Oh for gods’ sake! Rose Fertilizer.

    1. Thank you for your question, Jon.
      I know it wasn’t directed at me but since David posted it in his comments page without reply, I reckon you won’t mind me ‘butting in’.

      The openness of your question intrigues me. Normally when I come across requests for evidence in comments about David’s blog posts, they are ‘qualified’ with limitations such that the evidence must be ‘verifiable’ or ‘peer reviewed’ but by dispensing with such encumbrances you make it easy to respond that the Bible itself is ‘a great deal of evidence,’ however much questioned. Your naïve — if I might use that word — request is quite refreshing.

      Requests for evidence seem usually to come from those who have read a great deal more into what we might call scholarly posturing than they ought. For instance, most of the dismissals I’ve seen (of Scripture as evidence) leverage outdated estimations of when the earliest books must have been written and scholarship is at a disadvantage from that point on.




The level of disengenuity and thinly-veiled condescension displayed by these Defenders-of-the-Faith never ceases to amaze me.

Are these people actually schooled in such convoluted evangelical creationist bullsquirt?

Limitations such as verifiable and/or  peer-reviewed (evidence) . What the …. !

Is it me or is this Creationist fool really saying – ”… forget scholars, scientists, archaeologists. All you need it the bible. And if the bible says it happened then it happened. Period”.

Amazing isn’t it? Many countries have some sort of Bureau of Standards that products have to pass before allowed on the open market; cars, tools,  machines etc. Drugs have to meet stringent requirements also before they can be unleashed willy-nilly on the public. And yes, I am aware many things slip through and have caused havoc, but at least there is some sort of regulating body.

So how on earth can these fools be allowed to preach/teach when everything that comes out of their mouths seems to have been rerouted and should rather have been used for growing roses?

If you went to buy a car and the sales rep said that the model you were interested in had no brakes and no seat belts, but came equipped with a built-in Prayer Function that sent a silent appeal direct to Jesus which would automatically protect all those in the vehicle you would consider him criminally negligent and more than likely insane, and the authorities would be called immediately.

Yet any a-hole can espouse this biblical innerent creationist garbage and get away with it!

They walk among us.

Mind boggling.


Jesus H …. Let me go for a wander around the garden …


39 thoughts on “Oh for gods’ sake! Rose Fertilizer.

  1. It is not just you; that is exactly what he is saying. His last line is especially funny: “For instance, most of the dismissals I’ve seen (of Scripture as evidence) leverage outdated estimations of when the earliest books must have been written and scholarship is at a disadvantage from that point on.”

    These “estimations” are not considered outdated by any true Bible scholar. I took a New Testament course from a very prominent seminary in 2008, and we spent a good amount of time learning which parts were probably later additions, which parts were considered part of the older, more reliable text, etc… But these Bible only dudes always hate the real Bible scholars, who can point out things like how the word “virgin,” when used to describe Mary, would have been more accurately translated “young maiden.” Things like that make the fundamentalists believe that education is the worst enemy of the faith. And they are right.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Well, the saying goes “when you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.” So true, so true.

    In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s a great many “biblical archaeologists” descended upon the holy land to confirm all of the events of the Bible (not seek evidence of, but to confirm). After decade after decade of searching they found, for example, almost no evidence that the “exodus” occurred, certainly not the one involving hundreds of thousands of people wandering in the desert for 40+ years. The also didn’t find evidence of the big battles that were supposedly fought in Canaan, nor the large civilizations/cities described supposedly headed by great kings, such as David. They did find pottery shards, and some evidence that people did exist in that region. They did find evidence of the Egyptians and Assyrians, and Babylonians coming through and subjugating the populations that were there (for which there were historical records outside the region to confirm) but of the largely mythical history of the Torah, very, very little.

    As John Zande has pointed out, Jewish scholars now look at the Torah as largely historical fiction serving as wisdom literature and, fundamentalists should note that the Torah is part of the Jew’s Bible, not the Christian’s.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Exactly!
      It was telling that, in his initial reply to me he never actually referenced a single scholar to support his case, simply cherry-picked Dever and made a weak attempt at undermining Broshi.

      They have no scruples and no integrity these arse-hats. I wonder what happened to their oft-whined case about Christian ethics and morality?

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Sounds like he was giving a backhanded compliment on the guys ‘naiveness’ in not asking for real scientific, peer reviewed and verified evidence… but leaving the door wide open for him to just reply with biblical ‘evidence’.
    What a jerk this guy was for thanking him for not being so narrow in his request that he could reply “the bible” in such a condescending and arrogant way.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I wonder if they treat any other book as its own evidence. We have all given the Harry Potter is real example. But what about other holy books from other religions, shouldn’t they also be given the same courtesy some christian apologist demand their holy book be given? That would make an interesting supernatural frat house. Hugs

    Liked by 7 people

  5. It does seem that the ‘because it’s old it must be true” concept applies here, but if thats the case, why don’t people treat greek and roman myths the same way? Jonah in the belly of the fish is straight out of Ulysses spending quality time in the belly of a fish. Mary is styled after Astarte, right now to the blue vestments and the baby begot by a God, thing. If you read enough of the greek and roman myths you can find an ‘aha!” on almost every page. Christians were not inventive. They pulled from any source they could find to Jesus up the myth.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Sheesh! Such doubters you all are. I mean, c’mon! Haven’t you ever “felt” that Jesus was there? Somewhere? Anywhere? I mean seriously … there’s your proof — your “verifiable evidence,” SMH

    Liked by 4 people

  7. it’s also interesting that Jesus never said he was the Messiah, or God, or the Son of God. Everyone else did. Either Jesus was a very polite and laid back dude, or it was something he just didnt care to discuss. People are like that, sometimes. “Well… actualy, now that you mention it, yeah, that was me out there walking on the water, you see, I really hate wet feet…King? what king? Who told you such a thing!”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Unless you consider that someone like Ehrman and his interpretation of John ( the I Am references etc)

      Personally, I’m with you. It’s all simply historical fiction. Nothing more.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. Since there is more evidence that theweeflea deletes my comment than for the bible exodus, below is a comment I left

    Normally when I come across requests for evidence in comments about David’s blog posts, they are ‘qualified’ with limitations such that the evidence must be ‘verifiable’ or ‘peer reviewed’

    ‘verifiable’ or ‘peer reviewed’ are limitations to ensure that what is provided as evidence is not nonsense but rather taken seriously by professionals in the field of study in question

    So what you are saying is that “unverifiable” evidence should be given the same level of credibility as “verifiable” evidence

    In light of the current knowledge in the field of history, archaeology, egyptology. I would ask for your evidence for the exodus

    but by dispensing with such encumbrances you make it easy to respond that the Bible itself is ‘a great deal of evidence,’ however much questioned

    We need ‘independent’, ‘verifiable’ or ‘peer reviewed’ sources to authenticate any claim

    From what I can see in your comment, you don’t like that people ask for ‘verifiable’ evidence. If we are to reduce the barrier for what you are implying then that we shouldn’t request for “independent”, “peer reviewed” evidence
    Based on that, “The Odyssey” by Homer could be said to be ‘a great deal of evidence’ or “The Iliad” could be said to be ‘a great deal of evidence’ for the trojan war

    In fact, without requesting for “independent”, “verifiable” evidence almost all the mythology could be said to be ‘a great deal of evidence’

    John Kilpatrick if no evidence in scholarship for the exodus can be provided and the “overwhelming” evidence we have point to the contrary
    Then the bible account for exodus is as valid as the writings of Herodotus, Pindar, Pausanias, Plutarch, Cicero, Apollodorus, Peisander etc as ‘a great deal of evidence’ Labours of Hercules
    We even have “independent” evidence for the trojan war

    Liked by 3 people

        1. As I already mentioned, he claims the foundational stories of Adam and Eve , Noah and his flood and Moses have not been refuted thus, what’s written in the bible stands as evidence.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Look at it this way: it takes a serious lack of intellect and reasoning power to believe this jargon in the first place. When attempting to defend it, they demonstrate the fact very clearly.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. And my idea of “peer review” is ‘I was there and I seen it happen, yep” not someone who reads the text in the original english and says, that’s what it says, alright, so it must be true. Case closed.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. When atheists ask for evidence of the truth of Exodus or other Bible myths, it’s really a subset of asking whether there’s any reason to take the Bible itself seriously. Christians who are used to such discussions presumably know that.

    So by claiming that the Bible itself constitutes evidence for the stories within it, they’re pre-assuming the conclusion of the very question which is actually in dispute.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Of course … and as they know there is no evidence the entire argument becomes circular. Until that is when evidence is produced that actively refutes the biblical claims -as it does for the Exodus, then our Christians will simply say they trust the bible more!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Evidence ark? Ha, I got all the peer reviews you ask for.

        Daniel the statesman. Job the hydrologist. Solomon the architect, economist, the agriculturalist, the botanist, the builder, the sage. Moses the lawgiver. Peter the fisherman that would make Jack Cousteau jealous. Gamaliel the careful teacher. Christ the truth. So yeah, I trust the word of good men over the atheist and mafia’s r us.

        Need I go on? As to your idea of ‘stocking……….’ ha! It’s called being web savvy and alert.


        1. The only real problem with this comment is that there is no supporting evidence for most of the biblical characters you mention and certainly no contemporary evidence for the character Jesus of Nazareth.

          And the term is stalking, by the way
          ”Stocking” is something you probably wear on your cross-dressing nights.

          Need I go on?
          Oh, please do. I imagine it won’t be long before I am Yellow carding you,
          and maybe even a Red eventually.
          So let’s get that ball rolling, shall we?

          Provide evidence that the most famous founder of Christianity, that infamous former persecutor of deviant Jews that would eventually be called Christians schooled under Gamaliel.

          Reply with your usual waffling rhetorical bullshit, and you will be given an immediate warning.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. CS you left out Noah the boatbuilder and the sinkable ark, and his imaginary friends–and you should know by now that SpellCheck will let you down on homonyms every time…

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Oh, now you’ve done it. Mention anything to do with ”homos” to Colorstorm and he will launch into a scriptural tirade about his god getting upset about certain sexual behaviour and we’ll never hear the the last of it.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Hey jude-

            Doncha know you have never won a single argument against scripture? Stop makin it bad already willya.

            As to your myopic observations regarding a certain ship, you may want to look into the Shipbuilders Manual for Style, which for eons, has proven to be correct as to the dimensions given, ie, for structural soundness, tonnage capacity, strength, width, height, length, you see, it was God’s blueprint, therefore the Creator of water knows all about what it takes to withstand WATER.

            All ships are built on the genius design of the ark. Of course. Science must always bow down to truth.

            In addition, it was professionals who built the Titanic……………………chew on that.

            ARK, You may want to know, seeing you and jude are careless thinkers, I am well aware of stocking vs stalking, being that I am still a world class spelling champion; the elusive nature of wit escapes you no doubt.


          4. Yellow card.
            I am not going to have the post filled up with your own brand of effluence.
            Professionals did indeed built the Titanic.
            Now, produce evidence for Paul being taught by Gamaliel and also geological evidence for the biblical flood or you will be banned from any more comments on this thread.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Actually, referees tend to look out for those players that are either dirty players or those who sham.
            So if you consider this to be an indication of your stardom, then that’s fine by me.
            However, I suggest, you take your hand off your willy, and your thumb out of your mouth,CS. You are really not that special.

            Banned from this thread. See you, Dickhead!

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s