Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Dodo the bird that killed Yahweh/ Jesus god?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
We’re led to believe according to apologists that the god of the bibles, that the Yahwe jesugod, created the earth and all the animals in a six day period.

Amongst his creations according to the bibles were the birds/fowl of the air, all well if you believe that sort of thing, or is it?

The now extinct Dodo was not a fowl of the air; it could not fly as the case several other species of birds/fowl, and clearly had not been observed by man till late in the human history.

The dodo was not a domesticated bird and it lived in isolation, so this begs a question. As the dodo could not fly how is it that, the YahwehJesus god could make a mistake, the birds (wing) can no longer do what it’s supposed to do.

We would assume that the Dodo had no free will so it’s unlikely that it just chose not to fly, we cannot now try to find this out as humans killed them all.

It would appear on the face of it that the YahwehJesus god screwed up big time here, this omniscient being has created something that is either flawed or was an animal with free will that chose not to obey its creator and fly.

I suppose some apologists would argue that, the Yahwehjesusgod created a flying Dodo first off. But because of lack of predatory pressures in its’ environment, the Dodo proceeded to lose its’ necessity to fly over a period of time and gradually its body almost completely changed, left with but stumpy useless wings.

There does not appear to be any other explanation to the Dodo, either the Yahwehjesus god tried to create something and failed, or the Dodo evolved.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by moocowman]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This is hilarious


great idea!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I think it was Dutch sailors dogs and cats that applied the coup de grace to the Dodo.


I saw a documentary where they went through the mizen tips from the old Dutch camps ...... what they found , no Dodo bones.

It was meant to of been disgusting to eat , tough and oily .



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 

Why would you assume that a bird has to fly in order to fulfill its purpose? In the case of the Dodo, its sole purpose may have been to become extinct so that man may realize the repercussions of poor actions. To that end there are many examples such as the Tasmanian Tiger or even the trees that are no longer on Easter Island.

I still maintain that the belief of nothing is the belief of something and the proof of non-existence takes as much faith as the proof of existence.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Because you believe the Dodo to be a bird that was meant to fly and therefore GOD made a mistake, doesn't make you right. It just means you think differently about the Dodo Bird than God the Creator did.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 





Why would you assume that a bird has to fly in order to fulfill its purpose?


I don't recall assuming that the bird had a purpose, but i do assume the purpose of a wing is either to fly or fry



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
And i thought that all the religious themes/contradictions/arguments were raised and answered (or not usually) during all these thousands of years. But no - enters Dodo affair.
Hey - maybe the reason for existence and then not-so-existence of this majestic creature was that X years later you would bring this up and contradictory to the eeeevil nature of your post actually prove that there is a freedom of choice. Go and dis-prove that ...

I should be a medieval theologist,me thinks
By the way -even if BBC showed that pinguins can fly on 1st of april, rest of the year they are Dodo-like in that department. And do pretty well generally.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by moocowman
 


Because you believe the Dodo to be a bird that was meant to fly and therefore GOD made a mistake, doesn't make you right. It just means you think differently about the Dodo Bird than God the Creator did.


Nope, sorry dude i don't claim to be right, and I don't think differently about the bird but i do appear do think differently about wings.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 

Then what of the penguin whose wings are used like fins to glide through the water? Most people think that chickens do not fly or fly poorly. They actually fly rather well when their wings are not clipped. Not as well as a hawk mind you. But fairly well considering they are fairly content to remain on the ground. Same deal with turkeys as well, although they are better at flying than chickens.

In the case of both chickens and turkeys, I have a very good use for their wings.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
darn, i thought birds evolved from dinosaurs......there were giant birds that stood over ten feet tall that fed on our early ancestors ....turkeys decended from velocioraptors. We eat two or three of them every year just to exact a little revenge..........



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


All well and good but the dodo didn't fly, it lost it's flight , I would imagine that the chicken is in the process of losing it's flight give it a couple of thousand years and who knows what.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Here's one: Men have nipples. Arguably, humans are mammals, but men still have no mammaries. Nipples are totaly superfluous on them.

Or: Penguins. They live waaay down south, and while some do live on various rocky islands in warmer waters, how do you explain the ones on Antarctica? They are birds, that swim, and are required to travel great distances over the glacical deserts to get to their foodsource: the ocean. But they absolutely have to breed on rocky ground. No pack-ice for them, buddy.
What kind of vile god would force such cute beings into such a lousy existence and not even provide them with a better means of locomotion than short webbed feet to woddle on?!

Only a vengeful god like the good baptists down in Freehold, Iowa beleive in.
Landover Baptist Church, arguably the only truly saved christians out there!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
As in the time of Noah the Bible version of each animal was to its own kind, each kind had enough genes variations to spread out different like a branch of evolution. Even people like Noah's family with purer genes than ours today had more variety of genes because they were closer to the orginal creation plan.

Those early humans did not only live longer due to purer genes but had a variety to create different races, I have family members with different eye colours, hair types, height and size from each other and the continuation of variety exists in all animals but does not mean they are different species but different types. Today they called a new species on the basis of different in its calls they make. So my guess is that there are 7 billion different species of humans too then, which of course is not the case.

Because of the flood the environment changed and some species could not cope and died out or were left with a harsher enviroment to live in.

If God can make a tree with many branches in his design then why not the animal kingdom?


[edit on 9-3-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The real problem appears to be translation of the biblical text. The original Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean and Greek, don't translate as well as they could, into the English language. This is especially obvious in the old testament languages, 1) because the traditions sometimes were merged with the laws, creating concepts that don't appear to have been divinely-inspired in some cases, which isn't easy to identify or convey due to language variation and antiquity of the original concepts and 2) variants of meaning, which can be further broken down into subcategories, such as symbolic, literal, mythological, poetic, instructive. All of this was condensed into social tradition and social law, which ended up being amalgamated into one set of moral codes and laws.

The most difficult is to rightly divide the literal idea or event, from the symbolic idea or event. This has to be achieved before unraveling things like the mythological passages, the purely poetic, and certainly the instructive (gotta know if it's a divine law or man made law, and there's clearly no way to separate them without being able to rightly divide the literal from the symbolic and vice-a-versa).

Let's take the lenghty arguments that exist on the topic of the word ELOHIYM, as it is translated into english as "GOD" in the opening chapters of Genesis. Hebrew is not a simple language. Each word has countless variant potential translations, adding further to the issue of mixing the fabulous with the factual. Dramatic license was applied in some cases, purely for good oratory. To top it off, some of these old variants haven't been a spoken language or a written one, for that matter, for a very long time. If you want to really debunk it, you are going to have to do your homework.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
(p.s. i wouldn't suggest looking to commentary for the translations or debunking. they are primarly working with only one concept and one language base... not a good idea. these are very old texts with a huge etymological pool to draw from, not to mention covering literally thousands of years of history. . i would just look up the original meanings of the original words, and their etymological roots. reconstruct the sentences, mix and match it, compare it to other similar passages, follow the threads in the text who have identical phraseology and etymology. but by all means, don't take the word of a critic on the topic if they haven't also done their homework. some critics are basing their theories on the topic on texts written 300 years ago, when the science of archaeology didn't yet exist. most of their assumptions turned out to be incorrect, but they sound good on paper if you're trying to debunk the ancient past. that's all they are though...well constructed, incorrect critiques, based on lack of evidence to the contrary (which clearly is not the best way to approach research of any kind).



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

Good points. I have a small farm with 16 chickens. Yup, they can fly and have escaped from their enclosure a few times.

I let the kids go chase them down. hehe

Not sure if there is any evidence of the Dodo flying or swimming. I don't care either way though, who knows.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Another issue seems to be the assumption that what the churches taught then or taught since then, is 100 perccent reflective of the biblical texts themselves. Yes there are many examples where the teachings seem to follow the texts, even in their original languages, but there's also a boat load of teaching that isn't in the bible at all but it is still considered christian teaching. Debunking something "Christian" based on data you claim must be in the bible since christians believe it, is shoddy research. You can't debunk the bible on what someone else believes (i mean, where in the biblical texts does it say jesus was born on december 25th? anybody? you have to read the thing in order to critique it. but you can't critique legitimately if you're going to base your evidence on data that ain't in it in the first place)



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
First let me point out that I do believe in God and I agree with you that the bible and other religious books have been written by man and you just proved it. People of the time did not know about Dodo or dinosaurs to mention them in the religious books.

The church with the corruptions of its early days has modified and corrupted the bible to reflect what they think is right and in no means reflect the words of god. Therefore, I thing it is best to look at other religions to have a better understanding of God and the universe. I think that Hinduism and Buddhism are still pure enough to refer to them.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
rattan,

that's assuming again, that what christianity taught at any given point, is identical to what the texts say. nope. what someone else says doesn't make a text invalid. the only thing that can make a text invalid for you, is for you to reesarch it -- not from the position that it's false or true, but from the position of discovering what it means and what happened and when it happened and where it happened, etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 

I want to thank you for continuing with these Bible-attacking, garbage threads of yours.
You are proving my point that ATS Ownership and the Mods are pushing and protecting this direction whenever possible.
I say "protecting", because, as many of you know, the mods will pop out of the woodwork as soon as you argue back, or give posters like this, too much of a fight within the thread.
Posters like MooCowMan are protected, while opposition are punished and threatened CONSTANTLY, in as rude a fashion as humanly possibly by the mods and owners.
I have been hit with the proverbial "Newspaper" one too many times, and my view of this site is permanently jaded.
I'm sure I will have ANOTHER warning in my U2U's, with some missing points, or something more.
It's a joke.

Way to go ATS. Keep coddling the attacks on the Bible, and allow these people to hide under your skirts.
As seems to be your practice, you can always turn around in an unrelated thread, and condemn other posters for being too negative, or for pushing too negative of an agenda.

This all seems strangely familiar.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join