Why I Reject Evolution.

I can’t keep believing life evolves in the face of all the evidence.

Life has never changed.

Life is the same now as it has always been.

Genetic mutations only ever cause birth defects.

Fish couldn’t have evolved legs because an animal couldn’t survive on the land without fully developed limbs – what use is half a leg?

No one’s ever found an intermediate fossil – not one.


The dissent against evolution is purely scientific and is based on evidence and experimental data.


We can’t feel love or affection for something unless we believe it is created by god, and thus important.

If life wasn’t created by god it must be ugly and meaningless. 

Can’t argue with the evidence.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Why I Reject Evolution.

  1. @tendollar4ways – the fact I have cats and gerbils who act closer to Jesus than you and your brethren  says a lot about your ways and means…Like a drunk who drives off the road and plows into a tree you have swerved into the real truth about how evolution sucks as an explanation for speciation.If evolution is true, how can evolution produce an entire animal kingdom in harmony with JEEEEEEzUSSSS while at the same time evolve a destructive evil catastrophe like man?Where’s the missing link between the goodness of your pet “PRAISE THE LORD” gerbal and the evil atheist mass murderer of the 20th century?

  2. agnophilo says:

    @bakersdozen2 – Link.@ShimmerBodyCream – Yeah it is adorable.@kk_grayfox – Ignorance mostly – the majority of them have no expertise in any field of life science, and of those that do the statement “we should be skeptical of evolution” is one that ANY scientist would agree with.  They deliberately made a statement that has one meaning to a scientist and another to a layman.  Check out project steve.@The_Aftershock_3650 – Ignorance, willful ignorance, etc, but I think mainly the fact that so many preachers and evangelists have all of the intellectual honesty of a fox news producer and actively promote the lie.  Also there is an organized anti-science movement in the US lead by evangelicals who want to poison people against science, believing it to be evil and the cause of atheism.  They wish to use the issue of evolution as the “sharp end of the wedge” (as per the tree picture in the blog).  That document is the leaked christian manifesto from the supposedly secular organization leading the intelligent design movement.There’s about as much corruption and dishonesty in evangelism as there is in politics.@nerdyveggiegirl – Glad you enjoyed : )@TiredSoVeryTired – lol.  The church is fortunately no longer in a position to enforce it’s dogma on the world, or even it’s own priests.  It’s hemorrhaging at the moment, and I think will continue to decline.@daavidd – Heh : )@tendollar4ways – Sociopaths are incapable of connecting to people, they see them as chess-pieces to be manipulated.  It is not surprising that there are more in the clergy, politics and corporations than in the general population.@tendollar4ways – : )@bakersdozen2 – The difference is that the people who reject evolution and have credentials always do so for religious reasons and can bring no legitimate scientific evidence to bear against evolution.  The bacteria flagellum is not irreducibly complex, and behe didn’t even see fit to test the hypothesis before publishing it as fact for a lay religious audience and making a ton of money off of what is by definition pseudoscience.  Johnathan wells, the only biologist you typically see in creationist videos, this is why he went for his PhD.  You tell me if he’s objective and is just another scientist who found evidence darwin was wrong, or if he has an ideology:”Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.” –Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.Can you name me a scientist who has brought an actual legitimate argument against evolution?

  3. QuantumStorm says:

    @bakersdozen2 – No, it’s a legitimate argument – well, it’s meant to refer to a parody of the group of scientists who have problems with evolution. Project Steve is meant to point out that just as there are scientists who have problems with evolution, there are many, many more who think it’s well-supported. As for Dembski, he is wasting HIS energies if he thinks that there aren’t any “serious” scientists (whatever that means) who reject naturalistic theories of evolution. Of COURSE there are going to be a few who disagree with the naturalistic theory of evolution. There are still scientists out there who are creationists, though not very many, as his project shows.

  4. QuantumStorm says:

    @agnophilo – Have you seen Ken Miller’s presentation on his testimony at the Dover trial? His dismantling of the irreducible complexity argument for the flagellum was quite impressive. Not to mention some of the other stuff like his analysis of the cascade pathway in blood clotting, etc. 

  5. agnophilo says:

    @QuantumStorm – Yeah, it’s very good – long, but well worth it for anyone interested in this stuff.  He has a creationism picture similar to the tree one, but with two castles warring with each other instead, lol.

  6. kk_grayfox says:

    @agnophilo – “Ignorance mostly – the majority of them have no expertise in any field of life science“You’re assuming ignorance, but you could be wrong. I counted ~42 biology-related scientists (that includes biochemists and medical scientists), and there are two anthropologists but it doesn’t say what subdivision of that field they’re from so I omitted them from the count. I understand the physicists and mathematicians being ignorant (though they may not be), but the biologists cannot be totally ignorant (though it’s possible that they are relatively so).the statement “we should be skeptical of evolution” is one that ANY scientist would agree with”It doesn’t say “we should be skeptical”, it says “we are skeptical”. And yes, all scientists should be skeptical of evolution, just like they should be of everything, but we clearly aren’t. In principle we are, yes, but scientists operate on plenty of ideas that they assume are true. They may have come to the conclusion that the idea is likely true beforehand, but evolutionary biologists don’t do their research with the thought in the back of their minds, “I need to be skeptical of evolution”. If I were to go throughout my department and asked each professor, postdoc and grad student if they’re “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life”, I seriously doubt any, or at least more than a couple, would say “Yes! As a scientist I should be!” To me, the phrasing of the question on that dissent seems to indicate that these scientists have doubts.However the statement “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” should go without saying. Many people don’t, Creationist or otherwise.

  7. agnophilo says:

    @kk_grayfox – That life evolves is established as well as that gravity exists, but the processes of how it happens are continually debated and have been revised a great deal since darwin’s time.  The idea that scientists are not skeptical of evolution is just silly.  When people wanted to put warning labels on biology books saying evolution was “just a theory” and that it should be critically considered with an open mind, the author of the book, a cell biologist and strong defender of evolution, said that the statement should’ve been expanded to apply to all of science, not just evolution.  The statement in the discovery institute’s petition was deliberately deceptive and had multiple meanings.  “I am skeptical of x science” to a scientist means “I’m doing my job”.  To a layman it means “x science is bullshit”.  By the way this is the leaked manifesto of the organization that to this day claims to be secular and scientific that produced that petition, you tell me if they’re being honest about their intentions and motives.  Their stated goals are nothing short of the destruction of natural science and it’s replacement with christian propaganda.

  8. agnophilo says:

    @kk_grayfox – “If I were to go throughout my department and asked each professor, postdoc and grad student if they’re “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life”, I seriously doubt any, or at least more than a couple, would say “Yes! As a scientist I should be!”And about 3 million people in the US have the level of education of the people they were asking, and the list of a few hundred took years to gather.  How is that not “a few”?  It’s not as though they found 700 names in an afternoon or in one town or something.

  9. kk_grayfox says:

    @agnophilo – “The statement in the discovery institute’s petition was deliberately deceptive and had multiple meanings.“Do you know it was deliberately deceptive? It might be just saying what it plainly states: that some (albeit a few) scientists are doubtful that today’s diversity arose by evolution through natural selection acting on random mutations. Perhaps they were subtly trying to suggest that evolution is a very contentious idea (I don’t doubt that they think this), but anyone who believes that based off of this petition isn’t doing their research.It’s certainly not the same thing as all the members of the Academy of Sciences all signing such a petition, nor is it thousands of scientists, and for that reason it’s not of enormous importance. It’s not terribly different from the handful of scientists (though it may be down to only one) that still think that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs but from an entirely different reptilian lineage. So it’s okay that there are dissenters regarding evolution.Like I originally stated: I’m just curious as to why. Are they all creationists/IDists or do they just have a higher (perhaps ridiculously so) standard of evidence? How is that not “a few”?”Did I say it wasn’t “a few”? I can’t find where I did but maybe you can point it out.

  10. Mikke3vArt says:

    honestly i juist think that there are things that science can not explain yet, and there are things that religion can not explain. i mean, science is changed all the time, i dont think anything is right for long

  11. agnophilo says:

    @kk_grayfox – “Do you know it was deliberately deceptive? It might be just saying what it plainly states: that some (albeit a few) scientists are doubtful that today’s diversity arose by evolution through natural selection acting on random mutations. Perhaps they were subtly trying to suggest that evolution is a very contentious idea (I don’t doubt that they think this), but anyone who believes that based off of this petition isn’t doing their research.”It was either deliberately deceptive or it used only words which have entirely different connotations in academia as in the general public by total accident.  The fact that it comes from such a two-faced, ideological organization also makes me think dishonesty.”It’s certainly not the same thing as all the members of the Academy of Sciences all signing such a petition, nor is it thousands of scientists, and for that reason it’s not of enormous importance. It’s not terribly different from the handful of scientists (though it may be down to only one) that still think that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs but from an entirely different reptilian lineage. So it’s okay that there are dissenters regarding evolution.”Of course it’s okay, science has never sought conformity in anything and the internal combustion of criticism and testing other scientists ideas is what makes science work at all.  But in science until you can back what you say up with experimental data you are not worth the time of day.  Science is about empirical verification, not speculation or untestable magical solutions to problems.  But nor is science closed-minded, it remains silent on the existence of such things.”Like I originally stated: I’m just curious as to why. Are they all creationists/IDists or do they just have a higher (perhaps ridiculously so) standard of evidence?”Who specifically?  Scientists who don’t accept evolution?  Well over half of the scientists in the US are christian, and there is a popular notion that evolution is atheistic or anti-christian, I’m sure that that has a lot to do with it.  Also having a PhD doesn’t make you logical, and arguments from ignorance are popular (but bad science).  I can see how someone could look at how complex a cell is and say “I don’t see how that could’ve evolved”, but that isn’t a reason to believe in a creator – as if explaining a god would be any easier.”Did I say it wasn’t “a few”? I can’t find where I did but maybe you can point it out.”Don’t be disingenous.  You disagreed with me saying that many scientists were on the list but only a “few” professors would take the wording that way.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – Science is improved and refined – it’s not as though we’re going to discover the world is really flat tomorrow.  And it’s not as though religion stays the same – or have you stoned many people to death lately?  Or performed many exorcisms at your local hospital to get the demons out of sick people like jesus did.  And while yes science doesn’t have all of the answers, I don’t think religions have any of them.

  13. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo -thats kinda my point religion and science are similiar in that way. they are constantly being “improved and refined” and changed to go along with the times and the people of those time. and the fact they are both used to help and take advantage of people, despite their cores, they both are so easily altered. i am not referring to you in any way in this next statement, but i do not understand why some people put so much faith in science when it is just as fragile with its ideas and “discoveries” as religion or philosophies or supernatural studies. it might take more time to see the crack, to fix them, but its at least a bit true.  its impossible to understand everything. just like how some animals not have the mental capacity to understand human speech or understand why the weather does what it does, human do not have the mental capacity to understand some things no matter how simply put, and i think that religions, philosophies, even supernaturalists, give ideas that can help at least cope with that fact if not, then nothing else really. 

  14. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – “thats kinda my point religion and science are similiar in that way. they are constantly being “improved and refined” and changed to go along with the times and the people of those time. and the fact they are both used to help and take advantage of people, despite their cores, they both are so easily altered. “Applied science (ie technology) can be used for good or bad, pure science (studying nature) is inherently positive.  And science improves itself rapidly and proactively, while religions are dragged along kicking and screaming centuries after their theologies are falsified – take darwin and galileo for instance.  As mark twain (who lived through the abolition of slavery) the church is always the last domino to fall in any social advancement.  The last bastion of backwards thinking.  This is because science is based on reason and evidence and thrives on change, while religion is based on faith and denial of evidence and violently resists change.”i am not referring to you in any way in this next statement, but i do not understand why some people put so much faith in science when it is just as fragile with its ideas and “discoveries” as religion or philosophies or supernatural studies. it might take more time to see the crack, to fix them, but its at least a bit true.”People put faith in science because they’re too busy or lazy to look at the evidence science bases it’s conclusions on.  Science does not demand faith, it demands evidence.”its impossible to understand everything. just like how some animals not have the mental capacity to understand human speech or understand why the weather does what it does, human do not have the mental capacity to understand some things no matter how simply put,” So then why should we pretend to understand that which we currently are not capable of understanding?  And I think you give the human race too little credit, most of the questions we don’t have answers to we only recently learned to ask.  Every round of discovery reveals new mysteries to be solved, and discovery is cumulative, each generation builds on the discoveries and wisdom of the last.”and i think that religions, philosophies, even supernaturalists, give ideas that can help at least cope with that fact if not, then nothing else really.”I think it’s a false comfort though.  Though I don’t think the world is terrifying without supernatural agencies – at the end of the day it’s exactly the same world either way, so we might as well deal with it.

  15. bakersdozen2 says:

    @agnophilo – @QuantumStorm – @kk_grayfox – This is why I largely avoid thesediscussions. First it’s difficult to seriously adress a post that is clearlymeant to be a parody. Don’t get me wrong, can be a legitimate way to highlightdifferences and to influence opinion but it’s a poor launching point for anyonewho has serious objections to the portayal. In this case, my desire to answer Mark’sclaim that serious scientists wouldn’t question Darwinian Evolution than isanswered with more parody & then dismissal.To answer the Steve project objections Ileft this comment from William Dembski: “If Project Steve was meant to showthat a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalisticconception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)could have saved its energies—that fact was never in question. The moreinteresting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalisticconception of evolution.” To which QS reiterated in his comment as anunnecessary appeal based on majority opinion. That pointis addressed above. As for why Dr. Dembski put any effort into the list tobegin with I imagine it was for the same reason I linked the considerable listof qualified scientists, because it’s a common criticism.   “No serious scientist actually questionsDarwinian Evolution”.    To turn around and feign amazement at theeffort prompted by the original criticism is silly. The list was made inresponse to the question of credentials. Think of it this way. Skeptical scientists who challenge Global Warmingproponents with a similar list when faced with the familiar refrain “No seriousscientist questions Climate Change.” Well, yeahhhh…. they do!  The list composed by Dembski is legit. Ithink a better response from those who opposed would have been to investigatewhether or not the PhD’s really had objections, or if the degrees they claim tohave are bona fide. The Steve Project looks like a bunch of  Biology TA’s had too much time on theirhands.  I’m kidding of course but Ican’t imagine busy researchers would take the time or effort (speaking of timeand effort).  It is kind of amusingthat they did it in honor of Stephen J. Gould. The man who promoted the theoryof Punctuated Equilibrium.     Along the line of ideas that have gone bythe wayside,  I have to addressMark’s objection. I never mentioned Behe’s theory of irrecducible Complexity.As you all know, theories come and go very rapidly in the field of biology. Myhusband (who began to question Darwian Evolution before he became a Believer)remembers well his Biology professor constantly repeating with the emphasis ofpounding fist “ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY”.  My husband may be old… but he’s not that old. It was acommon belief popularized by the hero who inspired “The Steve Project”.  That’s right, Stephen J. Gould.  My point is not to diss a SJG but toillustrate how quickly pet theories come and go based on new information.   One more point before I pick up mydaughter from Driver’s Ed, I honestly have no religious or faith objection toDarwinian Evolution. There are many Theists who embrace D.E. I believe you’reone of them QS. I’ve quite a few well educated family memebers who see bigdescrepancies in Macro Evolution. They’re objective enough to see thecontradictions among proponents of Creationism and I really respect that aboutthem.   In the end, one can be a Christian andbelieve in Darwinian Evolution. For this reason, I do take issue with yourclaim that these scientists only questioned D.E.  after they came to faith in Christ. There really is know wayfor you to know what influenced each of the PhD’s listed on my earlier link.Francis Collins (The Human Genome project) is a Christian and a TheisticEvolutionist. He sees no problem reconciling his faith with his field. Neitherdoes William Lane Craig who is one of the best apologists around. He is not acreationist either.   I submit that Atheists (who want toremain Atheists) are more enclined to bias. Darwinian Evolution is the only show intown as far as their concerned. However I am not suggesting that there beliefin D.E. is influenced by their philosophical predisposition.   Anyway, I enjoy these discussions whenthey are respectful and I thank-you all for your replies to my comments!  Sorry this was so long and forgive mefor recommending my own comment.  Lol!  šŸ˜›

  16. bakersdozen2 says:

    Also, sorry for the crappy format. I’d fix it but I’ve to to run!!!!!

  17. CoderHead says:

    @bakersdozen2 – My problem with that list is the way the statement is worded. Everyone should be skeptical of claims. If you weren’t, you certainly wouldn’t be a scientist. However, the kicker is that they say, “to account for the complexity of life” and not “the diversity of life.” Evolution doesn’t have to account for complexity. We all know life is complex. Evolution is a claim to the diversity of life. Find honest scientists (who actually know what evolution is) who would disagree with that and then we can talk.

  18. agnophilo says:

    @bakersdozen2 – Why did you tag me in this, you didn’t address anything I said to you.

  19. bakersdozen2 says:

    I did. I addressed your Behe referrence which you brought up, not me. I addressed your claim that these scientists were unqualified. They are. Finally, I challenged your assertion that their faith preceded their skepticism regarding D,E.These are points you made. I responded. 

  20. QuantumStorm says:

    @bakersdozen2 – The problem, though, is that Dembski assumes that DE proponents don’t think that there are educated scientists who have issues with evolution. Of course there will be people who have issues. If Dembski was trying to highlight that point, it was unnecessary. “The list was made inresponse to the question of credentials. “The problem with that, though, is credentials don’t invalidate or validate an argument. I’m betting a lot of scientists had issues with the credentials of objectors, but that is more due to their doubts in the ability of those skeptics to properly understand the issue, not so much because it’s actually going to serve as an argument against ID. “I’m kidding of course but Ican’t imagine busy researchers would take the time or effort (speaking of timeand effort). “Why not? If busy researchers could take the time or effort to get involved in the skeptics list, why can’t that be the same here? It’s not like they’re in a bunker 24/7, with nothing but ramen and test tubes One of the keys with regards to the issue is to make merited arguments that actually address the issue, which is what Dembski and his peers, in my opinion, fail to do. Not to mention, I tend to think his arguments are more restrictive on a theological level and serve to box God more than anything else.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @bakersdozen2 – “I did. I addressed your Behe referrence which you brought up, not me.”You didn’t acknowledge my point though.  Or any of my points. “I addressed your claim that these scientists were unqualified.” Nowhere did I make any such claim. I said that they invariably can’t give testable, scientific reasons for not accepting evolution, and often have transparent religious motives.  I did say that most of the ones on the list were experts, but in fields not related to evolution (they certainly are not qualified, any more than a doctor is necessarily qualified to fix my car, or my mechanic to diagnose a tumor).”They are. Finally, I challenged your assertion that their faith preceded their skepticism regarding D,E.”DE?  And I did not mean to imply that all dissenters were uniform, my point was that they do not dissent for scientific reasons. Unless you can point me to an experiment that discredits evolution, natural selection etc or establishes that there was an intelligent designer.”These are points you made. I responded.”Not really, and I said a lot more.  You glossed over what I said and gave a generic response to three people instead of dealing with our points separately or head-on.  Even though you’ve responded to this blog, you haven’t really given your take on the actual content of the blog.  I mean how can you reconcile dinosaurs and the vast diversity of different life found in the fossil record with the idea that life doesn’t evolve?

  22. wizexel22 says:

    @kk_grayfox – Your objectivity on the matter is so very refreshing. Though I have differing views on evolution….you correctly state the obvious. The statement doesn’t seem deceptive to me in the slightest. As you said, it doesn’t say “we should be skeptical” but that “we are skeptical”. Also, what they are skeptical of seems very straightforward ….they are skeptical of “claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life”. This is the same skepticism that I hold. I believe in evolution to the extent that it is shown to be absolutely true by the evidence. The directive power of natural selection and creative power of random mutation in evolution is obvious…..however, these evidences also point to a limitation of these mechanisms as well. Whether these mechanisms are sufficient to account for the full complexity of life as we see it today is the issue and one that I think is debated deep in the corner of evolutionist taverns over a few beers. Further, I think you correctly can see what many others outside the scientific community can’t see when looking in….and that is possible bias within the scientific community. (Again, I have to say here that this doesn’t imply that scientists have a hidden agenda to wipe God out of the universe or any necessary bias……but its so foolish to think one’s metaphysics cannot affect one’s science or that the scientific community alone is somehow immune to philosophical predispositions.) And not only that….but it’s probably also naive to think there are no political implications involved that would keep otherwise skeptical scientists from dissenting from the mainstream view, let alone possibly alienating themselves by signing such a petition. Let’s be honest, even if I have slight doubts about the efficacy of random mutation and natural selection….I’m not signing that thing because what I don’t need is any controversy nor any less funding for my research. This is something that Lynn Margulis alluded to, and I think it should be obvious as well.And speaking of Lynn Margulis……heck, she herself could very well have signed this petition as she also does not view random mutation and natural selection as sufficient mechanisms of evolution. She didn’t sign it of course……but I think it shows there again, may be plenty more scientists out there that are skeptical but simply didn’t sign that petition for one reason or another. So if anything, I don’t see the petition as deceitful at all….since their position is not only obvious….but specific. I mean, couldn’t they have garnered a few more signatures if they don’t specifically address the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection? Wouldn’t it behoove the Discovery Institute to argue against phyletic gradualism in the name of taking down “Darwinian evolution”?Like you, I’m curious as to why the scientists signed the petition. But its odd to hastily assume the petition is dishonest and anyone that signs it is doing so with religious motives. @bakersdozen2 – Very much agree with all your points. I’m glad you mentioned the story of your husband’s professor. In several discussions I’ve had on Xanga concerning Haeckel’s embryos and how it has been misused in biology textbooks for the last century…..your husband’s experience is similar to mine as well. I was taught the same by my professor, who didn’t use the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” but used slides of Haeckel’s embryos to make the same point. Not only was this a common experience but the general level of deception involved was pointed out by Stephen J Gould himself. Of course, after pointing all this out, and including quotes from Gould, quotes from Science magazine regarding the fraudulent images done by Haeckel, and citing the actual study done by Michael Richardson……I was simply a liar and was challenged to find a textbook within the past few years that misused Haeckel’s embryo images. (Not only was this a ridiculous challenge…but it completely missed the point….by a mile.) This shows the extent to which evolution cannot be challenged in any way. Haeckel’s fraud does nothing to discount or discredit evolutionary theory…..but it should be admitted that it was fraudulently misused for a very very long time and has itself been engrained in more than a generation of individuals and scientists as an iconic example of evolutionary theory. Such a blatant dismissal of this fact is extremely odd and not unlike the bias involved in something like dismissing the Holocaust or Crusades as mere myth. Darwinian evolution has reached a point where it cannot be questioned in any shape or form. How scientific!

  23. agnophilo says:

    @wizexel22 – What evidence is there that evolution cannot account for the diversity or complexity of life?  I can’t imagine how you could possibly establish that.As for haeckel’s embryos, they were found in textbooks because of poor research, not fraud.  That species resemble ancestral forms in the womb is true (and was discussed in darwin’s works before haeckel published his fraudulent drawings), but haeckel’s assertion that they go systematically through all ancestral forms was wrong.  And it’s worth pointing out that while some textbooks still used haeckel’s drawings, many others used accurate embryology drawings which were falsely claimed to be haeckel’s drawings – creationists even claim that darwin’s On The Origin Of Species used haeckel’s drawings and that they were central to his theory, when the drawings were published later.And I don’t see how saying “yes haeckel’s drawings were in textbooks, but since this was pointed out they have been systematically and universally corrected” is akin to holocaust denial.  Fixing the problem and denying the problem are two different things.How can you conclude that evolution can’t be questioned because the haeckel drawings were questioned and subsequently removed universally from textbooks?

  24. @mtngirlsouth – “I know I am biased to the eye witness testimony contained in the Bible.”I thought you might be interested to know that the Bible contains no eye witness testimony. We can historically confirm (and even theologians agree) that the events in the Bible were recorded over a century after the period they describe. 

  25. agnophilo says:

    @Tokillthepanther – True.  Don’t know why I forgot to mention that.  Though in some cases it may be just 70 years or so, not a full decade.  Still, like anyone would believe I could perform miracles based on a book written about me by someone two or 3 generations from now.

  26. @agnophilo – Yeah, probably anywhere from two to four generations, considering the average lifespan of a lucky person was about 30 in that era – stories of people living for several hundreds of years notwithstanding. 

  27. agnophilo says:

    @Tokillthepanther – True.  Though part of that was infant mortality, the average age of someone who survived childhood was, I believe, greater.

  28. Job says:

    Really effective data, thanks for this article. 0 4 1. This will not work as a matter of fact, that is what I believe. check link 7. So, I do not really imagine this is likely to have success. LINK web 5. It’s all wrong what you’re writing.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s