Thread: Happy 200th birthday Darwin!

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

4. And on a slightly different tack - the whole world was inundated with water apparently so that all land was covered. This means that the water would have been salt water, right? And yet the fresh water fish were not wiped out and nor were plants and trees despite being under water for the best part of a year. How come?

REPLY: You said: "This means that the water would have been salt water, right?". No, not right. This is an assumption you make and there is no evidential basis for it. The evidence from the accounts in the Bible is that conditions pre-Flood were very different from those post-Flood, as I have briefly explained in another recent posting. It would not be in the least scientific to claim that the world's oceans were salty before the Flood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, well either the water was salty or the water was fresh. Questions still remain - why didn't all the fish in the oceans die if the flood was fresh water instead? Or are you suggesting that at some point in the last 5000 years the oceans became salty and fish quickly learned to adapt to it? Where is YOUR scientific evidence to back up your claims? Please don't say the Bible. The Bible is not the work of scientists.

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

No, I don't think it was illegal.

Remember Mohammed was either 53 or 54 at the time he consummated his 'marriage' to Aisha.

Older men marrying young girls has regrettably been a tradition in many Arab countries for millennia.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if it wasn't illegal (just as it wasn't *illegal* to have incestuous relations at the time of Adam and Eve), then why did you feel moved to write an inflammatory pamphlet accusing Mohammed of being a paedophile? When clearly he was not a paedophile, by his own society's standards and laws anyway?

And incidentally, when did incest become illegal according to the Bible? It's not in the 10 Commandments as far as I'm aware...

For anyone interested to know more about Creationism and those who subscribe to it, the arguments used by "New Earthers" like Tony Bennett, and critiques of all their bizarre claims please visit these informative and excellent websites:

Creation "Science" Debunked

Creation "Science" Debunked

"This website has one very clear objective in mind--to present a critique of creation "science" and its latest reincarnation as Intelligent Design "Theory", and to serve as a guide to fighting the creationists and their attempts to impose their peculiar interpretations of religion onto our society. It is my opinion that the creation "scientists" (along with the rest of their Religious Right companions) represent, in their attempts to re-mold American society in accordance with their own narrow beliefs, the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the United States today" - Lenny Flank

Originally Posted by Consider Dudley

Well if it wasn't illegal (just as it wasn't *illegal* to have incestuous relations at the time of Adam and Eve), then why did you feel moved to write an inflammatory pamphlet accusing Mohammed of being a paedophile? When clearly he was not a paedophile, by his own society's standards and laws anyway?

And incidentally, when did incest become illegal according to the Bible? It's not in the 10 Commandments as far as I'm aware...

Pedophilia (primary sexual attraction to children) is a psychological-sexual concept and its definition has nothing to do with law or morals.

Nor does the relativity of law and social morals nor the negative argument from incest refute the argument from the 'prophet's' pedophilia.

And the only things 'inflamed' by such apologetics are muslim intolerance and pseudo-liberal 'fascism' which is no objection either.

Originally Posted by Taddy Porter

Pedophilia (primary sexual attraction to children) is a psychological-sexual concept and its definition has nothing to do with law or morals.

Nor does the relativity of law and social morals nor the negative argument from incest refute the argument from the 'prophet's' pedophilia.

And the only things 'inflamed' by such apologetics are muslim intolerance and pseudo-liberal 'fascism' which is no objection either.

I brought the subject up because according to Mr Bennett it was perfectly acceptable for the children of Adam and Eve to have sex with each other and make babies because in those days (and in Mr Bennett's words) it was not illegal. It seems to me to be a double standard to then criticise the founder of another religion for something which similarly was not considered illegal or taboo during his time on Earth. According to Mr Bennett re: Mohammed "If that happened in this country today then the person concerned would be charged with child sexual abuse"; similarly if brother and sister set about having lots of children together these days they too might face criminal charges.

Interestingly the historical age of consent for Jewish girls was 12 and in most Western countries in the 19th century an age of between 10 - 13 was considered acceptable.

CD, distinguo if TB reckoned social legality per se to clear the incestuous Adamites of sin then you are correct that he undermined his criticism of PM. If however legality cleared them only per accidens because incest is not contrary to the supposed 'natural law' (but pedophilia is) then there would be no inconsistency. I assume however that you have accurately represented TB's argument pending any correction from TB. Note also that Mary was 9 and Joseph 90 when they betrothed and she was 12 when they married.

The retort that incest was not illegal seems to deny that it is contrary to 'natural law' but TB couldnt say that it is given your point. Bigamy is a similar case as Abraham had two wives and Solomon had hundreds in the Bible. So 'christian' sexual morality is undermined by the Bible, is hypocritical and groundless as you say.

I Kings 11:3
And Solomon had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.