What would you do to waste that time and money? I sure you have a better way.

No one has answered my question. I personally agree with Trisekelli. Moses wrote Genesis, not God.

"That is your epicycles and diferents period of Greek science."

Oh, no, that's not the period.

"What would you do to waste that time and money?"

I wouldn't waste it!

"I sure you have a better way."

Any better way would be less wasteful; you seem to be putting me in a difficult position!

Moses likely didn't write anything, having probably never existed. The idea that a water-deprived and delusional sheep herder could have written anything at all is kind of ridiculous anyway but w/e have fun arguing about who has the best imaginary friend

Also as far as the ear not being designed, you people who think it couldn't have evolved need to do some research. Just looking at the ear and saying "There is no way I, [insert name here], can imagine this to have evolved" is the equivalent of saying "Well I dunno what the **** is going on guys anyway godidit quod erat demonstrandem." An argument from personal ignorance/incredulity neither flatters your intelligence nor improves anyone's opinion of it.

I am thirsty and I am herding sheep -> I can't write anything at all

I dunno, not seeing the implication, but stay classy, well-adjusted atheist.

When you furnish evidence of his existence that's external to the books of the Old Testament I'll take you seriously. Until then, he's as mythical as Zeus.

is there something about not having water and herding sheep that makes you unable to write

Moses likely didn't write anything, having probably never existed. The idea that a water-deprived and delusional sheep herder could have written anything at all is kind of ridiculous anyway but w/e have fun arguing about who has the best imaginary friend.

? Moses was a well educated man, both according to the old testament and the Jewish historian Josephus.

Keep in mind though that Josephus was writing about 2,500 years after Moses supposedly existed.

Actually that's too long. More like 1400 years.

Keep in mind that Josephus also had an interest in presenting the mythical patriarch of his faith in a rather less than critical light. I'm sorry, but you can't cop out and claim an old testament figure existed because the old testament said so and oh so did these guys millennia later who had nothing to go on but the old testament. You (in all likelihood) don't accept the Norse gods on the word of the Eddur, nor the Greek on the word of Homer, nor the Hindu on the word of the Vedas, nor Ahura Mazda on the word of the Avesta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

hey disprove that while you're at it

It's funny how people seem to think Moses is as well-attested as Caesar. Also, lrn2burdenofproof.

So, using UOSnu's logic, because he existed so long ago, I can't prove that Julius Caesar or August Caesar or Nero lived either.

Exactly. I think it's sad that people reject Christianity and deny a crapload of physical evidence just because the concept is an annoyance to them.

@ C-K

It's not considered a fact necessarily because it isn't the data itself. It's the interpretation of the data. There is always room for more data to change the interpretation. Hence evolution theory as Darwin knew it was a theory based on the data at the time. Evolutionary theory as it is right now is also a theory based on the data that we have right now. Evolutionary theory as it will be in fifty year (if something is not found to cause a major rewrite) will likely be different as it will be the interpretation of that data that they will have at that time. Theory isn't a bad word, but it isn't a sign post on the way to fact either. Most of us don't doubt the existence of germs, but Germ Theory is still a theory as it states the relationship between germs and disease. It's solid. If you've ever taken an antibiotic, you've placed you faith in it. Yet it is still a theory.

Please don't support me, The_Master_Warrior. I do not agree with your hyperconservative, radical views and don't want o be affiliated with you in any way. K?

@USOnu, which Caesar? You realize it was a *title*, not and individual. right?

And how about Homer? Was he fictional too? I agree that his writings (particularly the Odyssey) are fiction/mythology, although the Iliad is pretty close to a historical record.

I think USnu is referring to Gaius Julius Caesar. During his time, I don't think Caesar was a title, rather it really was his name.
Roman names had three parts: the praenomen, the personal name; the nomen, the name of the clan to which the man belonged; and the cognomen, which was the branch of the clan. The Nomen and cognomen were hereditary, like surnames today.
Caesar was his cognomen.

I understand the historicity of Caesar point, however I don't think it really matters that much. If it could be shown that an individual named Jesus existed, it wouldn't necessarily prove that, for example, he really performed miracles. And even if it could be shown that he probably did perform real miracles, that wouldn't logically lead to the conclusion that he was the son of God and the saviour of all mankind.

Imperator meaning commander in chief was the legal form for the emperors, the first was Augustus. Gaius never was officially an Imperator. Spyman is correct the Juliuns traced their family back to the earlist history of Rome and Nero was the last to hold the office.

Anyway, to the eye question: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

"[The argument that the eye is too complex to have evolved] is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations."

For more detai try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye. I find this stuff within seconds by simply typing 'evolution of the (insert complex body part here)' by the way.

Typing it into Google, that is!

Since most animals reproduce a year from birth/hatching, the minium time is alot less than a half a million years for what we would call an eye to have evolved. Alot less time than what most scientist say. Even if you drop the percent of change to 0.01 that is less than 40 million years still a drop in the bucket out of billions of years. But I forgot creationist think the universe is only afew thousand years old.

Draugnar, my argument is not that "o lol dey live long time ago msut b lie," but it's nice to know your reading comprehension is rather limited. Caesar and more importantly his contemporaries have left us physical monuments, histories, and far more archaeological evidence than supports the New and Old Testaments both. What do we have for Moses? An account of his life supposedly written by him that also narrates his death and refers to him in the third person regularly? Do we have any archaeological evidence of a miles-long procession wandering the middle east? Any records of this immense immigrant train from sedentary societies? Any proofs of the destruction of this tribe or that at the hands of the israelites? It would be news to me. As far as "which Caesar," let's go with Gaius Julius Caesar, the one everyone who ever just name drops "Caesar" without contextualizing the time period seems to mean. I suppose you could call a cognomen a title, but it wasn't an institutionalized one until Augustus or later (depending on when you want to call adopting the name a tradition). For Homer, there's not really any historical evidence but a narrative that really could be anyone's work. Oral histories are notoriously unreliable, but then your pretensions to legitimate historiography were exposed as pretty threadbare a while ago.

UOSnu - I'm not a historian. Never claimed to be. In fact, my knowledge of Roman history is pretty limited. I was writing that when the other post from you was posted (I had a longer thread and snipped it back). Perhaps I should have double checked before posting. Never the less, The Romans wrote that various gods did various things as well. Are we supposed to believe those gods existed? If the evidence for Caesar and the evidence for the Roman gods is the same, then either both or neither existed, right? Isn't that your logic? Just because someone recorded a history and left behind sculptures (they did that in Greece for Athena, ya' know?) doesn't mean that person existed. Where are Julius Caesar's mortal remains? At least the Egyptians had the common sense to preserve their remains, and there is evidence of the Exodus in Egyptian archeology. On that you are mistaken.

Oh, and I would point out that I have already stated the old testament as being a bunch of stories written by a barbaric and elitist society (the ancient jews).