The scientific discovery that single-handedly renders very nearly Hume’s entire Dialogues pointless philosophical hand-waving was made in the mid-19th century with the devising of the fist law of thermodynamics: the law of the conservation of energy. Carl Nave, Associate Professor of Physics at Georgia State University, states the law this way: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” Since the act of creation has been rendered a physical impossibility, all of Philo and Cleanthes’ debate on whether or not the universe was created for life and whether life was created for a purpose is set as to naught.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Anyone Perfect Must Be Lying: Philosophical Essay: Dialogues Concerning Natural ...: In order to understand why it is that I find both Cleanthes’ arguments for intelligent design and Philo’s arguments against the traditional concept of god so profoundly and thoroughly unconvincing, it is first necessary to recognize the gulf in the exponential growth human knowledge about the universe that exists between Hume’s late-18th-century Scotland and my own early-21st-century America: At the time that Hume wrote his Dialogues, science had yet to discover any of its present knowledge of the electron or the atom.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
A physico-theological argument from intelligent design is any type of argument purporting to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent agent of or orderer by citing as evidence the appearance of an ultimate design, intention, or purpose in the natural world. Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist David Hume is widely cited as having articulated the argument for design through the character of Cleanthes in “Part II” of his 1779 philosophical work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion as follows:
Look around the world…You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines…All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy…The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly…the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer…that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man…By this argument a posteriori…do we prove at one the existence of a deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.
Hume’s character of Philo, however, warns that such an analogy is not philosophically sound:
What peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain, which we call, thought, that we must thus make it the model of the whole universe? Our partially in our own favor does indeed present it on all occasions; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against so natural an illusion.
Hume recognizes that an argument against design that the two cases are too dissimilar to support an inference that they are like affects having like causes; that is to say that they are so dissimilar as to disallow analogy; through an examination of the nature of analogy is not sound without the relevant rule of analogy, which he states:
The exact similarity of the cases gives us a perfect assurance of a similar event; and stronger evidence is never desired not sought after. But wherever you depart, in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty.
In the teleological argument it is assumed that everything in nature fits so well and functions so perfectly that we must assume that the universe is being directed to achieve some end purpose. Cleanthes likens the universe to a manmade machine, but Hume suggests that the cosmos much more closely resembles a living organism than a machine:
The experimental reasoning, which we possess in common with the beasts,…is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power that acts in us unknown to ourselves.
Likewise, Cleanthes argues that no one can be so stupid as to reject the view that the universe resembles an artifact in having “an accurate adjustment of the parts to each other” and “an adaptation of means to ends”, and that a “purpose, intention and design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker.” Cleanthes argues that things that are very familiar and present to us need no reason to establish the truth, and that it is perverse and unnatural to deny that the various parts of the body and the way in which they are suited to our environment, such as the knowledge that food nourishes the body, are “incontestable proof of design and intention”. However, Hume rejects the analogy between the universe and any particular human artifact, arguing that nature and the various things in it exhibit substantial difference from human artifacts.
Physico-theological arguments proceed by implying that all of the sophistication, intricacy and interconnectedness we observe in things in nature are intelligible only if we suppose the involvement of a human-like creative mind. Cleanthes goes on, in “Part II” of Hume’s Dialogues, to state that the only rational argument for god’s existence is one based on experience. Hume, however argues that this is incompatible with Cleanthes’ own previously articulated teleological analogy because unlike with manmade objects, we have not witnessed the creation of a world. Therefore, he argues, we obviously lack adequate justification for the a posteriori claim that the universe has an intelligent cause because, according to Cleanthes’ statement, we would need to have experience with the design of universes in order to know whether the material world was the result of design. He puts this objection into the mouth of Philo:
If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude…that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause.
In “Part V” of his Dialogues, Hume builds on Philo’s analogy of architectural construction to point out a further fault in using the argument from intelligent design to prove that the god of classical theism exists: there is nothing about the sophistication of the material universe to suggest that there exists only one designer:
What shadow of an argument…can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the deity? A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?...By sharing the work among several, we may so much further limit the attributes of each, and get rid of that extensive power and knowledge, which must be supposed in one deity, and which…can only serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such foolish, such vicious creatures as man, can yet often unite in framing and executing one plane, much more so those deities or demons.
It should be noted at this point that Hume was by no means alone in pointing out the fallacious nature of builder variation of the intelligent design argument. Nearly a century after the posthumous publication of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, English naturalist and geologist Charles Darwin would write, in a June 17, 1860 letter to British lawyer and geologist Sir Charles Lyell:
I have said that natural selection is to the structure of organized beings, what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared. No astronomer in showing the movements of the planets are due to gravity thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the planets should pursue the courses, which they pursue. –I cannot believe that there is a bit more inference by the creator in the construction of each species, than in the course of the planets.
Hume then backs up the argument even further, pointing out that even if something like the stated conclusion were established, that is if the resemblance between the universe and human artifacts justified thinking they have similar causes, and even if the universe is indeed designed, it is unreasonable to justify the conclusion that the designer must be anything like the traditional concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-perfect god. To illustrate this point, Philo argues in “Part V” that the designer may have been defective or otherwise imperfect and suggests that the universe may have been a poor first attempt at design:
A man who follows your hypothesis is able, perhaps, to assert, or conjecture, that the universe, sometime, arose from something like design: But beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology, by the utmost license of fancy and hypothesis. This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect…and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity…it is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity…it is the product of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him…these, and a thousand more of the same kind, are Cleanthes’s suppositions…From the moment the attributes of the deity are supposed finite, all these have place. And I cannot…think that so wild and unsettled a system of theology is…preferable to none at all.
In a way, this extrapolation of the human-like properties of the orderer recalls the Greek origins of teleology. Hume also argues in “Part V” that any number of alternative possible explanations could be given of allegedly designed entities of nature, for instance chance or the saturation of the relevant state space of possibilities:
Many worlds may be botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labor lost, many fruitless trials made; and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making. In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth…who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater which may be imagined.
Previously in “Part IV” Hume, through Philo, pointed out that other analogies might suggest very different inferences and conclusions:
If reason I mean abstract reason, derived from inquiries a priori be not alike mute with regard to all questions concerning cause and effect, this sentence at least it will venture to pronounce, that a mental world, or universe of ideas, requires a cause as much, as does a material world, or universe of objects; and if similar in its arrangement, must require a similar cause. For what is there in this subject, which should occasion a different conclusion or inference? In an abstract view, they are entirely alike; and no difficulty attends the one supposition, which is not common to both of them.
Back in “Part II” Hume, in the voice of Philo, argued that it is impossible to infer the perfect nature of a creator from the nature of his creation:
But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the question can never be concerning the being, but only the nature of the deity. The former truth…is unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe whatever it may be we call god; and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection…But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine, that we comprehend the attributes of this divine being, or to suppose, that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creatures. 
This is at least partially in response to, and is in a way in agreement with, Hume’s character of Demea, who argues that although god clearly exists, we cannot come to know the nature of god through reason. Demea claims that every thing about god’s nature and attributes is beyond the capacity of human understanding; that god’s nature is “unknown and unintelligible”. Again, we find Hume’s views mirrored closely in the writings of another, in this case English philosopher Thomas Hobbes more than a century before Hume, who wrote in his 1651 book Leviathan that “the narrow limits of our fantasy” put knowledge of god beyond the scope of human understanding:
Whatever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude, nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power…and therefore the name of god is used, not to make us conceive him for he is incomprehensible, and his greatness and power are inconceivable, but that we may honor him. Also because whatsoever…we conceive has been perceived first by sense…a man can have no thought representing anything not subject to sense.
It is at this point, in “Part VII”, that Philo at last feels justified in responding, fairly directly, to Cleanthes’ original assertion of the teleological argument back in “Part II”, interestingly enough utilizing much identical terminology:
You need only look around you…to satisfy yourself with regard to this question. A tree bestows order and organization on that tree which springs from it, without knowing the order; an animal in the same manner on its offspring; a bird on its nest…To say, that all this order in animals and vegetables proceeds ultimately from design, is begging the question; nor can that great point be ascertained otherwise than by proving, a priori, both that order is, from its nature, inseparably attached to thought; and that it can never of itself, or from original unknown principles, belong to matter.
It is assumed in the physico-theological argument that the exquisiteness of structure and incredible intricate detail of the universe as a whole and of some phenomena in the world in particular could not have occurred by chance. In “Part IX”, Demea explains that the world operates on a system of cause and effect, so there must be an original cause to have started the world in motion. Having apparently abandoned the analogy of the universe as a whole to a particular manmade machine, however, Cleanthes demurs:
In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, that which preceded it, and causes that, which succeeds it causes, each part…but the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular cause of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.
However, unlike with French philosopher, mathematician and writer Rene Descartes’ 1641 philosophical treatise Meditations On The First Philosophy; wherein the cosmological argument in Descartes’ Third Meditation, “Concerning God, That He Exists”, that something cannot arise from nothing leads to the ontological argument in his Fifth Meditation, “Concerning The Essence Of Material Things, And Again Concerning God, That He Exists”, that god must necessarily exist; Hume draws the conclusion, in “Part IX” of his Dialogues, that the words “necessary existence, have no meaning; or what is the same thing, none that is consistent”.
So dangerous is it to introduce the idea of necessity into the present question! And so naturally does it afford an interference directly opposite to the religious hypothesis.
In “Part XI”, Hume even goes so far as to reject that it is absurd to deny that there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence:
To oppose the torrent of scholastic religion by such feeble maxims as these, that it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be, that the whole is greater than a part, that two and three make five; is pretending to stop the ocean with a bulrush.
In the same passage, Hume also rejects the claim, articulated in Descartes’ Meditations, that it is impossible for any effect to have perfections that its cause lacks. In “Part XI”, Philo again replies to Cleanthes’ teleological argument in “Part II” by mirroring it:
Look around this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organized, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!
The conclusion that Hume comes to, via Philo, in “Part, XII” is that, while the physico-theological argument might constitute some limited grounds for thinking that “the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence”, it establishes nothing else whatsoever:
In the whole of natural theology…resolves itself into one simple…at least undefined proposition, that the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension…If it affords no interference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy…can be carried no farther than to the human intelligence and cannot be transferred with any appearance of probability to the other qualities of the mind…what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition…and believe that the arguments on which it is established exceed the objections which lie against it?
Hume makes his criticism of revealed religion very clear in “Part XIV”: that even if religion does not put itself “in direct opposition to morality”, it nevertheless puts forward a “frivolous species of merit” that suggests “a preposterous distribution” of praise and blame based upon a perverted moral standard that is disconnected from any real human needs and interests. He argues that the existence of evil poses a problem for the traditional view of god:
The more exquisite any good is…the sharper is the evil, allied to it…The sprightliest wit borders on madness; the highest effusions of joy produce the deepest melancholy; the most ravishing pleasures are attended with the most cruel lassitude and disgust; the most flattering hopes make way for the severest disappointments…no course of life has such safety for happiness is not to be dreamed of as the temperate and moderate, which maintains…a mediocrity, and a kind of insensibility, in every thing. As the good, the great, the sublime, the ravishing are found eminently in the genuine principles of theism; it may be expected…that the base, the absurd, the mean, the terrifying will be equally discovered in religious fictions and chimeras.
Hume was far from the first to extol the virtues of moderation. In 325 BCE, the Greek philosopher and scientist Aristoteles wrote about his “Doctrine of the Mean” in his book Nichomachean Ethics:
Again, it is possible to fail in many ways (for evil belongs to the class of the unlimited…and good to that of the limited), while to succeed is possible only in one way (for which reason also one is easy and the other difficult—to miss the mark easy, to hit it difficult); for these reasons also, then, excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean of virtue; for men are good in but one way, but bad in many.
Nor was Hume by any means the first to grapple with the problem of evil. The conclusion that Philo drew back in “Part X” was that “the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity”—which brought us back to “Epicurus’ old questions” which remain “unanswered”:
And is it possible…that after all these reflections…you can still persevere in you anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures? His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: but the course of nature not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose...In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men? Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
The “old questions” to which Hume is referring here are attributed to ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus by the author Lucius Caecillius Firmianus Lactantius, advisor to Roman Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, in his De Ira Dei [On the Anger Of God] in 318 CE:
God, he says, either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wishes to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is week and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful which is equally foreign to god’s nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so is not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?
In order to understand why it is that I find both Cleanthes’ arguments for intelligent design and Philo’s arguments against the traditional concept of god so profoundly and thoroughly unconvincing, it is first necessary to recognize the gulf in the exponential growth human knowledge about the universe that exists between Hume’s late-18th-century Scotland and my own early-21st-century America. At the time that Hume wrote his Dialogues, science had yet to discover any of its present knowledge of the electron, the atom, or the cell. For perspective, at the time that Hume’s Dialogues was published, the man who first classified the human species as belonging to the family of great apes, Carolus Linnaeus, had died only the year before, and the man who discovered the force of universal gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton, only half a century before that. No one in the world would hear of Charles Darwin or the theory of natural selection for another three quarters of a century.
However, as thoroughly as the natural and biological sciences, especially micro-biochemistry, have been shown to debunk the claims made by the argument from design, the scientific discovery that single-handedly renders very nearly Hume’s entire Dialogues pointless philosophical hand-waving was made in the mid-19th century with the devising of the fist law of thermodynamics: the law of the conservation of energy.
Doctor Carl Nave, Associate Professor of Physics at Georgia State University, states the law this way: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” Tom Chandler, an Adjunct Assistant Professor and Associate research Scientist at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University phrases it similarly: “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” Mike Farabee of the General Geology Faculty at Maricopa County Community Colleges states: “Energy can be changed to one form or another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.”
Of course, as was the case with Hume, the concept of conservation was by no means an originally 19th-century proposition. In the 5th century BCE, the Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles wrote in his poem On Nature that:
The elements…do not come to be or perish…nothing comes to be or perishes.
Therefore, since the act of creation has been rendered a physical impossibility, all of Philo and Cleanthes’ debate on whether or not the universe was created for human life, and whether life was created for a purpose, is set as to naught.
I do, however, find myself in strong agreement with Philo’s criticisms of the amorality of religion and the dangers of blind faith. I consider Epicurus’ age-old questions [“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”] to be perhaps one amongst the most damning challenges ever posed to organized monotheistic religion as we know it today. Hume, however, is not easily fooled, and correctly makes the observation in “Part X” that “Polytheism or idolatry was, and must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind.”:
The heroes in paganism correspond exactly to the saints in popery, and holy dervishes in Mohammedanism. The place of, Hercules, Theseus, Hector, Romulus, is now supplied by Dominic, Francis, Anthony, and Benedict. Instead of the destruction of monsters, the subduing of tyrants, the defense of our native country; whippings and fasting, cowardice and humility, abject submission and slavish obedience, are become the means of obtaining celestial honors among mankind.
In driving a wedge between religious belief and morality, Hume effectively argues, in “Part XV”, that atheism is morally preferable to theism:
Hear the verbal protestations of all men: Nothing so certain as their religious tenets. Examine their lives: You will scarcely think that they repose the smallest confidence in them. The greatest and truest zeal gives us no security against hypocrisy: The most open impiety is attended with dread and compunction. No theological absurdities so glaring that they have nor, sometimes, been embraced by men of the greatest and most cultivated understanding. No religious precepts so rigorous that they have not been adopted by the most voluptuous and most abandoned of men.
In what I believe to be by far and away his most scathing and contemporarily relevant criticism of the religious, he echoes, at least in word use, Philo’s earlier warning against leaping to conclusions such as intelligent design:
What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the knowledge of the Supreme Being; and… enabled to infer so sublime a principle as its supreme creator?…Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have…prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men’s dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkeys in human shape, than the serious…dogmatic asseveration of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational.
 Swede, Jason K. “Hume’s Articulation Of The “Argument From Design”. Lake Superior State University. 2008. http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/jswedene/Hume_ArgumentFromDesign.htm
 Echelbarger, Charles. “Hume’s Tacit Atheism”. Religious Studies Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 19-35. 1. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/charles_echelbarger/hume-atheism.html
 Manson, Neil A. “Anthropocentrism And The Design Argument”. Religious Studies. 36. (Cambridge University Press, 2000). 163. http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Anthropocentrism.pdf
 Pecorino, Phillip A. “The Teleological Argument”. Philosophy Of Religion Chapter 3: Proofs For The Existence Of God. Queensborough Community College. 2000. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Teleological.htm
 Archie, John. “The Reading Selection From Natural Religion”. Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction To Philosophical Thinking, Ver. 0.21, Chapter 15: Critique Of The Design Argument By David Hume. Lander University. 2011. http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/x4211.html
 Ratzsch, Del. “Teleological Arguments For God’s Existence”. Stanford Encylclopedia Of Philosophy. Metaphysic Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. Friday June 10, 2005. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
 Echelbarger, 1975
 Priest, Graham. “Hume’s Final Argument”. History Of Philosophy Quarterly. Volume 2, Number 3, July 1985, pp 349-352. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27743734?uid=41084&uid=3739976&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=41080&uid=67&uid=5912232&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21102922227791
 Garrett, Don. “What’s True About Hume’s “True Religion”?”. The Journal Of Scottish Philosophy 10.2 (Edinburgh University Press, 2012): 215. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/garrett/papers/What's%20True%20About%20Hume's%20'True%20Religion'.pdf
 Himma, 2003
 Ratzsch, 2005
 Pecorino, Phillip A. “The Teleological Argument”. Philosophy of Religion. City University of New York. July 30, 2001. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/SS620/TELEOLOGICAL_ARG.htm
 Himma, 2003
 Speaks, Jeff. “Hume’s Criticism Of The Design Argument” 1. University of Notre Dame. January 24, 2006. Pp 15-21. http://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/mcgill/201/Hume-Dialogues.html
 Archie, 2011
 Miles, Sara J. “Charles Darwin And Asa Gray Discuss Teleology And Design”. PSCF 53 (September 2001): 196-201. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html
 Ratzsch, 2005
 Himma, 2003
 Beaudoin, John. “On Some Criticisms Of Hume’s Principle Of Proportioning Cause And Effect”. Philo, Volume 2, Number 2 (1999). http://www.philoonline.org/library/beaudoin_2_2.htm
 Ratzsch, 2005.
 Pfau, Thomas. “Teleological Arguments For God’s Existence”. Teleology. June 3, 2008. Page 3. https://web.duke.edu/secmod/encyclopedia/Teleology.pdf
 Epstein, Mikhail. “The Art Of World-Making”. Philosophy Now. Issue 98. September/October 2013. http://philosophynow.org/issues/95/The_Art_of_World-Making
 Russell, 2005
 Andre, Shane. “Was Hume An Atheist?”. Hume Studies Volume XIX, Number 1 (April, 1993) 145. http://www.humesociety.org/hs/issues/v19n1/andre/andre-v19n1.pdf
 Russell, 2005
 Rickabay, John S.J. “General Metaphysics” Third Edition (1898) Chapter VI: “The Finite And The Infinite Being”. Longmans, Green and Co. 1921. http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gm06.htm
 Stempel, Daniel. “Coleridge And Organic Form: The English Tradition”. Studies in Romanticism Vol. 6, No. 2, winter, 1967, pp. 89-97. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25599680?uid=41084&uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=3&uid=41080&uid=67&uid=5912232&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21102923506471
 Ratzsch, 2005
 Smith, Quentin. “Internal And External Causal Explanations Of The Universe”. Philosophical Studies Volume 79 (1995) pp 2383-310. III. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/universe.html
 Russell, 2005
 Echelbarger, 1975
 Russell, 2005
 Russell, 2005
 Korsgaard, Christine. “Just Like All The Other Animals Of The Earth”. Harvard Divinity Bulletin. Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn 2008). http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/just-like-all-the-other-animals-of-the-earth
 Vink, A.G. “Philo’s Final Conclusion In Hume’s “Dialogues”. Religious Studies, Vol. 25. No. 4 (December 1989) pp 496 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20019372.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
 Pfau, 2008
 Gaskin J.C.A. and Skorupski, J. “Hume’s Philosophy Of Religion” Mind. Vol. 89, n. 353 (January 1980) pp. 135. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2253513.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
 Russell, 2005
 Ross, W.D. “Chapter 4: Virtue As The Mean Between Two Extreme States”. Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics. Minnesota State University Moorhead. 2007. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/AristotleVirtueAsMean.htm
 Tweyman, Stanley. “Hume’s Dialogues On Evil”. Hume Studies Volume XIII, Number 1 (April 1987). 77. http://humesociety.org/hs/issues/v13n1/tweyman/tweyman-v13n1.pdf
 Russell, 2005
 Chaves, Eduardo. “Logical And Semantical Aspects Of The Problem Of Evil”. Critica: Revista Hispanoamericana De Filosofia, Vol. 10, No. 29 (August, 1978), pp. 3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40104106.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
 Waggoner, Ben. “Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778)”. Berkely Natural History Museums. 2006. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
 Nave, C. Rod. “Conservation Laws”. HyperPhysics. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University. 2012. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
 Chandler, Thomas “Conservation Of Energy”. The Secret Lives Of Energy. Community Science Action Guides. 2002. http://fi.edu/guide/hughes/energyconservation.html
 Farabee, Michael. “Laws of Thermodynamics”. Estrella Mountain Community College. 2001. http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/biobookener1.html
 Janko, R. “Empedocles, On Nature I 233-364: A New Reconstruction of P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-6”. University of Michigan Program in Ancient Philosophy. 17. http://ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/-/downloads/faculty/janko/empedocles-nature.pdf
 Gieben, J.C. “An Old World And A New On”. The Light And The Dark: A Cultural History Of Dualism, Volume XXVI, Chapter III Part 1: Elements Of A New Paradigm”. Gopher Publishers. 2008. http://home.wanadoo.nl/piet.fontaine/volumes/vol26/index4.htm?vol26_ch3_part1.htm
 Russell, 2005
Monday, October 21, 2013
Everything That Is Wrong With The Pentateuch [The First Five Books Of The Old testament (Genesis-Deuteronomy)]
- Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created
the universe." –International Standard Version (1)
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the act of creation is a physical impossibility. 
- Genesis 1:2: "When the earth was as yet
unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded in
darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the
waters," –International Standard Version
The first oceans did not form until hundreds of millions of years AFTER the earth formed. 
- Genesis 1:3: "And God said: Be light made.
And light was made." –douay Rheims Bible (2)
Light is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created. 
Earth’s sun rose and set three times before it, or any other star like it,
Genesis 1:5: "Calling the light "day," and the darkness "night." The twilight and the dawn were day one." –International Standard Version (3)
Genesis 1:8: “God called the canopy "sky." The twilight and the dawn were the second day.” –International Standard Version (4)
Genesis 1:13: “The twilight and the dawn were the third day.” –International Standard Version (5)
"Dawn" is sunrise. According to the Genesis account itself, this was BEFORE the formation of the sun. There can be no sunrise without a sun.
space is full of water.
Genesis 1:6-7: "Then God said, "Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth. And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens."
Outer space is NOT full of water. There are NO "waters" of the "heavens".
- Genesis 1:9-10: "Then God said, "Let
the water beneath the sky come together into one area, and let dry ground
appear!" And that is what happened: God called the dry ground
"land," and he called the water that had come together
"oceans." And God saw how good it was."
For the first half-billion years of earth's history, it was molten ball of rock. In other words, the WHOLE planet was dry land. The first water was introduced from comets vaporizing upon striking the superheated surface. Even after the first oceans formed from the resulting precipitation, for hundreds of millions of years, all of the continents we know today were clumped together as one. So it was the SEAS that "appeared", not the land. And there was no "separation" of landmasses until hundreds of million of years later, and even today it is only inches per year. Dry land came first, THEN water. 
- Photosynthetic plants were “created” before
there was sunlight.
Genesis 1:11-12: "And God saith, 'Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed is in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so. And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;"
The first fruit trees evolved millions of years AFTER the first plants. Single-celled plants are NOT grass, are NOT herbs, and do NOT yield seeds. The first plants were entirely AQUATIC, meaning that they were NOT "brought forth" by EARTH (dirt, soil, ground, etc.), but by WATER.
- Genesis 1:13-14]
You can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun
Genesis 1:14-15: "Then God said, "Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark religious festivals, days, and years. To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done."
The oldest known star is fourteen and a half billion years old. There were no religious festivals for tens of BILLIONS of years after the stars formed.
- Genesis 1:16-17: "And God maketh the two
great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the
small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night; To shine in
the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so
done. to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from
darkness. And God saw that it was good."
The sun formed hundreds of millions of years BEFORE the earth. The sun is about five billion years old.
- Genesis 1:17-19
The Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time
- Genesis 1:20: "Then God said, "Let the
waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds
of every kind." –New Living Translation (6)
Birds evolved hundreds of millions of years AFTER fish. 
- Genesis 1:21-22: "And God created great
whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:
and God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, saying, "Be
fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds
multiply on the earth."
Whales were NOT created. Whales, like every other animal on earth, EVOLVED: Whales did not evolve until hundreds of millions years AFTER the first land animals. 
- Livestock and cattle [domesticated animals]
were among the first animals “created”.
Genesis 1:24-25: "Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good."
There was no livestock until the advent of agriculture, hundreds of millions of years after the first animals evolved. And livestock were NOT made by god, but by humans through domestication.
1:29: "And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed
upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own
kind, to be your meat:" –Douay Rheims Bible (7)
The overwhelmingly vast majority of all known plants on earth are poisonous to humans.
1:30: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creeps on the earth, wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for meat: and it was so." –King James Bible,
American King James Version, English Revised Version
Not all animals on earth are herbivores, and never have been.
were made of dirt before all other species of animal or plant.
Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." –Douay Rheims Bible
Humans are NOT made of dirt.
Genesis 2:19-20: "The LORD God had formed all the wild animals and all the birds out of the ground. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called each creature became its name. He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him."
According to the Book of Genesis, humans were "created" BEFORE all other animals. The first life on earth dates to three and half billion years ago. Species Homo sapiens only evolved 200,000 years ago.
2:22: "The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken
from the man, and brought her to the man." –New American Standard
Women are NOT made of rib.
- Genesis 3: SNAKES CAN TALK
- BLOOD SACRIFICE
There is no water above where the firmament isn't and no windows to let it drain in if there was either water or firmament there.
- CHILD ABUSE
traits are determined by what the parents see during copulation. If you display striped patterns to a pregnant
cow, it would bare striped calves.
Genesis 30:37-43: “Jacob then took branches of fresh poplar, almond, and plane wood, and peeled the bark, exposing white stripes on the branches. And he put them in the troughs, where the water was poured out: that when the flocks should come to drink, they might have the rods before their eyes, and in the sight of them might conceive. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth flocks striped, speckled, and spotted.”
Genesis 34:13-29: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister. They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field, And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.”
- ENCHANTED ARTIFACTS
Exodus 17:13: "And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword." –King James Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation
Exodus 32:27: "And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour." –English Standard Version, King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, Young’s Literal Translation
ABUSE OF SLAVES
who do not obey their parents are to be stoned to death.
Exodus 21:17: “Whoever treats his father or his mother disgracefully must surely be put to death.” –Net Bible
anyone who does not believe in the same god you do.
Exodus 22:20: “He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord.” –Douay Rheims Bible (8)
- Prejudice against RACE
who works on a weekend (The Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, the Christian
holiday is Sunday) dies.
Exodus 35:2: "You may work for six days, but the seventh day is a holy day of worship, a day when you don't work. It is dedicated to the LORD. Whoever does any work on this day should be put to death." –God’s Word Translation (9)
- BLOOD SACRIFICE
- Rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, and insects
have four legs.
Leviticus 11:6-23: “You must never eat rabbits. (Rabbits are unclean because they chew their cud but do not have divided hoofs.)…Here are the kinds of birds you must consider disgusting and must not eat. They are eagles, bearded vultures, black vultures…the stork, the heron according to her species, the lapwing, and the bat. and any winged insect that crawls on four legs is detestable for you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.”
who do not obey their parents are to be stoned to death.
Leviticus 20:9: "Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense.” –New Living Translation (10)
- All those who are guilty of homosexual acts
must be immediately and summarily murdered by what are perhaps the most
brutal, savage, and barbaric means humanly imaginable.
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." –New Living Translation (11)
Leviticus 26:29; "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." –King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation (12)
- SPOUSAL ABUSE
Numbers 21:3: "The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah." –New American Standard Bible
- DONKEYS CAN TALK
Numbers 31:7-12: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.”
- CHILD MOLESTATION
Deuteronomy 2:33-34: And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.”
Deuteronomy 3:6: "And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city." –New International Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay Rheims bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible
Deuteronomy 7:2: "and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy." –New International Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible (13)
Deuteronomy 20:16-18: “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.”
- Prejudice against RACE
anyone who does not believe in the same god you do.
Deuteronomy 13:1-15: "Suppose there are prophets among you or those who dream dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles occur. If they then say, 'Come, let us worship other gods'--gods you have not known before--you must not listen to the words of that prophet or that diviner of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to make known whether or not you'll continue to love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or visionaries who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who redeemed you from slavery and brought you out of the land of Egypt. Since they try to lead you astray from the way the LORD your God commanded you to live, you must put them to death. In this way you will purge the evil from among you. Suppose your own full brother, your son, your daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend should seduce you secretly and encourage you to go and serve other gods that neither you nor your ancestors have previously known, They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. You must not give in to him or even listen to him; do not feel sympathy for him or spare him or cover up for him. You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in. With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage: Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, and no one will act so wickedly again. When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear Certain men, worthless fellows, are gone out from among you, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known; you are to inquire, investigate, and interrogate thoroughly. If the report turns out to be true that this detestable thing has happened among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock."
- The Earth has edges (something spherical
objects never have).
Deuteronomy 13:7: “They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth.” –New Living Translation (14)
- BATS ARE BIRDS
Deuteronomy 14:11-18: “But here are the birds that you should never eat: eagles, bearded vultures, black vultures…the stork, the heron after its species, the hoopoe, the bat,”
anyone who does not believe in the same god you do.
Deuteronomy 17:2-5: “When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, a man or woman among you might do evil in the sight of the LORD your God and violate the covenant. by serving other gods and worshiping them--the sun, moon, or any other heavenly bodies which I have not permitted you to worship. and if you are told or hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly. If the report turns out to be true that this detestable thing has happened in Israel, summon the man or the woman who did this evil thing to your city gates. Then stone the man or the woman to death.”
Deuteronomy 18:20: "But any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die." –New Living Translation
Deuteronomy 20:13-14: “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”
- CHILD ABUSE
Children who do not obey their parents are to stoned to death:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21: “Suppose a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They will say to the leaders of the city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He won't obey us. He eats too much and is a drunk." All the men of the city should stone him to death. You must get rid of this evil. When all Israel hears about it, they will be afraid.”
- SPOUSAL ABUSE
- Anyone who violates even one of such
commandments not only should be put to death as well, but also will spend
the rest of time being ceaselessly sadistically tortured by this god's
Deuteronomy 28:15: "But if thou wilt not hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee." –Douay Rheims Bible
Deuteronomy 28:53; "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" –King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible (15)
Appendix A: [Scientific Citations]
- "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but
it can be converted or transferred...The First Law of Thermodynamics
states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the
interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor
destroyed, under any circumstances...energy is never created nor destroyed
(thus, the first law of thermodynamics)...Energy is never created nor
destroyed...the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is not
created nor destroyed."
-Boyle, Lauren. “1st Law of Thermodynamics”. University of California Davis. 2010. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/First_Law_of_Thermodynamics
"The 1st Law of Thermodynamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)...The 1st Law of Thermodynamics tells us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus the energy of the universe is a constant."
-Woodward, Pat. 1st Law of Thermodynamics”. The Ohio State University Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. 2011.
"First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed...The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed.”
-Farabee, Mike. “Laws of Thermodynamics”. Estrella Mountain Community College. May 18, 2010. http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/biobookener1.html
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
-Nave, R. “Conservation Laws”. Georgia State University department of Physics and Astronomy. 2013. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/%E2%80%8Chbase/conser.html
"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed."
-Chandler, Tom. “The Secret Lives of Energy: The Energy Problem”. The Franklin Institute Science Museum. 2002. http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energyconservation.html
"Energy is neither created nor destroyed."
-Benson, Tom. “Conservation of Energy (specific form) 1st Law of Thermodynamics”. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center. July 11, 2008. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo1f.html
- "An ocean-free Earth existed, perhaps for
several hundred million years as a consequence of extremely high surface
temperatures following planetary accretion."
-Cavosie, Aaron. “When did oceans form on Earth? What evidence is preserved in the rock record?”. Carleton College Science Education Resource Center. May 29, 2012. http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlyearth/questions/formation_oceans.html
"Ocean formation made Earth habitable for life at about 4000 million years ago, leading to today’s highly complex organisms."
-Abreu, V, et. al. “Climate: Atmosphere and Oceans”. University of Michigan. October 30, 2006. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_8.htm
- "Water vapor is the dominant form of gas
released in outgassing, so much that Earth’s early atmosphere became
saturated with water, leading to an era of continuous rain on the planet.
These rains contributed to cooling of the Earth’s surface and the
formation of the first oceans, which today cover two thirds of the
surface...The continuous rains and atmospheric CO2 removal cooled our
planet and created a surface where water could eventually be present in
all three phases: vapor, liquid and solid...After the differentiation and
outgassing period in Earth’s early history, the water vapor that
accumulated in the atmosphere changed to torrential rains that lasted
millions of years, leading to the first oceans. The formation of oceans
was likely complemented by the impact of icy comets that brought water to
- Abreu, V, et. al. “Climate: Atmosphere and Oceans”. University of Michigan. October 30, 2006. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_8.htm
- "Where did birds come from? They evolved from
theropod dinosaurs...Birds evolved from feathered theropods"
- Kammer, Thomas. “Evolution of Birds”. West Virginia University Eberly College of Arts and Sciences Department Geology and Geography. January 11, 2010. http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/Birds.pdf
- "They evolved by gradual change over time,
losing terrestrial features, and gaining aquatic adaptations...they must
have evolved from a particular group of four-legged land mammals millions
of years ago."
- Flammer, Larry. “BECOMING WHALES: Experiencing Discoveries of Whale Evolution OR..."The thrill of discovery...The loss of de feet". Indiana University Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes. 1999. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html
"Whale evolution begins with an as yet unidentiﬁed early Eocene terrestrial artiodactyl ancestor"
- Gingerich, Phillip. “Whale Evolution”. The University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology. August 3, 2012. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG413_Whaleevol.pdf
Appendix B: (Biblical Citations)
1:1: “In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the earth.”
-New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, God’s Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible
1:3: “Then God said, "Let there be
light!" So there was light.”
-New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, God’s Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible
1:5: “God called the light
"day" and the darkness "night." And evening passed and
morning came, marking the first day.”
-New Living Translation, Net Bible
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
-King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, Webster’s Bible Translation
1:8: “God called the space
"sky." And evening passed and morning came, marking the second
-New Living Translation
“And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
-King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, Douay Rheims Bible, Webster’s Bible Translation
1:13: “And evening passed and morning
came, marking the third day.”
-New Living Translation
“And the evening and the morning were the third day.”
-King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, Douay Rheims Bible, Webster’s Bible Translation
1:20: “Then God said, "Let the water
swarm with swimming creatures, and let birds fly through the sky over the
-New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, World English Bible
“And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”
-English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version
1:29: “And God said, Behold, I have given
you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for meat.”
-King James Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible
22:20: " Whoever sacrifices to any
god except the LORD must be condemned and destroyed.”
-New International Version, New Living Translation, God’s Word Translation
“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jehovah only, shall be utterly destroyed.”
-New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible
35:2: “For six days work may be done, but
on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest
to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”
-New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version
20:9: “Whatever man revileth his father
and his mother shall certainly be put to death: he hath reviled his father
and his mother; his blood is upon him.”
-Darby Bible Translation, Young’s Literal Translation
20:13: “If a man has sexual relations
with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is
detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own
-New international Version, International Standard Version
“If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.”
-Net Bible, God’s Word Translation
26:29: “Further, you will eat the flesh
of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat.”
-New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard, Holman Christian Standard Bible, God’s Word Translation, World English Bible.
7:2: “When the LORD your God gives them
to you and you defeat them, destroy every one of them because they have
been claimed by the LORD. Don't make any treaties with them or show them
-New Living Translation, God’s Word Translation
- Deuteronomy 13:7: “Namely, of the gods of the
people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from
the one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth;”
-King James Bible, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 200 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster’s Bible Translation, World English Bible, Young’s Literal Translation
“of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end),”
-English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Douay Rheims Bible
- “You'll eat your own children —the flesh of your
sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God gave you—on account of the
siege and the distress with which your enemy will oppress you. ”
-Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Bible, Net Bible