December 6, 2005

Typical Responses from Fundies

I'm spending lots of time debating Fundies these days and I am coming to some conclusions.

Fundies do not want to learn about evolution.

When Fundies are presented with evolution theory; they state that theory is not fact. But when given concrete examples, like the fact that whales have hind leg bones when giving them proof of macro evolution, or pointing out that man has an appendix, they then say that God does lots of things that we can't explain.

Fundies do not read scientific facts and papers in most cases.

Fundies run when asked to explain why the bible calls bats fowls or calls rabbits cud chewers, or if you point out that the bible is full of inconsistencies, for example the glaring mistake in Genesis about the Ark:

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8-9 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

If they don't run, they will say make up excuses, like blaming translation. But they will not make excuses for Eve coming from Adam's rib. Yet they won't believe evolution even they saw it with their own eyes.

America should be ashamed of themselves that their educational system has produced 45% Young Earth Creationists. Canada and Europe isn't even close to that.

On a related topic, tonight I watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. It is Teachers week. The last two contestants were two of the stupidest people I have ever seen on that show. And one of them was a history prof who had to ask the audience "What the wheels on the truck" do?

20 comments:

  1. Fundies run when asked to explain why the bible calls bats fowls . . .

    We do? The Bible calls an ataleif an "ofe" (Vayikra 11:18) That basically means something which flies--i.e. it is me'ofeif. (A tzipor is something which chirps BTW.) Rashi says that a "tinshemes"--same verse--is a bat, which would make an ataleif something else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do you explain the Ark inconsistency? Or the idea that God created light on day one but waited until day four to create the sun and the stars?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do I have a point about the ataleif?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again, how do you spin the idea that a rabbit is a cud chewer, or that Genesis states:
    ---> GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

    ---> GEN 7:8-9 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again, how do you spin the idea that a rabbit is a cud chewer . . .

    Was my previous response "spin"? Why should I address another of your points if you refuse to discuss the one I did address? I think the idea with an arneves is that it does some kind of regurgitating and chewing although it is not exactly the same as a ruminant with four stomachs etc. Don't you have any resources for looking things up? Do you think that nobody ever asked these questions before or that Bertrand Russel thought of them? Rashi addresses the obvious question on Noah. The Ramban quotes Rashi's opinion, brings another opinion, and adds his own. Take your pick. Do you still stand by your statement about "Fundies" running?

    ReplyDelete
  6. To be honest, I have heard your interpretations before. Christian Fundies do not have the same interpretation that you do.
    How can anyone honestly believe that Eve came from Adams rib or that Noah took at least 2 of every animal? It is beyond me.
    I do notice that, the Orthodox take on the bible plays with semantics when there is the any controversy whatsoever. I don't know if you believe in a Young Earth, creation, and dismiss evolution, but if you do, you are fooling yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://yeshivaorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2005/12/rabbi-tendler-debates-intelligent.html
    There is a significant difference between Jews and Christians in how they think about "intelligent design"...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm pretty sure that ID "theory" for some Jews is the same as Behe's "theory" and Demski's "theory", ID theory just states that everything looks purposeful and a higher power must have originated it. It is bogus science. If you look at their debate tools, there is nothing that shows they are right, only that evolution theory with macro evolution has "flaws". For some ID theory can go hand in with an Ancient universe, though the majority of "believers" use it to support Adam and Eve. Here is the site for the conference:
    http://tinyurl.com/7ek8s

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The professor who claims there is no evidence that macro evolution occurred, gets all of 6 hits when you enter "Eduardo Zeiger macro evolution" on Yahoo.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BEAJ,

    To be fair, I do think Yitzchak here has a point. Why would you expect the writers of the Bible to have the same categorization scheme of animals as modern biology?

    Bats and birds are both flying animals. You're being way too critical with the KJV translation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is supposed to be God's inspired words. If the animals are wrong, why can't Adams ribs be a wrong interpretation too.
    And they did get the cud chewing bunnies wrong. In fact there are many glaring mistakes and contradictions in the OT. Good stories though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BEAJ,

    "In fact there are many glaring mistakes and contradictions in the OT."

    I'm not arguing with that. All I'm saying is that the bird/bat line is a poor example for your argument. Using it actually weakens your thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It depends who I am talking to. Christian Fundies who follow the bible literally are really bothered by the bat/fowl error.
    It is just one of very many. Here is a sight with a bunch more:

    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looks like the link didn't fit.
    Tinyurl.com to the rescue:

    http://tinyurl.com/2t8ou

    ReplyDelete
  16. JEAB,

    I'm familiar with the site, but what you must take care to note is that while there are many justified items of contradiction, there are also quite a few there that are easily accomodated. And I mean accomodation within the simple reading of the text and basic scholarship, not the gymnastics of apologetics.

    The site takes a few hits in my book because it fails to differentiate.

    Especially poor for arguments against religious Jews are those contradictions which are found between the two testaments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that site isn't a learning guide. It goes by the assumption that since so many absurdities and contradictions exist, the bibles can be discounted as a source of reliability.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Two or seven, the dimensions of the ark are given in the bible, the number of animal species can't have changed as evolution isn't real. Physically it would be impossible to fit all the species onto the ark, even assuming all the flying ones flew & all the swimming ones swam!

    And what did they eat?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course the Ark story is BS. But I am not addressing you with this. I am addressing those who believe the Ark story. I hope you are kidding about evolution, and just using it as an example to go hand in with those who believe in the Ark story.

    ReplyDelete