JCnot4me.com
“Am I therefore become your enemy for telling you the truth?”
The Apostle Paul Galatians 4:16
Intelligent Design
Mark Smith April 2008 JCnot4me.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Science adjusts its views,
based on what’s OBSERVED;
Faith denies what’s OBSERVED,
so belief can be preserved.”
(Tim Minchin. Google him on YouTube, he’s worth your time.)
Christians: Do Missing Links Disprove a Theory?
REAL T-
"One large rare steak to go, dammit, with
all the blood!!!"
-
Missing Creationist T-
"Oh golly, I am so hungry! Please give me a carrot, and I shall share it with my bunny friends while we all watch Veggie Tales on TBN"
Creationists claim that before the "fall of Adam" there was *no death or killing. Let’s assume that’s true. Therefore, the T-
This is a REAL T-
Such remains are totally, completely, and utterly MISSING from the fossil record, and ditto for the ancestors of all the carnivores that have survived to our present day. In REAL science, one makes a theory, and presents some concrete evidence to back it up. If there is no evidence AT ALL, the theory gets yanked. Thousands upon thousands of fossils have been dug up in the last 200 years, and not even ONCE has a carnivore (T-
-
* “People and animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no meat-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Missing Links??? Fish Don't Walk???
Tiktaalik Roseae 
A walking fish, complete
with wrists, elbows, and
a neck.
The InfamousDarwin Fish
Mocked by Fundies No More
I honestly feel sorry for the Creationists aka "Intelligent Designers". Really. When I was one, we never had to deal with what they've had to deal with in April 2006. In just one month, scientists dug up, if not the friggin "Darwin Fish" (pictured at right in new form) then its close cousin. They also dug up the remains of a snake with hind legs, a bird with hands at the end of its wings, and to top it off, they also dug up yet another transition in the evolution of man from primates. Any one of these is enough to put Ken Ham in the unemployment line or as the lead for "Thank You For Smoking II", but all in one month! Science hasn't dealt the Fundies and their book of religious ju-
Intelligent Design: Not So Intelligent After All
Mark Smith March 2005
Intelligent Design, aka "I.D", is the latest attempt by Creationists to repackage their religion and slip it into the public schools. The lies and deceptions of "the good Christians" attempting this were well documented in the famous 2005 court case in Pennsylvania. But as dishonest as their attempt was, it's exceeded even MORE by the title Christians have given their theory to make it more palatable: “Intelligent” Design. For what they're really proposing is not an intelligent designer (such as might work at GM, Ford or Boeing), but rather a perfect designer, and "coincidentally", they just happen to have one handy in their Bible (Deut. 32:4). Their claim, however, falls far short when we see their perfect designer coming up repeatedly with less than perfect designs.
According to the Christian story of creation, way before "The Fall", in the initial "Garden of Eden, Release 1.0" Biblegod Joe Hovah designed mates for all the animals, but it somehow slipped his mind to do so for the human. Maybe this supposedly eternal god, after billions of years, was having a "senior moment". You’d think that Biblegod could do the math: Adam + testosterone = needs a mate, but I guess math wasn't his best subject. Or you’d think that creating females for all the other male animals would have been a hint, but the "perfect designer" remained perfectly oblivious. Every morning, year after year, Joe watched Adam and his morning you-
In his excitement, however, his fix was worse: bestiality, as evidenced in "Garden of Eden, Release 2.0" where we have Biblegod parading all the naked animals in front of Adam, like some sort of beastly beauty contest, so Adam could apparently find a wife (Genesis 2:18-
But who was the genius who bungled "The Garden of Eden", designing it without a mate for Adam in the first place? And who then tried to fix the screwup with an even worse one of cows, chickens, and goats? And who was the one perfectly oblivious for so long to the fact that it was an imperfect (per his own words: "not good") design? In short, who swung at the ball-
For further information, Ed Babinski has put together an excellent essay on the stupidity of Intelligent Design: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If True Why So Many Lies ?
The following are snippets from articles covering the Intelligent Design trial in Pennsylvania.
Closing Arguments Made in Trial on Intelligent Design
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 5, 2005, New York Times
HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 4, 2005 In his blunt closing argument, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Eric Rothschild, accused the intelligent design movement of lying, just as he said the school board members had lied when they testified that their purpose for changing the science curriculum had nothing to do with religion.
They lied, he said, when they testified that they did not make or hear religious declarations at board meetings, and when they claimed they did not know that 50 copies of an intelligent design textbook were bought for the school with money collected at a church and funneled through the father of a school board member, Alan Bonsell.
This week, the judge himself grew agitated as he questioned Mr. Bonsell about whether he had lied about the books. Mr. Rothschild reminded the judge of that interchange and said that the board's dishonesty "mimics" the intelligent design movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/science/sciencespecial2/05design.html
Judge Says "Intelligent Design" Is Not Science
By Henry Weinstein, L.A. Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, front page & page A-
The overwhelming evidence has established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
The judge said school board officials had LIED in their testimony.
It is ironic that several of these (school board) individuals who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public would TIME AND AGAIN LIE to cover their tracks and DISGUISE the REAL purpose behind the intelligent design policy... We find that the secular purpose claimed by the board amount to a PRETEXT for the board's REAL purpose, which was to PROMOTE RELIGION in the public school classroom... Any asserted secular purposes by the board are a SHAM and are merely secondary to a religious objective.
Most, if not all of the board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they... do not know what intelligent design is.
Once again, we see that Fundy Christians must resort to lies and deception to defend their "truths". Times have certainly changed. Back when I was a Fundy Christian, we were always told that "as cream rises to the top, so also would the truth" and that truth, REAL truth, never ever would need lies and deceptions to defend it. In fact, if someone HAD to resort to lies, that was a sure sign they didn't HAVE the truth. Like I said, times have changed.
The Fundies driving the "Intelligent Design" movement have religion, and ONLY religion, as their motivating factor. Period. Anything else is a blatant and self-
Before these Fundies try to push their religion down our throats, they should learn how to live it themselves. Lies and deception only go to indicate that their REAL "heavenly father" sure as HELL (hint hint) doesn't live in heaven. Their constant and continual LYING shows that they are the children of BibleSatan, the "father of lies".
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Epicurus
If Epicurus had known of Biblegod, and had been asked about the big event 65 million years ago, way before humans evolved, i.e. the massive asteroid that struck he Earth killing off almost all living things, the following thoughts might have gone thru his head...
Epicurus, ~300 BC}
Did Biblegod at least try to deflect the asteroid from
hitting the Earth, but wasn't able?
Then he's a wimp.
Was Biblegod able to, but didn't want to?
Then he's not a wimp, but he IS a bastard.
Was Biblegod able to AND really wanted to as well?
Then he's a fuck-
Or was he both unable and unwilling to stop it,
and instead just enjoyed watching the
ensuing death & destruction?
Then he's an evil wimpy bastard, so why bother calling him "God"???
My apologies to Epicurus for what might be a piss-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contradictions in Genesis Disprove Claim
The 3rd Chapter of Genesis
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
They start off naked.
They taught themselves how to sew.
They sewed themselves some clothing and covered their "loins".
They end up not naked.
8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Why are they hiding themselves since they are no longer naked-
9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
They started off naked.
Then they were clothed.
Now they are naked again. Which is it???
11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Links to Good Web Sites on Intelligent Design
Video: Professor Ken Miller, a good public speaker, cell biologist, and author of many text books on biology, gives an easy to understand refutation of Intelligent Design.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Responses to my Intelligent Design:
Not So Intelligent After All
Sennettjr5 8-
Subject: My Position
Date: 8/11/2005 3:22:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5@aol.com
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Mark,
Concerning I.D., it is quite possible that God was teaching Adam something that we are not aware of.
Mark Smith here} Such as how to get horny looking at animals? What else could it be-
For instance, before I become married, I want to be financially stable, complete my education, be satisfied with my maturity level, etc. I believe that it is very well possible that God did not want Adam to have a mate immediately. He was not ready.
Mark Smith here} If not, why not? None of the things you mentioned about you apply here. Adam lived in a perfect state of being, in need of nothing, right? Besides, all the other animals had mates. Whatever arguments you make for Adam would have to apply to them as well.
Furthermore, for it is said, " For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the will become one flesh. Now, granted, I do not see any indication of sex happening during the garden of Eden era.
Mark Smith here} Why? Would it upset you if you did? After Eve was created, just exactly WHAT was Adam supposed to DO with her vagina-
However, do you see the correlation? Prior to the context of the scripture man is alone for a while, and later united to his wife. Just because God said, "It is not good for man to be alone", by no means implies that he is imperfect. It simply indicates that he reinforced what he already knew. I believe that God meant it is not good for man to be alone forever. But, prior to "It is not good for man to be alone," it was essential that man ought to be alone, in order to become equipped for marriage or a "mate," one might say. Is that a logical argument? I will repeat myself again. Do not take a few verses from the Bible and attempt to disprove God's existence. Yes, I could be wrong, but so could you! Incidentally, try to be more optimistic.
Mark Smith here} Your Biblegod created a "state of being" that was "not good". How else would you define "not good" other than less than perfect? Any situation that is "not good" is by definition NOT PERFECT. This is just plain common sense. And you Biblegod created this imperfect setup, which he later had to correct. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Biblegod fixed it, so therefore it must have been broke.
Sennettjr5 8-
Subject: (no subject)
Date: 8/25/2005 6:25:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Mark.
Let me make this clear to you. Adam was not perfect as you perceived him to be according to what you think the bible reads. If Adam was perfect he would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, etc., etc. He did not even know what evil was until he had eaten from the tree of life. By no means was he perfect. Be sure to email me back on this one. Do not slide between the cracks like you did with my other arguments and making some lame excuse not to answer them just because you could not refute them.
Mark Smith here} Huh? How did you ever confuse the word "perfect" with omnipotent etc etc? Please learn to use a dictionary. The word "perfect" in the Greek comes from the word "telios" and all it means is that something is the way it should be. Period. A hammer that functions as it should is perfect. It doesn't have to rule the entire universe.
I don't have time to argue with someone who can't even use a dictionary. Grow up.
Sennettjr5 8-
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: 8/26/2005 6:17:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Ok... Look. You have no clue what I mean. We have lost each other in understanding one another. Your answer does not pertain to what I was trying to relay to you. I am not even going to try to retrace my steps in making you understand what I mean. Sometimes it is very difficult to get a point across in words. I wish I could talk to you in person or on the phone. Anyway, you mentioned the word perfect and what it means in Greek. Who cares what it means in Greek. You need to know what it means in Hebrew because the old testament, which the word perfect is found in was written in Hebrew. Now I know my arguments are clearly stated. It is just you that does not know how to understand them! Moving right along, how is it possible for a human to fully understand what the term perfect means in view of the fact that we are finite creatures? Hmmm. Also, you are just like everyone else. Brace yourself Mark. This one is going to sting. You say I do not know how to use a dictionary. You have added to the meaning of perfect in order to justify your argument. Look up perfect again and know where does it say "Biblegod can not be perfect. A perfect being, by definition, has no needs or desires or wants to be met." Hence, youuuuu need to grow up! Validate your argument before you pose your position all over the internet! However, going back to what you said the word perfect means in Greek is interesting because you said "The word "perfect" in the Greek comes from the word "telios" and all it means is that something is the way it should be." You are right. Everything is the way it should be. Just the way God created to be. Gods creation is perfect in its own way. You can use any kind of fancy logic that you wish to disprove the existence of God, but again, humans are imperfect. Therefore how in anyone's right mind make a ludicrous claim such as, "Perfect means this and that." We do not know what it fully means. It is like this. Is a man with psychological problems going to take advise from a psychologist who has read a bunch of books, or is he going to listen to the psychologist who has "experienced the problems" and read a bunch of books? Mark, I am not going to listen to what you profess the word perfect means. Whyyy? Because you are imperfect!!! Now, please... go back to Jesus.
P.S. Please write back. It will be interesting how you try to deflate this argument.
Mark Smith here} You know, you are suffering from a problem that seem epidemic among Christian Fundies that email me. You put forth statements, usually based upon nothing, with not one whit of evidence, logic, or reasoning to back it up, then expect to use that "nerf " sword of the spirit to defeat my logic and evidence. My original argument in my essay on I.D., in essence, was as follows:
1) Fundy Christianity's version of I.D. requires a PERFECT (not just an intelligent) Designer.
2) Biblegod is not perfect, as evidenced by his screwups and own admissions in the Garden of Eden.
3) Therefore, Biblegod can not be Christianity's "Intelligent Designer".
I fleshed out each point, logically tied them together, provided references as needed, and the whole essay flowed logically and rationally towards making a POINT.
Your very first email to me, on the other hand, bounces from topic to topic, NONE of which is even SLIGHTLY related to what the FUCK I wrote about in the first place!!!!!! You GUESS (with no evidence or purpose whatsover) that Biblegod was trying to "teach Adam something we are unaware of". That has nothing to to with anything, and you have ZERO evidence to back it up. It is a totally wild ass guess. On top of that, why bring it up? You might have well said "the price of beans in China is 39 cents per pound".
Then you said that before you got married you wanted to be financially stable. SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! Again, the price of beans in China is 39 cents a pound!!!!
Then you say something about Adam fucking or not fucking Eve. ARRGHHHH!!! What god-
Your last paragraph of your first email is actually the ONLY place you even REMOTELY sound sane. But then you go and tell us the "inside scoop" on what Biblegod was REALLY thinking, as if there really WERE a Biblegod, he would confide in you his inner thoughts from that day, like you're his drinking buddy or something.
Bottom line is this: I ain't going to bother to even touch your latest email above, because I see no sense in it whatsoever. Your emails can stand as yet one more embarrassment to those Christians that are able to reason, and just cringe when they see an email from someone like you, because people might mistake their level of mentality with yours.
Sennettjr5 8-
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design-
Date: 8/27/2005 5:40:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Ok... You do not have to email me back on this one if you do not want to, but listen to this breakdown in Genesis 2:18-
Mark Smith here} I noticed where you happened to STOP your quotation of scripture (see the yellow)-
"None of these was the right kind of partner for the man." (C.E.V. translation)
Which is a 100% contradiction of what you said above in green. You said Biblegod didn't conduct his Parade of Beasts "to see which one would be suitable for him", yet THE VERSE YOU LEFT OUT says exactly that! It says "none of these was the right kind of partner for the man".
Thank you for exposing to the world a fine example of Christian trickery and deception, as well as a VERY good example of taking something out of context, for the place you stopped your quotation at radically changes the whole meaning.
Also thank you for motivating me into adding a new section to the original essay. I just added "The Beastly Beauty Show in Depth", which would have taken care of your deception from the get go. So thank you for helping me to refine my arguments.
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design-
Date: 8/27/2005 3:20:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Sennettjr5
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
Sorry Mark, I need to back up bit from the last email that I sent you. Your initial problem is in 2:18. "The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."
Mark Smith here} No, my "initial problem" is that you've TOTALLY ignored my calling you on the carpet for your blatent DISHONESTY which I proved in my LAST email to you. In fact, you ignored every single point I brought up.
If I understand you right you believe this indicates that God is imperfect because he should have already known that it is not good for man to be alone. God did in fact already know that it is not good for man to be alone.
Mark Smith here} Then you are admitting my point!!! The whole ENTIRE point of the essay was to show that your Biblegod screwed up. Your so-
He was simply reinforcing the point, so that humans would understand this. Here is why I believe God already knew. Much prophecy has been fulfilled. God has announced many things which he said would transpire and they have. Do not quote me on this, but there is a book called 25,000 facts of the Bible. It simply proves the Bible to be accurate in all that it proclaims.
P.S. Write back if you feel this is a logical argument. I would really like to know if I am wrong because if you can disprove the existence of God then what am I doing? I should stop being a Christian. Thanks. Hope to here for ya.
Magus Solitudo 11-
Subject: ID byte
Date: 11/7/2005 7:55:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Magus Solitudo
I think you are not getting the Main Gist Of The Essay. Which is, to wit, Fundies who are advocating Intelligent Design are LYING about it. They lyingly claim that religion is NOT their motivation when in point of fact it is INDEED their motivation.
What is wrong with teaching 'intelligent design" in the classroom? Well, for starters "ID" only makes sense if one keeps the scientific discussions very superficial. Real science is not something you can break up into sound bytes for those ignorant of the scientifc disciplines involved. A moron can ask "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? but 'answering a fool according to his folly' is not so simple. An actual scientific discussion is extremely involved and most people do not want to do the necessary thinking and learning in order to follow along.
These same people have often been to college and university for some other scientific specialty, and from their studies realize that real science is mult-
Perhaps I am making myself a bit more clear this time around.
If you are an ID advocate, I am willing to bet a whole poop-
Moe the Bartender 12-
Okay boys and girls. I'm gonna write some stuff about Genesis and science, especially for Homer Simpson. That's a helluva thing for a guy who runs a tavern and makes book, but what the heck I'll give it a shot. Pay attention Homer, this one's for you.
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Here we have the first recorded reference to baseball. In the Big Inning. Seriously though, God is outside the scope of science. If God isn't outside the scope of science, then "God" should be a valid subject for public schools. So, evolutionists such as myself should watch our step here.
Was there a beginning? Current cosmogony says yes. The Big Banger. Back when Carl Sagan filmed that way cool "Cosmos" thing, the Oscillating Theory of the universe was in vogue. What's that? This theory states that the universe has been eternally undergoing "Big Bangs" followed by "Big Crunches" as the universe expands and then collapses in upon itself, only to be "born again" (hehehe) in another Big Bang. That's a helluva thing too.
Actually, Homer, I never stopped having faith in the Little Oscillator That Could, even though science left it behind. Recent developments are promising a return of this elegant and perfect model of the universe, a model that makes the questions "Who?" and "Why?" irrelevant since an eternal universe needs no explanation, it simply is.
The problem with the Oscillating theory of the universe was the inadequacy of the mass of the universe to slow down, stop, and finally reverse the expansion of the universe. (Yeah, the universe is expanding. Google "red shift" Homer 'cause I ain't gonna go into the red shift here) In other words, there just wasn't enough "stuff" in the universe to generate sufficient gravity to slow the damn thing down and stop it and bring it crashing together again. I hope you're enjoying all this technical science jargon and stuff.
What are the recent developments which I mentioned? I'm glad you didn't ask. First, the discovery that neutrinos (with which the universe is brimming over) do in fact have mass after all. So little mass as to be virtually nonexistent when you're dealing with a single neutrino, but fill the universe with them and you've got a source of mass to be reckoned with.
Dark matter. It exists. Hey, Google it 'cause I ain't gonna explain it here Homer. It exists and has mass and therefore has a gravitational effect.
Hubble telescope. A number of photographs taken with the Hubble telescope of sections of the "sky" that were thought to be devoid of galaxies have been shown to contain hundreds if not thousands of galaxies. In other words, the universe contains hundreds and possibly thousand (possibly more) galaxies than anyone figured. Go figure. So, the universe generates hundreds, perhaps thousands (or more) times the gravitational forces than previously thought. Even the low end, hundreds, is more than sufficient to reverse cosmic expansion and bring about a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang.
The extra gravitational attraction has also been confirmed by the discovery of the filamentary structure of the universe. Galaxies are not flying apart all crazy like, but instead display a pronounced gravitational relationship expressed as a filamentary structure.
Taken together, these findings are more than sufficient to revive the Elegant and Perfect Model we call the Oscillating Universe. So there.
Evolutionists, ZERO. Creationists, ZERO. Carl Sagan and me, ONE.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
"Tohu and bohu" would be better rendered "chaotic and vacant," or "chaos and vacant" than "waste and void." The "ruach", wind of the elohim, the gods, does not carry any of the Christian connotations of the "Spirit of God" in this verse. Young's Literal reads "fluttered" where the ASV says "moved." My own vote is for "vibrated." Why? "Vibrated" is every bit as descriptive as "fluttered" but has the added advantage of being somewhat suggestive and salacious.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I have seen some criticisms of the Genesis story because it states that light was created before the sun was created. I'm a convinced evolutionist, but I have to side with the Bible Thumpers here. Light came into being at the moment of the Big Bangeroo, "billions and billions" of years before the sun. So far, evolutionists ZERO. Creationists ONE. Carl Sagan and me, TWO.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Okay, now we're starting to get weird if we're going to take this Creation Myth as literal science. What did the elohim, the gods, make that separated the light from darkness? We now know the Earth is a globe, and that the axial rotation of the globe accounts for the separation of light from darkness (Speaking in terms of phenomenology and whatnot, you know?) However, if one is a Trekkie "Lost In Space" it's pretty evident there is no Cosmic mechanism of separating light from darkness. There ain't some big blankie out there keeping light on one side of the universe and dark on the other, k Homer? Verse five is a further Revelation (Oooh..I couldn't resist!) of this fact. Light and darkness made night and day possible. The ancients who wrote Genesis had no clue this was due to the axial rotation of the globe, they just knew there was "dark" and "light." Personally, I think Genesis is a lot more fun if you take it as an allegory. Remind me to post some stuff about this in the neat future. Okay I'm not losing anybody here by being too technical and stuff am I? No? Good.
5and God calleth the light `Day,' and the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -
Is it "nighttime" in interstellar and intergalactic space? Of course not. If you're hanging out in space it's dark AND light all the time. Obviously, night and day have only to do with a rotating globe, a planet. So, this verse, like verse 4, makes no sense unless you confine it's meaning to the earth. Confined to the earth, this account really has nothing to say to us scientifically as to the structure of the universe (cosmology) or to how it began (cosmogony). Since it ain't science, don't be dragging it into science classrooms, k?
Evolutionists, ONE. Creationists, ONE. Carl Sagan and me, TWO.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
This is really "out there" now if we take this as science. "Firmament" (rawkeeah) is literally "stretched out thinness" very much like a lot of creationist arguments. Ha ha. Jesus I crack myself up. Okay, here we go. A good argument can be made that rawkeeah should be translated as "dome" and in fact a lot of Bibles do exactly that. Its a hell of a lot better than "firmament" which tells us precisely nothing. We're out in space now, checking out all the orbiting space junk and debris. We don't see a firmament separating waters above the rawkeeah from the waters below the rawkeeah. Why is that? Well, Homer, it's like this: The rawkeeah is very much like Santa Claus on account of it not existing. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This is very simple to understand if you stop being a MODERNIST and trying to make Genesis say MODERN things. Stop being an ANACHRONISTIC MODERNIST trying to force your MODERN concerns and understandings on a venerable ancient SPIRITUAL book. You peeps who think you're honoring the book of Genesis by remaining clueless here, you need to understand that you're destroying Genesis. It can't stand up to the demands you're making on it and the views you're trying to force out of it because THEY AINT THERE. Eventually, if you leave Genesis in the scientific pen, the Pit Bull of Science will rip it to shreds and it will be forever discredited and that will be a shame.
What creationists are doing is a lot like someone who judges a legal document by standards of poetry, or a poem by legal standards. You either wind up with bad poetry or a legal document that ain't worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell.
I am a CONSERVATIVE when it comes to Genesis as I wish to CONSERVE the original meanings intended by the ancient authors. I am not a MODERNIST who reads modern concepts and concerns back into an ancient document. The authors of Genesis were concerned with spiritual concerns and stuff. In their world, the sun-
I hold Genesis in very high regard because of this. Because of Genesis, modern science was made possible, and I am alive today because of it. What, you think there would be cartoons and The Simpsons without science? Get your head out of your butt Homer. Plus, it's de-
Okay. Back to rawkeeah. This whole scenario is simple when you understand the ancient Semitic world view. They understood the earth to be round but flat, supported either by four pillars, or nothing, depending on who was telling the story. Placed over the earth was a blue metallic dome, a rawkeeah. The stars and planets were little holes in this dome through which the Light of God shone. Above this rawkeeah, this dome, was water. So, this rawkeeah separated the waters that were above it from those below. Rain resulted when the literal "windows of heaven" were opened and some of the water above the rawkeeah was allowed through by God. "Windows of Heaven" is understood as poetry by modern people due to our scientific knowledge and mind-
If your religion can't handle Genesis being a spiritual book with spiritual truths to teach, and not science, you and your religion are confused. Religion ain't science and science shouldn't be religion.
Okay, now we're gonna skip a few verses. Just a quick comment on the goombas who try to make the days of Genesis into ages: Duh. It says EVENING and MORNING. A period of time separated by evening and morning is not an age. Sheesh. The Hebrew word olam could have been used here if an "age" were in view. If these "days" are really "ages", I pity the fool that got stuck in that long ass night.
Okay. Evolution, TWO. Creationists, ONE. Carl Sagan and me, THREE.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Oh yeah. This is great science. Not. This is exactly what I was talking about. The lights in the rawkeeah. So, according to Biblical literalists, hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars, so far away that none of their light is ever seen on the earth, and therefore they play no role in dividing day from night, or in mapping out days and months and seasons and years, are nonetheless there for that purpose. RRRRight. Stop kicking Genesis into your space-
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ditto for this verse.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Oh man. The earth precedes the sun! Back this up with actual SCIENCE. Ya cant. This is a faith assertion, much like claiming little green goblins live on a planet billions of light years away. Its an unfalsifiable claim and therefore irrelevant to the scientifc method which deals with ideas that can be tested and falsified (shown to be false). "He made the stars also." Yeah, they were just an afterthought. Pretty little lights in the sky, not gigantic balls of thermonuclear violence that could hold millions (and some, billions) of earths. They don't have their own worlds circling them! No! They're just pretty little lights in the sky. See? This is what I mean by sticking Genesis where it don't belong, Homer. It belongs under the heading SPIR-
This verse is half right in that the earth did precede the moon.
EVOLUTIONISTS..hmm...FOUR. Creationists, ONE and a HALF. Carl Sagan and Me, FIVE.
Whew. Okay Homer. Come back some other time, k? I got a tavern to run.
