home
RSS
September 15th, 2011
07:53 AM ET

soundoff (998 Responses)
  1. chad

    Regarding order: I dont think that attempting to establish order of a particular days events is supported by the text unless there are statements such as "then" as in "Then he separated the light from the darkness".

    Regarding accuracy: Your "errors" are based primarily on sequencing, correct? I've already demonstrated that attempting to establish order of events in a particular day isnt supported in most cases. What's right? as I said before nothing-big bang-creation of universe, plants, fish, mammals, humans. It's just right, end of story.. how in the world could they have known that fish came before mammals, of that there was a big bang, or that humans were last?

    Regarding uniqueness: No other creation account even resembles it, how can Genesis be said to have borrowed from anyone?

    September 15, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • JohnR

      The separation of day from night and land from water occurs in many, many creation myths.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      "Your "errors" are based primarily on sequencing, correct? I've already demonstrated that attempting to establish order of events in a particular day isnt supported in most cases"
      ~~~
      So you can't support any argument for order, but you claim the original hebrew is correct. How do you reach that conclusion? It seems like you believe the bible to be true so you're trying to do handstands to make it so. I mean if god created the morning and evening on the first day, how could he have waited until the fourth to create the sun?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
  2. What

    Which version of Evolution theory are we on?? someone??

    duh evolution keeps changing doesn't it, the versioning will keep changing, so the human of the future will grow wings to fly??? wanna bet?

    September 15, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      HAHAHAhahHHHAHAHAHHAAAHhahahaha!!! 😀

      September 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • Jose

      Are you now saying the Monkey theory is redundant? You had me believe in that for such a long time.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @What,
      "Which version of Evolution theory are we on?? someone??"
      The modern synthesis, which is about 60 years old, I think. Additionally, most scientists accept the germ theory of disease over humors, the heliocentric model over the geocentric, relativity over Newtonian gravity (at high velocity anyway), and oxidation over Phlogiston just to bring you up-to-date.

      "duh evolution keeps changing doesn't it, the versioning will keep changing, so the human of the future will grow wings to fly??? wanna bet?"
      Evolution is not a needs or desires based process, i.e. it is not directed or goal-oriented, that's Lamarck.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      The evolution of Life or the spiritual evolution of human beings? 2 branches yet one treasure,,,,,,,,,,,,

      September 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ Nonimus,,,,,,,,,,, "You've some splainin to do Lucy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

      September 15, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • fred

      Ya know as you read the Bible you will see that even the Giants of old disappeared from the land. Esau himself had the hide, hair and smell of an animal. Esau began breeding with those not of his kind to where we are no longer told of his Neanderthal qualities. That was only back in 1925 BC not that long ago in geologic time.
      Social evolution in the Bible is also clear where the first peoples could only understand God in the thunder, fire, shaking of the earth etc..People and culture were not ready for Jesus until 2,000 years later. Now, Christ could begin to reveal matters of the Spiritual nature of man and a Kingdom / promised land that was not made of dirt or physical in nature.
      The science of evolution is getting good these days and if we don't blow ourselves up will go much further to explain the gaps. Does that help get the monkey off your back?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • What

      Ok, evolution is 60 years old.

      Does evolution stop with Man, if the theory of evolution is right it is a constant mutation/recombination so Man should be evolving into something else.

      The last time I checked Humans looked exactly the same over the centuries?????

      September 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
    • Jose

      You ignored my question, if man came from apes, then what will come next from Man????

      September 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      Maybe its time to brush up on your understanding of evolution. Species changes, especially species where the time between generations are as large as our, takes many thousands of years, not centuries.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      At Jose – who said that evolution is predictive?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • What

      Lets try some logic here, by the very term evolution needs to evolve over a period of time. How come humans looked the same? Why did something else not come out of humans, if humans themselves evolved????

      September 15, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    • Anton LaVey

      Jose

      You ignored my question, if man came from apes, then what will come next from Man????

      -----
      God evolved after man

      September 15, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • Jose

      You guys keep ingorning my questions, If man came from monkeys what is next from Man?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      Because we haven't evolved yet. There's always species at the end of the chain. That's only logical.

      All scientific theories, including fundamental theories such as gravity, are subject to change and revision. This is a natural part of the scientific process. If the theory of evolution were set in stone, it wouldn't be science.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • Laughing

      @What

      Some changes to man that you believe have always been

      The spleen, the appendix – both are pointless, but were useful previously
      vestigages of a tale. Our average height, the fact that not all of us are lactose intolerant.

      Evolution starts at a molecular level so many many different changes are things we don't see on the outside. Please read a book on evolution.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • Jose

      okey dokey...hope i get wings to fly in the future as i evolve...yipee!!!!

      September 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Jose, how could he have ignored a question you never asked? Show us where you asked that question.

      By the way, the question is idiotic – there is no reliable way to predict what course evolution will take on humans beyond wild guesses. Just trying to understand the process is complicated enough; future prediction is virtually impossible due to the very large number of variables, some of which may not even be known until after the change takes place.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
    • Laughing

      No no Arvn,

      Let Jose believe what he wants, who knows we might get lucky and Jose here will jump off a cliff thinking he'll evolve wings if he concentrates hard enough.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • JohnR

      Jose, individuals don't evolve. Also, what happens to humans depends on what conditions are faced. Possibly, we'll just go extinct. Also, cultural adaptation tends to occur much more rapidly than biological evolution and therefore tends to mute the effects of environment. Selection, eg, against those with poorer vision is less likely in a world with glasses and contacts and laser surgery. The likelihood that our lineage will evolve wings anytime soon, even by the standards of geologic time, is virtually nil. But no, humans aren't the pinnacle of evolution or anything else.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • I_get_it

      Jose
      "okey dokey...hope i get wings to fly in the future as i evolve...yipee!!!!"

      - You are planning on being here for 2 MILLION years, eh?

      - New biological features/adaptations do not appear as a result of wishin' and hopin'.

      - To know exactly what's next would require one of those old-time magical 'prophets'. It seems as if the human appendix, the tail bone and wisdom teeth are on the way out, though.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • Worry

      The thing is is that Jose votes (or will in 5 years when he gets old enough), on important issues... and he probably will reproduce offspring... *sigh*

      September 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      @Worry – looks like the movie Idiocracy was prophetic.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • Worry

      @Maybe try logic:

      "Idiocracy" is terrific - in both senses of the word.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
    • Fred1

      The theory of evolution is like the theory of motion. Einstein didn’t disprove Newton he refined it and made it more precise. The theory of evolution doesn’t get replaced, it gets refined. More of the details get filled in

      September 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • hahaha

      Mankind has evovled in the last few thousand years.. try visiting an ancient castle and see how small some of the doors are. In the future we will be in charge of our own evolution: artificial selection and genetic maniplation.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  3. HumanNature?

    How refreshing to listen to an atheist/agnostic/evolutionist without the juvenile tantrums of Hitchens and Dawkins !
    Evolution is indeed wonderful, as far as it goes till now. It seems to this catholic that Genesis is only a brief summary summary of how things began, and evolutionary theory explains the rest. Genesis seems to have gotten the order correct. Before the first cell exist, light, air, water, and ideal temperature and pressure had to be present. This indicates that the sun, earth, and water came before the lowest life forms. Genesis narrates that man was brought forth out of the earth's muck – isn't this what evolution postulates? I see no argument anyway. Evolution shows WHAT we are, the Bible deals with WHO we are.

    September 15, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
    • Laughing

      1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.a 2The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

      3Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

      And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

      6Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8God called the space “sky.”

      And evening passed and morning came, marking the second day.

      9Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

      13And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.

      14Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

      I think you need to read your bible again, then you'll realize what you just stated is outrageously wrong

      September 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • JohnR

      Genesis isn't the summary of anything. Where's the mention of blue-green algae, which ruled to roost for the majority of biologic time? where are the trilobites? A lot was going on in the seas before much of anything happened on land. Flowering plants came way late. Genesis is just a typical, extremely naive creation myth with no basis in fact.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • fred

      Both of you guys stumbled right out of the box. Opening line "in the beginning GOD". If you cannot get this priority how can you possibly get the rest.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Your "bible" says NOTHING about "who" anyone is nor does it have anything to do with the real world beyond a few place names and tribal "begats".
      If you don't know who you are, a book of lies is the last place you should be looking for answers.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
  4. tom

    evolution and the existence f God are two separate issues

    September 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Personally, I would agree, but doesn't it depend on how one interprets Genesis?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
  5. Lucifer's Little Known Second Cousin

    This has been entertaining in a mild stupor kinda way, but I gotta go. I know you all will miss me.

    "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." – Friedrich Nietzsche

    September 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • What

      A poster once read

      God is Dead
      -Nietzsche

      Below that read

      Nietzsche is Dead
      --God

      September 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • Shadowflash1522

      Having actually read Nietzsche, I find your misquotation extremely annoying. He actually wrote:

      "God is dead, and we have killed him."

      He was referring to the idea that an all-powerful god cannot be disbelieved or doubted. The mere existence of atheists and doubters has disproven (read:killed) the god idea.

      That said, I find the exchange amusing anyway 🙂

      September 15, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Come back soon, LLKSC! And bring more light next time!

      September 15, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      See ya around Lucifer! Can't wait to see what comments your other body parts have for us.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  6. Nuetral

    several things,
    1. His belief does not matter, he does what he does because he thinks its right and good (and i would agree that he has done many good things) so who is to complain?
    2. HeavenSent is a troll that comments on almost every posting in the belief blog, no matter what you say HeavenSent will argue, just ignore him/her

    September 15, 2011 at 11:44 am |
  7. McJesus

    The point is: One shouldn't 'believe' in Evolution. You either accept the theory for what it is... a scientific theory, or you don't. Science doesn't rely on 'belief' in a theory. It is an understanding that it is the best explanation given the body of evidence at hand. There is no belief in that. Just an understanding tempered with logic/reason, and enough humility to understand that it is highly likely that we don't have the entire picture, but that with further research and evidence we'll have enough sense to 'update' the model to better mesh with any future knowledge that comes our way. There is no 'belief' in that. So this whole believe in evolution or not is from a religious perspective, which to put mildly, is in an entirely different context and not applicable to science.

    September 15, 2011 at 11:38 am |
    • tom

      semantics

      September 15, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Jimmy G

      Semantic confusion is one of the hallmarks of religious thought. Too many do not understand basic concepts, vocabulary, logic, or reason.
      Well-educated people have a lot fewer problems in sorting things out no matter what the situation or topic. Most religious people are not well-educated in these areas and so have no tools with which to evaluate their own religious claims.
      Then they come on here and look like idiots because they can barely understand the concepts behind their own religious beliefs while being utterly convinced that they are totally correct in everything to do with their religion.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  8. tom

    99.9 % of all Christians believe in evolution. Maybe that percentage is a little high. But I bet that less than 1% of all the people on the planet think that the Bible is a literal history book, yet that is all some atheists talk about. The number of atheists who are thick headed and closed minded is way bigger than the number of people who think the earth is 6000 years old. The number of people who believe that the Bible is literal history is a tiny minority.

    The existence of God does not depend on the belief of a tiny minority of people. If God exists then he exists regardless of what any religious person or any atheist says

    Atheists just like to pick on easy targets – they forget that the biggest murders in the history of the world Mao and Stalin were atheists

    September 15, 2011 at 11:33 am |
    • Lucifer's Little Known Second Cousin

      @Tom – Mao and Stalin being atheists had nothing to do with them being meglomaniac paranoid schizephrenic mass murders. Absolute power corrupts. Hitler BTW was a christian.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:38 am |
    • Nuetral

      They were not atheists, if anything they would be considered anti-theists, they persecuted all religion to their own gains, Pol-Pot did too. Yes he did throw around the word "Atheist" but it was just a political cover, their goals were to destroy religion.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • tom

      so the religious beliefs of Mao and Stalin are not important but the religious beliefs of Hitler were important? You argue just like the devil

      September 15, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Nuetral

      and no, Hitler was not Christian, but he did use the bible to his own gains, to rile people against the people persecuted in the Bible (if you don't believe the bible persecutes people, it does, but most people ignore those parts) he had plans in place to attack Christians soon after the war ended (obviously he never got to them)

      September 15, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • Lucifer's Little Known Second Cousin

      @tom – thank you. Also, I offered up Hitler since you failed to mention him. FYI, it's called compare and contrast.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • Sven Mooseflinger

      Since you repeat this phony 99% number, allow me to repeat: tom, the most recent Galup poll on the matter fond that 40% of Americans believe in creationism, so your 99.9% number was totally made up.

      Furthermore, the next 38% believed that God played an active role in the evolutionary process, which is not really evolution. That's sort of a do-it-yourself reimagining of a scientific theory, where they have changed the thoery despite a total lack of evidence or proof that their addition even exists, much less is at play. That's not a scientific theory anymore. That's not evolution anymore.

      Only 16% actually believe in evolution as a scientific theory. Only 16% of Americans are able to accept the real world as it is. 84% of Americans have to add a totally-unproven imaginary friend to science to be able to accept it.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Thanks, Sven.
      I was about to look up the actual numbers too. Glad someone already did.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Hitler, and a few others not usually brought up as examples, were ALL in the business of totalitarianism supported by heavy indoctrination / brainwashing.
      It is only natural for them to attack any rivals, like religious inst.itutions.
      Religions, with their own brainwashing techniques, are a threat because they, too, can drive their sheep into murdering outsiders / rivals / perceived threats.

      Their propaganda machines give them power. They did not want any other propaganda machines around that were not under their control, so they attack religions and any other schools of thought or belief that they view as threats to their own base of operations.

      These crazy dictators came to power using propaganda and a personality-cult type of indoctrination. Their followers did anything they were commanded because of the way these things work.

      It would have been no different had these men been religious leaders. No different at all. They sought to destroy any rival factions within their own beginning organizations, sought to destroy any rivals nearby, and as their power grew, they sought to destroy any threat, no matter how paranoid and ridiculous. Religions were not their only targets.

      To lay the blame on their being atheist is to ignore the real facts of the situation. They were power-mad crazy dictators. They wanted all the power regardless of anything.
      Religious leaders have done the exact same thing to rival sects, other religions, and anyone who did not follow their personal control who might be viewed as a threat to their power.

      This bringing up of atheism completely ignores the truth of the matter.
      It is about power and indoctrination and tyranny, not which religion or non-belief being used – USED – by these totalitarian dictators.
      Many Popes did exactly the same things as these historical villains, so quit pretending their atheism meant anything beyond their paranoid psychosis.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  9. Rocky

    Most Brits are liberal secular Humanists and atheists..so what's the big deal here? Where's the story?

    September 15, 2011 at 11:29 am |
  10. Awkward Situations

    Richard Branson is amazing. If anybody could be Iron Man it would be this guy! He is working on the next frontier in space which is space flight for civilians – so awesome. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he is an atheist and a humanitarian. His driving force is something most atheists can relate with.

    September 15, 2011 at 10:40 am |
    • Lucifer's Knobbly Knees

      roger that

      September 15, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ AS,,,,,,,"His driving force is something most atheists can relate with."

      What is this "driving force", God? Yes? No? Maybe? Maybe Yes!

      September 15, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • jimtanker

      AND he's working on expeditions to the 5 deepest parts of the oceans. We are going to learn a lot about our planet and ourselves, through this man.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • Lucifer's Knobbly Knees

      He obviously has a personal desire to leave a lasting legacy. God references not required.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:11 am |
    • McJesus

      This guy is an inspiration, and he certainly uses his vast wealth in many very productive ways to benefit science and society. Far better than handing it off to the Catholic Church to have it handed over to lawyers to keep a cap on their immoral god inspired mess.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      If I could leave a legacy that is even a fraction of what he will leave behind I will feel accomplished. Working on it day by day ..

      September 15, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Jimmy G

      If they'd give the man his own show on the Science channel or something, I'd have a better idea who he is and all the cool stuff he's doing. This second-hand stuff is for the birds.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  11. RichM

    Ha, he does believe in God. He's finding the same thing I have found. I fully understand all the intellectual arguments that religion is a human creation, and I used to consider myself an atheist. One day I realized, when my family was late getting home, that I said to myself, "Please, let them be ok." so then I'm thinking, wait a minute, who am I talking to? Holy crap I'm not an atheist after all!

    September 15, 2011 at 9:40 am |
    • claybigsby

      nope...youre just crazy talking to yourself like that.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:44 am |
    • Laughing

      Wait wait wait, are you serious?

      If you aren't..... that was funny

      If you are..... well I'll put it this way, so you believe you are so completely sane and rational that when you hoped your family would be ok you thought since no one was around and you talked to someone, then someone or something must have been there to listen? What the hel.l kind of logic is that?

      September 15, 2011 at 9:53 am |
    • HeavenSent

      RichM, God Bless you and your family. I'm glad you came into the light and stopped believing all the spiritually dead folks out there that have a big chip on their shoulders and need to complain about Jesus Christ, as well as, EVERYTHING.

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:15 am |
    • Laughing

      @HeavenSent

      Who says he believes in Jesus?

      September 15, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      @RichM: That little voice in your head is you talking to yourself. Everyone does that when they're "thinking" using language. That's just how our brain works. I don't believe you were ever an atheist. No true atheist falls back into a delusion like that.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:30 am |
    • The Ole Bullsh!t Detector Is Going Off Again

      I love these phony "I was an atheist" stories. We get a lot of them here, and when they start giving details, it becomes VERY obvious that they are just another lying Christian.

      They are most obvious with totally unbelievable lines like "One day I realized, when my family was late getting home, that I said to myself, "Please, let them be ok." so then I'm thinking, wait a minute, who am I talking to?" Can you imagine someone so feeble-minded that he would actually do that? Obvious bullshit.

      We also get the dumb-dumbs who think that the period of their life that they were less religious than they presently are was atheism. Wrong. What they are usually doing is blaming a period of bad decisions on not being as devout as they presently are, calling it atheism, then thinking that actual atheists have all the stupid problems they once did to themselves. It's like losing weight onthe Subway diet, then deciding that the reason they were fat was that they did not eat at Subway. False attribution.

      I guess we will keep getting these lies from Christians, just like we get the "atheists are angry" slanders and "atheism is a form of faith" idiocy. All too many of you Christians really love your stereotypes, and just cannot stand actually understanding what the reality is.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      'so then I'm thinking, wait a minute, who am I talking to? '

      Yourself.
      It helps sometimes to acually verbalize what we are thinking, it helps to give clarity and focus.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • *frank*

      @The Ole Bullsh!t Detector Is Going Off Again
      It's funny how many Xtians here say they're scientists. Or maybe "pathetic how many Xtians here lie very unconvincingly about being scientists in a transparent and feeble attempt to give weight to their hare-brained opinion" would be a better way to put it.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  12. coyote88

    There is nothing wrong with the idea of evolution. Christians need to stop taking the bible so darn seriously and realize that it ISNT a history. Its a collection of fables and allegories that try to instruct how to live your life in accordance with christian teachings. Having faith is one thing, but how could Noah fit all the animals that exist in the world on the Ark? And if we are all descended from Adam and Eve how do you explain the Aboriginies of Australia and the fact that they follow the oldest surviving culture in the world. Their beliefs had been practiced for more than 3000 years before Christ was even born. Creationism is an elegant idea. But it doesnt add up. Read a book about evolution, biogeography, or species dispersal and educate yourselves. Open your minds!!

    September 15, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • jimtanker

      You mean that you dont believe that two penguins and two platipi and two..... walked or swam all the way from where they were to the middle east so that they could take a year long boat ride? You're just plain silly. 😉

      September 15, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Coyote88, you're the one that believes fairy tales. If you folks knew you were following the Kenites (son's of Cain, the first murderer whose father is satan) throughout history whose ancestors crucified Jesus, you wouldn't be so easily stroked, stroked, stroked through your egos to jump aboard their bandwagons.

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • BRC

      @HeavenSent,
      It's not my book, but last I checked Adam and Eve were Cain's parents. Are you saying Adam is Satan. That'll cause a stir.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:29 am |
    • Info

      @Heavensent

      the Kenites (son's of Cain, the first murderer whose father is satan) throughout history whose ancestors crucified Jesus, you wouldn't be so easily stroked, stroked, stroked through your egos to jump aboard their bandwagons.

      In the bible it's said Adam was Cain's father how was he suddenly fathered by the devil?

      The Kenites meaning strong could have derived from the name of someone named Cain were a nomadic clan who were copper smiths and metalworkers, and Moses father in law Jethro was a shepard and priest for the kenites. Moses also identified Jethro's concept of God how do they becoome so evil all of sudden? No where in the bible does it say they are the followers of cain or their ancestors who crucified Jesus where did you get rubbish from?

      is your ego so bloated you think you can make things up and present them as fact?

      September 15, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      I don't believe it says anywhere in the bible which part is supposed to be literal or not. When you question christians on its contents they love to fall back on picking and choosing which part is just supposed to be a story or which is real. That's incredibly disingenuous. The entire bible is supposed to be taken literally. Once you point that out to the christians making excuses for how crazy it is they get a big headache. Don't let them get away with making excuses for the insane text they worship.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • tom

      99.9 % of all Christians believe in evolution. The number of people who believe that the Bible is literal history is a tiny minority.

      The existence of God does not depend on the belief of a tiny minority of people. If God exists then he exists regardless of what any religious person or any atheist says

      Atheists just like to pick on easy targets - they forget that the biggest murders in the history of the world Mao and Stalin were atheists

      September 15, 2011 at 11:08 am |
    • Laughing

      @tom

      If what you said was even remotely true, we wouldn't have an issue with trying to get creationism to be taught in schools, or that 5 our of the 6 people running in the republican primary came out to say the believed in creationism and not evolution. You are right that it's an easy target to pick on, but hey, when you have a bullseye that is the bible, it's hard not to score points every time you refute a part of it.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • jimtanker

      @ Tom

      They didn't kiII becuase they were atheist, the kiIIed becasue of an ideology. That had nothing to do with religion, or the lack of it.

      I notice that you didnt mention HitIer. Good choice since he was a catholic.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Lucifer's Knobbly Knees

      @Tom – Mao and Stalin being atheists had nothing to do with them being meglomaniac paranoid schizephrenic mass murders. Absolute power corrupts. Hitler BTW was a christian.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:28 am |
    • tom

      most of the world's Christians are Catholic and they have no problem with evolution

      September 15, 2011 at 11:38 am |
    • tom

      The fact that an insane drug addict named Adolf Hitler claimed that he was acting in the name of God does not mean that he was acting in the name of God - Hitler may have called himself Christian or Catholic, that does not mean he acted Christian or Catholic.

      My point about Mao and Stalin is that thick headed closed minded atheists always forget about them

      September 15, 2011 at 11:43 am |
    • tom

      Lucifer's KK (are you missing a K) @Tom – Mao and Stalin being atheists had nothing to do with them being meglomaniac paranoid schizephrenic mass murders. Absolute power corrupts. Hitler BTW was a christian.

      You can't see how inconsistent you are????

      September 15, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • Laughing

      @tom

      Just keep in mind, regardless of faith, there has never been a war waged in the name of atheism. The closest it's been is communism, but like Lucifer is pointing out, thats its own idealology that uses atheism as a tool to make sure the Politburo is the highest authority and there are no others.

      Christianity, Islam, Judaism, really any other religion does not have the same luxury and there has been war over who's god is better for 1000's of years. To bring up Stalin or Mao, or Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il is effectivly shooting yourself in the foot.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Sven Mooseflinger

      tom, the most recent Galup poll on the matter fond that 40% of Americans believe in creationism, so your 99.9% number was totally made up.

      Furthermore, the next 38% believed that God played an active role in the evolutionary process, which is not really evolution. That's sort of a do-it-yourself reimagining of a scientific theory, where they have changed the thoery despite a total lack of evidence or proof that their addition even exists, much less is at play. That's not a scientific theory anymore. That's not evolution anymore.

      Only 16% actually believe in evolution as a scientific theory. Only 16% of Americans are able to accept the real world as it is. 84% of Americans have to add a totally-unproven imaginary friend to science to be able to accept it.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • tom

      more polls
      A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the United States public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[180]

      Only 13 percent said that creationism should be taught in public schools equally with evolution

      September 15, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @tom,
      Got a 'Page not found' on the PFAW.org site, but NCSE said this:
      "In a 2000 poll commissioned by People for the American Way and conducted by DYG Inc (available on-line at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_36.pdf), however, only 16% of respondents said that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, and only 13% said that creationism should be taught as a 'scientific theory' alongside evolution."
      (http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/latest-polls-creationism-evolution)
      Which seems to indicate that, at least 29% of Americans were not convinced by the Theory of Evolution.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      tom, the teachings of the catholic church most definitely do not coincide with the theory of evolution. The RCC teaches that we all came from one man and one woman and that their names were literally adam and eve. Time to read up on your catechism.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  13. FN

    Oh and GOD bless !!!!!

    September 15, 2011 at 9:19 am |
  14. FN

    Jim there alot of holes in your long tirade. Your not fooling anybody, just saying !!!!!!!!!!

    September 15, 2011 at 9:19 am |
    • jimtanker

      If you're talking to me, I didn't post that. Someone named Colin did. And there are no holes in the theory of evolution. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. If you believe in creation or ID, what is your evidence that it is correct as opposed to evolution?

      September 15, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • Colin

      Assuming you are saying there are a lot (2 words, not one – you are confusing it with the verb "allot" – which loosely means to designate into categories) of holes in my argument, please point them out. As to my being "out to fool" people, the opposite is true. I am endeavoring to point out the degree to which one must bury their heads to buy into the talking snake theory of terrestrial origin.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ JimTanks,,,,,,,,,,,

      Mat 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

      Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

      1Cr 3:9 “For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.”

      1Cr 3:16 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

      Luk 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is inside/within you."

      1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

      1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are

      1Cr 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

      The "hidden things of darkness" deals with the things of INNER Space and the things of OUTER Space. These two things of Space are of sameness except for size. Fractal Cosmology is a "newly" scientific theory that professes there are universes inside of things but I am held to binding Fractal Cosmology within 2 manifestations of fractal universalisms. Our bodies are made of cellular universes that are alive and not like material universes which are as deadened universes discarded from Life.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Jim, the flaw for evolution is staring you right in the face when you see chimps and apes in the wild, along with any zoo in the world. What? Your relatives didn't evolve (LOL).

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • Laughing

      HeavenSent

      If you can answer me this, then I can answer you why there are still Apes and Monkeys in the zoo.

      If we were a British Colony, why are there still British people?

      September 15, 2011 at 10:23 am |
    • DamianKnight

      @Laughing,

      While I understand your point, and with all due respect, my friend, I think it's kind of a sad comparison.

      British are people from a country, decided by man. Evolution is something that happens as a force of nature.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:14 am |
    • jimtanker

      Those who doubt the veracity of evolution know absolutely nothing about the subject. Try reading something that isn’t in the fiction isle for once. Yes, I’m talking about the bible.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:17 am |
    • Laughing

      @Damian,

      Fair enough, but it's to illuminate the stupidity of the intial question in the first place. It as.sumes that evolution is flawed based on the belief that if we came from apes, than apes shouldn't exist anymore. Since apes do exist, ipso facto, evolution is wrong. The idea behind my analogy, whether its man made or a force of nature, two things can split from one another and still survive separately, one doesn't have to immediately go extinct once the split happens.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • DamianKnight

      @Laughing,

      True! I think I may be one of the few Christ-followers on here who isn't threatened by evolutionary theory. Frankly, whether we were created from dust or we're the "retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt se.x with a fish-squirrel!" (thank you, South Park, for the quote), doesn't really matter in my faith.

      Why is this such a heated topic? In the scope of Christianity, the creation of the Earth is the minutae.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Laughing

      @Damian

      It really comes down to proving the literal value of the bible and if its truthful or not. As many christians see it, if evolution is correct, creationism is wrong, this then begs the question, if creationism is wrong, what else in the bible is wrong, if we live in a universe where god doesn't have direct influence in our lives and didn't have direct induence in our creation, than our understand is so hopelessly flawed that christianity must not be right. There's also the belief that the bible is infallible, if something proves that is false than its immediatly as.sumed that the proof is false, not the bible.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • DamianKnight

      @Laughing,

      I see what you're saying. Well the Bible was never intended to be a historical doc.ument. It was a group of people chronicling their faith throughout the ages whom I'm sure never thought that their writings would be put in one book along with other people's writings. So we have to understand that the Bible is written from one perspective (obviously, the author's). Therefore, it can't be read absolutely literally because that will just create a huge mess of problems.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
    • Anton LaVey

      HeavenSent

      Jim, the flaw for evolution is staring you right in the face when you see chimps and apes in the wild, along with any zoo in the world. What? Your relatives didn't evolve (LOL).

      Amen.

      ---–
      You truly hav eno idea what you are talking about. LOL did you learn that in a church sermon?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • Shadowflash1522

      @Damian and Laughing
      Here's a thought for your consideration: The Bible is kind of like Aesop's fables. Not literally true, but just because tortises and hares don't compete in footraces doesn't mean that there are no good lessons in them.

      Can you imagine a cult following based on Aesop's fables? LOL! It would probably look at lot like mainstream Christianity: Live by the morals, not the literal meaning.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • Laughing

      @ShadowFlash

      I think that's what Damian believes is the bible in an nutshell, and how I wish it were true that everybody (though i'd settle with most people) believed the bible was just a bunch of fables created to teach morals.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • *frank*

      Painful to witness some people's stillborn ability to reason.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  15. ColoredMountains

    The West has gone to default because they only ask the opinions of the super-rich. CNN, you should interview Christian missionaries who are battling in the front-lines, on what to believe and how to live. People like Mr. Branson should be reading the Book of James in the New Testament Bible and think about his life instead of giving godless, useless opinions.

    September 15, 2011 at 9:15 am |
  16. ColoredMountains

    Pure science data never collide with Christianity. It's academia's false, godless, illogical opinions that are problems, and 4-5 billion humans are not convinced by any of them. Atheistic scientists and atheistic scholars forge things out for their own godless agenda against the drawn data and pure observations and logical probability, just like some bad bankers and politicians do.

    September 15, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • BRC

      An interesting point that I had never considered, care to provide examples?

      September 15, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      BRC, It's EVERYTHING they say about the origin of life and origin of the universe that cannot be ob-ser-ved by re-pe-ti-ti-ous oc-cur-ences. All their spe-cu-lations are wild fantasies.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:19 am |
    • BRC

      So that's a no? Because there are many elements of the scientificly accepted rheories for the developement (note I didn't say origin) of the planet and life on it that have been repeatedly and seperately supported by observable evidence (I could list them, but you could also just scroll down and look at teh list Colin already posted). So again, I'm affraid that if you don't have specific examples of why that observable evidence is false, you're statement doesn't hold up very well.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • Info

      @ColoredMountains

      "Atheistic scientists and atheistic scholars forge things out for their own godless agenda against the drawn data and pure observations and logical probability"

      can you please post your evidence and proof of so called Atheistic scientists and atheistic scholars forge things out for their own godless agenda? I'm sure you have plenty with a claim like that.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      Is medical science a conspiracy as well? Please stay at home and bleed to death if you ever get injured so the evil medical doctors and scientists don't get their evil agenda hands on you. Loon. I've seen people like you in the psych wards. Always entertaining.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:56 am |
  17. Colin

    To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in Adam and Eve is in the 21st Century, here are some areas fundamentalists must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

    First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.

    The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    A Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark.

    Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).

    Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.

    Fifthly, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.

    Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.

    September 15, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • jimtanker

      That about sums it up. It is amazing how many delusional people there are out there that will deny all of that.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • Info

      summed it up rather nicely! Thanks Colin for that.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:29 am |
    • chad

      First: The Bible doesnt say that the earth is 6000 years old. That figure has been put forth by a small portion of the Christian community based on genealogies in the Bible. A couple important things need to be remembered:

      a. It is a common place for the authors of the bible to telescope genealogies, in Hebrew my great-great-great-grandfather could be known as my father, that’s not an excuse, or speculation.. that's the way the language works.

      b. we need to be careful to draw conclusions based on what is NOT stated in the bible. For example, who did Cain (Adams son) marry? Why was Cain worried that he would be killed when he was driven from the presence of the Lord after killing Able? Who was going to kill him? Clearly there are references and it’s implied in Genesis that other people were around at that time. Where did they come from? The bible doesnt say.

      c. The 6 day account of creation: A day is one revolution of the earth on it’s axis. The earth itself wasn’t created until the second day, so the word translated as “day” doesn’t mean what we think of as a day. Also note that the revolution of the earth now takes 24 hours, but time itself is a function of proximity to mass, which was dramatically different at that stage of the game. The word translated as “day” can also be translated as “epoch”.

      d. In the account of creation, here is the order of events, corresponding exactly to the fossil record as we know it:
      – light
      – water/dry ground
      – vegetation
      – fish
      – mammal
      – man
      How did a bunch of illiterate goat herders manage to get that right?? Good question for you guys 🙂

      September 15, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Not quite. In genesis, the first thing that exists is water. then "God" produces light, not the sun, but light. Then he makes the sky by seperating the two "waters". THEN he makes the sun and the moon. And Birds were created simultaneously with the fish.

      So-
      Earth (it's water and sky anyway) existed before the sun, nope
      Fish and Birds developed simultaneously, nope

      So the answer is, they didn't get it right. They used the very limited information they had to come up with the best guess that they could; but they missed.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • Laughing

      @Chad

      BRC made good points. Also keep in mind, instead of trying to explain what the people who wrote the bible MEANT to say, as if they knew about evolution, the earth was round and was on an elliptical axis around the sun, the nature of the earth and all that jazz, it would make a lot more sense that they made up stories to help themselves fill in the gaps of their knowledge and didn't have the tools available to disprove those stories.

      When I did a little foray into the wilderness, I've gone alone and with friends. When I go with friends, we sit around the fire, shoot the sh.it, enjoy nature and generally tell campfire stories. Some are memories, or funny stories, others might be urban legends or just made up on the spot. The fact is, people have been doing this since fire was first invented, telling stories to entertain, or to teach or to scare people or whatever. The real issue at hand is that the "teachings" that came from these camp fires are actually taken seriously today when they fly directly in the face of proof and logic all because of cognitive dissonance.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:16 am |
    • chad

      BRC,
      1. Light was the first thing created, the big bang.. "there was nothing, then nothing exploded" – Hawkings
      2. It really isnt clear exactly when our planet was created, the sun and moon arent created until the fourth day, which would imply the earth was created at that point.
      3. Birds and fish are created during the same "day", alternately translated as "epoch". It says nothing about order on that day.
      4. "earth" could mean matter in general, it doesnt have to mean our planet earth.

      "They used the very limited information they had to come up with the best guess that they could; but they missed."
      Now that cracks me up. What information did a bunch of goat herders 4500 years ago have??? Seriously? You want me to believe that goat herders 4500 years ago managed to get the order of appearance of life on the planet earth correct just by chance? That they understood the big bang theory? Seriously?

      September 15, 2011 at 10:27 am |
    • chad

      @laughing: "it would make a lot more sense that they made up stories to help themselves fill in the gaps of their knowledge and didn't have the tools available to disprove those stories"

      The odds that a bunch of ignorant, illiterate goat herders sitting around a camp fire 4500 years ago managed to spin a tale of the formation of the universe and life on this planet that has proven to be accurate are about the same as a bunch of monkeys banging out War and Peace. Consider for a moment the idea that there was nothing, then an event, then the universe formed. How in the world would they have even considered that idea?

      Did any other group at the time even come close in their "fables created to keep their fears at bay" to what we know today to be reality? No..

      What you would have me believe is just to fantastic to even consider.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:35 am |
    • Laughing

      @Chad

      Read the Enuma Elish, you'd be surprised what a bunch of people who were greatly influenced by the babylonian empire (considering they lived in it) can come up with and how much they would steal content and ideas from the other civ's around them. I'm still confused where they "got it right" at what point? Like I said in my above post, once you start trying to infer what they MEANT to say instead of what's actually on the page in the most literal form, you can throw the whole thing out the window, because you don't know what they meant to say, you're only inserting your world view and fitting it in with theirs as best you can.

      There are parts in creation that probably are completely made up, and a lot of other parts that come directly from the Enuma Elish and other Middle Eastern creation stories of the time. Listen to an urban legend, people insert their own ideas, their own details, but the basic fabric of the story is there and passed along person to person. You keep pointing out that these groups of people were dumb illiterate goat herders, who must have been way too stupid to come up with this by themselves. That's false. These people in today's soceity might be looked on as idiotic, but consider that the vast majority of people in those times were illiterate, it does not make them stupid however, people back then as well as now were more than capable with coming up with grand, complex ideas about the universe. The key difference is now we have science and technology to either back us up or disprove it with verifiable evidence and new things to ponder about the universe.

      Again, show me where exactly they "got it right"

      September 15, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • Info

      @Chad

      What BRC and Laughing said is correct those ignorant, illiterate goat herders used what very limited information they had as well as made up stories passed down to them to help themselves fill in the gaps of their knowledge to come up with the best guess of how we got here, but they missed the mark completely.

      most of the information they did know was pretty much whatever they could see, any story that they told was true since they didn't have the tools or references available to disprove any story, everything else that couldn't be explained God did it

      September 15, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • HeavenSent

      See scriptures listed for the Foundation of the World can be found at http://www.biblestudysite.com/146.htm

      Written how many years ago before these non-believers started trashing Jesus’ truth because they didn’t/still don’t know how to read or cross reference the Bible?

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • BRC

      @Chad,

      I've never been a fan of the style of apologetics where it all comes down to "interpretation". It involves giving the book far more credit than I think it warrants.

      1) Say that the Big Bang was an explosion of light would be incredibly rudimentary, but fine, this was thousands of years ago.
      2) I was being polite and giving the bible a bit of credit before, but it is very clear about when it says the earth is created-

      1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
      2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
      3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

      It was the very first thing. So we can go ahead and tally that up as wrong. HOWEVER, I would say that this makes sense for the invention of a primitive people who would have no reason to think that the "universe" extended beyond what they knew and could see, so the belief would naturally be that they were the center and the beginning of everything.

      3) No, it doesn't say whether it was birds or fish that came first, but either way it tries to imply that birds came before land animals, which we know is false. It also makes no mention of single celled organisms that were looking at all these other creations and calling them whipper-snappers (because they were much older). People of the time would have no idea what those were, but one would think "God" would have some idea.

      4) Yes it could, but that is unlikely since the authors of the book had no concept of matter, energy, changes of state or anything else. They knew they existed, they knew they were somewhere, they figured someone made it, and they called it earth. Your explanation requires that "god" gave whoever he told to write the Bible false information, or was unable to make the person understand the correct explanation (a bit limited for an all powerful being).

      No, I don't expect you to believe they got the order right, I specifically said that they got it wrong, but I understand why they did. You're absolutely right, the only information they had was what they could see with their eyes. The new there was solid below them (Earth), water around them, and what appeared to be the same blue water above them, but much farther away ("7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.") The saw that there were bright things, and more of them at night, but they had no way of knowing that those bright things were physical bodies, many of which much older than the sun. They took what they could see, and made a guess about how someone who was more powerful than they could ever imagine might have made it all happen. They got a lot of it wrong; cool thing is we don't have to use their guess anymore.

      One thing I forgot earlier. Time has nothing to do with mass. It is a non-existent construct created by humans to describe the passage of events. More scientifically accurate is to use the word "decay". In either case, these Goat herders as you like to call them had no idea what you're talking about. More likely is that when they wrote days, they meant days.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • chad

      Well, I've already stated that the sequence of events in the Bible (nothing, bang, light, matter, water/dry ground, vegetation, fish, mammal, man) exactly coincides with what we know now.

      They got everything right.. what did they get wrong?

      I had never read the Enuma Elish, the ONLY thing there in common with the Genesis account is Chaos prior to creation. It says nothing about creation itself.

      From Wikipedia: "However, these parallels do not necessarily suggest that Hebrew beliefs about the nature of God and creation can be completely explained as having their origins in the creation myths of the time. Rather, many biblical scholars see the Genesis texts as polemically addressing the Babylonian worldview. "

      September 15, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • Laughing

      Firstly, BRC has pointed out to you a number of times, the bible specifically states that light comes after dry/wet ground, and after earth. We know that is just plain wrong.

      secondly, why quote wikipedia that only bolsters my point? First, the Enuma Elish is specifically a creation tale, pretty sure thats what "Enuma Elish" translates to. As to what it says on creation, I didn't say its an exact play by play of Gensis, its pretty divergent when you look at paralelles, but like I said earlier, the fabric is there. There was chaos, then god came and created order from that chaos. There's also mention of a firmament, and god creating the earth. It's divergent in that many other cultures at that time believed that man was created specifically to be slaves or were accidents (hinduism, sects of hinduism at least, holds that man only was created because when the gods were having se.x, a little bit of sperm fell to the ground and man was born). This is one of the first times in the creation story man was elevated to partnering with god.

      In your quote it says, "Rather, many biblical scholars see the Genesis texts as polemically addressing the Babylonian worldview" which specifically shows that clearly these people were influenced directly by the Babylonians, whether or not they agree is inconsequential, this shows without a doubt that Genesis was specifically in reaction to older creation stories and so wasn't just made up out of no where, but was built upon other cultures and civ's.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • BRC

      @Chad.
      Tl:DR for above- What you say isn't what the bible says.

      You-nothing, bang, light, matter, water/dry ground, vegetation, fish, mammal, man
      Bible-ethereal plain, matter, water, light, sky, ground, Sun, Moon, fish, birds, Humans (men and women simultaneously)
      Science-?,bang, expanding mass of the universe, sun, earth (cooling of land, forming mixing of atmosphere, pooling of water occurs at varying rates) moon, microbes, "fish", amphibians, reptiles, birds, mamals, primates, people, Cthulhu.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • DamianKnight

      Yay for Cthulu!

      September 15, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • chad

      “I've never been a fan of the style of apologetics where it all comes down to "interpretation". It involves giving the book far more credit than I think it warrants.”
      =>Well, if you don’t want to bother with “interpretation” then teleport yourself back to 2500 BC, and live in that society long enough to learn the language and the usage of it at that time. The reality is, we have text written in Hebrew 4500 years ago. Translating that to understand what they meant when they said it is not a trivial thing and our understanding is advanced as archeology continues to give us clues into word meanings at the time.

      “earth was created first in the Genesis account “ [paraphrase mine]
      =>as I said before, “earth” can mean matter, not necessarily our planet.

      “it tries to imply that birds came before land animals, which we know is false.”
      =>The bible only says that birds and mammals were created on the same day. That’s it, end of story. With all due respect, you’re grasping at straws.

      Your general argument appears to be that we believers in the Bible are overlaying what we know now, on the Genesis account.
      My point is, that of all the accounts of the origin of the universe, and life on this planet that existed 2000 years ago lets say, the Genesis account is the ONLY one that an overlay is possible to do. That is positive evidence of divine origin.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:39 am |
    • Laughing

      @Chad

      It's incredible to me that you haven't grasped this yet. Ignoring whether earth means the planet or the ground or whatever, we know for a fact that the earth was in fact NOT created before the sun.

      Regardless of langugage it was written in and how we translate what 'day" means, we now know the earth is billions of years old, which we didn't know even in the early 1900's and roundly rejected the idea (both believers and none).

      What BRC, me and just about everyone is saying is that you keep coming back to saying stuff like "translating error" and "what they implicate is..." is an apologetic remark that doesn't hold water. When man wrote the bible, they didn't say "the earth is flat, what we mean to say though is its round, but it looks flat"

      September 15, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • chad

      “Frstly, BRC has pointed out to you a number of times, the bible specifically states that light comes after dry/wet ground, and after earth. We know that is just plain wrong.”
      =>The Bible says that on the first day created the heavens, the earth and light. That’s what the bible says, end of story. All created on the first day. The order on the first day is unclear. You can draw conclusions, but those are your conclusions. The text doesn’t support it. You should also realize that it is an extremely common writing form of Jews to introduce a topic, then go back and fill in blanks, back and forth. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, or view it as the wrong way to present data, it just is the fact of the matter. And again, “earth” may be matter; it doesn’t necessarily mean our planet.

      “Secondly, why quote wikipedia that only bolsters my point?”
      =>Because it doesn’t support your point 😉 , Wikipedia says most scholars see the Genesis account as polemically different and not drawing/relying on it at all.

      Your point was “look, these other guys came up with a creation tale that was pretty close, it’s not inconceivable to come up with a creation tale, it also shows that the Genesis account had other similar creation accounts to draw upon ”. It took 30 seconds to put that argument to rest. There’s nothing in it to rely on in the first place, and the Enuma Elish cant be correlated with what we know now to be true in any way shape or form (unlike the Genesis account which can). If you’re going to claim that the Genesis account is based on earlier accounts, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • Laughing

      Alright, lets try and see if you can follow this, let me hold your hand if you need to.
      1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
      2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
      3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

      Lifted DIRECTLY from Gensis. There is light before "the earth" again, you argue that earth could mean matter, or dirt, not the planet. There's you're order of events right there, plain and for all to see, not "unclear" at all. Again, whether or not you actually understand that you are completely wrong on that account, it states directly there was darkness and waters and THEN there was light. Not to mention, later when god also created the sun and the moon afterwards. Please, tell me, where was the light coming from if there was no sun before? If you look at from a persons view thousands of years ago when we believed we were the center of the universe, when the sun rotated around us, the earth was flat, etc.... this all makes a little more sense. We now know these things are wrong and to fit in our new worldview into gensis is being stubborn in the belief that genesis HAS to be correct.

      Of course the Enuma Elish can't be correlated to what we know now to be true, neither can Gensis. But like your quote states. Gensis as a creation story is written "polemically addressing the Babylonian worldview". This is stateing, without being able to worm your way out of it, is that the israelites looked at the Enuma Elish and thought "we can do better, you're ideas aren't right, but perhaps if we take the basic premise and supply our own, we'll be right". They were influenced, just like American Culture to this day is influenced by ancient egyptian and roman archeticture and culture and what not.

      Please, please, plesae read the Enuma Elish and then comment on it instead of reading a 2 second clipping on wikipedia to make an argument, it makes your foolish arguments just sort of sad.

      BRC has also pointed this out but I wanted to highlight the fact again. You keep saying that "day" can really mean an age, or an epoch or anything else. That's wrong, they meant day. They had words to longer periods of time,they didn't describe everything in days, if they wanted to use a different word that stated it was a longer period of time than a day, they would have done so.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Bible=
      Birds/Fish then end of Day 5
      Land animals/People then end of day 6

      You can attempt whatever modern interpretation you want, you can overlay whatever "facts" you think can me used to confirm the more complex underlying issues they were trying to point out, but at the end of it all it have been, to a very near degree of certainty, been proven wrong. And I'm not saying that "God" doesn't exist or didn't start off the universe, I'm saying the the crude attempt to describe the origin of what the people of the time didn't even know was a planet, did so by using the visible information on hand, and wild guestimation beyond that. They weren't right. If you try hard enough you can make it sound like they were less wrong, but that still doesn't make them right.

      What's more, your ability to obfuscate their rudimentary descripition, and try to tie it to slightly more accurate modern descriptions, doesn't in anyway prove the existence or the influence of the divine. It shows that they had eyes, and displays the remarkable creative and anlytical powers of the human mind (they're knoledge pool was much more shallow, but the had the building blocks of agressive human curiosity).

      September 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • chad

      Just to summarize::
      1. According to the Genesis account, all of the universe (including the sun, earth, etc) was created on the first "day". Attempting to establish an order of events of that first day is just drawing unsupported conclusions.

      2. translation: you may not like the fact that the translation of 4500 year old Hebrew into our current English is a subject of continuing scholarship, but that is a pretty irrational dislike dont you think? That's just reality, that's the way it is.

      3. It's inconceivable that a bunch of nomads (no matter how smart they were) 4500 years ago could have dreamed up the Genesis account based on what they knew at the time. No other creation account from that period even comes close to what we know now to be true.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      BRC mentioned Cthulu. I want to know where in all of this arguing Cthulu comes into play.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • BRC

      but at the end of it all it have been, to a very near degree of certainty, been proven wrong = but at the end of the day it has all, to a very near degree of certainty, been proved wrong

      Sorry, I was typing on the fly, didn't want you to wait too long for a response.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • BRC

      @Damian,
      I couldn't remember which was supposed to come first, Cthulhu or s@xy robots. All depends on who you take as "gospel"

      September 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • Laughing

      @chad

      before we go any further, I realized we might be having trouble with a miscommunication. Do you not understand what the word "order" means? Or "day" for that matter?

      Also, to address your last point, why exactly is it inconceivable to think a bunch of nomads could not come up with the creation story? What exactly is so hard and complicated in the story that makes it inconceivable to think of it? Can't the same be said for just about any other culture that came up with their own creation myth?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Bible is much more accurate then we give it credit for being; they're just terrible writers. So, "God" gave them the right answer, then when they were trying to pass that information on, they screwed it up, and broke it down more than he did, or messed up the order?

      Is that a simple for of what you're saying?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
    • chad

      I was poking around to see what creation myths existed 2000 years ago, came up with some interesting stuff.
      http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab83

      Of note: "An entirely different theme emerges with the ancient Hebrews. They declare, briefly and to the point, that God did it."
      "In strong contrast with all other creation myths, the Hebrew version has a simplicity and confidence deriving from a rugged monotheism. The Old Testament opens with a magnificently confident statement: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

      Their criticism of the Genesis account is that "gee, it just fits to nicely with what we know now" 🙂

      Genesis account is unique
      Genesis account is accurate
      To think that those guys, were some how able to get it right, when no one else even came close, when the concepts didnt exist in human understanding for another 4000 years, is one heck of a fantastic claim.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • Laughing

      So you don't understand what order means.Ok, cool, let me help you out. In the instance I'm referring to, order means the sequence of events, so lets go through the first 4 days of the bible in the sequence its in shall we?

      Laughing

      1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.a 2The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

      3Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

      And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

      6Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8God called the space “sky.”

      And evening passed and morning came, marking the second day.

      9Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

      13And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.

      14Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

      So we made it to the fourth day before the sun and the moon was created (which, by the way happened at waaaaaay different times). So please enlighten me, how did the earth appear when there wasn't a sun?

      You are right that Gensis is definitily unique, mostly in that one, it paints humans as partners with god rather than slaves. It also is one of the first recored times of monotheism vs. polytheism. At no point does uniques equate accurateness (equate means equal, I know that big words trip you up)

      September 15, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • chad

      "If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Bible is much more accurate then we give it credit for being; they're just terrible writers. So, "God" gave them the right answer, then when they were trying to pass that information on, they screwed it up, and broke it down more than he did, or messed up the order?"

      no.. here's how I would characterize my thoughts:
      – God was talking to goat herders, as He didnt have time to explain the special theory of relativity, he used terms like "days" so that they had a point of reference. He also uses terms like "vault" and "water above from water below", because He had to adjust to what they knew.
      – additionally, the translation into English can be a source of confusion at times especially for people that like to nit pick, take things out of context, infer from things that arent said in the text, etc.. I believe the Bible is perfect in it's original Hebrew, but we suffer at times with poor translations, and not completely understanding the intent of the author. I dont believe any of those issues bear on the theology or cohesiveness of the Bible in any way.
      Did Moses part the Red Sea, or the "Sea of Reeds". I dont know.. either way, it doesnt matter to me. the point is, God miraculously brought the Jews out of Egypt..

      September 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • chad

      Laughing: why are you so angry and sarcastic? Why do so many atheists have such a hard time dialoging w/out reverting to name calling?

      And before you respond with "because you Christians are idiots and hence worthy of my ridicule", let me note that such a statement would do nothing to respond to my question.

      September 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      Typical christian response – if you interpret the bible different than them, you interpret it wrong.

      Goat herders might have written the bible, but god didn't give it to them. Just as god didn't communicate with Mohammad, joseph smith, ancient egyptians, ancient romans, hindus ... Ever wonder why god talked to so many people for so many years and then went completely silent for the last 2000?

      September 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Fun fact, the Torah isn't 4000 years old.

      It's old, no arguing that, but there were plenty of religions before it, and lots of different creation myths that they were surrounded by. And leaving out Genesis (for the moment), their literature has a habit of pulling concepts, stories and ideas, from the many cultures around them.

      You keep saying the Genesis is accurate, that they've been proven right. WHAT about their account has been proven right? You have an account of universal creation that you've tried to line up with Genesis, and we've pointed out several errors; so WHAT, what specifically in their account has been proven right? That "God" did it? If the story was divinely inspired, would an all knowing, all powerful being have done a better job as editor?

      The words you've used are not the words, or the sequence written in the bible. You can say that's because we don't know how to interpret their ancient writings, but how do you know you do? The laying down a single topic and then expounding on it, can also be seen as simple repettion, not added interpretation; an element common in all ancient oral traditions (notably the major Greek stories that were handed down and recorded before the bible), because people had to be repettive to remember the very long stories.

      You can explain your understanding of the creation of the universe, and you can give how YOUR interpretation of the text allows it to line up, but that doesn't make the text accurate. It doesn't make your interpretation correct, it gives a hypothesis with little or no evidence; ESPECIALLY, because your justifications rely on concepts that you have even said there is no way the people of the time could have understood. You don't need to use those complex concepts, the process could have been clearly and easily explained in plain language. So why wasn't it?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • Laughing

      Actually chad my response is a lot simpler, when you fail to read my posts and understand its content, then I think you're stupid. When I try to engage in dialogue and or debate, it's common courtesy to at least read it and address the points instead of dredge up your same tired arguement and keep saying its accurate and truth

      September 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • chad

      hit the wrong post...

      Regarding order: I dont think that attempting to establish order of a particular days events is supported by the text unless there are statements such as "then" as in "Then he separated the light from the darkness".

      Regarding accuracy: Your "errors" are based primarily on sequencing, correct? I've already demonstrated that attempting to establish order of events in a particular day isnt supported in most cases. What's right? as I said before nothing-big bang-creation of universe, plants, fish, mammals, humans. It's just right, end of story.. how in the world could they have known that fish came before mammals, of that there was a big bang, or that humans were last?

      Regarding uniqueness: No other creation account even resembles it, how can Genesis be said to have borrowed from anyone?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Chad: You said, "no.. here's how I would characterize my thoughts:
      – God was talking to goat herders, as He didnt have time to explain the special theory of relativity, he used terms like "days" so that they had a point of reference. He also uses terms like "vault" and "water above from water below", because He had to adjust to what they knew."

      Couldn't he just have given them the requisite knowledge and vocabulary to understand it instead of "dumbing it down?"

      Or perhaps told someone else besides goat herders who may have had a little more on the ball?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • chad

      SeanNJ: all good questions. I dont know why He did it that way. Why start so small with one guy (Abraham). Why not just have a press conference and put the whole "does God exist" question to rest once and for all? Why have Jesus arrive before television?

      That's the way He works. He works with humans, in the situation they are in, with the problems we have, all the while ensuring that we have free will and can reject His free offer of life in Jesus Christ if we want to.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
    • Laughing

      @Chad

      Remember when I said the whole "reading and understanding my posts"? Take a gander at my previous post. Whether you believe for some reason that there's order to creation during day 1 or day 2, and so on, it clearly states that the sun was created on the 4th day. I'm going to stop here, clearly long posts are tough for you. Once you can reconcile how the earth was created before the sun (and yes I mean the planet earth because on the 3rd day the plants and trees were created, unless you somehow have different meanings for the words plant and tree) then I will listen to anything else you have to say.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @chad: Why does that make sense to you?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Okay, I would like to think that I do a good job of avoiding using insults or personal attacks, but I think I can explain, that many atheists turn to it, because they become frustrated when the person their talking to keeps repeating the same thing, without addressing individual points, and adapting their thesis with the information available (oddly enough a problem that many of us have with religion as a whole).

      Your simple account-nothing- big bang-creation of universe, plants, fish, mammals, humans. Is only somewhat correct, and skips over some very critical parts of the process of developing life on this planet. But, more central to this point, it isn't what the Bible says. Discuss what a day means, argue inability to discern order, do whatever you want. Until you can explain how on the 2nd "day" "God" made the sky, the 3rd "day" god made land AND GREW VEGETATION (a processes impossible without photosynthesis or I guess god sure why not), and on the 4th "day" FINALLY made the Sun and the Moon; then your interpretation doesn't hold up. Genesis isn't right. If you can say how those words don't mean what they say, then your point of the accuracy of Genesis can start being considered. But as of right now, as we have tried to point out repeatedly, days 2, 3, and 4, whether they're 24 hours or 24 millennia each- DON'T work. They are wrong.

      Please help me understand your point on how to get around this.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • chad

      Laughing: if you want me to respond, you need to be civil. fair is fair.

      "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.": Everything was created on the first day, that includes the sun, moon, stars, earth, matter, light, dark, everything.

      A person could draw a conclusion that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, but you would then have to figure out how we got light on the first day w/out a sun. Even simple goat herders understand that light comes from the sun.

      I think that the bible is saying that heavy cloud cover on the earth persisted until the fourth "day" and at that point the sun and moon became visible. It would be interesting to research the origins of the earth to see what early atmospheric conditions were thought to have been.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • chad

      SeanNJ: as I said, I would have done it differently. But, I'm not God.

      Just because we disagree with what He does, doesnt mean He doesnt exist.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Laughing

      @chad

      You are right, I will try and remain civil. Let me again quote this part to you.

      9Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

      13And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.

      14Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

      It literally says, and this is worth repeating, god made the stars in the 4th day. Also, if you believe that there were clouds covering the earth from the sun, then how was light created before then? How did the plants and trees photosynthesize without the sun?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • chad

      BRC/Laughing: regarding creation of Sun/Moon on fourth day.

      "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth": That is the creation statement. Although "earth" can mean matter, I do believe that the planet earth, the sun and the moon were created on the first day.

      fourth day: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"
      => the word translated "made" is Strong's H6213 – `asah, the tense can be present or past, it can also mean "use", "appear" or "observe".
      I tend to agree with the interpretation that says cloud cover parted at that point and they became visible. One thing is for sure, the more we understand about the origin of the universe, the more sense the bible text starts to make.

      Also, if you believe that there were clouds covering the earth from the sun, then how was light created before then? How did the plants and trees photosynthesize without the sun?
      =>grass grows on a cloudy day when you cant see the sun right?. Sun was created on day 1.

      believe I have directly addressed all the questions, you may not like the answers, but the questions were addressed, right?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • Laughing

      Aright,

      At least at this point we're moving forward. So I'm confused, how long is a day? Grass can indeed grow during cloud cover, however if by your definition a "day" is actually somehow longer than 24 hours and could mean an epoch, then grass (as well as all the flora, not just grass) would be dead before the clouds could part and bring light.

      You missed one thing as well. It says the stars were made after the earth , we know this to be false, the universe, stars and galaxies are older than the earth by billions of years.

      Your always ignoring the text, It doesn't state the sun was created on day 1, light was. In this instance light and the sun that gives off the light are two separate things created on different days. If the light and sun were created like you said on day 1, then why devote an entire "day" in whatever sense of the word to remaking it?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Yes, thank you. You directly addressed my question. Unfortunate you basically made my last point for me. Your last few posts have all revolved around "I think, I believe, I tend to agree"; you show that you've managed to reconcile the differnces of the actual words on teh page, with SOME of the knowledge we have today, using your own specific interpretation. While I'm glad that works for you, I hope you can see how that's not really convincing evidence, and that it doesn't mean anyone else would have the same interpretations. It also doesn't change the dact that the words they wrote, when "Inspired by God", don't match the facts that we know today, even if their meaning was supposed to.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • chad

      " how long is a day"
      =>I believe the word translated as "day" in the bible (Strong's H3117 – yowm) refers to a discrete time period, much longer than a single rotation of the earth once on it's axis. How long? Millions of years. NOTE: I"m not re-defining the text by saying this, that is an alternate, perfectly valid translation of that word. The original Hebrew is perfect, our task is to get a better understanding of what the original author intended. The original author didnt write "day" they wrote "yowm".

      "Grass can indeed grow during cloud cover, however if by your definition a "day" is actually somehow longer than 24 hours and could mean an epoch, then grass (as well as all the flora, not just grass) would be dead before the clouds could part and bring light."
      =>I dont think that's true. If an area of the world were permanently overcast, nothing would grow there?

      "You missed one thing as well. It says the stars were made after the earth , we know this to be false, the universe, stars and galaxies are older than the earth by billions of years."
      =>I believe that EVERYTHING, the sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, earth, comets, ALF, everything was made on day 1.
      Now, stars/planets are still being "made" as we speak today, and every star/planet has a different birth date differing by billions of years potentially, the point is that matter was created first (we know that all matter was created at one point, matter is not being added).

      "Your always ignoring the text, It doesn't state the sun was created on day 1, light was. In this instance light and the sun that gives off the light are two separate things created on different days. If the light and sun were created like you said on day 1, then why devote an entire "day" in whatever sense of the word to remaking it?"
      =>The text says on the first day: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." that includes the sun, dont know how many times I need to say it. The sun was not created on the fourth day.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • chad

      "Your last few posts have all revolved around "I think, I believe, I tend to agree"; "
      =>It's important to leave room for future understanding, for example "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
      Now, before Einstein came along, that made no sense at all. A day was a day, right? I could see you atheists jumping all over that one.
      But, then albert shows up, and it turns out that time is relative, and that indeed someone could exist outside our time and space.. Scientific advancement helped us understand 4000 year old text.

      "using your own specific interpretation"
      The translations I have referred to are not unique, I didnt think them up. It is mainstream Christian textual exegesis.

      "It also doesn't change the dact that the words they wrote, when "Inspired by God", don't match the facts that we know today, even if their meaning was supposed to."
      =>you keep saying that, but as I said before, it seems wholly based on 2 things: your interpretation of the text (leaving no room for alternate translations), and the belief that there isnt enough detail in the bible. right? Not a strong case on your side. You should list exactly the errors you see.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • Laughing

      @Chad

      First of all, depending on where in the earth was permently overcast without even a single day sunshine, it is possible ( I will never say it isn't possible) that something might grow there. However we're looking at all trees, plants and the like and that, sir, means they NEED sun to grow. Then again i don't think there's a place on earth that never receives sunlight 365 days out of the year and grows any sort of diverse life.

      Secondly, I'm going to quote this again because you seem to be ignoring it:

      14Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

      This is everything that happened on the fourth day. If what you say is true that everythng was created on day 1, what exactly did he create one day 4, you believe he just parted the clouds to let light in yes? So you're telling me it took god one day to create all flora on the planet, and in that same amount of time he also needed that to part some clouds? What?

      Now for your last part, "The text says on the first day: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." that includes the sun, dont know how many times I need to say it. The sun was not created on the fourth day." No, it doesn't say that anywhere in the text, you are literally shoving what you want to believe in there and saying your right. You can't do that and you can't even try to tinker with ancient hebrew to try and get out of it. Thats like saying "I think the earth is flat" and then you claiming "What I meant to say is the earth is round"

      Heaven has been shown to be a distinct and different place than space and the universe as we know it, if it wasn't we would have observed heaven the minute we launched hubble into the sky because apparently its right above the earth.
      Sorry chad, but I understand that you want to unify current science with genesis and then marvel about it, but like Enstein, a Grand Unified Theory is going to forever be out of your grasp

      September 15, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,

      Time is only relative at extremely high speeds (ie. moving towards the speed of light). I think we can all agree that that concept has nothing to do with the Bible. Isn't it more likely that it was just an old fancy way of saying "God's been around longer then you can possibly imagine"

      second, did the original text use the word yowm in that day/1000 year comparison? Because that would not help the case for the Genesis portion. Also, out of curiosity I did some research on the word "yowm"; and yes, among its many many definitions were a 24 hour day, and a period of time specified elsewhere. However, there is nothing else in Genesis that specifies that range, so that definition doesn't stand up very well. If, however, I was writing a story about how impressive my god was and there was no way to prove right or wrong, I would say creating the entire universe in just 6 days would be a good example.

      Lastly, before I head home, my argument is NOT based on any interpretation. My argument pulls directly from the words on the page, taken at face value- which is the only logical way to discuss a book that is not obviously metaphor, and where the authors are not available for clarification. I don't preclude people's interpretations, but I have no reason to believe them without evidence. My weak case, as you say, is that the words on the page, the exact words, do not match the closest thing we have to facts. No interpretations, no meanings inferred, I'm talking about the words. Since they don't, I don't see how that could be a weak case.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • chad

      "Time is only relative at extremely high speeds (ie. moving towards the speed of light). I think we can all agree that that concept has nothing to do with the Bible."
      =>velocity is all relative to a vantage point. Where is God in relation to the planet earth? As he can step into and out of our space time, a day is indeed as a thousand years, and vice versa.

      "second, did the original text use the word yowm in that day/1000 year comparison? Because that would not help the case for the Genesis portion. Also, out of curiosity I did some research on the word "yowm"; and yes, among its many many definitions were a 24 hour day, and a period of time specified elsewhere. However, there is nothing else in Genesis that specifies that range, so that definition doesn't stand up very well. If, however"
      Are you saying that the same word cant have different meanings when used in 2 different sentences? At the end of the day, the fact is, more scrutiny has been applied to the bible, than all the other books in the world combined, and it continues to stand up 🙂

      "Lastly, before I head home, my argument is NOT based on any interpretation. My argument pulls directly from the words on the page, taken at face value"
      you are reading english, right? You are reading a translation, that translation is an interpretation, right? If you want to read the original, go back 4000 years and learn Hebrew in the context it was being spoken at the time

      September 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @chad: So now, not only can your god speak only speak down to a goat herders level, the rest of use are required to learn ancient Hebrew.

      Do tell...

      September 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • chad

      SeanNJ: " So now, not only can your god speak only speak down to a goat herders level, the rest of use are required to learn ancient Hebrew."
      =>Not required to, if you want to you can. Perfectly good English translations exist that have been scrutinized more than any published work anywhere, anytime.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @chad: You said, "Perfectly good English translations exist that have been scrutinized more than any published work anywhere, anytime."

      But, I would still have to do some interpretation in spite of how "perfectly good" the translation is?

      September 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • chad

      By "perfectly good" I dont mean to say that the english translations we have now are perfect, it's an expression. The bible is perfect in the original Hebrew/Greek.

      "But, I would still have to do some interpretation in spite of how "perfectly good" the translation is?"
      =>I think every person that reads the bible should be aware that they are reading a translation. You should read that translation with the confidence born of the scrutiny that produced it, but you should also endeavor to become familiar with translation aids that exist and do your own homework if passages are confusing. Hundreds of thousands of excellent commentaries exist that can also be used.
      Do your homework, you'll never be sorry you did.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • BRC

      @Chad,
      Conversation is long since over, but I never like to leave someone hanging.

      My point about time is that you're crediting advanced physics theories to a people and a book that knew nothing about them, never referenced them, and had no clarification on the point. It is remarkably unlikely that the Hebrews who wrote the bible were referring to "relative time" when they described "God's" actions. What's more, if he doesn't exist in our plain and in our time, and is clearly above and beyond the laws of physics, then none of that applies to him anyway.

      Yes, a word can have 2 different meanings in two different places, it can have two different meanings in the same sentence, but that doesn't address the problem with the word yowm. It means 24 hour day, which is a perfectly understandable and reasonable word for them to have used given the likely scenario that they were attempting to guess at the actions of a universe forming deity; or it can mean a defined amount of time- which is nowhere else in Genesis. Nowhere else does it say "In the early times, before God revealed the light, and brought man forth unto his creation a day was then many ages, as the earth was still being formed". See that, I made that up, it would make yowm mean a long time, and it even sounds kind of bible-y; but they didn't do that, and I don't see "God" being that inaccurate. Also not helping your case is the fact that each day ends with the evening and the morning. That sure sounds like a day to most of us here on Earth.

      Translation is not an interpretation, notice how it's a different word. There are times when doing a translation that one is forced to interpret an idiom's meaning, and reproduce it to the best of the new language's ability; but describing a simple measurement such as time isn't usually one of those occasions. Here's a question, when you were applying modern age theories to your interpretation, were you reading the English, or the Hebrew version?

      As for your statement that the Bible has been scrutinized more than any other book and continues to stand up, there are two problems.

      1) If it has been scrutinized so much, but both the secular and the religious, why does it still say day? IF the churches positions was that it didn't mean day, that it actually made age, era, epoch, or anything else, why haven't they changed it? It wouldn't be changing God's word, it would be matching it, it would be giving the original intended message. Is it possible that it's not actually a fully accepted concept?

      2) Quite frankly, the reason it has stood up to the scrutiny is because its supporters flatly refuse to here it denounced. I was having a conversation with someone about how radio-carbon and other dating procedures prove that the world is older than 6000 years old- their response was that "Christian Scientists" had not accepted those tests, and that they could not truly be proven. It's not even the first time that just I have had to deal with those kinds of responses. There are many things about the Bible that can be proved wrong (I would love to see the description as to how they could possibly say there were 1.2 Million people wandering through the desert with yet the all fit around one tent); but when the points are brought up we get responses like "it's a matter of interpretation, it's an error of translation, it's God prerogative." They're impossible to truly argue for or against, and it's an indescribably frustrating head in the sand defense mechanism.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @chad: You said, "Do your homework, you'll never be sorry you did."

      I already have, and I'm sorry I ever get any of it the least bit of credence. For the most part, my questions are merely rhetorical, because I think it's important to show the lengths people will go to rationalize.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • LT. DAN

      I could not agree more. These are facts that can't be denied. However you know as well as I that the religious people are only going to read your post far enough to determine if you are a Christian. Once they see that you are trying to show evidence to the contrary they will skip the rest of it. There are a few who have realized that their faith is a farce, but they are few and far between. The rest are so entrenched in their belief that they will not really listen to anything you have to say, nor will they ever question their faith. They won't investigate other religions. They are content to just believe. They will live their lives condemning others to hell to lift themselves up. They will be intolerant of others. They will abuse their kids by shoving Allah or Jesus down their gullets until they are so filled with self hate, shame, misguided conviction, and hatred. We just have to wait until this all dies out and it eventually will. Allah and Jesus will be history just like the Zeus. Until then we just have to wait for them to strap bombs to themselves to kill infidels, or they will have to just march at soldiers funerals and delight in every hurricane and tornado as proof of God fury and the end of the world.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • No One Is Safe

      @BRC & Laughing – you guys have the patience of a saint. I tip my yarmulke to you both.

      @chad – thanks *so* much for all the giggles you've provided. you should definitely consider trying out for Cirque Du Soleil. I hear they're always on the lookout for a good contortionist, and, if nothing else, you've proven that you can twist, squirm, bend, and flex with the best of'em!

      September 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
  18. ColoredMountains

    Britons were better 65 years ago.

    September 15, 2011 at 8:03 am |
    • jimtanker

      This guy could buy England.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      So? He can't buy peoples' hearts. Let him feed Somalia and North Korea if he is so great.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:10 am |
    • jimtanker

      It's true that you can’t buy happiness, but you can rent it by the hour.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:35 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      Jim, a true gift cannot be bought or rented. It is given from a heart and received by it. God loves you.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      He who says happiness can't be bought hasn't spent 15 minutes on a jet ski.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:43 am |
    • BRC

      There is some fantastic "your mom" joke material here, but for the sake of decorum I will ignore it.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • No One Is Safe

      @jimtanker – oh, he ain't all that... he sure as hell couldn't cover the cost of deprogramming Addledina's warped worldview...

      September 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  19. Bible Verses Applicable to Today's Secular Britain and USA

    The word of the LORD came to me:
    “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

    “‘In the pride of your heart
    you say, “I am a god;
    I sit on the throne of a god
    in the heart of the seas.”
    But you are a mere mortal and not a god,
    though you think you are as wise as a god.
    Are you wiser than Daniel?
    Is no secret hidden from you?
    By your wisdom and understanding
    you have gained wealth for yourself
    and amas-sed gold and silver
    in your treasuries.
    By your great skill in trading
    you have increased your wealth,
    and because of your wealth
    your heart has grown proud.

    “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

    “‘Because you think you are wise,
    as wise as a god,
    I am going to bring foreigners against you,
    the most ruthless of nations;
    they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
    and pierce your shining splendor.
    They will bring you down to the pit,
    and you will die a violent death
    in the heart of the seas.
    Will you then say, “I am a god,”
    in the presence of those who kill you?
    You will be but a mortal, not a god,
    in the hands of those who slay you...

    I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”
    (Ezekiel chapter 28)

    September 15, 2011 at 8:01 am |
    • jimtanker

      More fiction from a 3500 year old book.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:02 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      Jim, it's been true for 3,500 years. Your favorite books will die out next year.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:04 am |
    • jimtanker

      Not likely and there is very little that is true in there.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      The Bible is true. You are one of the proofs.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:54 am |
    • Info

      @ColoredMountains
      "The Bible is true. You are one of the proofs."

      that's hardly proof, we are more of a proof of evolution then anything else.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • HeavenSent

      That's because non-believers don't read the Bible and, if they do, don't know how to cross reference His truth to comprehend what they are reading.

      See scriptures listed for the Foundation of the World can be found at http://www.biblestudysite.com/146.htm

      Written how many years ago before these non-believers started trashing Jesus’ truth! Non-believers moto, if we don't know what it is, we trash it. Proof of this statement, read all their negative postings throughout this site.

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • Info

      @heavensent

      "That's because non-believers don't read the Bible and, if they do, don't know how to cross reference His truth to comprehend what they are reading."

      More rubbish the fact is most people who don't believe in your religion is because they actually read the bible and many other holy book and didn't agree with it. as well as formally being apart of your religion and waking up to the nonsense. saying they Atheist 't "can't reference His truth to comprehend what they are reading" is a cope out and excuse for thinking instead of following the flock.

      in Psalm 119:130 we read that the Bible, called the Word of God, is understandable even to the "simple." meaning anyone can comprehend what they are reading but choosing to believe is a different story.

      your scriptures as well as your Jesus "truth" aren't facts there opinions at best you can't back up any scripture with any fact other then Jesus said so, yet you can't even prove Jesus existence but you can attempt to pass his "truth" as fact, Illogical
      .
      The opinion of most "non-believers" If we don't know what it is, find out! We use science for that, the scientific method to be more exact, saying God did it is not an answer.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:21 am |
  20. ColoerdMountains

    ??? Why should anyone care what he believes?

    September 15, 2011 at 7:59 am |
    • jimtanker

      Because he is using his own money to advance space and environmental sciences more than most countries, including the US.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:03 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      Jim, thanks for the info. That's nice of him, but he should read the Bible to be wise on eternity. Donations cannot buy salvation. He needs to repent his sins and trusts in Jesus alone for salvation.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:08 am |
    • jimtanker

      To be wise on eternity? What does that even mean? You make no sense. Keep your myth to yourself.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:37 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      If atheists cannot understand belief blogs, they should shut up here altogether.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • BRC

      @ColoerdMountains,
      I hate to tell you, but for the most part it doesn't matter is someone is an atheist or the Pope- pretty much noone understands what you're saying.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:14 am |
    • ColoredMountains

      @BRC, then why do atheists hate me? Atheists are evil.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:20 am |
    • Jeeze

      Atheist don't hate you, no matter what name you use, it's really just calling you out on your illogical nonsense, you haven't made a lick of sense in any of your comments, every you said is fact less rubbish, you used any real references and actual proof to anything you claim no body would question you so much

      September 15, 2011 at 9:26 am |
    • BRC

      I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I don't think most atheists hate you. We find you frustrating and comical. Your comments are short diatribes that follow no clear thought process, reference no valid evidence, assert beliefs that aren't even suported by the majority of religious people, contain obviously false statements about the history o fmany American and European nations, and in generally are filled with needless ans superfluous insults and specious attempts at character assassination. We are concerned by you because we're worried that some other people might actually think the things you type are true, which would mean that there people in this world living in willful ignorance; and despite what you think about atheists, why like people, we want humans to prosper believe in ourselves as a species and do well. We see your thought process as an obsticle to that goal. So, we don't hate you, we just truly hope that you don't actually mean what you type and that there is noone out there who believes any of it.

      As for atheists being evil- yes, some are. But that can be said of people from all faiths. People have the capacity for "evil", faith has nothing to do with it.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • Lucifer's Knobbly Knees

      I hate you.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:12 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Christians are concerned because we are simply amazed to see how many fools live among us.

      Amen.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • LinCA

      @HeavenSent

      You said, "Christians are concerned because we are simply amazed to see how many fools live among us."
      So are atheists. We try to help you by showing you, and other christians, the insanity of religion and belief. But we can only do so much. You have to do some of the work yourself. Unless you educate yourself, you'll stay a fool forever.

      Don't stay a fool; and shed the delusion.

      September 15, 2011 at 11:40 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.