“there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway..”
Mark Devenport also spotted a mischievous question from the Alliance Party MLA Trevor Lunn to the Environment Minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster [scroll down] – “Mr T Lunn asked the Minister of the Environment what is her assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway.” The problem is that her answer, an official written answer as the Minister for the Environment, a) doesn’t answer the question, and b) in doing so appears to give equal weight to those alternative views.
Mrs A Foster: Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old. As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.
And a reminder of where the future of the Causeway Centre fits into that.
Sam when did snakes lose the power of speech?
This one’s still chatting away…
Sorry Malcolm you are being a tad pedantic about the origins of Aramaic. We may not be understaning each other correctly here. Let me cite Wilikipedia
“During the twelfth century BCE, Aramaeans, the native speakers of Aramaic, began to settle in great numbers in modern-day Syria, Iraq and eastern Turkey.”
The fact are during the Captivity and subsequent exile in 536 BC the Hebrews picked it up and it became the lingua franca of Palestine at the time of Christ.
I totally reject your JEDP hypothesis on numerous grounds least of all because Christ stated that Moses alone wrote the Pentateuch. I don’t trust Jewish scholars as I am a Concervative Christian who believes that the Jewish faith has been in darkness since the time of Christ. If you had truly studied Judaism over the last 2,000 years you would understand that they are even more splinterd in their interpretations of issues like this than Christianity is, hence the latest fad Kabbalism.
You point about whether we should prefer one Flood story over another I have already addressed. If we accept that prima facie the diversity of writinsg does at least suggest a common source of fact that the Flood did happen then let us test the extant manuscripts to see which one has proven itself to be the most reliable over the subsequent centuries in all categories – I am confident that the Bible will win this hands down.
nI don’t understand your problem with the various contexts and subtilties of the koine Greek usage of protos. I would have thought my point was obvious to the experienced Greek student. explain your problem.
Sam, there’s a theme running through your posts that I doubt you’re aware of. You think that populism has some bearing on the facts, as if the more people hold to a belief the more true it is. Thus your rather pathetic argument that the sales of the Bible somehow make it’s fantastical claims more true.
Likewise you namedrop the few scientists who allegedly believe in creationism, as if simply giving their names is enough.
Science doesn’t work like that.
Something isn’t more or less likely because someone says it’s so, it’s the arguments they put forward that count.
Let me ask you this.
Have you read Hitchen’s book?
If not, how can you dismiss it’s contents so flippantly?
TAFKABO
I am not the one that is questioning the sanity of anyone who believes evolution is wrong and the Bible is true. So, I am entitled to point out some evidence to the contrary.
You are right – it would be nice to deal with the issues, but as most of those who post here define science to simply exclude any reference to intelligent design, direct ad hominen attacks on the reputation of anyone who opposes them, refuse to objectively consider any evidence this cannot happen.
Would be happy to listen to any real points you have – however, you just keep using Hitchens as your evidence despite ironically castigating me for using the comments of a real scientist like Prof Nevin.
Define insanity:
The situation where an individual cannot distinguish between the real and the imagined.
I keep using Hitchens?
I do believe I’ve mentioned him twice, three times if you count this post, and not once have I used him as evidence.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the terms scientific and evidence.
As far as scientists go, I did mention a decades long study by Peter and Rosemary Grant, detailing evolution in action. I note that you failed to respond to that post and seem to have wiped all memory of it out of your memory.
Fear not there is a brilliant book, written in layman’s terms, which explains exactly how they were able to document evolution in action.
http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
Sam Hanna- I have been reading through your quotes and although I havent got time to got through them all. I just wanted to point out a major problem you have with your reasoning. In one of your quotes you claim that theistic evolution raises more questions than answers and you question….”When did the soul of man evolve”?
It is very very basic logic that one should never ‘beg the question’, and you have a tendency to do this in everything you write. Let me put it even more simply…..YOU FIRST NEED TO PROVE THAT MAN DOES INDEED HAVE A SOUL, BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN BEGIN TO QUESTION HOW THE SOUL EVOLVED. I detect it in almost all of your replies. You are arguing from the position that the bible is in fact true, which you believe to be the case.
You very often beg the question in your replies, as do others on here, including those who hold opposing views. I really wish everyone would stop this.