Creationists who bang the pulpit about the Universe being young tend to use old, outdated, and long-debunked arguments.
The astronomy ones just crack me up. Sometimes they are based on faulty data, sometimes on twisting or misinterpreting the results, sometimes on outright lies. They are most pernicious, perhaps, when there is a kernel of truth in what they say… though generally they leave out a HUGE amount of information that shows they are wrong.
One argument has to do with angular momentum. This is a tendency for a rotating object to stay spinning unless acted upon by a force of some kind (that "acted upon" part is important later). Mathematically, it depends on how big an object is and how fast it spins.
What does this have to do with creationism? Well, astronomers think that the solar system — the Sun, the planets, the moons, and all that — formed from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. The cloud became a disk, and the center got big as junk fell in, and got compressed, and got hot, and got fusion. That became the Sun. Eddies and whorls in the outer part of the disk became the planets and moons.
But there’s a problem. Since angular momentum depends on mass, you’d expect, upon doing the math, that the Sun would have most of the angmom (as we scientist-types call it when we’re lazy) in the solar system, since it has something like 98% of the total mass. But that’s not the case: Jupiter has more! That’s because even though Jupiter has only about 1% of the mass of the Sun, it is way out in the solar system, 400 millions out from the Sun. This gives it a huge advantage over the Sun, angular momentum-wise (which may be the first time that term was ever used).
So why doesn’t the Sun have all the angular momentum? The creationists would say, "Aha! It’s because the solar system did not form that way, astronomers are stellar evilutionists, and are lying to you!" (They say this here, and here, and here and many other places too; that last one in particular says "There is no know [sic] mechanical process which could accomplinsh [sic] this transfer of momentum from the sun to the planets", which is an out-and-out lie).
Imagine how I feel about that. Wait! You don’t have to imagine. I’ll tell you. It’s wrong.
It’s been theorized for a long time that when a star is born, it spins rapidly, and has strong magnetic fields. These fields spin through the disk of material around the star, and accelerate the disk. At the same time, it slows the star’s spin (like in the image above). Imagine you have a trash bag open in your hands, and you try to spin around. The bag will act like a parachute, accelerating the air, but slowing you down. So it is with the young star. Eventually, the star slows quite a bit, and the disk material spins up and gets flung off.
This was theoretical… until now. It’s been observed.
My friend Luisa Rebull published a paper showing exactly this effect. They looked at 900 stars in a nearby star-forming region, and they found that stars that rotated slowly are far more likely to have disks than those that rotated rapidly. This makes a clear connection between rotation speed and disks– a star that rotates quickly and has no disk will stay rotating quickly, and one that does have a disk tends to spin more slowly. This is precisely what the magnetic braking theory predicts.
While this is not proof that the stars magnetically brake themselves with the disk and slow their spin, it’s pretty darn good evidence of it. And it’s certainly a "known" way for stars to slow themselves.
As Bender my namesake, Philip J. Frye from Futurama (kindof) said: Creationism:0 , regular theories: a billion!
By the way, you can see an animation of all this on the Spitzer Space telescope website.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Well, let’s try to be as pedantic as possible while still demolishing their points. The process you describe isn’t mechanical. It’s electromagnetic.
If you tried restricting yourself to classical mechanics they may be right. In that case the statement is disingenuous, though not “an out-and-out lie”.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Oh, c’mon. It’s still mechanical: there is drag, and physical movement of the disk and the star which is transferred back the to the star.
I honestly think you are giving that creationist argument WAY more credit than it deserves; I doubt (from reading that page) that the author would know the difference. And even if they did it’s still a lie of omission. After all, there’s no psychic process known that could do it, or literary process. By using the word “mechanical”, they either mean a physical process in general, and they’re wrong, or they are purposely ignoring electromagnetic coupling between the star and the disk, which is still a lie.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Great story, and one the significance of which will be utterly lost on about 99.99% of all creationists out there, even if they notice.
The other 0.01% (i.e. probably Answers in Genesis) will spend no more than 5 minutes reading your blog post or some other report on the news wire, take another 10 minutes to invent another vaguely plausible YEC explanation for the observed phenomena, and spend the rest of the hour writing a weak rebuttal to put on their web site.
How many person months (years?) of work does this paper represent? Dozens, no doubt, not to mention the vast amount of effort and brain power that went behind the technology used to gather the data. And all that time, the creationists just sit back in their comfy armchairs waiting while hard working and underpaid scientists painstakingly collect and analyze the data, checked and rechecking everything until it’s ready for publication.
Then the YECs spring into action, condescendingly giving a modicum of credit to the hardworking scientists who have labored long and hard to generate and analyze the data while at the same time dismissing all of their well supported theories and conclusions and turning the facts into pseudoscientific muck to be consumed by millions of people at the click of a mouse button.
I used to reserve my contempt for nutters like Richard Hoagland but, if anything, creationists like AiG are much worse. At least Hoagland is sort of, kind of, on the side of science in his own nutterly way, but what those active creationists do is the very antithesis of what science stands for.
They are lazy, unprincipled, parasitic armchair critics, the lot of them.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
You may not have converted any creationists but you did open my eyes a bit. I was aware the Sun didn’t have much of the angular momentum in the solar system but my explanation was as follows: You start with a disk of gas and dust; a distant super nova or other disturbance gets it rotating; the stuff that is moving fast has enough speed not to get sucked into the sun; the slow stuff gets stuck in the middle and forms the sun. At any rate I found the blog entry interesting.
Creationist lies are a bit like Bill Clinton’s lies, you have to parse every word. I recall a Creationist argument: Raw sunlight can’t produce complex molecules needed for life. Sure that’s true, but it ignores the fact that raw sun light with the chemical properties of different chemical species they can.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
>This gives it a huge advantage over the Sun, angular momentum-wise (which may be the first time that term was ever used)
Sorry to disappoint, but Google has 7 hits on that phrase:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22angular%20momentum-wise%22&hl=en&meta=
June 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Oh Yeah!
June 25th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Actually, I think that Futurama quote was uttered by Fry.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I’m with tacitus in his observation that hard work makes us understand (well, *you* understand, and explain it to us
) how the universe ticks.. not armchair fantasy based on some 2,000 year old leaflets. Luckily the creationists tend to shoot themselves in the foot whenever they try to make some kind of claim about not (yet) fully understood phenomena.
Anyway, while we’re on the topic of spin, have a look at how someone spins some recent discoveries and tries to apply them to our solar system’s spin: http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html It made me laugh, maybe a nice topic for another blog entry. (I think Fark linked to this one, someone gave the direct link to me.) It reads like a parody.. but who can tell these days?
June 25th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Slang
I read that link, it didn’t sound well researched and I doubt everything the guy is saying is close to the truth.
but…wouldn’t it still be possible for our sun to have originated in a different galaxy that merged with Milky way? I ask, because I really don’t know.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:06 am
I should have clarified.. the idea in itself is not impossible, I think. I don’t know if there’s any way to establish its merit, but the arguments they make for it are hilarious, IMHO.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:34 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I do not and cannot deny the existance of a creator of some kind because I just dont know. However, I still think that if a creator exists, he set up this whole shebang with a certain predefined set of natural laws to operate by (physics), got the whole thing started with the “Big-Bang”, and has since sat back with a beer to see what happens. This theory allows for a creation AND allows science its’ accuracy. What astronomers and cosmologists are discovering everyday is the results of those original laws.
The problem with “Creationists” is that they base their system of belief on the BIBLE…ZZzzzz WRONG! That book was created in its various pieces and parts almost 2000 years ago by MAN. It was created by men that we would consider uneducated and illiterate by today’s standard of knowledge. It was created to control other people and retain power for an elite few and accomplishes that task to this day. I talk to people all the time who genuinely believe that the book is the true word of God and I am very sad for them. They will spend their entire lives carying that burden on their backs. Then again, it seems to make them happy in their ignorance. I just wish they would leave their fantasies in their churches, homes, and hearts where it belongs and quit dragging it out in the public political arena where it invariably results in laws to control me “for my own good”.
Isn’t that what the strong objection to creationism is really all about? That if these people practiced their beliefs in private, nobody would care but that they choose to influence everyone else? That they feel it is their “God Given” right and responsibility to “Spread the Word”?
I would like to hear from all of you to see if I am correct about this. I just want to define the issue once and for all I guess.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:39 am
It’s been theorized for a long time that when a star is born, it spins rapidly, and has strong magnetic fields.
And now I’m envisioning Barbara Streisand pirouetting madly while all the cutlery comes flying at her. Now there’s an image for the school kids.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:02 am
They are lazy, unprincipled, parasitic armchair critics, the lot of them.
Don’t mince words, Tacitus, say what you really mean!
Personally, I think you’re being far too easy on creos.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:06 am
DenverAstro, here’s a quote that sums up religion pretty well:
“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.”
And another: “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh”
June 25th, 2007 at 5:09 am
The sun has more like 99.8% of the Solar System’s mass.
It is strange how one creationism site claimed that inclined orbits and axial tilts contradicts the theory that the Solar System formed from a cloud of gas and dust. Does such haphazardness support creationism?
June 25th, 2007 at 5:19 am
DenverAstro Says:
“[The Bible] was created by men that we would consider uneducated and illiterate by today’s standard of knowledge.”
That’s about the stupidest reason I’ve ever heard of for rejecting the Bible. “By today’s standard of knowledge”, Sir Isaac Newton would be considered uneducated, too. After all, he’d never heard of Relativity, and jeez, that’s so basic and fundamental. Shakespeare would have to be considered illiterate, because he’d never read any poetry by Robert Frost.
For their time, the religious leadership (of most religions) were not only the MOST literate and educated, they were often the ONLY literate and educated. If you can’t get your basic history right, you’re just as bad as the YEC crowd who can’t get their physics, geology, and (usuallly) their spelling or sentence structure right.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:34 am
DenverAstro, where is your proof that the Bible “was created to control other people and retain power for an elite few” If you study the history of the English language Bible you will find that it was the authorities that were in power that sort to prevent people from reading the Bible so they could maintain control. It was when people had the Bible and could read it for themselves they could exercise greater freedom, seems odd if the creators of it intended the opposite. Do not confuse religious authorities with the Bible.
Also there are parts of the Bible, older than 2000 years, such as the various books of the Old Testament, some put together by kings and priests who were well educated and literate in their day, even if they did not know how to make a computer or split the atom.
Even then, it would take a few hundred years before Christianity would be allowed to be practised openly, hardly an argument that the Bible was created to control the population.
Anyway wrt to the discovery, the most obvious response from creationism is good old doctrine of apparent age. The universe was created perfect and what has been discovered is the mechanism of how things happen now under natural laws.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Sargeant Zim:
Those quotes should be attributed to Robert A. Heinlein, as spoken (written) by his character Lazarus Long.
And they sum up the value of religion in the universe pretty well. There’s a big difference between religion and faith in a deity, however. Religion is the trappings that others put on an individual’s faith in order to control that individual through rules and books and other human constructs.
What business religion has pronouncing on matters of science is still unclear.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Oh come on, don’t you see!?!? This is PROOF that the devil made it SEEM like the magnetic fields spin through the disk of material around the star, and accelerate the disk while slowing down the star! Damn, he’s good.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:43 am
[...] “Braking news from creationism“, no Bad Astronomy; [...]
June 25th, 2007 at 6:44 am
One solution to certain Grand Unified Theories requires the universe to “split/branch” every time there’s a decision point, ie, if an event could go two ways, it will and the result is TWO universes, identical in every respect but for that particular decision point and the resulting universes continue to evolve in their differential fashion. Thus, I’d like to propose, this universe is now only 20 pico seconds old,,,but it’s also 13.7 billion years old,,,Thus the following scenario evolves:
In 4004 BC, the first(Jewish) human, called Adam, experienced “connection with a unified god”, ie, his God Module got turned on. This universe and all it’s other twigglets are derived from that experience. However(you knew there would be one), there are also numerous such universes derived from the decision point wherein he DIDN’T have such an experience and there is no Jewish tribe to influence the development of that branch of reality.
I wonder how those other universes are doing now???
See, the creos are right too. It’s just that they are wrong to ascribe this reality to an omnipotent God. It’s all Adams fault,,,
Gary 7
June 25th, 2007 at 6:59 am
“Also there are parts of the Bible, older than 2000 years,”
Of that I whole heartedly agree : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8461754114455236037
June 25th, 2007 at 7:03 am
I think some of you miss the point. Denny’s comparison is accurate. If you were reading the bible 2000+ years ago, it would be fair to say that it was written by people who were considered educated and literate. In that context, it made sense and was a useful thing.
But check your calendar. It’s not 2000 years ago. In today’s context, a lot of the book is largely irrelevant and demonstrated to be inaccurate, or just plain old false. In that context it’s fair to say that it doesn’t stand up because the people who wrote it are uneducated and illiterate by today’s standards.
As to the Newton thing, well, we teach and Newtonian physics to kids, and use it merely as a convenient approximation for slow speed physics calculations. Considering it to be kid-stuff pretty much says that by today’s standards, Newton was uneducated. That his work is kid-stuff now doesn’t diminish the fact that it was truly legendary when it was new. We teach Calculus to kids too, but I think that, for the most part, people still consider calculus “hard”.
In 500 years, we’ll all seem uneducated by the standards of the time.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:43 am
In 500 years, I wonder if fourth grade kids will look back at this very discovery and say “well, duh.”
Will they look back at the black hole thread from last week and snicker at our ignorance?
Will special relativity be something “even grade school kids understand” or will it resemble our view of astrology and alchemy, the shades of the human race groping in the dark for answers and found desperately wanting?
I’d love to know.
Of course, there’s also the pessimistic idea that in 500 years there will be no school children to look back. I surely hope that is not the case.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:52 am
‘Braking News…’ I would come daily here just to read your pun headlines. Luckily for me your content is awesome too, so I have a good excuse!
June 25th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Spacewriter,
You are right, of course, I should have properly attributed those quotes. My only excuse is that my wife was calling me to breakfast, and I clicked on ’submit’ before I checked the post – normally I do attribute my quotes.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:49 am
The first two links (to pathlights.com) didn’t work, the pages couldn’t be found. Aw shucks!
June 25th, 2007 at 9:42 am
At http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx6c.htm they go on to add more lies, like that the inner planets couldn’t form because “the Sun’s Roche limit extends to the orbit of Jupiter”. Aren’t they off by about a factor of 100 there? And of course some of their other discussion confuses small “sticky” things (where molecular forces may dominate, as dust specks accumulate into clumps) with the larger things (where the Roche limit applies because gravity is the dominant force holding the larger object together.)
June 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Cory, that site has changed its links a little since I drafted this entry. I corrected the first link, and removed the second one since it seems to have evaporated.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Well sure they probably didn’t know the difference between mechanics and electromagnetism. I still like seeing exactly how much rope it takes for them to hang themselves.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
A gold star is in order for a discussion of angular momentum that did not involve reference to ice skating.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Come on, Phil. It was Fry who said, “Crackpot theories 1, Regular theories a billion” in the episode where he discovered that aliens really did build the pyramids…I should know…its my signature in the BAUT Forum
June 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Newton may be considered uneducated by today’s standards, but I am not aware of anyone who claimed he is the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe. I think the supposedly omniscient creator of the universe needs to be held to slightly higher standards of accuracy.
And people should remember that creationists speak a different language than the rest of us. When they say “mechanical” they mean “not poofed into being by God”. “Materialistic”, “naturalistic”, “secular”, and a number of other words mean the same thing. Combining any of those with words like “science”, “process”, or “methodology” means what we would consider these words to mean on their own. If they use the words like “science” on their own they really mean anything anyone claims to know or believe for whatever reason.
Trying to use English to interpret creationist ramblings is just going to leave you more confused. You have to learn their “code words”. For instance “Darwinism” is what we would call “Natural Selection” (they don’t acknowledge any other form of evolution). “Evolution”, on the other hand, means “the universe is older than 6,000-10,000 years old”. Words like “evidence” depend on context. When they refer to evidence for their ideas, it means “lies I can use to to trick people into believing me”. When they refer to evidence for scientific ideas it means “constantly changing standards that are just beyond what is currently known or is already known but obscure enough that most people don’t realize it”.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
creationism nil – regular theories a billion! that is a great line!
Evan
June 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
[...] Plait spotlights a new scientific explanation for a mystery that creationists use to discredit the Big [...]
June 25th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
My only thought at the moment is this: If anyone attempts to do an experiment spinning around with a garbage bag, I want to see video of it.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Don’t lump all Creationists into one camp. Check this, you might learn a thing or two about Astronomy and Astrophysics on the site, while also learning to respect alternative views of this place our senses define: http://www.reasons.org/
June 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Marc, do you mean this bit of revisionist nonsense from their front page?
Please… where is the parade of pre-Einstein theologians and apologists who claimed that the Bible predicts a 13 billion year old expanding Universe? Oh, wait a minute, they were too busy calculating the age of the Universe from incomplete Old Testament genealogies to notice.
This is just another example of a parasitic creationist who hijacks the hard work of others in a vain attempt to prove that their own interpretation of a few verses from Genesis conforms precisely with scientific theory.
This is not astronomy, it is apologetics.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hey BA, here’s how I show the effect of Magnetism on Mass. I have 2 powerful magnets that weigh about a kilogram each. They are fastened about 2 centimeters apart. I have an aluminum bar that is 2 millimeters thick, 2 1/2 centimeters wide and 20 centimeters long. You can also use an aluminum ruler.
I tap the aluminum bar on the magnets to show there is no attraction, then I pass is over metal filings to show it hasn’t picked up any magnetism.
I then drop the bar through the opening between the magnets and the bar does not fall straight through, but wiggles from side to side and drops at about half the rate of just dropping it by itself. The bar does not hit the magnets side to side, so there is no friction.
This does not show angular momentum, but clearly shows the effect of magnetism on non-magnetic materials.
Other non-magnetic materials work as well, but not as dramatically.
If you need any magnets like mine, just yell. They make incredible show and tell, (a.k.a. lecture material).
Bob
June 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Marc: If by “alternative”, you mean “wrong”, then we agree. But I know about Hugh Ross; I have read his apologetic book “A Matter of Days”. Old Earth creationists are in some ways worse than young Earth creationists: they lack the conviction to even be consistent.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
bkallee, I use an Al tube and a cylindrical neodymium magnet. Magnet falls very slowly through tube. Compare with cylinder of non-mahetised metal.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
First of all, just so noone would think I disagree with anything Phil said, my native language is not english, so I am NOT trying to smart here (In fact I’m saying that I lack knowlage, in english
)
————————————
: What is the differance between “PROOF” and “EVIDENCE”??
My knowlage in english tells me that the two words are synonyms, and all the dictionaries I can find translates both words to the same thing – “bevis” (that’s swedish for…ehm…: proof/evidence)
BA:
“While this is not proof that the stars magnetically brake themselves with the disk and slow their spin, it’s pretty darn good evidence of it.”
June 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I will add that I have not read all the posts above so I’m sorry if this has already been brought up.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Hazzel, that’s a fine question!
Evidence is some observation, some piece of data, that can be used to provider support for an idea. It might not be very strong support, or it might be incredibly convincing.
Proof is solid, absolutely convincing evidence. So the observations these astronomers made is pretty good evidence — it supports the idea that a disk of material will help slow a star’s spin. It’s just not good enough to be called proof. More observations, more evidence would help.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
OK!
thank you for your answer! Thats pretty much what I wanted to know.
Also, thank you for a great site!
I just recently found it when looking for some reference, trying to convince a whole bunch of astrologers (at least believers in astrology) that they are wrong. (I did give them proof of it, though because of them not willing to accept it, without any reason I may add, I doubt I did convince them after all…)
June 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I’m assured that there were some medieval kabbalists who calculated the age of the universe as several billion years old. On the other hand, their estimates for the primordial helium abundance were _way_ off.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Angular momentum wise” was used back in 2003. I googled it.
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:3mYvfi7QFMIJ:www.citebase.org/fulltext%3Fformat%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26identifier%3Doai%253AarXiv.org%253Aastro-ph%252F0210473
June 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
First, I would like to say that I am what most of you are referring to as a creationist. That is to say, I believe tha a God could well have created this universe.. I even hope that this is the case…. Now before everyone flames me for this post, im not here to argue any scientific theory or fact… I generally belive that most things we know (man, science, religion), is inherintaly incorrect. I am slightly offended that educated people seem to be consumed with resent, and arrogance. Do I just sit on my “comfy armchair”… no, Im one of those people who are busy using science to make our world a little better. I have a MS/BS in aerospace engineering, with a minor in biology. So I am pretty confident im not just being “lazy”. I just wish that people would stop generalizing people, you may be insulting some of the very scientists who are actually doing something good for the community.
“Trying to use English to interpret creationist ramblings is just going to leave you more confused. You have to learn their “code wordsâ€. For instance “Darwinism†is what we would call “Natural Selection†(they don’t acknowledge any other form of evolution). “Evolutionâ€, on the other hand, means “the universe is older than 6,000-10,000 years oldâ€. Words like “evidence†depend on context. When they refer to evidence for their ideas, it means “lies I can use to to trick people into believing meâ€. When they refer to evidence for scientific ideas it means “constantly changing standards that are just beyond what is currently known or is already known but obscure enough that most people don’t realize itâ€.”
June 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Yawn……more emotive anti-creationist clap-trap. You guys need to wake up and realise that the ‘evidence’ you are finding is just based on the laws that creation designed in. None of what you say gets to the very root question and that’s where did it all come from. All you can come up with is a big bang that somehow led to life being formed and through ‘evolution’ lead to eyes and brains and intelligence and the complxity of reproduction. Like come on – who really believes that ‘mutation’ or natural selection lead to all this? The best you can come up with is laughing at people who don’t buy into the flawed laws that you belive.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Obvious troll is obvious
June 26th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Phil, long time fan, super happy to see your site blowin’ up on the digg front page recently! Keep the good stuff comin’ and we’ll all keep readin’.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:52 am
to mad dog:
ahahahaha….ops
June 26th, 2007 at 12:56 am
it was imature of me to laugh, Im sorry, but then again, sience you obviously heard all the arguments, what else left is there to do?
June 26th, 2007 at 1:00 am
of course I meant to say “since”
June 26th, 2007 at 1:00 am
@Mad Dog
Hahaha you made me chuckle. You are funny guy.
Yes, we don’t have absolute proof of when, where and why everything happened. That clearly MUST mean that some divine power did it all for fun. Nevermind that every day science takes another step towards explained previously unexplained phenomenon. Phenomenon that creationists previously said was “simply God’s will”.
While scientists constantly work on finding evidence for theories, creationists say, “God made it happen” then try and find some nonsense “fact” to disprove the evidence. Forget trying to prove their theory. Nooo it’s much better to just disprove any opposing theories. It’s that kind of scientific method that has given us all our wonderful technological improvements today. /sarcasm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Do you really think this bit of evidence disproves Creationism? Seriously?
How many of the scientific papers by Creationists have you read?
Why is it GOD could not have used this mechanism when HE did the creating.
Finding a theory postulated by some creationists obliterating it (though this
falls quite short of that) is hardly any accomplishment.
I’d love to see your site get real honest and list the incredible number of theories, archaeological, finds etc. that have been blown away subsequent to their “Creationism crushing revelations”.
As one raised atheist leftist, I decided to read both sides of all the matters in which I was ‘certain’. One after another I saw my preconceptions get smashed.
I was always taught the Bible was a book full of mistakes and contradictions.
However a friend of mine (raised agnostic) repeated to me some info about CHRIST I had never heard. I figured, “I’m and honest guy. I am more interested in truth than what I already think I know”. So I prayed this while camping out with my buddy, “GOD if you are there please show me. I don’t know if you are Budda, Jesus, or a committee. But if you are there and tell me who you are and what to do I will do it. Do to time constraints let me say HE did! And I was almost as good as my word. I admit HE showed me he was real but I was convinced I had to ’straighten up and fly right’ to follow HIM. So rather than do that I spend 2 years trying to disprove the Bible. (I figured that if GOD could not keep HIS book together HE was not big enough to save me!) Let me interject here I have been IQ tested 3 times. The lowest was 141. Now I don’t say this to impress (and I’m certain there are some spelling or grammatical errors in here for the petty to dwell upon). And I am sure there are brighter bulbs on this comment list. I only say it to let you know when I decide to disprove the Bible I did it with more than a bad attitude. Not only did I go after the Bible I went after faith healers like Katherine Kuhlman. (I went so far as to infiltrate her choir during a huge service in Keil Auditorium).
Needless to say I studied the Greek, Heb etc and read the books “exposing’ the bible flaws as well as those answering the critics. Well after 2 years I gave up.
Every single time I thought I had something there was an answer. I was tempted to just take the critics word but I can’t stand lies (the result of being raised by 2 politicians perhaps?) At any rate I say this to you all. Creationism is not the point. Giving GOD a chance to show HIMSELF to you is. But it requires integrity. You have to value truth more than what you want to be true. And the great thing is what took me over 2 years to figure out; I was not required by GOD to fly right. All HE wanted was a chance to help me. HE does NOT help those who help themselves (at least not nearly as much as HE helps those who just ask, wait, and choose to believe). I have now walked with HIM for 30 years and I have seen terminally ill people healed and non-Christian doctors cry as they admitted they had no answers as to how it happened. My own wife was healed of an incurable illness. I have seen more scientifically unexplainable things (aka miracles) than I have had days since I stopped fighting HIM and chose to believe. But the really great tangible thing is this; I was an unhappy person and now I am not. When a revelation of GOD comes into your heart and mind and you know HE loves you NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE it really really makes you happy.
So instead of feeding your prejudices and patting yourselves on the back, why don’t you get honest and study against your faith. Be honest, that’s what it is when you are devoted to something you can’t absolutely prove. Give the truth, even one you mayn’t like, a chance. You may find lots more than you ever imagined. If you don’t, you are cheating yourself and everyone you care about.
And what if CHRIST and the gospel are as real as your nose? What exactly is there to fear? Don’t mistake people and institutions that use HIS name for HIM.
We all have free will. I can go sock a cop in the name of Mother Teresa but that can hardly be blamed on her. You sitting there reading this. Do an experiment now. Ask GOD to reveal HIMSELF. Give HIM a chance now. Ask HIM to show you if HE is real. Ask with integrity. Ask giving up your prejudices, resentment, and hurts. Ask HIM to show you HE is there and open your heart. Ask HIM to show you in a way that clears your mind of untruth. Give HIM permission to break through and do whatever it takes. Care about the truth. Have the courage.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Sergeant Zim – “Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.”
For many people, religion is much more than that. By imagining the unimaginable, visualizing the unknown, and personalizing the unquantifiable, religion puts form to the unformed. It’s a creative endeavor, providing structure and context to the abstract.
A theologian or religious person has more in common with a scientist than you might think. Arguably, every civilization owes it’s intellectual development to religious people who had vision to attempt to explain the unexplained within their frameworks or context. Science builds on these forerunners.
Beyond ‘creationists’, look at faith healers and prayer movements of today. These currently “meta physical” phenomenon that regularly bear videotaped and unexplainable documented cases will no doubt be explained rationally some day in the future.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I did physics (optics) for about 10 years, and have believed in Jesus for about 25, but I am no creationist by a long shot.
My biggest beef with these fools is that they don’t even do science: They try to give verbal answers to a theory that is largely mathematical. I say we stop bothering to answer these idiots and just show them the appropriate equation and its solution. Let them show where the math is wrong and build an alternate quantitative physical theory, if they can.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Mr. Graves: You are correct that this article alone does not disprove creationism. There are many articles, and papers like it though. Since the time of man’s development of self-awareness, he has been trying to find answers to the many questions of life. Religion has been used through history to answer many of these questions at times when science and technology was not powerful enough to suffice. At this point in time, though, the number of things science can’t explain is dwindling. We make new discoveries every day. Science is sufficiently prepared to answer our questions now.
I’m not sure what you mean by this paragraph:
“I’d love to see your site get real honest and list the incredible number of theories, archaeological, finds etc. that have been blown away subsequent to their “Creationism crushing revelationsâ€.”
I was at a loss as to whether this was an argument about science being overcome by religion or a challenge to find instances where religion was overcome by science. If it is the first, I would ask what geniune victories has religion had over science? Except for the Kansas School Board gaining the right to replace biology with creationism in their classrooms, I have heard of none. And that one is not really what I would call a revelation of knowledge.
If you are asking for an actual list of scientific victories over religion, then I would have to begin by citing the now fifteen year old finding of Cosmic Background Radiation, which was theorized a long time before its finding to such a degree using the Big Bang model, that its existence alone is almost certain proof of the Big Bang. Now to me this, along with many other findings like this, is absolute proof of the Big Bang model. And that is only one of a vast quantity of scientific victories. There’s also carbon dating, which many religious groups use to determine the oldest bibles at the same time that they say it somehow stops working after 6000 years. Cloning has also challenged many religious theories. There have been many, many scientific victories, for the sake of brevity I’ll stop there, but the information is easily accessibly on the web and really doesn’t need a list.
I have heard both sides of this argument. I have listened to people tell me what was fed to them through Christian camps and youth groups. I’ve been told that the Big Bang couldn’t have happened because of some mathematical proof that showed that the probability that the Big Bang would have occurred was very small (I still don’t know where the equation came from) and that somehow the mathematical probability that God existed was higher. I have never heard one coherent argument supporting God.
I have never seen anything that couldn’t be proven by science. Many of the “unproven mysteries” are hoaxes. Patients of terminal disease that heal cannot be considered miracles; most of the time it can be attributed to the person’s ability to naturally fight off the disease (which would support evolution and genetic diversity because some people have mutated natural resistances as a survival tactic). The event can be explained if examined carefully enough.
And I feel I must ask, if God wanted us to know he existed, wouldn’t he tell us? He would, if religion is to be believed, have the power to do so… so why doesn’t he appear in front of everyone and prove it? Why would he design us to question? If you were God, you wouldn’t make people who don’t believe you exist, would you? You wouldn’t fabricate a world that to your creations can be explaned by your absence. Why would you even make a world with evil in it to trouble your people? The entire theory doesn’t make sense. I accept what I see, what I can prove. If God revealed himself to me and allowed me to in some way prove his existence, then I would accept it as truth. Let’s just say it hasn’t happened yet…
June 26th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Phil Plait,
I love your website, and I soak up all the podcasts that you appear on. I’m charmed by astronomy, and definately find science intriguing. I’ve learned alot, and I’m not too stupid in general.
But I have to take issue with you. I’m a Christian, perhaps in abstract belief only, but none-the-less I still believe in an ultimate and singular creator. And I believe in the cosmological evolution. Basely, God said it, and, BANG!, it happened.
I’m not writing to disagree with your facts or the science in the article. (In fact, I readily accept them.) Rather, I want to know why you insist on insulting Christians that do believe in a universe created by a divine being. The title of the article is meant to be sarcastic. And all your references are meant to be demeaning… such as the quote full of misspellings.
I can’t say you insult Creationists as a whole, since you do only mock specific ones in this article, but it is certainly a tone I have heard in your voice and read in your posts before. I can’t prove it, but you seem to have some strongly averse feelings towards Creationism and those that seek to support their beliefs with facts. From what I can tell of the scientific process, seeking to understand a theory through facts is THE mode by which scientist discover new knowledge. So if Creationists chose to point out poorly explained portions of existing theory, wouldn’t that be one necessary part of the scientific process?
I guess my basic question is: You disagree with Creationist, but why do you deplore them and their attempts to understand or refute science with their own (perhaps flawed) critical thinking?
June 26th, 2007 at 3:56 am
I am glad this strengthened your believe in atheism.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:01 am
I like how you claim that creationists are propogating lies, yet you were unable to show how they are lies.
You said: While this is not proof that the stars magnetically brake themselves with the disk and slow their spin…
Sure, it might be true that magnetic braking actually does occur, but you can’t really call them liars until it is proven that this infact does happen.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:26 am
“Let me interject here I have been IQ tested 3 times. The lowest was 141. Now I don’t say this to impress”
Ooooh! I took those online tests too! I scored 138!
“I admit HE showed me he was real but I was convinced I had to ’straighten up and fly right’ to follow HIM. So rather than do that I spend 2 years trying to disprove the Bible.”
Hrm, so god proved to you he existed, yet you still sought to prove he didn’t? I mean, if he was indeed god, then he is infallible, so his book, could not have been wrong to start with. But you went against that logic and tried anyway. You say you have an IQ of at least 141?
Also: you gave up after 2 years? Weak.
“So instead of feeding your prejudices and patting yourselves on the back, why don’t you get honest and study against your faith.”
I assume you mean “faith” as in our belief that the universe was created by the big bag? Um, we are studying this all the time. That’s what science is about. Finding evidence for or against a given theory until it is indisputably fact.
Or did you mean faith as in God? Ahh… right, well if after we are done all our investigation, we find god in a corner of the universe having a cup of tea, then I guess we will know then he exists.. until then, I’d rather not believe in faeries.
“Ask GOD to reveal HIMSELF. Give HIM a chance now. Ask HIM to show you if HE is real. Ask with integrity… (and so on, and so on…)”
I did that. I was confused, lost & hurt when I was about 11 years old. Nothing. And I really wanted to believe. My foster family were devout Christians & I wanted to feel like I belonged. But nothing. Emptiness. Now if god won’t reveal himself to a 11 year old, then he’s not a very nice guy.
“If you don’t, you are cheating yourself and everyone you care about.”
How?
June 26th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Hi Phil,
Someone on Digg brought up the question about explaining the 98 degree rotation of Uranus. I’m curious about this as well. Can you address this please?
June 26th, 2007 at 4:54 am
The lack of technology to observe an object does not disprove its existence. Science and mathematics are a language to observe and understand the physical world around us, regardless of how or who created it.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Oh yes, another point I never see about science vs ‘Creationism’:
Science is first and foremost a PROCESS whereby worldwide scientists participate in creating a physical theory. The late Thomas Kuhn (who wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) would have argued that the actual ‘reality’ is irrelevant: To do science you must participate in the process of creating a theory and then doing an experiment that disproves or doesn’t disprove that theory.
The creationists feel that, because the output of biological science doesn’t meet their narrow interpretation of the Bible (and an interpretation is all their view actually is), then they need to chop off the output and glue on some ad-hoc ‘truth’ which does not fall out of what the scientific community has produced (right or wrong).
June 26th, 2007 at 5:17 am
@Kit (Sorry for the hijack, Phil. It’s a boring morning for me):
First off, let me say that I’m not attacking you, or your faith. I’m simply pointing out the flaws in what you have said.
No offense, Kit, but I’ve spent enough time on this and other atheist blogs to know where you’re leading with this paragraph.
In that case, you don’t believe in cosmological evolution. It appears that you believe in creationism, although not the YEC version. You said you find science “intriguing”, but do you understand what science is? What you “believe” is called faith, which can be defined as belief without evidence. You didn’t hear God speak, but assume that is how the universe started. Phil, and many of the rest of us, seek to understand the world, and the universe, by not assuming a supernatural cause, i.e. “and then a miracle happened”. Science is about putting facts together, and finding how they all fit into a puzzle. Not about assuming there was some divine intervention at any or several points during the process.
First off, Phil was not insulting all Christians. Actually, he wasn’t even insulting those he referenced, but only showing where there were errors in their thinking. Unfortunately, creationists never use all of the evidence to support their hypothesis. Their method of “proving” divine intervention is what we call cherry picking. They ignore all evidence that contradicts their ideas, or they don’t research things fully. I’m not sure which, so I won’t guess which is their intent. What they are doing is not science, and does not help their reputation among those of us who understand how science works. As far as the quote, there was only one misspelled word. The other is not a misspelling, just the wrong word for the situation (know should have been known). That was not the point of the quote. If you had read more carefully, Phil was using the quote to point out why the creationists were wrong. The misspelling and wrong word use just happened to fall into that quote.
Please reread Phil’s post. You apparently didn’t get what he was saying. Yes, the facts are important to science, and trying to disprove a theory is the most (well, I think it is, but others may disagree) important part of the scientific method. However, Phil also explained specifically where the creationists where wrong. The problem Phil has, and many of the rest of us have, with creationists is that they don’t use all of the facts to support their beliefs. They ignore the parts they don’t want people to see. That is not science. That is cherry picking.
As I’ve said above, they do not attempt to understand science, and they do not use critical thinking. All they try to do is refute science, and they do a lousy job of it. Phil, and most of the rest of us atheists, deplore their dishonest tactics, and the way the hijack science in an attempt to “prove” creation. “God did it”, “God said”, or “God pointed” has nothing to do with science. It’s lazy, and it doesn’t attempt to find the real answers to the universe. If you’re a believer, that’s all well and good. However, when you try to prove creation, especially using a public forum like the internet, be prepared for people to show evidence of where and why you’re wrong. That’s what science is, after all.
Now, I have a question for you, Kit. You say you’re a Christian, so I will assume it’s the God of Abraham that you believe created the universe. Why not Zeus, Xenu, or the myriad of other “creators” that are possibilities. Also, if you believe in God, why are you not with Islam or Judaism? Atheists are people, just like you. We have our passionate pursuits, people we love, and dreams of what we want to accomplish. The only difference, and a big difference it is, is that we consider one more thing as mythology, than you do.
-Berlzebub
June 26th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Just wanted to point out that the majority of Christians are not young-earth creationists. Most of us Christians don’t believe that the Bible is a science book that describes the 6000-year ex-nihilo creation of the Solar System or the Universe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism)
June 26th, 2007 at 5:42 am
is a theory an educated guess. with enough talk and mathematical equations im sure you could prove it all started with a piece of bubble gum. how many times have people come up with rock solid theories just for it to be proven wrong years later. If there is a creator why would he feel the need to prove himself to anyone. time and time again in the bible people saw miracles and forgot about them. If someone said they were a messenger from god…and fixed global warming,,restored all the fish to the sea…levetated 40 feet in the air and cured thousands of people on their death bed,,turned rocks into gold and no one was around to get it on camera or record it somehow be gauranteed 2000 years from now science would explain it away and people would look at it as a fairy tale. In todays world since we have cars we clone people come up with cures for diseases,oh my even fly into space and do really long math problems means that we have maxed out human intelligence. amazing everything based on a theory? sounds right to me. So keep on guessing and believing we got it all figured out because we learned from books and opinions from MAN there is now way anyone could prove you guys wrong because after all according to you since there isnt a video or a logical explination for everything and you cant except or wrap your mind around the fact that things could be alot more complicated or just plain simple that you cant get it
June 26th, 2007 at 5:49 am
“God did itâ€, “God saidâ€, or “God pointed†has nothing to do with science. It’s lazy, and it doesn’t attempt to find the real answers to the universe.
Hey, one could potentally formulate this as science: If one is willing to assume measureable quantities to God’s existence, it could then be possible to disprove them. For instance, “God weighs greater than X Kg”, etc…one can then disprove this potentially. But for standard Judeao-Islamo-Christian theology, God has no measureable properties.
Which means that the concept of God (as currently defined, or not) doesn’t belong in science.
As for me, I do actually believe in God, but my intellectual reasons for doing so have to do more with the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” along with why we are in a universe with physical laws rich enough to allow the human mind to exist. Creationists are basically hanging on to the last vestiges of Enlightenment-era, ‘Cosmic Watchmaker’ theology, which is at best misguided.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Stigma.Chaos: You said “And I feel I must ask, if God wanted us to know he existed, wouldn’t he tell us? He would, if religion is to be believed, have the power to do so… so why doesn’t he appear in front of everyone and prove it? Why would he design us to question? If you were God, you wouldn’t make people who don’t believe you exist, would you? You wouldn’t fabricate a world that to your creations can be explaned by your absence. Why would you even make a world with evil in it to trouble your people? The entire theory doesn’t make sense. I accept what I see, what I can prove. If God revealed himself to me and allowed me to in some way prove his existence, then I would accept it as truth. Let’s just say it hasn’t happened yet…”
There’s a very simple answer. He gave us free will (which is why Adam was able to screw up and allow evil to enter this once perfect world in the first place). We are all not robots commanded/forced to believe and love God unconditionally, From the very beginning God gave us the choice to reject Him outright.
Now if He was to appear to everyone and perform some sign/miracle to convince every last atheist/agnostic – and evilutionist
– that there was beyond a doubt a God and He created the universe exactly as outlined in the Bible – then your free will would be taken away – you would have no option but to believe.
But God won’t do that, He does not want a bunch of robots to “love” him just because He proved that He existed and created them.
But as a matter of fact, God did give you a sign:
Psalm 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
In other words His fingerprints are all over this universe, this Earth, and you. Again, since you have free will (a gift from Him) you can still choose to attribute His handiwork to natural processes.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Religion vs. Science in a nutshell:
Science: We admit we don’t have all the answers, but we do have… (produces a very long list) and we’re working on… (another long list).
Result: Progress – in the form of medicine, technology, in fact all the bemefits of the modern world.
Religion: We have the answer. God did it! End of argument.
Result: Stagnation – in in the form of sitting around praying and waiting for the end of the world while wars rage over whose god is best.
I know whose side I’m on.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:08 am
@unknown:
No, a theory is not an educated guess. You’re thinking of a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, and not disproven.
Yes, theories sometimes get altered, or disproven, but that is part of science. New information is constanting coming in, and sometimes things need changed or adjusted to fit those changes.
We do accept that things can be more complicated, or more simple, than what they appear. However, it’s what the evidence points to that causes us to draw our conclusions. We don’t have everything figured out, and we’ve never claimed to. However, if we don’t try to figure it out, without assuming there are supernatural causes, we’ll never get anywhere, and we wouldn’t be where we are today.
You may not like where the evidence leads, unknown, but the truth doesn’t care what you think.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:10 am
A truly spiritual person trying to improve themselves and understand God would find the creationist vs. evolutionist theory completely meaningless in the context of spirituality.
The fear that finding some fallacy in scripture and losing your belief system of God is in actuality fear of losing your identity, and you get into an ego battle of the magnitude of this article. Conversely its exactly the same on the evolutionist side.
You want to be happy? Stop competing and trying to be better than those around you, which is essentially self judgment forced on others. That’s what Jesus actually meant.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Apologies for the spelling errors, my keyboard is playing up. And by the way, my IQ is (ahem) above 150 as tested by Mensa (of which I’ve been a member for 27 years). I refuse to reveal the actual score.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:18 am
so ur friend luisa… her last name is really redbull? it amused me, tis all
June 26th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Let’s nail a few things down to look at:
1. The Bible has NEVER been proven false, no not once. If it has I would suppose the moronic Atheists would be running around the world with their Evolution flags waving around. This, however, has not occurred. Everything written down in the Bible has been recorded by historians from that era in another place. The Bible is completely accurate in its historical content; when archaeologists want to know something about a historical location the first place they go is the Bible.
2. AiG does not read your reports and then spend a hour coming up with a rebuttal to put on their site. You flatter yourself to think that your ridiculously unfounded article (scientifically speaking of course) is any concern for them when they have men and women with FAR more experience then you or your friend’s paper ever will. Now lets not just stop there. Perhaps if you tried reading the AiG articles and trying to show them they are wrong (not through argument but through science) then you might make some headway or at least you would learn they are not bumbling idiots with nothing better to do than to sit around making up ways to falsify Evolutionary thoughts.
3. Better yet check out http://www.icr.org. This is the Institute for Creation Research. They have peer review from Atheist groups. Do you know what those Atheist groups think? They think ICR is interested in honest science (which is more than anyone can say for the scientific community in general in the way of origins) with as little bias as possible. Yes as little as is possible because it is impossible for ANY scientist to not have bias in their work.
4. Lets look at Evolution and the Big Bang models for a little bit. Never has Evolution (in the macro sense, lets not lose our heads and point out that dogs change when breading with different dogs -however note that they are still dogs) shown one iota of evidence that points to a validity in the theory (which should still be called a hypothesis). The Big Bang is the same way. No I’m not here to say that it should be easy (or cheap) to show such evidence. Truthfully it is difficult to show such evidence even if it does exist just due to the fact that no one has kept track of the changes in animals for the last several thousand years and we haven’t had satellites capable of peering Billions of lightyears in to space in orbit around our planet for that long. If you look long and hard you will see that Evolution and the Big Bang are just as much of a belief as creationism is. I however have found a lot of valid, provable, evidence pointing to a young earth.
In conclusion I am not here to defend my beliefs in creationism (I don’t have to, you can’t prove them wrong anyhow) but instead to show that there is a large amount of arrogance in the scientific community (creationism is not exempt from it either but it is not the most prevalent). Be cautious fellow scientists not to be intellectually arrogant. Keep in mind that just because the vast majority believe in it doesn’t make it true. If Evolution is going to remain a scientific theory then it needs to provide more than bacterial microevolution as facts (we need to see how a fish becomes a horse). And before you cast God out of the picture remember why science got started and remember that all those men you look up to in physics and other sciences (Plank, Maxwell, Einstein, even Darwin -whose own book told us that if it could be shown or reasonably plausible that slow and steady change could not account for the diversity of life than his theory should be thrown out (THAT IS GOOD SCIENCE, knowing when to throw out an old theory) .
With that I like the blog (hopefully the name doesn’t always fit the information). If you’ve read this far then I would love to hear any comments from you.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:39 am
“If God existed, wouldn’t He show us?”
The answer is ‘no’, simply because one of God’s gifts to us is free will. If God openly told us that he exists (in some ways He actually does), we would see Him in all his majesty and denying Him would be like denying gravity. Is that free will? I can’t prove there is a God, just as much as none of you can prove there isn’t a God, hence the word “Faith”. Maybe some of you should do some more research into what could possibly be the most important decision of your lives? I know you don’t think so now, but there’s a lot of people that certainly believe that. So if someone’s “pushing their ideas on you”, it’s either because they care about you, or because they knocked on your door (some people are bad examples).
June 26th, 2007 at 6:50 am
I rarely post in forums on these topics because, like discussions on politics, scientific discussions with devout creationists are impossible, as neither side will budge.
But I sincerely hope some of the argumentative creationists will read this and take it to heart.
Science is inexact, the search for evidence is long and tedious and may take decades or centuries to gather enough for conclusive proof. To say that “you cannot show proof for the entirety of the universe through science, so God must have made it” is and insult for the following reason:
Where is your Proof!
I mean, I would really like to see a scientific creationist use the scientific theory and give me his rationale behind saying “God did it”. After a while I get tired of the “take it on faith” basis the Creationists put forth.
So in short, if I have to choose between putting faith in a partial scientific theory about the origins of life where people are continually working to expand the theory (which we do) or choose to put my faith in religion based science that quite literally does nothing but attempt to poke holes in real scienctific theory so they can say “obviously you’re wrong, have faith, God did it”, I’ll choose the former every time.
… but thats just me
June 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Joel: Well said.
Mojax: We don’t come on here to prove ourselves right (speaking at least for myself). We come here and offer an alternate view to plant a seed in the lives of others so that they may have the good sense to know why they believe what they believe (no matter what side of the debate they are on). It was through a man who used scientific fact to prove evolution false that my wife and I came to know Christ. I only hope that others on here would dare to research the opposite side. If there were no such thing as absolute truth, there would be no need to spread it, but that is not the case, and we believers have been commissioned by Christ to spread the truth.
Athiests: As Joel said, the Bible has never been proven false. Those that actually read it enough to find something to contest end up as believers.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Even if you could prove to me that god (lowercase g intended) existed, I would still defend Science. Why? Because Science gives results, it heals the sick, it gives us all the comforts of modern technology, it promises to take us onwards and outwards and shows us the real grandeur of the universe, and yes, it gives meaning to our lives in the form of striving to better ourselves without having to rely on an uncaring god – assuming as I stated that he does exist.
If god is able but apparently unwilling to prevent evil, then he is malevolent, as Epicurus pointed out. If he does exist then he is certainly not doing us any favours, and consequently has no purpose. And what use is a god without purpose? As for healing the sick, I’ve yet to see an amputated leg healed by prayer. Even Roger Bacon – possibly the first ever scientist – understood this. Google him.
“The Bible has NEVER been proven false” – and it hasn’t been proven true either. Your own argument can be turned against you. Actually a lot of things in the bible can be proven false scientifically. I’ll give you just one example: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/bible-pi.html
Science is the engine that drives progress. Religion is the handbrake that certain passengers are all too keen to pull on because deep down they are afraid of that progress.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I am not a “traditional Creationist”. I believe we were created by God, but I also believe in an old earth and evolution. If you want to talk about that, by all means leave another post or your email. I also will not say “obviously, you’re wrong”, but I will say that I use science every day at my job, in my life, just for fun and for work. I know science has proved a lot, and also that there’s a lot of gray area in science. I do think you’re wrong, but it’s not obvious. I’m convicted of what I believe, which means God has showed Himself to me in ways that only I would understand. He has shown me what I needed to be shown in order to believe in Him. So I can’t relay them to you in a way that you would understand. All I can say is that if you honestly seek after Him and truly desire to know if He exists, after enough time, He will reveal Himself to you. I am friends with lots of Agnostic and Atheist people that won’t read the bible because they believe somehow it will brainwash them. I encourage you to sit down sometime and read some of it. Maybe something will hit you, maybe not.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:03 am
We brought evil upon ourselves when we chose to turn away from God and continue to turn away from God. Some of you may recognize the “Christianese” for this statement as “The Fall”. Pardon my french, but God is not there to wipe our asses for us when they get dirty, He’s there to help us wipe our asses. We, as a human race, have royally screwed up and we’re constantly paying for it. Most the Christians I know are trying to do something about it, whether it’s preaching or helping people. How many of your friends that you know of give 10% or more of their income to help the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the diseased, the unfortunate around the world? I’m not saying you have to believe in God to be good, but if you read the bible, it says God charges us with this responsibility. I will not speak for hypocrites at this moment.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:10 am
First I would like to say that I applaud anyone who spends their efforts researching, seeking out, and studying to find truth. But one thing needs to be kept in mind, belittling, bashing and name calling anyone who does not agree with your thought or theories is not intellectual behavior and hinders the ability to take you seriously.
Mitch Graves, I am thankful that you have found Faith in God in your attempts to disprove His validity. No matter how some may attempt to discredit what you have said, the road that you have taken is one of strong faith and integrity. My friend that is why God revealed Himself. Though you tried to disprove Him, you had an unshakable need to find truth.
TheCatWhisperer, if you can go back for a minute to when you were 11 and analyze what has happened in your life since asked God if He was real, you will in fact find that He was very real in your life. There was no need for a magnificent bright light, audible voice, or unexplained phenomena to happen. If you can remember things did change for you after that, that was God proving himself to you. Instead, you were hurt and consorted to disbelief because He did reveal Himself in a way that you would have expected Him to. I challenge you to do a scan of your life since that time and you will find in fact that God is very real and has been in your life.
Stigma.Chaos, the thought that a host of scientific theories and discoveries disproves the validity of God is an absolutely ludicrous. The truth of the matter is because there is science and a need for man to seek it out proves God’s existence. No, He does not have to appear to us and say I am He, because He has already done so, by creating us. There are so many things that can not be numbered that proves he is there, here, everywhere. The fact that we humans have thought and intelligence says that there is a creator. Yes there is evil in the world, but that does not take away from a loving God because He will not just rescue us from it and destroy those that oppose. It in fact proves His love the more. He freely gives a choice to believe in and serve Him. He loves us so that He allows us the freedom to do as we please. Yes there are consequences, because He does have law. The world in which we live has law, and we have a choice to obey the law or accept the consequence of disobeying. I said that to say , ones disbelief in God does deny His existence, it is simply a choice to refuse His existence.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:17 am
correction:
Instead, you were hurt and consorted to disbelief because He did not** reveal Himself in a way
June 26th, 2007 at 7:20 am
correction:
the thought that a host of scientific theories and discoveries disproves the validity of God is *absolutely ludicrous.
ones disbelief in God does not** deny His existence, it is simply
June 26th, 2007 at 7:22 am
“How many of your friends that you know of give 10% or more of their income to help the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the diseased, the unfortunate around the world?”
LOL! Certainly not you and yours! You give 10% of your income to SUSTAIN RELIGION AND THE CHURCH!
June 26th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Rick: Did I say that I give my money to the church? I don’t believe I said that. Hold on, let me look…. yeah I definitely didn’t say that. I give my resources directly to organizations that I have researched so I know exactly where it’s going. I travel to Africa to directly give money to the poor. Yes, it’s true, I do give some money to the church, but it’s because the church was there for me when I needed it, so I want it to be there for others when they need it. Please don’t be so belligerent in future posts.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:30 am
You evolutionists have so much faith. You think you’re all about “facts” but you’re nothing more than big emotional babies. You choose to believe in nothing but yourselves so you can look at porn all day.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:33 am
“You evolutionists have so much faith. You think you’re all about “facts†but you’re nothing more than big emotional babies. You choose to believe in nothing but yourselves so you can look at porn all day.”
And I thought ignorant believers screw up our arguments… look what ignorant non-believers can do? =P
June 26th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Matt, if YOU look at your comments again, you will notice that you made no personal claim of what you do and suggested a 10% amount, which is a standard for most churches. If you give directly then good for you, but trying to claim that you are a better “giver” is a ridiculous claim. For every child you fed with your dollar hundreds, thousands, and millions of people have been helped with that same dollar by using science to advance the human condition, fighting disease, improving medicine, and warding off death.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, invent the fishing net and he can feed his village.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:43 am
The 10% is standard because that number is in the Bible. Look back at my argument, I wasn’t saying anything about being a better giver. All I was saying is that Christians are charged with the responsibility of giving by God. Acts is a good book to read. Non-Christians are not charged by anyone to give anything (even though many do). Again, I love science and I hope it progresses so that we can prevent and cure many more diseases and possibly stop the world’s starvation problem. Check out The One, put it place by many artists and joined by lots of people for the sole purpose of warding off death and fighting disease.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Sorry for not leaving a link, http://www.one.org/ .
June 26th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I’m neither supporting nor attacking either side of this issue, but as far as the observed facts that slower spinning stars have disks while faster spinning stars do not, let’s all remember one thing:
Correlation does not equal Causation.
I agree that it seems to be the case here and that the mechanism described seems to account for it. However, it also appears that the MMR jab has a role to play in autism.
As a side note, my other favorite phrase recently is:
The plural of Anecdote is not Data.
Now back to the bashing of both sides…
June 26th, 2007 at 8:11 am
According to the website (http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/bible-pi.html) the hebrews measured the diameter at 10 units and the perimeter as 30 units… O…M…G… they were off by 1.415926535 units!!! Call the media! The bible is wrong! lol
As for the part about how it COULDN’T possibly have been human error in measurement or rounding… It seems to me that getting the circumference correct isn’t NEARLY as important as getting the number of the mark of the beast right…
Example: When I’m measuring how far it is to my house from work I say “20 miles”, not 21.4159… But when measuring something a little more important, say, the angle the space shuttle needs to enter the atmosphere at so it doesn’t burn up, I’m a little more precise…
June 26th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Mitch: In accordance with scientific and mathematical theories, since you’ve gathered that your IQ is 141 that must be fact, because regardless of where the numbers came from you can provide factual data to support that.
I only state that to place a few things into perspective.
If “scientists” were to keep their focus narrow and disallow any outside criticism, they may “prove” what they wish.
I for one am a person who finds communication and explanation far more important than a string of numbers (regardless of how “accurate” they may be).
What is the point of “proving” anything if you can not in any way convey that idea to another?
In accordance with the arguments listed in this post, since there are no numbers and values that prove constants in the written language, either:
1. Language must not exist, or
2. Language must have been created by God.
I mean to point out that extremes in both cases make either argument sound preposterous.
Both sides have posted “theories” but because they believe them, they try to state they are “fact”.
I would advise all to challenge their “beliefs” and “theories” and perhaps you may learn to toss aside prepackaged information and stop lying to yourself.
In closing I must ask, why is it that the “creationists” are responding with “I understand but don’t agree”, while the “scientists” are responding with “I am right and you are stupid to disagree”.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:33 am
OK…
If there’s a problem with angular momentum as described herein, can the Creationists on this list please point to a peer-reviewed published piece describing a computer simulation based on their own principals? Does this computer simulation correspond to measurements better than the ’standard’ model?
As for ‘proving’ the truth of evolution (or of God or anything else), I’d point out that this never happens in science. Science can’t truly PROVE anything; it can only generate statements that are disprovable. And until an hypothesis is disproven, it can be regarded as potentially ‘true’, subject to the understanding that it may one day fall.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:38 am
I am always amused by the comments I get when I post about creationism.
1) I am not bashing Christianity here. Cripes, I should post a disclaimer and link to it whenever ever I debunk creationism. I do not equate creationism with all of Christianity. If you are a Christian, and you are offended by what I write, and you are not a YEC, then your aim is off. You should be even madder at the YECs, because they are stealing your religion.
2) Joel: The Bible has never been proven wrong? What? That is completely wrong. There are two contradictory creation stories in the very first part! And I did a google search on “Bible wrong” and got plenty of hits. Maybe you should look them up.
3) Mitch: I never said this angmom argument disproves creationism. I said it shows that creationists are wrong in this claim. However, I have also shown over many blog posts that they are wrong every time they make a “scientific” claim. The reason for this is simple; the Universe is not 6000 years old, it’s billions of years old. That is, to be blunt: young-Earth creationism is wrong.
4) Joel: Answers In Genesis and the ICR are the absolute worst offenders when it comes to lying about science. Peer-reviewed? People there with more experience in science? This is precisely the kind of thing I fight. Your claims are grossly, hugely wrong. I took on both of those crank institutes in my first book and show precisely where they are wrong. More info can be found here.
5) spyrochaete: Uranus most likely got whacked hard by something early on in its history which tipped it over. Such impacts are most likely responsible for the Earth’s tilt, and that of other planets as well. I have always been curious about Uranus’ tilt, since the moons still orbit it along its equator; I suspect (though I need to look this up) that they formed (or some were captured) after the event that tilted Uranus. I’ll have to write this all up at some point. it’s cool.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Allegory:
Your post ‘proves’ why we scientific types (even Christian scientists) don’t really like discussing things with people such as yourself.
You’ve developed a bizarre little philosophy and have obviously never done the gruly work necessary to participate in science.
True physical science is ultimatelyu quantitative. We can push around words all we like and both of us will be convinced he’s right, but with MEASUREABLE quantities that are a direct result of physical theory, one of us will have to shut up quickly as the data confirms or not our physical theory.
Quantum mechanics, for instance, is by far the most successful physical theory ever developed by humankind, able to predict experimental outcome to 10 or even 20 decimal places in many cases. And yet, are there any humans who could meaningfully replace the Schrodinger equation with WORDS, and then proceed based on verbal logic?
This is a very Dark Ages view of science, and your ignorance is precisely what makes you so dangerous to the future of our planet. It’s what let you support your Republican war machine just because they sounded and looked like you.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Joel:
Your statements about the bigbang and wrong to the point of being laughable. The big bang pops directly out of the equations of general relativity, and we have huge reams of numerical and experiiment support, including cosmic background radiation.
I’d also point out that the earliest portion of Genesis (with it’s four polarizations) looks a HELL of a lot like an allegory for the big bang and subsequent cooling of one superforce into the four fundamental forces of nature.
Put down your idols and graven intellectual images and ARISE to see that God has given humankind the gift of modern science.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Hey Phil
You are probably already aware of this, but today I just read this article saying that our solar system probably did not originate in the Milky Way galaxy but in the Sagitarian Dwarf galaxy (http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html) before the Milky Way absorbed it.
I bring this up in reference to the tilt on Uranus and wonder if its possible that Uranus might not be an original planet of the Sol system? I was wondering if you might know if that is a valid possibility or not?
June 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Sorry, what does this have to do with the notion that God created the universe?
Also, it would probably help your credibility a bit if you corrected the typo in your headline.
“Braking” is slowing something down. As in, “The car is braking for the stop sign.”
You mean “breaking” as in “Woodward and Bernstein are breaking a major story.”
June 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Your theories are certainly as valid as any other person’s…. but the truth about all theories is that they cannot be proven so easily.
The only way to really prove things is to go back in time… and that’s not happening any time soon.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I think he meant “braking” and not breaking. Pun?
Is this really news?
http://creationwiki.org/Sun_has_most_of_mass_but_little_angular_momentum_of_solar_system_%28Talk.Origins%29
http://creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_%28Talk.Origins%29
June 26th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Any religion is the ultimate in science. Anyone with a strong father figure in their life can think back to their days of willful ignorance. The mind may wonder why things are the way they are, and try to explain it in the most fundamental way possible. This makes the job of our minds easier later on (your brain draws a lot of energy when thinking, less so when the thoughts are less complex). Hypothesizing a god that is like your father and just makes things the way they are is the ultimate explanation. The goal of science in this day and age is to unpeel all the layers of truth until we hit rock-bottom. Ripping on religious people is exactly like ripping on theorizing scientific self. Instead of posting in places like these, you should be finding ways of making everything that’s been observed, hypothesized, experimented, and theorized easier to get access to. Then religious people will have no excuse for sticking with the exact same thing you probably believed when you were 3.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I find this story explains everything:
The Last Question By Isaac Asimov
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
June 26th, 2007 at 9:36 am
underwhelmed, I took the word “braking” as a play on words, as in slowing down the spin of the sun and not as a misspelling, although Phil would have to be the ultimate source answer on that.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Joel said that the ICR was interested in genuine, honest science.
But their very namesake contradicts it. They research for evidence in favor of creationism. They have an answer they want, and seek only to back it up. This is anti-science.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Greetings, Phil. You’ve got a great site and have a real knack for sharing and explaining things otherworldly.
Creationism is bad science or at best a perversion of it. Creationists make a lot of claims that are not specifically warranted (ore required) by the texts. They’ve also gone to great lengths to give the appearance of using scientific methods to prove their case, but have done a disservice to both science and faith.
Bad astronomy/science/history aren’t restricted to creationists, however. Rick’s post above gives a link to a video, ‘Zeitgiest the Movie’. I’m assuming the writers aren’t Christians, based on their thesis. The video (part 1) in the link itself exhibits sloppy reporting or understanding of history, if not the intentional spreading of twisted data, of which creationists are often accused (and, rightfully so).
For instance, in the very first few minutes, the video states Horus, Attis and other pre-Christian deities were crucified. Quick glances at wikipedia (as well as other readily available online sources) will show those claims bogus. They did die, as part of their legends, and were resurrected (which the video consistently [mis-]spells ‘ressurection’) but not in that specific manner. Such blatant inaccuracies are not even as artfully contrived as in ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
Although science overall and the specific disciplines such as history are honorable and reliable methods of inquiry, the human element still remains. And with that comes an agenda. It stinks no matter which side of the fence you’re on.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Well, I’m seeing a lot of doggerel here in the comments.
And what’s the deal with people quoting their IQ? Evidence and logic aren’t subjective. They don’t change with the viewer. This is a science debate, not a mamby-pamby postmodernist, chemically “inspired” newage discussion in a basement somewhere.
Hence, arguments being made are either sound or not. With Creationists, they’re usually not, especially since they’re fond of pretending that certainty is a) possible, b) claimed by scientists, or c) (for emotional certainty) desirable. Our most robust theories are those we repeatedly tried and failed to shoot down. Creationists typically tried already failed efforts to shoot them down, or, much more commonly, aim in the opposite direction.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Man….it isn’t faith VS science. I hate it when the old arguement is always being used. It really should be Faith and Science or Science and Faith, because don’t scientists have to work on a little faith when they are trying to discover something new?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
@Berlzebub
Thanks for takin’ the time to respond. I assumed my question would get drowned out in the crowds from digg, so I was glad to see someone took up the onus for my question to Phil Plait.
I’m not young earth believer. There are too many independent verifications of the age of our solar system for me to believe that the earth is on the order of ten thousand years old: anything from the radioactive dating to the crystaline structure of iron (Widmanstatten patterns?) found in the core of asteroids (or whatever they’re called now). Not only that, but having read the Bible some number of times, I can most assuredly tell you that it does not address the age of the earth or universe. In fact, I daresay the text of the Bible is little concerned with science and nature, but rather the nature of man.
But this is not a Bible lesson… and I am no qualified teacher for the subject. I come at this article not as a Christian, but as a 26 year old interested in science, but not as a scientist. I do believe this universe was created, and that science is in an active path to tell us how the mechanics worked out. But there are some questions science cannot answer… yet. And I believe they may be as unanswerable as the question of whether or not there is a supernatural… because the scientific method can only test for natural phenomenon. And likewise, I don’t place my belief in the supernatural as scientifically founded.
Before I get too far off topic allow me to give you some examples of what I believe science will not be able to determine: the specific mechanism that caused the fundamental forces to be the strength they are and the distances over which they’d effect another particle. Science will not be able to determine what happened before the big bang or the natural events that caused it. Scientist already supply theories for these conundrums, but they aren’t testable and thus aren’t science. Infinite universes we can’t ever detect, and ours, by luck, produces life is every bit belief as religion. Those are two examples of what I believe to be unanswerable questions by the scientific process… but perhaps time will prove me wrong. Still, those are pretty big holes to ignore when deciding there is no god.
The reasons I chose to believe in the Christian God are far too lengthy for this forum and a bit off topic. My concern was more with the attitude with which Phil, in particular, gave to Christians that believe in Creationism. You deny that he meant any derision, but that certainly is not how I took it… and I don’t even agree with the authors of the sites he referenced. Phil’s quoted excerpt included the spelling errors and called attention to them with [sic]. Here’s the wikipedia reference for its use:
The word sic may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully: for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker…
or to highlight an error, often for the purpose of ridicule or irony, as in this example:
Warehouse has been around for 30 years and has 263 stores, suggesting a large fan base. The chain sums up its appeal thus: “styley [sic], confident, sexy, glamorous, edgy, clean and individual, with it’s [sic] finger on the fashion pulse.â€[2]
As with Phil’s quote, he seems to use [sic] “for the purpose of ridicule or irony.” I don’t think anyone would deny that. He obviously believes these authors are foolish just for their faulty beliefs alone. It stands to reason he is using the less than stellar writing skills of the website’s author to highlight their ignorance.
Though this isn’t Phil, it is most certainly another atheistic example of personal dislike for YEC or any Creationist: Scientific American podcast. Steve Mirsky has been verbally so abrasive to Christians/Creationists that I literally had to stop listening to his show… as it was repeatedly personally insultive to me. This isn’t Phil’s fault, but it is definately the attitude that committed atheist display toward Creationists. I don’t believe some of the simplier assessments of evolution that some of my Christian peers do, but they certainly are people too. And they’d be willing to listen to an atheist if they weren’t mocked and blatantly told they were foolish and stupid.
Basically, can’t atheists tone down the personal vitriol they gush on Creationists? They/we aren’t stupid. We just priortize our beliefs based on faith as opposed to science. The convergence of faith and science shouldn’t be a turbulent one, but one of understanding and communication. I believe most Christians would actually read the Bible if an atheist took the time to say it does not conflict with standard theories of evolution.
Alright, lunch break’s been over for about ten. I’m get back to work. Thanks again for your response and interest.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I would like to say as a wise man once said to me (i love these words so dont take them literally) “religions aren’t the study of the how but the why” creationism shouldn’t tell you how things work or why they worked or even try to debunk science, all it should be doing is telling you why it is that those sciences came across. Whether it be a god, many gods, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever else it is you can conjure up. These rarely deal with your how. How is a fact it usually isn’t changed but sometimes it is depending on new evidence and the like.
Now as brief and simple as my post is i find your post very interesting. I’m not an astronomy buff or claim to have much if any knowledge in it (history is more my thing), but I loved this I never even knew about angular momentums in solar systems and such…. mainly because i never even look at the universe. Keep posting topics like this.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am
@Kit:
I’m currently working on a post, on my blog, that addresses what you said. If you could stop by, I’d appreciate it. It might not be done, until tomorrow, but I’ll happily discuss it with you there.
I just don’t want to hijack Phil’s blog, and both of us get drowned out in the other conversations.
-Berlzebub
June 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
For the record: I did not pick out a misspelled quotation because of the bad spelling. I picked it out because it voiced what I consider to be a lie. The use of “sic” was to show that I did not make the errors, the original writer did.
Sheesh. Can we try to actually talk about content and not appearances?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I just wanted to say you misspelled “brEaking”. Writers are usually taken much more seriously when they use correct spelling. I like the article itself, though.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Michelle,
He means “braking” as in the disk around a star brakes the star. You know, like brakes in a car.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
-aaron
This is one thing that always bugs me: how can there be free will and an omniscient god? If the god already knows everything, the past and the future, then it knows the outcome of any situation. Meaning that your actions are not free, but scripted and pre-destined.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“5) spyrochaete: Uranus most likely got whacked hard by something early on in its history which tipped it over. Such impacts are most likely responsible for the Earth’s tilt, and that of other planets as well. I have always been curious about Uranus’ tilt, since the moons still orbit it along its equator; I suspect (though I need to look this up) that they formed (or some were captured) after the event that tilted Uranus. I’ll have to write this all up at some point. it’s cool.”
“I have always been curious… it’s cool.” ie hard to explain.
The formation of the gas giants beyond Jupiter seems to be a bit of a mystery in itself, but then, if Uranus was “whacked hard by something early on” how come its orbit is still pretty circular. It must have been a hard whack too! Consider how difficult it is to knock over a spinning gyroscope! And then, there are the moons. If the moons were in formation when the “whack” occurred they would have been all out of whack!, but if they were captured later on, is there enough time available to bring them to such near perfect equatorial orbits?
June 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
@Kit,
Rather than your repeated use of “atheist” I’ll use the more general word “scientist”. Not all scientists are atheists, yet many scientists (even those who are religious) do not all agree with many of the arguments “creationists” [I hate labels, yech] use to try to poke holes in theories with.
To quote:
“Basically, can’t atheists tone down the personal vitriol they gush on Creationists? They/we aren’t stupid. We just priortize our beliefs based on faith as opposed to science.”
I will be the first to agree that both parties involved in the battle between science and religion sometimes carry the fight too far. I cannot speak for the faith-based side, but from my science-driven perspective we followers of science are often taken aback at the arguments we are supposed to accept as disproving real scientific theory.
First and foremost let me say that the scientific community is very demanding of itself and our demand for evidence and proof to back advancements in theories. So I often become very angry when a faith-based nay-sayer comes in and refutes a study, denouncing it as bogus, and proposing any gap in evidence as proof of intervention by a higher power.
Science is the quest for truth through empirical means. That usually means a very stepwise approach where we answer one problem, only to be confronted by the next hurdle. By tackling these individual steps we slowly expand human knowledge, and increase our understanding of the universe.
While it can be constructive to “poke holes” in theories, many scientist have grown tired of the games the hostile religionists play where they disavow theories by jumping two steps ahead and say “you haven’t proven this, so you’re obviously wrong…” where my response to that is “give us time, we’ll get there”.
The reason scientific advance is possible is because some people hit a wall and say “I have to delve into this and understand WHY this happens” and they go on to create theories and gather evidence to prove their solutions. I have the utmost respect for these people, because they face the unknown and through painstaking research forge ahead and advance the knowledge-base of the entire human race.
And unfortunately, I do have a negative image of religion-based individuals after years of conditioning from the most militant objectors who see that same wall and instead of looking for answers say instead “well, I guess your science was wrong. God must have done it, you just have to take it on faith…”
It is very annoying to have people use semantics to break down your arguments, rather then proof. Then have those same people turn around when the fight is taken to them only to have them hide behind the unprovable “faith” argument. I guess all I want [and many of my colleagues] is for nay-sayers to follow the rules we scientists apply to each other.
– If you want to poke holes in my theories, then you better come with evidence to the contrary. And if your proof doesn’t stand up be strong enough to say “well, I guess you were right… this time”
Lats time I post on this, I promise. This is the first time I have voiced this in a thread, just can’t take it any more.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Phil, your site rocks. Keep up the good work.
To those who are preaching, this isn’t the best place to try to convert people. But if you feel the need, please use some real evidence or facts to back up your claims. “God talked to me” is unprovable, and does not belong in science. Until you can repeat your experiment with a god in a lab, and until others all over the world can do so without your presence, then its not science. You might as well say “The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and I were camping out one night, and we got high, when I had this amazing experience…”
“God made himself known, you just didn’t understand it for 10 years” is a load of bunk. That is a devious and deceitful way to justify the inactions of an imaginary being. For every occurrence of someone having a “religious experience” there is an equal number of occurrences of “I asked for help, and God wasn’t there.”
As to the original topic of this discussion, I think Phil has said on many occasions that his reasoning for debunking Creationism is because it hurts both scientists and Christians. When politicians and school boards set rules for science classes based on Young Earth Creationism, to many people, that seems wrong. But Phil backs up his point of view with scientific fact. When YEC’s use pseudoscience to back up their claims of religion, they make Christianity look bad.
All hail the HypnoToad!
June 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I’m a very logical person but when I’m “tested” by people of both science and faith I always feel like I’m in the middle. I’m a Software Engineer and I’ve always had faith…I’m not a bible banger or a preacher of the gospel or whatever but I’ve always had faith in my capabilities and such. What makes me laugh the most is how both sides put blinders on and say “I’m right! How can you believe that?”. My faith is that someday our species might come to a complete understand of our universe, if so, can that understanding truly mean everything. Now if this does happen how does a our species then continue to grow…does that mean there is a complete limit to science and logic? I’m not saying there is I’m just throwing out a question.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
All hail the hypnotoad indeed!
Oh..another thing that annoys the hell of me, and that both believers as well as nonbelievers, is the idea that, because something has a physical explanation, there is then no room for God. Could it be precisely God’s mind we are in effect reading when we write out Maxwell’s equations?
We seem to constantly push God into a Deus ex Machina-like role with respect to physical law, rather than view the physical world itself as a manifestation of God.
Of course, this God doesn’t directly resemble a Judeo Christian one, but again most Creationists seem compelled to have an answer to anything pointing to a God that doesn’t fit into their conceptual box, or that can’t be shaped into a Golden calf.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Em, I agree, it is possible that God, a god or gods designed the universe in such a way that the proof of that deity’s existence is actually shown by the physical laws of nature. But without any further evidence of said deity, wouldn’t it then be just as likely that the physical laws of nature occurred without any higher intervention?
Is there a difference in saying, “My experiments show God does not exist”
and saying, “My experiments show that God does not have to be present for this to occur.” ??
Bender: “I was God once.”
God: “Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died.”
June 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I started reading through the first “here” link, and I was reminded of how annoyingly disgusting the word “Evolutionist” is. Am I the only one, or is this an annoying word invented by the Creationists to either make Evolution sound like a religion, or to divorce the theory of Evolution from Biology?
And, can we start calling it the law of evolution yet, if for no other reason than PR?
And while we’re at it, lets also ban the phrase “Creation Science.” Just use science, and if the evidence points to creation, then we can consider creation part of science. Since it doesn’t, let’s stop using that phrase.
Last note: I googled “Creationism:0 , regular theories: a billion!” and everywhere I could find that was a reposting of your blog. wouldn’t it be nice if people just linked to it with just a few excerpts, rather than taking it and maybe showing the original link?
June 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
“# Marc Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Don’t lump all Creationists into one camp. Check this, you might learn a thing or two about Astronomy and Astrophysics on the site, while also learning to respect alternative views of this place our senses define: http://www.reasons.org/
”
WOW!! You could not possibly have been more wrong:
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/06/26/christian-truth-claims-and-other-religions/
“How should a Christian view other religions in terms of truth? Are all religions utterly false in every respect? Can other religions have at least some truth to them?
By affirming the exclusive truth of historic Christianity (this is known as “exclusivism,†the Christian church’s historic position through the centuries), four broad points can be made concerning alternative non-Christian religions and their claims to truth:
….
Christian exclusivism then affirms that Christianity is the uniquely true religion, Jesus Christ is the only Savior of mankind, and having conscious faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is necessary for salvation (John 3:36).”
Now THAT’S what I call respecting alternative views!
Next time you want to complain about the lack of respect for christians from atheists, you may want to link to a better website. This does nothing but affirm that we are right to not respect you.
And to all those christians out there who disagree with him and don’t want to be lumped together with reasons.org: I didn’t say it. Marc did. reasons.org did. I’d prefer you differentiated yourselves from these people so that I could more clearly attack them and not the more reasonable christians.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Joel
Says:
1. The Bible has NEVER been proven false, no not once. If it has I would suppose the moronic Atheists would be running around the world with their Evolution flags waving around.
ANANSI WEAVER: The bible not only says the world is flat but it says the Sun revolves around the earth. It also mentions dragons and unicorns all of which we know to be false.
It also has 2 different creation stories RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!!!
This, however, has not occurred. Everything written down in the Bible has been recorded by historians from that era in another place.
ANASI WEAVER: All of whom’s understanding of the world was extremely limited. Just because a historian uses the Bible as a frame of reference does not make it 100% true.
“The Bible is completely accurate in its historical content;”
ANANSI WEAVER: I say again, 2 different creation stories RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!!! I also ask you to give me the exact date of Moses birth, explain to me when the ice age took place,? I ask the same aboutr Dinosaurs, Pangaea and Mitochondria Eve. Why god was so worried about the Tower of Babel that it confused the tongues of man to give the world different languages but hasn’t done anything so extreme to TWA, Jet Blue, United Airlines, NASA, the Wright Brothers and various sky scraper engineers around the world?
Also I challenge you to prove, without using the bible” that Jesus really walked on water, cured the lame and gave sight to the blind. Prove that Niefillim (hal mortal half angels, walked the Earth without using the Bible.
I doubt you can and I doubt even more that you would admit that you were wrong if you did.
It’s one thing to say that the Bible is 100% historically accurate it is quite another matter to provide proof.
“when archaeologists want to know something about a historical location the first place they go is the Bible.”
ANANSI WEAVER: Only if they are looking for something related to or in the Bible and even then they use historical text from various sources including other religious text, maps and folklore to confirm a location or the plausibility of an event. Even then it might not be where the bible says it is. One would not use the bible as a reference if they were researching say, Mayan civilization sites.
Speaking as a person who researched both sides of the equation I would have to say the evolutionists have a more plausible argument. One could debate over this issue pretty much forever but until Creationalists are willing and able to provide tangible proof, no matter how small that we were created by a all powerful mysterious being for some as yet undefined purpose and are willing to look at all scientific evidence OBJECTIVELY then they will continue to lose ground to science and an open mind.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
If there is a god then it is more of a force of nature than what religion (any religon) would have use believe. Religion like science tries to explain the hows and whys of life but unlike science leaves no room for error.
I prefer the belief that says “I don’t know, lets find out the answer together.” over the belief that says “Have faith, God has a plan…..”
June 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
[...] the recent hullaballoo over my foray, once again, into showing how ridiculous young-Earth creationism is, and the sheer flood of comments from people who have completely and utterly missed the point of [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
It really makes me sad to see so many people deluded about science. From creationists to post modernists, there seems to be no part of the ideological spectrums, political or religious, that’s free from ignorance and pseudoscience. I fear that, in America at least, those of us who actually understand science are a dying breed. We need Carl Sagan; we need him bad.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Chris I completely agree.
And to all those who are telling me that proof of God comes through the mere fact that I exist, how does that prove anything? Our brains’ evolution can be explained through science, in fact Carl Sagan wrote a book about it called Dragons from Eden. (Great book by the way, I highly reccommend it to anyone wanting to know about the human brain.) Life itself cannot prove God. There are many plausable scientific theories that explain how life began, and expiriments that actually created living organisms in controlled environments that simulated Earth as it was when life is estimated to have began.
Also, To search for God is not an act of courage. To accept that God does not exist is courage. People are afraid of death. Religion offers sustained afterlife. People want to feel significant. Religion tells them that humans are significant, that we are the chosen people. Religion is being used as a crutch. There is no courage in seeking it.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
@ Berlzebub
hey thanks for clearing the whole theory thing up. Never said there was anything wrong with figuring how things work or how they come about.Science is a great thing, only issue is that most people in forums like this seem to suggest just because a person believes in something they cant see or touch means that every morning christians wake up sprinkle fairy dust on their head and role out oblivious to the world around them. Or that they are silly.
Oh to the person that made the comment about religous people and wars over who has the right god, try this.
Most of those people are fanatics,,,and in the media they cover mainly the insanely stupid people,and fanatics. Im in iraq now and most people dont see things the way the fanatics blowing themselves up do. Plus you have countries out there killing people off just for doubting their goverments,or just because they arent apart of their ethnic click.Hell in america you got people killing each other over nothing more than a red or blue bandana. To suggest that religion causes violence is wrong, most religions do not support violence just because someone doesnt agree with them
June 26th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Pro 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Let’s get that straight.. you may have a valid scientific point in what you wrote here. No problem.. But that only disproves a Creationist, it does not disprove God, who is the author of all the Sciences – the One who is Omnicient (that means ALL KNOWING). Since this attribute of God, Omnicience, means He knows everything, the fact is that God is infallible in what He knows and how He acts. If men, with their puny minds, are unable to make cohesive theories about exactly HOW He did what He did when He made the Universe, that is not God’s problem as our belief or disbelief will not change the reality of what He did. The problem comes from justifying that God does not exist based on disproving a theory that some man made. Now, we are not talking Bible when we speak of the theories men have made up. As one poster on this thread so rightly observed:
I like how you claim that creationists are propogating lies, yet you were unable to show how they are lies.
You said: While this is not proof that the stars magnetically brake themselves with the disk and slow their spin…
Sure, it might be true that magnetic braking actually does occur, but you can’t really call them liars until it is proven that this infact does happen.
Exactly WHO are you calling a liar if you do PROVE in very fact that this phenomena does in fact happen? These people, not God.
God did not write about it in the Bible in scientific detail. There is no refute to what He has done. You are merely discovering by Science what He has done. That is why the Bible cautions about people who use “proofs of science.. FALSELY SO CALLED…” to try to overthrow faith in God when it says:
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
They are FALSE scientific proofs because “there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.”
When one poster said, “What business religion has pronouncing on matters of science is still unclear.”
Let me clarify it for you here. God claims all knowledge, that is why the word Omnicient has the word SCIENCE in it.. Omni.. Science.. Omnicient. He claims all knowledge as an attribute of Deity. Therefore, all true science is authored by God and came into being by Him. He does indeed claim that He knows everything and that man’s understanding is flawed where it departs from His. But since the Bible is not a science textbook, those who take what it says (which IS infallible) and then make up theories from that which appear to be true, are only doing scientific hypothesis just like any atheist. If they are disproven (as this article may indeed prove some of them wrong) that is not disproving God. It is disproving that theistic theory ABOUT God and how He created the Universe.
Another poster said: “In today’s context, a lot of the book is largely irrelevant and demonstrated to be inaccurate, or just plain old false.” Others have taken pains to point out that the Bible has never been disproven or shown to be false in any point. It is also not irrelevant.
When a poster continued: “Religion has been used through history to answer many of these questions at times when science and technology was not powerful enough to suffice. At this point in time, though, the number of things science can’t explain is dwindling. We make new discoveries every day. Science is sufficiently prepared to answer our questions now.”
I totally disagree. Our understanding is partial, not complete as God has (Omnicience). Though we know more and more things, that does not answer the big questions in life. Where does science prove where we will go when we die? Is that not a very big question in life? Every person who ever died and came back to tell us about it.. CAME BACK from there. None of them ever stayed dead. Many scientists say that all they experienced was a normal hallucination which occurs at death to all people when their body goes through that much trauma. To say that these anecdotes are science and prove where we will go is to rely on hearsay evidence which is not able to stand up in a court of law.. so why should it in this very important matter as to our eternal destinies? We need further proof than science can give on this question. And that kind of faith is still only answered by faith in God.
StigmaChaos said of proof against religion:
If you are asking for an actual list of scientific victories over religion, then I would have to begin by citing the now fifteen year old finding of Cosmic Background Radiation, which was theorized a long time before its finding to such a degree using the Big Bang model, that its existence alone is almost certain proof of the Big Bang. Now to me this, along with many other findings like this, is absolute proof of the Big Bang model. And that is only one of a vast quantity of scientific victories. There’s also carbon dating, which many religious groups use to determine the oldest bibles at the same time that they say it somehow stops working after 6000 years. Cloning has also challenged many religious theories. There have been many, many scientific victories, for the sake of brevity I’ll stop there, but the information is easily accessibly on the web and really doesn’t need a list.
The first point of Background Radiation which proves the Big Bang theory.. if God made the Universe with a Big Bang.. and the facts support this, then the Creationists must change their theory to fit the facts. But it does not disprove God made the Universe using that Big Bang. If only proves their theory about it is wrong. Likewise, cloning is inbuilt into the genetic code as that is how viruses reproduce themselves, so why is that proof that God does not exist, when He made it that way? These are not scientific victories except over the rival and wrong theories that theists have made up from their own minds. Nowhere in the Bible does it have a verse, “Thus saith the Lord, cloning cannot exist, nor did I form the Universe from a Big Bang!” You know? Give God a break.. He is Omnicient and your understanding is far inferior to His magnificent and infallible Omnicience. You may have the rest of the human race beat on this one point.. good for you. But don’t be so arrogant as to say that you therefore disprove the existence of GOD. Don’t you think that is a bit big of a step to make when He never said it in the first place? (Coincidentally, there is no verse on carbon dating in the Bible either, believe it or not.)
When you further say: I feel I must ask, if God wanted us to know He existed, wouldn’t He tell us? He would, if religion is to be believed, have the power to do so… so why doesn’t he appear in front of everyone and prove it? Why would he design us to question? If you were God, you wouldn’t make people who don’t believe you exist, would you? You wouldn’t fabricate a world that to your creations can be explaned by your absence. Why would you even make a world with evil in it to trouble your people? The entire theory doesn’t make sense. I accept what I see, what I can prove. If God revealed himself to me and allowed me to in some way prove his existence, then I would accept it as truth. Let’s just say it hasn’t happened yet…”
First, if God wanted us to know He existed… what can an invisible being do to make His existence known? How about writing a book? Like.. the Bible, maybe? And why wouldn’t He then prove that book with many proofs as these Christians have said they found it to be when they questioned enough what was written in the Bible and looked at the evidence for and against it? Why did He design us to question? Because He also provided the answer in the Book He took the time to write.. if those who are questioning will just look to see what He said!
You ask why God would make people who do not believe He exists? The answer is that man innately believes in God. ALL cultures believe in God by default. They have to be EDUCATED out of it. The primitive peoples all believe in some kind of god.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were they thankful; but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
This says all mankind starts knowing God.. then turns from that knowledge and became vain in their imaginations.. as history plainly shows us when we study any culture.. they come with some belief in God, until they are modernized into a belief out of it. Then their hearts become dark and they PROFESS themselves to be wiser but are instead foolish for rejecting the truth, according to the Bible. This is the state of all men who turn from the knowledge of God which is declared to them in silent testimony every night when they look up at the stars and wonder at the marvellous complexity of all they can see.
Why does God make evil in the world? Have you ever seen lazy good for nothing teens? Especially prevalent among the rich, aren’t they? Because the rich are not subject to realities.. they are cushioned from them. Paris Hilton didn’t have to go to/stay in jail.. because she is rich. Is that what God should do for us, too? Give us all a wonderful life with no adversity in it? No hard knocks.. no lessons? What kind of people would we all be? (Shudder)
Lastly, God can reveal Himself to you:
Jer 29:13 And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart.
Keep trying.. life isn’t over yet.. if you seek you will find.
Just my two bits..
June 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I don’t think I can say the Bible is either an accurate source or proof of God. The Bible is a collection of stories written by people, translated from language to language by people (which, as any bilingual person could tell you) is a very inaccurate process.
On a side note, wasn’t it stated in genesis that man was created in God’s image, which would imply at a roughly equivilant intellect? Or is that a matter of interperetation?
And if what you say is true and God really is an omniscient being then how couldn’t he come up with a way to make himself known to me? Even if he is invisible as you put it, which I cannot see a reason for, couldn’t he, in his vast intelligence, find some way of giving us concrete evidence? Science is just so much more straightforward…
June 26th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Sara, here’s my two bits:
Just show me how any ONE thing in the Universe REQUIRES the existence of a god.
If there is no need for a god to explain any aspect of existence, then it is foolish to seek one out.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Truth. What is it?
Absolute truth. What is that?
Objectivity vs. subjectivity. The reason science is necessary.
Labeling, assumptions, exclusivity. All crimes committed by posters here.
Labeling: “you atheists…” “you creationists…”
Assumptions: “ALL creatures believe…” “you will NEVER…” “you think that…”
Exclusivity: “Oh yeah? My God’s bigger than your science!” “Oh yeah? My science-brain is bigger than your faith-brain!”
No one likes to be told they’re stupid, a liar, or wrong. Even hinting at any of those will harden positions, start arguments, and end discussions.
My take? Who cares? But here it is anyway: Science was invented because someone had the insight to admit to themselves that it’s extraordinarily difficult for humans to observe anything objectively, much less determine absolute truth. We color our perceptions with the pastels of our emotions and tip the scales with the baggage of our experiences. We can’t help it.
Truth is sought by many, glimpsed by some, understood by few, owned by none. No human has the absolute truth of anything. How do I know? I don’t. AND NEITHER DO YOU!! I think.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:49 am
@Sara,
I am not calling into question your faith, but I am calling you out in that you are refuting scientific theories saying that you can’t prove to 100% certainty that your evidence proves your claims and then go on to make claims that we should “all believe in God because…” where you provide not one iota of proof or evidence.
Does the phrase “comparing apples to oranges” mean anything to you?
The reason scientists get migraines over these arguments is because religionists often throw stones at our theories, yet expect us to swallow their religious claims “on faith”. You can’t have it both ways.
It seems every time I hear the rationale behind God existing all I hear is extemporalizing that equates to “You can’t prove God doesn’t, so he must”. Now I’m sure some of you will have doubts as to the safety of my soul for saying this, but my personal belief is as follows:
The reason why primitive cultures to modern-day man has worshipped deities is due to the inherent fear man has of the unknown. When we find something we can’t explain (storms at sea, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes, etc…) the natural reaction is to fear it and try to wrap our minds around a causality for it so we can once again feel in control of our universe. For ages, this has resulted in the will of God/the Gods. Some few humans have tried to seek out the physical laws behind such acts in order to explain their physical causes rather than simply attributing the to will of a higher power.
Well, back to work…
June 27th, 2007 at 6:32 am
DenverAstro, where is your proof that the Bible “was created to control other people and retain power for an elite few†If you study the history of the English language Bible you will find that it was the authorities that were in power that sort to prevent people from reading the Bible so they could maintain control. It was when people had the Bible and could read it for themselves they could exercise greater freedom, seems odd if the creators of it intended the opposite. Do not confuse religious authorities with the Bible.
The person you’re quoting mentioned creating a Bible, not translating one, so your reply is a non-sequitor and he is quite right. The Bible that Catholics and Protestants use was assembled by a council summoned and directed by the Emperor of Rome at the time. The Emperor of Rome had the same power over the Christian church as he had had over the older Roman religions. The rise of the Pope happened only after the fall of the Western Empire, and even then, his authority extended only to a minority of Christianity until the 13th century.
Later Emperors determined the orthodox or heretical nature fundamental Christian doctrines, like the nature of the Trinity, at the councils of the church. Roman political authorities, not religious ones, made the final determination of what books became the Bible and what books did not, which is how the European Bible has 2 epistles to the Corinthians while the Ethiopian Bible has 3 such epistles. They also made the final determinations of what doctrines became accepted or rejected, and thus shaped Christianity into a religion of the Roman state, eliminating its earlier focus on pacifism.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I have no problem with those who say that God set the “dials” and “pushed the button” on the Big Bang. They don’t try to make nonsence of the whole of science. The point is beyond proof. Remember Darwin’s remark about ‘”The Creator” placing the first germ of life on Earth.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Stigma.Chaos said, quote, “I don’t think I can say the Bible is either an accurate source or proof of God.The Bible is a collection of stories written by people, translated from language to language by people (which, as any bilingual person could tell you) is a very inaccurate process.”
On what do you base this opinion? Certainly not on the words of God Himself. If you remember, there are literally HUNDREDS of instances in the Bible of “Thus saith the Lord” where God is directly quoted. The Ten Commandments were written with His finger in stone. You call that inaccurate? And your saying that God cannot keep the words He has written from error are provably false because of the Dead Sea Scrolls which prove that since the time they were written to now there are no changes in the text which could be called significant enough to change any doctrine because the scribes would copy the text by hand and check it over and over. The Seattle Pacific University site states,
Q: Are there substantial differences between the text of the Hebrew Bible manuscripts found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text?
A: Yes … and no. On the one hand, they show a stability in the text. We see how faithful the Masoretic tradition was, that it could preserve a lengthy ancient text for over a thousand years. On the other hand, there are some key differences. An extra psalm. Slightly different wording. Most important is the occasional variation that clarifies something that was puzzling in the Masoretic Text. A good example is Isaiah 53:11. The translation of the Masoretic Text reads: “Out of the suffering of his soul, he will see and be satisfied.†He will see what? The word “see†has no object. But in the Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran, we find that verse 11 contains the missing object: “Out of the suffering of his soul, he will see light.†And guess what? The Septuagint also has the missing word.
http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/autumn2k6/features/scrolls.asp
To say the word was missing I take issue with because I believe it was implied, not written, hence they left it out as understood in some texts, and inserted the implied word in others, much as we do in italics when we translate from another language. In any case, such minor variations in the text do not change any meaning in the text. This is true of EVERY single variation (I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls and can verify there is no doctrinal changes in the text from the one we now hold in our hands to the one written a thousand years ago, verifiably. Quite a claim for such an old document and you can verify it if you wish to get into the proof.)
You also stated, “On a side note, wasn’t it stated in genesis that man was created in God’s image, which would imply at a roughly equivilant intellect? Or is that a matter of interperetation?”
Exactly. Interpretation. That is where men go wrong. They think that what logically they conclude MUST be what actually IS. But God doesn’t have to fit into our logical constructs or explain particle physics and quantum mechanics to a mind which just came out of the Egyptian desert. He can just say “this is basically what I did.” And that is sufficient because what He said is not incorrect. It may not be accurate enough to the particle physicist, but it is NOT wrong. Saying we are in His image does not mean we are roughly equivalent in intellect because the Bible further says:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
This says emphatically that His ways are incredibly far above our understanding. He MADE extra dimensional space which String Theory only now is trying to prove exists. And whatever exists within that extra dimensional space He created. And we think we know better than HE does and can dictate to Him from our wisdom and understanding? Tad presumptuous, don’t you think?
You further wrote, “And if what you say is true and God really is an omniscient being then how couldn’t he come up with a way to make himself known to me? Even if he is invisible as you put it, which I cannot see a reason for, couldn’t he, in his vast intelligence, find some way of giving us concrete evidence? Science is just so much more straightforward…”
You are right, He could come up with a way to make Himself known to us. The problem is.. you think He is OBLIGATED to. He is not obligated ever to do so. By what means do you think God MUST reveal Himself to any man? Is He required to do so? By what? Do you HAVE to help those in the third world who desperately need your help today? MUST you give them money because if you do not, they will die? In the same way, we are as beggars before God, in desperate need of Him.. we will perish without Him. But He is not OBLIGATED to do anything for us. It is not required that He reveal Himself to mankind. The fact He did so once and recorded it for our posterity is infinite condescension and love. If you are not obligated by obvious need to supply all the dying third world, then why do you suppose that God is obligated to give to us what we need? We all WANT Him to.. but if He says, “seek Me”.. then the onus is then placed on us, not Him, isn’t it? Just like saying to the third world, “come to the free clinic and we will give you the medicine and food you need”… if they do not do so but stay in their mud hut, are we responsible for their demise? They were given the instructions which would save their lives.. if they do not make use of that instruction, are those in the clinic to be blamed? And the One who set the clinic up to help them.. is He to be blamed?
Science is sticking with what you know and can touch. I applaud the thought of not being carried away into flights of fantasy and being deceived by the crafty cunning of men.. as the Bible warns against such in strong terms saying:
Eph 4:14 (We should not be) children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This acknowledges that you are wise to try to protect yourself from those who would use sleight of hand and cunning to draw you in and use you, deceive you, for their own gain (money, usually). So science is very good in that it keeps us grounded in what God actually DID (He is, after all, the Scientist of all Scientists, and abhors charlatans as much as any scientist does in his profession).
God is able to give concrete evidence to those who look for it without prejudice. Do NOT leave off your skeptical mind and let the nutbar religious people take the place of solid reasoning. However, the miraculous can and does coexist with this scientific plane because true God-miracles come from the higher dimensional planes (where our understanding is superceded) and God made those planes. We cannot expect that if Jesus walked on water it was some trick.. but merely a manipulation of the higher dimensional space. In time, if we understand how that space is utilized, we too will be able to see how to walk on water, too. Arthur C. Clarke famously observed that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So these miracles merely utilize laws which seem supernatural to us, but are based on science in those other dimensions. So don’t get into anything weird looking for God, is all I am saying. Don’t check your brain at the door.
You say, “couldn’t he, in his vast intelligence, find some way of giving us concrete evidence?” I say He has and all we are doing in TRUE science is, as Johann Keppler put it, “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And if you seek to understand the evidence for God, truly research it, I mean.. then you will find it is concrete enough to rest in as truth.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:03 am
DtdNav wrote: “No one likes to be told they’re stupid, a liar, or wrong. Even hinting at any of those will harden positions, start arguments, and end discussions.”
There is absolutely no hint of it in my writing. I am not saying anyone who is an atheist is stupid or intentionally lying. I am pointing out the incompleteness of the knowledge they are relying on for their veracity (truth) and the superior intellect of God who is infallible and Omnicient. And that this point should be remembered in dealing with the true God OR with true science.
You also say, “No human has the absolute truth of anything. How do I know? I don’t. AND NEITHER DO YOU!! I think.”
We cannot abandon our mental faculties and say nothing is therefore knowable. Scientists wish to be reasonable and stay in the truth they can verify, that is wise and good. But there is also a reasonableness in faith which is not esoteric and strange, the kind of faith a scientist can have – such faith as great scientists of the past who believed in God had.. men like Issac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Johann Keppler, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, William Herschel, Cotton Mather, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, Jedidiah Morse, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Sir Josephy Henry Gilbert, Sir William Huggins, Lord Rayleigh, and George Washington Carver.. to name a few. These men did not check their brains at the door, they proved many things by science which we can say we do know as true, and yet each was a Bible believing theist. Jesus said:
Joh 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
When we know the truth it sets us free. Scientific truth, technologic truth has set us free. Is it coincidence that we in the West have the Bible as our guidebook and are blessed with technology while those in the third world cling to superstitions, living in squalor and inventing nothing? All God does is based in reality. All truth is reality, whether it is scientific or religious. God IS reality in every realm.
An example – Matthew Maury (1806-1873), known as “the pathfinder of the seas”.. a man who was, to all intents and purposes, the founder of the modern sciences of hydrography and oceanography. On his tombstone at the U.S. Naval Academy is inscribed the eighth Psalm, especially verse 8: “.. whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas.” He believed if God said that there were PATHS in the seas in the Bible, it should be possible to find them, and dedicated his life to doing just that. He did find the “Gulf stream” and the currents or “paths” within the seas, just as the Bible said existed. In this point the Bible was proven correct and from it sprang our modern sciences of hydrography and oceanography.
Because the Bible is based on reality, if we take what it says as true, we will not go wrong (so long as it is not our interpretation, which is of course subject to error). Therefore, though we are subject to error as fallible human beings, I do not think you can say we should admit ourselves to be fools and say we know nothing and nothing can be known, because it CAN, and that is what scientists look for… truth.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I tried posting yesterday without success. Where to begin?
There is a repeated confusion that I want to clear up: “Creationism does NOT equal Belief In God.” “Creationism” is more than a belief that God was responsible for the origin of the Universe, it is a belief about the mechanisms and time scale used by a specific God conception.
citizenerased said”
> First, I would like to say that I am what most of you are referring to as a creationist. That is to say, I believe tha a God could well have created this universe.. I even hope that this is the case….
No, you are making the mistake I just cited. Creationism is not just believing God is ultimately responsible.
> I am slightly offended that educated people seem to be consumed with resent, and arrogance. Do I just sit on my “comfy armchairâ€â€¦ no, Im one of those people who are busy using science to make our world a little better. I have a MS/BS in aerospace engineering, with a minor in biology. So I am pretty confident im not just being “lazyâ€. I just wish that people would stop generalizing people, you may be insulting some of the very scientists who are actually doing something good for the community.
Why do you feel personally offended by a remark that was not about you? You seem to have mistakenly applied a label to yourself (Creationist), and then gotten offended when someone criticized the behavior of the actual members of the labeled group.
Hazzel said:
>: What is the differance between “PROOF†and “EVIDENCE�?
> My knowlage in english tells me that the two words are synonyms, and all the dictionaries I can find translates both words to the same thing – “bevis†(that’s swedish for…ehm…: proof/evidence)
Hazzel, colloquially the two are taken to be the same thing. The distinction is at a more abstract, philosophical level. “Proof” is a result word. It is a measure of some level of standard for judging. It is a conclusion, a summary, a result. “Evidence” is a data word. It describes measurable quantities or physical objects or recorded observations. It is the information that goes into the decision making process. “Proof” is when the culmination of evidence is solid enough to be determined to be unarguable. In that sense, proof is subjective – one is inarguable to one person can be insufficient to the next person.
Mitch Graves, your personal story and proseletyzing are both irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This blog post was not about religion or christianity in general. It was specifically about Creationism and science. Understand the distinction.
> Do you really think this bit of evidence disproves Creationism? Seriously?
Yes, when Creationism is the argument that natural processes are insufficient to account for the structure and processes of the Universe. Where Creationism is arguing that the distribution of angular momentum is unexplained and therefore unable to ever be explained naturally, then yes, this disproves that aspect of Creationism.
danboarder said:
> Beyond ‘creationists’, look at faith healers and prayer movements of today. These currently “meta physical†phenomenon that regularly bear videotaped and unexplainable documented cases will no doubt be explained rationally some day in the future.
You mean like Peter Popoff?
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-popoff-39-17Mhz.htm
June 27th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Kit said:
> I want to know why you insist on insulting Christians that do believe in a universe created by a divine being. The title of the article is meant to be sarcastic. And all your references are meant to be demeaning… such as the quote full of misspellings.
The criticism is not being leveled at Christians or at belief in a divine being. Some of the thread respondents have done so, but not Phil. Rather, the criticism is being leveled at the limited subset of Christians who argue against science as a process and specific results obtained from science because those results conflict with their own personal opinion about how things should be based upon taking ancient poetical meaning stories to be statements of science.
> I can’t prove it, but you seem to have some strongly averse feelings towards Creationism and those that seek to support their beliefs with facts. From what I can tell of the scientific process, seeking to understand a theory through facts is THE mode by which scientist discover new knowledge. So if Creationists chose to point out poorly explained portions of existing theory, wouldn’t that be one necessary part of the scientific process?
If they were pointing out valid flaws in current scientific thinking, that would be one thing. But Creationists are often not identifying valid flaws, they are repeating long addressed arguments that have been answered scientifically. And many of the vocal Creationists are blantantly dishonest. They have been proven to actively misrepresent statements by scientists by taking quotes out of context to appear that the quotes support Creationism and question Evolution, even in direct opposition to the true intent of the original quote.
It is literally as bad as taking rhetorical remarks by scientists where they propose the position of the Creationist as a framework for their own discussion, and quote those rhetorical remarks as the valid position of the scientist. Blatant dishonesty in the name of serving God.
That is why Phil criticizes Creationists.
> I guess my basic question is: You disagree with Creationist, but why do you deplore them and their attempts to understand or refute science with their own (perhaps flawed) critical thinking?
Because the vocal Creationists do not display a sincere attempt to understand science or the universe, and resort to repeating discredited and false statements, and blatantly lie.
Bob said:
> I like how you claim that creationists are propogating lies, yet you were unable to show how they are lies.
You said: While this is not proof that the stars magnetically brake themselves with the disk and slow their spin…
Sure, it might be true that magnetic braking actually does occur, but you can’t really call them liars until it is proven that this infact does happen.
Wrong. The original statement:
At the time of the claim that there was no known process, there was a proposed process – magnetic fields. They might could have accurately stated there is no “proven” or “demonstrated” or “observed” process, but the term “known” elimitates the proposed and hypothesized processes as well. The statement as worded suggests that science had no explanation whatsoever, which is a misrepresentation. A deliberate misrepresentation is a lie.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:08 am
John Powell said, “Just show me how any ONE thing in the Universe REQUIRES the existence of a god.”
Yes, where did the first particle of matter which went BANG in the Big Bang.. come from?
And if it is not God.. where did THAT come from? And that? And that?
Until logically we must reach the point of an end.. an UNcaused Cause of all things.
What is that uncaused Cause of all things? That which originated all things.. matter, space, time.
Can natural processes be responsible for causing all things.. and if so, from what?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:09 am
aaron said:
> Stigma.Chaos: You said “And I feel I must ask, if God wanted us to know he existed, wouldn’t he tell us? He would, if religion is to be believed, have the power to do so… so why doesn’t he appear in front of everyone and prove it?…”
> There’s a very simple answer. He gave us free will (which is why Adam was able to screw up and allow evil to enter this once perfect world in the first place). We are all not robots commanded/forced to believe and love God unconditionally, From the very beginning God gave us the choice to reject Him outright.
> Now if He was to appear to everyone and perform some sign/miracle to convince every last atheist/agnostic – and evilutionist – that there was beyond a doubt a God and He created the universe exactly as outlined in the Bible – then your free will would be taken away – you would have no option but to believe.
The “Free Will” argument is jibberish. Why would I be forced to worship God just because I believe in his existence? I have very clear proof that that the Pope exists, but I have no desire to consider him holy or the single designated voice of God on Earth. I could belief that God existed without feeling the requirement to worship him. Belief in is not the same thing as obedience to.
And since you brought up Adam, explain to me the righteousness of condemning all Humanity to punishment for the error in judgement of one person.
Megan said:
>so ur friend luisa… her last name is really redbull?
As amusing as that is, her name was stated as Rebull, no “d”.
Matt said:
> Maybe some of you should do some more research into what could possibly be the most important decision of your lives?
You assume that we haven’t.
ConcernedReader said:
> TheCatWhisperer, if you can go back for a minute to when you were 11 and analyze what has happened in your life since asked God if He was real, you will in fact find that He was very real in your life. There was no need for a magnificent bright light, audible voice, or unexplained phenomena to happen. If you can remember things did change for you after that, that was God proving himself to you. Instead, you were hurt and consorted to disbelief because He did reveal Himself in a way that you would have expected Him to. I challenge you to do a scan of your life since that time and you will find in fact that God is very real and has been in your life.
Ah, the well-worn process of “cherry picking” – count the hits, ignore the misses. That selective back interpretation is exactly the kind of weak thinking that chafes the science-minded. That is the self-proclaimed validation process of the psychic, the faith healer, and the snake oil salesman. If that’s the best that God can do, his omnipotence is clearly overrated.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Jason, I haven’t refuted any scientific theories. If they are based in truth.. how could I? I am merely saying if they ARE truth, then they are God’s Science and can never be used against Him as a proof because “there is no understanding against the Lord” (see full quote given above). NO understanding which is true will disprove TRUTH and God IS TRUTH and the author of all Scientific truth.
As for belief in God.. I agree with you on the migranes religionists give atheists. They do throw stones at your theories, often standing on their own theories and not God’s truth and the first ones to get to the truth scientifically think they have proved their theory, when all it does is add to the truth which never changes and is under the dominion of God.
The argument you mention of “You can’t prove God doesn’t, so he must†you know to be scientifically invalid. That is not proof God exists, I agree. But what ELSE will you postulate in place of God which is rational? My last question to John Powell asked then what is the Uncaused Cause of all things, if not God. What ELSE will you postulate.. and how scientific will that be, since it, too, will be beyond our capability to prove scientifically? To hold it is God is not UNscientific when whatever you propose must also be a step of faith. Instead, it is just rival “faiths” in that case, isn’t it?
You say, “The reason why primitive cultures to modern-day man has worshipped deities is due to the inherent fear man has of the unknown. When we find something we can’t explain (storms at sea, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes, etc…) the natural reaction is to fear it and try to wrap our minds around a causality for it so we can once again feel in control of our universe. For ages, this has resulted in the will of God/the Gods. Some few humans have tried to seek out the physical laws behind such acts in order to explain their physical causes rather than simply attributing the to will of a higher power.”
You overlook something in this. Man does fear the unknown because man likes to be in control. But you must see that God has superior control over all things if He is God, because an attribute of Deity is Omnipotence or All Power. If God has ALL the power (that is what Omnipotence means), then as some have even accused Him, why doesn’t He use it as we would like to prevent evil? It is because His thoughts are above our thoughts.. His ways above our ways.. and His wisdom about what to do is greater than ours. We THINK it should go this way because we see a part of the picture, but God sees the WHOLE picture as well as past, present and future.
For instance, why must it be that Saddam’s sons died? We can rationally say that they died because they deserved to die due to their crimes (did you see the torture implements they used on people, we won’t get into that here). But when a child dies, we may say, Why did this innocent child die? Maybe he or she was a Hitler who would have done great evil if he or she lived. Or maybe it was an evil thing which God allowed in this world to happen in order to prove those who did those things are persons worthy of death (as Saddam’s crimes against humanity hung him, and chemical Ali’s crimes are about to hang him). I only know for sure that God’s ways are past finding out to our finite minds because His mind is infinite (another attribute of Deity) and that, though we do not understand how come evil happens, it happens with intent from God which is good in the end.
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been His counsellor?
Rom 11:35 Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?
Rom 11:36 For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will:
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Here, the Bible testifies that His ways are past finding out in completeness because He is God and we finite men, that He works all things after the counsel of His own will and that ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD.. because God is working them together for good.
So when you say, “Some few humans have tried to seek out the physical laws behind such acts in order to explain their physical causes rather than simply attributing the to will of a higher power.” you overlook that there is a higher purpose by an unknowable but infinitely wise cause which is beyond our finite understanding, both in the physical things that happen (the tsunami or earthquake) and in the evils God allows. Looking for mechanistic causes without seeing there is infinite intent behind it misses this point entirely and will end up showing you only part of the picture, not the whole.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Sara said : “But what ELSE will you postulate in place of God which is rational?”
So, God then is rational? Why? God is unporvable – you yourself have admitted as much. You CHOOSE to believe in a God – but that does not make that belief rational.
You are also falling back on the same falwed agrument the YEC’s use – “Science can’t explain everything so God did it.” You are right, as of now, we cannot say with any certainty what propogated the big bang. We also cannot say what did NOT propogate the big bang. You choose to assume that science will never be able to determine what caused the big bang, or what came before it (if anything) and therefore attribute it to god – this is simply a god of the gaps argument sitting out at the very limits of what we can currently ascertain with science. You do not, and cannot, KNOW that God did it anymore than I can say a god didn’t do it and be absolutely certain of it. There is NO evidence either way.
What I can tell you is this: Betting that science won’t find an answer to any particualr question has proved to be a spectacularly bad bet.
Religions keep pushing the goal posts back and Science keeps putting the ball right down the middle anyways. Every few years a new “unknowable” is put up by the various religious figureheads and fanatics (I’m not saying all figureheads are fanatics – many are fine people) and it’s stays unknowable for a time… and then somebody, using science, finds an answer to the hitherto unknowable thing and a new set of goal posts go up down the road. It’s funny, some of these poeple believe they are defeating science with these moving goal posts when all they really do is help to move it right along. I’ll admit, right now it looks as if science finding an answer to what caused the big bang and what existed (or didn’t as the case may be) prior to it is a long way off and maybe even impossible… of course the halls of science are paved with proof of “impossible” things proved possible.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Sara, I am impressed with your faith and your conviction, even if I don’t agree with much of what you’ve said. However, that discussion would belong in another forum on religion or philosophy. The main point of this discussion was Creationism vs Science, and how yet again scientific evidence has proven the Creationists wrong. I’m not saying God is wrong, or that the Bible is wrong (even though if you were to take it literally, then it is wrong in many places). Again, that is a completely separate argument.
If I can filter through all of your passage quoting and faith-based explanations for everything, do I understand correctly that you agree that literal Creationism is a misinterpretation of Christianity? And, do you agree that the struggle to answer questions about the physical universe around us should not be constrained to fit a biblical viewpoint (or any religious viewpoint for that matter?)
June 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Sara, I can summarize all you wrote into these thought processes:
‘Someone told me/the bible says that everything the bible says is true – the bible says god exists – since everything the bible says is true (it says so), then god exists.’
‘The bible is all true (it says so), so everything anyone else says that doesn’t agree with the bible is wrong (it says this too).’
‘Everything the bible says about god is true (it says so), then everything anyone else says about god which doesn’t agree with the bible is wrong (the bible says this too).’
‘The bible says it was written by god, since the bible is all true (it says so), anyone who says the bible was not written by god is wrong (it says this too).’
I’m a pretty honest guy. It sometimes gets me in trouble because many people really don’t want true honesty. I’ll be honest with you, I would love nothing better than to know that everything is going to be alright, that I’ll get to see my father again, that those criminals who killed the little girl down the street will not escape ultimate justice, that I can live forever, and that there is a reason for everything. However, my experiences in this life (and that’s all I have to go on) have never included a single example of supernatural causality. Every single ‘miracle’ I’ve read about or had described to me by others has had an alternative natural explanation available that was ignored. Why were they ignored? I don’t really know. But I suspect it’s because natural explanations are not sexy enough, don’t fuel the imagination, don’t appeal to the need for exclusive membership into the secret society of the knowing, or are seen as just plain boring.
You have no idea how many times I’ve asked god, in whatever form, to show himself/herself/itself to me. If god uses the logic represented in the bible, it’s no wonder I can’t see him. Oh I know, you’ll say he’ll reveal himself when it suits his purposes, which he’ll never reveal. If the god you describe exists, then it seems to me that this life is set up as a test where the rules are known only to those who ascribe to your particular viewpoint already. Yet I’ve observed that very few of you can agree on what exactly those rules are.
I cannot disprove that god exists. I don’t claim that he doesn’t exist. I have nothing to prove. I would love for the new-testament version of god (Christ) to exist. I would probably get along with you very well if I knew you in person. But I truly think that you, and many other holders of faith in the supernatural, are ignoring everything that doesn’t fit into your particular view of reality. That’s OK, we all do that to some degree. That’s why science is such a powerful and necessary tool. You claim god exists. OK, cool. The burden of proof falls to you. Warning: My I.Q. is unknown, and non sequitur to this topic anyway, but my F.Q. (Faith Quotient) is at the retarded level. If god exists as you describe, he knows this and will have to speak to me, as will you, in a language I can understand.
I don’t think you’re stupid, or a liar. I just think you’re wrong on this one topic. I would never try to explain the physical properties of fluid dynamics in terms of faith or the supernatural. But you’ll have to explain the properties of the supernatural in terms of observable, repeatable, predictive cause and effect. It’s a daunting task, but hey, everything is possible with god right?
June 27th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Can’t we just have both? I hate these arguments. It always degrades into a bunch of jackasses bickering.
Do I believe in divine creation? Yes. I don’t see anything more than some theories, while scientifically sound, are nothing more than someone’s interpretation of the data we have currently. They do not answer the real questions, but they never intended to. There is a difference between science and philosophy. Do I believe that everything just “poofed” into existence when God flicked on his light switch? No. Those creationist science websites are obviously BS. What is the point in opposing science, I’ve never seen any contradictions?
I’ve always believed the Bible to be a big book of metaphorical stories. It claims God is the creator of life and the universe. So what? Where is the big issue with this? It doesn’t tell you any more than that. It does not say HOW, WHEN or HOW LONG? 7 days? For all we know a day to God could be 5 billion years for us. If you look for the Bible for absolute definitive proof, you’re just going to be disappointed.
Honestly, I don’t care what you believe, as long as you believe in something. It could be the Flying spaghetti monster for all I care. It seems to me the people so furiously adamant about proving divine creation/influence wrong, are those who can’t admit the possibility of a higher being.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Hey, how come Phil gets all the raving mad creationists? I’m feeling a bit jealous.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I want to add a couple of points to my questions about evidence and God. It seems that in matters of science that are not presented anywhere in the bible, the religiously faithful usually do not dispute them. (Except of course, the YEC’s, IDer’s and extreme literal believers)
For example: Gravity exists. It is a fact. It is testable, repeatable, and mathematicians can calculate formulas and proofs for its existence. It has been observed by humans on the earth and on the moon, and it is used to sling dozens of satellites to asteroids, comets, planets and even out of our solar system. Although we are still uncertain how gravity was created, we know 100% for certain that it exists. Gravity is not mentioned in the Bible, and therefore is not a topic of discussion in religion, and no religious zealots are trying to prevent public schools from teaching about gravity.
Life exits. It is a fact. It is testable, repeatable, and biologists can prove that the right mixture of the right chemicals can produce life. Biologists use the known evolutionary characteristics of life to do everything from improving the size and taste of corn, to preventing the spread of disease, even using micro bacteria to eat up oil spilled into the ocean. Although we are still uncertain how life was created, we know 100% that it exits. Oh, but hang on a minute. Life is mentioned in the Bible, and in all other religious texts. Creation is explained as the will of a supreme being. Anything that contradicts the words written in a book is blasphemy, and therefore must be prevented from teaching.
Then, there are those arguing that not only is the Bible the final word on the creation of life, but the very creation of the universe. Last time I checked, gravity is a characteristic of the universe. If science is wrong to say that life can evolve from one form to another (because the Bible says so), then science must be wrong about gravity, and electricity, and magnetism and everything else.
And if the Bible is the final answer to life, the universe and everything, then we should just stop all this scientific nonsense altogether. Why not? Its already written that God did it. Let’s stop experimenting with strains of bacteria. We can’t really use the process of evolution to accelerate the mutation of antibiotics used to cure deadly diseases, or to change the color of a carrot from orange to maroon. We can’t really use the known properties of gravitational forces to calculate the motions of stars and planets. It contradicts the word of the Lord. Let’s not worry about feeding more people, or living longer. Let’s stop using satellites for cellphones and television and the internet. Let’s all just stop using our minds and lie in the fields like sheep.
Well, I’m not ready to turn off my brain just yet. And I’m beginning to understand that we can’t just ignore those who vehemently oppose science. There are too many people in power (politicians, religious leaders, people with guns) who are trying to suppress the spread of knowledge because it undermines the very thing that puts them in power: The infallible word of a religious text.
Its no longer good enough to simply shrug and say, “that’s your opinion.” Its becoming obvious that you have to call people out, demand that they prove what they’ve said, and show them how and why they are wrong.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Stark said: So, God then is rational? Why?
Your question is if there is a God how do we know He is rational? If God is in control of everything, by observing how things behave and are designed we can get some insight into the mind of God. It is logical, that if God, like a commander, orders everything, you can tell something about the mind of the God by how organized what He created is. When you observe the natural world you find extreme complexity, yet harmony. Man began by looking up at the heavens and thought the sun revolved around the earth. In time, man came to realize that the sun was the center and the planets revolve around the sun as the earth rotates on its axis. Then they looked farther and there was even MORE complexity in the universe as we began to look further into the sky. In the same way, man looked at his skin and understood man had internal organs. But, as we looked inside of man and studied even closer, we began to see the incredible complexity of things like our immune system – and now we are looking further at the DNA building blocks. Recently (14 June 2007 article) they have said that the “junk” DNA (which they thought did NOTHING) is actually not junk and we have to rename it since it has purpose and complexity in it.
“The study, which was carried out on just 1% of our DNA code, challenges the view that genes are the main players in driving our biochemistry. Instead, it suggests genes, so called junk DNA and other elements, together weave an intricate control network. Previously, genome activity was thought of in terms of the 22,000 genes that make proteins – the functional building blocks in our cells – along with patches of DNA that control, or regulate, the genes. The other 97% or so of the genome was said to be made up of “junk” DNA – so called because it had no known biological function. However, junk DNA may soon need a new moniker.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6749213.stm
In all we have observed we find the closer we look the more there more complex the organization we see. So theists logically conclude that if there is a God which is in absolute control of everything, and everything is well ordered, it shows the mind of the Creator also is organized and rational, even scientific. So if God exists, and He is in control it is logical to believe that He must be rational. As Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” What he meant was, the creation has to be rational and scientific if God is behind it.
You also mentioned that the more we find out about science the less religion is needed to explain things. You then mentioned that the more we learn about science the more the creationists seem to think they are winning. These two thoughts appear in contradiction to one another. Both arguments cannot be true.. we cannot both be winning and losing if the two sides are irreconcilable and opposite. I think the problem is that those who think that science will explain everything (and explain God away) are unaware or have not thought through the implications of irreducable complexity.
The argument of irreducable complexity states that, like a living creature, every component of something must be there for it to function to it’s fullest or in many cases even at all. We all know that no life on earth is possible without water, for instance and that if the earth were situated further out from the sun we would freeze or closer in the earth would fry. We just “happen” to be in the exact place with the exactly necessary components for life?? With organisms, many of even the simplest bacteria are so interdependent upon their other parts within their bodies that if one part of it is missing no part of the organism will work. Like the bacteria with the whiptail – if any part of it is removed the tail will not rotate!! – all the parts of the bacteria must be there in order for it to function properly and if only one part is missing the entire bacteria becomes nonfunctional. This kind of complexity is seen more and more in the things we study. The more science we do the more irreducable complexity we see and this lends credence to the fact that it is not mere chance but design. In the cosmos the more order we see, the more complex the interactions within nature, we either have to assume that it is really a great stroke of luck one after another, or there is some type of organization behind everything. Either there is an orderly and scientific mind behind the Chaos, or it is the most organized Chaos organized merely by chance. When we do science upon statistical probability of things, we get to the point where the probability becomes far too uncertain to be tenable to the non-prejudiced mind. QUOTE:
It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 1050(the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)
The mathematical probability of a single living cell arising spontaneously has been calculated over and over again by evolutionary scientists and they have been unable to come up with a figure which falls under Borel’s upper limit!
http://intelligentdesign.org/odds/odds.htm
Therefore, though you cannot prove there IS a God, you can prove scientifically that life cannot have occurred by chance from non-life. This is where the more science we do, the more it disproves atheistic assumptions by proving irreducable complexity. Therefore, belief in a Creator is rational and scientific and increasingly supportable from the facts as we see that the more order we find the more irreducable complexity we find, lending credence to the theory there is a God. If there is a God, then the order we see all around us extends to the ends of the galaxy, because if Chaos were truly random, we would expect to find once in a while a pile of Chaos with little to no order, and that just isn’t what we are constantly finding.
Therefore, when you say it is whistling in the wind to think God is rational, I cannot agree with you. Science itself is continually pointing toward more Design and complexity which proves a complex cause of the Design. That means only one thing to the unprejudiced mind.. If there is a God who is running everything, he must be rational to order the universe – a rational, volitional, and scientifically reasonable cause.. God.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Kit said:
> Phil’s quoted excerpt included the spelling errors and called attention to them with [sic]. Here’s the wikipedia reference for its use:
[snip]
> As with Phil’s quote, he seems to use [sic] “for the purpose of ridicule or irony.†I don’t think anyone would deny that.
That is an incomplete assessment of the use of [sic]. From the wikipedia page you cite:
That is the primary intent of the mark – a shorthand means of informing the reader that the quoted material is faithfully reproduced, and that the quoter did not make an error.
In application, it is often used with antiquated spellings because those stand out as errors to the modern eye. It also is often used by people to draw attention to errors for the point of ridicule, but that is not the intent of the remark, but rather the injudicious application by users.
As for identifying Phil’s use of the remark, read the quoted material and Phil’s discussion of the quote. The quote directly applies to the topic in discussion. The typos are in the source material, and Phil could have left them in but ignored them and gotten criticized for mistyping, corrected them and then not been faithfully reproducing the quoted material, or done what he did and correctly mark them as errors in the original.
> Basically, can’t atheists tone down the personal vitriol they gush on Creationists? They/we aren’t stupid.
Once again, you appear to be applying a label to yourself that does not apply. Why do you take offense for a remark that doesn’t apply to you?
Second, you get upset at “atheist vitriol”, yet many christians assume the worst about atheists and it is taken as expected. Examples from this thread:
It’s Presuppositionalism said, June 26th, 2007 at 7:30 am
> You evolutionists have so much faith. You think you’re all about “facts†but you’re nothing more than big emotional babies. You choose to believe in nothing but yourselves so you can look at porn all day.
Sara said, June 26th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
> This says all mankind starts knowing God.. then turns from that knowledge and became vain in their imaginations.. as history plainly shows us when we study any culture.. they come with some belief in God, until they are modernized into a belief out of it. Then their hearts become dark and they PROFESS themselves to be wiser but are instead foolish for rejecting the truth, according to the Bible. This is the state of all men who turn from the knowledge of God which is declared to them in silent testimony every night when they look up at the stars and wonder at the marvellous complexity of all they can see.
The assumption is that atheist = immoral, and that is taken as a given.
Regarding Presuppositionalism’s remark, I don’t know which is worse, your spiteful tone, or your scrambled logic. There are very few atheists that chose atheism in order to justify some specific behavioral choice, or a category of behavior in general. Most of us come to our atheism by honest inquiry.
Em said:
> We seem to constantly push God into a Deus ex Machina-like role with respect to physical law, rather than view the physical world itself as a manifestation of God.
> Of course, this God doesn’t directly resemble a Judeo Christian one,…
That’s an interesting point. I am open to the possibility of a deity, if that deity is consistent with the observable reality. The Judeo-Christian “God” just does not seem to fit with reality to my mind. The anthropomorphised personification seems to me to be a psychological crutch, a projection onto the world of an idealized super-father. Yet I do not see any evidence to support any other notion of a deity in any sense that has meaning. The Pantheist concept of redefining God to mean Nature does not work for me, either. I just do not see the point. It takes a word that there is a meaning and replaces it with one that is misinterpreted to mean something else. And I do not see the need or justification to worship Nature.
So what does it mean to view the physical world as a manifestation of God? How are you defining the word God to have meaning beyond the physical world itself? And if not, what is the point?
Ross said:
> And, can we start calling it the law of evolution yet, if for no other reason than PR?
Unfortunately, PR notwithstanding, theories and laws are very different things, so you can’t declare one the other and be done. A law is a description of behavior, of how something works, typically expressed in mathematics. A Law can be valid or invalid, applicable or inapplicable. Laws usually rely on assumptions. An example is Newton’s Law of gravity, and how it differs from General Relativity. Newtons’ Law of Gravity is applicable under many common circumstances, where the key assumption is that velocities are much less than light speed. However, it is invalid when applied to light speed and near light speed conditions, which require GR to accurately describe.
Theories, on the other hand, are explanations. They are the overarching framework to piece together all the data points, laws, and observations. They provide a sense of understanding and a way to predict the outcome of the next situation. In science, theories fall across a spectrum of factuality. Weak theories have little or no correlation to the data (facts, laws, etc), and quickly lose support. Strong theories correspond well to facts, laws, etc, and get promoted and widespread.
Sara said:
> Stigma.Chaos said, quote, “I don’t think I can say the Bible is either an accurate source or proof of God.The Bible is a collection of stories written by people, translated from language to language by people (which, as any bilingual person could tell you) is a very inaccurate process.â€
> On what do you base this opinion? Certainly not on the words of God Himself.
Uh, it’s called History. The earliest tales were oral traditions passed on prior to writting. Then there were Hebrew versions written and edited over time, which formed the Old Testament. Finally, there is the New Testament, which is a collection of writings spanning a period of nearly 100 years, primarily written in Greek and Aramaic. These were edited, then several councils of bishops voted on which ones were “authentic” and which were not, which is why the Protestant Bible differs from the Catholic Bible, which is different from the Coptic. These works have been translated through Latin into English, with various other steps in the process.
> If you remember, there are literally HUNDREDS of instances in the Bible of “Thus saith the Lord†where God is directly quoted. The Ten Commandments were written with His finger in stone. You call that inaccurate?
Are you really that naive? Are you truly claiming that the Ten Commandments were carved in stone by God himself? I think you’ve been watching the Charleston Heston movie too much.
Look, you yourself state that men are fallable. Well, every step of the process for generating the Bible has been handled by men. Do you think that men are incapable of having screwed something up along the way? That maybe, just maybe, they made a goof or two?
> Do you HAVE to help those in the third world who desperately need your help today? MUST you give them money because if you do not, they will die?
One difference between God and me is that I do not claim to be all powerful and all good.
> There is absolutely no hint of it in my writing. I am not saying anyone who is an atheist is stupid or intentionally lying.
HOwever, you do say:
This implies that all atheists are vain in their imaginations, and their hearts are dark.
> Is it coincidence that we in the West have the Bible as our guidebook and are blessed with technology while those in the third world cling to superstitions, living in squalor and inventing nothing?
ACK! My mind boggles.
> And if it is not God.. where did THAT come from? And that? And that?
> Until logically we must reach the point of an end.. an UNcaused Cause of all things.
> What is that uncaused Cause of all things? That which originated all things.. matter, space, time.
And the followup question, if God is the cause of the Big Bang, where did he come from? If God can be an uncaused cause, then there can be uncaused causes, and so why can it not be the Big Bang?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Skepterist said, “If I can filter through all of your passage quoting and faith-based explanations for everything, do I understand correctly that you agree that literal Creationism is a misinterpretation of Christianity?
I accept the Bible’s account that God made the Universe as it says. Exactly HOW that plays out in the realm of science is not discussed in depth in the Bible and I frankly think the Big Bang is plausible as an explanation, though incomplete in understanding. If God said He did it, supernaturally, calling it into being.. exactly how that happened must be from point A to point B, and a Big Bang may fit into how one can imagine it happened. This explanation of how the subsequently formed galaxies slowed in their orbits fits with an orderly design which makes our place in the universe possible. Just as the time frame until the sun burns out makes our lives possible as well.. these things must be in order for time to exist and us to exist within it. In my theistic view, all by Design. It fits with the evidence given in the Bible, though it is not the only explanation that could be given, so who am I to argue? The time frame given.. billions, millions, thousands of years.. seems to me to be the point of contention, not the fact of the Big Bang or how that may have played out scientifically.
You also asked, “And, do you agree that the struggle to answer questions about the physical universe around us should not be constrained to fit a biblical viewpoint (or any religious viewpoint for that matter?)” All men are allowed to think and to reason within the confines of their belief systems.. both those which include God and those who assume naturalistic causes for all they see. They are both belief systems and require certain assumptions. Atheists EXCLUDE God as a cause or the Uncaused Cause of all things in every endeavor of science they do. That is their core assumption – naturalistic causes for all things. Should all questions about the physical universe be constrained to fit into a viewpoint which intentionally EXcludes God as a possible cause of the things we see? It is an equally biased viewpoint as starting WITH an unseen Cause (God) for them to say that there is no Unseen volitional cause but all arises from naturalistic processes. I do not exclude from scientific inquiry or thought or reasoning either of these groups. I do not think we should force an atheist to believe in God when he believes in naturalistic processes, nor should the atheist force theists in their continuing scientific inquiries to exclude God. It is not provable that God did NOT cause everything, so the atheistic exclusion of faith based reasoning is biasing the data to their own view. Wouldn’t you say?
I believe Colossians 1:16-17, “..all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Irishman said, “Are you really that naive? Are you truly claiming that the Ten Commandments were carved in stone by God himself? I think you’ve been watching the Charleston Heston movie too much.
Reply:
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when He had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Denver Astro was right on the mark in my opinion and says almost verbatim what i have said for lots of years. The bible pounders all interpret that collection of parables written by other men to ‘teach’ and control other people in whatever way they went it to be so they have a club to browbeat everyone else into submission. That book began before there was much written language, then after it was written, it was translated many times bye people with their own agendas. There are as many interpretations as there are words in the bible. Then they are so egocentric to believe that a God of the universe(s) would make everything run on earth/solar time. It would be more appropriate to define god as the collection of physical rules giving structure to the universe(s).
June 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
DTdNav, I can see what you are thinking. You see it as circular reasoning and also without evidence, having no proof of it yourself.
I think the reason God has not shown Himself to you is that you haven’t been asking right. If you truly wish for God to meet you, you have to come on His terms. God is exacting, like a scientist is. Scientists are not sloppy in an experiment but they must use exactly the right ingredients. Without the right ingredients, there is no desired result to the experiment, only a large mess to clean up. In the same way, we must come to God in the right way and with the right petition to be heard by the God of the Bible. It cannot just be any old thing or prayed without true humility and a desire to do God’s will. God doesn’t take PLAYING at religion well (at all, actually). He says you can find Him only if you search for Him with ALL your heart. It isn’t something in which you dabble.. it has to be sincere, from the heart, and without guile or intent to deceive or take from or mock Him. It must be honest, like a child comes to something.. that is why Jesus said to come into the Kingdom of heaven you must be AS a little child. That attitude, that humility, that sincerity.. not with sarcasm or mockery or irreverence, but as a child.
Beyond the right attitude, the words must be sincere and heartfelt. God is looking for something in those who come to Him in prayer and that something is a recognition that they are not right with Him as they currently stand. That they have done some evil things in His sight in their lifetimes and that they need to ask Him for forgiveness. It is the reason Jesus died on the cross, to take away our guilt before God. We must acknowledge that to Him and our being sorry for offending Him. He does not reveal Himself to us because we are not worthy of it. He hides Himself from men because they are not good and why should a good God show anything to those who mock and revile and spit upon Him? Why should He reveal Himself to those who hate Him and laugh at Him? Would you, if you were God? So surely, beyond the right attitude which accompanies coming into the Presence of Deity, there needs to be a recognition of our offending Him and a desire to ask His pardon for our offenses. That is the ONLY petition He will hear from a newcomer before His throne.
Psa 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry.
Psa 34:16 The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.
These two are in contrast. God hears those who have asked forgiveness for their sins and become right with Him (righteous), His ears are open to their cry, but has set His face against those who do evil and does not hear them or their cries (prayers). Have you done any evil? We all have.. we all need forgiveness. The first and only petition God will hear from us is asking forgiveness for doing evil in His sight and praying for forgiveness. Until then, His face is set against us as evildoers. All men have sinned and come short of the righteous standard God sets for mankind (Romans 3:23). God won’t hear one prayer you pray until you repent of your offending His Holiness and ask Him for forgiveness first. I suggest the reason He has not revealed Himself to you is that you didn’t think that this was very important to do… ask forgiveness. Coming to God with a long list of things you would like Him to do for you.. isn’t likely to be answered if He considers you to be evil.. and all men are evildoers in God’s eyes until they ask for forgiveness from Him.
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
We are all in the same boat until we ask His forgiveness.. He does not hear us at all. But if you will come with a sincere heart and ask Him to forgive you for your sins, He will hear you because then you become RIGHT with God (righteous) and then He will listen to you because “The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry.”
He promises He will come in to the one who asks forgiveness through what Jesus did on the cross. He will forgive and make Himself real to them. (Revelation 3:20) Why did Jesus come to earth? Jesus said:
Mat 9:13 I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. If you accept that you are a sinner and need to be forgiven by God, and if you ask Him with a childlike and sincere heart to take away your sins in Jesus Name, He will do it and make Himself real to you. If you wish to know God, pray a prayer like this one: “Heavenly Father, I come to You in Jesus Name and say to you that I recognise that I have sinned against You and I therefore ask You to forgive me for all my sins. Cover them with the blood of Jesus which He shed to take them away on his cross and make it right between me and you. Please make yourself real to me and be my Lord and savior and God.”
From then on, God will listen to you when you pray. Until that prayer or one like it is prayed, God sets His face against all of mankind, for all are sinners and have come short of the standards (glory) of God. And that, I think, is why He hasn’t answered your prayers before.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Sara, I think you have very good points about how science can fit in a universe with a god. I also think you have a fairly enlightened view about how the limiting factor is man.
What I take issue with is this: “Atheists EXCLUDE God as a cause or the Uncaused Cause of all things in every endeavor of science they do. That is their core assumption – naturalistic causes for all things. Should all questions about the physical universe be constrained to fit into a viewpoint which intentionally EXcludes God as a possible cause of the things we see? It is an equally biased viewpoint as starting WITH an unseen Cause (God) for them to say that there is no Unseen volitional cause but all arises from naturalistic processes.”
I can’t speak for all atheists, but I do not exclude ANYTHING as a cause unless it isn’t needed. I’ll admit, god is not the first thing that pops into my head when looking for causes, but when considering all possibilites it certainly crosses mind. God is a dead end for causality. It is the point where nothing else need be considered because all options have been exhausted. So far, naturalistic processes have covered everything, including the origins of all the religions. Could god have caused the Big Bang and therefore the universe? Maybe. But I refuse to stop there when there may be a naturalistic explanation that lies hidden beneath all the other things we haven’t figured out yet. Whether you choose to admit it or not, “God did it” requires no further explanation. The story is not ended, why should I quit reading?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Okay, let me get this straight. I don’t know whether or not god exists, so I need to ask that which I don’t know exists to show me that he exists. But wait, I can’t just ask, I must beg forgivenes of that which I don’t know exists before he’ll even listen. Not only that, but I must narrow my asking so that I admit that I have done wrong in the sight of that which I don’t know exists. So in essence, I must acknowledge that what I don’t know exists, exists so that I may ask it whether it exists is such a way that he’ll show me that he exists.
I rest my case.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
DTdNav;
Sighh.. which proves you could never have actually prayed to God in the constructive way in which He requires, and why He is not real to you. He will remain to you unreal if you will not humble yourself and recognise yourself as a sinner in need of forgiveness from God. So don’t continue to say, “You have no idea how many times I’ve asked god, in whatever form, to show himself/herself/itself to me.” You won’t come on HIS terms and appear to laugh at the offer. You said, “If the god you describe exists, then it seems to me that this life is set up as a test where the rules are known only to those who ascribe to your particular viewpoint already. If god exists as you describe, he knows this and will have to speak to me, as will you, in a language I can understand.” So I put it in as simple and as understandable terms as possible. If you choose not to listen, that is a faith choice between you and God. But I think it an unwise one.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Irishman, I have not given you or anyone here any vitrol nor assumed you to be immoral, as you said of me. The quote you used was my showing that mankind believes in God until they are educated out of that rudimentary belief. Then they profess themselves to be wise, but are (according to the Bible) foolish for their disbelief. It was not meant with any evil intent or to cause anger I assure you. I did no name calling or vitrol. I meant no offense.
You ask, “So what does it mean to view the physical world as a manifestation of God? How are you defining the word God to have meaning beyond the physical world itself? And if not, what is the point?”
The creation (all we see) is separate from God in the same way a painting is separate from you. He created it, but it is not HIM. But He is intimately concerned about it, much more so than the environmentalists are.. and He cares about the residents of that earth (you and me), too.
You also said, “Look, you yourself state that men are fallable. Well, every step of the process for generating the Bible has been handled by men. Do you think that men are incapable of having screwed something up along the way? That maybe, just maybe, they made a goof or two?”
If that were so, then the Bible would have vast changes in meaning in it and doctrinal differences over a thousand year period. I showed you documentation from the Dead Sea Scrolls which show that the Bible we hold now in our hands has NOT been altered in that period of time. Is it inconceivable to you that God, rather than appearing physically to each person Himself (which would be a miracle) chose instead to supernaturally preserve ONE book? Is it impossible for God to have done this? I am not saying people won’t try and make a fake one. I read about a Bible being created now where the feminists changed every reference to Deity to SHE instead of HE because they thought it was offensive. They changed every reference, and where God called Himself a Father, they changed it to Mother. However, I do not consider that an authentic Bible because it has been intentionally changed to fit an agenda. There can be false Bibles, but that does not mean there is not a true one. Just as there is false currency (counterfeit) and real. You just have to care enough to check the merchandise before you use it to make sure it is the real one, and true. I have done that research and tell you that you are wrong in simply tossing off the idea of an infallibly kept Bible as though it is a mere book of man. God Himself says He will preserve every WORD of it to EACH generation (Ps 12:6). He has not failed to do so.. it is kept and is infallibly the same book, with no altered doctrine within its pages from its inception. That is not foolish to believe, but documentable for the last 1000 years. Have you the proof of that for any other book in existence? Of it being unaltered?
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
As for your quoting me where I ask if you have to help those in the third world and then say, “One difference between God and me is that I do not claim to be all powerful and all good.” True. But exactly how come you think He must fit into your definitions of those terms? Suppose for example (and I am not sure this is the reason, but as an example) suppose He allows an atrocity like killing the Kurds by Chemical Ali, and then later uses it for the good purpose of convicting and hanging that evil man (it was a conviction that would stick.. others were harder to make stick), can you say He is wrong to do that? That, in your judgement, His purpose was not good enough to fit what you consider to be justice and goodness in God? In that case, who are you to reply to God and tell Him what is good or not? Are you able to sit in judgement on God’s decisions? Will you be justified in your judgement over the will of Almighty God?
You said “This implies that all atheists are vain in their imaginations, and their hearts are dark.” I didn’t say that.. God did. He says that men who turn from faith in God to atheism are vain in their imaginations and their hearts are dark. I can’t see into the hearts of men and I certainly have no idea what imaginings they have. Nor will I be their judge on Judgement Day.. but He will. Those are HIS words, not mine. All I did was quote them. What does this say, then, to you?
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
What can you conclude is meant about those who turn from knowing God?? Can you expound what the meaning of this is without offending? And if that is the judgement of God upon atheists, am I become an enemy to tell this as the truth? I mean you no harm if you are one of them.. but I must say what is the truth about this view. It is before God foolish.. that is HIS view. Can you say this says anything different from this passage above? What then should I do, not tell you the truth? Is it preferable to not know?
You go on to say, “if God is the cause of the Big Bang, where did he come from? If God can be an uncaused cause, then there can be uncaused causes, and so why can it not be the Big Bang?”
Whatever caused all things is not observable. We do not see it happening now, and even postulating further Big Bangs in the future is only that.. postulation. It is not fact. So it comes down to a choice.. either eternal God or eternal matter. You are asking if you can believe in eternal matter as the uncaused cause of all things. I think that is what atheism is.. a belief in the cause of all things being naturalistic and without divine cause. But it is not provable nor science.. any more than saying it is God who is the uncaused cause. Therefore, you cannot say you are scientific to believe in eternal matter and then say religious people are not scientific because they believe that back of it all is not eternal matter but God. BOTH are unproven scientifically so neither can be discounted as possible explanations scientifically.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
DTdNav said, “Whether you choose to admit it or not, “God did it†requires no further explanation. The story is not ended, why should I quit reading?”
I disagree with you that God did it so it requires no further explanation. Why then are there so many who started the sciences Christian if it stops all scientific inquiry to say God did it? Indeed, as Henry M. Morris wrote in the book “The Biblical Basis for Modern Science”, the foundation of the sciences are Christian. Modern science actually grew in a large measure out of the seeds of Christian theism. It is absurd to claim that one cannot be a true scientist if he believes in creation. Most of the great founders of science believed in creation and, indeed, in all the great doctrines of Biblical Christianity. Men such as Johann Kepler, Issac Newton, Robert Boyle, David Brewster, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), and a host of others of comparable stature were men who firmly believed in special creation and the personal omnipotent God of creation as well as believing in the Bible as the inspired Word of God and in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Their great contributions in science – indeed, in laying the very foundation of modern science – were made in implicit confidence that they were merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” and that they were doing His will and glorifying His name in so doing. They certainly entertained no thoughts of conflict between science and the Bible.
Some skeptics might say that such men were merely products of their times – that everyone believed in God and the Bible at that time. But that is exactly the point! It was no coincidence that it was in the wake of the Reformation that modern science first grew and began to thrive. Fruitful scientific research almost demands a Biblical worldview, either conciously or subconciously – a world view in which like causes produce like effects, where natural phenomena follow fixed and intelligible natural laws, and where we can have confidence that we can think rationally and meaningfully. Such a world presupposes no random, chaotic origin but an origin under the control of a great mind and will, an intelligent and volitional First Cause, a great Lawgiver who can enact, implement, and enforce His created laws.
Many recent scientists though they themselves are not creationists, are still willing to recognise the Christian, creationist origin of modern science. Entomologist Stanley Beck, an articulate anticreationist, has acknowledged this fact: “The first of the unprovable premises on which science has been based is the belief that the world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing its real nature.. The second and best known postulate underlying the structure of scientific knowledge is that of cause and effect.. The third basic scientific premise is that nature is unified.” (We can know that if we drop a dish in New York, it will break on the floor (cause and effect) just as reliably as if we dropped it in Paris, France .. nature is unified in its effects.)
Christian creationists would certainly agree with all these premises, although such concepts were largely either unformulated, ignored, or rejected by the pagan philosophers of antiquity. Beck acknowledges that they are essentially Christian in origin and nature. “These scientific premises define and limit the scientific mode of thought. It should be pointed out, however, that each of these postulates had its origin in, or was consistent with, Christian theology.” Why then should there be any conflict between Christian theology and true science? And why would you say it is out of atheism that will come progress when it takes a Christian world view to even think rationally about scientific truth? This remains true for today – for instance, the inventor of the laser and maser.. is a Christian. I thought his thoughts on science, truth and God were worth reading, here,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/ethics/2005-03-10-townes-templeton-prize_x.htm
June 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I have read almost all of the posts so far, and in them I see a lot of references to people saying they don’t believe in creationism but they do believe that God started the universe at some point, perhaps triggering the big bang or creating the material that became the big bang. I can understand this position from the stand point of wanting there to be a “cause” to the whole thing, what I don’t get is what is the role of that God now. Is it the classic Deist stand point, of a creator that starts the ball running and then sits back and see what happens. Or does this God then continue to influence things along the way, making sure the lightning strikes in just the right spot to start that first organism in the ocean?
If he justs starts things rolling then what is the point of him?
June 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I must agree that I can at least respect the viewpoint that a sentient being created the universe, even though I don’t share the belief. It is currently outside of scientific proof, although that might change when the James Webb Space Telescope is launched in the next few years, which I think has the power to focus on the edges of the universe. I can understand this viewpoint though, because it does not conflict with any solid scientific theories, even though current pre-universe theories tend to disagree with the concept a concious “creator.” But even if it is the case that an aware being caused the Big Bang, that this universe has been created not unlike a programmer can create a computer simulation, this being would almost certainly be a completely different entity with no similarities to humankind. Man’s existence would still be an unplanned event. But this theory does seem a lot more complex than the scientifically accepted ones, and as history has shown, the simpler theories are usually the ones that remain valid.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Sara
Says:
You ask why God would make people who do not believe He exists? The answer is that man innately believes in God. ALL cultures believe in God by default. They have to be EDUCATED out of it. The primitive peoples all believe in some kind of god.
ANANSI WEAVER: Actually this isn’t true. Unlike any other animal in the animal kingdom, man is the only one that has to learn to do just about everything. Personally I didn’t learn about religion and by extension god, until I was 5 or 6.
If you think about it you were probably brought to church since you were a baby so belief in god would seem natural to you but it is a learned experience much like your comprehension of the English language or use of the computer.
Sara
Says:
God did not write about it in the Bible in scientific detail.
ANANSI WEAVER: Um… God didn’t write the bible, several men did. If god did write the bible then your concept of an omniscient god flies right out the window. Again 2 DIFFEREWNT CREATION STORIES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!!!
Sara
Says:
There is no refute to what He has done. You are merely discovering by Science what He has done.
ANASI WEAVER: So you believe in evolution then?
Sara
Says:
Omniscience, means He knows everything, the fact is that God is infallible in what He knows and how He acts.
ANANSI WEAVER: So god in all it’s infinite knowledge, knew that flooding the Earth to eradicate all evil in the world was doomed to failure and flooded the world anyway because?
If your god was all knowing then it would have known that planting the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden and leaving it unprotected was a baaaaad idea.
I could go on but I doubt you would see how flawed your statements are.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Sara,
Thank you for answering my questions. I think you have your work cut out for you if you wish to continue debating in this forum. Many people here have learned to be very skeptical of what they see, hear and read, and many are well versed in scripture and mythology.
In regards to question regarding Creationism, you said, “I accept the Bible’s account that God made the Universe as it says.” Does that mean you consider yourself as a “literal” Creationist? By that, I mean one who believes the earth was literally created in 6 days, that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, and that humans, plants and animals were instantly created out of dust, and exist today as they did at the time of creation?
The story of creation brings up a multitude of contradictions when taken literally.
For example, which came first, the plants and animals, or Man?
Whom did Adam and Eve’s children marry?
How long did Adam and Eve live?
I can keep going, and I too can include 100 passages taken directly from the Bible to back up my claims, but for the sake of brevity, I won’t. The point I’m trying to make is, you seem to take the Bible literally at times (such as the 10 commandments written by the finger of God) and yet you pass off the literal meaning as our own flawed interpretation when the Bible contradicts observable evidence.
Finally, I take mild offense at your opinion that science is a belief system. You said, “All men are allowed to think and to reason within the confines of their belief systems.. both those which include God and those who assume naturalistic causes for all they see. They are both belief systems and require certain assumptions.”
To equate science with religion tells me perhaps you are not well educated in the natural world. Since I don’t know what you do for a living, and since I respect the strength of your convictions (even if I don’t agree with them), I won’t let it really bother me. However, you might want to do a little bit of reading outside the Bible. Perhaps reading one of the books listed in Phil’s Bad Astronomy Book Store, or even a 9th grade science textbook.
It seems I’ve fallen victim, along with many others, to a very rousing debate which has little to do with the original topic. Luckily, there’s plenty of room on the internet!
June 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Sara, I totally agree: Sigh…
It must be truly wonderful to live in a world where you can draw the most concrete conclusions from so little evidence. Your statements are not so obviously grounded in established fact that I can’t possibly counter them. You do not know my story so completely that you have every right to admonish me with “So don’t continue to say…” But the game is over, this horse is dead, I relinquish my crop. I am utterly convinced that you are utterly convinced that there is nothing wrong with circular reasoning, that it’s OK to pick and choose which facts to quote and which facts to ignore, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to confuse fact with opinion.
Here’s my opinion: You have done your cause no good. I am now reasonably certain that I don’t have the capacity to understand how you think, and that it may be harder for me not to project this towards others of faith as well. I finally begin to see the frustration that Dr. Plait and James Randi feel everyday, and why their tolerance for this alien mindset is diminishing.
I truly hope you have a good life and enjoy your blissful ignorance. I’ll give you the last word.
DTdNav
June 28th, 2007 at 8:18 am
’suppose He allows an atrocity like killing the Kurds by Chemical Ali, and then later uses it for the good purpose of convicting and hanging that evil man’
What? so god killed all those women and children so that the man who did it could be punished?!
Wow!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Full quote (don’t parse my words to make me say what I didn’t captain swoop) Suppose for example (and I am not sure this is the reason, but as an example) suppose He allows an atrocity like killing the Kurds by Chemical Ali, and then later uses it for the good purpose of convicting and hanging that evil man (it was a conviction that would stick.. others were harder to make stick), can you say He is wrong to do that?
Not knowing how God judges on every iota of law, I made this one up.. to ask if it is correct to judge God. The example is just that.. you pick one. Explain evil, why it exists if God is Omnipotent.. captain swoop.
Miranda Rights.. “I have the right to remain silent.. anything I say will be used against me in the court of this blog… ”
Sara.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Perhaps I should have said MISparse.. using parse in the sense of the definition.. “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components.” Correct examination I understand, but this broke it up without the full quote or my intended meaning. Perhaps abridge would have been the better word, closer to my meaning, and I should have said, “Don’t abridge my words”…
June 28th, 2007 at 10:49 am
or misabridge..
June 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Sara Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Full quote (don’t parse my words to make me say what I didn’t captain swoop) Suppose for example (and I am not sure this is the reason, but as an example) suppose He allows an atrocity like killing the Kurds by Chemical Ali, and then later uses it for the good purpose of convicting and hanging that evil man (it was a conviction that would stick.. others were harder to make stick), can you say He is wrong to do that?
Yes. Yes he is. Murdering hundreds of innocents so that he would eventually be convicted, rather then, I don’t know, giving him the plague. How the heck is that good? And any further analysis on the part of the theist is attempting to know the mind of God, which you yourselves say is impossible. The answer is: “I don’t know why.” That’s the ONLY answer consistent with your basic theology.
I also want to give you a suggestion. By all means, continue to comment. If nothing else, skeptics love reasoned debates. But you are arguing illogically. The Bible is correct. Why? Because the Bible says so. God is good. How do you know? The Bible says so. Who wrote the Bible. God. How do we know God exists? The Bible says so. It’s circular reasoning. It just isn’t going to fly in a real intellectual debate. In short, don’t use Bible verses to back you up. You can’t claim somone is right, then use the writings of that person as a reference to support that.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Sara said:
> Recently (14 June 2007 article) they have said that the “junk†DNA (which they thought did NOTHING) is actually not junk and we have to rename it since it has purpose and complexity in it.
Thank you for that link. Finally scientists are seeing what I’ve been saying for some time. It is incredibly hubristic to take something of which we just barely understand the edges and declare everything else “junk” because we don’t yet know what it does.
> As Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.†What he meant was, the creation has to be rational and scientific if God is behind it.
Sigh. Einstein was prone to applying religious metaphor to poetically express his thoughts. The problem is that makes those quote prone to misapplication and misunderstanding. Einstein was making no statement about the nature of God. He specifically believed in “the God of Spinoza”, which is to say that he used religious terms to apply a sense of awe and wonder to the universe itself. He did not believe in an anthropomorphized sentient supernatural entity.
The quote you cite was his remark to complain that he did not feel the universe operated randomly. He felt the universe operates systematically, as exemplified by Newtonian physics. Except that he appears to be wrong. So far quantum mechanics pretty thoroughly shows inherent randomness at the smallest scale.
> You also mentioned that the more we find out about science the less religion is needed to explain things. You then mentioned that the more we learn about science the more the creationists seem to think they are winning. These two thoughts appear in contradiction to one another. Both arguments cannot be true.. we cannot both be winning and losing if the two sides are irreconcilable and opposite.
That is true, one cannot be both winning and losing. However, it is possible for the losing side to think it is winning. It’s called “being wrong”.
> I think the problem is that those who think that science will explain everything (and explain God away) are unaware or have not thought through the implications of irreducable complexity.
Arg! Not Irreducible Complexity again? Gah! IC is a load of drivel that is foundationally flawed and evidenciarally decimated.
> We just “happen†to be in the exact place with the exactly necessary components for life??
Funny how that happens. And fish just happen to live in water, as opposed to on land, where they would suffocate. And snow just happens to form where it’s cold, instead of the desert. If the Earth did not have the conditions necessary for life like us, then we would not be here to observe that the Earth had the wrong conditions.
> Like the bacteria with the whiptail – if any part of it is removed the tail will not rotate!! – all the parts of the bacteria must be there in order for it to function properly and if only one part is missing the entire bacteria becomes nonfunctional.
The assumption is that the bacteria in its current form could only arise in its current form. It fails to grasp the piecemeal accummulation of small changes, and how complex structures can be built up from simpler ones, and how structures that do a particular job now may have done a different job in the past.
> The more science we do the more irreducable complexity we see…
That is false. Biologists have been decimating every single Irreducibly Complex example proposed by Behe et al.
>> Irishman said, “Are you really that naive? Are you truly claiming that the Ten Commandments were carved in stone by God himself? I think you’ve been watching the Charleston Heston movie too much.
> Reply:
> Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when He had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Question for you:
Do you believe the Book of Mormon was actually dictated by God to Mormon, then hidden away by his son, Moroni, who then became a “glorified, resurrected being” and conveyed God’s message to Joseph Smith? After all, it’s written in the book.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sara said:
> I think the reason God has not shown Himself to you is that you haven’t been asking right. If you truly wish for God to meet you, you have to come on His terms… It must be honest, like a child comes to something.. that is why Jesus said to come into the Kingdom of heaven you must be AS a little child. That attitude, that humility, that sincerity.. not with sarcasm or mockery or irreverence, but as a child.
You make a lot of assumptions about people you have never met.
Sara said:
> Irishman, I have not given you or anyone here any vitrol nor assumed you to be immoral, as you said of me. The quote you used was my showing that mankind believes in God until they are educated out of that rudimentary belief. Then they profess themselves to be wise, but are (according to the Bible) foolish for their disbelief. It was not meant with any evil intent or to cause anger I assure you. I did no name calling or vitrol. I meant no offense.
Regardless of what you meant, the attitude displayed by that quote is full of contempt for atheists. As I said, it implies that all atheists are vain in their imaginations and have dark hearts.
As for it being a quote from God, you can’t get off the hook so easily. You are the one who stated it as an example of your beliefs, and you did not quote it at first.
> You ask, “So what does it mean to view the physical world as a manifestation of God? How are you defining the word God to have meaning beyond the physical world itself? And if not, what is the point?â€
>The creation (all we see) is separate from God in the same way a painting is separate from you. He created it, but it is not HIM.
Actually, I asked that question of Em, about a particular remark by Em. I wanted to probe his/her thoughts more. I already knew what your beliefs are.
> If that were so, then the Bible would have vast changes in meaning in it and doctrinal differences over a thousand year period. I showed you documentation from the Dead Sea Scrolls which show that the Bible we hold now in our hands has NOT been altered in that period of time.
It’s incredible you can be so blind. To point out the obvious, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not include the New Testament. HELLO! Doctrinal difference: “eye for an eye” vs “turn the other cheek”. How about Deuteronomy 22:23-24
versus “Let he is without sin among you cast the first stone”? Or if you want a more modern example of doctrinal differences, look at Catholocism vs, say, Baptists. Look at the role of the priest and intercessory, or the practice of confession, or the difference in attitudes about Saints and Mary.
> Is it inconceivable to you that God, rather than appearing physically to each person Himself (which would be a miracle) chose instead to supernaturally preserve ONE book? Is it impossible for God to have done this?
Look at the actual history of the whole Bible, and this claim is proven false. Whether God could or could not supernaturally preserve a book, he has not.
> I am not saying people won’t try and make a fake one…
And I’m not talking about intentional fakes, either.
> As for your quoting me where I ask if you have to help those in the third world and then say, “One difference between God and me is that I do not claim to be all powerful and all good.†True. But exactly how come you think He must fit into your definitions of those terms? Are you able to sit in judgement on God’s decisions? … Will you be justified in your judgement over the will of Almighty God?
This gets into the complex topic of the origins of morality. For the sake of argument, let’s go this direction. If God intends to judge me for my moral choices, and hold my failures against me, then he must imbue me with the ability to discern those moral choices. He cannot fairly hold me accountable for decisions I cannot understand. But if he has given me the ability to discern good and evil, then he cannot fault me for applying that moral judgement to the best of my ability. And if morality comes from God, then he must fit my definitions of those terms, because they are from him.
You raise the condition that I may not understand all the motivations and details that go into a particular action by God, and am thus unfairly judging him based upon incomplete information. But consider that if I am to learn morality from God, then I must be able to interpret his actions. If his actions appear to be evil by the standards that he has given me, then how am I to make sense of that? Am I supposed to follow his example, and take the actions I see him do, even if they look evil to me? And what does it say about me that I should follow his example while thinking it to be evil?
> Suppose for example (and I am not sure this is the reason, but as an example) suppose He allows an atrocity like killing the Kurds by Chemical Ali, and then later uses it for the good purpose of convicting and hanging that evil man (it was a conviction that would stick.. others were harder to make stick), can you say He is wrong to do that?
Well, that particular example is pretty lame, because why should God care one iota of whether or not “Chemical Ali” is convicted in a human court and hanged for his actions? Shouldn’t he be more concerned over the lives of those Kurds? And if Saddam Hussein is truly as evil as God thinks, wouldn’t the direct approach be better for all?
And that’s a question I have for any would-be suicide bombers or holy murderers (abortion doctor assassins, etc) – if God asks you to kill someone else, shouldn’t you tell him to do it himself? It would be much cleaner, more direct, and less possibility of “collateral damage”. Why does God need to hire an assistant to take care of the “dirty work”?
> And if that is the judgement of God upon atheists, am I become an enemy to tell this as the truth? I mean you no harm if you are one of them.. but I must say what is the truth about this view. It is before God foolish.. that is HIS view. Can you say this says anything different from this passage above? What then should I do, not tell you the truth? Is it preferable to not know?
If you believe that attitude to be truth, that is your perogative, but don’t then get upset when I point out the offensiveness of that attitude. Frankly, I don’t care if that is what you think your God’s attitude is. However, I’m not going to stand here and be insulted just to make you feel better.
> You are asking if you can believe in eternal matter as the uncaused cause of all things. I think that is what atheism is.. a belief in the cause of all things being naturalistic and without divine cause. But it is not provable nor science.. any more than saying it is God who is the uncaused cause. Therefore, you cannot say you are scientific to believe in eternal matter and then say religious people are not scientific because they believe that back of it all is not eternal matter but God. BOTH are unproven scientifically so neither can be discounted as possible explanations scientifically.
Scientifically, the universe works naturalistically. There is good evidence of this. There is no positive evidence for the existence of any type of deity. Scientifically, it is valid to project the known type of causes backwards rather than hypothesize a different type of cause that is not in evidence.
I’m sure there’s more to say, but that will do for now.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:15 am
You say I have made assumptions about people I have never met because I mentioned how our attitude in coming before Deity must be AS a child, as Jesus taught. I assumed only that the need was universal for men to come to God with the right attitude and that it is a hinderance to have the wrong one. It was in a spirit of helpfulness to one who has not trod that path that I gave such thoughts. You took it with vitrol when I said it was not meant that way nor with offense when you said that I showed contempt for atheists. Actually I am not contemptuous for quoting the words God put in the Bible at all. You cannot judge my motivations. One can state a word with differing motives than you think.
You say, “If God intends to judge me for my moral choices, and hold my failures against me, then he must imbue me with the ability to discern those moral choices. He cannot fairly hold me accountable for decisions I cannot understand. But if he has given me the ability to discern good and evil, then he cannot fault me for applying that moral judgement to the best of my ability. And if morality comes from God, then he must fit my definitions of those terms, because they are from him.”
Here, your point is that you must in every point be imbued with the ability to discern the moral choices God is judging you by. That is untrue. HIS judgement is completely correct and can rightly remain undiscerned by you to the end. But you may not believe that right now. You may need to be CONVINCED of this later. The Bible says He will CONVINCE many people later of His right judgement when He comes to judge mankind:
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Here God is executing judgment UPON ALL.. no one escapes it. And He will also CONVINCE ALL of their errors. It does not say they knew of them before this time. There will be those who need convincing that their twisted reasonings were incorrect and not morally right. He does not need to prove His judgement to you or anyone. His reasoning is right, even if you do not agree or are unaware of it.
You say, “if he has given me the ability to discern good and evil, then he cannot fault me for applying that moral judgement to the best of my ability.”
He will fault you for all that which you have spoken against Him which is wrong, as this Scripture says. And you will be unable to answer that God is UNrighteous to judge you so.. in that day. His reasoning will convince you of your error because it is Omniscient and infallible. You will bow before Him in humility now, or in contrition and recognition of your error later. Your choice.
You say, “if morality comes from God, then he must fit my definitions of those terms, because they are from him.” Yes, it is from Him, the morality you hold. But you hold that truth in unrighteousness and with twisted logic and He will convince you just how very very wrong your viewpoint really is, one day. My words may not convince you, but His will. You bear the responsibility for ignoring the testimony of His Word to you. This diatribe you all write to me here on this blog may end up one of those “hard speeches” He will one day convince you of as having been evil, because the words you speak here do not accord with the truth and you are currently mocking it.
You say, “I must be able to interpret his actions. If his actions appear to be evil by the standards that he has given me, then how am I to make sense of that?”
If your judgement of the situation is flawed so that God has to convince you that you have erred in your judgement one day, along with all others who make the same mistakes in reasoning, then it making complete sense to you is not necessarily God’s first priority as you are assuming. Nor is it true that you MUST be able to correctly interpret His actions. The Scriptures teach that some will die without that correction in thinking:
Pro 5:21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he ponders all his goings.
Pro 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be held with the cords of his sins.
Pro 5:23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.
NOWHERE does the Scripture say that God is obligated to instruct those He considers wicked, the unrepentant. “He shall die without instruction,” it says here. Will you say that God is wrong to not correct all evil persons, including unrepentant sinners like yourself? Then your judgement will later be proven wrong, because His judgement cannot be ovethrown and He will one day convince you it is true.
You say, “You raise the condition that I may not understand all the motivations and details that go into a particular action by God, and am thus unfairly judging him based upon incomplete information. But consider that if I am to learn morality from God, then I must be able to interpret his actions. If his actions appear to be evil by the standards that he has given me, then how am I to make sense of that? Am I supposed to follow his example, and take the actions I see him do, even if they look evil to me? And what does it say about me that I should follow his example while thinking it to be evil?”
IF His actions appear to you evil and YOUR view is the incorrect one and not His, then you are obligated to seek out and know the truth – He is not. The lack of understanding is yours, the fault is yours, the folly is yours, not His. And accusing God as you go along in your lack of understanding is folly. If that appears to you to be unfair, you are not the first to think so, but that does not make you right. The Bible brings up an example of God’s predestination and how men rail against Him for it when it says:
Rom 9:17-23 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom He will he hardens. You will say then to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted his will? No, but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have You made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour? What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared to glory, even us..
This says that mankind is like clay before God and He is the potter. There are those who God fashions like a potter to honor, others are not given that ability by God. They, too, have their purpose in this world. They are vessels “fitted to destruction” who are without instruction and will later be convinced what they did was wrong and evil before God. But God is not obligated to make all persons “vessels of mercy” and save all of mankind. He does not have to instruct and make plain His ways before all of them. He is like a potter who chooses to make one vessel to display in the living room and another as a garbage holder. What He does with what is His own is His business. All men are His Creation and will acknowlege one day that they are in His hand to do with as He wills, even as the clay is in the hand of the potter. Who are we to say to God, “You MUST make me a godly person and give me faith. You MUST prove your judgement right to my satisfaction. You must justify Your actions to me.” ?? We cannot force God to do anything. And in the end, He will be proven right and men who oppose Him wrong. Most of those who reject Him will have to be convinced of their folly after this life.. but He has the time to convince them, and to judge them and send them to their eternal resting places (garbage heap). For you, I hope you will see the light before then and not end up in that horrible place. Perhaps you will listen now.. but perhaps it is later when the One speaking to you will not be me, but God.
You say, “Well, that particular example is pretty lame, because why should God care one iota of whether or not “Chemical Ali†is convicted in a human court and hanged for his actions? Shouldn’t he be more concerned over the lives of those Kurds? And if Saddam Hussein is truly as evil as God thinks, wouldn’t the direct approach be better for all?”
This again is asking God to fit your view of how He should think and how He should act. And what if your judgement is WRONG? (HINT: Our judgement often is, note the Junk DNA argument.. incomplete data means we mistake the situation all the time.) Will you wait until the OMNICIENT (All knowing, thus unable to make wrong judgements on incomplete data like we do) God convinces you of your folly later before you are willing to admit you are a fallible human being and your reasoning is flawed? That if God decided that this is exactly what He wills to do, you must bow before His will and not resist it? Will you justify YOURSELF when the person you are contending against is Almighty GOD Himself? Do you really think you are going to win in a contest of reasoning and wills with GOD? Think about it.. your eternal destiny may hang on how carefully you handle these accusatory views of God. Do you really wish to justify your wrong view, and be smug in yourself… until He convinces you otherwise, but your soul is lost for eternity? He does not have to convince Hitler, Saddam.. or you, of your errors. Theirs may appear to be folly to your mind, but I assure you, Saddam, when facing the gallows did think He was right. And Hitler fought with great determination because he was convinced his view was the correct one. Do you think they still think so? If you continue on in this folly, Nor will you, one day.. nor will you.
You say, “If you believe that attitude to be truth, that is your perogative, but don’t then get upset when I point out the offensiveness of that attitude. Frankly, I don’t care if that is what you think your God’s attitude is. However, I’m not going to stand here and be insulted just to make you feel better.”
The offensiveness of the attitude I recognise. Even Paul said the gospel of Christ was a gospel of offense to the natural minds of men.
Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Men do not like their own ideas overthrown. The cross of Jesus offends us because it reveals our need for forgiveness from God and our own inability to understand Him or His ways. It reveals to us our need to repent and come to Him in humility, acknowledging our own knowledge as wrong and incomplete. God’s attitude is written in the Bible. If you think His words which I have quoted are insulting, I imagine you will need convincing it is not so in the future. God will furnish you with that convincing, but isn’t it better to be convinced now when you can do something constructive about your choices? Suicide bombers have an incorrect view of God which you will admit is heinously silly. I suggest yours is not an iota less silly to God. You think a suicide bomber would not find your view of him insulting? That if you told him what you thought of his intentions and values and feelings.. that he would not take offense at those words? You, too, like that suicide bomber, are insulted and offended at the thought you are wrong in your view. But you are… and God will convince you one day, either here on earth (to glory) or there after death (to perdition or hell).
And it doesn’t make me feel better to think you may miss the boat. I assure you, the only reason I speak is not to “control” or “manipulate” you as someone before said is the motivation of all people who quote and use the Bible texts.. but I speak this to you because I care that your soul miss perdition and end up in heaven. God is my witness. But if you are a vessel to dishonor, nothing I say will phase you and the convincing will happen later.. after it is too late to repent.. to your eternal sorrow. This is how reality functions.. by the God who created that reality and rules it and will one day judge you according to His view.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Sara said:
> Not knowing how God judges on every iota of law, I made this one up.. to ask if it is correct to judge God. The example is just that.. you pick one. Explain evil, why it exists if God is Omnipotent.. captain swoop.
Well, now, that’s a good question, one that philosophers have been asking for centuries. Just how does an all-Good, all-Powerful, all-Knowing God create a universe with Evil in it? Where did the Evil come from? And why does he allow Evil to continue to effect lives? Not just evil actions by people, but horrible “natural” events, like hurricanes and earthquakes.
As for answering the question, the simple answer is that the existence of evil disproves either that God is all-powerful (he can’t prevent all evil), all-knowing (he is unaware the evil is occurring), all-good (God likes a little evil now and then), or else that he exists at all (the simplest answer). It is not up to the non-believer to explain the logical contradiction caused by belief in God. That burden is upon the believer. And no, “God works in mysterious ways” does not suffice.
Sara said:
> You say I have made assumptions about people I have never met because I mentioned how our attitude in coming before Deity must be AS a child, as Jesus taught. I assumed only that the need was universal for men to come to God with the right attitude and that it is a hinderance to have the wrong one.
No, you said:
You are assuming that people have not followed the formula you cite. You are assuming that people have not approached God as a child.
> You took it with vitrol when I said it was not meant that way nor with offense when you said that I showed contempt for atheists. Actually I am not contemptuous for quoting the words God put in the Bible at all.
The contempt is in the words themselves. If you choose those words to express yourself, you are accountable for the meaning conveyed by the words.
> This says that mankind is like clay before God and He is the potter. There are those who God fashions like a potter to honor, others are not given that ability by God. They, too, have their purpose in this world. They are vessels “fitted to destruction†who are without instruction and will later be convinced what they did was wrong and evil before God. But God is not obligated to make all persons “vessels of mercy†and save all of mankind. He does not have to instruct and make plain His ways before all of them. He is like a potter who chooses to make one vessel to display in the living room and another as a garbage holder. What He does with what is His own is His business. All men are His Creation and will acknowlege one day that they are in His hand to do with as He wills, even as the clay is in the hand of the potter.
Okay, you are seriously arguing that God made some of us Evil to serve his purpose, and then he is going to judge and condemn us for being evil, like he made us?
I think the futility of this conversation has become spectacularly clear.
> Will you wait until the OMNICIENT (All knowing, thus unable to make wrong judgements on incomplete data like we do) God convinces you of your folly later before you are willing to admit you are a fallible human being and your reasoning is flawed?
Oh I fully admit to being a fallible human being. I am open to being convinced my reasoning is flawed. So far, I have not been shown clear reasoning that that is the case here. So far, the best “reasoning” that has been provided against me is “shut up and obey or you’ll burn in hell. You surely can’t understand, just believe.” Sorry, that is not convincing that my reasoning is flawed. If anything, that tells me my reasoning is correct. My reasoning has not been refuted by logic and clear explanation, it has been trumped by “But you’re not God!”
> God will furnish you with that convincing, but isn’t it better to be convinced now when you can do something constructive about your choices? … But you are… and God will convince you one day, either here on earth (to glory) or there after death (to perdition or hell).
Even though I know this will be fruitless, I still have to ask: Why is it that I have to be convinced without evidence before I die in order to go to heaven, but after I’m dead and presented with evidence it is too late? Why is a serial mass murderer able to “repent” at the last second before death and get into Heaven, but a decent person who tries his best to help others but waits for the evidence can’t change his mind right after death and be saved? Why is death the magic line?
I’m fairly certain this conversation has reached it’s productive end. Repeated citations of scripture and exhortations of God’s supremacy “because God said so” do little to advance the conversation. Being told to repent does not change my mind. Logical argument might, but I’ve seen little in the way of logic from you. I wonder if anyone out there is getting anything out of this exchange. I doubt either of us has.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Psa 24:1 The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Dan 4:34-35 I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that lives for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say to Him, What are you doing?
This says that you, indeed, are the Lord’s..
ALL those who dwell in the earth belong to Him as His own creation, the works of His hands. ALL, you ask? Yes, ALL.. all those who dwell in the earth, even those who do not acknowledge Him now or deny His very existence, this says.
And no one can say to Him “What are You doing?” when He chooses to do something or act in some way they disapprove of. That does not mean they cannot say the words.. it means that such words will not stand. It is a losing proposition to choose to judge God. He cannot lose. Only man can. Infinite wisdom and knowledge cannot be corrected by fallible man with his incomplete understanding. NONE can stop His hand or say to Him.. “what are you doing?”
When you say, “.. the simple answer is that the existence of evil disproves either that God is all-powerful (he can’t prevent all evil), all-knowing (he is unaware the evil is occurring), all-good (God likes a little evil now and then), or else that he exists at all (the simplest answer).”
You are again making up with your incomplete understanding ideas which are incorrect. You cannot stop His being all powerful and all knowing and all good.. by saying that evil is incompatible with it. Just as you cannot bring order out of chaos, but God does all the time. God says He uses evil to work good. It is part of His plan for mankind.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good …
Here Scripture says ALL things work together for the good. ALL THINGS??? Even evil? Yes. ALL. And further that it is worked:
Eph 1:11 .. according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will:
ALL things are worked after the counsel of His will.. even evil? Yes, He says here ALL things, even evil.
God can do that. He has the power to work good out of evil, according to the counsel of His own will. So I ask you, how can you say that because there is evil it MUST disprove God in some way.. such as His Omnipotence, Omnicience, His being wholly good, or even His existence? Your view is that God therefore is outside of that evil, not working through it for good. Your view conflicts with His.. whose do you think will win?
As for your acknowledgement that God considers men who do not believe in Him fools, and that His words which I quoted offend you. I think you need to deal with the reality of the authorship of those words and not fault the messenger. Railing as the signpost on the roadside which says “watch out for falling rock” is not getting to the importance of the matter at hand or the intent of the author of those words (which you are also assuming was ridicule and not merely descriptive).
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fool:
- a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
- “fool with” – to handle or play with idly or carelessly: to be hurt while fooling with a loaded gun; to fool with someone’s affections.
If the term is descriptive of playing idly or carelessly with sacred truth.. and is an act of someone who has been tricked or deceived into acting stupidly thereby.. then we are not talking about a term of ridicule, nor of contempt, but one of DESCRIPTION:
1) One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have quit my job.
2) One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe: They made a fool of me by pretending I had won.
3) “The word has in modern English a much stronger sense than it had at an earlier period; it has now an implication of insulting contempt which does not in the same degree belong to any of its synonyms, or to the derivative foolish.” [OED]
Remember the Bible is a very ANCIENT book.. and modern English is not the right standard to judge the words used in it by. Though sometimes modern uses can almost resurrect the old:
n. As used by hackers, specifically describes a person who habitually reasons from obviously or demonstrably incorrect premises and cannot be persuaded by evidence to do otherwise; it is not generally used in its other senses, i.e., to describe a person with a native incapacity to reason correctly, or a clown. Indeed, in hackish experience many fools are capable of reasoning all too effectively in executing their errors. See also cretin, loser, fool file.
We use the words Paradigm Shift for those who are able to make the leap from one set of premises to another. Religious truth requires a radical paradigm shift which is so revolutionary that Jesus described it as being like being “born again”.. something which means coming into a completely different world of understanding. It may do no good to explain this world to you because you will not go through the door into that other world by repentance to see for yourself.. but you cannot reason your way into that other world because:
1Co 2:14 … the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Since you are in the natural state, the Bible says these truths appear to be foolishness to you. How can you get to the point of understanding a world which you cannot see? I know God as a person.. He is more real to me than you are. You can know Him too.. if you would humble yourself and ask His forgiveness. If you will not do so, you cannot reason yourself into faith because such truths are from another dimension and are spiritually discerned. I am like the man in the book “Flatland” (a classic, hope you have read it, by Edwin A. Abbott) explaining to you the person from the fourth dimension who has spoken to me. It is beyond your current knowledge and it will seem to you that I am FOOLISH.. all things from this other realm will be “foolishness to him: neither can he know them” because they require something you do not have, a kind of “spiritual discernment” which man does not naturally have in his unrepentant state. The only thing I can do is urge you to the only petition God will hear from a sinner.. repentence. Beyond that door, there is much more. Without it.. discussion will indeed seem futile.
To that end I will give it one more try..
You say, “Why is a serial mass murderer able to “repent†at the last second before death and get into Heaven, but a decent person who tries his best to help others but waits for the evidence can’t change his mind right after death and be saved?”
You obviously consider yourself a decent person who tries to help others.. and so.. deserving of heaven? That goodness you hold onto which says you are adequate before God and do not need to repent to Him is an error. Though the serial mass murderer is guilty of more evil.. you are not guiltless. EACH person is a sinner and all deserve the same penalty, eternal separation from God (which is called hell). The difference comes when a person knows they are guilty before God and asks Him for forgiveness. God made the way back to Him easy enough a child can do it. All it takes is a bit of humility and willingness to admit fault. Stopping relying on your own goodness and decency and realizing that your own decency has flaws in it which God considers as sinful as that mass murderer.
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and do not lean to your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct Your paths.
Pro 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Does this not say that our own understanding is inadequate? That we must acknowlege Him, come to Him in repentance, and not think ourselves wiser than God? And if you turn from Him this day, saying you will not repent of your sins and saying you are wiser and can judge Him (as you did in this post by saying, “.. the simple answer is that the existence of evil disproves either that God is all-powerful (he can’t prevent all evil), all-knowing (he is unaware the evil is occurring), all-good (God likes a little evil now and then), or else that he exists at all (the simplest answer).” ) will you be justified in doing so?
Those who repent are forgiven.. it is the repentance which God wishes and will not allow any into heaven without. He made the bar to Heaven easy to get over for anyone.. without partiality. So long as they are willing to admit their sin, asking forgiveness, and turn from it.. that is. If the mass murderer will do so and the decent person who tries to help others will not.. God will not forgive the decent person because they did some good in their lives. He will show them the evil they ignored and glossed over and which offended His Holiness and Righteousness and condemn them justly. He offers forgiveness, but it is not a cheap or lowly offer.
When you ask, “Why is death the magic line?” Because by the time a person gets to the point of their death, the choice has been made. Saddam had a lot of time in prision to think about his eternal destiny and repent. He never did. But he was given the opportunity and can never fault God for his destiny. He can never say God is merciless and wicked and cruel when he was given the opportunity to repent and rejected it. He chose to spend eternity without God.. and what does a place without God look like.. without goodness, and mercy and peace and joy and love and kindness and gentleness? What do you think that place looks like? That is what hell is. And the choice to be with God (whose goodness is experienced by all every day) or not.. (ever heard the saying ‘hell on earth’??) belongs to each person, as it does to you.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Nope. I figured that horse was dead a few days (millenia) back.
The god she describes reminds me of a child. “I’m not gonna come out until you ask me in JUST the right way. And you have to tell me I’m the bestest most smartest god ever and you are nothing compared to me and you have to apologize to ME for not being created so you can live up to my standards that, admittedly, only I can live up to. Oh, if you don’t do that, when you die I’m going to finally give you the information you need to succeed…Oops, darn, it’ll be too late then and I’m going to make you suffer for all eternity. But it’s your choice, you have the free will.”
Maybe Zeus is not too busy to talk.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Sara said:
> You are again making up with your incomplete understanding ideas which are incorrect. You cannot stop His being all powerful and all knowing and all good.. by saying that evil is incompatible with it…. God says He uses evil to work good. It is part of His plan for mankind.
> ALL things are worked after the counsel of His will.. even evil? Yes, He says here ALL things, even evil.
> God can do that. He has the power to work good out of evil, according to the counsel of His own will. So I ask you, how can you say that because there is evil it MUST disprove God in some way.. such as His Omnipotence, Omnicience, His being wholly good, or even His existence? Your view is that God therefore is outside of that evil, not working through it for good.
You have just stated that God, who is by definition all good, is also evil. I’m sorry, now you’ve failed basic logic and semantics.
> As for your acknowledgement that God considers men who do not believe in Him fools, and that His words which I quoted offend you. I think you need to deal with the reality of the authorship of those words and not fault the messenger. Railing as the signpost on the roadside which says “watch out for falling rock†is not getting to the importance of the matter at hand or the intent of the author of those words (which you are also assuming was ridicule and not merely descriptive).
You example would be more appropriate if the sign said, “Watch for falling rock, you moron!” You know, if God wants to call me a fool, let him do it to my face, and not have self-appointed lackeys chasing me down on internet blogs who think insulting me is the way to get me to listen to them.
> Religious truth requires a radical paradigm shift which is so revolutionary that Jesus described it as being like being “born againâ€.. something which means coming into a completely different world of understanding. It may do no good to explain this world to you because you will not go through the door into that other world by repentance to see for yourself..
Once again, you make assumptions about me that are not true. You do not know my history, my childhood raised in church, my study of the Bible, my sincere prayers, my baptism. You know nothing about me, and assume that my beliefs have always been what they are now.
> When you ask, “Why is death the magic line?†Because by the time a person gets to the point of their death, the choice has been made.
Sorry, that is not an answer to the question, it is merely restating it. Why is the choice concluded at death? If our souls/spirits are eternal, and bound for an eternal existence independent of our bodies, why is the removal from the body the critical decision time? Why is that the point that matters?
I’m sure you don’t have a real answer. Any response you give will boil down to “Because God said so”. That is not an explanation or justification. That is merely a pronouncement.
I think this last post of yours pretty much proves that the constructive conversation is over, and all that’s left is the preaching.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Oh boy… Sara, I think you are a victim of human nature. You want to believe what you have been spoon fed so badly, that you will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. The wool has been pulled over your eyes your entire life, and you don’t even know it.
The Bible is not a “very ANCIENT book” by any means. Even if you go back to the original papyrus the first passages were written on, say 5,000 years ago (and that’s being generous), that’s not even close to being old compared to the age of the earth. If we round the age of the earth to 4.5 BILLION years, the old testament has been around for about 0.0001% of the time. Human beings (and I mean Homo sapiens) have only been on this planet for the last 200,000 years or so – only 0.004% of the time the earth has existed. That is an insignificant amount of time, geologically speaking. Not to mention, the Chinese have examples of writing from over 8,000 years ago. So, even if you consider the brief amount of time humans have been able to write, the current Bible (New Testament) is less than 2000 years old. Not ancient by any standard.
You seem thoroughly, passionately convinced that the book you read today (printed in what year?) is the only “truth” because that book TELLS YOU it is the only truth. That means to me that you have not at any time QUESTIONED the validity of what you are reading, because it TELLS YOU NOT TO! You seem unable to find any answer to anyone’s questions without quoting a line or two from scripture, with no empirical evidence or personal observation to back up your claims. You base your entire belief system on an invisible being you’ve read about in a book (written by humans) that totally contradicts the evidence gathered and verified by thousands of scientists all over the world, from hundreds of cultures, and yet you dare to call any non-believers fools?!?
I’m not trying to shake your faith, but I think you need to open your mind a little. You’re a victim of one aspect of human nature – the need to follow what someone else tells you to do. It makes your world a safe and comfy place, where you have a peace of mind because you believe your immortal soul will be granted eternal life, as long as you do not question what you are told. I suggest you consider allowing yourself to experience one of the many other traits of human nature – the need to question and understand the world around you. I have learned to question, with growing passion, what I have been told, because it does not match what I have seen myself. I see there is a much larger universe out there than what a holy book can possibly explain. I have taken off my blinders. I think you should try the same. Even for a moment.
Put down the bible, and take a step outside. Find a person (a real human being) and talk to them about something OTHER than the bible. Don’t talk about religion or faith, but something else. And then come back and tell us if that person you spoke with is less “real” to you than God. Its just a suggestion.
B-)
June 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Sarah
So far in this discussion you have offered no definitive proof of your claims other than to quote passages in the bible and offer your interpretations of its meaning. While at times I do find it amusing I fail to understand why you continue to use circular logic to justify your beliefs.
Is it really that difficult to come to terms with the possibility that the bible could be wrong? Is it that hard to admit that even with your faith you still have unanswered questions? Is it that difficult to say ” I don’t know.” instead of “The bible says?”
I am by no means saying that there is no god. I cannot say that god simply does not exist because I have no evidence of its existence and I can’t deny the POSSIBILITY that there is a god for the same reasons. Faith can be a wonderful thing. It can move people to do great things and to sacrifice for others but it is a double edge sword because BLIND FAITH can stifle life and promotes elitism, pride and stagnation.
No one belief system, theory, book etc. can have all the answers to all the questions that life presents to us. Sometimes in order to find the answers we seek we have to let go of our pride, admit that something isn’t working and take the steps to find the answers on our own.
I have a friend who is very religious and he really believes that god has the answer for everything. “All you have to do is ask and god will provide.†he would tell me. Then one day my mother was diagnosed with stomach cancer and given 6 moths to live and his first words to me was to pray for my mother’s good health.
He got really upset that I didn’t believe that prayer was the answer. I told him, as I believe, that god isn’t going to cure my mother. That’s not how the universe works and that we as a race, should have spent more time trying to solve the problems of the world i.e disease, famine, war, and less time asking god to do it for us. If we, as a race spent less time trying to prove whose god is the “one true god” and worrying about who is getting into heaven and who will burn in hell we could have found a cure for cancer, an answer for famine ended war and saves the lives of billions.
Now before you start to think that if I had taken my friends advice my mother would be alive today and / or that god was “testing my faith” I ask you to consider this:
My mother was a devoutly religious person. Even though she was chronically ill since she was a kid she went to church, kept up with all the holidays and followed all the rituals. She was a good person who never in her life wished anyone, even people who took advantage of her, any ill will. She always put a persons needs before her own and asked that her children do the same. Through all the illness and pain and hardship she endured she only asked god for one thing….
….she didn’t want to die of cancer. She saw what it did to her husband, she saw what it did to her mother and she asked god that if she had to die so be it that’s a part of life, but please I don’t want to die from cancer.
So naturally she got stomach cancer and my family got to watch as this wonderful, gentile, caring, kind, loving, supportive, intelligent woman who already suffered so much in her life slowly and painfully slip into dementia then a coma and finally die.
And it’s not because she didn’t pray right or because she didn’t have Jesus in her heart or she didn’t come to god as a child as you would have us believe it’s because god isn’t the magic cure all for mortal problems. It is apparent even in your bible, that god isn’t going to wave its hand (if it even has such an appendage) and solve our problems simply because we ask. We as a race have to do it ourselves. And if that means we have to stop clinging to god’s coattails, admit that religion doesn’t have all the answers then so be it.
I beseech you to take a step back and look, really look at what you are telling us here and be honest with yourself. Ask yourself “Do I really believe what I posted here or am I using my faith to shield me from the hard questions and the contradictions inherent in my beliefs?
And if you continue to post in this thread I would ask that you back your claims with something other that bible passeges.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:55 am
Rom 9:19 You will say then to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 No, O man, but who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have You made me thus?
When I quote this Scripture where it says that you cannot judge God, (reply against His all wise counsel) you say that you will and that your understanding is fully complete and that you have the right to do so and that you consider this understanding of God juvenile. (DTdNav said, “The god she describes reminds me of a child.” And Irishman said, “Any response you give will boil down to “Because God said soâ€. That is not an explanation or justification. That is merely a pronouncement.) “Just because I say so” is a foolish argument, even when applied to God, you say. He must explain Himself to your satisfaction and be subject to YOUR judgement, not you to His. You say that your view is wise, and that this one expounded in Scripture is foolish but…
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
I can see you standing in a courtroom and telling off the judge.. saying His judgement means nothing and that “Because I say so” means nothing and your judgement is wiser than His. It is the same thing here.
Irishman, you say that you are correct to judge God and say that He is evil by what I have said when you said, “You have just stated that God, who is by definition all good, is also evil. I’m sorry, now you’ve failed basic logic and semantics.” You do not believe that He can possibly be the author of both good and evil.. Still.. it is the truth.
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God CREATES evil. You may say He has nothing to do with evil.. how then can that be if God says He creates it?
Pro 5:23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.
Perhaps this does not mean that the instruction is not given, but only that it is rejected.. As the Scripture says.. “they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would have none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.” And those who reject His knowledge will “eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” which doesn’t mean you will subject to superior and wiser consequences, as you may think you will..
Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
Pro 1:30 They would have none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Pro 1:31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
Pro 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkens to me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
Oh, and I use those words, including the words “FEAR of the Lord” in the ancient usage, not the modern..
so hopefully you won’t accuse me there, but chances are you don’t even know the ancient usage of the term…
(Try an old Oxford Dictionary for clarification if you need it.)
I leave you to His all wise and Omnicient, compassionate and kind judgement.
And I hope you will turn from trusting in your own understanding and thinking yourself wise and God’s words foolish..
before it is too late.
Sara.
PS Skepterist, as for my saying the Bible is ANCIENT.. that was in relation to how speech is used and the difference pointed out in the dictionary about “ancient” use of words (archaic) and the modern usage of words. By this measure, which was the context of those words, the Bible is ancient usage of words and the definitions of those words must be understood in the ancient way, not the modern (the point of my using the words ancient and modern). Again, context is important..
You also said, “You base your entire belief system on an invisible being you’ve read about in a book (written by humans) that totally contradicts the evidence gathered and verified by thousands of scientists all over the world, from hundreds of cultures, and yet you dare to call any non-believers fools?!?”
The Bible does not have this viewpoint. First of all, it states that God wrote the Bible (2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God..) not humans. You may say you DISBELIEVE that, but.. it is what the Bible itself states. As for it being contradicted by “thousands of scientists from hundreds of cultures”.. it says that all such contradictions are only apparent, not real. That they are “oppositions of science FALSELY SO CALLED” (1 Timothy 6:20.. keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:) because there is no understanding which can be used against God or His Holy Truth (Pro 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.). This becomes apparent when you search out carefully those “oppositions of science falsely so called” with an eye toward truth without prejudice. You say to put down God’s counsel (the Bible) and find a PERSON instead to talk to.. well.. do you then think they are infallible, Omnicient, Omnipotent and all wise? That if I listen long enough to the counsel of man I will become wiser and reject God’s counsel as you have done? If that is the case, truly He is right to say Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
I cannot turn from God to the counsels of men as though they are of greater inspiration and wiser. I have indeed researched what I believe (the Bible) and rely on its counsel as correct against all who say it is not. I believe God’s testimony that the Bible is not a book written by humans, but that its testimony is true that the ALL Scripture in the Bible is given by inspiration of God.. There is no point against it that has withstood true inquiry, and those who set out to disprove it find themselves Christians because they realize that book is divine in origin (see “Many Infallible Proofs”, for instance). Your disbelief in the Word of God does not invalidate the truth of its pages. Nor do your “proofs of science, FALSELY so called” make Him wrong in one iota of truth or doctrine. You dispise what you do not know and proclaim that you have all truth and DO know better than He does.. better than the Bible says is truth. If relying on God’s counsel in the Bible is to you a reliance on circular reasoning, then I will gladly accept that fault rather than rely as you do on your own incomplete (human and fallible) understanding, false proof of science, and the counsels of mere men which, according to Scripture, cause you in the greatness of your folly to go astray.
Sara.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am
SARAH SAYS: Your disbelief in the Word of God does not invalidate the truth of its pages.
ANASI WEAVER: No, the inherent contridictions and fallicies in the bible does that for us. For example:
God loves us but makes evil.
God loves all it’s children, mass murderers, pedopphiles, rapists, thieves and the like but not homosexuals.
God knows everything but constantly feels the need to “test us”. (Knowing everything, including the outcome of the test, renders said test moot.)
God says Thou shalt not kill but then has us stone people for not keeping the sabbath or being gay or having an affair.
SARAH SAYS: Nor do your “proofs of science, FALSELY so called†make Him wrong in one iota of truth or doctrine.
ANASI WEAVER: Since you pointed out earlier in your post that “You are merely discovering by Science what He has done.” then the science must be true since god is the truth.
SARAH SAYS: You dispise what you do not know and proclaim that you have all truth
ANASI WEAVER: At no time do we make this claim. We repeatedly said that we don’t have all the answers and are searching for the truth while you have stated repetedly that your religoius dogma holds all truth. We just want you to provide proof of your claims without falling to the bible.
But apparently you can’t which isn’t surprising.
SARAH SAYS (CONTINUED): ….and DO know better than He does.. better than the Bible says is truth.
ANASI WEAVER: Again not what we are saying at all. We question your doctorine BECAUSE WE DON”T UNDERSTAND. IF you were able to provide a satisfactory answer, which didn’t come from a faulty source, then we wouldn’t keep having to ask questions would we?
Again, it’s not that I don’t believe there is or isn’t a god. I have no proof either way so I am open to the possiblity of there being one (or many) but if you are trying to prove to me that YOUR beliefs PROVE the existance of said god then the burden of proof falls to YOU. YOU have to provide FACTS not CONJECTURE. YOU have to SHOW why Irreducable Complexity PROVES the presence of the creator. YOU have to show SCIENTIFICALLY why IC works and evolution DOESN’T.
Don’t say that we are afraid of what we don’t understand when you are the one hiding behind vague quotes from a poorly edited, incomplete book. If you can do any of what I said above and prove your case then we would have to admit we were wrong and you were right, but you can’t. Faith isn’t about proof and since you have nothing but your faith in your god and religion to fall back on you cannot debate your point effectively.
I challenge you, before your god, to prove to me that what you believe is true and provide SOLID facts outside of your bible. If you can do that then I will concede to your viewpoint. If you can’t the you have to admit that the bible doen’t hold all tha answers.
Gentilemen, ladies, place your bets!
SARAH SAYS: I believe God’s testimony that the Bible is not a book written by humans, but that its testimony is true that the ALL Scripture in the Bible is given by inspiration of God.
ANANSI WEAVER: Which was translated and interpited by your admittably flawed, imperfect human(s) who could never understand the mind of god. So how can you say that the human(s) who wrote the bible got it 100% correct if it isn’t possible for any human to understand what god was talking about?
The very definition of the word inspiration (1 a: a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation b: the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions c: the act of influencing or suggesting opinions.) suggests that it wasn’t god who wrote the bible but man.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Anansi;
You said, “Is it really that difficult to come to terms with the possibility that the bible could be wrong?”
When you say this, you are already thinking it is a foregone conclusion that the Bible IS wrong. You say, “So far in this discussion you have offered no definitive proof of your claims other than to quote passages in the bible”.. but if you were to quote Einstein (who, by the way, was brilliant but not as brilliant as God) as your authority because you found his understanding superior, am I wrong to quote GOD when I speak? (The Bible says God wrote those words and I believe that, remember?) I have yet to see where Einstein.. I mean God.. is wrong in anything He has said. If what I quote in the Bible is incorrect, let me know. So far, I have not heard a peep saying I had misquoted Him.. and His understanding is worth knowing and following, more so than even Einstein’s.
You say that faith is good, but it must never be “BLIND”.. by that you mean it must be completely explained to your satisfaction, I believe? That there can be no mystery about God’s work or anything which is trusted to Him by.. faith? But those who are of faith do trust God..
2Ti 1:12 I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him against that day.
If you truly are of faith and have believed in Him.. you can say with the apostle here.. I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED.. anything less than that is a guess at faith.. not real faith. And it only comes by true and heartfelt repentance before God…
You state, “No one belief system, theory, book etc. can have all the answers to all the questions that life presents to us.” Really? How many Christians would agree with that assessment? Do you really expect me to agree with you on that point? You go on to imply that to state that we CAN have the answers to life is prideful, all the while admitting that “Faith can be a wonderful thing. It can move people to do great things and to sacrifice for others..” but then say that people of faith must “admit that something isn’t working and take the steps to find the answers on our own.” I say it IS working because it does have good results as you pointed out (do great things and sacrifice for others, as you said) and we people of faith do not need to try and find answers “on our own” because we are not relying on OURSELVES to be infallible, Omnicient and all wise.
As for your mother’s death.. I am truly very sorry to hear of it. Death is an awful reality we all struggle with. It is the ultimate in pain infliction and evil. And God does not always answer our prayers with miraculous healings, so I do not fault you as though you are responsible for your mother’s death. Such an attitude would be ridiculous. You say, “she only asked god for one thing…. she didn’t want to die of cancer.” I think.. if I might gently remind you.. that all of us must die?? And, that none of us wants to die.. of cancer or any other way, really. It is an enemy, death.. as the Bible says it is. Our greatest enemy. None of us wants it (well, maybe the insane.. ) and we all don’t wish to die of cancer. But, people do.. she did. Does that make God evil? I don’t think so. I note that there was cancer in the family.. seems to me genetics plays a part and I would be first to say to look to medical solutions, too.. sort of, trust in God and pray, but make use of all means to help yourself. That is practical and wise, in my opinion. If you are shipwrecked you pray to God and row for shore. You don’t sit in the lifeboat thinking God will save you. You work toward that as much as you can.. so it is with sickness such as cancer. Pray to God for healing (I am sure she did, aren’t you?) but still use all means possible at your disposal. I think you will agree with me in this. But obviously it was her time to go, so that didn’t work because it wasn’t God’s will. And I am sorry for what you had to go through with her.
You say, “And it’s not because she didn’t pray right or because she didn’t have Jesus in her heart or she didn’t come to god as a child as you would have us believe”… errr… who me? I don’t think that. It is because she is human and subject to death as we all are. Death is not a salvation issue. You say she was very religious? Chances are she was already saved. PHYSICAL salvation from all pain is not promised in the Bible. Remember the apostles of Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament.. they were not exempt from it as almost all of them died very disagreeable deaths. Yet, the church never faults God for it or says they were not saved because of it. It does not follow to say she did not have Jesus in her heart just because she died of cancer. God never promised us a rose garden along with the sunshine.. He only promised He would go with us through whatever we face and make it bearable and in the end work it all for the good.
And I agree with you “god isn’t going to wave its hand (if it even has such an appendage) and solve our problems simply because we ask.” He doesn’t even LIKE to be seen as a “magic cure all for mortal problems”. Did you notice that when Jesus healed people in the Bible, He then told them NOT to tell anyone about it? That is because He didn’t want them to think He was a magic cureall for their mortal ailments. It isn’t that God cannot heal.. obviously Jesus did do a lot of healing and God can heal today. Even you would admit that He CAN heal if He chooses to. But He is not a performing dog who will do what we ask of Him on command. And Jesus did not want people coming to Him JUST to get healed of a physical ailment. He was after the eternal change of heart.. He came to bring men to repentance, not to heal them of physical sickness. So He told them not to tell people He had healed them. He didn’t want a reputation as a healer of bodies, but of souls… And God, when we pray to Him about illness, sometimes His answer to our prayers is a doctor’s prescription, sometimes it is surgery, sometimes, yes, He can do a miraculous healing, and sometimes, praying people whom God loves die. We all must die sometime.. and sometimes it is His will for us to die, our time is “up”. I would say your Mom’s time was up, not that she or you didn’t do something right. Because if she was praying, God answered.. He just didn’t answer the way we all would have wished Him to. I am sorry for your loss, truly.. very sorry. HUG!
I have to disagree with you that, “We as a race have to do it ourselves. And if that means we have to stop clinging to god’s coattails, admit that religion doesn’t have all the answers then so be it.” I have seen cancer and other diseases ravage a life of a loved one close up, and I agree with you, it isn’t nice. But when I have contrasted those who have faith in God and trust in Him through that evil circumstance of their lives and those who do not have that faith.. I find that those who cling to God’s “coattails” and trust Him that, even if they don’t understand it all, God is good and has the answers and all will work out for the good in the end.. are blessed. They have more peace about the situation, and are not in such fear of death, nor do they have a fatalistic and almost suicidal look which drives you to feel apprehension and fear over them. I think clinging to God in the worst of times is a precious place where God can be of great comfort and help to those who are so afflicted. So long as God is with them, they can walk through that valley of the shadow of death and fear no evil.. and His rod and staff COMFORT them in that place of shadows between this life and the next. (Psalm 23, one of the most beloved Scriptures of all time.) God is a help when we are helpless and suffering.. I believe that death is often far too hard and we cannot do it ourselves. Those who look to God for help in those circumstances have great inner peace and calm and resolve so that, though we sorrow over them, we are not anxious about them “breaking” and losing it.. or suffering beyond their ability to bear, because God helps them in it, as He promises He will in the Bible.
You ask me to ask myself if I REALLY believe what I have posted here.. 110%, I assure you. Faith is a shield, but not from hard questions. I have asked them.. that is why I have a Scripture for everything you have thrown at me. It is the answers to me. And when you speak of “contradictions inherent in my beliefs” I see none. I see some things which make me dig harder for answers. But I see an inexhaustable supply of answers.. and one very large book which apparently claims to be infallible and to answer all questions we may need answered in this life. When you say to “back up my claims with something other than bible passeges” it is like asking someone who is relying on Einstein to put away from themselves all that he taught and make up their own ideas about physics without referring to Einstein ever. WHY should I reinvent the wheel when this wheel has sufficed so many men and women throughout history and been reliable? Why must I handicap myself to the understanding of mere men and their counsels and views? Why should I live in a world without the enlightenment Einstein’s theory of relativity gave to men? Or the enlightenment from the Bible?
I agree with you that those who think God will miraculously cure every ailment with a snap of His fingers are wrong (can I have the winning lotto ticket, too.. please?) But trusting in God and His all-wise counsel which HE says He put in a book and preserves to us through all generations to me seems very wise, so I will do what I please to do.. trust in the One wiser than Einstein in all matters of this life and His written counsel. And I suggest you do, too. It just seems wiser than relying on yourself and your own wisdom. I will now read the next post you just made.. but it will have to be later, going out for a bit. Sorry if anything seems redundant in this, no time to go over it again. Thanks for the discussion… I appreciate you for it.
Sara.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
SARAH SAYS: When you say this, you are already thinking it is a foregone conclusion that the Bible IS wrong. You say, “So far in this discussion you have offered no definitive proof of your claims other than to quote passages in the bibleâ€.. but if you were to quote Einstein (who, by the way, was brilliant but not as brilliant as God) as your authority because you found his understanding superior, am I wrong to quote GOD when I speak?
ANASI WEAVER: The difference between quoting Einstien and quoting god is that I can perform Einstiens experiments to test his theories. I can PROVE relativity and provide concrete evedence of it. I can PROVE the speed of light and provide concrete evidence. I can PROVE that the faster we go them more our weight increases towards infinity. I can not only provide various documented experiments from various sources to prove Einstien is right.
What I cannot do however is prove or provide concrete evedence that the earth was created in 6 days. I cannot prove or provide concrete evedence that there was a race of half angels half man on earth. I cannot prove that god stoped the sun in the sky for a day. These are things I would have to take on FAITH. Faith does not provide proof. Faith does not provide concrete evedence. Faith give you hope that everything is going according to some plan or belief but that hope isn’t founded in REASON.
SARAH SAYS: I have to disagree with you that,“We as a race have to do it ourselves. And if that means we have to stop clinging to god’s coattails, admit that religion doesn’t have all the answers then so be it.â€
ANASI WEAVER: But earlier you said:
“He doesn’t even LIKE to be seen as a “magic cure all for mortal problemsâ€. Did you notice that when Jesus healed people in the Bible, He then told them NOT to tell anyone about it? That is because He didn’t want them to think He was a magic cureall for their mortal ailments. It isn’t that God cannot heal.. obviously Jesus did do a lot of healing and God can heal today. Even you would admit that He CAN heal if He chooses to. But He is not a performing dog who will do what we ask of Him on command.
And so if god CHOOSES not to do something for man then man has to do it for themselves. God chooses not to hunt and gather for us therfor we have to do it ourselves. God chooses not to cure disease therefore we have to do it ourselves. God chooses not to pay our rent therefore we have to do it ourselves.
SARAH SAYS: I would say your Mom’s time was up, not that she or you didn’t do something right. Because if she was praying, God answered.. He just didn’t answer the way we all would have wished Him to.
ANANSI WEAVER: I know that it was my mothers time to die, I accepted that fact that when I heard the doctors prognosis. What I was trying to illustrate with that story was that we are told that god has all the answers but is unwilling or unable to provide them.
SARAH SAYS: Those who look to God for help in those circumstances have great inner peace and calm and resolve so that, though we sorrow over them, we are not anxious about them “breaking†and losing it.. or suffering beyond their ability to bear, because God helps them in it, as He promises He will in the Bible.
ANANSI WEAVER: Right. That would be the same book that was interpited by man who are unable to understand your god’s superior mind? Again, you must provide proof of your claims.
SARAH SAYS: You ask me to ask myself if I REALLY believe what I have posted here.. 110%, I assure you. Faith is a shield, but not from hard questions. I have asked them.. that is why I have a Scripture for everything you have thrown at me. It is the answers to me. And when you speak of “contradictions inherent in my beliefs†I see none. I see some things which make me dig harder for answers. But I see an inexhaustable supply of answers.. and one very large book which apparently claims to be infallible and to answer all questions we may need answered in this life.
ANASI WEAVER: Great! So you could reach into your inexahustable supply of answers found in you big book and tell me why your god chose not to answer my moms prayers not to die of cancer (in no way saying that she wanted to live forever) because?
Why are there no mention of dinosaurs in genesis?
Why there are two different creation stories right next to each other?
Why flood the world to rid it of evil when god knew (he knows everything apparently )that said evil would survive anyway?
How could the perfect being whom could make no mistakes and knows everything make flawed beings?
Why did god put the tree of knowlege in the garden if it didn’t want man to get to it? Couldn’t it have put some kind of forcfield around it? Afterall it can do anything right?
Or any of my other questions I asked throughout this string.
SARAH SAYS: But trusting in God and His all-wise counsel which HE says He put in a book and preserves to us through all generations to me seems very wise, so I will do what I please to do.. trust in the One wiser than Einstein in all matters of this life and His written counsel. And I suggest you do, too. It just seems wiser than relying on yourself and your own wisdom.
ANANSI WEAVER: It is only wiser if and only if you were garanteed an answer. As you have stated god can choose not to answer which considering it’s track record seems improbable.
Also the bible has not preserved us through all generations as it is a relativly new book by other civilizations standards.
SARAH SAYS: WHY should I reinvent the wheel when this wheel has sufficed so many men and women throughout history and been reliable?
ANANSI WEAVER: Why not? Religion has been reinventing the wheel since it’s inception. The most recent reinvention would be Irreducable Complexity.
SARAH SAYS: Why must I handicap myself to the understanding of mere men and their counsels and views?
ANASI WEAVER: You already have you just refuse to see it.
SARAH SAYS: Why should I live in a world without the enlightenment Einstein’s theory of relativity gave to men?
ANANSI WEAVER: I don’t know. Why should I live in a world without the enlightenment Darwins theory on the evolution of life gave to men?
SARAH SAYS: Or the enlightenment from the Bible?
ANANSI WEAVER: I’m not saying you should. I just think that in it’s zeil to explain our world and by extension our universe, religon got it wrong. Worse they are wrong for telling anyone who does not believe that they are wrong yet offers no proof as to why.
SARAH SAYS: You state, “No one belief system, theory, book etc. can have all the answers to all the questions that life presents to us.†Really? How many Christians would agree with that assessment?
ANASI WEAVER: I don’t know. Let’s do this lets ask every subdivision of christianity there is who has the right interpetation of the word of god and when I get one unified answer then I can tell you.
SARAH SAYS: Do you really expect me to agree with you on that point?
ANANSI WEAVER: No I didn’t. The probability of you agreeing with me on this point was extremely low.
You go on to imply that to state that we CAN have the answers to life is prideful, all the while admitting that “Faith can be a wonderful thing. It can move people to do great things and to sacrifice for others..†but then say that people of faith must “admit that something isn’t working and take the steps to find the answers on our own.â€
ANANSI WEAVER: No. I imply that by saying that the bible is infallable and posseses all the answers in light of evidence to the contrary is an act of pride. Again faith does not have to be based on logic and reason.
Faith can be a good thing but too much faith is a dead end because without questioning our beliefs, our world etc we would never grow. Whether or not you admit to it you do seek your own answers to problems or questions every day.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:23 am
Has there been any studies comparing the I.Q.’s of people who believe in god (or whatever) and those who don’t (Athiests?)
I would really like to know.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Hi!
I came here via Universe Today – newsletter and I’m just browsing around. Wanted to say Thank You for a great, informative site! This particular article has made some things much clearer. I’m a grad student, specilizing in impact geology. Astronomy is “just” a hobby, but I teach the basics to the kids through workshops and play. I’m sure I’ll be using the goodies here as a resource.
And while I have no time to read through all the comments on this article, and I certainly don’t want to get into any science vs. creationism debates, just throwing in my two cents: when I have the encounter of the fifth kind with believers in creationism (and it does happen more often than I’d like), I usually start it and end it (at the same time) with “Who created God?”. Obviously, I never get the answer.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
Jamie Says: “Has there been any studies comparing the I.Q.’s of people who believe in god (or whatever) and those who don’t (Athiests?)
I would really like to know.”
Oh yes. Lots. All of which, that I can find, come up with the same results. Here’s a page I found with a good compilation, with data points ranging from 1927 to 1999.
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
It shows that both a) smart people are less likely to be religious and conversely b) religious people are likely to be less smart. I split those two because the question is approached from multiple angles, all of which agree.
What hasn’t been proven is that religious people can’t be smart, or a religious person can’t be as smart as a nonreligious person, or that nonreligious people are always inherently smart and religious inherently intellectually inferior, or any such thing. I don’t know of anyone who would claim such a thing.
What also hasn’t been studied well is the cause/effect of intelligence of religious vs nonreligious. That is, do nonreligious people tend to be smarter because they’re nonreligious, or nonreligious because they’re smarter? My hypothesis is that the two factors feed on each other, but that smarter people tend to be less religious because they’re smarter. That said, I know of plenty of perfectly intelligent people who are also religious, so it isn’t a necessary cause/effect, just a general trend.
Irishman says: “Unfortunately, PR notwithstanding, theories and laws are very different things, so you can’t declare one the other and be done.”
I’m aware of the distinction, and your explanation is good, but it just seems like there’s a more fuzzy line than you have painted. I’m sure if there was a sufficiently good scientist who was also a sufficiently good lawyer, they could twist the words around to make evolution, or at least some parts of it, into some phrase that could arguably be interpreted as a “law” rather than a “theory.”
Maybe, maybe not, but it might be worth exploring, if for no other reason than academic.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Anansi;
When you say it all must be taken on faith concerning Creationist views such as the earth being created in six days and then assert that we are leaving reason out of the way in doing so, you make it sound like faith is UNreasonable. That is untrue. Creation, like evolution, is merely a model of how we think reality worked. You can no more prove evolution by concrete evidence and experiment than you can creation. There is no experiment which you could do in a lab to show a reptile growing wings or a fish growing lungs. It is supposed by the evolutionary model, it is not proven by concrete evidence which can be done in a repeatable laboratory experiment. You are setting up evolution as though it can be proven by experimentation when it cannot.
We find that when you do mutations to the DNA code you end up with freaks and diseases, not the supposed evolutionary positive changes which are supposedly the mechanism which drives evolution. For instance, from the U.S. National Library of Medicine:
How can gene mutations affect health and development?
To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a gene’s instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.
In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.
It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause disease—genetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has “the cystic fibrosis gene,†they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.
The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:
Gene Mutations and Disease (see below for link)
Altered DNA, Altered Protein (see below for link)
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/mutationscausedisease
This argues strongly against mutations as the mechanism for evolution. Again, there are no lab experiments which you can do to prove a new organ (such as wings evolving on a reptile) arise spontaneously from genetic MUTATIONS. There is no concrete proof for the addition of organs onto an already existing organism – a change which only could happen if there were the addition of beneficial and useable genetic information to the DNA code. All I have ever seen as an argument is that some mutations can cause a disease (like sickle cell anemia mutation or individuals carrying the G protein beta3 subunit 825 T-allele mutation) to offer some immune enhancement because an invading organism cannot hook onto the usual protein to establish itself. Because the invader cannot establish itself (because these abnormalities don’t have the “hooks” it needs and uses to proliferate itself) the people live. But it is absolutely farcical to state that these examples of “beneficial” mutations give rise to beneficial MACROevolutionary change like wings or lungs when there were none before. These abnormal genes cause serious sickness and lack of viability. Sickle cell anemia is a terrible disease where tissues are deprived of oxygen and this causes painful attacks and organ damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia , and the 825T allele carriers have an increased risk for hypertension combined with features of the metabolic syndrome, such as dyslipidemia, hypercholesterolemia, insulin resistance, and obesity. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.med.56.082103.104625 These are hardly cases of evolutionary ADVANCEMENT..
Even the “beneficial mutations” section of wikipedia can only point to a similar survivability “benefit” which is the result of the DELETION of base pair, not an addition to the genome when it says: “a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation Note here that it says DELAYS the AIDS onset in the heterozygotes – they still get the disease. (That is proof of benefit when they still get the disease and die?)
The point is that this is hardly proving that a dog turned into a cat or a monkey into a deer, or a reptile into a bird… those kinds of vast changes which the evolutionary mechanism must prove in abundance if molecule to man evolution actually happened by such a mechanism. It is an argument for survivability, perhaps, but not for EVOLUTION which is a change in kind like from a fish to a bird. And remember, there is not just ONE missing link from ape to man, EVERYTHING supposedly came from a molecule in the ocean.. so ALL the animals must have evolutionary changes with the additions of organs and their increasing sophistication.. where is the mechanism for this?
As for the idea of natural selection being the mechanism, natural selection also does not work out of the kinds. You cannot breed a fish with a cat or bird nor can you successfully and naturally breed a man with a horse or dog. It doesn’t work. Even when you mate together species which are close genetically like a horse and a donkey, you get a sterile mule.. there are limits to natural selection. As the Bible says, there is reproduction within the KINDS but not outside of them. You can make a lot of kinds of dogs.. but dogs don’t give birth to cats. And DNA mutations give rise to diseases and freaks, not advancement. There is no provable evolutionary mechanism we can test in a lab – it cannot be proven by concrete proof. Evolutionists BELIEVE the Theory of Evolution as Creationists BELIEVE the Theory of Creation. Neither creationists nor evolutionists were there to see the beginning and so we must extrapolate the evidence backwards and postulate a theory of how things came to be. Both require FAITH in those presuppositions without laboratory experiments or concrete visible proof. Therefore, both are not science, but models which require faith in the presuppositions behind them.
We both think our models fit the facts better than the other guy’s model.. but don’t fool yourself into thinking the postulated evolutionary mechanism furnishes us laboratory-repeatable concrete proof and creation does not. And the postulated evolutionary mechanism is far less believable to my mind than an Omnicient Omnipotent Creator.
As for your argument about us having to do things for ourselves like paying rent, gathering food, and looking for ways to cure our ailments to some degree, yes, that is true. But that does not exclude God is all I am saying. It does not mean we forget to pray before we eat and thank God for providing the food to gather, or the money to pay the rent, or the drug which is giving us the cure. Faith sees God OVER all these events, even as faith says “Thank GOD!!” when your lifeboat which you have been rowing for a long time spots land. There is an acknowledgement of your work, but that it is God who prospers and blesses the endeavor with what we are hoping for (money, health, etc). Having to do the work does not mean we forget God or His hand over everything, just because He is invisible (actually, He is too large to fit within the creation and is a spirit, so it isn’t that He is invisible so much as His being naturally uncontainable within our tiny sphere. That is why the incarnation was an act of such great condescension.. )
You say, “What I was trying to illustrate with that story was that we are told that god has all the answers but is unwilling or unable to provide them.” I think you have heard of miraculous healings, so it isn’t that God is always unwilling nor unable to provide such healing. He has and continues to do miraculous things.. just not on tap or on command. We can ASK in prayer.. but only God can give the answer. It is when we begin to think God is obligated to give or do what we wish He would do that we make a mistake. Your friend was right to ask you to pray.. because perhaps God would hear and heal your mother. But if He doesn’t you cannot fault Him for not providing the answer you were seeking. He has all the answers, but in His infinite wisdom, the answer may not be the one we in our fallible judgement are seeking from Him. It may not be the time to heal, because it may be determined that that person’s time is up. And, as you said, in your mother’s case, it was.
When you say that men interpret the Bible wrongly sometimes, that is true. But it does not mean the Bible is unable to be interpreted or that some “enlightened few” in the clergy are the only ones with the magic key of interpretation. It only means that sincere men and women of faith can mistake the meaning of a passage just as people can mistake your meaning when you write a post. It doesn’t mean what you said was not perfectly plain, it was just taken wrongly. The fault is with the interpreter, not the author of the words. It is a normal human failing of men. For instance, when the Bible says,
Mat 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.
Mat 12:15 But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew himself from there: and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all;
I don’t think we have to fear interpreting this passage as saying that it talks of a plot to kill Jesus which, when He learned of it, He didn’t say “God will protect me” and stay there, but He prudently withdrew to a safe place. And we do not have to fear misinterpreting the passage when we say that it says plainly that Jesus healed all who followed Him to that safe place at that time. Both are plainly stated. So a great many things are easily understood by the minds of mankind because the purpose of the communication was to enlighten us and explain things to us, not to mystify and make understanding it difficult.
I do think that when God decided to give an explanation of what He did when He created the universe to a bunch of sheep herders in the desert, He didn’t think they would understand the quantum mechanics explanation (though He knows that too!). Actually, they didn’t have the vocabulary for it or the advanced understanding it would take to “get” it, so He kept it simple and explained it step by step at their level of understanding. But not one thing He said is wrong in that explanation or in the other incidents explained in the Bible.
You asked for examples. Well, let’s see.. one instance was on a previous post where it was pointed out to me by Skepterist that the Bible was written on papyrus about 5,000 years ago, but “the Chinese have examples of writing from over 8,000 years ago”. He was using that to prove the Bible was not old, but did you know that within the last 100 years the Bible skeptics once said that the claims of the Bible that it was WRITTEN 5,000 years ago was false because no writings existed that far back? This was given as a proof the Bible was made up by men in more modern times. Then, of course, they found the writings in China which were a full three thousand years older.. thus proving the Bible COULD have been penned by Moses a full 5,000 years ago and that writing was not extraordinary or unknown in that period of history. As even you said, “the bible has not preserved us through all generations as it is a relativly new book by other civilizations standards.” That is an argument NOW – an opposite argument – but it was once the complete opposite argument the church faced. It HAS been preserved for a very long time.. from the time it was written and forward, as it says, Psa 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation for ever.” – From the time these words were penned “from THIS GENERATION” to forever.. the Bible is kept by God. And there is corroborating evidence from science of that proof.
Every time the skeptics say that there is something which proves the Bible untrue.. it is disproved. The Dead Sea Scrolls were another proof which just “happened” when the skeptics said that there was no way a book could remain unchanged for 1,000 years of time.. and to postulate 5,000 was ridiculous. Then we discovered the caves with the Dead Sea Scrolls.. proving that one wrong, too. There was one time they said the people called the Hittites were fictional. They said they never existed, though the Bible says they did. Then, of course, they found the entire civilization in an archeological dig. Every time they throw a new “this cannot be true” at the Bible.. circumstances arise to prove that is false.. almost like “Someone” is listening?? The incredible accuracy of the story concerning Egypt in the Bible is validated by the ancient Egyptian writings and artifacts. When the Bible says this is the way it was.. we can go to archeology and prove it true.. because the Bible is a book of Truth.
When it says in the Bible about how the people Moses led out of Egypt came to a mountain and there Moses received the Ten Commandments.. people have been skeptical of that claim, too. This brand new documentary has actual photo coverage of that place with evidence which proves it historic.. though if you went there the Islamics would kill you, so it isn’t exactly something I would recommend you do to verify the evidence yourself. But you may if you wish.. the place exists. Here is the documentary, free, on the web.. proof again to the skeptics of the Bible’s truth in every detail:
http://stage6.divx.com/Lost-Tribes/video/1018573/Mountain-of-Fire
The player should install itself if you do not have it when you click on it, otherwise:
Divx 6
Windows http://www.divx.com/divx/windows/download/
Mac http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
But when you say that men are “unable to understand your god’s superior mind” – that is true. God is INFINITE and Omnicient and we are finite in our understanding and do not know everything. God had no beginning and has no end. We all didn’t exist 125 years ago.. we had a beginning. How can our understanding ever reach near to His? That is the reason He gave us His revelation in the Bible, because men do very often not understand God’s superior mind.. and it is vastly superior. The realms string theory has only just now postulated to exist and which they think are simple planes of existence are not. They have infinite design in them and are complicated because a vastly superior and complicated mind created them.. as will become understood in time as men learn about those realms.. in the same way they recently learned that there is no “junk DNA” but that it is also a very complicated design which was simply once beyond their ability to understand. It is only when men think that all is simple and without a Designer to it that they err in thinking the DNA we don’t understand is “junk” and the realms of string theory are “simple” and without much intricacy.. or that all they see happened by mere chance.
When you say.. why did God choose not to answer your Mom’s prayers not to die of cancer.. it was because it was her time to die. None of us can stay when God decrees we will go. No one has power over their own lives to choose to lay down their life in death and take it back up again at will.. but Jesus did. Jesus had that power.. not only to lay His life down at will (when He said “it is finished” on the cross and actually DIED because He chose to) and to take it up again:
Joh 10:17 Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
Why don’t you try that.. laying down your life and then taking it back up again? Who could claim that? Who could do it? Jesus both claimed it and did it. That makes Him beyond men.. and His power beyond what men are capable of. God alone has power over life and death. He chose your mother’s death and will choose ours in His time. And only He can promise eternal life to those who follow Him:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
No mere man can claim to GIVE to men who follow them eternal life. This is a claim to Deity, as those who heard Him speak understood, because only a few verses later it says those who heard Him speak these words took up stones to stone Jesus. Jesus said to them:
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?
They answered Jesus:
Joh 10:33 For a good work we do not stone You; but for blasphemy; and because that You, being a man, make Yourself God.
At least they understood what He was claiming.. to be God and have power over death. Today, many think Jesus was just some good teacher and a healer.. again, something Jesus tried to avoid giving the impression of because He was after the eternal souls of men, not healing their mortal bodies or teaching them some truth which didn’t change their inward lives.
Your questions:
1) Why are there no mention of dinosaurs in genesis?
Genesis is not the oldest book written in the Bible, Job is. And it mentions dinosaurs.. here is one, an animal whose tail is big as a cedar tree. This is no elephant tail.. it is huge and has power in it. What modern animal could this be describing? But it fits the description of a kind of dinosaur perfectly.
Job 40:15-19 Behold now behemoth, which I made… he eats grass as an ox. His strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
2) Why there are two different creation stories right next to each other?
And why are there four gospels with their differing accounts? It can be because it is used as a literary device as we do all the time in our plays and pictures. We often give the overall story once, then go back and give details which we feel make the story fleshed out and real. Also, we have several networks for the news and each of them brings something different to the account, different relevant details.. this is the same. There is no contradiction in the accounts of the gospels or in the creation stories.. all can be reconciled into one story, just with different angles. Just as Fox News and CNN might cover a story quite differently, but it can be the exact same event.
3) Why flood the world to rid it of evil when god knew (he knows everything apparently) that said evil would survive anyway?
You think THAT evil has survived to this day? I think you mistake what evil there was in the world at that time. I think God didn’t explain exactly what the sins were that they committed because He knows men would do it again if they knew what those sins were. So He purposely did not put in the account what they were doing – other than to say their every thought was evil and the earth was filled with violence. Evil happens now, but I do not think it happens now as it did then.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I do not think this is true of all of mankind now. It is not true that EVERY imagination of our hearts are only evil continually.. and it certainly is not true of ALL mankind on the earth. Evil happens today, but it is not as widespread.. nor do we have whatever wicked knowledge they had which God had to destroy.. and it seems likely that it was that which continually corrupted their imaginations and thoughts. And, frankly, I do not wish to know what that evil knowledge they had was… because God didn’t like it, and see how He treated those who had that knowledge? (There is more backup for this from the Bible, but I have learned by experience it is best not to go into detail on evil, some people do take it and run with it and I do not wish to be blamed by God for helping along evil and sin in a person’s life, or their curiosity toward evil.)
4) “How could the perfect being whom could make no mistakes and knows everything make flawed beings?”
That begs the question.. is the entire enterprise of making mankind a “mistake”? OR, is it planned? I think it is planned because, as you just said, God is a PERFECT being who can make no mistakes. So how could He make flawed beings? I think the flaw you mean is sin – Our choices to make mistakes and act in wrong ways. All mankind has choice to sin.. why? Perhaps it is to have non-robot people follow Him. With no choice to reject God, how could He know we truly love Him? It isn’t love if you HAVE TO love someone is it? Maybe He doesn’t like that kind of forced “love” either. So not wishing to have forced love, that necessitates a choice.. which means you can be flawed (wrong choice) or blessed (right choice).
5) Why did god put the tree of knowlege in the garden if it didn’t want man to get to it? Couldn’t it have put some kind of forcfield around it? Afterall it can do anything right?
This fits with the previous question.. without choice, how can you know someone loves you and wishes to be with you? Love requires an unforced choice. With no tree to test our love toward God, we would only have been robots. Would you like to live with no choice in your life? Would you prefer to HAVE TO believe one way or another? Or to love someone.. to HAVE TO love them?
You also said, “I don’t know. Let’s do this lets ask every subdivision of christianity there is who has the right interpetation of the word of god and when I get one unified answer then I can tell you.”
You are expecting a unified answer from Christianity when the Bible itself says that for all of time there will be a lack of unity for a reason. Speaking to the CHURCH and not the world, it says:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The Bible says that there MUST be heresies among the church.. for a reason. To prove which ones are approved. You may not like that answer, but it is Biblical.
You say, “I imply that by saying that the bible is infallable and posseses all the answers in light of evidence to the contrary is an act of pride.” That would indeed be an act of pride, IF the evidence to the contrary were of any weight. You give it a lot of weight. I do not. I think it is very light and foolish, as God says that those who think they are weighty arguments are professing themselves to be wise, but are holding to a house of cards and building their understanding on sand which will not stand the test of time. As Jesus said:
Mat 7:26 Every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
You may think the arguments you cite against the Bible are worth building your life upon because they appear to you to be true… but God says you are like a foolish man who builds on sand.. it will fall, and great will be the fall of it. The Bible will be proven to be what it is in the end – TRUTH. And He will “convince” all who are of the opposite opinion of that one day. Why He doesn’t do so now is to give you the chance to choose.. He will not force your love or obedience to the truth. You can choose sand if you wish.. but He warns you what will happen in the same way a parent warns a child not to run out in traffic..
When you say, “religon got it wrong. Worse they are wrong for telling anyone who does not believe that they are wrong yet offers no proof as to why. Again faith does not have to be based on logic and reason. Faith can be a good thing but too much faith is a dead end because without questioning our beliefs, our world etc we would never grow. Whether or not you admit to it you do seek your own answers to problems or questions every day.”
I have to ask you.. Do you find what I have penned to you here illogical or without reason? Do you think I have not come up against such questions as you posed here to me and looked for answers? Has the CHURCH no answers to the skeptics? When the skeptics said the Bible could not have been written 5,000 years ago.. or that the Hittites never existed.. or that a book could not be preserved in tact for a thousand years.. or that Mount Sinai never existed.. do you think Christians never took the time to look into it? All men look for proof that validates their faith, creationists or evolutionists, that is why the evolutionists have so much material on the net, to put before the public eye their proofs, as we do for our view and faith. Validating faith is an ongoing venture.. those who believe the Bible do not stick their heads in the sand or believe in spite of good evidence but because of it. Invariably as the Creationist searches and examines the evidence it ends up proving the creationist view right and the skeptics wrong. That is because we don’t trust in man for our answers.. but in the infallible Omnicience of God – and because all He says IS the Truth, “there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord” (Proverbs 21:30) – though some men might need to wait until after they die to become “convinced” of that.
Sara.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
OrionGate;
Obviously if something or someone made God, that which was the final creation act would be God. God is by definition the uncreated Creator of all things. That is an attribute of Deity. He is the uncaused Cause of all we see and know. The reason you appreciate beauty and have a sense of humor is because God appreciates beauty and has a sense of humor. All things are caused by or have their origin in God. That is not to say that God does not make things He is not. He states emphatically that He made evil, but He is not evil but Good. The reasons for that are awfully long to post and you didn’t ask that question..
As for Jamie and Ross both wondering if it is true that Christians are a bunch of dummies and atheists smarter (quote: My hypothesis is that the two factors feed on each other, but that smarter people tend to be less religious because they’re smarter.).. ummm.. watch out, because that is pride and:
Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Haven’t you ever watched a movie where the bad guy boasts himself and then gets his? Think it doesn’t accord with reality? Saddam was a real boaster once, too.. look how he ended. What goes around comes around.. what exactly are you going to get back from that prideful statement?
As for your boast about the wisest being non-Christians (smarter people tend to be less religious because they’re smarter), the Bible says this:
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 .. you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in His presence.
God will have no person glory and boast of their intellectual superiority in His presence. You think men approach to God in His Omniscience by their smart intellects? I do heartily doubt that.. and think that they are more likely to be in for an almighty fall and destruction instead of the lofty heights of superiority such persons think they will. They won’t earn God’s praise by their pride but His condemnation. God did not say that Moses was a man who was the wisest and smartest person on the face of the earth.. but the humblest and meekest. Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, not the wisest and smartest. Such is the view and aim of God on all the pride of men, as He said:
Isa 23:9 The LORD of hosts has purposed it, to stain the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth.
Such is the inscrutable counsel of an Omnipotent Deity.. that His ways are past finding out and He stains all men’s pride that they might learn what it is to be humble before Omniscience. It is the meek and humble of the earth, not the wise and prudent, who will receive His blessing and counsel and praise..
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes.
God has hid these things from the wise and prudent Jesus said.. God gives His revelational truth not to the wise and prudent.. nor to those who profess themselves to be wise.. but to those with humble hearts who will come to Him in repentance – as a child, with the innocence and lack of guile of a babe. God’s ways are not the ways of men, but “the foolishness of God is wiser than men” (vs 25, above).
Sara.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Sara said:
> Irishman, you say that you are correct to judge God and say that He is evil by what I have said when you said, “You have just stated that God, who is by definition all good, is also evil. I’m sorry, now you’ve failed basic logic and semantics.†You do not believe that He can possibly be the author of both good and evil.. Still.. it is the truth.
…
>Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
> God CREATES evil. You may say He has nothing to do with evil.. how then can that be if God says He creates it?
Well, that is certainly one answer to the traditional “problem of evil”. Of course it is not one traditionally accepted by Christianity. The Christian definition of God is that he is Perfect, and by perfect, he is all Good, no Evil. Yet if he created evil, that assertion is false.
Of course that position kind of destroys the moral superiority aspect of God. But hey, it’s your belief.
> None of us wants it [death] (well, maybe the insane.. ) and we all don’t wish to die of cancer. But, people do.. she did. Does that make God evil?
No, according to you (and apparently the Bible), he was evil already.
Regarding the origins of the Bible, here is a good starting place.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
SARAH SAYS: Obviously if something or someone made God, that which was the final creation act would be God. God is by definition the uncreated Creator of all things. That is an attribute of Deity. He is the uncaused Cause of all we see and know.
ANASI WEAVER: What in the world are you talking about? That makes ZERO sense. You are essentially telling us theat god made itself. At NO time does your bible SAY THAT!
SARAH SAYS: God will have no person glory and boast of their intellectual superiority in His presence. You think men approach to God in His Omniscience by their smart intellects?
ANANSI WEAVER: Yeah that’s us. We clearly don’t understand what god wants but we are bad for asking just what it is god wants because in doing so we are questioning god. But then how would one, following your philosophy, learn what god really wants without asking questions?
SARAH SAYS: They won’t earn God’s praise by their pride but His condemnation.
ANANSI WEVAER: Ummmm doesn’t religion claim to understand the universe as your god supposedly created it? Doesn’t religion preach moral and intellectual superiority to athiests and scientists?
God did not say that Moses was a man who was the wisest and smartest person on the face of the earth.. but the humblest and meekest.
ANANSI WEAVER: And yet he was denied entry into Jorden.
SARAH SAYS: Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, not the wisest and smartest.
ANANSI WEAVER: Did he say that before he told us how all life was going to end on earth and the final battle between good and evil would occur in heaven or after?
SARAH SAYS: Such is the inscrutable counsel of an Omnipotent Deity.. that His ways are past finding out and He stains all men’s pride that they might learn what it is to be humble before Omniscience.
ANANSI WEAVER: Uh huh. So if his ways are beyond finding out how can the bible hold all the answers? If you postulate that the bible is written by god then we lowly, stupid humans are incapable of understanding it. (That would explain all the splinter groups of religions across the globe.)
And if we are incapable of understanding the mind of god how can you claim that what god or the bible is the truth when you are incapable of understanding such perfect wisdom?
SARAH SAYS: God has hid these things from the wise and prudent Jesus said.. God gives His revelational truth not to the wise and prudent.. nor to those who profess themselves to be wise.. but to those with humble hearts who will come to Him in repentance – as a child, with the innocence and lack of guile of a babe.
ANANSI WEAVER: Ah! I see. This clears things up a lot. Your god doesn’t give information to the ones who can understand it or interpate it correctly but to people who can’t. In this way god is clear in his commands because the ones who have the ability to understand what god is saying wouldn’t muck it all up with circular logic and religious dogma.
Wait a second….
SARAH SAYS: Haven’t you ever watched a movie where the bad guy boasts himself and then gets his? Think it doesn’t accord with reality? Saddam was a real boaster once, too.. look how he ended. What goes around comes around.. what exactly are you going to get back from that prideful statement?
ANANSI WEAVER: So god is going to smite our boasting president? That should make for one hell of a state of the union address.
By the way I’m still waiting on the answers to those questions I asked.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
JAMIE SAYS: Has there been any studies comparing the I.Q.’s of people who believe in god (or whatever) and those who don’t (Athiests?)
ANANSI WEAVER: I don’t think one can judge intellect by ones religious beleifs as I have known many smart religious people. They may be unable to objectively debate religious issues logically but the can be smart in other arenas.
I personally think that ones major limitation to ones intellect is the inability to keep an open mind.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
If pride is a sin then God is the worst of all! Just look at the first commandment. Oh, and the creation myths in genesis. It doesn’t use the word, but God is proud of his work: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”
Also, you completely missed the point of the studies. It was a scientific question with scientific research and a scientific answer. I think my follow-up post, which should have been posted before yours but wasn’t, might clear up my position somewhat.
And nice job comparing me to Saddam. Good way of trying to get people to hate other people: mention the name of Hitler/Saddam/Stalin/Mao/etc. If you ever had an argument, that killed it.
I also don’t see how citing the bible really helps anything, especially countering a group of scientific studies such as those I linked to. The better thing might have been to counter the evidence, rather than bitch about it, or come up with a better explanation, rather than misinterpret mine.
“You think men approach to God in His Omniscience by their smart intellects?”
Nope. No more than I think men approach to dragons in their awesomeness.
“Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, not the wisest and smartest.”
Interesting. So the people most likely to mimic sheep and blindly follow the shepherd of the church are promised that one day they will be in control, thus giving them not only a reason to be sheep and follow the church, which derives its power from its followers, but also gives a “them” to hate: the people wise enough to see through the ruse. I gotta hand it to the authors of the bible: they were no gods, but they were no morons either.
“ANANSI WEAVER: I don’t think one can judge intellect by ones religious beleifs [sic] as I have known many smart religious people. They may be unable to objectively debate religious issues logically but the can be smart in other arenas.
I personally think that ones major limitation to ones intellect is the inability to keep an open mind.”
I answered his question by giving him studies that compared the average IQ of those with and without religious belief. The obvious conclusion was that, on average, smart people are less religious, and conversely, on average, religious people are less smart. Smart, that is, as defined by certain tests or gpa levels or some other measurable quantity. If sara was smart, she would have claimed that the methodologies were flawed because men created the test; men who themselves assumed that they were smart.
Keep in mind that these studies are on average, and not absolute. Religious people can be smart, and smart people can be religious. At no time did I deny that. But if I were a betting man walking around MIT campus or any other elite school, and I had a bookie who would give me $100 for every atheist and I would give them $100 for every theist, I would take that bet and I would come out far ahead. Come to think of it, Sara, would you be willing to make that bet with me?
July 4th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Irishman;
>Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
> God CREATES evil. You may say He has nothing to do with evil.. how then can that be if God says He creates it?
>Well, that is certainly one answer to the traditional “problem of evilâ€. Of course it is not one traditionally accepted by Christianity. The Christian definition of God is that he is Perfect, and by perfect, he is all Good, no Evil. Yet if he created evil, that assertion is false.
If it were true that what you consider Christianity teaches that which the Bible itself contradicts, is it real Christianity, then? And will you correct my understanding with the wisdom of men instead of the words of God as recorded in the Bible? If the Bible clearly teaches that the Lord Himself says He creates evil.. He creates it. If it says that, in spite of that creation, God is wholly good and not evil, He is good and not evil. Without the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL in the garden of Eden, men have no choice. Obviously, that choice is important to God. If He must make evil to give us that choice, then that is His perogative as Deity to do that.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Either men’s wisdom – including any brand of “Christianity” which ignores this Scripture about God creating evil and does not preach nor believe the Scripture, OR God’s testimony in the Bible itself – is true. Take your pick about which you wish to believe, the words of men, or those the Bible says are penned by God. As Jesus said:
Luk 8:18 Take heed therefore how you hear: for whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever does not have, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.
Sara.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Irishman;
Before men sinned God created the trees, including the tree of the knowledge of good.. AND EVIL -
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Who made this tree of good and EVIL – where did it come from? God.
God made a tree of EVIL as well as good? Yes, it says so here.
Does that make Him evil? No, because He said to Adam after He made him:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you of it you shall surely die.
Men were told NOT to do this evil thing, just as God has the choice to be evil, but remains good.
So when you say, “according to you (and apparently the Bible), he was evil already”… I disagree.
The Bible clearly teaches that God was not evil, but had indeed CREATED evil.
There is a difference between creating something and BEING that thing.
Sara.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:02 am
It’s ulikely that magnetic drag from the sun slowed down the sun. The sun’s magnetic field doesn’t reach up to Jupiter.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
ANANSI WEAVER: Ah this is a long one so let’s get started shall we?
When you say it all must be taken on faith concerning Creationist views such as the earth being created in six days and then assert that we are leaving reason out of the way in doing so, you make it sound like faith is Unreasonable.
ANASI WEAVER: Sure. I mean if faith was based on reason then when someone of faith is presented with something that contradicts that faith said person would accept the new information.
That is untrue. Creation, like evolution, is merely a model of how we think reality worked. You can no more prove evolution by concrete evidence and experiment than you can creation. There is no experiment which you could do in a lab to show a reptile growing wings or a fish growing lungs. It is supposed by the evolutionary model, it is not proven by concrete evidence which can be done in a repeatable laboratory experiment. You are setting up evolution as though it can be proven by experimentation when it cannot.
ANANSI WEAVER: Nice try but while there may be no known experiment (yet) that can be performed that I know of it is observable in nature. We have fossils that have been carbon dated that PROVE the earth is greater than 6,000 years old. We have evidence that human civilization did not exist with dinosaurs (more on that later.) We have chains of fossils that show a steady progression from one form to another.
We can see the adoptions that life has evolved to adapt to a certain situation or environment. They recently found a new species of tiger that changed from their cousins simply to adapt to hunting in swamplands.
There is evidence in abundance that supports evolution and an old earth. So far the only “evidence†you have produced about creation are passages in the bible and “God says it is so therefore it must be so.
SARAH SAYS: We find that when you do mutations to the DNA code you end up with freaks and diseases, not the supposed evolutionary positive changes which are supposedly the mechanism which drives evolution. For instance, from the U.S. National Library of Medicine:
How can gene mutations affect health and development?
To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a gene’s instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.
In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.
It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause disease—genetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has “the cystic fibrosis gene,†they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.
ANASI WEAVER: The words you should take special note of are “in some cases…†meaning that there can be beneficial mutations. We see this evidenced in nature. We see this when our bodies build up an immunity to a disease (like my immunity to strep throat and the flu.) We see this throughout our biosphere. It is also important to note that mutations appear over a long period of time in tiny increments so it may not be as visually spectacular as Cystic Fibrosis or Down syndrome.
Come to think of it we do have an experiment for evolution the cockroach. Cockroaches slowly change from generation to generation to adapt to pesticides. Eventually you have whole generations of roaches that if left uncheck would eventually become immune to our pesticides. This is why we routinely have to update the chemical formulas for raid to come up with more powerful pesticides.
We also have the antibacterial soap example. If you continue to use antibacterial soap eventually the bacteria will adapt and we would have a new more virulent bacteria floating around our homes.
Further we have the common cold. A virus that evolves so often that we have yet to find a cure for it.
The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:
Gene Mutations and Disease (see below for link)
Altered DNA, Altered Protein (see below for link)
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/mutationscausedisease
This argues strongly against mutations as the mechanism for evolution. Again, there are no lab experiments which you can do to prove a new organ (such as wings evolving on a reptile) arise spontaneously from genetic MUTATIONS.
ANANSI WEAVER: Fossils. Mitochondria tracing. DNA mapping.
There is no concrete proof for the addition of organs onto an already existing organism – a change which only could happen if there were the addition of beneficial and useable genetic information to the DNA code.
ANASI WEAVER: Like nicnetating membranes to protect the eyes of reptiles? Or the whiskers of a cat? Venom sacs? Bio Luminous secretions? The capacity for invention?
All I have ever seen as an argument is that some mutations can cause a disease (like sickle cell anemia mutation or individuals carrying the G protein beta3 subunit 825 T-allele mutation) to offer some immune enhancement because an invading organism cannot hook onto the usual protein to establish itself. Because the invader cannot establish itself (because these abnormalities don’t have the “hooks†it needs and uses to proliferate itself) the people live. But it is absolutely farcical to state that these examples of “beneficial†mutations give rise to beneficial MACRO evolutionary change like wings or lungs when there were none before. These abnormal genes cause serious sickness and lack of viability. Sickle cell anemia is a terrible disease where tissues are deprived of oxygen and this causes painful attacks and organ damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia , and the 825T allele carriers have an increased risk for hypertension combined with features of the metabolic syndrome, such as dyslipidemia, hypercholesterolemia, insulin resistance, and obesity. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.med.56.082103.104625 These are hardly cases of evolutionary ADVANCEMENT..
Even the “beneficial mutations†section of wikipedia can only point to a similar survivability “benefit†which is the result of the DELETION of base pair, not an addition to the genome when it says: “a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-32) confers HIV resistance to homozygote’s and delays AIDS onset in heterozygote’s.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation Note here that it says DELAYS the AIDS onset in the heterozygote’s – they still get the disease. (That is proof of benefit when they still get the disease and die?)
ANASI WEAVER: I see. So mutation can only benefit if it ADDS an organ or appendage…. Wait that’s not true. There is evidence of vestigial organs that serve no biological purpose (your appendix for one example.)
The point is that this is hardly proving that a dog turned into a cat or a monkey into a deer, or a reptile into a bird… those kinds of vast changes which the evolutionary mechanism must prove in abundance if molecule to man evolution actually happened by such a mechanism. It is an argument for survivability, perhaps, but not for EVOLUTION which is a change in kind like from a fish to a bird. And remember, there is not just ONE missing link from ape to man,
ANANSI WEAVER: Actually the missing link is a misconception. There is no “missing link.†And I have to dig up the correct information for you but if I remember the basis correctly that is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
EVERYTHING supposedly came from a molecule in the ocean… so ALL the animals must have evolutionary changes with the additions of organs and their increasing sophistication… where is the mechanism for this?
ANANSI WEAVER: It’s in our DNA we just evolved to a point where those genes are dormant. It isn’t unfeasible that these dormant genes can be reactivated I mean after all scientists have managed to splice DNA into mice that gives them a bioluminescent glow like certain invertebrates (http://scientificcuriosity.blogspot.com/search/label/Fluorescence) and silk secretions to goats http (://www.exn.ca/sciencenews/story.asp?id=2000061956) turning on the gene for, let’s say gills in a human could be the next step.
As for the idea of natural selection being the mechanism, natural selection also does not work out of the kinds. You cannot breed a fish with a cat or bird nor can you successfully and naturally breed a man with a horse or dog. It doesn’t work. Even when you mate together species which are close genetically like a horse and a donkey, you get a sterile mule.. There are limits to natural selection. As the Bible says, there is reproduction within the KINDS but not outside of them. You can make a lot of kinds of dogs.. but dogs don’t give birth to cats. And DNA mutations give rise to diseases and freaks, not advancement. There is no provable evolutionary mechanism we can test in a lab – it cannot be proven by concrete proof. Evolutionists BELIEVE the Theory of Evolution as Creationists BELIEVE the Theory of Creation. Neither creationists nor evolutionists were there to see the beginning and so we must extrapolate the evidence backwards and postulate a theory of how things came to be. Both require FAITH in those presuppositions without laboratory experiments or concrete visible proof. Therefore, both are not science, but models which require faith in the presuppositions behind them.
ANANSI WEAVER: Natural selection isn’t about interbreeding species. Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
You know like darker skin for people living in tropical climates, blubber for animals living in cold.
We both think our models fit the facts better than the other guy’s model.. but don’t fool yourself into thinking the postulated evolutionary mechanism furnishes us laboratory-repeatable concrete proof and creation does not. And the postulated evolutionary mechanism is far less believable to my mind than an Omniscient Omnipotent Creator.
ANANSI WEAVER: It works because (see the above)
As for your argument about us having to do things for ourselves like paying rent, gathering food, and looking for ways to cure our ailments to some degree, yes, that is true. But that does not exclude God is all I am saying.
It does not mean we forget to pray before we eat and thank God for providing the food to gather, or the money to pay the rent, or the drug which is giving us the cure. Faith sees God OVER all these events, even as faith says “Thank GOD!!†when your lifeboat which you have been rowing for a long time spots land. There is an acknowledgement of your work, but that it is God who prospers and blesses the endeavor with what we are hoping for (money, health, etc). Having to do the work does not mean we forget God or His hand over everything, just because He is invisible (actually, He is too large to fit within the creation and is a spirit, so it isn’t that He is invisible so much as His being naturally uncontainable within our tiny sphere. That is why the incarnation was an act of such great condescension.. )
ANANSI WEAVER: It’s one thing to thank your god for whatever you thank god for but it’s another thing to ask god to do these things for you. It is one thing to say that the bible is a source of spiritual inspiration to you but quite another to say it holds all the answers for life’s questions and is infallible. Haven’t you noticed that when you were seeking information about genetics, mutations and the like you didn’t turn to the bible or god but you went on the web or read a book in an attempt to back you claims? You didn’t quote bible scripture then because the bible holds no information on such things and god denied to tell you.
You say, “What I was trying to illustrate with that story was that we are told that god has all the answers but is unwilling or unable to provide them.†I think you have heard of miraculous healings.
ANANSI WEAVER: Well there is that but as usual there is more to it. I’ll let you continue first.
So it isn’t that God is always unwilling nor unable to provide such healing. He has and continues to do miraculous things.. just not on tap or on command. We can ASK in prayer.. but only God can give the answer. It is when we begin to think God is obligated to give or do what we wish He would do that we make a mistake. Your friend was right to ask you to pray.. because perhaps God would hear and heal your mother. But if He doesn’t you cannot fault Him for not providing the answer you were seeking. He has all the answers, but in His infinite wisdom, the answer may not be the one we in our fallible judgement are seeking from Him. It may not be the time to heal, because it may be determined that that person’s time is up. And, as you said, in your mother’s case, it was.
ANANSI WEAVER: First let me clear something up. My mother was not asking to live forever. She was asking god not to die from stomach cancer. Any other way would have been fine just not that way.
Second it wasn’t the answers I was seeking, I understood mortality at the age of 7. My mother did not want to die of stomach cancer. That’s all she asked for.
Third my friend was wrong to believe that God would heal my mother. It didn’t answer her prayers on the subject on not giving it to her. It didn’t answer my family’s prayers or our friends, or the pastors etc. Chances are it wouldn’t answer my prayers or anyone else’s for that matter, more on this later.
When you say that men interpret the Bible wrongly sometimes, that is true. But it does not mean the Bible is unable to be interpreted or that some “enlightened few†in the clergy are the only ones with the magic key of interpretation. It only means that sincere men and women of faith can mistake the meaning of a passage just as people can mistake your meaning when you write a post. It doesn’t mean what you said was not perfectly plain, it was just taken wrongly. The fault is with the interpreter, not the author of the words. It is a normal human failing of men. For instance, when the Bible says,
Mat 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.
Mat 12:15 But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew himself from there: and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all;
I don’t think we have to fear interpreting this passage as saying that it talks of a plot to kill Jesus which, when He learned of it, He didn’t say “God will protect me†and stay there, but He prudently withdrew to a safe place. And we do not have to fear misinterpreting the passage when we say that it says plainly that Jesus healed all who followed Him to that safe place at that time. Both are plainly stated. So a great many things are easily understood by the minds of mankind because the purpose of the communication was to enlighten us and explain things to us, not to mystify and make understanding it difficult.
ANASI WEAVER: It is plainly stated in the bible that it took 6 days to make everything and we were created from the dust of the earth and that for some unfathomable reason god in its all knowing ways, forgot to make a mate for Adam so it took a rib from Adam to make Eve.
You stated that the bible is infallible but here you state that it is possible that whichever mortal wrote the bible (more on this later) could have misinterpreted the word of god. (Which we are incapable of understanding according to you).
You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is infallible or it’s not.
I do think that when God decided to give an explanation of what He did when He created the universe to a bunch of sheep herders in the desert, He didn’t think they would understand the quantum mechanics explanation (though He knows that too!). Actually, they didn’t have the vocabulary for it or the advanced understanding it would take to “get†it, so He kept it simple and explained it step by step at their level of understanding. But not one thing He said is wrong in that explanation or in the other incidents explained in the Bible.
ANASI WEAVER: So he dumbed it down for us. Hmmmmm. Saying the earth was created in 6 days instead of 4.5 billion is somehow correct? I will say that I find it amazing the hoops you are willing to jump through just so you can claim your bible cannot be wrong.
You asked for examples. Well, let’s see… one instance was on a previous post where it was pointed out to me by Skepterist that the Bible was written on papyrus about 5,000 years ago, but “the Chinese have examples of writing from over 8,000 years agoâ€. He was using that to prove the Bible was not old, but did you know that within the last 100 years the Bible skeptics once said that the claims of the Bible that it was WRITTEN 5,000 years ago was false because no writings existed that far back? This was given as a proof the Bible was made up by men in more modern times. Then, of course, they found the writings in China which were a full three thousand years older.. thus proving the Bible COULD have been penned by Moses a full 5,000 years ago and that writing was not extraordinary or unknown in that period of history. As even you said, “the bible has not preserved us through all generations as it is a relativly new book by other civilizations standards.†That is an argument NOW – an opposite argument – but it was once the complete opposite argument the church faced. It HAS been preserved for a very long time.. from the time it was written and forward, as it says, Psa 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation for ever.†– From the time these words were penned “from THIS GENERATION†to forever.. the Bible is kept by God. And there is corroborating evidence from science of that proof.
ANANSI WEAVER: Huh? You know that there are societies that PREDATE Hebrew society in which Christianity was born from correct? And as for there being no writings older than the bible the Epic of Gilgamesh springs to mind.
Also how are “the words of the lord pure†when just a short while ago you said he dummed down the process for us?
Every time the skeptics say that there is something which proves the Bible untrue.. it is disproved. The Dead Sea Scrolls were another proof which just “happened†when the skeptics said that there was no way a book could remain unchanged for 1,000 years of time.. and to postulate 5,000 was ridiculous. Then we discovered the caves with the Dead Sea Scrolls.. proving that one wrong, too. There was one time they said the people called the Hittites were fictional. They said they never existed, though the Bible says they did. Then, of course, they found the entire civilization in an archeological dig. Every time they throw a new “this cannot be true†at the Bible.. circumstances arise to prove that is false.. almost like “Someone†is listening?? The incredible accuracy of the story concerning Egypt in the Bible is validated by the ancient Egyptian writings and artifacts. When the Bible says this is the way it was.. we can go to archeology and prove it true.. because the Bible is a book of Truth.
ANANSI WEAVER: If you knew your history the bible went through A LOT of changes over the centuries and was influenced by the surrounding cultures at the time. More on this later as well.
When it says in the Bible about how the people Moses led out of Egypt came to a mountain and there Moses received the Ten Commandments.. people have been skeptical of that claim, too. This brand new documentary has actual photo coverage of that place with evidence which proves it historic.. though if you went there the Islamics would kill you, so it isn’t exactly something I would recommend you do to verify the evidence yourself. But you may if you wish.. the place exists. Here is the documentary, free, on the web.. proof again to the skeptics of the Bible’s truth in every detail:
http://stage6.divx.com/Lost-Tribes/video/1018573/Mountain-of-Fire
The player should install itself if you do not have it when you click on it, otherwise:
Divx 6
Windows http://www.divx.com/divx/windows/download/
Mac http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
ANANSI WEAVER: Ok I try to be fair and look at all the information with an open mind but I’m not downloading that player. It causes a lot of problems on my system. I’ll do my own digging and comment on this another time.
But when you say that men are “unable to understand your god’s superior mind†– that is true. God is INFINITE and Omniscient and we are finite in our understanding and do not know everything. God had no beginning and has no end. We all didn’t exist 125 years ago.. we had a beginning. How can our understanding ever reach near to His? That is the reason He gave us His revelation in the Bible, because men do very often not understand God’s superior mind.. and it is vastly superior. The realms string theory has only just now postulated to exist and which they think are simple planes of existence are not. They have infinite design in them and are complicated because a vastly superior and complicated mind created them.. as will become understood in time as men learn about those realms.. in the same way they recently learned that there is no “junk DNA†but that it is also a very complicated design which was simply once beyond their ability to understand. It is only when men think that all is simple and without a Designer to it that they err in thinking the DNA we don’t understand is “junk†and the realms of string theory are “simple†and without much intricacy.. or that all they see happened by mere chance.
When you say.. why did God choose not to answer your Mom’s prayers not to die of cancer.. it was because it was her time to die. None of us can stay when God decrees we will go. No one has power over their own lives to choose to lay down their life in death and take it back up again at will.. but Jesus did. Jesus had that power.. not only to lay His life down at will (when He said “it is finished†on the cross and actually DIED because He chose to) and to take it up again:
Joh 10:17 Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
Why don’t you try that.. laying down your life and then taking it back up again? Who could claim that? Who could do it?
Jesus both claimed it and did it. That makes Him beyond men.. and His power beyond what men are capable of. God alone has power over life and death. He chose your mother’s death and will choose ours in His time. And only He can promise eternal life to those who follow Him:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
No mere man can claim to GIVE to men who follow them eternal life. This is a claim to Deity, as those who heard Him speak understood, because only a few verses later it says those who heard Him speak these words took up stones to stone Jesus. Jesus said to them:
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?
They answered Jesus:
Joh 10:33 For a good work we do not stone You; but for blasphemy; and because that You, being a man, make Yourself God.
At least they understood what He was claiming
ANANSI WEAVER: Impossible according to your previous posts.
.. to be God and have power over death. Today, many think Jesus was just some good teacher and a healer.. again, something Jesus tried to avoid giving the impression of because He was after the eternal souls of men, not healing their mortal bodies or teaching them some truth which didn’t change their inward lives.
ANANSI WEAVER: I died once and came back. So did my mom and a lot of other people. Ever stop to think that it just wasn’t jesus’s time yet and he was as mortal as you or I?
Your questions:
1) Why are there no mention of dinosaurs in genesis?
Genesis is not the oldest book written in the Bible, Job is. And it mentions dinosaurs.. here is one, an animal whose tail is big as a cedar tree. This is no elephant tail.. it is huge and has power in it. What modern animal could this be describing? But it fits the description of a kind of dinosaur perfectly.
Job 40:15-19 Behold now behemoth, which I made… he eats grass as an ox. His strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
ANANSI WEAVER: Uuuuh… yeeeah…. Question. If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and Job their descendant how could Job be older than Adam and Eve? Or more correctly how could the book of Job be older than the book of genesis?
Also, it doesn’t fit the description of a dinosaur perfectly. Dinosaurs weren’t mammals so they wouldn’t have a navel. Also since Adam and Eve were appointed the task of naming all of creation wouldn’t said creature have a name?
Furthermore taking the Flintstones as a documentary on prehistoric human life is really really foolish.
2) Why there are two different creation stories right next to each other?
And why are there four gospels with their differing accounts? It can be because it is used as a literary device as we do all the time in our plays and pictures. We often give the overall story once, then go back and give details which we feel make the story fleshed out and real. Also, we have several networks for the news and each of them brings something different to the account, different relevant details.. this is the same. There is no contradiction in the accounts of the gospels or in the creation stories.. all can be reconciled into one story, just with different angles. Just as Fox News and CNN might cover a story quite differently, but it can be the exact same event.
ANANSI WEAVER: Bravo! This is probably the most interesting argument that would hold some weight if only it were true.
Alas!
Actually the answer to that question lies in the story of the Babylonian god Marduk. You see when writer 1 of the bible (we’ll call him “Bobâ€) wrote Genesis one it was to celebrate the majesty and perfection of a god which he believed in. Unfortunately for Bob this did nothing to explain why the perfect being made a world filled with strife. So to solve this problem Bob looked for a way to explain this to everyone’s satisfaction so he stole the premise from the creation myth of Marduk where the world was created in a haphazard manner and humans were created so they could suffer strife so the gods could live in leisure.
3) Why flood the world to rid it of evil when god knew (he knows everything apparently) that said evil would survive anyway?
You think THAT evil has survived to this day? I think you mistake what evil there was in the world at that time. I think God didn’t explain exactly what the sins were that they committed because He knows men would do it again if they knew what those sins were. So He purposely did not put in the account what they were doing – other than to say their every thought was evil and the earth was filled with violence. Evil happens now, but I do not think it happens now as it did then.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I do not think this is true of all of mankind now. It is not true that EVERY imagination of our hearts are only evil continually.. and it certainly is not true of ALL mankind on the earth. Evil happens today, but it is not as widespread.. nor do we have whatever wicked knowledge they had which God had to destroy.. and it seems likely that it was that which continually corrupted their imaginations and thoughts. And, frankly, I do not wish to know what that evil knowledge they had was… because God didn’t like it, and see how He treated those who had that knowledge? (There is more backup for this from the Bible, but I have learned by experience it is best not to go into detail on evil, some people do take it and run with it and I do not wish to be blamed by God for helping along evil and sin in a person’s life, or their curiosity toward evil.)
ANANSI WEAVER: Ummm yes evil of the past survives today and I ask you if your interpretation is even remotely correct (which it couldn’t possibly be) what was the human race doing that was so bad that god had to flood the entire planet? They certainly couldn’t have destroyed the world with spears and swords.
And even your god noted this when he vowed never to destroy the earth again because apparently we are evil from childhood. Why it didn’t realize it earlier being all knowing?
Also if there were dinosaurs in the book of Job then why aren’t they around today? After all they would have survived the flood being on the ark and all. And there is no mention in the bible that your god smote them.
4) “How could the perfect being that could make no mistakes and knows everything make flawed beings?â€
That begs the question.. is the entire enterprise of making mankind a “mistake� OR, is it planned? I think it is planned because, as you just said, God is a PERFECT being who can make no mistakes. So how could He make flawed beings? I think the flaw you mean is sin
ANANSI WEAVER: Let me cut you off here. I did not mean “sin†I meant turning down the wrong road, picking up the wrong can of soda, banging you knee on the coffee table you knew was there, locking your keys in the car, not getting 100 on your math test kind of mistakes.
If god was perfect then the results of god’s labors would be perfect themselves therefore incapable of making any mistakes much less sinning.
5) Why did god put the tree of knowledge in the garden if it didn’t want man to get to it? Couldn’t it have put some kind of forcerfield around it? After all it can do anything right?
This fits with the previous question.. without choice, how can you know someone loves you and wishes to be with you? Love requires an unforced choice.
ANANSI WEAVER: You mean like believe in me or I’ll send you to hell to live in everlasting torment?
With no tree to test our love toward God, we would only have been robots. Would you like to live with no choice in your life? Would you prefer to HAVE TO believe one way or another? Or to love someone.. to HAVE TO love them?
ANANSI WEAVER: Why would an all knowing being have to test our love unless it was uncertain of the answer? If it knew everything then it would have knew if the love was true or not making the test not necessary.
You ask if I would prefer to have to believe one way or the other but that isn’t the choice religion offers i.e. believe or go to hell.
You also said, “I don’t know. Let’s do this lets ask every subdivision of Christianity there is who has the right interpretation of the word of god and when I get one unified answer then I can tell you.â€
You are expecting a unified answer from Christianity when the Bible itself says that for all of time there will be a lack of unity for a reason. Speaking to the CHURCH and not the world, it says:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The Bible says that there MUST be heresies among the church.. for a reason. To prove which ones are approved. You may not like that answer, but it is Biblical.
ANANSI WEAVER: I am reminded of a saying “while all answers are replies not all replies are answers. You essentially are telling me that god loves unconditionally but the only condition is you have to believe in god
You say, “I imply that by saying that the bible is infallible and possesses all the answers in light of evidence to the contrary is an act of pride.†That would indeed be an act of pride, IF the evidence to the contrary were of any weight.
You may think the arguments you cite against the Bible are worth building your life upon because they appear to you to be true…
ANANSI WEAVER: Riiiing “pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle. You’re black! You’re black!â€
but God says you are like a foolish man who builds on sand.. it will fall, and great will be the fall of it.
ANANSI WEAVER: your god is welcome to sit down with me for tea and discuss it but I doubt it will because it says in the holy Lipton label that god prefers coffee and that is the TRUTH. (Note how I don’t have a shred of evidence to back my claims except a tea bag.)
The Bible will be proven to be what it is in the end – TRUTH. And He will “convince†all who are of the opposite opinion of that one day. Why He doesn’t do so now is to give you the chance to choose.. He will not force your love or obedience to the truth.
ANANSI WEAVER: Ummm hello! I stated I was open to the concept of god but I would like proof before I devote my life to something that is as ambiguous and contradicting as you have made it out to be.
You can choose sand if you wish.. but He warns you what will happen in the same way a parent warns a child not to run out in traffic..
ANANSI WEAVER: So if it let’s me have a choice to believe or not why make hell?
When you say, “religon got it wrong. Worse they are wrong for telling anyone who does not believe that they are wrong yet offers no proof as to why. Again faith does not have to be based on logic and reason. Faith can be a good thing but too much faith is a dead end because without questioning our beliefs, our world etc we would never grow. Whether or not you admit to it you do seek your own answers to problems or questions every day.â€
I have to ask you.. Do you find what I have penned to you here illogical or without reason?
ANANSI WEAVER: The words “yes, yes I do†spring to mind.
Do you think I have not come up against such questions as you posed here to me and looked for answers?
ANASI WEAVER. You are asking yourself the wrong question. You should ask Whether or not you chose to believe in your religion and bible because it is EASIER than facing the possibility that your belief is flawed. I know that there is the possibility that I could be wrong and fully admit to it. I am open to all possibilities provided there is enough data for me to make an INFORMED decision one way or the other. I do not shy away from answers I don’t like that are uncontrovertibly true, that are proven time and again, that I can perform myself to see the results. What have you offered to sway me to your beliefs?
1: God doesn’t need to provide me with proof.
2: God has a plan but we have free will but if we don’t choose god’s way we are punished for all time
3: Mental acrobatics to keep yourself from facing the truth that you were wrong about the perfection of the bible.
4: An omniscient being that needs to test us to be sure we love it even though it already knows the answer to that.
5: The Flintstones as fact.
6: The book of job breaking the laws of space time and somehow being older that the book of genesis THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING YOU BELEAVE!
7: The fact that the perfect being who does everything perfectly and can make no mistakes makes flawed beings.
8: Biblical time’s evil being different from modern evil. Apparently an evil so bad that you god flooded the planet to wipe it out realizing too late that evil is apparent from birth. (But wait it knows everything. How could this be?)
9: God creating itself (I still can’t get over this one.) making itself prefect, (no flawed, no perfect….)
10: Great statements like we could never understand the mid of god and then you translating the word of god for me (us) which you couldn’t possibly understand according to you.
11: Unforced love: believe (love) me or go to hell forever.
12: Flaws in the bible as a literary tool.
13: God being the truth but dumbing down 4.5 billion to 6 days for humans who wrote the bible (no wait god wrote the bible, no wait humans…)
Has the CHURCH no answers to the skeptics?
ANANSI WEAVER: If they did they wouldn’t be skeptics they would be believers wouldn’t they?
. Do you think Christians never took the time to look into it? All men look for proof that validates their faith, creationists or evolutionists, that is why the evolutionists have so much material on the net, to put before the public eye their proofs, as we do for our view and faith. Validating faith is an ongoing venture.. those who believe the Bible do not stick their heads in the sand or believe in spite of good evidence but because of it. Invariably as the Creationist searches and examines the evidence it ends up proving the creationist view right and the skeptics wrong. That is because we don’t trust in man for our answers.. but in the infallible Omnicience of God – and because all He says IS the Truth, “there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord†(Proverbs 21:30) – though some men might need to wait until after they die to become “convinced†of that.
ANANSI WEAVER: See the list above. You’ll have to do a lot better than that if you want to convince me much less any other skeptic that Irreducible Complexity is a science and isn’t the church’s last ditch effort to get into the public school system.
And your proof of your god is essentially the same as the proof of Zeus, Thor, Nayambe, Marduk, Cirnunnos, Amertesaru, etc etc etc. A group of stories and passages written a log time ago long since abandoned as myth.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Why are my very civil and ordinary in the flow responses deleted here?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[...] many times, and astronomers now accept it as true (I’ve written about this here, here, and here, for example). In fact, we’ve gotten pretty good at finding young stars still surrounded by [...]