Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Options
13567232

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    dvae wrote: »
    the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
    i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".

    It is a curious God that can cunjur up the entire Universe from nothing but is able to touch only certain mouths to put words into.

    Why won't God touch all our mouths?

    It also seems odd that I have to have faith but the likes of Moses, Noah, Abraham, Mary mother of Jesus, etc., are treated to absolute proof which removed the ability for them to have non-evidence based faith.

    God seems to have double standards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    dvae wrote: »
    Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact. there was a time when i would of questioned Genesis and creation but, whats the point, if you put your faith in god all questions will be eventually answered.
    personally i don't believe that the world and all its wonders were made in 6 24 hour days. i believe that maybe god made the world in perhaps 6 different stages, with each stage been maybe thousands or millions of years apart. sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.
    another point that is often over looked, the first sin was created by Adam in Genesis. if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

    But Jesus didn't die and indeed, some say He still lives.

    How can someone who is not dead claim to have given His life in sacrifice?

    Also, if God and Jesus (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) are one and the same then the question is: How can God be killed by men?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    But Jesus didn't die and indeed, some say He still lives.

    How can someone who is not dead claim to have given His life in sacrifice?

    Also, if God and Jesus (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) are one and the same then the question is: How can God be killed by men?

    And you accuse Christians of being literalistic :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    How can God be killed by men?
    By an act off wilful self-sacrifice.
    [...]
    The other gods were strong; but Thou wast weak;
    They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
    But to our wounds only God's wounds can speak,
    And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

    Edward Shillito


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    [IMG]Here is a description of a Brontosaurus-like creature called 'behemoth' in Job 40:15-22[/img]apat2.jpg

    15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
    16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
    17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
    18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
    19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
    20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
    21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
    22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

    Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature. :confused:

    Agreed. Quite a jump to go from "behemoth" (the only term in there that would tie it to a brontosaurus-like creature) to dinosaur. Is there a description of a Tyrannosaurus in the Bible, perchance?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    By an act off wilful self-sacrifice.

    So, God is dead?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    And you accuse Christians of being literalistic :rolleyes:

    Where did I do that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    So, God is dead?

    Stop trolling please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature. :confused:
    Yes, the description could be applied to anything. A rhino, an elephant?

    Also, those dinosaurs ate leaves, not grass.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Yes, the description could be applied to anything. A rhino, an elephant?

    Also, those dinosaurs ate leaves, not grass.
    He moves his tail like a cedar Hardly an elephant or rhino tail.

    *******************************************************************
    Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    He moves his tail like a cedar Hardly an elephant or rhino tail.
    Why? How does a cedar move its tail? :confused: Or, more accurately, how does a cedar move? The way branches wave? Or the way the leaves tremble?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Why? How does a cedar move its tail? :confused: Or, more accurately, how does a cedar move? The way branches wave? Or the way the leaves tremble?
    Like a cedar refers to the great size and power of the tail. Not a shrub, not a mediocre tree - but a mighty cedar.

    ****************************************************************
    Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
    Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
    And he was as strong as the oaks;

    Yet I destroyed his fruit above
    And his roots beneath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Like a cedar refers to the great size and power of the tail. Not a shrub, not a mediocre tree - but a mighty cedar.
    ]
    That's your guess? Because it seems wide open interpretation...(as usual). That still doesn't explain why 'behemoth' eats grass and the large dinosaurs were leaf eaters. And I don't imagine they would have fared very well in 'mountain' climates where the behemoth is supposed to have eaten - you will note that there are no large modern 4-legged herbivores living in the mountains (hippos, rhinos, elephants). Mountain slopes don't seem to suit 4 tonne elephants, never mind 60 tonne Argentinosaurs.

    I'd also query how a 100 foot long dinosaur would be shaded by a small tree like the lotus.

    800px-Longest_dinosaurs1.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    That's your guess? Because it seems wide open interpretation...(as usual). That still doesn't explain why 'behemoth' eats grass and the large dinosaurs were leaf eaters. And I don't imagine they would have fared very well in 'mountain' climates where the behemoth is supposed to have eaten - you will note that there are no large modern 4-legged herbivores living in the mountains (hippos, rhinos, elephants). Mountain slopes don't seem to suit 4 tonne elephants, never mind 60 tonne Argentinosaurs.

    I'd also query how a 100 foot long dinosaur would be shaded by a small tree like the lotus.

    800px-Longest_dinosaurs1.png
    Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.

    As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.

    ********************************************************************
    Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
    Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
    And he was as strong as the oaks;
    Yet I destroyed his fruit above
    And his roots beneath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.
    So you reckon these giant dinosaurs climbed the mountains to eat grass, then came down again to lie in a low-lying marsh to lie under a small tree that doesn't grow in marshes? :confused: Sounds a bit far fetched? Not very energy efficient either, even if we forget about the lotus tree mistake. Are there any very large herbivores that both live in swamps and climb mountains today?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.
    Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.

    I think the Hebrew is not quite so specific. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H2682/chatsiyr.htm


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    PDN wrote: »
    perhaps originally the same as 2681, from the greenness of a courtyard; grass; also a leek (collectively):--grass, hay, herb, leek.
    Good point, and I'd say that it would be a good get-out in this case if it didn't specifically say 'like an ox'.

    And we still have the issues of eating in the mountains, and fitting under the relatively tiny lotus tree, a tree which doesn't grow in marshes anyway, and of course commuting between the mountains and the marshes - a journey apparently unparalleled in nature.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Monty Burnz said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.

    So you reckon these giant dinosaurs climbed the mountains to eat grass, then came down again to lie in a low-lying marsh to lie under a small tree that doesn't grow in marshes? Sounds a bit far fetched? Not very energy efficient either, even if we forget about the lotus tree mistake. Are there any very large herbivores that both live in swamps and climb mountains today?
    As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?

    As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6628&t=KJV

    Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.

    Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.
    Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.

    ********************************************************************
    Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
    Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
    And he was as strong as the oaks;
    Yet I destroyed his fruit above
    And his roots beneath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Monty Burnz said:

    As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?
    Grazing animals - yes, as far as I know. Large grazing animals like elephants? Definitely. And I imagine the problems with scaling rough terrain get increasingly nightmarish the bigger the animal gets. Look at the size of those dinosaurs - if they fell, they could never get up again. Game over. The notion of them roaming the mountains eating grass is ridiculous - these aren't nimble mountain goats. They lived on plains - that is beyond scientific dispute.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6628&t=KJV

    Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.
    How big a tree to you think the argentinosaurus would need to fit under? The translation from the hebrew mentions 'shrubs'. That's a heck of a shrub.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.
    Oxen don't eat the leaves of trees like these dinosaurs did. It seems unlikely that you would say that they eat '[greenery] like an ox', and for their diet to be comprise mostly/entirely of stuff oxen don't eat. That would be like saying humans 'eat [greenery] like an ox', and justifying by saying that we eat some grains and cereals.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Monty Burnz said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?

    Grazing animals - yes, as far as I know. Large grazing animals like elephants? Definitely.
    Apparently not:
    The movement and habitat utilization patterns of an elephant population were studied in southern India during 1981–83 within a 1,130 km2 (440 sq mi) study area. The area encompasses a diversity of vegetation types — from dry thorn forest at 250 to 400 m (820 to 1,300 ft) of altitude through deciduous forest (400 to 1,400 m (1,300 to 4,600 ft)) to stunted evergreen shola forest and grassland (1,400 to 1,800 m (4,600 to 5,900 ft)). Five different elephant clans, each consisting of between 50 and 200 individuals had home ranges of between 105 km2 (41 sq mi) and 320 km2 (120 sq mi), which overlapped. Seasonal habitat preferences were related to the availability of water and the palatability of food plants. During the dry months of January to April, elephants congregated at high densities of up to five individuals per km2 in river valleys where browse plants had a much higher protein content than the coarse tall grasses on hill slopes. With the onset of rains in May, they dispersed over a wider area at lower densities, largely into the tall grass forests, to feed on the fresh grasses, which then had a high protein value. During the second wet season from September to December, when the tall grasses became fibrous, they moved into lower elevation short grass open forests. The normal movement pattern could be upset during years of adverse environmental conditions. However, the movement pattern of elephants in this region has not basically changed for over a century, as inferred from descriptions recorded during the 19th century.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant
    And I imagine the problems with scaling rough terrain get increasingly nightmarish the bigger the animal gets. Look at the size of those dinosaurs - if they fell, they could never get up again. Game over. The notion of them roaming the mountains eating grass is ridiculous - these aren't nimble mountain goats. They lived on plains - that is beyond scientific dispute.
    Not so:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/26/large-dinosaurs-migrated-huge-distances
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H6628&t=KJV

    Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.
    How big a tree to you think the argentinosaurus would need to fit under? The translation from the hebrew mentions 'shrubs'. That's a heck of a shrub.
    The translation has little to go on. Shade is the only certainty.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.

    Oxen don't eat the leaves of trees like these dinosaurs did.
    It seems unlikely that you would say that they eat '[greenery] like an ox', and for their diet to be comprise mostly/entirely of stuff oxen don't eat. That would be like saying humans 'eat [greenery] like an ox', and justifying by saying that we eat some grains and cereals.
    You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was. Nor do you know that many dinosaurs only ate leaves. The literature I ref'ed suggests otherwise.

    ****************************************************************
    Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was.
    I know what it wasn't and thats a dinosaur of any kind as we use the term.
    Contemporaneous with man rules it out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I know what it wasn't and thats a dinosaur of any kind as we use the term.
    Contemporaneous with man rules it out.
    The Bible says otherwise.

    ****************************************************************
    Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Monty Burnz said:

    Apparently not:
    The movement and habitat utilization patterns of an elephant population were studied in southern India during 1981–83 within a 1,130 km2 (440 sq mi) study area. The area encompasses a diversity of vegetation types — from dry thorn forest at 250 to 400 m (820 to 1,300 ft) of altitude through deciduous forest (400 to 1,400 m (1,300 to 4,600 ft)) to stunted evergreen shola forest and grassland (1,400 to 1,800 m (4,600 to 5,900 ft)). Five different elephant clans, each consisting of between 50 and 200 individuals had home ranges of between 105 km2 (41 sq mi) and 320 km2 (120 sq mi), which overlapped. Seasonal habitat preferences were related to the availability of water and the palatability of food plants. During the dry months of January to April, elephants congregated at high densities of up to five individuals per km2 in river valleys where browse plants had a much higher protein content than the coarse tall grasses on hill slopes. With the onset of rains in May, they dispersed over a wider area at lower densities, largely into the tall grass forests, to feed on the fresh grasses, which then had a high protein value. During the second wet season from September to December, when the tall grasses became fibrous, they moved into lower elevation short grass open forests. The normal movement pattern could be upset during years of adverse environmental conditions. However, the movement pattern of elephants in this region has not basically changed for over a century, as inferred from descriptions recorded during the 19th century.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant
    Hang on a second - this is talking about migration over months! You are claiming that giant dinosaurs would travel up mountains daily to graze!
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Of course they ranged over huge distances - like bisons etc. do. Huge distances over flat lands! Not up and down mountains daily! This is ludicrous.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The translation has little to go on. Shade is the only certainty.
    Vague, isn't it? So what kind of tree can a 30 foot high dinosaur walk under? And what kind of tree can a 30 metre long dinosaur fit under for shade? And why did the dinosaur need shade when he could have stayed up in the mountain he just came down from if he was too warm?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was. Nor do you know that many dinosaurs only ate leaves. The literature I ref'ed suggests otherwise.

    ****************************************************************
    Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
    Behemoth doesn't sound like a dinosaur at all. It sounds like a generic large beast like a rhino or elephant. You admit that it is vague when you think it suits your case, but think that stuff like 'moves its tail like a cedar' is very specifically referring to one possible interpretation when it could refer to several, and claim that things like having strong bones mean it's definitely a dinosaur...a little bit inconsistent in my opinion.

    It's almost like you are desperate to interpret this passage as referring to dinosaurs...like you started with your mind made up...:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    800px-Diceros_bicornis.jpg
    15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
    16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
    17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
    18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
    19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
    20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
    21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
    22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

    Hey look - I've found just as good a fit for the passage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5 tetrapak


    Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tetrapak wrote: »
    Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.
    But you do believe in gravity, and electro-magnetism, and quantum theory?
    Laurence Tisdall holds a Bachelor's degree in General Agriculture from Macdonald College of McGill University and a Master of Science degree in micropropagation from the same university. He has published several scientific articles in peer reviewed journals, such as HortScience. Mr. Tisdall is presently a computer consultant.
    So he has a degree in farming, and a masters in 'micropropogation' =
    Micropropagation is the practice of rapidly multiplying stock plant material to produce a large number of progeny plants, using modern plant tissue culture methods.
    Not a biologist then...a student of farming methods. We can safely ignore all the experts in the field so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    tetrapak wrote: »
    Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

    Just cos you don't believe it don't make it wrong.
    How old is your wife as the opposition to Darwinism in Russia was back in the 1800's?
    Maybe shes so young that the Russian Orthodox opposition held sway in the school and uni she attended.
    Laurence Tisdall is a liar or a fool. Nice Van Dike though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    I just watched two youtube videos of Laurence Tisdall in action.
    I take back what I said, he's not a fool, he's a liar.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I just watched two youtube videos of Laurence Tisdall in action.
    I take back what I said, he's not a fool, he's a liar.
    Careful now - they don't give out degrees in farming to just anybody!


Advertisement