BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:08 AM

Alright, I've read the whole article now. I see Musket's point that what you posted was indeed a cut-and-paste, so it is difficult to know whether it is something you would want to defend to the death or just something you thought we'd like to read.

I assume the article is just trying to say 'not necessarily' to the people who claim it disproves Genesis. But that has no relevance at all to people who don't take Genesis literally in the first place, and I can't see dating of camels persuading any literalist, giving the much bigger oddities they have to defend.

I found the article patronising: it seemed to contain nothing that a few moments wouldn't also have revealed to anyone bothered enough to think about it.

So in short I'd be much happier hearing your views than those of a cut'n'paste.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:49 AM

Musket, there are regional councils of mosques, but no "The Council Of Mosques" which you claimed as a source for your made up quote.

You claimed to have found it on that non-existent site, but Google does not find it anywhere except in your Mudcat post.

Even then, before calling it a lie, I asked for an explanation.
I am careful and fastidious about calling someone a liar, but that was a blatant lie, as was the story of Muslim schoolchildren chopped up and fed to pigs by Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:43 AM

Read the whole piece here.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/dear-ephesus/breaking-camels-disprove-gods-existence-bible-is-false-19994/

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

The problem with point 2, Keith, is that you are saying the words in the Bible may not mean what we think they do. Now, I agree with that, but it is not something that I can see any literalist being able to accept. So they are stuck with camels in the Bible meaning what we mean by camels. Because if they don't, how can they be sure anything means quite what they think?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

You are getting the handle of this google / cut / paste lark Keith.

Now find a website called The Council of Mosques. I haven't tried but I doubt it exists even though you just stated I did. I presume the umbrella body for mosque councils may use the term and I did give a quote from them. You just aren't subtle enough to be a convincing liar.

Twisting twat.

Then you try telling us you aren't signed up to a pseudo political party ? They could do with you and your ability to peddle porkies to denigrate others. Oh, lesson 101. Google doesn't give links to intranet sites. For once your inability to find something isn't down to your incompetence.

I notice your mate Sheffield was back-pedalling in the paper this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

POINTS TO CONSIDER

1.) Does this research definitively represent the total area of Israel, from its most sparsely to most highly populated areas? If not, then this research may simply suggest that domesticated camels were not in use at these sites until 900BCE.

To be fair, according to Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef's paper, the study encompassed quite a bit of Israel. In fact, they were confident that it did represent a good portion of Israel's history. However, perhaps later discoveries will show that camels were not in use in some areas while they were in others at various points in Israel's history.

2.) The word for camel gamal (גָּמָל) may be a substitute for the oral tradition's use of a load-bearing animal. Perhaps, according to oral tradition, the load bearing animal was a donkey or mule. When it came time to consolidate and 'canonize' the Torah, the scribes (being people of their time) assigned the word camel to the word load-bearing animal. (This is not unlike when we hear a story of a cowboy riding into town on an animal, we automatically assume the animal was a horse.)

Old Testament scholars have long suggested that the Torah was not finished in the form we have it today until well after the events they describe. Even if we accepted Moses as the author of the Torah, we must also remember that he was not present for a major portion of it (Genesis). Oral tradition must play some type of role in its formation, which is something Christians have believed for a long time.

3.) Could Abraham have acquired camels from Egypt and brought them to Israel without them becoming widely used until much later? Most of the articles claim that Abraham (among the other patriarchs) did not have camels in Israel until Egypt introduced them abruptly, perhaps due to trade. Archeological evidence suggests that Egypt did have domesticated camels

This assumes, then, that when Abraham went to Egypt, he did not acquire a single camel. On the contrary, is it possible that Abraham, during his visit to Egypt, acquired Egyptian domesticated camels? I think so, especially since Genesis 12:16 explicitly mentions Abraham's camels while in Egypt.

Of course, this depends on whether or not Egypt had domesticated camels during the time Abraham was in Egypt. Since Egypt was the trade center of the world at that time, it is entirely possible to see how domesticated camels were present in the first millennium BCE Egypt.[1]

AT THE END OF THE DAY…

This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture. (Remember, we're talking about the domestication of camels in Israel. We're not talking about a Jesus ossuary.)

It is interesting to see how many media outlets rushed to declare the Bible false, seemingly without considering that there might be a logical explanation. I'm not sure they would have done the same for other types of archeological finds.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 01:50 PM

shimrod,- 1st as dmcg reminded you, because something is not found is not proof that it was not there. I should add that darwinists lean heavily on that, and talk about a Cambrian explosion, for example.
2nd...if lions were in Israel but left no remains, why insist that camels must.
3rd..carbon dating has not always been accurate, eg dating recently formed rocks as millennia old.
4th...and perhaps most pertinent, camels were not prominently resident in Israel in earlier times, I think. the biblical list kindly provided by Monique for your benefit just about in every case referred to action outside israels borders. Israel was on major trade routes in the ancient east but probably not native to Israel, and perhaps rarely kept therein.
I hope this may help your impartial scientific research.........

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 10:29 AM

If you believe that every kind of animal was scooped up in a boat and deposited on a mountain 4000 years ago then returned to their homes without leaving a trace. Imagining that a few camel bones were hidden, is not beyond the pale.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 06:07 AM

Agreed DMcG! But that's thinking like a scientist - as opposed to a religious absolutist.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 05:26 AM

At the risk of encouraging pete unduly, its important to remember the dictum "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, that's not the whole story. We need to add on "but it does affect the probability of absence". And in this case, the probability is far and away that the bible is in error when it comes to camels.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Monique
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 04:02 AM

You're welcome, Shimrod. I have more

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:50 AM

Thank you Monique. You've saved me from having to read the Bible!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:06 PM

We have a River Camel here in Kernow. We think the word means twisted, or bent, something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:04 PM

So it appears that you don't understand the part about not being unkind and impolite.

You really are getting very boring now. Er, am I unkind and impolite there? Actually, you're a ton of fun when you're being boring. Popcorn anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:01 PM

Do you have to drag Hildegarde Von Bingen into it?

Aye, bad move there on my part, Stim. There indeed was a fine woman, well ahead of her time. Perhaps I should have said John The Baptist instead. Or Hagar The Horrible. Damn. I apologise for including such a noble person in my sarky post. You won't get me to drop Lenny The Lion though!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:01 PM

So it appears that you don't understand the part about not being unkind and impolite.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?"

Honestly I don't know...

Really? You don't know?? DON'T BLOODY KNOW??? Yet you've quoted the bloody thing at us, what, twenty or thirty times? And you "don't know" what you are quoting means? Are you mad or what? Bloody find out what it means before you quote it again, that's my advice, ol' fruit! Bwahahahaha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Monique
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:36 PM

Gen. 12-16: "He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels."

Gen. 24-10 "Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master. He set out for Aram Naharaim and made his way to the town of Nahor."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

Hahahahahaaaaa... the spiral would be intoxicating if I was not sane. Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:05 PM

" but no fossils have been found validating that. "

Fossils?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM

shimrod.....perhaps you could indicate which bible verse it is you are referring to about camels in Israel or nearby.
btw... I understand that there are records of lions in Israel in old time, but no fossils have been found validating that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:01 PM

Isn't this bad enough? Do you have to drag Hildegarde Von Bingen into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:21 PM

Musket, In those 2 lies I detailed, you gave no links.
How could you?
It was all false.

You claimed to have heard about the atrocity on BBC news, but neither BBC nor any other agency have ever reported such an event.
You made it up.

You claimed to have obtained a quote from the website of "The Council of Mosques."
In fact there are only regional councils.
Had the quote really appeared anywhere, Google would find it.
Google only found it in your post.
You made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:31 PM

"From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?"

Honestly I don't know, but if I did, I wouldn't say because I'm not supposed to. I just assume that if I was talking about whatever it was someone would tell me. If you need to know you could ask Max in a PM or maybe someone will tell you in a PM.

But you DO get the part about not being unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty right?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

Mr. Shaw,

I started this thread about a cartoon, a funny cartoon, a cartoon that, judging from what you have posted, I doubt you have even read. Also despite your religious objections I am free to start threads with "Darwin" in the title as much as I want.

It is not I who is being disingenuous. It is you who are acting insanely. It is not sane for you to obviously act upset when a word is used, like Darwin or Witness, when you don't even appear to know the context in which it was used.   

In fact it is your tendency to off the handle fly upon certain words the use thereof which forces this tortured grammar my use to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

Jts... "I stand corrected. I had arrogantly presumed that since I started the thread that I would know its purpose."

I gave that up a while back. Far too many people without the intellect to start their own threads simply waltz into your thread and decide what it should be about and why you don't have a clue what you are talking about or the fact that... fill in the blank. Then, all their no mind friends arrive and have a circle jerk.

I remember when the idiots were controlled to an extent. Spaw, Big Mick and others would police the assholes with ridicule and logic and... hmmm... they all seem to have left, for the most part.

So, I'll simply say in this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:11 PM

"
Disingenuous, Wacko."

What part of this do you not understand?

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Disingenuous, Wacko. You went through a phase of obsessively starting atheism threads a few months ago. You know full well what happens. You also know that Darwin is a focus for ardent disagreement here, yet you start a thread that not only contains his name but which also contains a word that refers to one of the categories of bogus evidence that God-squadders routinely resort to. You just can't help yourself, can you. Still, it's all good fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:50 PM

Its about as much explaining as you will ever get from Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

As word to the person presuming to be wise enough to give a word to the wise.

I stand corrected. I had arrogantly presumed that since I started the thread that I would know its purpose. I believed that it has served that purpose and is currently descending into bickery. Bickerage? A state of bickeration? I believe that if the bickery reaches a certain point, a much earlier point than some previous threads, then it will be closed. My statement was a word to the bickerers (I am not going to say that they are unwise), but certainly not a word to those who are above bickering, like you and me, that the more bickering occurs, the more likely it is to be shut down.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

I gave an intranet link To HPA and now Keith says it was BBC.

I'd say the plot thickens but maybe it's just Keith thickening.

A word to the presumably wise Jack. Don't keep saying threads have served their purpose. You started it ! Admittedly with a humorous cartoon.

Cartoons and religions always end in coroner's courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

Its about as much explaining as you will ever get from out Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

Makes no difference. If it's true or if it's your fantasy it would still explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

But is it true?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:49 AM

That explains a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

Just wondered why you were delivering what, even by your standards, was a pretty vitriolic tirade to all and sundry at one o'clock in the morning.

A man of mystery is what I am. I once said hello to Eamonn Andrews, you know. And that's the truth. Even more fantastical, I once shook the hand of Cardinal Hume.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

This thread no longer serves its intended purpose and seems to have descending into bickering by the usual suspects, caused by vitriolic name calling by the usual impolite, unkind, argumentative snooty name callers. I would ask them to lighten up and refocus on the cartoon, but I fear that would cause them to unleash the usual stream of impolite, unkind, argumentative snooty name calling on me.

What Max asks is very simple and not at all difficult. These displays of petulant defiance are shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

I have never claimed membership of UKIP and am not even a supporter.
That is another lie.
The unopenable link was not related to the lies above (but relates to another of your lies).
You obviously gave no link to the non-existent site you claimed your made up quote came from, and you certainly gave no link to the atrocity fantasy.
You just claimed to have heard it on the BBC.

You compound your lies with more lies Musket.
Do you imagine anyone believes you?
Why do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:29 AM

Did you ask them if they ever found that unicorn? My cousin was named Diane after one of their songs.

Hi Keith! Did you ever get round to trying out that idea I gave you? You know , the line about reading fucking threads. (Keith is waffling on about a link I supplied that he couldn't open. My bad. I gave an intranet link by mistake as I have access. Despite that he uses it to call me a liar.)

Mind you, he said he was a member of UKIP, didn't deny it when I challenged him at the time and only months later tried wriggling. Presumably one of Nigel Farage's "Walter Mitty" members.

Here's something I read the other day. Any idea how much of the internet can be searched by Google? Go on, have a guess?

0.2%.

Makes you think.

Or at least makes intelligent people think. Some of us, I shan't name you Keith, it's alright, will google for confirmation. Googling seems to have replaced debate here for some and that is where I stop respecting and start having a pop. If they can't have the decency to debate I can't have the decency to respect them either.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:12 AM

Just wondered why you were delivering what, even by your standards, was a pretty vitriolic tirade to all and sundry at one o'clock in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 07:25 AM

Good session last night then Steve?

Nah. That's Fridays, old chap. Thursday night is Question Time night on the Beeb. I was on it once, you know, asking Bumblebee's lot a question! I just throw ping-pong balls at Tories these days.

(One of The Bachelors brushed past me in Blackpool once as well...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

Good session last night then Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

I am very careful about calling anyone a liar.
I did not call you a liar until I made sure I had unequivocal proof of it, which I put up in justification.

For example, you made up a story about a shocking atrocity that was reported by no single news agency, not even the one you claimed as your source.

For example you made up a quote from a site that does not exist.
Google found the quote, but only from your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

Bloody Hell ! Who woke Keith A Hole of Hertford up?

He enjoys shouting LIAR! whenever you burst his pious bubble. A fine one to lecture us on so called rules. His "liar" stance is normally backed up by misquoting a few snippets he googles, so although his intent is nasty, his output is rather amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:46 AM

Jack is right.
We are asked to be at least polite by Max and his volunteer crew.
Why insist on being gratuitously offensive, ignoring the requests of the nice people who give us our forum?
You give them the finger every time you do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:11 PM

Hello, Polly Parrot!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:05 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin.

You see, twat features, this is the thing: there is no parallel, no equivalence whatsoever, between your adherence to evidence-free, creationist, believer bullshit and good, honest science. None. Actually, I think I might just have mentioned that before. Now, pete babe, you rattle on elsewhere about irony. Well let me tell you a bit about irony, you silly, useless, thoughtless, brainless twerp. You diss science at every opportunity. Yet you are desperate to make equivalence between science, which you abhor so, and religion, which you mindlessly love so. Can't you see it? You are making a fool out of your own beliefs. Hardly surprising, since you are such a fool yourself. Have you a hole you can crawl into?<<<


In all the times I have done this this is the first one I think should have been deleted.


For the record, however baseless the reason, disagreeing with a theory, even ignoring mounds of data, is not the same thing as "dissing" science. And it was Mister Shaw who made the implication that "using Darwin's name in vain was something to be upset about.


Please look at the "membership" link Mr. Shaw. Show some respect for this forum please.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

Hey, Wacko, bet you're not having snails for tea tonight... :-)