Bible vs. Science - Can it be Reconciled?
72The Simple Answer is NO
...but when did simple answers ever get you anywhere but more questions? So I will expand upon that simple no and state why science and the bible are not compatible. Many Christians love to say to us atheists that we "act like the bible and science are incompatible". That's because THE ARE INCOMPATIBLE! Here is why:
It's Simple Math
According to Christian Fundamentalists and Creationists, the Book of Genesis tells us how old the Earth is. It's simple chronology - God made Adam and Eve on the sixth day of "creation week". After that, the genealogies of Genesis details every age in which Adam and his kin fathered or "begat" their own male descendants. From Adam onward to in the New Testament to Jesus, every male descendant is given an age at when they fathered their next male heir. By simple math, according to creationists the Earth and heavens were created in 4004 B.C., making Earth only 6000 years old.
Evolution biologists know that it takes hundreds of millions of years to produce the extremely evolved and complex life forms that are present on Earth today. Six thousand years is not enough time for us to evolve to the point we have and creationist agree! So they say that evolution is a fraud, and assume that any errors between the Bible and science, that science is the one that is wrong. Henry Morris, who founded "scientific creationism", wrote that "It is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution."
Atheist Books
|
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism
Price: $8.73
List Price: $14.95 |
|
Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Price: $16.50
List Price: $25.00 |
|
The God Delusion
Price: $8.50
List Price: $15.95 |
|
The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
Price: $7.00
List Price: $17.95 |
|
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Religion
Price: $16.63
List Price: $24.95 |
|
The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Non-Believers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound
Price: $9.00
List Price: $15.95 |
Its in the Stars
By turning to astronomy we can
further show the incompatibility of science and Genesis. Astronomers,
using very powerful space and land telescopes, can detect galaxies that
are billions of light years away from Earth. We know that light
requires one year to travel one light year of distance. We have
detected these galaxies that are billions of light years away which
proves that they existed billions of years ago. I know this is alot for
us layman to take in at once, but just read that paragraph a few more
times and it will make sense.
Creationists, as we have become
use to and we should not be surprised, pretty much ignore this
completely and don't even discuss distant galaxies, instead pretending,
as they do with evolution, that science is fraudulent and anyone who
believes in the proof of science, morons. One creationist did take this
subject head on in his book "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by
R.L. Wysong. Wysong, without any sort of explanation, insists that "the
time required (for light) to reach us from the most distant stars is
only 15 years."
As David Mills so cleverly states in his book
"Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian
Fundamentalism" regarding Wysong:
"Imagine those naive dupes at
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics-they gullibly swallow
the myth that light requires a full year to travel one light year's
distance. Pity those hapless dullards at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory-they're suckers for the same nonsense. Oh how misguided they
all were-Hubble, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Asimov, Sagan. How
fortunate we are today that creationist R.L. Wysong, a VETERINARIAN (my
emphasis), has finally straightened us out. Apparently Wysong believes
that light can travel faster than the speed of light-and so Creation of
the heavens and Earth occurred 6000 years ago afterall."
Everyone loves a smart-ass. I know I do!
The "Appearance of Age" Dribble
Ok so here's the deal according to Creationists:
Since Adam was created full grown constituting an "appearance of age", couldn't God have done the same thing with the rest of the entire universe, including fossils?
Here is where rational people go LMAO.
Why do we laugh? Because the "logic" here is that you can "prove" The Book of Genesis reliable by first assuming it is reliable. Basically what is happening here is that Creationists assume the Bible is true because it is the Bible. Very illogical and irrational. Like David Mills expresses yet again in "Atheist Universe":
"Such "logic" is analogous to claiming proof of Rudolph's red nose by citing Dasher's eyewitness testimony."
It just falls apart at the seams folks, it really does if you take the time to really think it through instead of following blindly.
And why would "God" bother with creating fossils of animals that never existed? Why bother? To test your faith? Ridiculous.
I could go on and on, but you get my point. Please feel free to question my logic, because I bet I have an answer for you.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Alex, you know I love you, but...I don't get how citing organizations and people have any bearing on what "positive things" Christianity has brought.
The Red Cross was not founded on religious beliefs, regardless if it was founded by a Christian or not (which I don't know that it was) and in fact many people list it as a secular charity. Same for the United Way, they were formed by two priests and a rabbi in order to help their community. These things may have been started by religious people, but their goal is a humanitarian one. One we can all appreciate.
But by using your logic, Atheists have brought many positive things to this world, in fact their hands are in so many things you don't even realize it.
The computer and programs as we know them today were created by Atheists, both Apple and Windows platforms...what you depend on every day to make money...
Where would the beauty in the world be without all the authors like Mark Twain and poets like Lord Byron?
In fact there are countless organizations and charities founded by Atheists or that are non-religious in nature...we are not uncaring and disgusting individuals.
Doctors without Borders
The American Red Cross
American Civil Liberties Union
UNICEF
Amnesty International
These are all secular charities, not organizations that come from Christians but I know that there are many many religious and non religious people who donate and give their time to these causes. These aresecular humanitarian organizations. Atheists do not organize for a specific goal, because atheism is not based on a doctrine, but we have our hands in everything
And as far as citing Mother Theresa, she was the way she was because she was a humanitarian, to most Atheists that is the definition they give themselves, humanitarians.
I guess I am just confused by applying being a good person and doing positive things to being Christian or Atheist. Saying nothing positive has come out from an Atheist is just showing ignorance in my opinion. Christians do not own everything that is good and right in this world but they think they do. All you need to do is a little research and you will find that most good things that have happened to humanity have happened separate from the idea of religion or lack of it.
Penicillin for instance was discovered by accident.
Red Cross. There is some kind of symbolism there. Let's see . . . what does a cross stand for as a symbol?
Christians did invent what we call hospitals, charities, and universities. They do more charitable work today than anyone else by far. They give ten times the time and money to charities than Atheists do. Anyway.
I don't know old the Earth is. And you don't either. Nobody does. You want to quote scientific theories as facts but theories are not facts. Any student of science knows that a constant of scientific theories is change. They change all the time. And things that change do not represent ultimate truths.
However old the Earth is, for this spinning ball to be out here in this void of utter hostility to life but yet be full of unbelievable varieties of life is a problem for science we can ROFLMAO about. Ask a mathematician (part of science) what the odds are of that happening by accident, at random, out of chaos. Nil.
I believe in a Creator God. And if there is one, He can surely create anyway He wants to. If He wants to set a star 13B light years away whose gonna stop Him. You? He may have in fact set up the universe in such a way that uppity smart alecks would use it to disprove Him. He likes that sort of thing. His main theme is faith. I notice you have a lot of blind faith—in scientists: who disagree with each other all the time. I know a scientist you should read: Francis S. Collins. Human Genome Project. What he found changed him from an atheist to a Christian. No matter you say, Can you disprove God? No, you can't.
You are the Image of God. If you prefer to think of yourself as an ape with thumbs so be it—you are simply degrading yourself and removing any purpose and meaning for life. If you are vehemently anti-Christian I recommend an exorcist.
Ok first of all - LMAO!
Now to address what you said:
Learn your history - The Red Cross was not formed under any sort of religious umbrella - it is a strict neutral and humanitarian charity and while founded by some Protestants (at least I think they were), does not mean they formed it as a "Christian" charity. And the debate still rages over the exact reason the red cross uses the red cross as its signia (for which I won't get into here, google it if you must) it really doesn't matter, it is not a religious charity. Now if you wanted to say the "Christian Children's Fund" is christian then I would have to give it to you.
As far as "inventing" hospitals, charities and the like, these are all things that developed slowly over time, beginning in ancient Greece with people being tended to inside homes. However, hospitals are typically a christian "invention" as far as the organizing of them into separate buildings and for a specific purpose (probably because they needed to with all the havoc they were causing). But here is the kicker, almost EVERYONE was considered a christian or claimed to be for the sake of persecution back then, so really how many were actually "Christian" is highly debatable.
And as far as how "christians" donate more of their time and money than atheists do is an unsubstantiated claim, but what's new, although you do probably have the numbers on your side considering atheists are the minority in the world, but I bet PER CAPITA we are just as generous if not more with our time and money.
Now as far as theories go in science, this is far more complex explanation then I have time for here and most times too complex for most people to understand, but just because something is called a "theory" does not mean it hasn't been proven to be reality.
As far as the earth's place in the solar system, its perfect axis to sustain life, etc etc and so forth, that did not happen over night and is constantly changing so it didn't happen by chaos or randomly...it was not always as it is and it is changing and will continue to change after we are gone (and not because Jesus comes back from the dead and rules for a 1000 years then we all get to go to heaven) but because the earth is a constantly changing being and nothing stays the same. As far as atheists becoming religious and vice-versa, who cares? That is not me. Charles Darwin, because he could not understand why he knew what he did as the science of the time had not caught up to him, claimed there must be a godly being involved somehow. But now science has caught up to him and now we know.
I do not have blind faith, but i do have faith, in human beings. I prefer to put my trust in something that is real and I know that can change for the better and not just pray for a change. And why do you guys want to believe in a god who allows torture and sadness to reign over a place he created? Your god is a sadistic one to say the least, but hey he was created in man's image so it makes sense.
I understand the psychology behind needing to believe in something, but we would be so much better off if we believe in ourselves first and each other second. We need to learn to be stronger and stop putting our faith in fairy tales
It is not for me to disprove god as no proof exists for him therefore it stands to reason he does not exist. The burden of proof is on the positive side, for you to prove he does exist. Show me concrete evidence (which you cannot and nobody ever had been able to, so no need to change my bumper sticker) and I will no longer be an atheist. My concrete evidence to the lack of a god is that there is no evidence for one, bottom line.
And why do christians take such offense anyway? If you are so certain you are right then so be it, I can't change your mind. For me, I want this life to be a better one for everybody since it is the only one we have, but in order for that to happen we need peace and the only way for that to truly happen is for everyone to be rational.
I am not anti-christian, just anti-religion. An exorcist is a psychological event that only works if you are predisposed to believe it is going to. But thanks for your concern.
What kills me is that people actually still believe we were just plopped here in the form we have today and totally disregard all other things like dinosaurs and plate tectonics and the geologic column...all explained away by "Well he is god and if he wants to do whatever he can"
It just isn't plausible.
oh and p.s. I don't believe that man evolved from the modern ape
and it isn't that I believe every scientist that ever lived, but I simply don't have proof that god does exist
Do you believe in Zeus? Do you know that when the Romans used to feed the christians to the lions they called them atheists? Why? Because the christians did not believe in the gods of the time, the local religion. We inherently follow the religion of the people who surround us. Children are born atheists and learn one way or the other how to believe.
Wow...
Isn't this a fun topic indeed. I don't know if I should join in or not. In any event, my hat is off to you for even venturing into a topic like this... takes conviction.
Nice
Jim
@James A Watkins,
interesting perspective you provide. But then its is not really up to the person questioning a claim to disprove it its really up to the one making it to prove it. I cannot "prove" the non existence of God any more than you can "prove" that he does. This is the main problem. You may look around you and see all the glorious creation and think wow, isn't god grand and leave it at that, whilst a child crying with hunger in Africa may not quite see it that way.
Strangely you hop on the bus for anything that supports your theory, i.e. billions of light years, stars and the like yet ignore what is right in front of you, like the horrid things religion has done and are still doing right here. Why not stop to question your own motives? and the motives of your belief structure? if not for science and engineering, you would not have any platform for your comments, we would still be in the bronze age... if that. I for one don't take any theory at face value, neither evolution nor creationism. We humans are infants looking for a higher meaning in everything we see. Its time to grow up and stop comparing apples to oranges, it gets us nowhere, once someone finds an answer they stop thinking about the question. Sure some will see science as proof of god, but dogma and religion has caused far more harm than good and this weighs very negatively on the loving and caring god theory, and of course everyone but you got it wrong, that is how religion works after all.
I cannot help but wonder if we would be having this discussion about the great purple octopus if Constantine decided do make that Rome's religion in stead.
re James A. Watkins;
If we all came from two people, would we not be incredibly inbred. There are so many falacies in the bible, it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Every time I point one out to one of my religious friends, their response is, "Yeah but, he's god. He can do anything". In the immortal words of the SNL Church Lady, "How conveeeenient".
Many religios books and I believe almost every religious book has been altered by people for their personal gains. Bible is no exeption.
I never capitalize the word 'bible' because I ddon't beleive it has any credence. It could be nothing more than the cummulative hallucinations of some ancient schizophrenic.
We have been systematically spoonfed the dogma since infancy, but that does not validate it. There is no easter bunny, no santa claus, and no god. Deal with it.
Science, by its nature is open to scrutiny.
Religion, by its nature is not.
There is no way one can ever really consolidate two issues which are in their very nature contradictory. If you try to use science to prove doctrine, you are bound to fail and end up grabbing at straws. If you approach science with dogma, you undermine its objectiveness.
So your choices are: either believe or try to find out, not both.
I was talking per capita.
Lee— Don't believe in nonsense. The greatest murderers in the history of the world were all Atheists from Attila to Genghis to Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot. Religion has made life better for billions of people. If you can't see that you are on a different planet.
You know nothing of history. How do I know? You just displayed the Constantine card. That myth. Constantine didn't make any religion the anything of anything. Before you holler—do a fact check first. That is an urban legend like Bigfoot.
And religion is certainly open to scrutiny. I don't know where you would get such an idea. I have been scrutinizing it and science for well nigh 50 years.
I haven't come across or witnessed or been presented with any kind of proof that religion makes society better in the least.
But I can say that the things Jesus taught are worth following, wether or not you believe in religion or a God or anything. The lifestyle itself is worth something.
Here are some interesting points.
Man is not perfect.
The Earth is not perfect.
The Universe is not perfect.
If God created these things, then God created them imperfectly.
Religion and God have been unable to change the people to be good God loving people. People today are no better than they were when they were first created. In fact, they may be worse.
Adam and Eve should have been treated as new borns and not as seasoned adults by God. A loving parent would not treat their children so harshly, so why did God.
The bible never explains the creation of the angels and the power of the devil. Yet, the devil and evil prevail and no one needs to preach to someone how to be evil. On the other hand, good is not natural and it must be preached continually, otherwise evil pops out.
This is not a perfect creator, and where were the angels when Adam and Eve needed them.
It is God's fault for creating an imperfect Adam and then an imperfect Eve.
God should have called us quits when Cain killed Abel. It went downhill from there.
My final point uses the movie "War Games" to illustrate it.
In that movie, a super computer was created for the military to protect the US from the threat of a nuclear war. Well, actually just so we could at least try to protect ourselves.
Without going through the story, at the end the computer takes control of all our nuclear missiles and refuses to let the military command and nuclear war would be imminent.
The game of tic tac toe allowed the computer to see that the only way to win the nuclear war was not to play the game at all.
There is no point in God playing out his creation hand. After 6000 years and two bibles, there is no change for the good.
Science and the bible do NOT conflict! It is a false illusion put up by evolutionary atheist so they can say Christians hate Science. Which is simply not true. I like science and there are hundreds of creation scientist who are brilliant one invented the MRI machine which has saved thousands maybe millions of lives, and other have made countless contributions to science. And in fact the first pioneer of science believed in God. In actuality science has been trying to keep up with the bible for years.
http://www.newchristian.org.uk/scientificfactsinbi
http://www.bibleone.net/print_SF6.html
@ James- Hey Brother here's a source that might help you out.
Wow!!!! Lee can you believe this? I love you all though I admire your passion and zeal. Here's a thought to chew over...What if there is no devil only man's ego. After all Devil is a Jewish title for a way of acting not a person. Who has always fought to usurp God, and rebelled against him? Who seeks to worship himself above all others? Who was loved most among all God's creations and given what no other creation was given, FREE WILL. It's man silly. So if God is all powerful and absolute then it stands to reason that there can be none to oppose him, this would contradict the whole notion of an all powerful deity. Man is the devil just as man is God. Who created who then I wonder?Substitute the word man for the name Lucifer or devil in the bible and things get scary real fast.
Before you get confused I am Christian and believe in God, I also believe that the Universe is billions of years old and know Dinosaurs existed. Where does that leave me then, well notified I guess or just open minded, maybe even lost but that's okay.The Bible is not a history book it has only ever claimed to be the history of the Hebrew race as they know it, and that's just the Old Testament. Move on to the New and it becomes apparent that the authors were much more concerned with how to act and treat each other then with how old the earth is..Likewise neither is the Qu'ran or the Book of the Dead. These are spiritual guides and moral compasses. However please feel free to argue, cite your supporting facts and go at it. There is a whole world out there needing to be changed and sitting here trying to make ourselves look knowledgeable and wise is doing nothing to help matters. Sorry I hi-jacked your Hub. It is a good topic though you have to agree.Atheist, believers , scientist and smart ass alike, all are needed to make this world what it is, and I'm glad all of you are here.
cause and effect, what caused the "big bang" ... truth verses point of view, picture a crowd with a huge obstacle, between them and the light, one has climbed a mountain, and sees the overall view, the lines are drawn, there is no luke warm, truth is simple
Huh?
...................^_^
My goodness James, it was meant as a joke... next thing you'll tel me there's no purple octopus either!
and as for those nasty heathens you described, yikes, you mean they were evil and did not believe in the bible.. heck of a surprise, I suppose they did not use church propaganda either. What do I know, I am not really a historian as you point out.
Scott, I really appreciate your comments... always gives me a feeling of hope when a faithful person is willing to have an open mind. As I said in one of my blogs, I just think its rare that so many claim to 'know' the truth, yet we are just beginning to understand the world we live in. Science is important for that, so are morals but they should not exclude each other with blind belief.
Nothing new here, just the same old arguments.
Most people tend to confuse 'evidence' and 'proof' and assume they are the same. They're not. Evidence may be partial or complete but is only regarded as proof once interpreted.
Creationists and Evolutionists actually appeal to the same evidence and interpret it according to their pre-existing schemata (look that one up).
When recognisable tissue, including blood vessels, blood cells, haemoglobin and DNA were discovered in Tyrannosaurus Rex bones, evolutionists got excited at such startling 'proof' that such organic material could have survived for tens of millions of years. At the same time creationists got excited at this obvious evidence that the samples could not possibly have been as old as previously assumed. Whose view you accept depends on whose platform you sat on in the first place.
The problem with the geological ladder is its incestuous relationship with index fossils; something even educated evolutionists acknowledge, although they then dismiss it.
Basically, the strata are aged based on the presence of the index fossils found in them, according to conventional evolutionary criteria. If fossil 'x' is found, then that indicates an age of 'X-years-old. And how are fossils also aged? According to the strata they are found in. Trace it right back and you find that the evolutionary assumptions were fed into the mix early on to 'age' the rocks. So a fossil is really as old as evolutionists decided they needed to be, while rocks were dated to fit the associated assumptions. The pretence of scintific rigour appears quite clever until you realise that the assumptions are as flexible as evolutionists need them to be.
Light years? Well, that's another story, which I'll come back to after I've walked the dinosaurs...sorry dogs.
Light years?
See you then.
Well, that’s the dogs walked. In fact, that’s rather appropriate because we have two old fellows: Roy, a 7-year-old Greyhound and Simba, a 13-year-old Labrador-German Shepherd cross.
The remarkable thing about them is that they can both run faster than light. Roy of course, is the real speedster, but even Simba can put on an impressive spurt when he spots a fox in our local park. For the uninitiated, however, the sight of a 5-stone (70-pound) hound hurtling towards you at breakneck speed can be a scary experience. But that’s what happens every time Roy runs back to his mummy or daddy when we take him out for his walkies. Roy’s a rescued greyhound we adopted and a handsome great spindly brindly hound he is. Five feet long from nose to tail end, with both ears tattooed suggesting he may have raced in Ireland. But faster than light? Oh, yes!
At full tilt, Roy’s sleek frame has a forward momentum of about 561 kg.m.s-1 – more than half a ton in motion, and when he runs at anyone, only his lightning reflexes and lithe manoeuvrability avert a very nasty collision. But like most greyhounds Roy’s temperament is really that of a cat in a dog-skin suit, but one who can briefly outrun a racehorse. Swift and gentle, surely it was the greyhound that put the ‘woos’ in whoosh – but how fast? Believe it or not, but I know for a fact and without a word of a lie that Roy can run faster than light.
As every schoolchild knows light is electromagnetic radiation and travels at 186,282.397-miles-per-second, symbolised by ‘c’ which stands for ‘speed’ (Latin, celeritas), not ‘constant’. c’s invariability is assumed for various reasons but need not always have been the same as it is today, although it is uniformally constant at any time.
Over a short dash a fit greyhound can reach his top speed (between 38 and 40mph) in about six strides – or less than half a second, while the fastest dogs have exceeded 45mph, making them second only to cheetahs as contenders for the title of the earth’s fastest land mammals. But how can even they possibly compare with the speed of light?
Well, I never said that Roy could exceed c, only that he could outrun light, and therein lies the answer, because while c is a present constant, the speed of light is not. c is not necessarily the speed at which light always travels but its notional maximum: the velocity of electromagnetic radiation in vacuo.
Light travels across a vacuum at over 67-million mph, but that speed reduces considerably in atmospheric air, slower still in water and to as little as 60 percent of c through an optical lens. That’s why Roy can beat a light beam is because scientists have succeeded in exploiting some of matter’s more abstruse quantum properties in certain states to ‘slow’ light to an astonishingly tardy 38 mph, putting it comfortably within Roy’s reach. In 1999, Harvard experimenters shone a laser through a cloud of sodium atoms, supercooled to around 500-billionths-of-a-degree Kelvin, where they form a superdense quantum medium called a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). More recently, Russian scientists using a rubidium BEC claim to have ‘slowed’ light to a standstill, making Roy infinitely faster than light.
Joking apart though, all this has potentially serious implications for our cosmic paradigm. If light can ‘slow’ to less than c, might it possibly accelerate beyond it? The idea of light itself travelling ‘faster than light’ may sound ludicrously fantastic but is it? Apparently not! In theory at least (and apparently in practice) the speed of light can indeed exceed c.
So what about the observable universe? Surely if it stretches for 14-billion light years, that indicates it must have taken light at least 14-billion years to reach us. Well, no.
Suppose it travelled faster in the past. Possible? Certainly. So, did it? Maybe so; maybe no. Nor is this Creationist special pleading. Cosmologists have a problem they call ‘The Horizon Problem’, that arises from the remarkable thermal homogeneity of the cosmos, whose average is universally stable to within a factor of 10[-5]. This contradicts classical Big Bang cosmology which predicts immense differences over the large scale due to significant initial quantum fluctuations when the expanding universe was just a few picoseconds old. This can of course be explained if energy transfer has taken place between galaxies and clusters in the intervening eons, in a radiant analogue of thermal convection between such bodies.
However, the supposed age of the universe is insufficient to allow for such energy exchange to have occurred with c fixed at its current level. So, current Big Bang theory appears thwarted by the impossibility of light travelling at a maximum velocity of c being able to traverse the distances between certain observable bodies. Either the Big Bang model is wrong or light had to have travelled faster in the past – But how much faster?
Worse! – Recent work suggesting that the observable universe is about 78-billion light years across. (Eh?) This is a huge problem, because the estimated age of the universe (derived from c at its present level) ages the universe at about 14.5-billion years – albeit somewhat down from previous estimates of 20-billion and 17-billion.
So how can we possibly see objects as distant as 78-billion light years if the light from them took a mere 14.5-billion years to reach us? The simple answer is we can’t – if c has been fixed in that time. Both the Horizon Problem and the size of the observable universe appear to pose serious problems to the current scientific orthodoxy unless c was considerably greater in the past. But if the speed of light has dropped over time there would be evidence of redshift. And what do we find? – Indeed, there is.
And that’s just the beginning of an examination of a theory call CDK (‘c-decay’, get it). I don’t have the time to go into too much detail, but I can answer one point at a time if you want to pursue it. Then there is the complementary theory of Relativistic Time Dilation. And the idea that the earth emerged from a ‘white hole’. That’s another interesting topic that can be discussed in byte-sized chunks if you wish. The point is not whether they are conclusive alternatives but that they are largely unconsidered alternatives because evolutionists will only consider theoretical models that serve their own paradigm.
alan, sorry I read your post twice, still am not sure which side of the argument you are on.
Being an atheist, I learned two things reading your post.
1 I have much to learn.
2 Roy is one FAST dog.
Although you lost me, mainly because of language, it was fascinating reading. You have obviously spent a great deal of time and effort researching the topic. Way out of my league.
I think like the example of light coming to a standstill, so does this hub.
... just an observation
I would agree Duck, but I can't type in the dark
I side on truth, Lee.
My point is that if you marshall all your arguments in favour of your presupposition and choose to reject valid arguments to the contrary you will always arrive where you want to go.
Evolutionist scientists and their apologists arrive at their conclusions because that is where they want to arrive, not because their evidence is better or their conclusions superior to those of creationists. However, they enjoy the pretence that their own subjectivity is actually objective.
The light-speed objection to creation is challengeable because even atheist scientists rely on it to resolve their own paradoxes and because it rests on unproven assumptions like:
1) The speed of light has always been constant;
2) The Big Bang Theory is proven;
3) The only way for light to cross the universe is to travel across it and the speed of light cannot be exceeded.
As we have seen, assumption 1 is questionable, as is assumption 2.
Assumption 3 is naively simplistic, because even Big Bang Theory concedes that the Universe is expanding, which agrees with the Bible.
This is readily demonstrable from the spectral Redshift of galaxies and also demonstrates how light can travel x-light years in less than x years. Simple: you stretch the space through which the light travels and there is no relativistic objection to space expanding more rapidly than the speed of light.
So, what does the Bible claim? -
I have made the earth, and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my hands; and I have set all their host in order. (Isaiah 45:12)
My hand surely founded earth, and my right hand has stretched out the heavens; I called to them, they stood up together. (Isaiah 48:13)
And you forget your Maker Yahweh, who has stretched out the heavens and founded the earth. And you dread continually, every day, from the fury of the oppressor, since he was ready to destroy. And where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)
It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and who stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Jeremiah 10:12)
He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Jeremiah 51:15)
The 'white hole' scenario is even more startling but fully consistent with Relativity. 'White hole' is actually a misnomer but I didn't invent it, a secular cosmologist did. Essentially, it's the opposite of a black hole: spewing out matter from a diminishing event horizon, as opposed to the expanding event horizon of its matter-consuming black counterpart.
If the earth had once existed near the centre of such a white hole, not only would it occupy surprisingly little space, but from our understanding of how space-time behaves in relation to black holes, the universe outside the event horizon could age by billions of years while the earth within it would age by only a few thousand years.
There is nothing in the laws of physics to prohibit such a scenario because, despite the popular misconception, all matter is not necessarily destroyed within a black/white hole's event horizon, which is more stable the bigger it is and can be lightyears distant from its singularity, which is something quite different.
The only reason why atheist scientists baulk at such ideas is not because they are scientifically unfeasible but because they do not fit their own 'a priori' condition that no scientific evidence that could possibly support the hypothesis of there being a God can ever be acceptable.
In other words, secular science plays with loaded dice in a game that scientists who are believers do not accept as the only game in town. You might be surprised at the number of PhDs, professors and prominent scientists there are who not only believe in God but are content on sound scientific grounds to concede that relatively recent creation is at least probable.
The Dawkinsesque idea of an unthinking and purposeless universe spewing out intelligent life capable of asking such questions is an even more bizarre scenario, the absurdity of which seems to escape most atheists.
Where do you suppose your ability to reason that there is no God actually came from?
I try not to generalize as much as others in this argument (ie atheists are evil non compassionate people who do not donate time or money to charity) but while some generalizations are made and some people are pigeonholed (admittedly by me), I never said that I believe all christians hate science, in fact I know many many christians that believe almost exactly like me, the only difference is that they also believe in god, whereas I do not.
Regardless of all the scientific arguments, even my hubs, before I ever understood (to a certain extent)or knew about most of these arguments, I did not believe in any deity, simply because it did not make sense to me that they existed.
Facts are facts and they don't disappear just because you refuse to believe them. If everyone stopped believing in whatever god they believe in, then god would simply not exist, bottom line. He didn't exist before people created him and he will not exist after people are gone.
Sillysqrrl.
Your opinion is your opinion, something which is sacrosanct in any free society, but you do seem to confuse 'facts' with 'truth'.
The main difference is that truth never changes but facts do indeed some and go, as James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), a Scotsman whom even Albert Einstein acknowledged as his greatest inspiration, conceded.
Among his many notable achievements was Clerk Maxwell’s leap of intuition (based on the observation that the speed of an electric current through a wire more or less corresponds with that of light through empty space) that light is an electromagnetic vibration. This eventually led to his producing his complete electromagnetic theory of light which, with some modifications, stands to this day, making Clerk Maxwell one of the founding fathers of today’s scientific disciplines of Relativity theory and quantum physics.
Clerk Maxwell even had a unit of magnetic flux named after him and only a fool would have the audacity to brand him a fool; yet he was also a devout, unambiguous and uncompromising Christian believer, in which vein he once made this observation on the difference between science and Christian belief:
‘The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.’
This startling observation by Clerk Maxwell is one which many of modern science’s more unquestioning admirers might do well to remember.
What he was basically saying is that scientific ideas tend to come and go with relative alacrity; today’s theory overturning yesterday’s orthodoxy, only to be contradicted by tomorrow’s innovative idea. This he argued, is no reliable basis on which to inform our biblical interpretation.
In other words, our trust in the Bible should never be entrusted to anything as inherently unreliable as the shifting sands of scientific supposition.
You can disagree with Clerk Maxwell or fling my ideas in the bin, but you should never confuse mere fluctuating 'facts' with the eternal value of truth.
So not only darwin was wrong, but einstein too? Our explanation, although apparently very well thought out sound a bit more like star trek eplanation of how the warp drive works from where I see it. A relatively recent meaning 10k years or so? I'm pretty sure that there would be very few PhD's who would put themselves behind this theory, christian or otherwise. I do not have a PhD in science, and certainly not in theology, but I would hope you can qoute at least one of those who is willing to put his reputation behind what you are saying, along with of course how respected he is in his field.
I for one am not quite convinced, but then I how could I be. So the whole thing with the fact that things could evolve is a complete falacy? Look at how far the "truth" has evolved since you got hold of it.
Fluctuating facts by the way is part of the scientific method. You set up a theory and open it to scrutiny. The scrutinyeither comes from of evidence (wich should never be confused with proof as someone correctly pointed out) Unlike the bible (sorry if I offend some of my christian friends), proving a single fact wrong in a scientific theory does not devaluate the entire theory, unless the theory basis only on that fact (sound familiar?). So debunking the one or other fact is simply a way to discredit, and would as far as science goes just be cause for further study, not brainstorming how to twist the theory itself to fit your view. The evolution theory is far from complete, but I would bet you havent been reading of the latest scientific papers on the subject, even if you did it probably would not change your mind, rather with prejiduce you would look for intelligent ways to debunk it. a question I asked before, but unfortunately never got an answer for from creationists is how to explain things like why there are different races. Or did the scale of time for humans also go through the timewarp and from the time of babylon, traveling by foot I might add, how on earth did those aboriganies get there? Now you'll play the rasism card I'm sure, but many theories around evolution will not say they are less, but differently developed to adapted to their environment. What is your view on this?
PS: to all, if possible not so much quoting and not more than 1 page at a time, makes it very difficult to concentrate.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything, but here's a simple question from a simple man.
If we, as a scientific, thinking, global society can verify the existence of 65 million year old dinosaurs, why then can we not verify the existence of a 2000 year old god?
Simple. There is none. Period.
Is there anything less exciting than an internet debate about the existence of God?
I won't share my thoughts on all of this; it is pointless to do so. But I think you might find quite a bit opposition on the part of various scientists who define themselves as much by faith as profession -- Ernest C. Messenger, Gene Wolfe, not to mention Nobel Prize winners like Charles Townes. None of are young Earth creationists, but each has claimed, publicly, faith.
I will critique your writing, which would probably receive a C+ from a generous 12th grade English teacher. Proofread plz.
No Lee, Einstein was not wrong, only Darwin. I am glad you recognised the passing resemblance with the warp-drive hypothesis, but this would have come as no surprise to Einstein, because the creators of Star Trek took a lot of advice from NASA scientists and postulated only credible scientific theory.
PhDs? - too many to list, but you could check out Russell Humphreys, who got his PhD at Loisiana State University, which he says he entered an atheist and left a believer.
Or how about John Harnett, BCs (hons), PhD with distinction from UWA, Perth, Australia.
Or Jason Lisle, PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado...
Reputation? Well, some have worked with NASA, others in government and university research capacities. Some are professors. But 'reputation' is a tendentious concept. The reputations of most creationist scientists is checkered because they swim against the mainstream. Many peers who recognise and admire their scintific credentials are embarrassed by their creationist beliefs. That just goes with the territory. But beware of the cult of expert unanimity.
The idea of the majority being right simply by being the majority is a dangerous falacy as demonstrated by the case of ‘Marshall and Warren’, two Australian doctors who in the 1980s were pilloried by the entire medical community for their ridiculous claim that most gastric ulcers and associated stomach cancers were caused by a bacterium and could be cured with antibiotics. Drug companies and other experts with professional vested interests did everything they could to crucify these self-aggrandising snake-oil salesmen; charlatans perpetrating a cruel deception and peddling false hope to the vulnerable.
Except that they were absolutely right and went from vilification in 1982 to vindication in 1994. Today, ‘Triple Therapy’ using antacids, proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics is the standard treatment for stomach ulcers, whilst their once reviled rubbish is now the unchallenged orthodoxy. But when Marshall and Warren were being castigated by every expert in every reputable medical journal in the world, theirs could hardly be described as a majority opinion.
The fact remains that we live in a world where there is moral consensus that murder, torture, rape, etc. are wrong. Where does that moral sense come from in an aimless, pointless universe that spawned by chance from a random perturbation of a quantum singularity?
The fact is, the universe of Richard Dawkins has no answer and is logically inconsistent, and like moral relativism is self-contradictory, because you have to appeal to a higher truth to which you owe no recognition: 'Can it be true to say there is no truth?' If so, how do you know?
I would wager to say, Allan, that you are probably higher qualified than I am, certainly my CV would be rejected by NASA, probably because of my really bad English, but then that's really a different matter since it’s not my native language, might also be because my expertise pertains more to logistics and law (the human kind).
Your very first posting in this particular blog started with "Nothing new here, just the same old arguments.", from this I assume you've been at it for a while, and that you know how to put an undisputable spin on your point of view, I cannot argue on this level, however if it was truly the only view out there, shared by the majority of learned folk, there would be no dispute at all, we would al know the truth. Perhaps Dawkins did not nail it, but then neither did the creationists view.
The most dangerous part of this kind of debate is not the intelligent relavatist such as yourself can argue well, but the less intelligent reader trying to make sense and choose a reality for themselves under the assumption that if they don't get what is being said, the more eloquent wins by default. I am afraid my poor argumentation may not represent the final scientific view of either part of the argument and therefore I feel I must withdraw, before my own shortcomings become the fuel for burning the scientific point of view altogether.
I would however still like wager a comment, if I may. As far as the moral issue is concerned, there are very few species that would harm their own kind, except for the purpose of gaining "alpha" status, much like instead of our fists, we use our arguments to prove who is the smarter and therefore the victor. The difference is the animals have not scripture on the issue and as intelligent as my dog is she cannot read or debate on religion (also no signs point to mine ever breaking any scientific thresholds)
Cannibalism or murder, for any other reason of survival is a purely human domain, animals rarely consider the moral of what they are doing, this part comes with thinking, yet they still seem to instinctively “know” its counterproductive for their species to kill one another off. We share so many instincts with animals (fight or flight, sexual behaviour etc.) that it is rather difficult and more than arrogant to think that we are not animals and somehow have to be a chosen people who look just like the “gods” we created.
I am really not opposed to the notion of god, however we should try to reach this conclusion through study and not make it the pre-requisite for our existence and try to back that up with science. It is just as likely to find out that we are as someone put it “some alien’s science experiment” as that we are created by an all knowing loving god, the facts are really not in on that yet and most likely both you and I will be branded fools by future generations for out arrogance and stupid claims.
Even if you don’t agree that we know very little about how we got here, I hope at least to do better than a C+ on this comment.
Way to go, Lee. I agree that to name ourselves as 'the chosen ones' is ridiculous. We are simply the creatures at the top of the food chain, nothing more, nothing less. We just might be some alien civilizations 'ant farm' or 'science project'.
One thing I'm certain about is that your 'afterlife' will be the same as mine, laying in the ground with dirt on your face. Why is your own mortality so hard for you to accept?
The second paragrapg of my post is directed to Allan, not Lee.
Well said Lee.
Your point about the argument going to the most eloquent debater is sound and one of the fundamental flaws of our adversarial legal systems where the litigant or accused with the most money and best counsel often wins irrespective of the merits of his argument. (You may see what I mean if you read my comments on what I consider the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al-Megrahi on another hub.) So, I’m bowing out of this debate as there are plenty more appropriate roads it can run on without taking us completely off topic.
Thank you realist.
No, my mortality was never a deciding issue for me in coming to belief in God because when I was an atheist I found more comfort in the concept of death followed by a consequence-free oblivion. How I came to faith is an altogether different story which is irrelevant here so, as I said to Lee, I’m finishing here because such arguments only become futile and sterile rehearsals of circular reasoning which my own Bible admonishes me to avoid.
‘For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.’ (Romans 8:7)
‘Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness…’ (2 Timothy 2:23-25a)
Such disputes lead nowhere and I know of no-one who was ever persuaded of the truth of Christianity by mere debate. Suffice it to say I don’t just know ‘about’ God, I know him personally and hear him speak. It’s something called a prophetic gift which, although not at all exclusive within the believing community, is well nigh impossible to explain to the non-believer. Over the years I’ve seen the dead raised, the sick healed and other miracles, and believe me experience trumps explanation any time. But to convince a non-believer of that experience is like trying to describe the colour blue to a blind man. I appreciate where you’re coming from, because I was once where you are: railing against a God I didn’t want to believe in. 40-years of closer acquaintance have persuaded me otherwise. And while I may disagree with your conclusions I respect your right to hold them.
I suppose it was inevitable that we would eventually agree on something, this debate has gone in circles.
I have worked 29 years in healthcare and have also seen many miraculous outcomes, but those that can not be attributed to medicine are few and far between. The outstanding exceptions may have something to do with faith. I think that if you believe in something strong enough, it can bolster your will to survive. God is obviously very real to you, and I also respect your right to hold that belief, but does that mean that muslims are wrong? There are certainly some of them who are willing to die for their beliefs. Talk about conviction.
any creationist in this forum, please answer this:
do you believe 1 day of creation in book of genesis is the same with our 24 hrs day?
Man Oh man. I am new here and what a subject to come upon:-)
First let me say that because I respect people for who they are I will try to keep this as light as possible.
What does all this matter? Why does it matter who's right and who's wrong? What if we are all just here because we're interesting to watch? Everybody, from every where believe something or another. Why not just let people rest in what they believe to be true?
I believe that there is a Great Creator. I believe that as far as the time it took to create this whole thing (or allow it to evolve) doesn't matter. What if somehow we are all missing pieces to the puzzle? Like I said in my article, If we took every thing that everyone in the world believed we still wouldn't be able to figure it all out. And that's truth. That's the reason for all the back and forth. We all want to know "the truth". If we already felt we had it there wouldn't be a need to dispute. You know why? Because, we all would be sitting in our homes in perfect peace not worrying about another's views.
I love people. I believe that there are pure hearted people from all over the world. When are we ever going to see past religion or science and just chill? Peace
is it possible, then, long time in the past during the early creation process of our planet, the planet spins on its axis much slower, so one day and one night (24 hours now) back then, feels something like, equivalent to our "current" 100 million hours or even 1 billion hours?
I mean, I'm no physicist, but I assume, our planet can't always been spinning with the same constant speed since the very beginning of it? (however that beginning was)? Pls let me know if I'm wrong..
Just the fact that everything changes in life, is the most simple and plain reason, for me, to think that nothing is constant in life.
Maybe including the speed of light?
including the temperature of star
including the speed of all moving bodies in the universe, including our earth
I think, if there is something constant that holds everything in the Universe in order, which we may not know of yet, then that thing, or being, I call God. The Immutable.
That's why I'm for Steady-State Theory.
That Universe, just like God, never begins nor ends, and is always Is
That's what's Absolute, and Constant.
Everything that happens IN it, is Relative.
Deary me - I thought I was the only one attracting religious nutcases who can "prove" their bible is 100% true - and the proof is "because I said so." LOL
Evolution proves that there was not a god involved in the process. There can not have been - I cannot think of a more roundabout way of getting to where you want to be. It also proves that we were not "created in god's image"
There is no getting away from that.
why should you have all the fun Mark, plenty to go around!
Although the comments here are not nearly as ridiculous or funny. Speaking of which, I see Bevis and Butthead moved the discussion to where they don't expect any opposing comments.
Bible vs. Science - Can it be Reconciled?
Who cares?
I will leave this in order for you to get things into perspective:
Isaiah 40:22-23 (KJV) It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; (It is He) that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
Scott.Life- AKA the most dangerous man in the world.
"Before you get confused I am Christian and believe in God, I also believe that the Universe is billions of years old and know Dinosaurs existed. Where does that leave me then, well notified I guess or just open minded, maybe even lost but that's okay.The Bible is not a history book it has only ever claimed to be the history of the Hebrew race as they know it, and that's just the Old Testament. Move on to the New and it becomes apparent that the authors were much more concerned with how to act and treat each other then with how old the earth is..Likewise neither is the Qu'ran or the Book of the Dead. These are spiritual guides and moral compasses. However please feel free to argue, cite your supporting facts and go at it. There is a whole world out there needing to be changed and sitting here trying to make ourselves look knowledgeable and wise is doing nothing to help matters. Sorry I hi-jacked your Hub. It is a good topic though you have to agree.Atheist, believers , scientist and smart ass alike, all are needed to make this world what it is, and I'm glad all of you are here."
Thanks for clearing that up. you almost give both sides a belly rub. Mugwump.
Silly squirrel-
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:3.
I suppose He wanted us to marvel at the stars as well. No?
Of coarse it win't be reconciled. Science is an incomplete religion ... religion is a made up of myths. they have as much in common as watermelons and opinions.
There have been many people..scienctists, archelogists and theologists who hav tried to disprove the Bible.... all except for one became christians.... may people are so quick to say the Bible was altered or just another book... These are the people who have never read it... The Bible was written at a time when there was no such thing as a best seller or making money for writing a book... So what other reason was it written? I am not one of those people who force what I believe on others... But I do believe in God and I have plenty of personal reasons to believe God exists and the Bible is God's words.
Very interesting topic though...
Personal reasons for believing in god are fine, nobody should be forced to believe or not believe in anything, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, trying to bully someone into a belief or restricting their freedom with that belief is what gets most people in a tizzy. From what you state, mroricle1973, it sounds like becoming an archeologist is a sure fire way to believe in the bible, not entirely sure that is as true as you say.... most archeologists still cling to the strange belief that the earth could not possibly be very young. Were there no Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist archeologists? did they also convert to Christianity?
So, the bible is correct and infallible, any of you Christians want to sell your daughter into slavery? Due to the financial crisis me and my colleagues had to work on Sunday, should we be stoned for that?
Crazy people,that seem intellectual but they are actually fools. Only answer fools with stupid answers.
Science cannot exist with out God, its because of God man knows what science is. Science proves Gods design, without God there is no design..... simple.
but then Grimm, god did not want us to know anything, its just because of that damn apple right?
This is such a false debate. Science and religion co existent without conflict across the world. The only areas of the planet where a furore is whipped up is in those areas of the US that insist on taking Genesis as being literally true.
Jesus told a parable that says if he had 99 sheep which was in the fold, and there be one lost, He would leave the 99 sheep, and go to retrieve that one lost sheep. There are 99 other worlds that had not fallen under the dominion of sin, but the one lost sheep planet earth did fall under the dominion of sin, and it was this lost sheep that Jesus came to redeem. The bible was written with the highlights and not we every detail. It gives way for one to trust the creator. We dont tell our children everything because they are not able to handle the accumulation of all the lesson we have to share with them. If you can recieve this Jesus is God, who was made flesh like you and I. He is called the Son of man because he was born of a woman into this world. In the beginning Jesus was called the Word of God, John 1:1-3 who became God's only begetton Son through adoption according to Psalms chapter 2:7 and Hebrews chapter one. Adam who was a son of God lost his right to be called a son of God, so Jesus had to become a Son of God in order to redeem us back to having a right to be called a Sons of God. The Father and the Word made a divine decree that would not change according to the above text. Jesus will always be consider the Son of God forever. The bible declares that God created the heavens and the earth. Thats a bold claim. All the evidence that science has gather has been from the sky and from this planet we called earth of which God said he made. We can argue about how long it has been here and the like. The truth of the matter is that how it came about can be speculated but the fact is that it exist. I submit that it takes a strech of Faith for both formats. If i believe that a monkey became a man or a man became a monkey, and they both exist today, but neither of them have evolved to become the other to date. I must conclude that maybe this evolution is questionable at best. The bible declares that all things that was created has the seed within itself to reproduce. That includes the apple, orange, plant life, animal life and yes even human beings. The bible also declares that everything was made after its kind. Which means that an apple tree will bare apples, and an orange tree, an orange, but never will an apple tree produce and orange. These things that the bible declares continues on this day. When my daughter was born, I was not expecting a monkey to come out of her mother. I was expecting a human baby that looks something like myself. And if we are all honest this would be our natural expectation. I submit to you also that the things that exist today are much smaller than they were in the beginning. The stature of man today is much smaller then the man before the flood. They lived longer then we do today. The bible declares that a 120 years was determined upon the people after the flood and now it is threescore and 10 which is 70 years. I submit to you also that the fossils of the large beast animals we called dinasours lived before the flood, and came about as a result of an emalgamation of the species. Now I know you think I have lost my mind. These animals were not permitted to go into the ark. But they are left as evidence that there was a flood, because they became fossilized. Where did the scientist or archeologist find them. The answer is right here on earth. Do they exist today? The answer is no. The archeologist also discovered the writings of the bible. Does it exist today? The answer is yes. So I submit to you today that science, and religion does co exist together, it is the interpretation of the evidence that is questionalbe. Two investigators can see the same evidence and come away with different views. So i can look at the world from the eyes of science or I can look at the world through the eyes of the bible. There is one thing that is for sure that the bible makes prediction of things that are yet to come, even before it comes to past. It has been my experience that many science books can look two thousand three hundred years into the future a say what will come to past before it happens. Not to mention the book has survived over thousands of years. Maybe one should consider that it is reasonable to conclude that this book has some undisputable facts. I submit to you to examine it with confidence
My last comment had a few typos please forgive me thanks
The first week of creation was marked off by God according to the bible. From the first day until the seventh day which he named it the Sabbath day. From the beginning of creation the cycle of days have never changed it has always been 24 hours in a day, and it still is true today. How about this science can calculate times,seasons,days and years by the stars exactly like the bible says in Genesis. Here is also another thought the bible gives when calculating prophetic time. One prophetic day is equal to one literal year, only when dealing with prophetic time.
Whats amazing to me is that the bible deals with an array of subjects that pertaines to life on earth by several authors which expand some thousand of years apart yet the thread of its contents compliment its over all theme. The bible declares that a God created man and that apart from his connection with Him, he is like a man walking in the dark. He is alive, but has no defined journey, except that he gains clarity through the revelation knowledge of the Creator. Is it so off base, to think that all life forms where created. Or is it reasonable to think that after the big bang that all life forms including man just happen to fall to the earth and become perfectly organized on its own. Its like expecting that a pile of my paperwork from my desk would organize itself neatly into my binder with tabs and everything. Is it reasonable to think, that a designer of a car would know exactly what the car needs to be maintained. Is it a strech to believe that a book having touted itself as a complete manual for mens understanding of himself could be so broadly distributed throughout generations. Not to mention it even perdicts how this earth will come to an end. Could such a book go so far out on a limb to state the four world powers that would rise up, even before they came about, and be 100% accurate. Is it just a chance or could it be something in the book that is worth grabbing hold of. I submit that aside from the fallacies of the human element, the book we call the bible is worth a closer exaimination, due to the fact that it is a living document that has been tested, and it still survives today with all of its attackers.
Wowee kazowee. Just found this.
A couple of things spring to mind:
1) What bothers me about all of it is not so much that some people want to believe the world is only 6,000 years old and the Bible is literally true--they have a right to believe whatever they wish--What bothers me is that they want to force these ideas on others in public schools as if they were in the same ballpark as science and equal to it. I have no problem with the ideas being taught as part of a current events class or as part of comparative religion or philosophy class, but not in a science class as a valid 'alternative' scientific theory. If Creationism is a form or science, my malamute dog is a form of big fluffy cat.
2) I grew up in a country where people were entitled to their own religious beliefs and had the courtesy to keep them to themselves unless they were directly invited to share them. This is how we keep from killing each other. Our founding fathers knew this. That country, the one I grew up in, is gone now. James Watkins is ready to start his own, just so he won't have to tolerate people like me. That's what it's all come down to. Next on the agenda: bloodshed over water rights.
3) When I find myself in agreement with Opinion Duck, I know I've entered some kind of alternate universe, but honestly, well said Opinion Duck. I think you nailed it.
I love science. I am also a Deist. I do believe in a creator. I don't however believe god directly talks to humans or that he plays with their lives like a child plays with dolls. Anyone who believes they hear god talking to them is a very dangerous, unstable time bomb. Evolution is a fact.(the proof is overwhelming and grows every yr.) Is it not a beautiful thing that all life on earth is related? The universe is a mystery. astronomers now say that the visible universe which we can see and directly experience is only 2-3% of the actual total. Dark energy and dark matter make up the rest (what ever that is ).The galaxies-we see are like the white caps on top of dark waves in an inconceivably large sea. Love the topic ! Christians and those of it's related religions should do a little research into the beliefs that preceded Christianity. They would find out that christian dogma is conglomerate cobbled together from those earlier religions .Great coments all.This is one huge science/theology/philosophy coarse1
James A Watkins says:
5 days ago
Lee— Don't believe in nonsense. The greatest murderers in the history of the world were all Atheists from Attila to Genghis to Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot. Religion has made life better for billions of people. If you can't see that you are on a different planet.
You know nothing of history. How do I know? You just displayed the Constantine card. That myth. Constantine didn't make any religion the anything of anything. Before you holler—do a fact check first. That is an urban legend like Bigfoot.
And religion is certainly open to scrutiny. I don't know where you would get such an idea. I have been scrutinizing it and science for well nigh 50 years.
I didn't read any further to see if any body responded to this but I have one thing to say to you...
HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A BLATANT BOLD FACED LIE ABOUT THE "GOODNESS AND PURITY" OF RELIGEON. I was absolutly outraged by that. Christian crusaders stormed jerusalem and slaughtered every man, woman, and child within its walls until the streets ran red with blood. The spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, and lets not forget the conflict in the middle east right now was all perpetrated or perpetuated by Religios people. No one and I mean no one has ever killed in the name of Atheism. But the name of god has been sullied with more blood than any of the people you mentioned. The road to hell might be paved with good intentions, but the path to heaven is a river of blood. I get to walk on solid, albeit hot, ground. You have to swim up stream.
Ok, now that I read the rest of the comments I can write a comment that isn't over flowing with indignant rage.
Allan McGregor: You sir are an abominable being of chaos. I liken you to the master swordsman who kills both sides of a battle for his own amusement.
Lee: My freind, I'm sorry but he got you. Bad. Good points though. :)
mdwashpower: Enough with the bible quotes. I'm tired of bible quotes. You guys alway go to the bible quotes. They don't mean anything to Atheists, and they don't mean anything to Agnostics, like me.
Furthermore, the bible is a morality starter kit, not the difinitive guide to the universe and to treat it as such is pure folly. There is a quote from a good video game called Fable 2. It's, and I'm parafraseing here, "There is nothing of particularly practical use in those old books writen thousands of years ago, its mostly nonsense and if you swallow all of it it can get you killed." As far as the universe is concerned WE DO NOT KNOW, we just dont know, and may never know.
The Grey Wolf- "He who has an ear, let him hear"
I suppose we will stop quoting Bible phrases when you stop comments like "the bible is a morality starter kit, not the difinitive guide to the universe and to treat it as such is pure folly."
It actually has an answer for everything. If it doesn't hold value for you I wonder what kind of values you hold?
@sooner than later
the bible may hold some value but so does every other religious document, but they are far from the moral compass that people like to claim they are...The bible is full of what Christians consider "immoral" acts...absolutely full of them without apologizing for them at all...many things done at the command of your so called god
Morals are set forth by the society you live in and not by the bible...whatever value the bible holds already existed and still exists without the bible and in societies who do not worship the bible
what is your reality is not necessarily my reality, although most people will agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is a standard to live by, but coveting thy neighbor's wife might not necessarily be the "morals" of certain societies, etc etc and so forth
The Holy Word of God is not a religious document. The Truth cannot be religion, for all religion is lies.
@ The Grey Wolf,
not so sure if I had been gotten all that bad, but that is for the reader to decide. I did not think I could counter the argument, which does not mean that I concede, simply that it really is not my area. As for feeling convinced, sadly no.
I hate to perpetuate the attacks on christianity. For many it is the security blanket that holds their lives together and gives them hope. However, as a "morality guide" the first testament does not always fit the bill. In at least one instance god instructs the Israelites to murder and pillage. While throughout the old testament god appears quite angry and vengeful his wrath and judgments which are quite severe with floods, fires, and plagues. Where is the loving god during this period? Through logic, obsevation, introspection, and analysis, Somehow we were given the ability to attempt to understand the world and our place in it .What a waste it would be not to make use of this ability.
I love how everyone is soooooo quick to blame God for all the wrong in our world. Do you think it might be that the government in Africa is taxing the heart and soul out of their people or maybe War and Drought have anything to do with all the starving people there. This is not Gods fault.
You guys believe there is no God but then Blame him for all of our mistakes.
Sillysqrrl- You seem to know just about everything, so Im curious, How do you think we got here? You dont believe we came from apes and you dont believe in God..........Go ahead and explain Im sure I could keep up. :)
O man, how often have you been to africa?
Nobody is saying its god's fault, unless you count ignoring problems a fault, its f'n man's fault, for god's sake... draught, no, that is definately man's fault, war is god's fault.... stay away from drugs, it messes with your mind... o heck, I didn't take any, I guess I can't keep up!
yes2truth, from your comments I thought you were seeing the "light", based on your answer to the question on mental illness I am starting to think you should be exorcised.
I was being sarcastic, but seems you really think that mental illness is demonic possession? I am astonished, and enraged that anyone can be that ignorant in our day and age.
By your use of the word 'light', do you mean this light Boolean?
2 Cor 11:14 (KJV) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
If voices are involved in so called mental illness then yes it is most likely demon possession.
"I am astonished, and enraged that anyone can be that ignorant in our day and age."
And I am not enraged by your vanity and arrogance, but find your comment very predictable, due very much to the aforementioned vanity and arrogance. Not only that but when we take into consideration you are only a grasshopper after all, what can one say?
Isaiah 40:22-23 (KJV) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
Now what is it that comes before a fall!!??
@chambersgirl
First of all...I do not know everything nor do I claim to know everything
Also, pay closer attention, I said that I do not believe that man comes directly from the MODERN ape, the ape that you and I both know. That is not the claim of evolutionists. I believe in evolution but a lot of people mistakenly believe that evolutionists claim we come directly from the modern ape...evolution by broad definition means that what we evolved from no longer exists simultaneously along with the evolved being
Also, most people that consider themselves rational never claim that every single bad thing that has ever happened in the world comes from christianity or religion, and I have never ever claimed that everything bad that has happened belongs to religion, but I do believe that we would be more accepting without it. Gay people would have the same rights as everyone else and people would stop fighting and dying over a piece of land. Unfortunately nothing can be done for the past grievances of religion, but it could be prevented from happening in the future
I don't claim that all suffering would end, far from it, there are still crazy sick people out there...and nature is violent in itself, and there will always be power struggles and disasters...but every little bit helps
Is it fair that one can quote the science book but not allow another to quote the bible. Some feel that the science book holds all the answers. I submit to you that the bible is not a fairy tale book. It holds the answer to many of lifes questions. For me i read both of them, However, i tend to lean upon the bible because it has a clear answer. Its plan to me. That everything was made after its kind and it continues on this day. I never seen one animal give birth to something other than its kind. If you have found it to be so, Please show me the example of this occuring today. I think that know one would be able to point out such an event.
Science books/facts can be verified, the bible can not.
a grasshopper? when did this turn into kung fu?
No I meant that you mentioned that religion was evil, I really thought that at least one person was seeing that doctrine leads to evil deeds.
Vanity, each to his own I suppose, but arrogance well I think you have that down to a tee. So those hearing voices are possessed? Think about that for a minute, so Abraham, Moses, Jesus... all possessed, or do the demons have a secret handshake so you know its not god talking to you?
Maybe my statements are predictable, since I am probably not the first person to have the insight that you may be wrong. As far as predictability is concerned though, few can be more so than to the letter believers --not answering with facts but with scripture. I have to stop now, my voices are telling me I am not getting anywhere.
What comes before the fall?.. summer of course!
And just because your book says people will make fun of you does not mean you are not being silly. Grasshoppers indeed.
Mental illness is possession, what a crock of bull that is... an example, believers with "dissociative identity disorder" think themselves to be possessed or have been told so, thus their alter egos are often manifestations of that belief. Others channel angels and even Jesus, or their own aunt Bessie.
Countless people have died after their exorcism, turns out they had epilepsy or something equally well known and treatable. The latest example was in 2007.
People need rituals, and exorcism is such a ritual. The cases where the patient actually survived the ordeal seldom led to them being "cured".
That is in line with this blog, science is knowing or trying to find out, religion is many people sharing a set psychosis, and therefore perhaps you are right, you are to a very large extent possessed!
Boolean, I would quit while the going is good if I were you, for the spiritual dimension is something you know nothing about. The more you type the more ignorant you sound. Just stick to your secular BS, for in that you are most definitely an expert, as are most of the commentators here with their evolutionist crap.
Any of you so called experts like to enlighten us on the connection between evolutionists and eugenicists!!?? What a lovely bunch of people they are!!!!!
Try starting with Darwin's son.
In the beginning there was nothing! I think the part that you missed is that God created EVERYTHING. He created "new stuff" (Christians) and "old stuff" (fossils) to confuse the crap out of Atheists!
Where does god live? What does god eat? Give me a break! You creationists speak about god as though he/she was real. If you espoused a belief in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny as real, you would be locked up. Just because the myth of some otherworldly being has been around for a while does not make it correct. Open your eyes, look around you at our wonderful NATURAL world, and stop deluding people with your rhetoric! It's bullshit, and you know it, you just haven't got the cojones to accept responsibility for your own miserable existense. Now STOP THAT!
Where does God live? In the third heaven beyond space - the Spiritual World.
What does God eat? Glory, glory is His food.
Re tooth fairies, do you mean those things that secular parents teach their children as reality, as with father Christmas? Chuckle Chuckle chuckle.
"Open your eyes, look around you at our wonderful NATURAL world."
For your information "The wonderful natural world" as you call it, is very unnatural, but then to find out exactly how unnatural it really is you would need to understand the Holy Scriptures and what took place when man fell in garden. The Garden was the natural world, we live in a fallen unnatural world.
Back to the drawing board for you Mr Realist for it is you that is miserable, which is not surprising, being so lost!!
the word for today is "secular", everyone repeat after me
" s e c u l a r " very good, as for eugenics, why does there have to be a connection? Are you questioning if its possible to have genes transferred from one generation to the next? Dog breeders certainly know that this works.
O hang on, starting to show my spiritual incompetence again... better quit while I'm still ahead, just one more thought yes2lies, should you be working on a sunday? punishment for that I believe is stoning...
OK, sorry the last comment was a cheap shot.
I have to wonder though why there is never a counter argument, much rather an attack on something unrelated. I was hoping for at least one example of a "real" demonic possession... O well, I suppose I have to be grateful at least there was no bible quote. In one of my blogs someone asked if BS stands for Bible Scripture... too easy though.
Boolean, I apologise, for I have broken a golden rule of mine i.e. never discuss The Spiritual with people who have no understanding of The Spiritual.
I will therefore leave you with your meaningless egotistic point scoring.
@yes2truth
I did tell my children there was a tooth fairy, but I told them the TRUTH when they reached the age of reason, which is more than can be said of the godfearing ilk. Teaching your children the myth of some great guy who lives in the sky is far more damaging, because the TRUTH never gets out. They can remain messed up for life, i.e. yes2truth.
My comment to Boolean applies to you as well Mr 'Realist'.
Christianity as a religion was formed as a conglomeration of preceding dogmas. There are few if any new innovations in it that preceding religions did not have: heaven, hell, the soul concept,angels,humans born of god fathers and human mothers, resurrection,animal sacrifice.etc. All of these concepts had already been around in the ancient world for hundreds if not thousands of years. The greatest miracle of Christianity is that people still fanatically believe in it.(don't even get me started with Muslim fanatics- they want to reset the clock to half past the dark ages.)Boolean you maybe the devil after all or maybe just his advocate. Evolution is beautiful. Humans share over 98% of our genes with the chimpanze what do you think of that yes2truth?
@catnip09
You are absolutely correct about the DNA. Now, yes2truth, let's clear this up, once and for all. We humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved with monkeys from a common point millions of generations ago. Moose and caribou evolved from a common point as well. They are in the same family, but not the same creature. I can't make that any simpler for you, so have your parent or a friend read this and explain it to you. Pictures might be helpful.
Looks like Yes2 closed the book us there real, o well I guess its ok for the fundamentalists to take shots (see eugenics) at us evil folk but then when they run out of things to say, its us being ego maniacs.
@ catnip09, if I was the devil or his advocate I'd have a much bigger budged.
Lee
Maybe we should prepare ourselves for yet another bible quote. Everytime actual logic is looming, they default back to the 'good book'.
Realist, science has verified, the Bible. The Bible has many things that it quotes and it is verifiable. What is so revealing about animals existing beside man? Why is that such a theory? What is bizare is that this theory has been around only a short time, and it steps out on nothing but and ideal of how things must have come about. And because it has millions of years to deal with, it has to be very creative with all of these Ages of this and that including the Ice Age to get to civilization. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that every living creature came from an ameba. So the ameba becomes the Creator of all things. So what happen to this ameba? Does it still exist today? What made it stop? I would like to thank it for creating Me because it was very smart. Is this really logical? What is real is that evolution tries to explain the beginning, but has no solution for the future. Neither does the theory cover even the last 2000 years. So whats in the theory thats got you so completely sold out? Is it the fact that they found some bones that had become fossilized over time? So I should base my entire belief upon dead fossilized bones. The thing that makes this theory so suspect is that it assumes one it not smart enough to figure out that it is a theory of how things might have come about. Not a fact.
@mdwashpower
"science has verified the bible" False. The shroud of Turin has been carbon 14 dated to the 14th century. Nothing like the great flood has been verified. If a flood of that proportion had occurred, there would be as much evidence as there is to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and the ice ages.
"It takes a great leap of faith to believe that every living creature came from an amoeba". It takes an even greater leap of faith to believe that 6 billion people came from 2. Those people who believe this nonsense must be incredibly inbred.
"What is real is that evolution tries to explain the beginning but has no solution for the future". Of course not, evolutionists are not psychics. Unlike creationists, we deal in facts, not speculation.
"So what's in the theory that's got you so completely sold out?". Recently a dinosaur cadavre, yes cadavre, has been found in the U.S. that has all the internal organs inside fossilized, including the stomach, and it's contents. Fantastic find!! 73 million years old! Why can't we find 1 artifact that verifies the bible? Not even noah's ark? Because it's a FAIRT TALE that we tell young, impressionable, gullible children so they will behave better.
I meant to say FAIRY TALE.
The reason people tell children these lies is because no rational adult would believe them. We MUST stop deluding an entire generation while they are too young to defend themselves against this onslaught of B.S.
Archaelologist found the the scrolls of the recordings of the bible text Mr. realist. Just as they dug up those bones they also dug up and found the artifacts of the bible. If you understood the book of Daniel, and the book of Revelation, you would see that the bible is not a fairy tale book. It speaks of the right now and it is verifiable and factual. Would it make since to think that an astroid would blow the dinosaurs completely away. What if they had instead drowned? Would that explain how they died? Would that it explain how the bones seem to remain in close proximity of each other? Some are found on top of moutains, some in valleys, could it be that there was a flood?
The dead sea scrolls are no more valid than the bible, in fact less so. They were also carbon14 dated to the 1300's
You saying that the bible "is verifiable and factual`does not make it so, no matter how much you want to believe it.
When a large enough asteroid hits the earth, it brings on a condition similar to nuclear winter. Dust blocks out the sun for years, vegetation dies and dinosaurs starve.
Fossils are not found on mountain tops, they are found in ancient sea beds. If we can find 65 million year old fossils, some as small as insects, why can`t we find that frigging ark, supposedly big enough to hold 2 of every creature on earth? What a ridiculous premise!
realist-
No fossiles are found everywhere. top, bottom and middle in your "strata" layers. All flat are your "strata" layers. did the earth have no mountains or valleys?
Carbon 14 dating is completely dismissable on the basis of major flaws, but you guys need to hang onto it just like you need to hang onto Macro-evolution. hahahahahahahahaha
but what choice do you have?
Josuphus mentioned that people were still viewing the Ark at 90 AD and then it was consumed by a volcanic flow in some Turkish Mountains. Hmm, same place it was supposed to be.
Sea beds as you put it claim more than 80 percent of all land masses. So you want to keep your theory that land masses split, landmasses were sea beds and strata is preserved?
Wow, let me grab some popcorn. you are comical.
Carbon dating aside, is it feasible that not a single dinosaur species survived the "flood"? Why is there no mention of them in the pre flood bible? With these huge creatures, one would expect at least one anecdote.
The ark, if it was still being viewed at 90AD, why didn't someone take a souvenir, it was after all the pivotal point of human relocation, we all love religious relics after all. How did animals get to the far reaches of the earth, Madagascar, Australia etc.? Why were there no reports of asteroids hitting the earth even though it must have happened in the biblical time, when else? People had domesticated animals from the beginning, why did the folk in Africa, Australia and America forget about these useful beasts? Why is there more than one way to make fire?
One more thing on revelations, it describes our time right now? No mention of cars, planes, cell phones, computers, blog prophets, space travel, tv, movies, war machines, guns? how is that possible, are these things not significant in our age? When people get "revelations" why never about things that they don't know as opposed to things they can't imagine?
You see, the essence of skepticism is not to ask how first, but why, the how comes afterward.
Please no four page quotes, please, just some answers please, go jam the answers are all in the one book after all, no science, we have already established that its complete humbug.
Johannes Kepler-Founder of Astronomy Young earth creationist
Robert Boyle- Founder of modern Chemistry
Sir Issac Newton-Young earth creationist
Louis Pasteur-Pioneer of Micro biology
All major branches of Science were founded by Christians and most if not all were Young Earth Creationist, but don't take my word for it. Do you own honest research and find the truth of Jesus Christ through the glory of his creation. God Bless!
Science does not need to be reconciled with the bible.Unfortunatly for the theory-I said THEORY of evolution,it cannot even be reconciled with the standards that scientific inquiry imposes on itself.It is one thing to propose a theory,but this one has not one bit of proof to back it up.There are no experiments of any kind that could be replicated,nothing that can in any meaningful sense be measured.So what have evolutionists done?Adopted this fantasy on what they claim they do not believe in-FAITH.And while their faith is now the socially acceptable variety of faith,their religion,for it is nothing less,they feel comfort in eaisly dismissing the faith of others.But I ask,which requires less faith.The belief that we were put here by an omnipotent God,or the belief that life arose from nothing,for no decearnable reason and progressed from single celled organisms through any variety of forms to its highest known form-the modern,informed human evolutionist?
When Daniel had received the prophcey of the four world powers to come which where Babylon, Medio-Persa, Greece and the Roman empire, the angel told Daniel to shut up the book for knowledge would increase, and man would run to and fro.
Well Daniels prohcey came to past just as he received it, and I have no doubt that the remaining things that are to be fulfilled will come to past.
tsk tsk tsk Truth, you are copy and pasting friend. Guess you've been a-Google-ing?
madwashpowder, HU?
Sooner, why is it that you disappear whenever I show up? I'm starting to think you don't like me.
No copy/paste here bud just facts from online research.(source-www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/kepler.asp ans Cration Science Eric Hovind.) How about you stick to refuting the facts not those okay if you can. Ignore and Deflect tactics brought to me by the church of evolutionary atheism. Another question for you Lee where did the idea of washing your hands under running water come from and when the doctors first start using this simple measure to help prevent disease and death? You go google some atheist response to that I’ll be here waiting.
Hi Lee,
Sorry I had to work(a little anyway).
Just to set it strait, I like you just fine.
I don't know, I have a sore throat from last night and through today- and I just don't feel like answering all of those questions right now. Can we take two? you pick any two, and I will attempt to answer them. If I don't know- I will tell you.
I do want to ask you - why did you say; "and for the sake of dynamic conversation, dont make 20 points in one posting..." you have broken one of your golden rules. I liked those rules we made.
@ Lee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8wIU99lElY
do your research let me know if they're lying. lololol
truth, somehow you got the idea that I thik all christians that ever lived are evil and contributed nothing to the world. just like you seem to believe that all atheiests, or agnostics or even sceptics are evil by nature, siting megalomanics, I am surprised there is not at least one pope on the list.
Seriously, I do think that most christians are christians because they want even need to be good people, the same holds true for most who do not embrace your belief.
However, given that both religious and non seculars did good in the world, just as many did horrible things, on both sides of the table.
Living in Europe means benig confronted by the pope and his brand of evil, human rights vioalations and democratic death, all because people were brought up that way. The whole thing smells like a rat. I know, every religion got it right and every other one got it wrong, the catholics are not christians ect. ect ect. but the fact remains, people are dying right now, in 2009 for doing what their religious leaders tell them is right. This cannot be the standard for living in society. It just cannot be that one persons truth takes another persons right to life away. and every time an argument comes about to "prove" that the church or its doctrine is right, more must die, repent and marter themselves and kill. Your argumenst here, regarless of their acuracy or not, defends all doctrines equally.
Sooner, I just thought since you did not bother to answer me in your hub that all rules were off. On a stretch I got to 9 issues... sorry bout that, one should keep it shorter (neither your nature nor mine as it seems)
truth, I'll give it a watch, though I seldom do my research on youtube.
I'll watch it right now as well.
You missed the first source I'll relist
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/kepler.asp
I'm not fighting you. Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
true, true. that is the battle.
As an agnostic, I do not deny the existence of the bible as an ancient collection of laws and stories written over several centuries (approx. 500 B.C.to 300 A.D.) by perceived holy men of that time. What I don't agree with is the factuality of much of its content. May I repeat again "Evolution is a Fact!" Do you not see the different breeds of dogs on your street or the breeds of cows, chickens, and horses on your farm. They are a product of selective breeding.(they evolved) These animals did not just jump off the ark! Man selected the animals he wanted to breed for traits he wanted, just as the forces of the environment selects traits which may improve an animals chance of survival ( natural selection). Quoting the bible means no more to me than if you were to quote "Henry Potter". Just because something is written does not make it so. No rational sane person can believe that the Earth is only 4000 yrs. old. And Noah's ark- give me a break! Did god give Noah a" shrinking ray gun" to shrink all the 100,000's of animal species down to ant size to fit in the ark or did they all evolve into bigger more diverse forms since the flood.
Regarding: The "Appearance of Age" Dribble
Your logic is not concistent here. You state that you cannot proof Genesis (i.e. the Bible) to be true without presuming it to be true. This is correct.
BUT in the same way you cannot prove science to be true without presuming it is true.
MORE fundamentally, you cannot even prove logic to be true without using logic.
HENCE YOUR ARGUMENT DOESN'T HOLD. In fact we can see from science that models that are created using limited observations often fails. E.g. the ideal gas model created from observation fail when the model is applied to extreme parameters (e.g. pressure or temprature). In the same we should be careful to presume observations made over 100 years hold when you project them over billions of years.
I always hate when people get evolution with cross breeding mixed up.
We breed; birds, cats, dogs, fish, farm animals and anything under the sun to make more breeds. That is not evolution.
Catnip- please read your own theory again(for the first time) so that you will discover that science really doesn't know anything yet.
Creation science is extremely productive because it is true, God created the earth and all that is in it.
@sooner- great stuff brother Amen!
thetruthhurts-
good to see you again.
Does anyone know meaning of the 4 horses in Revelations? It is a very important study because it explains the times- past and presant.
The 'theory' of evolution has been shown to, at the very least, be plausible and most likely true. The 'theory' of creation is absurdly flawed, to the point of being ridiculous. Since I (apparently) don't know for sure, I'm going with EVOLUTION. If this debate were a horse race, at least I'd be betting on an actual horse.
I'm so tired of people quoting the bible at me. Just because it says "I am the way, and the light." does not make it so. If that were the case, you might want to check out Mein Kampf, it says the same thing.
@ realist- Have even researched creation or do you get you view on God from other who don't believe in God(yea that realistic, NOT) until you do HONEST research your statement in more than absurd it’s insane. You keep dipping your head in evolution kool-aid and let it wash away what’s left of your common sense. Here’s a question What are the odds that mutations would stumble upon a Functional Combination of chemicals from the vast number of alternatives? Give up? Okay! The odds of forming just one sure protein by mutation is one in 10 to the 74 power! Meaning even IF the earth was 4.5billion years old Natural Selection and mutations still would have time to manifest everything we see today let alone fossils and you. That’s the beauty of math your pseudo science can’t the debunk the mass impossibility of everything we see occurring by natural means. Don’t even try talkorgins don’t even have a comeback for this question. I’m sure this won’t change your mind you’re a very devout fundamentalist of your faith just like every other religion, but you’re wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/full/nbt0
Now I understand you bible believers. Why should we think, reason, rationalize,experiment, or speculate about the universe and our place in it - we just need the bible and a lobotomy! let's all return to the good old days of "The Dark Ages". I have a Question; Why would god give man the ability to use logic and reason (mans one great talent) and then ask that we not use this faculty ?
@catnip-I use it everyday my friend that’s why I’m a young earth creationist because that’s where the evidence really leads. It's you guys who believe 0+0=1. Take a swing at the question above, use your common sense. When have we ever seen life come from non-life? Do you believe in absolute truth?
Thanks for bringing up "The Dark Ages" catnip.
That referres to my black horse in Revelations.
4 horses.
1. white
2. red
3. black
4. pale
@thetruthhurts2009
Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You believe there's a being who lives in the sky. And he/she has 10 things you shouldn't do or else you will burn in hell. But he/she loves you. Also, all 6,000,000,000 of us are desendants of 2, yes two people. This being spoke through a burning bush and people listened to it. Then this beings son rose from the dead. He/she instructed 1, yes one man and his sons to build a boat that would hold 2, yes two of every creature on earth, plus his family, plus food enough for 40, yes forty days. And you have the audacity to question MY common sense. If no one had ever heard this fairy tale before now and you told anyone that a burning bush spoke to you, they would lock you up. Now stop spreading this bullshit to young, impressionable children. If we could have one generation that hasn't been contaminated by this rhetoric, the HUMAN race might have a snowballs chance in hell.
@ real-lol really? Wow! You know nothing about my God or my relationship with Him you need to stop listening to what other atheist say about Christianity and do the research yourself. Because you are so grossly misinformed I will provide an apologetic. Btw God is a HE, try not to make that mistake again. First off The 10 Commandments are written on our conscience You know lying and stealing and adultery and killing is wrong where do you think those laws come from? The ten Commandment show us we are we are all sinners (Jeremiah 31: 33.Romans 3:23) in need of a Savior Jesus Christ. We are descendants of Adam and Eve, but during the universal flood Noah and His wife and three other couples were saved meaning were recently descendants of Noah and from those 8 we get everyone around us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLaLpVok4BM
Noah collected to of every kind not species that’s where you guys get confused. You’re used to seeing and oversized tub with animals sticking out, but the ark was no bathtub http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZCEJwiC3A
Now let go over your side. Long ago and far away nothing exploded and everything came to be earth was a hot molten planet and with millions of years of rained cooled down and created we came soup and the a miracle occurred that life came from non-life you have no proof of and you can’t duplicate it. A fish-like creator came out of a lake with lugs or gill(the jury is still out) had to find something to eat and had to learn how to see eat, smell, and mate. and the princess kissed the frog and the frog through billions of years became man. lol. And odds of forming just one sure protein by mutation is one in 10 to the 74 power! Meaning even IF the earth was 4.5billion years old Natural Selection and mutations still would have time to manifest everything we see today let alone fossils and you. That’s the beauty of math your pseudo science can’t the debunk the mass impossibility of everything we see occurring by natural means. (please read One Small Speck to Man by Vij Sodera) As for proof evolutionist has trotted out fraud after fraud and lie after lie Can you tell which of the proofs are fraudulent? What happened to fool me once.
Ida, Lucy, Nebraska man, Peppered Moths, Archaeoraptor, The Pig-tooth Man, Haeckel’s Drawings all fraud to convince people like you and you fell for it. So I must question your common sense only a person under delusion would believe such a lie.(Thessalonians 2:11)
I noticed instead of answering any of my questions you attacked me personally not surprising, but it does prove my point I got some more questions I doubt you’ll answer, but maybe this reply will wipe some of the evolutionary sleep from your eyes.
1)What is the evidence that the universe increased in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.
2)What is the scientific justification to study abiogenesis in contradiction to the law of biogenesis?
3)f life could spontaneously exist by chance, then why have created life in the
laboratory with controlled experiments?
4)Likewise, if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory, then what evidence is there that life could create itself by chance?
5)What evidence justifies the evolution proposal that life spontaneously arose from non-living material in spite of the calculations showing that such occurrence is astronomically improbable.
6)By what means did the code of life and the enzymes necessary to make the code originate? Which came first: the code to make the enzymes or the enzymes to make the code?
7)What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information?
8)What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits? Why have new body plans not developed since the Cambrian explosion?
9)Why is Haeckel's "law of biogenesis" that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still used as evidence for evolution after being exposed as a fraudulent claim?
10)If fifty years of intensive research on mutant fruit flies has produced nothing but more fruit flies, why is it thought that other organisms can evolve into something else? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/full/nbt0
http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/DOCS/100Scientis
"and the princess kissed the frog and the frog through billions of years became man" Brilliant! lolololol
"Ontogeny reflects phylogeny." If with your known eyes you look to the embryonic development of man , mammals , reptiles, etc.you can see the vestiges of their common ancestry. DNA does not lie! the closer an organism is to another in the evolutionary tree the greater the DNA match. And no matter how different two creatures are on earth they still share much of the same DNA. The fossil record does not lie! Rock strata stretching back billions of years is under your feet. Plate tectonics is not a lie! the continents move and have moved for 1,000,000,000 yrs. Quit picking out minute hoaxes and mis- facts and see the big picture of reality. please take off the blindfold.
A
Okay catnip- Where is Geologic Column located?
Haeckel’s Drawings were fraudulent and you're still trying to use it to prove this evolutionary lie. Show me one transitional form and show me the transitions.
The odds of forming just one sure protein by mutation is one in 10 to the 74 power! Meaning even IF the earth was 4.5billion years old Natural Selection and mutations still would have time to manifest everything we see today let alone fossils and you. That’s the beauty of math your pseudo science can’t the debunk the mass impossibility of everything we see occurring by natural means. DNA is more proof of a common designer, not a common ancestor because no matter what we do Dogs will only produces dogs and humans only produce humans.
Fossils are dead animals in the ground as the result on the Universal flood please explain why 40 to 80% of all fossils found are of animals still alive today with zero change.
Plate tectonics’ does not help evolution, it more prove of a universal flood show my one example of one kind changes to another One clear example. Billions of years? One me one dating method that does not requires numerous presumptions first in order to get billions of years. Look over all of my comment can you can even one question? Nice try, but you might want to stay out of talkorigins and any other atheist site they’re lying to ya. Here some vids for ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx25yN_qfkM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-wGNZmwKXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT3-jfA1vVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOpGaEmdA6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTxXU9wgYxQ
I'm all in favor of recycling, unless it is your posts, thetruthhurts2009. You have used the same pragrapg, word for word, three times in a row. Please find something new to cut and paste. Yawn......
@thetruthhurts2009
Are you serious?? I watched some of the cra, er, informational videos you thought I should see. First of all, they are from some creationists who appear to be as deluded as you. Second, they are really dull, and third, they are full of cra, er information. Did you read any of the comments attached to these videos? I can't say it any better than they did.
"Dogs will only produces dogs and humans only produce humans"
actually, dogs didn't exist... they were created (by man) from wolves... just a thought.
I watched some of your youtube research Truth, quite amusing but not too sure if you should be quoting them to strengthen your arguments, as realist says the comments are quite damning.
I use the same argument because no evolutionary atheist can answer any of these basic contentions against the evolutionary fairytale. You didn’t even watch all the vids. No surprise there if I were and evolutionary atheist I would watch them all either. Watch the vids and research your own opposition to them, think for yourself! I use vids so you guys won’t have to read anything visual aids works best for you guys. Most of the comments on the first two vids are from….. ATHEIST! Of course they’ll deny anything that proves evolution a lie, because they’ll alright rejected God and evolution is all they got left. Did any of the comments refute the evidence presented or did they simply ignore, insult, deny, and deflect. Is the info in the vids a lie? Check out the resources and point out any lie.
Still waiting for answers to any of my question Le you can try too.
Truth, so just because they are atheists they have to be lying?
I would love to take the time to study all your "evidence" just time does not allow for that. You should however, separate from this discussion also include some research which is not bias towards either side.
The problem with a lot of your research is that it is one sided, that is not how science works, you have to view evidence without bias and then base your theory on that.
As to your questions, I am not sure how many I could answer to satisfactory science, I did not study science although it does interest me of course, but to your question (3)& (4), what happens to your argument if they do? see this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
Fact is truth, the more research is made, the more things are uncovered, discovered and invented... what if a different way of indicating age of fossils other than the gratefully debunked carbon dating should provide irrefutable evidence of the earth's age?
see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/05103
In the end, its always going to be a case of who's "evidence" you believe...
By the way, how come you never answer my questions? This hub is not dedicated to evolution, but to science and how it relates to the bible, so I hope that my questions were not unfair.
I never called anyone a liar please re-read what I stated.
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html
IF(and I doubt it'll ever happen) any scientist were to created life in a lab it would only prove it takes intelligence(don't hold your breath). Until then you're going on faith until they do. I thought I did answer your questions, but if you have anymore. Shoot!
@ truth, give this one a shot:
"Carbon dating aside, is it feasible that not a single dinosaur species survived the "flood"? Why is there no mention of them in the pre flood bible? With these huge creatures, one would expect at least one anecdote."
or for that matter, why did ancient sharks and other sea creatures die out, they would not have drowned
You won't find the word "dinosaur" in the bible, beacause the word didn't exist when the bible was written, but the creatures are there.
keep in mind the book of Job is the oldest book.
The Leviathan-Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25, 26 and Isaiah 27:1.
The Behemoth-Job 40:15-24
tanniyn (dragon)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/dinospin/dinotissue.htm
Can you explain this?
What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information?
the first link is hilarious, my favorite part:
"The history of every culture is filled with stories of fire-breathing dragons. If you think about it, in all the past ages wouldn’t someone have made up a story of a fire-breathing lion or something? Nobody did because the dragon stories are based on truth, and only “dragons” breathed fire."
Could it be that those people from ages saw some fossils and made up the fire breathing part?
The mention of the behemoth had me for a minute, till I wondered found this:
* It “eats grass like an ox.”
Brachiosaurus ate conifer leaves and fruit, it would be impractical for its size to eat grass, too low down
* It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
hmm, weird Job would not refer to Brachiosaurus' neck, which was inproportion much larger than the tail.
* Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
again, did someone stumble upon a fossil?
* “He is the first of the ways of God.”
again, did someone stumble upon a fossil?
* “He lies under the lotus trees,
again, did someone stumble upon a fossil?
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
again, did someone stumble upon a fossil?
The Leviathan, or as your source called it the Kronosaurus was a water dweller, makes breathing fire somewhat impracticable as indicated by Job chapter 41 don't you think?
Don't believe everything you read truth.
I'll enjoy your other material later }:->
What?
Before the flood nothing ate meat because the world was perfect. Genesis 1:29-30 29And 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. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
After the Flood, we could eat meat Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” ie no red meat(which is also a medical fact) and no cannabalism. Okay your turn to answer al east one of my questions.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
Before the flood nothing ate meat because the world was perfect.
cool, so all those fossils who died in the flood, with teethmarks on them?? weird dino sex practice?
Ever heard of the circle of life? how would this have worked in Gods perfect world? I can just see those lions suckling on some nice berries.. yum yum
You are asking us to base our science on the premise that every scientific principle was changed by god at some point in time... I thought he looked upon his creation and found it good, why would he re-engineer the laws of science and nature every chance he gets?
I actually watched your Youdube vid truthhurts,
here some of the statements made where you asked me to "explain this"...
"reptiles keep growing in size their entire lives..."
OK, fine, so why are there not 20 meter crocs? or 30 meter snakes?
man lived to be hundresds of years old, like 900 years old, in the desert sun, exposed to gravity? At 40 I have to be careful not to sit on my own balls, where would they hang after 900?
could those years have been based on a lunar calendar?which would have made 900 years more like 75?
Dinosaur fossils are not just found laying around... umm, yes they are, just not very often and based on all the dragon stories I would guess the most would have been scavanged as trophies "slain" by those brave knights
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/10
Truth, you are grabbing at straws and only offering creationist websites as "proof"... How could they possibly be objective?
Hey Lee
"i have to be careful not to sit on my own balls".
That gave me such a good laugh, I had to hear it again. Thanks for a moment of levity in a pretty heated discussion.
happy to be of some comic relief real...
truth, I' love to answer some of your questions, but I am not a biologist and certainly am not going to cut and paste my self to obscurity.
Your questions make you sound quite clever, but then you make statements like "Before the flood nothing ate meat because the world was perfect" and I wonder if you simply copied the questions from somewhere, lo and behold:
What is the scientific justification to study abiogenesis in contradiction to the law of biogenesis?
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.h
What is the evidence that the universe increased in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.h
f life could spontaneously exist by chance, then why have created life in the
laboratory with controlled experiments?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-l
(had some trouble with this one, next time copy the "i" too)
"Likewise, if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory, then what evidence is there that life could create itself by chance"
www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm
Word for word, truth, including punctuation...
If someone answered the questions, would you even understand the answer?
really my friend, don't bullshit your way through a debate, it reflects badly on your parents.
Did you check those sources? There from a creation science POV and disproves evolution! LOLOLOLOL! Wow!
"Truth, you are grabbing at straws and only offering creationist websites as "proof"... How could they possibly be objective?" I leave that you as well remember the comments of those earlier vids? You are a small piece trying to solve the biggest puzzle ever and you're basing you conclusion on the opinions of other pieces. How does that make sense? I go by the Bible something in which you can't begin to comprehend. I don’t claim to know everything but I know the one who does. I've answer all of you "questions” in previous post please refer back to them. Ridicule and swearing are not an argument it simply shows lack of ability to have a debate without resorting to unnecessary and course language. Please stop or I can no longer engage. If you never hear the truth you’ll always be right. I’ve research and studied your side then I found the truth you’re not there yet. I pray someday you will.
Here are other great resources
The Privileged Planet
One Small Speck to Man by Vij Sodera
http://www.arksearch.com/nabefore.htm
http://creationwiki.org/Canopy_theory
Good Luck and may God guide on your journey to truth.
Truth, I am not trying to solve the puzzle, and neither should you really. Sorry if I called you names, I can't recall that I was impolite to you. "Ridicule and swearing" where exactly did I do that? by calling you on your "questions"?
You will notice if you read my posts that I made no scientific claims, and I made no conclusions, that is what you did, not me. I am by definition not an Atheist, but agnostic.. meaning that the existence of god can neither be proven nor disproven as far as I am concerned. I do however feel that if there is a creator, he is not going to be petty enough to hide in ancient texts.
You keep offering bias websites and stolen quotes as "debate", yet you accuse me of reverting to slander in order to save me from having an own point of view... what am I supposed to think about this, should I keep investing my time discussing with everything you can find on the christian web or is there a real person behind the paste button?
Did anyone see South Carolina upset Mississippi last night?
Relax guys, lets enjoy eachother today.
Did anyone see South Carolina upset Mississippi last night?
Relax guys, lets enjoy eachother today.
wow I must have hiccuped
You're right! sooner. I'm somewhat a Steelers fan. I went to high school with one of the WR Limas Sweed!
Sweed huh? I will have to look him up. I don't follow football that much, but I do like the good games and the upsets.
sorry chaps, more of a rugby fan myself, can't relate.
have a good weekend
Rugby seems pretty hardcore my hats off to ya if you play. You have great weekend, man!
Typical. When losing, change the subject.
I didn't see winning or losing realist-
You want realism? I don't think i could sway you nor lee one inch in my direction and you couldn't sway me one inch in your direction. So, realizing that first is not losing.
sooner-Thanks You're a much needed brother in Christ. God Bless and have a great weekend.
You as well truth.
James A Watkin, Atilla and Genghis were not atheists - they just weren't Christians. As for Hitler, he was brought up Catholic and Stalin was brought up in his parent's Orthodox religion. They rejected it and were bad simply because they were bad. They were well indoctrinated in the beliefs of their times.
Cheney is a self-proclaimed Christian yet he allowed the torture of people. The various inquisitions were all religious, as were the crusades, yet they killed many, many innocent people.
People may be pagans but not athiests.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
The problem with any religious dogma is that it cannot change, it is locked in the past. Science knowledge is forever expanding. As mans understanding of the universe grows the more ridiculous these biblical stories become if one wishes to take them to be literally true. The rock strata, I referred to in a earlier posting, for example sedimentary rock hundreds of feet thick takes millions of years to form. The oil that is in your car has taken millions of years to form from the bodies of ancient plankton. The salt in your salt shaker is all that is left from seas that dried up tens of millions of years ago. let us not forget plate tectonics! I want to see how one 4000 yr. old earth believer can explain away this fact of reality. As for evolution the evidence grows every day. Fossils of fish forms evolving into land forms exist in multitudes . Fossils of land mammals evolving into whales and of reptiles evolving into birds all exist.The chicken is the closest living match in DNA to the T.Rex. Dinosaurs lived and evolved over 100,000,000 yrs.alone before becoming extinct. lastly, for now- I believe there to be trees alive today in California which are 5000 yrs old.
Who is Haekel and his drawings ? I don't need drawings when we have the actual embryos to study. Catnip09 1:23-30, says " With the power of the computer you cannot hide the truth of knowledge any longer from those who seek it".....
catnip- why are you the most ignorant in your group?
1. strata- you say it takes millions of years to form. It doesn't. Its all flat as well. so, were there no mountains or valleys millions of years ago? It also has bones of the same creatures in multiple layers- so kick the millions of years. BTW- petrified trees go through as many as 3 "preserved" strata layers. Did that tree grow for 60 million years? your scientists who feed you this cra re evaluate the "facts" daily. They just don't reveal flaws because it makes them feel stupid and hurts their pride. You never saw the Russians say one of their space shuttles blew up. No, they say "we had a successful explosion of a rocket" same idea.
2. Salt. I have seen salt flats in Mexico make gigantic piles of salt in one season. they pump ocean water into a flat and let mother nature do the rest.
3. there are no trees in California that old. Sorry. If you think it is because of rings in the tree, make sure that idea is still around. actually don't waste your time- its not.
4. you say you don't need drawings? When I believed in evolution- I heavily rellied on drawings.
lololol Where is Geologic Column located? If I wanted to vaction near there where would I go. Do you honestly think you can disprove math with voodoo science? The odds of forming just one sure protein by mutation is one in 10 to the 74 power! Meaning even IF the earth was 4.5billion years old Natural Selection and mutations still would have time to manifest everything we see today let alone fossils and you. That’s the beauty of math your pseudo science can’t the debunk the mass impossibility of everything we see occurring by natural means. DNA and "similar" embryos proves a common designer NOT a common ancestor.
Please explain why 40 to 80% of all fossils found are of animals still alive today with zero change?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
If you're going to continue to evade these simple questions I'll have to end this. Have a great weekend!
http://www.6000years.org/young_earth.html
catnip-your arguments are counter productive to your cause. I read them and I want to laugh or ram my head through a wall.
this time was the head through the wall.
@thetruthhurts2009
"The odds of forming just one protein ...............................................math your pseudo science can't the debunk the mass impossibility of everything we see ocurring by natural means".
This is the forth time you have used that exact paragraph, errors and all. If thats all you have to say, stop it. You're beginning to sound like a broken record, and please spell check. Some of your posts are pretty hard to interpret.
Also, I'm getting a little tired of you spewing "pseudo facts" that have been gleaned from obviously biased websites. Please use your own god-given brains to question the logic of your statements. You are sounding more and more brain-washed with each post.
Could you point out my spelling error? I can point out your
"ocurring" You hate the fact don’t attack me refute the facts. When it's refuted I'll drop it.
vaction
can't the debunk the mass
*Correction* "vacation", "Can you debunk the math?" Okay now that the spelling and grammar has been corrected(I thank you for the correction) now you can go ahead refute the facts, all of them! LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Man are stalling or what.
"man are stalling or what"
well, you certainly generated more comments than I ever have!! Science is not synonymous with atheism nor is the bible synonymous with Christianity or fundamentalism. Atheism and Christianity are interpretations of what either science or the bible present. For me, the bible is the story of the evolution of man's relationship to God. There is a big difference between the relationship between man and God in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament
When I say "story" I don't mean a fabrication, but a neurological story that is both neurologically integrated and cohesive. So the story puts together both emotional content and historical and or logical content. The story of the evolution of man's relationship to God is meant to give meaning to our lives, perhaps the biggest meaning is that we are a small speck, not insignificant, but small compared to the bigger picture. I think Science takes us to the same conclusion. So they can be reconciled. I have never figured out the point of the beef on either side. I'm not stupid, and I realize that the "beef" has had dire consequences, but the beef is so unnecessary. We can all stop killing each other any time now!!
@thetruthhurts2009
I was raised christian, protestant, but it wasn't a high prioity in our family. I"ve been agnostic. then atheist for the last 20-30 years. I'm 52 now. I admit that I haven't read the bible entirely and there are definately things I don't know. One thing I do know is that neither of us is going to change the others mind. We are both extremely confident in our own beliefs, and that gives reassurance and affirmation that our own position is correct. This reassurance gives each of us a sense of belonging. Our petty bickering does not further either cause. I do love to argue, especially if I think I'm right, but our discussion has digressed into the online version of throwing dirt in each others eyes, obscuring the real topic. I hereby intend to act my age, not my shoe size.
Just read through the comments made since my last one, seems I have really wasted my time here. I suppose I could always copy my comments and post them in other forums, that's how the real debate experts do it, but at least I can in honestly claim that I wrote every word myself.
O well, at least sillysqrrl (yes I copied and pasted her handle, so sue me) got a decent amount of traffic.
Realist, in Europe shoe size is in centimeters, average is about 43, so I will start acting my shoe size when my age passes it. I have to wonder how old truthhurts is... probably, much like the earth, a lot older than one would assume based on his postings.
In Canada, my size is 10.5
Oaky. jk okay!
lolol
Great article. I have very similiar beliefs on religion, and science. Check out my new hub on the role it has played in hampering the progress of mankind since the beginning of history.
Wow...I go away for awhile and come back to 102 comments.
I should write another post so I take the heat off this one!
I'm a raelist and it annotates the bible showing 1 day to be an exinox (2000 years) you can download the book inteligent design for free you should try it
sooner than later, what comic book are you getting your facts from? The rock strata I am referring to is composed of different rock types; sandstone, shale, slate, etc. hundreds of feet thick that is under my feet at this moment. This rock strata accumulated in shallow seas that covered my area hundreds of millions of years ago. Rock starata can be bent and folded over millions of years .A prime example of this are the rock strata which compose the Himlayan Mountians. The salt I use(rock salt) in my part of the county is mined in the Morton salt mines hundreds of feet below the surface. I don't know from where the seed of life originated. I do know it evolved! the evidence is overwhelming . I challange you and thetruthhurts to read any of Richard Dawkins or Niles Eldredge. Also, The Bristlecone pine is 5000 yrs.old and still growing look it up. What evidence do you have that supports any of your beliefs? I am an Agnostic. I have done my best not to dirrectly attack you even though I think you are living in an alternate reality. I thought insults were frowned upon in Christianity.
Sorry catnip-
I have posted many countering facts to your "strata" idea. Your innability to accept "facts" outside of silly Dawkins is not my problem.
I guess that is why in the past I have posted "He who has and ear, let him hear"
sooner than later- I am truely amazed by you and those that believe as you do- That you can live in today's world surrounded by science an tecnology and reject most of modern reality and to think as man thought 2000 years ago.
Hi. The Bible is an ancient book that portrays the way the authors view God. Evidently their perspective is limited to their scientific development, social standards and paradigms of that age . So if you had a time machine and you go back to the Past...let say, 4,000 years...then probably that could be taken as a science book since for them, Scientific Method as we know it, did not exist back then. "Because I said so" was the scientific method probably at that time. It does not mean that they were not developing in science and knowledge(using empirics methods probably). But they did not count with a library as we do. So back to the future, the bible talks about the science of that Age. Science as we know it today is not compatible with the Bible. But people: THE BIBLE NEVER MEANT TO BE A SCIENCE BOOK. IT is just a book of Principles, that;s all. Some principles are good, as loving each other which I try to practice. Others are criminal principles: as killing gays for being Gays or killing inocent people for no rational reason(which I do not practice). Did the beginning occur as Genesis describes. Well I have to tell you I am just 26, I was not there. But maybe you were all, LOL. Humbly I suggest to the ones that believe in a literal Genesis to do some research about the Bible Canon, origen and the authors, so you can get a better understanding why the Bible is the way it is. I know that you probably will read only what your pastor or christian theologians tell for fear of stop believing, but the botton line is: IF God is the source of truth and knowledge, then researching the truth objetively will guide to him(to him, but probably you do not want to know him, because God could be different from what you want to believe). Start thinking by your self.
God Bless You.
"sooner than later- I am truely amazed by you and those that believe as you do- That you can live in today's world surrounded by science an tecnology and reject most of modern reality and to think as man thought 2000 years ago."
catnip- I am truely amazed that people don't do enough or any investigative research about the God who created them. I love science and technology, but scientists are 99% atheist and so are archeologists- so you will find that the information that finally reaches you is extremely biased. REALLY!!! Its irritating- and its also a shame for non-beleivers like you.
By the way- don't get confused to think that we are smarter than our ancestors. If you do a little reading, you will find it the other way around. We just have time on our side as we get to make developments from what our past had already learned.
Interesting fact. You say 99% of scientist are atheist. Can you find me your source? If Scientist do not believe in creationism, that does not make them atheist. Scientist follow a diversity of philosophies as christianity, Deism, Hinduism, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostics, Mormons, Catholics, etc. So i do not think that from every 100 scientist, just one believe in God. In that, you are bias my friend. Just because the say things that hurts your beliefs, does not make them atheist.
I did not say that we are smarter. What i mean was that we have more knowledge(DATABASE) than them. If you do not agree in this, tell moises to teach you how a TV works.
Wow, i don't post for a little while and a whole new group of yahoo's show up. Okay...
GOD EATS GLORY: So if we stoped likeing him he'd starve. Quick everybody think negative thoughts, we'll give him a tummy ache!!!
As far as noah's ark getting eaten by one of Typhon's tantrums, thats awful conveneient.
Sooner, um, the Vatican has its own scientists, just so you know, and not loopy yahoos but actual honest scientists.
And Truth the church HATED Newton. They tried to have him executed so he started the Illuminati.
I just want to make one thing clear I believe devine beings could exists. I also think that if they are out there they should mind their own damn beezwax! They have no right to meddle in mortal afairs.
Finally, Creationism claimes intelligent design. Intellegent Design doesent only mean Gods. I.D. could also mean Aleins. And honestly that makes the bible a whole lot more reasonable. Just replace any refernce to The Lord and angels and even the devil and demons with the word Aleins and the bible starts makin alot more sense.
Oh yeah, and...
HI LEE!!! :)
Howdy Grey... nice to see you again. The alien angle is amusing, you're right, it would make sense in a very Spielberg kind of way... wonder if we could get Jack Nicholson for the part of Beelzebub
That would be a very good choice, I think maybe M. Night Shamalan for director would be entertaining. Maybe Sean Connery as God... NO, BETTER... CHUCK NORRIS!
Chuck could play all the parts by himself...hang on , not quite true, they would never get the nails through his hands!
But wait, in true catholic style we should ask Polanski to direct! Wonder if we could get Will Smith to play JC, and of course Madonna as Madonna... damn shame that Charlton Heston passed on, he did such a great job as Moses... "You can pull my staff from my cold dead fingers pharaoh!" And the perfect Samson?---> Woody Allen
And we should get Arnie in on it somewhere.
Grey... Arnie should be Jesus.. after all, "he vill be buck"
Wow... Just, wow...
That's so perfect. I wish I came up with that.
Alex ONeill says:
4 months ago
I won't question your logic. I'll just say that regardless of what people believe about us Christians, it really does come down to faith and sometimes faith doesn't coincide with other people's "logic". That being said, I don't love you or Bill Maher any less for being athiests, but I wouldn't make either of you out to be crackpots either =).
Perhaps Christianity and science don't work completely, but believing in God and believing in science aren't mutually exclusive.
An athiest may look around the world and say "that's nature", but I can see God in so many things.
And even if you don't believe in Christianity, while it's easy to call out all the negative things religion has brought, it should be the positive things that are remembered.
The Red Cross
Mother Theresa
United Way
The Salvation Army
On the other hand, I can't remember a single thing that atheists have brought as a positive.