1. say what says

    really don’t want to watch the vid and getting pissed off this early on a saturday…….so it would be greatly appreciated if you would do a little transcript of the 2:10 reveal they aren’t scientists part

    thanx in advance if you do :-)

  2. Ryan says

    Whenever I see a video that has disabled the commenting and like features, I automatically know that the creators of the video know that they have lost. If you have to hide that nobody likes your video to keep it’s credibility, well. Do I even need to finish???

  3. Jeff Kurtti says

    Smugness in their own notions, patronzing to those whose views contradict theirs, utterly lacking in either curiosity or skepticism. What kind of life is that? It seems so scared and sad.

  4. Jono says

    These people are idiots. I’m not a big church goer now, but I was when I was a kid. My pastor put it simply in regards to Genesis. Who are we to state what the definition of a “day” is for God. If a “day” was defined as millions and million of years, then evolution is covered in the bible. That was his work around and it allowed us to be one with God and also fully embrace science within our church.

  5. Harry Saxon says

    While I completely disagree with what they are saying, I honestly thought you were intimating that these folks were frauds–not real scientists–but actors portraying scientists. Also, I’m not sure what the big reveal is supposed to be at 2:10? That they start weaving the Bible into their commentary? I’m just now having my daily coffee, so maybe this post will make more sense after I finish it.

  6. Vint says

    @ SAY WHAT:

    The pertinent section begins at about 1:55, where Georgia Purdom, a “scientist” from the creationist ministry “Answers in Genesis” is drawing a false distinction between observational and historical science:

    “Historical science deals with the past, and both evolution and creation fall under that category. We cannot test, observe, or repeat them. Yes, we do see fossils and distant stars, but their history of how they got here, really depends on our world view.

    Do we start with man’s ideas about the past, who wasn’t here during the supposed billions of years of earth history, or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all? Rather than being inconsistent, as Bill Nye states, observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis.”

    Of course, this is very silly indeed, but perhaps is not even the silliest portion of this clip.

  7. Diogenes Arktos says

    If 40% of the general population question evolution, how does that invalidate it?

    I don’t believe I heard this:
    “Do we start with man’s ideas about the past who wasn’t here during the supposed billions of years of earth history, or do we start with The Bible, the written revelation of the EYEWITNESS account of the eternal God who created it all.”

    So much for science.

    In addition, she claims that observational science confirms the literal history of Genesis!?!

    Citations, please. Oops! I’m asking for scientific evidence.

    @OkeyDokey: Yes, they do. They love to order God around and tell God what God did, is doing, and shall do.

  8. Brandon K. Thorp says

    Harry, Say What:

    Thanks for reading! The sentence that begins at approximately 2:10 goes:

    “Do we start with man’s ideas about the past, who wasn’t here during the supposed billions of years of earth history, or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all? Rather than being inconsistent, as Bill Nye states, observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis.”

    I think this is telling, because it demonstrates that these “scientists” begin their study of biological history already knowing what conclusion the evidence will point to: Biblical inerrency. If they take Biblical inerrancy on faith, and judge the validity of all subsequent data by its compatibility with a Biblical worldview, then no irreligious hypotheses stand a chance of passing muster. Whatever this kind of thinking might be called, it’s pretty much the opposite of science.

    – BKT

  9. Harry Saxon says


    Just re-watched the video. Wow. Just wow. “Supposed billions of years of Earth history”? I think that even though they apparently DO have PhDs, their respective alma maters should revoke those degrees.

  10. PAUL B. says

    I don’t think being an animal is such a drag. These people want to elevate themselves to something other than that…and what’s worse is that they want to force us to go with them on this journey into self-delusion. Being an animal must scare them. It was only a few years ago that we were hunting & gathering to stay alive…sort of like an animal…and that’s just fine with me.

  11. Ben Brower says

    First of all, the mechanism(s) for the transfer of genetic information, DNA, can be easily observed in a classroom study of microbiology. For example, even without a microscope it can be shown that a population of bacteria can gain the ability to metabolize lactose by the sharing of small pieces of RNA. Because bacteria reproduce so quickly, what takes generations happens in minutes instead of years. Even young children could safely follow the steps in this basic experiment to see for themselves.

    Secondly, the bible does not meet the standard for scientific observation.

  12. parkrunner says

    Creation Museum, an oxymoron that doesn’t even deserve capital letters. What’s next, Republican gay bars? Incontinent fishnet panties? Garlic flavored mouthwash? Chocolate lube? It’s ironic, don’t you think?

  13. OKEYDOKEY says

    Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where at the Springfield Museum they had a section for “creationism”. When they pressed the button on the display case the song “What A Fool Believes” comes on! Lol

  14. says

    These are the people taking over state legislatures. Here in Arizona, the Republicans have been trying various ways to funnel public school monies to schools that teach creationism and other garbage. So far it hasn’t worked.

  15. anon says

    There’s a big difference between historical research and science. History is about exactly what happened, while science is about explaining what happened even if you don’t know what exactly happened. This sounds wrong, but it’s essentially true. History recorded what happened July 4th, 1776, etc. Science wouldn’t really care, but may use the facts of that date to confirm or deny an existing theory. Science is also very careful about what constitutes valid evidence. Historians don’t usually have the luxury of well coordinated evidence and so must couch their results in ambivalent language.

    So, science can’t tell you exactly what happened July 4th, 1000000 BC, but can tell you to some degree what the world must have been like in general from all the available evidence and how it must have come to be like that. It admits to not knowing the details, but creates theories to fill in the blanks.

  16. Bible = inaccurate says

    Since we have zero original copies of any of the books of the Bible and we know that the oldest books we do have were copies of copies of copies that are filled with errors and deliberate alterations, that book is not only an unreliable history it is an unreliable source for understanding the history of Christianity.

    And this notion that the Bible is inerrant is, I believe, an early 20th century concept that would have been deemed laughable by the Christians who preceded these people.

  17. simon says

    There sure are uneducated PHD holders which slipped through the system. We all know G.W. Bush has an Ivy League degree. It is also possible that an educated person can go through some period of insanity.

  18. andrew says

    The creationists actually believe that the men who wrote Genesis etc were giving “eye witness accounts of creation”. These are the same people who taught that diseases are caused by evil spirits. Drive out the evil spirits and the person is cured. Unfortunately, even the holy man, Jesus was a believer in such nonsense. So much for his “divinity”.

  19. Taylor says

    I want to know who the “eyewitness” was to creation? It sure as heck wasn’t Adam, who was created on the 6th Day, after everything else was finished. Nor was it Moses, who is credited with writing Genesis and was born multiple generations later than Adam.

  20. Kevin says

    I’m finding it difficult to believe that, with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics, Dr Purdom could credibly make the statement that there is no known mechanism by which an organism can increase its genetic information to acquire new traits / go from simple to complex. Many such mechanisms exist, including “whole genome duplication” (exactly what it sounds like, and quite common in plants) to duplication of single chromosomes or smaller parts of a chromosome, insertions and deletions both large and small, mobile genetic elements, viruses that insert themselves into a genome and alter gene expression nearby… there are dozens of known mechanisms by which a genome can change across generations, and if you took two people off the street and sequenced their whole DNA content to make comparisons, you would very likely be able to pull out examples of at least the smaller insertions and deletions that are less likely to be toxic. The genome is *not* actually very stable at all: that’s why we get things like Down’s Syndrome and Huntington’s disease, the genetic mechanisms of which are very well understood. The same processes that lead to those diseases can also lead to less harmful / neutral changes which are actually beneficial. Yes, we can observe evolution in action, including in humans.

    Not to be petty, but I don’t see any “first author” papers by her in PubMed, the search engine for scientific research papers, although I can find a few “middle author” papers where she most likely contributed work but didn’t write the paper or do the majority of the work. Most programs won’t let you get your doctorate without having a first author paper… so God only knows how she got her PhD. But she certainly isn’t putting that education to good use, if she’s willfully ignoring actual concrete evidence of genetic evolution.

  21. Ricco says

    Some of you are wondering what the big reveal is supposed to be at the 2:10 mark. Allow me to break it down for you.

    Dr. Georgia Purdom, the molecular geneticist, states the following: “Their history of how they got here (they being fossils and stars) really depends upon a “WORLD VIEW.”

    World view is defined by Wikipedia, which is as good a definition as any out there says it “is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society’s knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.”

    That is part of the reveal, preceded by Dr. Purdom’s assertion that Historical Science, under which auspices both “Creationism” and “Evolution” fall, neither of which, she says “ . . . can be tested, observed, and repeated.” Dr. Purdom is being clever here, or thinks she is. She has put “Evolution” on the same footing as “Creationism” in her statement, so she feels she is being quite reasonable in her refutation of evolution, especially since she claims to teach both to her daughter.

    It is not unlike the sort of “Fair and Balanced” spin one gets watching Fox news. Going back to the key words, “World View” we now know that whatever Dr. Purdom is going to say will not be scientific, rather philosophical, subjective, and argumentative for the sake of argument.

    “Do we start with man’s ideas about the past who wasn’t here during this “supposed” billions of years of Earth history . . . ,” she continues, “ . . . or do we start with the bible, the written revelation of the EYEWITNESS account of the Eternal God who created it all.”

    The rest of the video is superfluous, especially Dr. Purdom’s suggestion that “ . . . rather than being inconsistent, as Bill Nye states, OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE confirms the literal history in Genesis” because she does not list the observations that were made to support Genesis, nor how they were “tested” and “repeated.” And why would she? She feels she has constructed an automatic out in her argument by categorizing creationism under the auspices of HISTORICAL SCIENCE . . . but there is the rub. Yes? Because she has already stated that Historical Science CANNOT be OBSERVED, TESTED, and REPEATED. But she is undeterred by the now glaring contradiction of her argument because she has, what? Why an “EYEWITNESS account of the Eternal God who created it all!”

    Amazing! Yes? Amazing if one does not ask the next logical and fair question(s), which the type of religious Dr. Purdom and her colleague, biologist, Dr. David Menton personify, assume will not be asked, or if asked become incensed with the enquirer, accusing him/her that their question(s) are motivated by a blind refusal to accept their (the Creationists) WORLD VIEW, the most obvious of those questions being: Who is this eyewitness? Can they produce him/her to give testimony? And assuming (quite reasonably I would say) that he/she is of the finite species, the hu-man, how does the finite comprehend and report on the infinite, and all the events that preceded him/her?

    The asking of these questions can only generate a subjective, non-productive, circular argument(s) encompassing philosophy, art, religion, literature, and a more tractable and finite history of man and his evolving relationship with philosophy, art, religion, and literature, and never once approach the scientific method.

    And that is the REVEAL, which is of course no reveal at all, but the same tiresome mantra of the religious that has historically been backed by violence and persecution to beat down, imprison, and even kill the intellectually curious:

    Do not ask questions. Think how we tell you to think. Do as you are told. If what you observe in the physical world contradicts our EYEWITNESS, ignore, and disregard, entirely, those observations. And STOP asking questions that challenge our World VIEW.

  22. cbhermey says

    These people can’t deny evolution is observable. It’s certainly observable in bacteria and protozoans, as well as viruses, and for that matter in any creature that has a short generational time. Moths in England evolved during the early Industrial Revolution from white to almost black so that they didn’t stand out on soot-stained trees. That was well-documented. Around here in Southern California the Southern Pacific Rattlesnake is losing its rattles. Reason? They get killed (by people) if they make noise. Those with defective rattles survive to breed.
    Evolution is observed every day, and in more and more ways. When one realizes that a change in just one or two bases in DNA can result in profound changes and adaptations, and that DNA reproduction is good, but not perfect, in living organisms, it’s silly to think that life has stood still.
    Both these people are employed by Answers In Genesis, so you already know where they are coming from. I daresay that the woman’s kids have been taught a very flawed version of evolution.

  23. PAUL B. says

    Looking for so-called “evidence” to support her already arrived at belief system makes her moist. She’s a religeous zealot…figured out what the result is via that belief system and conjures up “evidence” to support her result.
    I’m sure she could locate a bowling alley in the sky somewhere to support her belief that thunder is god’s way of getting our attention for something she knows he doesn’t like. He’s already communicated to her in a dream that’s his intent…so now she just needs to locate that damn bowling alley. I have no doubt she’ll find it.

  24. Runningusa says

    So mankind started with Adam and Eve and their sons having sex with their sisters to produce more children?

    The flood. Noah’s family is the only ones that survived so his son’s had sex with their sisters to produce more children?

    And God blessed this?

  25. Dissenter says

    Reading the comments in this tiny liberal echo chamber is amusing to say the least. You people are aware, aren’t you, that Bill Nye is not a scientist either; he merely PLAYS one on TV. His highest EARNED degree is a bachelor’s. (I’m ignoring honorary degrees, which are objectively worthless.) He has never published in a peer-reviewed journal. He has never done professional research.

    Why aren’t you applying the same standards to your guy as to these two creationists? If it doesn’t bother you that Nye isn’t really a professional scientist, why should it bother you that these two aren’t? In fact, it is utterly irrelevant in both cases. We don’t need to resort to ad hominem fallacies when we can simply listen to what someone is saying and weigh the truth of it directly.

    While you’re watching this video, what are you doing about the things these two non-scientists are saying that happen to be true, like evolution theory being essentially irrelevant to modern PRODUCTIVE biological research? That is quite factual. You don’t have to believe in Darwin to create medicines, to isolate enzymes, to map genomes.

    Believe it or not, you can tell your kids there’s a Santa Claus and they can still grow up to be effective scientists. What’s it to you? You are being USED to further someone else’s agenda. These people’s beliefs shouldn’t bother you much more than somebody’s favorite color not matching yours.

    Even IF it’s silly, there’s really not much harm in it. Most creationists don’t grow up to be stupid or violent any more than most atheists do. Some do on each side, but we can see clearly that there is no consistent causal relationship here. You want to talk about people retaining superstitions? What about YOUR superstition that religious people are stupid and dangerous. In ALMOST all cases, they are clearly not.

    Another comment I must make that will not make me popular is that Nye blathers about the implication that teaching kids creationism is child abuse while supporting a political party that literally murders millions of babies still in the womb. I think his priorities are out of order if he’s so worried about children. It just needs to be said.

    The woman in the video claims Genesis is literally true and I personally cannot agree with that. I have examined this book in detail and find the story it outlines to be inconsistent with a few very solid facts; HOWEVER, her statement that our worldview affects our interpretation of unknowns is absolutely correct.

    How do you liberals reconcile the fact that a still-significant fraction of cosmologists DON’T believe in the Big Bang / Inflationary Universe? Are those Tired Light theorists just more “zealots” to you? What about the anthropologists who could not confirm the finding that we have Neanderthal DNA? What about the String Theorists who hold opposing views from each other? We all put our personal beliefs into our interpretation of the unknown–ALL of us!–because we do not have enough information to reach a solid conclusion. Truth is not a popularity vote. We don’t establish facts by “consensus.” (And you should be grateful for this.)

    Bill Nye’s own personal beliefs about “science” are merely a sampling of the paradigms he happens to live under. So many of the things science asserts right now will be shown false in the future, even if evolution happens to not be one of them.

    If you’re still reading, I have one last point to make that you really ought to sit down and think about: I consider it pathetic that there is a group of people adamantly and viciously defending the word of a few sacred books taken at face value for established truth along with the authoritative assurances of a few gurus, without checking the facts for themselves, and I’M TALKING ABOUT YOU EVOLUTIONISTS AS MUCH AS THE CREATIONISTS. The vast majority of you have never personally investigated fossil evidence directly to confirm the assertions of evolution theory. You have put your FAITH in “experts” you idolize and textbooks you zealously worship. Confirming evolution theory for yourself by direct evidence is an extensive, time-consuming, complicated task and please don’t lie about the fact that essentially zero of you have even tried.

    You look like hypocrites when you denounce others’ blind faith in authority while ignoring your own.

  26. MaddM@ says

    Some ignorant people will say things like “Christ is my king,” not realizing what they are saying is “the concept of Christ that was constructed by the leaders of the church I pledge my allegiance to is my king”

    these posts by Bill Nye and these mental filth peddlers inspired me to draft an essay I’m so offended as a person of science

  27. Daly says

    Dissenter, I can’t speak for others who, like myself, perceive evolution to be factual, but selection relative to the perpetuation of plants and animals occurs before our very eyes. Farmers do it daily.

    The phenomenon of some variations between organisms promoting survival and thus persistence of a genetic line, and some not, also feels to me like plain common sense.

    So I hardly perceive it as “blind faith in authority” that when I personally first heard about Darwin’s research and suppositions about natural selection, evolution, and “the origin of species,” and, relatedly, that the age of the earth had been extremely underestimated, that it just made a ton of sense. It was not like “oh, I am just going to arbitrarily take on this belief system.” It was, instead: Well, that fits things I’ve *personally* observed, about organisms, reproduction, and changes over time. (It also had nothing to with being or not being a “liberal.”)

    (By the way, Dissenter, if you have an earnest aim to persuade — rather than just vent — I would drop phraseology like “you liberals.” That’s not the language of dialogue. It’s also simply presumptious about your audience.)

    Finding sea lily fossils in a place far from an ocean as a kid also helped. I found Darwin’s general explanation for what I found vastly more satisfying, and vastly more **interesting**, than something like “When He created the earth not more than 6,000 years ago, God sprinkled parts of the earth with things that look like sea lily segments but in rock form, for some reason or purpose that God may or may not choose to reveal.”

  28. simon says

    I am sure Bill Nye’s TV production company must have the resource to hire a lot of consultants. The messenger is not important. It is only the message that matters.
    You are confusing a genuine scientific debate like in cosmology or string theory with the debate between Creationism and evolution.
    Creationism in the Bible is not science and not based on scientific evidence. You can call all serious scientists “liberals” if you want.

  29. i could go on, but I won't says

    Evolution not only explains how humans arrived, but it also explains the existence of planets and stars. There is also cultural evolution which has its backwaters inhabited by those who “haven’t got the memo yet.” All that we encounter has evolved, continues to evolve and will always be a dynamic situation. Nothing is static. So these “creation scientists” will someday be gone.

    It’s funny, but watching them, the movie Planet of the Apes keeps coming to mind. And the phrase, “Are we not men?”

  30. Paul says

    Okay – I haven’t had my coffee yet, but clearly these folks are bat sh*t crazy and JMG would put it. Not only that, but girlfriend needs a make-over. (See what happens when straight boys do your makeup).

  31. Diogenes Arktos says

    I’m only half-surprised that these PhD’s didn’t address the very different creation accounts in the Bible – essentially Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 – which cannot be reconciled.

    As to what PhD’s sometimes believe, I know of a PhD in astronomy who believes in a revised Ptolemaic view (don’t ask). He got his degree by lying about his real beliefs. He’s teaching at a liberal arts college – at least it’s in the department of mathematics, not astronomy.

    @RunningUSA: Regarding Adam and Eve… Yes, they did have sons. It’s not discussed, however, where Cain’s wife came from. BTW – the ‘mark of Cain’ was sometimes cited as being the origin of the inferiority of Blacks.

    Regarding Noah and his sons… They all entered the ark with their wives. BTW – the curse following Ham’s ‘uncovering Noah’s nakedness’ was more commonly cited as the divinely mandated subservience of Blacks to all other races.

    Interesting two examples.

  32. MaddM@ says


    Thank you for being someone who has actually READ the bible, and understand that there are differing accounts in genesis it’s self

    Furthermore if the bible is an “eyewitness account” then who witnessed god first creating light? exactly. The whole thing doesn’t hold water from square one.

  33. Caliban says

    I’m atheist, but I truly don’t think it matters whether or not there is (or was) a “Creator.”

    Assuming there was such a being who “lit the fuse” of the Big Bang, it does not follow that the Bible or ANY ancient religious text tells us one true or meaningful thing about that entity. In fact, simple logic tells us that it can’t be true. Noah got two every animal on a boat he built himself? That isn’t possible in any case, but especially now when you consider that within many genus of animals there are thousands, at least, of species. So there couldn’t have been just two salamanders, for instance, there would have been thousands of them because there are MANY different kinds of salamanders. The only other option is that from the two, and only two, salamanders on the ark they later differentiated into species, but that would *gulp* have only happened through EVOLUTION, which is what the whole ark story is being used to refute.

    This sudden insistence that the Bible is literally true in all its particulars, and “inerrant” is as much a POLITICAL stance as it is a religious one. The problem is that once you admit that, well OK, Noah didn’t really get two of every animal on a boat, or Jonah didn’t really live inside a whale, then the whole thing is built on shaky ground. Then you can’t point to other parts of the Bible like the proscriptions against homosexuality in Leviticus (setting aside all questions of context and translation for the moment) and say “but THIS part here is absolutely true!”

    Once you admit that parts of the Bible aren’t true you have to start thinking for yourself, which is the LAST thing Creationists and other religious fanatics want to do. These are people who find comfort in being part of an authoritarian structure, being TOLD what’s true and what isn’t, and having to think for themselves is very very scary to them.

    If you think about it at all, the Judeo-Christian concept of God is rather strange to begin with, co-dependent any needy. I mean here’s this omnipotent being, literally able to pull the universe, indeed ALL reality out of nothing, but He needs you to constantly be bowing and scraping, letting Him know how VERY impressed you are with Him. And don’t you dare skimp on the hosannas and praise or He will smite you! Does that make any sense? No. That’s more a description of a malicious child with an ant farm than an all-powerful Creator.

  34. PAUL B. says

    Thanks for that Caliban !
    This makes me think of the many discussions I had years ago with my father…a devout, aka…blind catholic. When all else failed, his fallback excuse for the wonder of the cosmos was this…”if not god, who else could have done this and keep it all going”? I would always just bow my head, mumble and get back on a plane headed to California. Now I don’t visit him at all. I just put him on speaker phone so I can continue to fold laundry and stick my finger down my throat when he gets particularly offensive.

  35. says

    These are some of fields of science that independently Corroborate evolution.
    Comparative Anatomy
    Molecular Biology
    Developmental Biology
    Population Genetics
    Genome Sequencing

    Even Pope John Paul II said this. “[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition that the theory of evolution is more than a hy¬pothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progres¬sively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought or fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted inde¬pendently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

  36. Sam Molloy says

    I see our failed educational system has succeeded in leaving students absolutely sure of an unproven theory, while many cannot add or even read. So miss know it alls, where did the Ampersand originate? How did a Mayfly evolve to live a year in the mud and fly for only one day? Why is the concept of an hour and a minute universal, and only recently discovered to fit into a 360 degree rotation of the planet so perfectly?

  37. Diogenes Artktos says

    inerrancy – This requires too long a post for this forum. Its Christian history involves more than just the 20c because some forms of it do date from the Reformation.

    @Sam Molloy:
    ampersand – Evolved in the Middle Ages from the Latin word for and: et.

    mayfly – Gestational time is typically unrelated to life time. Your gestational time was approximately 9 months. How long is your life time?

    hour, minute, 360 degrees – no, the concept of hour, minute, and second was not universal, especially a fixed length hour. Let’s not even consider years. These units of measure have been defined in the 20c by international standards organizations, such as ISO. Unfortunately, your assertion that these units of time fit the 360 degree rotation so perfectly is faulty: there are occasional leap seconds (positive or, theoretically, negative) to keep atomic clocks in better synch with rotation. The reason for multiples of 60 in some traditional measurements is Babylonian mathematics which had a base of 60.

  38. tarxien says

    I assume these “scientists” bought their degrees from one of those internet sites which appear in my spam folder. To claim that the bible, written by men in the Bronze Age is the “eyewitness account” of god? Just wow!

  39. andrew says

    Oh, if we could only find Noah’s Ark. We would be able to see how a pair or seven pairs of some animals, which ever contradictory section of Gen. you are reading, all fit together on that beautiful boat. What b*ll s*it. After that we could search for the Ark of the Covenant and find the 10 Commandments in stone inside. And then we could look for the “true” cross”. Oh that has been found. There are pieces of the “true” cross in thousands of churches around the world. So many that you could build Noah his Ark.

  40. Diogenes Arktos says

    @Andrew: Believe it or not, there was an astronaut (James Irwin of Apollo 15) who lead several missions to search for Noah’s ark on Mt Ararat in Turkey. Too bad for him, there are other locations with claims to be the site – most (if not all) with names other than the Biblical Ararat.

    There is a tradition among Ethiopian Christians that *they* have the original
    Ark of the Covenant – but they don’t display it. There is one person (probably hereditary) at a time who checks on its wellbeing (once a year?). I’m sure the Jews (especially those from Ethiopia) do not believe this claim.

    I love one of the traditional names for the feast day of the finding of the true cross: The Invention of the Cross. “So many that you could build Noah his Ark.” ROFLMAO

  41. Dr.Theopolis says

    If the Bible is “literal history”, how do you account for the multitude of permutations in wording, and therefore, meanings, based on who was ruling at the time? So which version is literal – the King James version? Young’s Literal Translation?? Which one please, creationists!

    This is just one of the numerous quagmires in rational thinking and logic that happens which religious wingnuts open their stupid yaps and discount science fact and replace it with ‘An Old Man with a Beard Who Lives in the Sky did it’.

  42. Dr.Theopolis says

    @ DISSENTER : It’s my personal view that I choose to discount all religion as hokum. Or, for those non-Mensa members, “The longest game of telephone ever played.”

  43. Sam Molloy says

    Diogenes: The word Ampersand may be from Latin, but “&” could not have come from Latin. Or the “Volvo emblem” for male and whatever the heck the female one is called now. They are from the pre flood, pre Tower of Babel, universal language. The Hour was referred to in the Bible, daylight was 12 of them. Night was 12 of them. Obviously there were no clocks, but the concept survived he Flood in all cultures.

  44. Diogenes Arktos says

    @Sam Molloy: I answered you original questions off the top of my head. I should note at this point that I do not have any credence in any historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

    If you think wikipedia has any credibility…

    Consult the article “ampersand” for the origin of “&”.

    Your new question about the Mars symbol for male and Venus for female deal with recent usages. Consequently, they do not furnish any relic from a pre-Tower of Babel “universal language”. Consult the articles “astrological signs” and “gender symbol”.

    Consult the article “hour”. The usage of “hour” in the Bible illustrates at best a variable-length hour. The Bible, by its very nature, does not count as furnishing documentation for a concept of “hour” surviving a concept of “flood” in ALL cultures.

  45. Ben G. says

    People really need to have an open mind and stop shutting off things that don’t go with their view. I am a Christian, yet i have taken an open mind into Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Big Bang Theory. There are flaws in each one. The only reason people accept these theories is because scientists have tried to prove them correct. Scientists are your heroes for this fact. These people are bringing about quite substantial facts in their documentaries.

Leave A Reply