloves on.
          It just shows you want to bring up smoke and mirrors as if it were evidence.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          but the preponderance of the evidence, as decided by a jury of peers, said that man was innocent of murder. So you look at a case with no foundation at all for its verdict and side with the BB, but you look at a man acquitted of murder because of the evidence and call him a murderer?

          I dont understand your investigative style lol. You are siding AGAINST the evidence in both cases.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          "said that man was innocent of murder"

          False. They found him not guilty, they did NOT find him innocent...not the same thing in legal terms. In one case, innocent, he DID NOT DO IT. In the second case, they did not find him guilty, meaning he may have done the crime ( and the civil trial shows he did), but there is insufficient evidence to meet the burdon of proof in the criminal trial. The gloves issue was just one of the misteps that threw a cloud on the evidence.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          The entire farce was a cloud you mean. It sure is funny that for days no blood was found until AFTER Firman picked up the blood at the jail... and instead of taking it to the lab, took it too the estate where all of a sudden they find a couple drops of blood on the socks and gate and car door, and then that same vial of blood coming up short from what he signed out when it DID make it to the lab lol.

          Not guilty, and you still call him a murderer. No testing ever done regarding the event of the so called big bang and yet you call this proven when not a scientist out there will call it PROVEN.

          Strange thinking

          February 16, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          I gave you a scientist quote three times and you refuse to acknowledge it.

          ""The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."
          – Lawrence Krauss, physicist

          Explain how WE KNOW THAT THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. can be misconstrued to NOT mean he is stating it as fact?

          Are you trying to employ the sane twisted illogic that makes you think the bible is real and there is a god?

          February 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          lol he sure takes his liberty doesn't he... This is a simple WAY-OVER-statement. He does not KNOW, and you KNOW Steve Hawking would admit we dont NOW... . But he does not take the absolutely stupid step of saying it has been proven.

          Anyone stating that the BB is PROVEN has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          by the way... i can point to men all day long that say God is proven by His intervening in their lives personally... They have more clout than someone saying "We KNOW the big bang occurred" and yet he has never tried to make sense of HOW it happened, and KNOWS the event itself cannot be tested lol

          February 16, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          "i can point to men all day long that say God is proven by His intervening in their lives personally"

          And I can show you where they have men that hear voices in their heads and even one who thinks he is Shirley Temple"
          They are just affirming their own belief, but have no actual evidence any god did anything. For instance, could be co-incidence, alien mind control, lying, delusion, mental illness, or even satan just messing with them...but since they want it to be a god, they will attribute things to this god, and assure themselves all is well...but they have no real evidence. None that will stand up to scientific verification, right?...then all they have is opinion, where they do not seek truth, they want their belief to be true.

          Still no evidence of any gods that can be verified ( by people outside the cult)

          February 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          So then since the Big Bang event has never been tested, thus far we are even.

          Care to go on from there? I dont mind.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Anyone stating that the BB is PROVEN has no scientific credibility whatsoever."

          Not to you perhaps, but it is accepted within the scientific community.

          Good night troll...next time perhaps you will actually state a point of view.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          uhh no it is NOT an accepted fact that the big bang has been PROVEN... That is one of the most scientifically IGNORANT thing said in this thread so far.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          "by the way... i can point to men all day long that say God is proven by His intervening in their lives personally..."

          Oh for sure.. that service members continue to die I am sure is most comforting to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church and their kind in proving their case that the rest of the country is not among the righteous with their wicked toleration... everyone gets their own blessed assurances...

          February 16, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          So when are you going to meet me in a moderated debate? Or do you keep running and trying not to look like it lol

          February 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      "Very simply...this isn't enough information, and far too samll a sampling to try to make any conclusions."

      Exactly my point. Good to see someone not of my belief system who recognizes this.

      February 16, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • Reality

      What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, biology, biochemistry, archeology, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

      1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.

      2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.

      3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

      4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

      5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

      6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

      7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode cataclysmically at any time ending life on Earth.

      8. Many of us are part Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.

      Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

       http://www.universetoday.com/18847/life-of-the-sun/

      solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Asteroids‎

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/us/wus-supervolcanoes-yellowstone

      Search for Paul, book by Professor JD Crossan

      Rabbi Paul, book by Professor Bruce Chilton

      https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

      http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/study-finds-star-formation-declining-throughout-the-universe/

      http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/

      February 16, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • igaftr

        The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will collide in about 4 billion years, but long before that happens, the moon, which is drifting farther and farther away, will lose much of it's influence on us, taking us out of the stable tilting we currently have, which most likey will end up with our atmosphere being ripped from the earth anyway long before our date with Andromeda.

        February 16, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • Reality

          See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119

          February 17, 2014 at 6:52 am |
    • kudlak

      The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, is just one small sample as well. Clearly then we should not take it as any kind of telling clue that the biblical narrative can be authenticated as far back as David's ancestors, right?

      February 16, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • Reality

        Unlike Abraham and Moses, there apparently was a "king" David in Jewish history but as noted below:

        "And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation."

        February 17, 2014 at 6:56 am |
  16. wolfbitn

    This is what Alias is trying to hide with all his spam:

    "Wow.. i just read the actual article this blog is referring to:

    "For two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University, the anachronisms were motivation to dig for camel bones at an ancient copper smelting camp in the Aravah Valley in Israel and in Wadi Finan in Jordan. They sought evidence of when domesticated camels were first introduced into the land of Israel and the surrounding region.

    The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible. Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat."

    THIS story is based on 2 non peer reviewed archeologists, even though they DID find older camel bones in older sediment in the very same area.

    Talk about reaching... and THIS IS the kind of absolute non scientific CRAP atheists are so fast to jump onto the bandwagon with. Taking something as thin as this to pound people over the head and pretend they are ignorant and that the bible holds no scientific merit at all.

    Wow. Unbelievable."

    February 16, 2014 at 12:15 am |
    • yukon12

      I feel for you wolfbitn. This blog a tough place for a Christian to be. I am agnostic, have read all the hundreds of comments here from the first day of the article. A few thoughts: I see that a lot of the atheists or science point of view people throw the word " prove it or show me the evidence" that the Bible is true. I used to use it. I changed my thoughts on that because their was and are millions of things in life that happened that you cannot prove. For example, I had steak for Christmas dinner. I could not prove that to anyone at all, no evidence , nothing. But it did happen.Another example are your thoughts in your brain.We all are thinking about particular things all day. We cannot prove scientifically or gather any hard evidence on what we are thinking. So does this mean we have no thoughts , of course not. The bottom line is that just because you cannot prove something does not mean it did not happen
      Thoughts on creation...
      Whatever existed in the beginning had no origin and is, therefore, immortal. Assuming Einstein, the only way it could be immortal was for it not to be subject to time.
      Scientific observation and logic relies on causality- cause and effect. Causality is plotted on time.
      Therefore where there is no time as at the beginning, scientific observation and logic CANNOT function.
      So religion"s guess is no more or less logical than sciences

      February 16, 2014 at 1:23 am |
      • dandintac

        Yukon,

        I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for people who come on here, make extraordinary claims, and demand to be exempt from providing evidence. Forget proof. I seldom ask for "proof". I ask for evidence. If you don't want to have your claim scrutinized, examined, criticized, you should not be here making it.

        As far as your "I ate steak for dinner, but cannot prove it" analogy. Understand that this is a very small claim. It effects only yourself. Your are not knocking on peoples' doors, posting signs, and threatening hellfire and eternal damnation to people who might doubt you ate steak.

        Eating steak is a commonplace experience. We can prove steak exists. And if push were to come to shove, where it was really urgent that we know the truth of the matter, your claim that you ate steak can indeed be proven–at least within a few hours. When you start demanding that the laws of the country be changed, the laws we all have to live by, because you eat steak, I might start demanding a little more solid proof...oh, wait, never mind! Wrong choice of words!

        So basically to sum up, it matters how big your claim is, and what you are doing with your claim.

        February 16, 2014 at 2:42 am |
        • derado8

          Sometimes I like to think I will reincarnate. Sometimes I like to think that I exist in several dimensions at once. I have no evidence to support either idea and I can not prove either thing false. I can not provide evidence for those ideas as there may never be any.

          I do not think that if I bring up either of those ideas that I need evidence to support them. (Maybe the difference is I call them ideas and not scientific facts?). I see no need for me to keep those ideas quiet.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:50 am |
        • dandintac

          Fine–go for it. Are you knocking on my door telling me that I must believe this also? Are you telling people that they will burn forever in a lake of fire if they don't believe it? Are you and others who share your belief pushing to have legislation enacted based on these beliefs? Laws I would have to live by also? Are you trying to have your belief in reincarnation taught to my children in the public schools as science? Are you persecuting anyone like gays or single mothers or non-believers in reincarnation? Are you going around on blogs and other public forums saying nonbelievers in reincarnation are stupid or poor broken people, or that we should be considered citizens or patriots? Does your belief in reincarnation induce you to tell people they are living their life wrong, and who they can and cannot sleep with and how?

          Furthermore, sure-if you believe in reincarnation, you don't have to say silent about it. But on the other hand, don't expect me to be silent in criticizing it. If you believe something like this, don't be shocked if people like me respond and say that it is foolish to do so if you have no evidence.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        I offered to take on any credentialed atheist here in an actual formally moderated debate. but there are no takers.
        To me this is very telling. It shows me for one, who is unarmed with any real substantial information and who fears that they cannot stand up to scrutiny. That leaves trolls and spammers to do most of the cover up work. Though its like banging my head on a wall, Iv done this before and knew what to expect. For me its good enough to show they have nothing that allows them the confidence to take the challenge for a truly moderated debate.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • igaftr

          Debate on which subject?

          February 16, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • wolfbitn

          @igaftr... That specifically I can prove what the bible lays out in Genesis chapter 1 is more scientifically viable than the big bang hypothesis.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • igaftr

          That's funny....But seriously...what did you want to debate?

          February 16, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Feel free to take me up on it, or prove to be a troll, I win either way. No one here has had what it takes so far to accept the challenge and I really did not expect for you to be the reasonable exception.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • derado8

          I'm not credentialed wolfbitin but I'd enjoy the debate sometime.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I would be happy to debate you. I believe we would both find it refreshing.
          If you are a part of any sort of forum that allows moderated debate, I would be happy to meet you. By moderated I mean also that we would both be held to strict rules. We will be able to not only lay out our theories, but we also will be forced to defend them from each other. We will be bound to address every question and point brought out by the other.
          Sorry if this seems strict. I have been in many a debate and without proper moderation it can turn into a spam/troll fest... not that I accuse you of this at all. We would simply be guaranteed a good orderly understandable easy to follow debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • tallulah131

          The problem, wolfie, is that you are an anonymous name on a blog making irrational demands. If you post your evidence, I will do my due diligence and investigate. But I don't honestly care about a debate or moderation. I find your demands silly and self-important, especially since you've already admitted that you don't have credentials of your own.

          If you have evidence, produce it. When someone contradicts you, prepare a rational argument. We all deal with trolls. If you can't handle them, then I suggest you take your claims elsewhere.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Tallulah, If you believe my criteria for a moderated debate is unreasonable, I cannot imagine why as it demands both participates stand under a microscope equally. But... i will throw out a bone and see how this goes.

          Genesis chapter one

          I imagine almost everyone here knows the first part...
          "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. And the earth was void and without form".

          This is an extremely poor translation of the Hebrew/Chaldean manuscripts and it hides the entire meaning of what is actually said here.

          The Hebrew actually states:

          "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was laid waste and destroyed".

          Before I go further, do you see the relevance of this difference in interpretation? The understanding of this passage takes entirely new meaning.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • igaftr

          Fisrt...the Big Bang DID happen...the cause is the only thing that we do not know for certain. Stll no sign of any gods though.
          It is not the Big Bang hypothesis...there is far too much to go on to still call it that. It is the Big Bang Theory.
          On the other hand...there is a god hypothesis...it cannot become a theory since there is absolutely nothing to go on, no evidence of any gods.

          Furthermore, Genesis is just flat out wrong in so many places it isn't funny. Noah's myth never happened, the moon is not a light, you can't make striped goats by having mating pairs of goats stare at striped objects. So many places Genesis is wrong

          There is no debate, since you CANNOT do what you claim, since no one knows exactly what happened that caused the Big Bang, so no, I won't bother chasing your red herring...If you want to seriously debate something, pick something that can be debated...trying to claim Genesis has any basis in reality is certainly not in that catagory.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • wolfbitn

          You are gravely mistaken... do you know thee definition of a "scientific theory"? Im not demeaning you, I am simply asking because your information is in error, and after you define "theory" I will be happy to show you your error.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "That specifically I can prove what the bible lays out in Genesis chapter 1 is more scientifically viable than the big bang hypothesis."

          First, I think you are a troll. I don't think you know what "scientifically" means.

          No I wouldn't waste my time debating you anymore than I woud waste my time debating a person from the Flat Earth Society.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Then run from it... The challenger is not the troll... everyone spamming their reluctance and excuses to run from qa moderated debate are a family of trolls. So run and excuse yourself for running lol.
          You cant even define a "theory"

          February 16, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • igaftr

          I know full well what a scientific theory is. The only part of the Big Bang Theory that is still theory is the cause. The bang itself is fact.

          Germ theory is still just a theory, so should we still not believe that germs make people sick?
          Do not try to obscure reality on the semantics of theory vs scientific theory.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I find it odd that Atheists hold Christians to the definition of a scientific theory, but fail to employ it themselves when it is shown that the event of the big bang is entirely untestable... making it of course a hypothesis and not a theory because theories CAN be repeatedly tested.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ... now lets finish the definition for those who dont know... A scientific theory is TESTABLE. If it is not testable it is only a hypothesis. You cannot test the event of the BB.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          Many tests and observations have been performed that confirm the event of the Big Bang.
          You need not re-create an event to be able to test it. The effects of it are on-going, and we can verify through observations the on-going after effects.

          If I burn a piece of wood...I can prove it was wood and what happened to it without lighting another piece of wood.
          That is a misrepresentation of scientific theories.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          igaftr... you know to say that the EVENT has been tested is incorrect. PREDICTIONS of things which MAY occur IF it happened has been tested. The event itself is not testable and has never been tested and there is not a theoretical scientist out there, not a single astrophysicist ...no one of reputation who will say that the actual event has been tested.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • tallulah131

          So wolfie, all you have to offer is your personal translation of a book of mythology? That's it? No facts, no evidence, just spin and rhetoric? Perhaps Alias is right and you are a troll.

          Maybe you can answer this: Why did it take 1500 years, humans with seafaring ability and an accidental discovery for your god to get to the Americas (and Australia)? Why was god unable to appear before the millions of people in the New World who lived and died without ever knowing about the promise of salvation? Those millions were damned by god's own omission. How does the bible explain this?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No... as for the rest of your post wth are you talking about? Thats more ridiculous rhetoric than I am used to seeing in just one paragraph lol.

          You have something against original sources as compared to modern translations?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • tallulah131

          What's so confusing about asking why god waited 1500 years after Christ to spread the word to continents that were not easily reached by humans? What's so confusing about asking why your god can't go anywhere that man doesn't take him?

          A new translation of old words merely clarifies what was said. It does not provide evidence that the words said were true. Spin and rhetoric are all you have. Alias is right: You are a troll, whether you realize it or not.

          It's funny that you claim that other people are intimidated by you. You're not intimidating. You simply don't offer anything of value.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          The mormons disagree with you...
          Nor did i say that I intimidate anyone... I said you are intimidated by a moderated debate with me

          February 16, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Ah, the wolf attempts mind-reading down here too I see.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          no... no mind reading needed. if you disagree with something point it out.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Why should I be intimidated by someone who can't answer a question, can't even admit he can't answer that question, but instead makes a silly reference to the mormon cult? Alias called it: You're a troll.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Ahh so now you decide who is a cult and who is not... are you calling Joe Biden a member of a cult? Do you consider him ignorant?

          No, you accused me of running when Iam in fact, page after page here, the CHALLENGER... so call me paint me dodge and call me General.

          And of course I am forced again to remind you that not a single one of you are up to accepting the challenge of a moderated debate wherein I show that Genesis chapter 1 is a more viable theory than the Big Bang.

          Lets get these rolls right... my challenge fills every page of response, as does the fact none of you can accept moderation... ensuring a REAL debate. I see what passes for debate here UNmoderated... nothing but trolling on the part of nearly every atheist here. You are ALL intimidated by a REAL debate

          February 16, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          @wolf: I find it pretty ridiculous to be asking here to debate someone somewhere else, moderated or not. I don't find that it helps the readers of this blog much value. If they are interested enough in scouring other blogs for a specific topic, they are able to do so. Trying to link conversations here, with anonymous names and something else somewhere else is just silly. That you find someone avoiding your idea "intimidated" is just as silly.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          o you can trust if we posted the venue of the moderated debate here, everyone reading would be there... you find moderation intimidating because then you cant troll, and youd have to stick to fact AND youd be forced to give REAL answers or be penalized... just as I would

          I'm not intimidated whatsoever. This challenge is open to every single one.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          OK well hey – good luck with that wolfy.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          My challenge is sincere. I offer an honest and spirited debate.

          It will remain open to ANY AND ALL takers

          A moderated orderly formal debate regarding a comparison of Genesis 1 and the big bang, to see which is REALLY the most viable theory.

          February 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          I am very curious to hear your argument. I would not be the best person to debate because I am open to multiple ideas about the universes origin. But I would like to point out that a moderated debate is not the only medium to convey information. It appears to me that you are more concerned about being right in front of an audience than conveying an actual message. I just interested in information to help me on my journey through life.

          February 16, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Lunch I dont mind at all presenting a few things to give you something to discuss and chew on.

          I would start you at Genesis chapter 1 in just the very first few verses.

          In the old English we read the earth was void and without form. A more proper translation into today's English would be that it was "caused" to become "laid waste and destroyed"

          This then takes on an entirely different meaning and says that sometime after the creation of the earth, it was destroyed... Jeremiah goes on to state that all life died then. Ecclesiastes says one age comes another goes but the earth remains..

          All of these things strongly imply a very old earth experiencing cycles of life and extinction.

          Now I'm sure youd subscribe to the probability that millions of years ago (by popular thought 65 million years ago) An asteroid or comet struck the Yucatan peninsula. If you apply this scenario to Genesis 1, where we saw a cycle of life and then destruction and extinction, then from there as genesis goes on, you would see that the scenario that would unfold after such a catastrophe, unfolds in the rest of chapter 1.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • dandintac

          Debate? What do you think this is here? Lay out your case.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          you obviously haven't followed the conversation lol.

          What is the difference between a formal moderated debate, and an attempted debate where trolls are held to no standard?

          Ill bet that's an easy one to answer.

          The challenge is open to all any time.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Thanks wolf. I did find one of your debates on talk spot. I think I get the jist of it. You are very detailed in forming your argument. However in that particular debate it looked like the moderator gave up.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          in that particular one yes he did... he failed to enforce and award points for the fact the opposite side ducked so many questions, and refused to acknowledge points made and not rebutted. But it still worked out favorably and proved what I set about to prove in that case.

          Thank you by the way for the good words. Im happy to discuss any part of that which catches your interest.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • hotairace

          Hey wolfie, if you are so darn smart and thousands of scientists are all wrong about the Big Bang, why are you p!issing around in a forum like this? Why haven't you published a scholarly article in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal and received the acclaim you feel you deserve? Perhaps because you are simply full of sh!t with nothing new to add?

          February 16, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I didnt say most scientists were wrong... i said they are more credible than the people here who say the Big Bang is actually PROVEN. Most all scientists are showing wisdom and prudence in not making such stupid statements.

          February 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, you claimed above:

          "@igaftr... That specifically I can prove what the bible lays out in Genesis chapter 1 is more scientifically viable than the big bang hypothesis."

          If you can prove your claim, thousands of scientists must be wrong. I didn't say most. Why should anyone debate you when you cannot read and comprehend simple English?

          February 16, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Just because I can prove that Genesis 1 is more scientifically viable than the so called big bang, this in no way implies that anyone is wrong except for an atheist... and relatively few are atheist. Atheists are what percent of the population? Science agrees with the facts found in Genesis 1

          February 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • hotairace

          So if a scientist says genesis is crap it is because he's an atheist, not because he has scientific reasons to support his view, perhaps even reasons and views published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals, supported by other scientists. And where did you say your article on genesis vs the Big Bang was published? And which reputable scientists have lined up to say "He's right! Some god did do it!"

          You're moving from being just another Babble Humper with delusions of grandeur to master conspiracy theorist. When did you last see your psychiatrist and are you taking your meds as prescribed?

          February 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Let that scientist join you in a moderated debate... I'll take you both and we'll see... but we already established that you are too intimidated to be actually moderated in a debate 🙂

          February 16, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
        • hotairace

          How about you quit screwing around show us definitively why Lawrence Krauss is wrong, right here, right now?

          February 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          He is wrong because he states "WE KNOW the big bang happened"... no one credible out there would dare to make this statement.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          So, every person that says "We know God (or insert some other as yet unproven alleged supernatural being) exists." is wrong too.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          what about faith do you think is untestable?

          February 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • hotairace

          I didn't say anything about faith. The issue is "knowing." A believer can no more know their alleged supernatural buddy exists than a scientist can know the Big Bang occurred.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You dont understand that faith is KNOWING? Really? lol

          February 16, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dr. Peter Boghossian: "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know."

          February 16, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Says the one with no faith. Without experience he is certainly no expert on faith. If this were in court, judge would throw dude from the witness stand.

          February 16, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, are you suggesting that any board certified oncologist who has not personally experienced cancer is not qualified to treat cancer? What is your take on people who claim to know god, but cannot actually prove that, giving advice about said god – would their claims stand up in a court of law, or would they be thrown out?

          February 17, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Cancer and faith are 2 different things. But an observer who is UNBIASED will study ALL observations, and leave out ZERO fact and observation in their end result.

          You are presenting apples and oranges.
          A cancer doctor can certainly diagnose, and they can observe pain, but they cannot KNOW that pain unless they experience it. A cancer patient however, KNOWS the pain regardless of study or lack thereof.

          Eyewitness testimony and personal experience,. yes... it stands up in court, especially if there is more than one witness, and God has MANY witnesses.

          It really is too bad you wont accept a moderated debate... what about a moderator is intimidating all the atheists?

          What if we had an agnostic moderator?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
    • Reality

      All moot points as there were no patriarchs to ride any kind of animal. See p.1 for added details.

      February 16, 2014 at 9:18 am |
      • wolfbitn

        Yeah so now NO ONE existed lol... you guys are so pathetic you're hilarious.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Reality

          Obviously, some did not go back to p. 1. Repeated below:

          1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis are significantly ahead of any camel studies:

          To wit:

          origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

          “New Torah For Modern Minds

          Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably (as best as one can tell) never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

          Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

          The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “

          The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."

          February 16, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • wolfbitn

          in other words, the thing where you say 1.5 million conservative Jews don't believe the torah is exceedingly false. It is a few PROGRESSIVE Jews trying to speak in lump sums. I have studied with conservative Jews for decades and I can testify that you are presenting a greatly exaggerated statement.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Reality

          Your debate should be taken up with the NY Times and the Conservative rabbis who wrote the New Torah for Modern Minds.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          you represent them as though they represent the majority of conservative Jews... I study often with Jewish people and I can assure you that you are wrong. They certainly arent regarded well by orthodoxy.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
      • Reality

        So the Orthodox rabbis have it all figured out? Good, then there is no need for Christianity as said rabbis believe.

        But to be fair:

        Again for the new members:

        Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

        • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

        • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

        • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

        • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

        • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

        • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

        • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

        Added details available upon written request.

        A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

        e.g. Taoism

        "The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

        Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "

        February 16, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
    • alonsoquixote

      Wolfbitn, you write "Wow.. i just read the actual article this blog is referring to...THIS story is based on 2 non peer reviewed archeologists, even though they DID find older camel bones in older sediment in the very same area." The New York Times article is relating information regarding research published in "Tel Aviv: Journal of the Insti tute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University", which is "a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes articles on current archaeological investigations in the southern Levant and critical studies related to the history and culture of Near Eastern civilisations. While the Journal features articles dealing with the classical and prehistoric periods, its primary focus is on the biblical and protohistoric periods." (http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=0334-4355). The article in that journal was written by Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef and Dr. Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures. When I searched Scopus, which is an abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, I found 135 total citations in 66 docu ments for Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef. Dr. Lidar Sapir-Hen had 12 citations in 11 docu ments. The number of times other researchers cite an author gives a measure of how well-regarded that author is in his field. You may argue that perhaps there is evidence out there yet to be found that will show an earlier domestication date, but the research results covered in the article discussed here were peer-reviewed and the authors appear to be credible archaeologists.

      In regards to finding camel bones in older sediments, the New York Times article includes "Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat. Dr. Sapir-Hen could identify a domesticated animal by signs in leg bones that it had carried heavy loads." Humans would likely have eaten wild camels long before they domesticated them. And when they first domesticated them, it is likely they would have been used for meat, milk, and wool some time before they were used for riding and transportation of goods.

      They were likely first kept for meat because they grow rapidly and can inhabit arid areas where vegetation is insufficient to support cattle or sheep. People would have likely soon have learned that they could use the copious amounts of wool shed by camels, especially during the spring moult. Camel dung burns more cleanly than wood, so they would have also found it was good for cooking and heating. Their use for riding and in transportation of heavy goods and long distance trade would likely have been a gradual development over hundreds of years (Bulliet, "The Camel and the Wheel", 1975)

      February 16, 2014 at 9:27 am |
      • wolfbitn

        ...So where are the knife markings on the bone to show these camels were eaten? They aren't there. No knife markings mean cop out and lie and distortion and hiding of the facts. If they had actually FOUND proof these camels werent pack animals and just a happy meal, there would be no "maybe" "perhaps" blah blah.
        What is the evidence they were eaten? None is presented and he is obviously hypothesizing.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          I did not state that Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef and Dr. Lidar Sapir-Hen wrote in their paper that the camel bones in the older layer were those of camels that had been eaten. In regards to their research I wrote "Dr. Sapir-Hen could identify a domesticated animal by signs in leg bones that it had carried heavy loads", which comes from the New York Times article. I haven't read the paper in the "Tel Aviv: Journal of the Insti tute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University" as it isn't available online, unless, perhaps, one subscribes to the journal. I haven't found anything online from that journal published later than 2012.

          I can understand how you inferred the information regarding consumption of camel meat came from their paper, but in what I wrote subsequently, I was merely providing information on what is the generally accepted view among archaeologists regarding the domestication of camels. Camels would have existed in the area before they were domesticated. The article deals with the evidence for the domestication of camels and use for carrying loads, not their first appearance.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • wolfbitn

          The fact that they stated this, regarding older camel bones found in the same copper mine excavation, that were found in older strata,.. to me its a cop out as there are SO MANY possible explanations.
          The point of their paper was ONLY to determine when the camel appeared in Israel... this is outright stated in the paper. So the fact they find OLDER bones make their claim not only moot, it is ridiculous and certainly flawed as there were OBVIOUSLY camels there prior to their given date IF the bones were found indicating their presence.... and we see them admit they are certainly found there.
          Then they offer ZERO evidence to support their claim that these older camels were a food source. Even if they WERE a food source, we still see them present in Israel HUNDREDS of years before which puts them there at the time of the patriarchs.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wofbitn, you wrote "The point of their paper was ONLY to determine when the camel appeared in Israel... this is outright stated in the paper." Do you have access to the paper published in the journal? I don't know what you are basing that statement on, which contradicts the articles I've read about the paper, including the CNN one. The New York Times article states "They sought evidence of when domesticated camels were first introduced into the land of Israel and the surrounding region."

          The article "Finding Israel's First Camels: TAU archaeologists pinpoint the date when domesticated camels arrived in Israel" at the American Friends of Tel Aviv University website at http://www.aftau.org/site/News2/634678438?page=NewsArticle&id=19673&news_iv_ctrl=-1 also states their research was on the domestication of camels not when they first appeared:

          "To determine exactly when domesticated camels appeared in the southern Levant, Dr. Sapir-Hen and Dr. Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating and other techniques to analyze the findings of these digs as well as several others done in the valley. In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible. The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels, which archaeologists think were in the southern Levant from the Neolithic period or even earlier. Notably, all the sites active in the 9th century in the Arava Valley had camel bones, but none of the sites that were active earlier contained them."

          Also, as I stated in my last posting, I did not state that the researchers claim the earlier camel bones that were mentioned in the journal article were from camels that had been eaten nor do any of the articles that I have read regarding their research make that claim. As far as I know they may have been the bones of wild camels that died in the region from natural causes. I was merely providing information on the process of domestication that likely took place in stages over a considerable amount of time.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • wolfbitn

          It was an excavation of a copper mine... a place of industry, not some wilderness area. It was a place where beast would have been used, and they found OLDER camel bones in OLDER strata in the very same location.
          What differentiated these older bones from the newer? Why do they SPECULATE that these older bones were from camels eaten for food when they offer NO EVIDENCE AT ALL in this regard?

          2 very easy questions.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        and yeah... they find older camel bones at the copper mine site and yet we are to believe wild camels just overran the site... and they were in fact an illusion because according to these 2 educated idiots, even though the older bones are there, they didnt exist in Israel until hundreds of years later. They sound awfully confused.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:14 am |
    • Alias

      I'm not sure why you attached my name to this article, but I guess I should take it as a compliment.
      In all honesty, I'm more amused than flattered.

      February 16, 2014 at 10:35 am |
      • wolfbitn

        You were the one spamming it down the line and out of view with nothing substantial at all but insult to christian children and families.... There is nothing flattering there at all.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • Alias

          this coming from somone desperately trying to convince us that if we cannot replicate the bib bang that we cannot prove it scientificly.
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!

          February 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ok... test it and send us all the results right here and now... or stop calling the event a theory and admit it is just a hypothesis.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          When you keep making demands that people MUST meet NOW or they are trolls, you just show an incredible immaturaty. Since reading many of your posts, and fully offering you a chance earlier ( that you never responded to, or is it that you ran away, as you would claim of others, then I see you bear false witness on someone you don't know), I see a debate DEMANDED by you would be similar to a 12 year old DEMANDING Mike Tyson fight them, and then claiming victory when Mike politely declines.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Well whats wrong? Is it the moderation forcing both sides to answer that intimidates you all? Is it because youd be forced to stick to the subject and answer questions you have no answer for?

          There are a lot of people here who say they will debate this, but not a single one of you will do it with a moderator who will insist both sides actually debate and not troll. This is very telling.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Wrong again you lying troll. It was pointed out last night it fits perfectly with the work of other archaeologists, including the work of Dr. Israel Finklestein, (as presented in the PBS Nova Series "The Bible's Buried Secrets" which YOU never even tried to refute, and you chose to ignore. The ancient desert dwellers who wrote the TWO versions of what ended in Genesis 1 had NO CLUE what happened. It's ALL myth. Every scholar knows that. You obviously NEVER went to any real Biblical Studies program, in ANY accredited university. You are the troll here.

      February 16, 2014 at 11:04 am |
      • wolfbitn

        Thats why you run from a moderated debate as fast as you run your mouth with nothing... when you have what it takes to meet me in a moderated forum, then you will have my respect. Until then, youre the one running from the challenge lol.... so run your lil feet off

        February 16, 2014 at 11:33 am |
  17. Alias

    The only reason christianity has lasted as long as it has in this country is the social pressure that has been applied. Until recently, it was necessary to go to church and claim to believe in god if you wanted to be accepted in this country.
    Politicians are still promoting the bible because most voters are christians.
    Fortunately, the social stigma is going away. There are still some communities – mostly in the south – where you have to be christian to be accepted, but our children see through the lies of the church. They know the bible doesn't make sense, and they are turning away from it.
    The world is getting better all the time. I personally believe it will continue to do so. I have faith in our children.

    February 15, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I hope the trend is for people to abandon religion because they can see that it is false. Apathy will do the job as well, but I rather hope that people are learning to use logic, think critically, demand facts, and take responsibility for the things they once "put in God's hands."

      February 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        There are a lot of people that choose to be Christians, not because of the peer pressure or hopes of being accepted by everyone, but because the religion makes sense to them.

        The Bible can make sense if read properly. Which, for me, means admitting it is not inerrant. And it was never meant to be. For example, Jesus spoke in parables a lot. They obviously were things that didn't actually happen but they revealed a truth. Does that mean they are wrong or don't make sense? Not necessarily. Our culture still continues to create "parable" like revelations: in fiction, movies, plays, etc. that reveal truths that are understood.

        I'm actually glad that the social pressure aspect of the religion is dying off. It doesn't help. I don't think it was supposed to be that way. From what I understand, the gospel is supposed to oppose the status quo. Not establish it. The status quo will always become corrupt with power, wealth, fame, etc.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I can appreciate what you have to say here. Sometime you and I should talk a bit deeper about why it makes sense to me. You may find it refreshingly informed and intriguing.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes, thanks.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Oh really ? The religion which says that an ancient angry Babylonian war god, (Yahweh Sabaoth) REQUIRED his son to die so he could feel better ... that does make a lot of sense now doesn't it. Sure it does.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • Dalahäst

          The religion doesn't say that.

          Some people in the religion and outside of the religion may say that.

          I don't. And I'm a Christian.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • dandintac

          "...There are a lot of people that choose to be Christians, not because of the peer pressure or hopes of being accepted by everyone, but because the religion makes sense to them."

          I'm sure you can find a few here and there for which this statement is true. But I don't believe it's the majority. Every single Christian I know in person has always told me that a) they were brought up as a Christian; or b) given emotionally-related reasons for becoming a Christian (i.e.–"I felt Christ's Love" or they were "lost, broken" or so on).

          Not one has every given me a list of rational arguments that persuaded them to become a Christian. For example, no one has every told me that they converted to Christianity because of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or that they believed the existence of objective morality proves the Christian god exists, or that the teleological argument is what did it for the, or "historical evidence" (the Bible) or so on. Sure, Christians will cite the Bible, but the truth is few Christians ever read the entire Bible, they just no passages here and there, and often someone tells them what to think about it–a minister or a Bible Study group. It nearly always seem to be indoctrination/brainwashing, or emotional reasons that make believers.

          Here's a good example of how people become Christians:

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac&w=640&h=360]

          February 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Funny. Now for some reality:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k

          February 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Much of what Jesus said made sense. But he was a reformer of the religion he grew up with. Saw it clearly for its hypocrisy. I suppose one could be a follower of Jesus and not of the Christ. Worse choices could be made than that.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Not really. He was just one of many of the apocalyptic preachers (in the Essene) tradition, at the time. He never said he was "starting" a new religion, or that it was about him. His followers eventually turned it into a religion about him.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
    • believehimnotyou

      I'm not a Christian because of social pressure. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. If I were the last Christian on earth I would still be a Christian. I admit my Christianity is based on my belief in God and that I believe the Bible is true. You continue to be proud of your children and put your faith in them. I'll put my faith in God.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        You come here to declare that you will believe as you will regardless of what anyone might say? Does this set you up well with God or something?

        February 15, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          My position is already set with God. I came here to see what fallacies are being proclaimed against Christianity.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          You probably mean falsehoods.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You're so sure, I see. If you know already, why does there need to be a "last judgement" ?
          Jesus called you people "whited sepulchers", as I recall.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          No, I mean fallacy. Look it up.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Bucky, yes I'm sure. Jesus called those who believed in their own righteousness whited sepulchers. My salvation is Christ's righteousness not my own

          February 15, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I don't know how to proclaim a fallacy against someone. Do you mean Christians are being accused of fallacies? If so, you may have come to the right place.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          A fallacy can mean a deceptive, misleading, false notion which I believe many articles on this belief page such as this one are.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          it's self righteousness, however you say it, church lady.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Churchlady haha that's funny! I'm a 46 yr old man

          February 15, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I figured that. A 46 year old literal (as usual) American fundie ignoramus.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
      • Alias

        Generalizations do not apply to every individual.
        Society is changing, even if some people are not.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Yep you are right society is changing, just as the Bible predicted: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts"

          February 15, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • Alias

          The bible also promised a second coming before a generation passed away.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          that generation still lives too.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitn
          "that generation still lives too."
          This is the type of lie I was referring to on my post.
          Taking things out of context and applying the wrong meaning to words fools no one.
          Unless, of course, they want to be fooled.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Lie huh... In the old testament the nation of Israel is often referred to as a fig tree and the israelites figs. The old testament foretold the destruction of Israel AND it's rebuilding after 2000 years. We saw this come to pass when the impossible happened and Israel became a nation... The generation who saw the budding of the fig tree still lives dude... you are extremely ignorant of scripture. Any good Rabbinic Jew will tell you this has been the interpretation of fig tree for thousands of years.

          Call me a liar again after you take a little history

          February 15, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • Alias

          Even if I accepted thqat a christian is using another religion's leaders to interpret their flawed book;
          Israel became a nation in 1948. How long do you think 'a generation' lasts?
          BTW – that is in history books if you want to read about it.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote " In the old testament the nation of Israel is often referred to as a fig tree and the israelites figs. ... The generation who saw the budding of the fig tree still lives dude..." I'm aware of the fig tree analogy, but Matthew 16: 27-28 states:

          "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

          Even if Matthew 24:25-34 mentions a fig tree, the two verses above plainly state "There be some standing here". The unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew plainly states that some of them who were there listening to Jesus' words at that moment would still be alive to see his return.

          How is that possible then, if he hasn't returned? Do you believe in the legend of the Wandering Jew (see the Wikipedia article "Wandering Jew")?

          And what does the Apostle Paul write in 1 Corinthians 7:27-31:

          "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
          But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away."

          Again the author indicates that Jesus will return soon not in the distant future.

          And from 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:

          "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

          Again the author refers to those living at the time.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • wolfbitn

          And according to Acts, Revelation and elsewhere, they DID see Him before they tasted of death...

          February 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          And Alias... you said i was using ANOTHER religions leaders to interpret the old testament? Are you so ignorant you dont know the old testament was written by Israelites? lol Do you not know that Christianity is nothing more than a SECT of the Jew?

          February 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "And according to Acts, Revelation and elsewhere, they DID see Him before they tasted of death..." Matthew 16: 27-28 states:

          "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

          Are you claiming that "till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" does not refer to the "Second Coming" despite the fact that Matthew 26:27 includes "and then he shall reward every man according to his works"? So that does not mean the Judgment Day? Isn't that when reward and punishment is to be meted out? Did that day of judgment occur when Jesus supposedly went back to Heaven in the first century? Elsewhere in the New Testament Judgment day is placed at the end of the world.

          And from 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:

          "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

          So all of that has already occurred? Did that all occur at the resurrection? Who went up into the clouds with him at that time?

          February 16, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, where can I find the definitive proof for Acts, or any other chapter of The Babble? Are you holding science in general, and the Big Bang specifically, to a higher standard than a book that the Smithsonian has described as not historic?

          February 16, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        believehimnotyou,
        If I have an event for which there is equal or better evidence than there is for the resurrection, (of Jesus) do you agree to accept it as real ?

        February 15, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Bucky you'll never get it. My beliefs are by faith in something that I have no physical proof. Why would anything you present convince me? I admit that. You refuse to admit that your faith is solely what man has told you is true.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          So you are a chicken. And you admit your faith is irrational.
          Thank you. That's what I thought.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "refuse to admit that your faith is solely what man has told you is true."

          I have no "faith" That sentence makes no sense. Are you like "mentally challenged" ?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          believehimnotyou,
          So if your faith IS irrational, as you say, why are you concerned with anything being peer reviewed science ?
          Not only your faith is irrational, YOU are totally irrational, and inconsistent.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Bucky I didn't say irrational, I said I have no physical evidence. Nothing irrational to me. The peer review is the discussion you had with the other guy not me. I could care less if another misguided peer agreed or not.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You agreed with him, and jumped on his band-wagon.
          So you are saying there is NO rational basis for your faith.
          I too believe the moon is made of green cheese.
          My faith is worth just as much as yours with no rational basis.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I never said "physical evidence", I said "evidence" (any kind).
          I can PROVE that the witches of Salem Massachusetts REALLY were witches, with the same or BETTER evidence than believers say they have for the resurrection.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you want. I'll think you are an idiot, just as you think I am. Freedom right?

          February 16, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Yup. You are free to believe in any ridiculous nonsense you choose, including your deity, which is tantamount to believing the moon is made of green cheese. How sad.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:10 am |
      • tallulah131

        Would your belief remain if there were no "salvation"? If there were just commandments but no offer of reward? Would you be a christians without the promise of heaven?

        February 15, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          That's a good question. I guess I would have to say no because the definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ, if there were no salvation that would mean Jesus the Christ had never come. So how could I be a Christian? Would I still believe in a God? Probably.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I said nothing about no Jesus. What I said was would you still believe if there were just rules and no reward? Is Christ himself compelling enough for you, or do you need the prize of heaven?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Hypotheticals are a waste of time. You don't have one without the other. But, the whole point of Christianity and Salvation is to have a relationship restored with God, whether on earth or in heaven

          February 16, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • tallulah131

          The problem with belief in any god is that god are strictly hypothetical. The only proof that exists for any god is old stories and human emotions. So I was merely asking if the basis of your belief was the message or the offered reward.

          You are simply admitting that the words of Jesus are not sufficiently convincing enough for you to follow his teaching. You need a prize. Which is a shame, because the teachings attributed to Christ are the most compelling thing about him.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:42 am |
      • dandintac

        That may be true, but you must admit that no one will ever admit that they are Christian due to social pressure. There are a lot of places where those who are not Christian are shunned and ostracized, even persecuted. Do you admit this? Do you admit that there probably are a lot of "Christians" who are pressured to be such? Please watch the Jesus Camp clip.

        What made you become a Christian? Was it the Teleological Argument that swayed you? Or did the Ontological Argument do it for you?

        February 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      Alias, are you always so condescending? Don't you regard such blanket statements as ignorant? Why is it you choose to demean such a huge portion of the human race? You are definitely prejudiced... but then its only fashionable to be prejudiced against Christians now days isn't it.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
      • believehimnotyou

        I think its because he actually believes Christians are a minority of dumb southerners.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Christianity has taken hold in many places. Doesn't it seek out ignorance and poverty?

          February 15, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          If this sort of blanket statement were made about a race or nation of people, no one would stand for it. This wall would be full of disgust and chastising Alias as bigoted and hateful. We all know this is true yes?

          February 15, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Tom Tom you've been drinking too much shine. Have you ever been to the South? It's not HeeHaw or Mayberry. I live in Huntsville Alabama, where rockets were designed to carry men to the moon. Probably more Engineers in this town per capita than Silicon Valley. I've designed PC Boards that have gone in space and the most high tech military equipment on earth.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • Alias

          Actually woflbitn i was making statements about a nation. This one – The USA>
          They are historically accurate.
          Where do you see hate?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Christianity doesn't seek out ignorance and poverty, people who are weak?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • believehimnotyou

          Tom Tom, no Christianity seeks out all. The Bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We all need a Savior. (sorry this one was on the wrong post)

          February 16, 2014 at 12:16 am |
      • Alias

        I made several statements.
        Please be more specific about which ones you think are condescending and ignorant.

        February 15, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          start with your first post in this thread

          February 15, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • Alias

          Okay, there has been social pressure to be a christian in this country.
          What's your issue with that?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        Your statements are bigoted and hateful toward Christians. There is no arguing this. You know it already, everyone reading this knows it. I'm just calling you for what you are. A bigot spouting hateful and condescending trash.

        February 15, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • Alias

          My statements are historically accurate.
          Attacking the messenger does not invalidate the message.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Historically accurate? Dude you are a bigot and have no understanding of ANYTHING southern or christian, i can say this as a fact.

          Your comments:

          "There are still some communities – mostly in the south – where you have to be christian to be accepted, but our children see through the lies of the church. They know the bible doesn't make sense, and they are turning away from it."

          If you said this about blacks, muslims jews, hispanics or ANYONE ELSE, everyone here would label you a bigot and it is likely youd be banned.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • tallulah131

          So there is no social pressure to be a christian? Tell that to the small town I grew up in. Religion doesn't appeal to the poor and poorly educated? Some of the most christian places on this planet are also some of the poorest. Some of the poorest states in this country are in what is known as the "Bible Belt".

          It seems to me that you are attacking because you have no way to contradict these claims. Why not simply accept the truth then show why these factors don't support the original claim?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I am simply attacking bigots... i am reasoning with the rest

          February 15, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • tallulah131

          No. What you are doing is calling names instead of providing a reasoned response.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          o ok... replace the words "Christian" with "Black" or "Gay" and lets see how his statements stand in a forum 🙂

          February 16, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • Alias

          It wouldn't make any sense to say that about blacks or hispanics, would it?
          Social pressure to be black????? THAT is your logic?????

          February 15, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          what about our children finding us to be liars... that is most offensive and bigoted not to mention completely base, and its just an ignorant untrue thing to say. You are a bigot and too damned inept to hold an intelligent conversation.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • Alias

          If you wanted examples of lies you should have just asked in the first place:
          1) It was only a few priests who were responsible for most of the pedophilia.
          2) We have proof god exists.
          3) The bible is the perfect word of god.
          4) If you don't understand the bible it is because you are unworthy.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • wolfbitn

          So are you willing to take me up on my challenge then? Should be easy if anything you say is relevant. I say Genesis 1 is more scientifically validated than the big bang... I will debate ALL takers formally in a moderated debate... I am betting though the only response I get from you will be more trolling, more insult, more bigotry, but certainly anything but an acceptance to my challenge. You are about to prove me right again.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • Alias

          Congratulations!
          You found something science hasn't answered yet. That in no way proves your god, or any god, exists.
          Please see the other posts in "god filling gaps".
          Nice twist though, it really sounds like you can prove one chapter of the bible the way you spin it. Anyone who is as willfully blind as you will not see it for what it is.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I offer the original language, not an interpretation. You offer insult and bigotry but certainly no debate. You have no idea regarding definitions because you dont care to loo0k and check it out for yourself.

          One thing you would never be able to do is stand in a moderated debate... you would look as completely unprepared and ignorant to everyone else as you do to me right now.

          Feel free to take me up on it any time you decide to grow up and be a bit civil.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • Alias

          By the way – nice job changing the topic there.
          You managed to go back to your loaded challenge when this topic got too hard for you.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • wolfbitn

          no no... i bring you BACK to the challenge and I refuse to let you go on spamming without reminding every reader that all your rhetoric/trolling/spamming is your effort to cover the fact there are NO TAKERS AT ALL from the atheist side... I see a LOT of trolling... i see not one single atheist willing to actually debate. So go on and spam some more... troll... anything but put your ideas under the scrutiny of a moderated debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Alias

          What about a moderated debate on a different topic?
          The one you picked is pointless.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Pointless for you obviously, because you wouldnt be able to stand in a moderated debate.

          If you dont want to accept the challenge dont, but it is definitely you running FROM what I am attempting to run INTO.

          You have very little excuse for bashing christians over the head if you run from a moderated debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          You want a debate...ok...let's start with this. I am well versed with current scientific theories. None include any god.

          Please state your hypothesis, and any/all supporting observations , tests, or any other supporting data.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          and who is going to moderate this debate to make sure we BOTH answer the hard questions?

          The challenge is this... I can prove that Genesis 1 is more scientifically viable than the BB hypothesis.

          When, where and who is moderating? I accept

          February 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • hotairace

          wolfie, come on, quit p!ssing around. Lay out your grand solution or admit you are a coward with nothing new to offer. Other than perhaps the thickest skin and greatest absolute blind faith of any mentally ill delusional believer silly enough to repeatedly make the bullsh!t claims you have. You all run away eventually. . .

          February 16, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I am the one challenging every atheist here to a moderated debate.... You guys are the ones running from the challenge. My theory is that you know you'll be forced to actually debate if it is moderated.

          You are what you do... A coward does not make challenges... a coward runs from them and my challenge is before you all, to a moderated debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • hotairace

          Bullsh!t! You've been ducking and diving when all you need to do is clearly state your case and allow others to determine if you have anything worth debating. Thus far, you've presented nothing new and likely have nothing new. Again, get on with it or admit you have nothing. Most likely, you'll just run away.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          common sense would dictate that it is not the challenger running, but rather those making every excuse not to accept that challenge 🙂
          Im running TO the challenge... every atheist thus far has run FROM this challenge or else we would be elsewhere in moderated debate.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          Considering the misdefinitions, and genral hypocaracy, plus you obvious inability to comprehend simple concepts, I need to see that you are worthy. I am not running away, but I hardly believe you could debate anything since you have shown no ability to state anything with clarity. Show you are worthy perhaps.
          A simple request stated AGAIN.:
          Please state your hypothesis, and any/all supporting observations , tests, or any other supporting data.

          I know all you have so far is you believe there is a god, but how do you test for that, how can that be observed ( and ALL other possibilities be eliminated) then show this god is YOUR god, and not some other of the thousands of gods.

          Simple request if you want to be taken seriously.

          February 16, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          So youre willing to do this... you just insist we not do this formally with a moderator... what are you worried about? Why is every one of you intimidated by a MODERATED debate?

          February 16, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
      • believehimnotyou

        Tom Tom, no Christianity seeks out all. The Bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We all need a Savior

        February 15, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • igaftr

          "we all need a savior"
          Not necessarily. It is but one possibility among an infinite number of possibilities.

          You need to be saved? From the threat your god created in the first place.
          Sounds like a schoolyard bully. Give him your lunch money, or he will make you punch yourself in the face....he doesn't WANT to make you punch yourself......see, same thing...bully creates the threat and it is YOUR fault if you get hit with the consequences of non-compliance.

          Also, just the basic immorality of allowing another to take your just punishment...more like a test god created to see who is immoral enough to dodge their own punishment, and he will ACTUALLY take those who are moral enough to not allow another to stand for them.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • hotairace

          Unless you can prove a god exists and that The Babble is the word of an as yet unproven god, you are just spewing bullsh!t. Enjoy your delusions but please don't project them on others who are not members of your cult.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Most of what Alias said is true. It's also incomplete. Christianity has followed many different communities that have established themselves here. Religion is often a part of cultural identity. There's a lot to say about who is Christian and why. Still, as a religion, it is a self-reinforcing set of ideas that people hold that, though false, can reliably replicate itself through generations – a virus.

      February 15, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
    • Alias

      Looks like I really struck a nerve with some people.
      (Just to be condescending and hateful and to prove woflbitn right for once – )
      THE TRUTH HURTS.

      February 15, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
      • believehimnotyou

        Haha apparently it does because I believe the Bible is the Truth.

        February 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • the0g0to0the0t

          "Haha apparently it does because I believe the Bible is the Truth."

          You can believe that your version of the bible is the truth (that's a matter of faith). But to deny that religions create social pressures (especially in smaller communities) to participate or be ostracized is just ignorant.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          Which Bible do you believe contains the truth? Is it a Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac one, etc.? They contain different books – see the Wikipedia article "Biblical canon". If it is a Protestant Bible, which translation? Translations vary as to which verses they regard as genuine and which they regard as interpolations, i.e. insertions by later scribes. E.g., some treat the the Comma Johanneum, i.e., 1 John 5:7 and the Pericope Adulterae, i.e., John 7:53-8:11, as genuine while others do not. There is also debate about the authenticity of the "Longer Ending of Mark", e.g., see the Wikipedia article "Mark 16". You can find other disputed passages in the Wikipedia article "Jesus and the woman taken in adultery", which covers the Pericope Adulterae. There is no one Bible regarded as canonical by all Christians.

          And in the early days of Christianity there were many other books, e.g., the Gospel of Mary, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc. Other writers wrote tales besides the ones that were included in today's Bibles.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:03 am |
  18. lunchbreaker

    Has anyone else noticed that apparently no one can argue a point on this blog without attacking the poster or an entire group of people?

    February 15, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Guilty. But trying to get better.

      I realized my engagements, conversations, fights on here really weren't like my real world experiences. Like, I interact with a variety of people at work, family, play and other places. When we talk about religion, personal beliefs, science beliefs, etc. it rarely gets heated.

      Actually we rarely talk about those things, but when they do come up in a relevant manner, most are respectful.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
    • Alias

      I try not to attach anyone that isn't an obvious troll.
      I do not consider showing the bible to be flawed an attack.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Dalahast, I would say you arw one of the more civil posters here. I honestlt complement you on that. But it is something I try to work on too. The anonomity of the inertnet makes it easy to fall in that direction.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      My honest opinion is that if Christians such as myself, who have an understanding of early manuscripts and early translations, using this to understand newer translations, were able to discuss with agnostics and atheists without trolls attempting to disrupt from either side, you would understand that most of us are not ignorant people. You may also come to understand that what we have come to is only after VAST education in many fields. This doesn't make us right. But I believe this does make us worthy of the discussion. Granted there have been outlandish teachings and actions within religion, but every side has every kind of follower and believer... every side. Iv met people here who I disagree with but respect. And if youll forgive my manner, I am usually very civil until I encounter ignorant trollish actions, and then I feel it a duty to step up to the plate and end it if possible.
      So if I have been offensive, I apologize to the innocent.
      I can assure you though, that the bible does not teach the outlandish things I have seen presented here... I dont want to hear about a 6000 year old earth because the bible states absolutely that this earth is extremely old. What we find in geology, we find in Genesis 1. There is absolutely not a single discrepancy. I'm happy to talk about this.

      February 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
      • Alias

        Judas committed suicide by hanging Matt 27:5
        Judas did not hang himself, but died another way Acts 1:18

        February 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
      • Alias

        MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
        LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
      • Alias

        MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
        LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
        JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

        February 15, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
      • Alias

        Matt 13:31-32: ” “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.”
        Two problems here; mustard is not the smallest seed, and it does not grow into a tree.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        Alias... first of all you failed to comprehend what I said, and I see nothing there from Genesis chapter 1.

        Secondly, nothing you posted points to any inaccuracy... pick one and challenge me AFTER we talk about chapter 1 from Genesis... trolls will not sidetrack this issue.

        So post something in context to this conversation.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • Alias

          Even if there is one chapter Genesis that has no contradictions, so what?
          The bible is flawed.
          There are factual inaccuracies.
          There are contradictions.
          There are logical failures.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          pick one to stand on then and challenge me

          February 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • Alias

          I'll pick one.
          The bible says god is all powerful. It also says he HAD TO sacrifice his only son to forgive us our sins.

          Go ahead. Explain how the all powerful creator of the universe had no other options.

          February 15, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Actually you are entirely incorrect.

          The bible does not say ANYWHERE that God had to sacrifice His only Son to forgive us. Do you see how theologically ignorant you are just by this statement? You make false charges from GROSS misconception.

          Want to try again?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
        • Alias

          For all your big talk I tought you would know what 'The Law' said.
          It had to be fulfilled.
          "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

          However, that does not answer my question, does it?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Where there does it say GOD HAD TO send His Son in order to FORGIVE US? Its not there is it? No its not what that says at all.

          God wanted to forgive and even gave that forgiveness before Christ entered into this world IF you understand Hebrew poetry which I am sure you don't.

          Forgiveness wasn't the issue... Justice was. Whether you recognize it or not laws in this universe DO RULE this universe. People who dont even believe in God sometimes believe in KARMA... We reap what we sow. Karma is a law too and it is set in motion meaning JUSTICE HAS to prevail or God becomes a law breaker.

          Mercy and Justice were both satisfied at the offering of Christ, and through this satisfaction, forgiveness could actually bear fruit and enjoy it's own satisfaction.

          It was JUSTICE who demanded the sacrifice, not forgiveness. The forgiveness that already existed, manifested the sacrifice to Justice.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:01 am |
        • Alias

          Dodge, misinterpret, insult, lie, dodge, changing context, dodge.

          February 16, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • wolfbitn

          ok then bring something... I'm still waiting, and as you can see, you better be accurate lol

          February 16, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • wolfbitn

          that's a great description by the way... youve brought nothing but discord and insult to the table since your first post. Youve shown over and over you have no idea 3hat the bible REALLY says regarding ANY issue youve brought ut, when context is brought into it you bulk and tell us how ignorant we are but thank God our children see our lies. Youre a real piece of work

          February 16, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "The bible does not say ANYWHERE that God had to sacrifice His only Son to forgive us."

          Wow, that's a blatant lie.
          John 3:16; For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.

          February 16, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Where does that say He had to give Him up in order to FORGIVE us? Youre the blatant liar. He died to give justice the blood IT demanded. You obviously have no understanding of doctrine... i suggest you read up a bit before taking this on. He had ALREADY forgiven us... and offered it freely... He just couldnt bypass justice without crimes being paid for, so His Son paid the price.

          If you cannt find the statement "He had to die in order to forgive us", then stop making crap up to suit your own biases.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitn
          It is not my fault that you don't know what your bible says.
          The Law had to be fulfilled. Try 'google' some time.

          Additionally, judges 1:19 showa another contradiction to your god being all powerful.
          19Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • wolfbitn

          you said it yourself... The LAW had to be satisfied... justice... just as i said. It had nothing to do with forgiveness but the stay of execution. Go take a course and come back and try again.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          wofl: You keep twisting this to fit your delusion. Your god allowed his only child to be saved to save the world from sin...no matter how you spin that you can't change the reality of it.
          I doubt you care much about what others have to say and are only here looking for an argument...simply not worth it. Although I do suggest you look up the Atheist Experience and locate the number for their call-in show and give Matt Dillahunty a piece of your mind (fair warning, he'll bury you in a heartbeat...it would simply be entertaining for the rest of us to see).

          February 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          The statement that Christ had to die for our forgiveness is in error... not the fact He died for sin... He died to take the PUNISHMENT of sin to satisfy justice... learn a little theology. Youll not find ANYTHING in theology shooting down the fact He died to satisfy JUSTICE.

          And if your little god would bury me in a debate... tell him to meet me in one that is moderated... where HE has to answer just qs i do and cannot just cut people off... my bet is he doesn't have the kahonies.

          February 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • Alias

        Baptism commanded, Matt 28:19
        Baptism not commanded, 1 Cor 1:17,14

        February 15, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          and what is the context of those 2 statements? Lets see if you're wearing big boy pants or sucking straw

          February 15, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • Alias

          So much for you not trying to be offensive. 😉

          February 15, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          In other words you dont know the context.... you prove yourself an ignorant as well as a very bigoted soul. Ignorant of all the classic doctrines passed down through time, and insanely bigoted against any and all believers in Christ, even to the point of attacking their families in your comments.
          I ask again, what is the context of those 2 statements... youre the one bringing them up.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • Alias

          John 3:5 , "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
          Go ahead, tell me jesus got it wrong.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:16 am |
  19. wolfbitn

    Wow.. i just read the actual article this blog is referring to:

    "For two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University, the anachronisms were motivation to dig for camel bones at an ancient copper smelting camp in the Aravah Valley in Israel and in Wadi Finan in Jordan. They sought evidence of when domesticated camels were first introduced into the land of Israel and the surrounding region.

    The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible. Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat."

    THIS story is based on 2 non peer reviewed archeologists, even though they DID find older camel bones in older sediment in the very same area.

    Talk about reaching... and THIS IS the kind of absolute non scientific CRAP atheists are so fast to jump onto the bandwagon with. Taking something as thin as this to pound people over the head and pretend they are ignorant and that the bible holds no scientific merit at all.

    Wow. Unbelievable.

    February 15, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
    • believehimnotyou

      Yep and all of these people here that want to talk about scientific fact never read the actual studies. They want to believe this nonsense because they feel it justifies their hatred toward Christians and the Bible.

      February 15, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
      • Alias

        I do not hate the bible.
        I simply do not believe in the christian god.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Since when does "peer reviewed" science interest you ? Is THAT REALLY the standard YOU are going to establish ? Really ? Are you sure you know what THAT means ?
      The fact is, it fit PERFECTLY with other findings, (Finklestein et all).
      Nice try. You debunked NOTHING. You did display your utter ignorance of the subject at hand.
      What IS amazing is you actually didn't bother to read the piece in the first place.

      February 15, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        ok yeah... i see what kind of science guru you are... peer review and things like tenure means nothing.., youd rather believe 2 hacks lol
        Feel free, but you just destroyed your own credibility.

        How ironic that the Christian is criticized by the atheist because the Christian asked for peer review work if he was going to take it seriously. as any sort of science

        February 15, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Oh they mean a lot to me. Usually religious nuts don't care. If "peer reviewed" science means something to you, we can talk how ridiculous the Babble is with science. You SURE you want that ?

          *As if* you two KNOW even ONE archeologist from another, or even ONE name, or ANYTHING about the field at all. Who are YOu to call them "hacks". *as if* you know ONE thing about archaeology. You are So desperate to maintain your delusions, ANYONE who threatens your "faith" is a "hack". What jokes you are.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Dude I have debated men with better credentials than these 2 ridiculous beings. Did you see their goal was to simply see when the camel arrived in Israel, and then in the same breath say they found older camel bones in the same area in older sediment>?? lol And they try to bash the bible over this ridiculous leap of illogic made by 2 men admitting they found older bones lol.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Really ? Name two.
          Your "debating" skills are pretty pathetic, as well as your education.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Are you from "Answers in Genesis". I see you didn't even understand the article.

          February 15, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          lmao youre the one who wants to take 2 non peer reviewed men who found older bones and said they didnt, and grant them enough credence to beat people over the head. I can certainly read. Did it not say they found older camel bones?

          February 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      So, are you actually Eric Jewell?

      February 15, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        I am one of them.

        February 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
  20. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w&w=640&h=360]
    ..

    February 15, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.