₦airaland Forum

welborn:
Thank you for your comments, KAG.

I would never have been able to say a word on the historicity of Christ if I had not read any of those materials quoted above. The problem is, we've been told earlier that there was just nothing to indicate that Jesus ever existed; and the same sources also claimed that none of the Roman officials existed - not even Pilate! And what is staggering is that the same scholars came back to tell us that John the Baptist actually existed as a historical figure, even though they previously denied that he did.

Can you be more precise which sources you're talking about. I would be very interested in knowing which idiots claim Pontius Pliatus didn't exist.

As far as contemporary historical sources indicating the existence of Jesus are concerned:
* Tacticus was not a contemporary of Jesus and is likely to have used second hand sources and not official sources.
* There are no manuscripts found of Thallus, all we have is Thallus being referenced as source, which makes it a dubious source at best
* Ignatius was one of the Church Fathers an successor to the throne of Peter, hardly an objective source and he was not contemporary to Jesus anyway
* Emperor Hadrianus was no a contemporary of Jesus and lived when Christianity was already established as a religion
*Pliny The Younger was not a contemporary of Jesus and writes about Christians and their persecution. He cannot be considered a primary source

ono,

I still love you, but don't push it though

Thanks all for your kind words - you know I'm a sucker for compliments
I know we've been lucky, already now do I have to chase the boys away from Aicha. Can't imagine what that will be in a few years

I've been occupied elsewhere, but I promise I'll continue this evening.

The Dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide:

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

More info

simmy:
@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.

It is in the very least partialy based on faith, which makes it unscientific. It is also unscientific because if is unfalsifiable and does not allow us to make predictions.

simmy:
Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years,

Sort of. Time alone can never account for these changes.

simmy:
but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).

If you refer to the Theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin an Wallace, I agree. There were others that had proposed other mechinism to explain the fact of evolution.

simmy:
First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought).

A scientific theory is not a school of thought.

simmy:
Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong.

That's in very broad strokes how science works, yes.

simmy:
Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect.

There is not theory of Intelligent Design, precisely because it cannot be proven wrong. Even the people behind Intelligent Design admit that much.

simmy:
I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together!

That's your miss. Maybe this site can help you.

simmy:
All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!!

That's news to me. Maybe you should read this site to get a clue what evolution theory really is.

simmy:
I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.

Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. You can take any organism as an example. KAG had a nice picture of an elephant

simmy:
They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it

You probably won't be able to [u]see [/u]it

simmy:
To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another.

Organisms don't evolve into each other. Maybe this site will illuminate the mechnisms of biological evolution
Do you have any idea how fossilisation works?

simmy:
(To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

Show me one creationist opnion based on facts.

simmy:
When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie!

An over time that leads to speciation when there is reproductive isolation of the gene pools. Have you ever heard of ring species? Quite fascinating.

simmy:
I wonder why evoluitonists can't get that.

Get what?

simmy:
Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate

So nature has intentions now, amazing. Any idea how many miscarriages and failed conceptions there are within the same species? It's all a matter of gradation. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, this site might help to illuminate things

simmy:
I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!

Flawed analogy as evidence, we're improving.

simmy:
Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog!

1. There are species that have a non-sexual mode of reproduction, so according to you there is no variation within these species?
2. Selected mutations do have that effect
3. You mean that the majority of geneticists are not well versed in genetics because they accept the Theory of Evolution?

simmy:
Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that

That's actually true. The chance of evolving in exactly the same direction are near impossible. They would have evolved in another direction. Can you bring some substance to your attempt at argumentation?

simmy:
, (duh!) Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)

One step at a time. Maybe you can read the literature explaining how complex behaviour can and has evolved: The Evolution of Behavior Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Xenopsychology R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81

simmy:
Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer.

Why is it implausible? A Super-complex God creating complexity out of nothing is more plausible?

simmy:
The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!

Why?

simmy:
The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise

There is no theory of intelligent design.

simmy:
The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance. I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).

And the probability of you winning the lottery is so remote that nobody wins the lottery. What kind of reasoning is that? And once more, how do you explain that intelligence, the probabiblity of something so complex is even more remote.

simmy:
Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (

Because you say so?

simmy:
no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose).

So hurricanes and snowflakes have a purpose?

simmy:
Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!

So the sun has a purpose and so does the moon? Ah yes, to make life on earth possible. Now I understand. Can you even try not to use misplaced analogy? You force me to do the same

simmy:
An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

Why don't you present your scientific theory of intelligent design or creationism? You'll get a nobel prize for sure.

syrup:
And BTW,
@nferyn, I'm not personally against you

I would hope not I've already go a nemesis on this board and one is more than enough

syrup:
- issues are my primary concern. I hope I've been objective enough to present myself thus, but my apologies if you don't read me so.

So what issues do you want to debate, because thus far, I've seen you nitpicking on rather irrelevant side discussions (like the philosophical discussion I had with 4get_me)? What exactly is your position in this debate between evolution and creation?

syrup:
Faith in creation should not be rubbished on the premise that science is superior to any other field of enquiry, because scientific enquiry is far too constrained in providing answers to so many questions in the natural world.

If this is your ultimate position, then I take it that you are a Creationist.
Science is thus far the best way to determine truth in the natural world. Nothing comes even closer. Faith does not even beg the question. It closes of inquiry, as it directly contradicts the questioning in what one should have faith in.

syrup:
It's rather a bit surprising that you can't keep calm and would hurriedly use words like "disingenuous" and "misinformed social scientists" in debates. Whatever. Pal, be cool - the world's a big place.

I am perfectly calm, only I like to call a cat a cat. You implying that I'm not calm is disingenious.
1. disingenious is spot on, as it seemed you were trying to divert the attention from the real debate, the one on the issues
2. misinformed social scientists is a correct labeling in this context. Using the term evolutionist when talking about the Theory of Evolution is an inappropriote choice of words. I would be surprised if those social scientist are fully aware of the connotations when using that word. that's why I would call them misinformed.

syrup:
So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism? nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case),

That's not what I said. Science is superior to other fields of enquiry when it comes to the study of the natural world. I stand by that opinion.

syrup:
@nferyn,
I saw and read all those underlines, and indeed offered you to make an objective search yourself. Two things I would like you to pay attention to from the Wikipedia quote:

1)

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.
Second, it does not mean that Evolutionism did not exist as you earlier stated.

I grant you that it did exist outside the Creationist circles in earlier times, but in current times, the label evolutionist [/i]is only used by Creationists. If you look at the ethymology of words, you can always find words that mean something very different depending on the time they were used. I could call you a gay person, but you might take offense, as it's meaning changed over time.

syrup:
Third, that it is [i]rarely used does not mean that it has never been so used in scientific circles.
So, what's your question?

And that justifies deceit? The term evolutionist has connotations that are muddying the waters. Using the ethymology of the word to justify it's use shows hidden bias while giving the impression to take a neutral position. At least I've been quite clear about my position.

syrup:
2)

However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences

That they are now commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists and other scholars does not mean that the physical and life sciences are superior to the former. If you're persuaded that the former are inferior to the latter, you're not doing science.

1. They are used to denote an entirely different field of enquiry, so your point is mute. It was very obvious I was referening to Biology and not the study about the development of cultures and civilisations.
2. I wouldn't dare to call the physical and life sciences superior to the social sciences. Even though their methodologies are less mature, it's is ridiculous to claim such a thing.

syrup:
3)

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study.

That scientists (as if there are only the physical and life sciences) object to the term is understood for the reasons undergirding their object; but that does not mean that any other researcher using the term evolutionism and evolutionists is necessarily a creationist; otherwise, you perhaps would be telling me that all anthropologists and sociologists are creationists.

In the context of the evolution-creation debate, only creationists use that term and that's precisely the context we're debating in. Again you are trying to muddy the waters.

syrup:
My observations are based on the half-truth assertions you made earlier, and my first post was to the effect that you were wrong on both counts - evolutionism as a term exists, and it is not a label used by Creationists as if to say that it is only Creationists that use that term.

Within the context of the debate my assertions were very correct. As if, when using the term theory in this debate I would need to explicitely state that I'm not talking about it's colloquial meaning but about it's scientific meaning. When debating a scientific theory, the meaning of the word theory is very obvious, except for those that are trying to mislead people without the required background knowledge.

syrup:
You can solve this problem for yourself this way: do an objective search and find out if Evolutionism is never used even by the physical and life scientists. You may discredit all others and take only what helps your arguments (we all are guilty of doing that, really) but I offered the non-religious simple online definition that is commonly used in many fields of life sciences in this link, and it reads simply:

Noun: evolutionism
1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
- theory of evolution, theory of organic evolution.

We may all see things differently. Debating issues is a different matter from debating positions. You may disagree with what you read, but what's all the red eyes about?

So you found a non-specialist resource refering to something the scientists in the field consider incorrect. What are you trying to prove here? That there are people succeeding in influencing public discourse to such an extent that scientist are no longer in control over their own terminology?

Simmy and syrup,

You come up with the same tired old arguments. I will refute them one by one, but unfortunately, I have other things to do today, so it will be late this evening.

I want to reply to syrups disingenious tackling of the Evolutionist label though.

syrup:
As a student, what we don't want to see is half-truths and prejudiced opinions. I don't know where you ever got the idea from that "Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists." Really? The point is that you're doubly wrong.
(a) Evolutionism actually exists as a field of study
(b) It is not a label used by Creationists, but rather by the scientific community.
I expected you'd have done a search first to ascertain your statement, but perhaps you failed to do so.

1. Try to find me one evolutionary biologist that uses the label Evolutionist to describe what he/she is doing - Good Luck
2. Only Creationists (or misinformed social scientists) use the label Evolutionism to describe evolutionary biology.
3. In the Wikipedia article you used, the following paragraphs can be found:

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles. However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences; these terms are used to refer to theories about the development of cultures and civilisations.

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation.

simmy:
Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

No they don't. There are civilisations uncovered that are far older than 6000 years.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]@nferyn,

You don't seem to have a good handle on the issues you raised.[/quote]Maybe I don't , but I don't see how you can get to that conclusion from what I posted here.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]The enquiries of evolutionism and creationism is more about the complexities of origin and existence, not about the limitations and constraints of science or any other tool as a means of investigation.[/quote]Evolution theory is a framework that allows us to study the complexities of life, biology. If you want to call that dealing with the complexities of origin and existence, fine. It is limited to the confines of science. Creationism is just intellectual gibberish. If it weren't for it's socio-political impact, it wouldn't be worth spending one minute of our precious time on.

You were the one stating that the basic question of how we got here has not been answered.. I replied that that could only partially be answered by science and that you don't have to look to science for answers to questions of ultimate purpose, as they are outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. I fail to see how that translates into me not having a handle on issues. Which issues exactly are you refering to?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]What is the point of a scientific investigation if it has no application to the core of reality or existence? Can you tell me?[/quote]What is the core of existence or reality? All depends on your point of view. As to the point of scientific investigation, just look around you to see how scientific knowledge is applied or are you a luddite who shuns technological advances?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]When scientists (not science itself) beg fundamental questions that have relevance to existence, then we are told to throw away the question of why; or at best, relegate it to the concerns of philosophy and religion.[/quote]Could you be a little more precise. I don't understand your concern here.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]Let me say this: if that is what we think that scientific investigations are all about - to ignore the why question in relation to enquiries of origin and existence - then we come back to th same issue of the limitations of a scientific investigation.[/quote]Scientific investigation is limited and scientists are aware of it's limitations. When religion threads into the field that can [/i]be studied by science and claims to have answers where it has none (natural history), then that is not only arrogance, but those answers are plainly false.

Tell me, how do you read Genesis? Do you consider it to be the literal truth or does it need to be read allegorically?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]Would you agree with me on this, that the concerns of evolutionism and creationism are more about seeking answers to the question of [i]origins and existence than about anything else?[/quote]Creationism only claims to have the answers without even asking any questions. It is non-sense, a mockery of science.
Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists. Evolution Theory is a scientific theory that explains biodiversity. It explains the mechanisms by which all living beings evolved from a common ancestor. It explains the [b]fact [/b]of evolution.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg320802#msg320802 date=1146168684]And if not, then what is the question?[/quote]The question of what?

New pictures in this thread.

Reverend:
@ Kag

I was truly impressed with the quality of your writing in this thread and your sensible reasoning and salient points.

5/5 Good work and I agree 100% with your view on this subject!

And I'm not getting a pat on the back? That's all I'm here for, after all

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]

nferyn:
thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

@nferyn,

I'm staggered - please don't let the scientific community hear or read that last line of yours:

"Maybe [i]why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things."

No, it is a valid question - as equally legitimate as other questions, and I find it untenable that it is this very question that some have continued to excuse through the back door.[/quote]What I meant was that why is very much related to our linear perception of space-time in a 4-dimensional world. These are constraints of basic human perception and our thoughts are very much guided by it. What if time is not linear or unidirectional? Where does beginning and end, purpose and goal come into the picture?
Us asking these kind of questions is related to human existence as we perceive it, not to an absolute reality. There is far more to reality than what humans can imagine.
Now, as to excuses, I don't see the point you're trying to make. Science is explicitely limited to falsifiable natural phenomena. If you go outside these bounderies, you are not scientific.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]As long as we see this as a weak scientific element in scientific investigations, questions will continue to be asked that elude scientific thinking.[/quote]Obviously, there are many questions science cannot answer. Purpose is one of them. Unless you can objectify ultimate purpose (and I cannot see how that currently can be done), science has nothing to say about purpose. Leave that to philosophy and religion.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]At best, science cannot explicate the why of existence in the grand scheme of things; but for any scientist to ignore that question is to fail to appreciate the very core of human existence, or any other existence for that matter.[/quote]Scientists, being human, should not ignore these questions, but they simply are outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. They can answer them as human beings ponder over philosophical questions, but not as scientists.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]That is why scientists are all the more asking the why question today than in the past - because they suddenly woke up to realise that they've not properly done their home work.[/quote]No, it's rather because they get closer to proximative causes of existence and behaviour. The advances in neurology and cognitive psychology allow us to investigate these questions scientifically. That doesn't mean that ultimate purpose of existence is anywhere in reach. It has very little to do with doing their homework.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]Don't get me wrong: I appreciate science of whatever field, whether the natural or social sciences. But the beauties of the scientific mind and thinking are too constrained in answering questions of the complexities of existence. Both concerns of evolutionism and creationism are simply seeking answers to the question of existence more than anything else. There are widely divergent views as to the inferences, deductions and interpretations of the complexities of origins and existence; the latter of which is of the most concern to me, and I'm sure, to many people as well - religious or non-religious.[/quote]They certainly are not too limited to ask questions about the complexities of existence. In fact, scientific thought has demystified many of these complexities and shown that they are not as mysterious as originally thought.
Evolution Theory is science, Creationism is nothing of that sort. It's a weak defense of biblical literalism.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]However you look at it, scientists in modern philosophical thinking are not seeking to find out merely what exists where; they realise that until an answer is obtained as to the why of what exists where, the basic question of the complexities of origin and existence will remain outside the core reality of our existence in the first place.[/quote]Only on a proximative level. The immediate, mechanical, cause or origin is studied, nothing more.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]I'm persuaded to believe that such questions of the why of the complexities of origin an existence (rather than, and more than, the what how and where questions) is one of the things that informs many skeptic minds in taking a second look at what they've largely ignored.[/quote]And what might that be? What have they ignored?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]Professor Anthony Flew is not a religious man, as far as I know; but he definitely was concerned about the question of complexities of origin and existence - and it wasn't long ago that he eased up a little and took a deistic worldview on this perspective we're here dealing with at the micro level.[/quote]And what does that mean exactly? Flew is a philosopher and as such it is his domain of expertise to systematically ask these kind of questions.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]I offer you that the why question is really important in the grand scheme of things, and as long as we're playing down on that, more questions than answers will continue to emerge that science will find cumbersome to handle.[/quote]How so? I don't see the connection.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11284.msg319899#msg319899 date=1146154696]Enjoyed your challenging intellectual exercise, so far. [/quote]So have I

thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate [i]why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

The natural world and natural history are the things science can study. The why questions science asks are proximative, not ultimate. Ultimate purpose and meaning can only be answered by philosophy and/or religion, whichever one people may fancy.

When religion tries to explain natural phenomena, it either has to adopt the methods of science or stay mute. It is quite obvious that attempts to reconcile both when religion contradicts the findings of natural science are doomed to fail if one takes a literalist approach.

Scientfic creationism in it's many forms is simply false.

TV01:
Hi All,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htm

Hows about some Christian bias? .

God bless

Creationist bias you mean.

see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bowden3733.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bowdenoh9.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sheets.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/hfmb.html

4get_me,

If you think that science is intended to answer questions about ultimate purpose, you'll have to wait very long, as it's not going to happen. Science only answers what and how questions, not why questions.

If you're looking for mechanisms on how life started, we're reasonably close to finding that out, but purpose is non-exisent as far as science is concerned.
The creation stroy, as portrayed in Genesis, contradicts so many established scientific knowledge that anyone believing in it's literal truth either is ignorant or deliberately ignores 90% of our scientific knowledge.

Fluffy:
I only know about one sacred book called the holy bible and there is only one truth of creation stating the whole process of creation step by step.

Why did you actually start this thread? I'm quite curious.

And here's an oldie of Tom

Fluffy,

There are actually hundreds of creation myths, many of whom are writen down in sacred books. If you happen to choose one over the other, I guess you must have a good reason to believe that one is factual and the others aren't.

last one

,

And more

Still more