Unicorns Are Real
by The Monkey on 04/07/08 filed under Evolution vs. Creation
Unicorns Are Mentioned In the Bible and, Therefore, Exist.
In reaction to Kentucky’s Creation Museum, the folks at This Week In Science have launched a website for the Unicorn Museum. The idea behind the Unicorn Museum is to parody a principle that many theists adhere to: If it’s in the Bible, It’s true. Unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the King James Version of the Bible.
From the website’s home page and about page:
The Unicorn Museum is a parody of The Creation Museum, a religious-based institution which opened its doors in Petersburg, KY on May 28, 2007. The Creation Museum is a $27 Million state-of-the-art facility intended to teach the “truth” of the biblical creation story and promote the belief that the Universe is 6600 years old, Adam walked with the dinosaurs, and the Bible is a wholly accurate historical record.
The Creation Museum is designed to undermine evolution and present the biblical story of life on Earth as a scientifically valid viewpoint. At a time when U.S. children’s proficiency in Science and Mathematics is among the lowest in the modern world, we feel that the Creation Museum represents a challenge to the education and well-being of America’s youth.
Prepare to Believe What You’re Told
Isn’t the Bible an all or nothing deal? Believers aren’t allowed to cherry-pick the ideas they like and throw out the ones they don’t, are they? If you believe what you find in the Creation Museum, then why not believe in unicorns?
Dan D.
Apr 8th, 2008
I dunno… maybe because, as your source states, unicorns aren’t actually in the Bible?
I’m no creationist, but you and This Week In Science undermine your case with seriously stupid arguments like these. It’s no less damaging to warp a child’s knowledge of literature by lying about what is and isn’t in the Bible than it is to teach that evolution isn’t real.
Anon
Apr 8th, 2008
agreed, no archaeological evidence has been found, hey even the shroud of Turin has been found as pre dated before the death of jebus.
Fantasy and fraud.
Just my point of view, understandable what you say is true if you believe in the bible you believe in miracles, unicorns and other such nonsense.
Until proven overwise or jebus actually strikes me down with his almighty toes ill continue to keep my opinions anon
Wayfarer
Apr 8th, 2008
I don’t understand what the controversy is. Of course unicorns are real, just as dragons, demons, and angels are. There are supernatural forces that defy all of man’s comfortable assumptions about the universe and how things work. You cannot argue that simply because there is no fossil or photographic evidence, that such creatures do not exist, especially if those creatures have the power to resist detection and manipulate time and space (as in the case with demons and angels). There are people who have seen such creatures, in every culture, in every part of the world, going back thousands of years, but because of the advances in science and mass communication, most people arrogantly believe that we know everything there is to know about the universe and that there is nothing new to discover or new mysteries to be revealed. On the day that such a person dies though, they will be in a for a rude awakening.
ben
Apr 8th, 2008
@Dan D:
Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Numbers 23:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
sam
May 4th, 2008
I don’t see what’s so magical and ‘unreal’ about unicorns. They’re just horses with horns. What’s ‘unreal’ about them, but not rhinos or deer?
The Monkey
May 4th, 2008
I hope you’re kidding Sam.
Shaun Collins
May 8th, 2008
Well…. Here…believe it or not… man is sceptical… ( I for one think it’s real )
The Monkey
May 8th, 2008
Ok Shaun, you’re free to believe what you want, of course. I hope you’re not basing your decision on the YouTube video you’ve linked to your name above. It’s a real stretch.
What does everyone else think of this video? Conclusive evidence of the blurry kind?
Shaun Collins
May 9th, 2008
well mr ted…it’s for the viewer to decide and not you…. there are things in this universe that “you” can’t explain… and some things get caught on tape… i’m not basing anything on the video that i don’t already believe… i just stumbled onto it… and to me… it looks quite convincing… the surrounding… you are a “doubting Thomas” Mr.Ted…. not sure what that is??? it’s in the bible… to be smart is to have your mind open to all possibilities while not being nieve…. people who think they’ve got it all figured out, are the one who have the “least” figured out. thanks for taking the time to consider all possibilities…. after all… isn’t our own existance here on earth miraculous?
The Monkey
May 9th, 2008
Hi Shaun, I re-read my original comment and apologize, as I was rather snide and somewhat condescending. It was out of place and for that I apoligize.
I understand there are things in this universe that I cannot explain and I am perfectly OK with that. I certainly do not think I have it all figured out, nor do I think anyone else does either. I am also not 100% sure that unicorns don’t exist, but I have a strong reason to believe they don’t (hence my bias). I would not consider myself to be close minded. If I were, I would not have even viewed your video. But I did and found it rather blurry and unconvincing.
So does this mean you already believe in unicorns and this video that further cements your belief? Perhaps that has weighed into your decision?
Once again, I am not a strong believer or a strong disbeliever, as it’s these folk who think they have some deeper wisdom and they alone have it all figured out for sure.
I applaud your research and questioning, but it the evidence wasn’t very convincing in this case.
Shaun Collins
May 9th, 2008
well i don’t doubt the existance of anything…. and if it is or isn’t real… like the Patterson video of bigfoot… there will be someone… somewhere… that catches it on tape… and people will allways try and say it’s not real… for one, horses arent keen to those kinds of conditions… being up high on a cliff on the side of a mountain… anyways, i’m not at all just defending the existance of unicorns… but the possibility of anything existing…. just like us
The Monkey
May 9th, 2008
Right, I think we both agree that it’s possible for the just about anything to existance… technically speaking.
Technically speaking, I can’t disprove that leprechauns exist, or the god Zeus. I am 99% sure they don’t exist, but cannot prove it beyond all doubt. Do you think it’s possible (or probable) that leprechauns or Zeus exist? There’s no YouTube video to suggest otherwise, in these cases, it’s true. Perhaps that’s where we differ most in the conversation.
I am 99% sure that unicorns do not exist. I do not think the YouTube video is very good evidence (or evidence at all) for the existance of unicorns. You disagree. I am still open to the fact the unicorns might exist, but I need better evidence if I am to be swayed.
Does that sound somewhat accurate?
Shaun Collins
May 9th, 2008
in other words you want to see one in person because there could be no video that would be believable…. take a video camera and try to zoom in as far as he had to… and there is nothing magical about a horse with a horn… you’re comparison to greek mythology and leprechauns are not justified for neither is mentioned in the bible… and i think that certain things are more probable than others… but who am i? right? there would be no evidence good enough to convince someone who has his mind made up… well 99% made up
The Monkey
May 9th, 2008
I did not see a horn in your YouTube video. I see a few VERY blurry frames of something that looks like a horse. I did notice an equally blurry line near the animal’s head. Was it a horn? I can’t tell from this video. Have you considered this ‘horn’ could be a camera glare? Or a part of the rock behind the horse (the ‘horn’ never actually moves with the horse, by the time the horse moves the horn is behind the bush)? The video might be doctored (it’s only a few frames to edit). Have you considered that IT’S YOUTUBE? YouTube isn’t a great place to find credible and reliable information. Even so at just over 8,000 views, this video isn’t exactly making headlines…
There are other explanations abundant, but I get the impression you’ve chosen to jump right to the single conclusion that it could a unicorn because Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible and therefore exist. If you want to believe it, that’s fine with me. I need something a bit better, more concrete if I’m to believe your bold claim.
You’re saying that unicorns MIGHT exist but not definitely, and this video is shows that. I’m saying that unicorns MIGHT exist but not definitely and this video adds nothing to the equation.
I’m not saying I have my mind made up, I’m just saying I don’t think this ‘evidence’ is good. Don’t take it personally…
“and there is nothing magical about a horse with a horn” – I don’t think magical is the word you want. Look up the term Elasmotherium.
The Monkey
May 9th, 2008
You know what, strike everything in my last comment. It boils down this this part:
You’re saying that unicorns MIGHT exist but not definitely, and this video is shows that. I’m saying that unicorns MIGHT exist but not definitely, and this video adds nothing to the equation.
I’m not saying I have my mind made up, I’m just saying I don’t think this ‘evidence’ is good. Don’t take it personally…
I’ll keep looking for evidence of the existence of unicorns, but you haven’t presented me with anything to change my 99% made up mind on this topic. I still have a good reason to believe unicorns don’t exist: No good evidence…
Sara
May 9th, 2008
“there would be no evidence good enough to convince someone who has his mind made up… well 99% made up”
Mr. Collins, it’s this kind of attitude that drives me crazy. Why would you assume that a person who has his mind 99% made up could never be convinced? The following would convince me that unicorns exist:
fossil remains of unicorns are found
a deceased, but still fresh, unicorn is found
a live unicorn is captured.
If any of those things were to happen, I’d look like an idiot for denying the existence of unicorns. It would be like denying the existence of lions.
You don’t sound as though you are suggesting that unicorns exist…are you just saying that we shouldn’t say they DON’T exist? Why shouldn’t we say that? If unicorns and lions both exist, why can we go to the zoo to visit one, but not the other? Why do different rules apply?
You said there’s “nothing magical about a horse with a horn,” which would suggest that it can’t dissapear or make itself invisible to humans, etc. So where is it?
In the meantime, given the many hoaxes I’ve seen in my 27 years, I find the youtube video unreliable.
Shaun Collins
May 10th, 2008
with god… anything is possible…. and if you think that we have found and discovered everything that has ever existed on earth mrs/ms sara, you are wrong… of course it’s a strech… some people believe in things beyond what we call reallity and normal to our standards of everyday life… just open your mind to the possibility that we don’t know it all and who are we to say if something does… or doesn’t exist… people have reasons for believing certain things i understand… you people want to ride one… or live next door to bigfoot… in order for them to exist… it’s dangerous to rule out the existance of the unkown… because then you might not believe in the things you should. this is my last message… for since i’ve never “seen” a unicorn in person… i can’t argue their existance… but i will say i have seen things that are out of this world and i’m just telling you don’t be so quick to judge what you think is real and not real… just because “you” haven’t seen it… ( sara, did you know that even elephant bones are almost impossible to find… we know they’re there…. because of the great numbers we do find bones once in a while… maybe there wasn’t many of them ) lol who knows right?
sara
May 10th, 2008
“…and if you think that we have found and discovered everything that has ever existed on earth mrs/ms sara, you are wrong…”
I agree with that 100%. I’m not claiming that we’ve discovered everything, by any means. That’s what’s wonderful about science…we make new discoveries all the time. And I have no doubt that during my lifetime alone, many new species of animal will be discovered. So we don’t disagree on that point.
“who are we to say if something does… or doesn’t exist…”
Okay, here’s where we start to disagree. While I’ll admit that there’s a lot we don’t know, this doesn’t mean we have to take things like unicorns as a serious possibility. All we can do is work with the knowledge we have, and right now, we have nothing to suggest that unicorns are reality. If our knowledge of unicorns changes (say, if we ever find a live one) then we will know unicorns are real. However, until such time comes, I don’t see why it’s neccessary/beneficial to say “well, unicorns COULD exist…” Look at it this way. Many people have claimed to see the Loch Ness monster. Others have claimed to produce pictures of it. So it makes sense, from a scientific point of view, to keep open-minded enough to check the facts and search for evidence. However, given that the extensive searches performed in Loch Ness throughout the past fifty years have never turned up concrete evidence, it seems more likely to me that “Nessie” is a myth. Fun to believe in, maybe, but still without any basis in reality.
I don’t need to “live next door” to Bigfoot to believe in it, as you say, but I refuse to assign special rules to Bigfoot. I don’t need to live next door to a penguin to know that penguins exist. But penguins have been conclusively proven, while Bigfoot, unicorns, and the Loch Ness monster have not. And no, I’ll admit I didn’t know that elephant bones, in particular, were nearly impossible to find, but I do know that fossils, in general, are extremely rare. In any case, WE HAVE REAL ELEPHANTS to study. Mankind has lived with, worked with, and studied elephants for centuries. I’ve never met a person who denied the existence of elephats.
So, in a nutshell: while we certainly haven’t discovered everything, what is to be gained by taking unicorns seriously, given the complete lack of evidence to suggest they exist?
nicola
May 16th, 2008
yes unicorn did back 2 and a half millenions ago i wish i could touch a unicorn
Realist
Jul 21st, 2008
You are all smoking crack. Unicorns? Really? ROFLMAO!!
chicky m
Sep 25th, 2008
I definately believe unicorns are real.
Everyone believes they r not real but hey how would they know?
Just like God,Angels,Demons,Devils,Loch ness monster…All the other 1’s as well !!!
No1 has confirmed any thing that they are real,like people have sighted the lochnes monster and that,well say they have but no1 knows if its real.
So if u believe in 1 of those things and that why not believe in Unicorns !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
emma
Dec 16th, 2008
I love unicorns. they are real. they are super duper. put some pixx up=]
Alan Clarke
Dec 22nd, 2008
“At a time when U.S. children’s proficiency in Science and Mathematics is among the lowest in the modern world, we feel that the Creation Museum represents a challenge to the education and well-being of America’s youth.” Let’s see… the proficiency was lowest before the museum was built. Perhaps things will get better now.
The Monkey
Dec 22nd, 2008
Alan, I don’t agree with your last statement. Where is that quote from?
Alan Clarke
Dec 23rd, 2008
Ted, I’m sorry. Did I have it backwards? The proficiency is probably higher after the museum was built. Maybe we need to build more of them.
Good source for international math & science rankings:
http://nces.ed.gov/timss
Alan Clarke
Dec 23rd, 2008
Actually, the Biblical “unicorn” is nothing more than a single-horned animal. In Job 39:10 its described as not useful for plowing a field like a horse. Numbers 23:22 insinuates that its strength is above that of other animals. In Numbers 24:8 its described as “breaking bones”. Job 39:9 describes it as untamable. So I think you’re barking up the wrong tree in your “straw man” description of the cute pink mythical type. You created this beast yourself, the Bible didn’t. An extinct Elasmotherium would be much closer to the Biblical description. This one-horned beast was described by medieval traveller Ibn Fadlan. I never would have come across this extinct animal (or this discussion) if it weren’t for the Bible describing it. Wow! What a handy book! Every science class needs one! It has pointed to a lot of nice archeological finds such as Babylon which at one time was thought to be a “myth” as well. And how about that whole Sumer civilization in current-day Iraq which pre-dates most everything? What’s funny about the whole thing is that the oldest civilization is darn close to those reivers described in the Garden of Eden and Mt. Ararat. Why is this civilization much more “centrally located” than the supposed “cradle of civilization” in Africa? Wouldn’t it be simply hilarious if the Bible account was true afterall? I mean that silly literal 7-day creation stuff which we use to this day in the form of a 7-day week. Or that coincidental Russian name for “Sunday” :”voskresenyia”, which means, “resurrection”. Ha! Ha!
The Monkey
Dec 23rd, 2008
Hi Alan, I realize we’re probably barking up the wrong tree with this whole unicorn dealie and I’m familiar with Elasmotherium. The original article wasn’t even about unicorns, though some of the comments did get a bit off topic. The article was about creation and the Creation Museum.
To your point, I will not dispute the Bible has many scientific accuracies. But it has a lot of inaccuracies too. And that’s fine; lots of scientific theories have holes in them and are challenged. They’re often revisited just to make sure they’re still true. But I’m hard pressed to find a Christian who believes the Bible can be challenged if it’s thought to be wrong. So basically the Bible is a body of work (or facts, if you will) that cannot be changed. It’s that aspect that goes against what science stands for and that’s why I believe the Bible should be kept out of every science classroom. This is not to say the Bible should not be taught, but not as science.
Alan Clarke
Dec 23rd, 2008
Ted, thanks so much for responding in a civil manner after my brash and fun-poking intro. I hit your web site on a Google search and didn’t look closely at the details other than what looked to be a carnival with monkeys using logic for their skepticism. But, to keep “on topic”, I noticed that an entire web site dedicated to defaming the Creation Museum, uses a mythical unicorn as its motto/mascot. http://www.unicornmuseum.org So the “unicorn” argument is quite pertinent if one has for their entire foundation a premise that the Bible is false because unicorns are mythical. The logical error is similar to Nicholas of Myrna being a fable because Santa Claus is a fable. Your statement, “I’m hard pressed to find a Christian…”, is somewhat confusing possibly because of your sentence structure or a possible false premise. Who thinks the Bible is wrong? You or the Christian? You continue: “It is because of that aspect…” Your “aspect” is YOUR conclusion which could be false and would explain why you think the Bible goes against “science”. I’ve found the Bible to be very harmonious with science, especially with my new and improved understanding of Elasmotherium. Had it not been for the word “unicorn” in the Bible, I would have missed it entirely. For that reason, I am entirely indebted to this wonderful “scientific” document that describes not only the existence of “unicorns” (very possibly Elasmotherium), but also describes certain physical attributes of this animal (Num 24:8, Job 39:9, Ps 29:6) that coincide with a secular account from Ibn Fadlan. Even if you can’t embrace the Bible entirely as I do, you must admit from my explanation thus far, “science” has been advanced. If we throw the Bible out of the classroom, then hindsight should dictate that Darwin’s “Origin of Species… Favored Races…” should have been thrown out as well. You say science is in a constant state of flux and cannot be based on something “that cannot be changed”. Isn’t science also based on laws? Ted, I think you need to rethink your entire position. I held beliefs similar to yours until I became 22 years of age. I found that my entire status-quo perception of reality as defined by evolutionism was fatally flawed. Thanks be to God I now understand how Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Joule, Boyle, Pasteur and countless others achieved what they did.
The Monkey
Dec 24th, 2008
Hi Alan, you’re correct in noting the website defaming the creation museum uses the unicorn. I don’t think the existence of a unicorn is the website’s driving purpose, it just makes for a good mascot. The website covers a lot of other inaccuracies contained in the museum. As someone who’s been to the museum, I can personally attest there are a lot of inaccuracies that I won’t go into here and now. Have you been? I’d like to get another slant on the place.
To clear up my comment about finding a Christian, I meant to say that I find it hard to locate Christians who think portions of the Bible could be wrong, or at least significantly inaccurate. In my experience most Christians think of the Bible as inerrant. This can be frustrating to a non-Chrisitan, but I don’t want to open up a can of worms just now. I’ll try to stay on point.
I don’t understand your comment about throwing Darwin out of the classroom with the Bible. Why? Darwin’s ‘laws’ can be changed. All laws can be changed. Better yet they can be observed and tested at any time. The definition of a scientific law does not mean it cannot be changed. These can be ‘revisited’ to ensure their continuing accuracy.
I don’t believe the Bible is comparable to science here. While people openly interpret its parts differently, I don’t see many theists challenging its contents (say the great flood didn’t really happen). Has the Bible ever been significantly changed? This is not to say the Bible should not be taught. But again, not as science.
I do rethink my position. I was a protestant for the first 20 or so years of my life. I’m glad that you’re thinking about your position as well. I feel very sorry for those people who arrive at a conclusion, dig in their heels, and assume they have the absolute answer. While we might currently be on opposite sides of the fence, I hope you and I never become one of these people.
Wow, I promised to stay on topic and look how far off I got!
Alan Clarke
Dec 25th, 2008
Ted: I don’t understand your comment about throwing Darwin out of the classroom with the Bible. Why? Darwin’s ‘laws’ can be changed. All laws can be changed. Better yet they can be observed and tested at any time. The definition of a scientific law does not mean it cannot be changed. These can be ‘revisited’ to ensure their continuing accuracy.
Alan: If “Darwin’s laws” can be changed then perhaps “Darwin’s theories” would have served you better since physical laws “are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world”. (Wikipedia) One key element of Darwin’s “theory” of evolution is an immense amount of time. The amount of time is so great in fact that no one can directly “observe” evolution. The more one can “observe” the greater the confidence. The confidence level of evolution actually happening at all seems to be one of the biggest controversies of our time because of this “observation” problem. Many (not all) have decided to “believe” it because of the comfort provided in not having to face the alternative. We can see from history that any “belief”, whether under the guise of “science” or not can become an entire way of life, like a religion, as illustrated by the “Eugenics” advocates in Nazi Germany during WWII. Their entire identity and moral foundation for treating others was defined by this supposed “science”. A small seed can grow into something large. History has shown that people suffer even under the most benevolent dictators when the thought police dictate whether or not the Bible is applicable in the science room.
Ted: I don’t see many theists challenging its contents (say the great flood didn’t really happen).
Alan: Frequently, the best theory is the one the follows the path of least astonishment. A world-wide flood to some is less astonishing than a small river running upstream and cutting out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. A world-wide flood to some is a better explanation for mass extinction than to say, “Scientists theorize that the K–T extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events such as massive asteroid impacts or increased volcanic activity.” (Wikipedia) Neither of these theories match the universal flood in explaining the “uniformity” of sedimentary deposits on all continents as well as fossilized sea creatures in mountains.
Ted: I do rethink my position. I was a protestant for the first 20 or so years of my life.
Alan: Were you “protesting” or were you a “protestant” in name only? Like steel in the fire, many early reformers such as Martin Luther, suffered extreme persecution for their faith, but they gained a knowledge that typical Wal-Mart shoppers will never attain.
Ted: Wow, I promised to stay on topic and look how far off I got!
Alan: I apologize also. Back to the original subject…
Ted: I don’t think the existence of a unicorn is the website’s driving purpose, it just makes for a good mascot.
Alan: From the unicornmuseum.org website: “Based on the idea of ‘if it’s in the Bible, it must be true’, The Unicorn Museum promotes belief in the Biblical Truth of unicorns, a creature mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible.”
The unicorn is more than a good mascot, it is a cornerstone of ridicule based on the idea that if the Bible holds fabled unicorns as reality, then a reductio ad absurdum argument follows which supposedly proves falsity for the entire Bible. This entire argument is weakened when one considers that a “unicorn” may indeed be a real animal like the single-horned Elasmotherium which fits the descriptions in the books of Numbers, Job and Psalms.
I’m curious. For you personally, what is the #1 scripture verse or chapter in the Bible that has been erroneously argued by Christians as being “scientific”?
The Monkey
Dec 25th, 2008
Alan, I am aware of the difference between scientific theory and law. We certainly can observe evolution. Assuming you don’t believe in macro-evolution, do you believe in micro-evolution?
A worldwide flood seems more likely than a few rivers overflowing? Yeah? Even though there’s not enough water on the planet to flood the globe? I was taught that glaciers that cut out the grand canyon. I simply cannot believe you compared the scientific community to the Nazi regime.
I do not have specific Bible passages I have scientific problems with. Rather I don’t agree with principles (such as creation, the ark) and even more so how people interpret these principles (the world was crated in 7 days about 10,000 years ago and that’s that). I believe that an asteroid seems like a perfectly reasonably explanation to the mass extinction. Why did some much aquatic life die in a global flood? Seems like they’d be living it up!
If you’re referring to the sedimentary deposits left by the mass-extinction event, the deposit line is much older (60 million years) that the Bible flood would have been. Maybe we’re talking about two different things, though.
An an ex-protestant and present-day human being, I cannot tell you how insulting it is to have my faith questioned like you did in your last comment. You’re not the first to do so in this website. That’s another big turn-off for me. The whole “If you’re not with us you’re against us” attitude. Just because I may not have agreed with every single one of your beliefs doesn’t mean I wasn’t a true Christian. This attitude was a driving force in my de-conversion.
PS – Come on! You should know better than to cite Wikipedia…
Alan Clarke
Dec 26th, 2008
Ted: I am aware of the difference between scientific theory and law.
Alan: How do ”laws” and “theories” differ? Isn’t one “less-changeable” than the other?
Ted: We certainly can observe evolution.
Alan: No you can’t. It is derived only from homological and sequential “inferences”. A human embryo with folds similar fish gill-slits is what excites evolutionists. The logic behind this excitement could be transposed to a human embryo in its earliest state (sphere) being the same shape as ANY embryo of another species or even the Earth’s moon. DNS sequences that have a greater degree of matching sequences from one organism to another are the driving mechanism for many “inferences”. Unfortunately, this faulty logic could lead to a belief that Great Danes evolved from Chihuahuas. Because both dog breeds are living and can be studied, we know this not to be true. But when only bone fossils are available, evolutionists are not bounded by this limitation in making wild inferences of T. Rex’s evolving from chickens.
Ted: Assuming you don’t believe in macro-evolution, do you believe in micro-evolution?
Alan: I believe in “micro-evolution” like I believe in this introduction: “Sir, would you be interested in an investment deal that guarantees 800% returns?” Many legitimate investments yield 8% which are analogous to the ALREADY EXISTING mechanism of “genetic variation” as discovered by Gregor Mendel. Mendel & Darwin were contemporaries. Click here for an interesting contrast between the two men.
Ted: A worldwide flood seems more likely than a few rivers overflowing? Yeah? Even though there’s not enough water on the planet to flood the globe? I was taught that glaciers that cut out the grand canyon.
Alan: Don’t feel bad about what you were “taught” because I was indoctrinated likewise. If the Earth’s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water. I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by “15 cubits” as described in Genesis 7:20. Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood. The fact that all continents show overwhelming evidences of massive flood depositions is a sore point for uniformitarianists.
Ted: I simply cannot believe you compared the scientific community to the Nazi regime.
Alan: This is a narrow example of where a false foundation can go awry, just like a false interpretation justifying the 13th century Crusades.
Ted: I do not have specific Bible passages I have scientific problems with.
Alan: People returning their Wal-Mart purchases for full refund often have no specific reason (or even a justifiable reason) for their desire of a refund other than their emotions or lack of money. Discussing the DETAILS of their dissatisfaction is often painful.
Ted: Rather I don’t agree with principles (such as creation, the ark) and even more so how people interpret these principles (the world was crated in 7 days about 10,000 years ago and that’s that). I believe that an asteroid seems like a perfectly reasonably explanation to the mass extinction. Why did some much aquatic life die in a global flood? Seems like they’d be living it up!
Alan: The creation model describes possible tectonic plate shifting as a source for the global catastrophe in Genesis 7:11, “…the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” This Biblical account easily coincides with the idea that much (not all) sea life would die through sea basin tectonic plate shifts, volcanism, change in sea salinity, temperatures and mineral content.
Ted: If you’re referring to the sedimentary deposits left by the mass-extinction event, the deposit line is much older (60 million years) that the Bible flood would have been. Maybe we’re talking about two different things, though.
Alan: There are severe problems with the dating system that you presume to be “fixed”. I’m sure you need little convincing of this since you seem to support the need for constant monitoring of “laws” to make sure nothing has changed. The “fixedness” that is required for radio isotope tests to work properly are a “fixed” decay rate, and an initial “fixed” amount of the parent element. If at any time rock samples become contaminated during the “60 million years” (Wow! ???), this dating system will fail. There are so many assumptions and problems with this approach that many scientists prefer a more “direct” route. How about the supposed “68 million year-old” T. Rex fossil that has stretchy soft tissues discovered by Mary Schweitzer? How about the fact that the Mississippi River has a delta in New Orleans that is more commensurate in size as predicted by a 4400-year period (since the time of the Great Flood)? Why is the Colorado River delta practically non-existent after sweeping away 1000 cubic miles of earth material to create the Grand Canyon over supposed “millions of years”? Could it be that it was created in a short period of time (unlike the Mississippi’s delta) and the 1000 cubic miles of dirt is far out into the Pacific?
Ted: An an ex-protestant and present-day human being, I cannot tell you how insulting it is to have my faith questioned like you did in your last comment. You’re not the first to do so in this website. That’s another big turn-off for me. The whole “If you’re not with us you’re against us” attitude.
Alan: Ted, after I became a Christian, I noticed that I still had to battle with my old “fallen nature” as evidenced by my failure to embrace you as a “present-day human being”. I apologize for my hardness. My “hardness” may have resulted from too much debating with “hardened” evolutionists who are 50+ years of age and think “logically” by virtue of their being programmers on powerbasic.com . Some of these men will by-pass generally-accepted sciences in order to support their cherished beliefs and to frequently “save face”. I may have indeed falsely stereotyped you as one these, not realizing that you are just a sincere “skeptic” rather than an evangelist of evolutionism. Hopefully the former is true as I suspect by your youthful picture with your lovely wife. Please consider that if I had accused the Pope of not understanding the tenants of Catholicism, then his reaction would be one of mirth, founded in my ignorance. Please ask yourself why you cannot share the Pope’s same hypothetical reaction and why my mere asking a question (as opposed to making a statement) was so troubling. As the proverbial saying goes, “If the shoe doesn’t fit, then you have my permission to remove it.”
Ted: PS – Come on! You should know better than to cite Wikipedia…
Alan: I use Wikipedia when communicating with “assumed” evolutionists since its HIGH slant toward evolutionism provides them a “safe haven” as opposed to the frightening answersingenesis.org. Even though I disagree highly with their interpretations of life origins, Wikipedia provides a common reference point, and insight into the mindset of evolutionism. I suspect their foundation in a failed theory explains their frequent self-contradictory and delightfully-amusing statements:
“Cormorant”: “In fact, the very earliest known modern bird, Gansus yumenensis, had essentially the same structure, although it was not a cormorant per se. The details of the evolution of the cormorant are mostly unknown.”
“Coal”: “Coal fires in China burn 109 million tons of coal a year, emitting 360 million metric tons of CO2. This contradicts the ratio of 1:1.83 given earlier…”
Ted, I feel that I may have over-extended my welcome in using so much forum space for what was originally intended to be a discussion of the “Creation Museum”. I have never visited the museum but I am very familiar with the tenants of creationism as supported by the museum’s founders, answersingenesis.org. I became a “creationist” about 2 years after becoming a Christian when I listened to a “list” of evidences from Dr. John Whitcomb at Purdue University, all of which needed interpretation by either theory: World-wide coal, oil, limestone, polystrate fossils, fossilized graveyards, mass animal extinctions, Cambrian explosion, etc. The list was about three times as long when I heard it the first time. I became increasingly disgusted with myself as each evidence was cited. Before Whitcomb had reached one-halfway through the list of evidences, without offering any interpretations, I became a “creationist” at that point. For me, the “interpretations” are obvious. To many, the story of Noah’s ark seems foolish. Which is more believable? Preserving already-existing life on an ark or life creating itself from non-intelligent matter? For a scientist, the choice should be a no-brainer.
Ted: Just because I may not have agreed with every single one of your beliefs doesn’t mean I wasn’t a true Christian. This attitude was a driving force in my de-conversion.
Alan: Just because a man didn’t agree with his ex-wife on every single point doesn’t mean that he didn’t truly love her. But, if the husband set up a website to defame her, I would think one of the following:
1) He didn’t truly love her.
2) He is very immature.
If the website’s purpose is to understand the nature of “woman”, then that may be honorable.
Lea
Jan 1st, 2009
Ok, you might want to know that the KJV of the Bible is not the most accurate. A lot of times when the scribes didn’t know what a word was, they guessed. And thus we have ‘unicorns in the Bible’. If you want to talk about what’s in the Bible, go to the original languages, not a translation by scribes who didn’t even know the language they were translating from.
emerson
Sep 5th, 2009
For those doubting decay estimates; if they are wrong then all the clocks in the world are wrong, GPS doesnt really work and a myriad of other things the world takes for granted these days would not be possible.
Your comments about contamination demonstrate a lack of knowledge on how these measurements are taken and used.
Use of wikipedia as a source furthers this line of thinking.
Rin
Feb 4th, 2010
But…I don’t understand.
Unicorns = real.
Other stuff in the Bible = fake.
Does not compute.