That has to be the longest trailer I've ever seen...heh.  Looks good though and I plan to see it.

Maybe when you come up for the birth we can go on a field trip to the creation museum.  It's about an hour away give or take.

Ben Stein is so funny.  I know him best from the movie "Son of the Mask"...he says in that anyone?  anyone?  heh.

 

Oh no...please not to that repository of ignorance.

~Zoo

 

then why not use it as it was intended........

also Ock you might want to get an update for all your stuff you printed above.  1991?  Really that's pretty outdated.  Also, the evidence does not point to evolution.  The evidence points to a designer and that's why the ID theory has gotten so much attention the last few years.  We're actually fighting in my state over this right now.  It's in the courts as we speak.

 

Have you gone Zoo?

I heard its pretty awesome, they have dinosaurs (bones) and lots of things my kids would love.

hmmmmm I just lost what I submitted.  Where'd it go?  I saw it then it disappeared!  Oh well try it again.

I'd love to go.  I really would love to see this museum.  Remember when I first brought this up and nobody had heard of it?  Well now millions have gone to see it.  Anyhow maybe we can take Amanda with us if she's up for it.  Lunch is on me!

hahahahah Zoo, it'll be good for you.  Remember you're the open minded one, right?   Tova and I will do a book report when we get back just in case you can't go.  I'll  take good notes.

 

Oh, I'm sure they'll like the dinosaur bones...it's just the dinosaurs coexisting with people thing that I'm not too fond of...you know, just a pet peeve of mine.

I mean, when people watch the Flintstones and think it's a documentary...I tend to discredit their "museum."

Please do...I'm sure it'll either be hilarious or sad.  Which is why I don't want to go...there are 3 possible reactions that I would have.  Laughing uncontrollably, crying desperately, or a genuine WTF? look on my face the entire time.

~Zoo

ahah!  Not quite so open minded as you portray huh?  

There's a difference between being open minded and being stupid.  Like I say, I'll give anything a chance, just give me good reason and evidence to back it up.  With science, math, and all those fun things I prefer to have proof or very well reasoned explanations.  If it's philosophy, literature, religion, or anything abstract like that, I'll play on anyone's ballfield...don't have to believe it, but I'll hop into that world for a bit.

I can see the point of this, but I think it's a bad one and thoroughly delusioned.

There's such a thing as being too open minded(so much so that your brain falls out).  A guy has to have his limits...and this would be one of them.

~Zoo

That settles it then, you HAVE to go.

Seriously, if you are going to be around this summer...when KFC comes a visitin, we should all meet up. 

Yep. If it has to do with proving the Bible to be literal truth, why even bother being open to it? It's obviously crap.

Heh, heh.  Well, we'll see what I'm up to this summer.

Show me evidence and you'll see my mind blossom like a flower.  However, making up a funhouse of what you like to see...is more in the realm of an art gallery rather than a museum.

~Zoo

Does not apply to me.

I'm skeptical of everything until I check it out for myself. I don't believe in the "They say" mentality. The question I will always ask is invariably, "Who says?"

In addition, I'm willing to analyze religious texts...but they don't seem to hold up against testing...in fact much of those things cannot be tested and therefore are not science. Replacing one mystery with an even bigger mystery(i.e. God did it) is not scientific and therefore regressive of our ability to learn and figure out the world.

The Bible(or any holy text) as it stands, unchanging, is in fact the equivalent of flipping off the lights and believing about a room rather than knowing about it. Science is the flashlight in the dark, the Bible is the blindfold in the dark. The light illuminates, the blindfold remains the same...just pray that no one moves the furniture around or you're screwed.

~Zoo

The Bible is from God, science is from people. That's why science can't get past theory, because you can't really prove anything, while the Bible is fact because the creator of the universe and everything in it said so. Science is fallible, the Bible is not.

Science is the equivalent of being blind and turning on a light. The Bible heals the blindness, and turns on a light.

the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9;

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)

So...these are all facts, however they are all wrong.  Way to be infallible, Bible!

~Zoo

Zoo,

Where in the heck did you get those above scriptures?  They are not legit, taken out of context and twisted  How much research did you do before you just listed these to see what the truth is behind them?

Here's the verse for Job 37:3....you say:  "The earth has ends or edges."  Scripture says:

"He directs it under the whole heaven and his lightening unto the ends of the earth." 

So much for not believing what "they say" buddy.  You're busted!

 

 

 

Zoo,

If you went to the source to get your info, instead of a bible bashing site, you would have stumbled most likely over what Job had said just before 37:3.  He said this in 26:7:

"He (GOD) stretched out the north over the empty place, and hanged the earth upon nothing."

How'd he know that?  This was most likely written BEFORE Moses.  Moses wrote about 1400 BC. 

 

 

It says "ends" right there in your quote.  How is that taken out of context?  It says ends of the earth...and the earth has no ends...it's just a big ol' ball.

That just goes along with a creation mindset.  There was nothing and now there is something.

Even if those two were thrown out...that still leaves 12 out of those 14(actually there were more, but I didn't agree with those so I cut them out).  Most notably all the screwed up animal stuff(the bat/bird and of course our 4 legged chicken friends) and the rainbow not existing as long as rain and sunshine(I guess light never refracted before the flood, eh?)

~Zoo

Well you wouldn't be asking if you read this in context.  To say the earth has edges or ends by reading a Poetic book as fact is not good exegesis for one thing. 

 When I say....I'm at the end of the road with you.  DOes it mean I'm literally at the end of the road or does it mean I'm finished? 

The point in the passage wasn't that the earth had edges or ends but that God is in control and is able to reach to the uttermost of the earth.  There's not even a hint here that the earth has edges Zoo.

The bird thing?  That whole section about the bat and all the birds were unclean animals that were NOT to be eaten.  It had nothing to do with the fact that a bat is or is not a bird.  It flew and it fit in with winged creatures not to be eaten.  

Okay, you now want to talk about Lev 11?

Again, did you read it in context?  Read v20-23 at least.  Insects that crawl like quadrupeds were banned, except those with long jumping legs of the locust family.  Nothing strange here.

here's another I picked from your list.  This is from Peter who was well acknowledged and respected.  This is what he said EXACTLY starting in v3.

"Knowing this first that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts. And saying, "where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." For this they WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." 

This escapes their notice willingly. In context Peter begins his attack on those who doubt the truth of Chris'ts return by referring to the dependability of God's word in demonstrated in Creation.   Remember right from the beginning it said the world was created by the word of God. He spoke the world into existence.   If you continued you'd see the mention of true globabl warming in our future.

So what you're saying is that it's a poetic book?  i.e. filled with metaphors and not to be taken as purely literal?  I can live with that.

It's the stone cold literal belief I can't agree with.  Especially passing off poetic verse as "fact."  I write with a lot of figurative language, so I'm familiar with it.  That's why I can't understand why people think the Bible is being so rigid in its interpretation.

~Zoo

When it comes down to it, science is also a religion.  Questioning the powers that be is the heresy.  The inquisition results in the execution of reputation.

Ben Stein is right, those who are secure in their knowledge don't fear challenges.  So why do the powers that be in science fear any challenges to their paradigms?

I can understand science ignoring my opinion of things, I'm not qualified to challenge much of what science claims.  But if you want to see an example of "eating their own", just watch what happens when one scientist dares stand up to the powers that be in science.

Who says the Earth didn't have ends at that point, anyway? Or edges? And was later rolled into a ball for the sake of explorers like Cristobol Colon?

Just because it's a sphere NOW doesn't mean it was always a sphere.

You know, Zoo, I don't normally disagree with you, but you're going a bit far, here. I'll say that evolution and creation can mesh, sure, but back off of the Bible. Yes, it is fallible. Yes, it has been copied and rewritten by flawed people more times than we can count. But if you want to Bible bash with KFC, at least use the actual Bible, quote the real text, and use the SAME VERSION.


I'm done now. Have a lovely day.

Flawed versions are generally recognized as flawed. People check other people's work still, these days. So any translation that is not a true translation will get pushed aside.

ok, let's go with this zoo.  Do you ALWAYS talk in figurative language?  Hmmmm?  I'm going to assume no.  Am I correct? It's about context right?  It's the same with God Zoo.   YOu have to look at context.  Job had alot of figurative language in his writing.  His book (if you notice) is put with Psalms and Proverbs.  They are poetic books.  There are five books in the bible called poetic and Job is one of them.  So like I say....when it makes sense, seek no other sense.  

Other books of the bible are history (12).  Some others are prophetical.  Some are letters....just like you may write a letter.  So you have to figure out first what you're reading.  Some CAN'T be taken literally because it was meant as poetry.  Look at Song of Solomon (a romatic love story) and  see it's filled with metaphors. 

I'm sure.  Because if any was meant to be taken literally you'd be in trouble right?  So it's much easier and safer to fluff it off as just symbolic.   I'm not going to help you with that Zoo.