By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.
When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.
Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.
A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.
“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”
The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.
A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.
Momoya seems to be judging the Bible based on a misunderstanding of the OT, not realizing that Jesus ushered in the new commandments.
So you do not support the application of old testament rules to modern life?
So clearly you support equality for all, ho.mose.xuality is fine, murder and lying and all of those other pesky commandments are done away with. You just have to do as Jesus commanded and you're fine?
Love your neighbor as yourself and judge not and all of that?
God didn't require a creator because causality itself was bundled in with the singularity.
So you're saying that god IS the universe? How convenient, or not, since such a god could NOT be the god of the bible. I'm not going to disagree, though. God is the universe, no need to think about him, we'll just keep studying the universe and learning more about it/him.
If causality is bundled with the singularity, then it's possible the singularity itself was uncaused, right? Since before the singularity no cause was necessary.
To all of momoya's questions, there is a simple Biblical answer. The ancients asked the same questions as she did, but in a more intelligent way that generally understood God as Creator and Sustainer. Her knowledge of science or ability to refute and scientific claim is non existent.
The bible, in order to be considered as an answer to any question, must first be vetted as an accurate and reliable source on the subject at had.
Until you can do that, any answer that comes via biblical text is suspect.
"The ancients asked the same questions as she did, but in a more intelligent way that generally understood God as Creator and Sustainer."
Right, so looking up at the burning disc in the sky and proclaiming "Oh Sun God, Thank you for your light and heat!" or are you claiming "the ancients" as just one ex-Egyptian Prince who had been kicked out of his land for murder?
In reply, I quote Nonimus from the beginning of this page:
"I would venture to say that the only thing potentially supernatural about the Bible, apparently according to many, but no single, proponent, is its ability to be read both too literally, or "superficially", and not literally enough, or without "understanding", at the same time."
It's interesting how momoya claims to be a Biblical expert, but then she turns around and asks Robert what evidence he has that God created the universe. Hmmmm. It's only the first sentence in the Bible! Clearly, this woman does not know anything about either science or the Biblical text.
I have never read that he/she has ever claimed to be an expert. They have posted about reading the bible and studying it quite a bit. Stop exagerating things like you do your world view.
One can easily be an expert on the bible and also realize that circular logic does not give evidence of anything. Knowing the bible and assuming it to be true are two very different things.
Well, she claimed to be able to preach from scriptures for ten hours straight. Of course, I think this is a BS statement, but that's what she said.
"I Have a twenty two inch penis"
"GodPot" you say "I'm at expert at reading, but I do not see how your statement could be true. Please provide us evidence of yout twenty two inch penis or we will not believe you!"
"What, did you not just say you were an expert at reading? Right there, the very first sentence? Hello? It says, and I quote "I Have a twenty inch penis". What more proof do you need, Jeez...
"But you said it was twenty two inches" ...
"Right, I forgot about that other thing I said the other day that it's only twenty inches when it gets a bit chiily."
"Still waiting for proof..."
Words on a page are not evidence.
To Blind CS,
You said, "Viral for Christ is a good thing."
The definition of a virus is: vi·rus 1. an ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, 2.Informal . a viral disease. 3.a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison. 4. a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network.
So...Jesus is a poison?
No, Jesus is not a poison. He is the bread of life. By viral, I meant to imply spreading and not the strict definition.
We exist to glorify God, spread His word, and make diciples of all nations.
Jesus is a fict.itious character in a bunch of anonymously penned manuscripts written about 1900 years ago.
Nothing more, nothing less.
esus is real and there has never been any shred of evidence that even hinted at fiction.
@Blind, I humbly suggest that perhaps you think your words through before you speak them. They have meanings attached.
When you say that your god is a virus, it naturally lends me to decide, quite without much fanfare, that yours is not a god I need in my life.
Personally, I find the description to be fairly accurate, if not for your god, then for the religions founded upon him.
@Blind, also, as regards the fiction conversation...I would be careful bringing "evidence" into the disc.ussion, lest you find yourself in a precarious situation.
When we talk about the ac.tuality of any one person living 2000 years ago, we tread on very thin ice. Evidence is va.gue at best and largely non-existent for either side of the argument. I could produce some ancient manuscript with a name in it and claim that person once lived and said a bunch of things and offer the manuscript as proof. It would not make it so.
Someone pass the popcorn and bring me a beer.
These comments have been an entertaining read.
For the newbies among us (me) – how do you get your handle to be a link?
@Inquiring, I am logged in view WordPress. I believe it also shows up as a link if you are logged in via facebook.
Leo posted something similar to this on the Santorum & Satan board yesterday. I thought you all might enjoy it. Physics in the very first verse;
In the beginning = Time
God created = Energy
The heavens = Space
and the earth = Matter
I'm not sure what your point is?
If God existed before "Time" then didn't he have to create time first? And if "God Created" = energy, then did he not have that power before he used it? So then that would mean the energy was pre-existing. And by definition "Space" is empty, so now your God had to create a void before he could fill the void with light particles (which he apparently placed beams of light so they were in transit, or else we would be able to look very far with only a 6000 light year radius). And when you say The earth" represents matter, what are the stars made of that supposedly filled the heavens? Oh, and back to the void part, what was there before he created this void to fill? What material did he carve the universe out of? Was it special divine diamond rock or just a heavenly ass cheek he used?
So what is God? If He created time, energy, space, and matter, then what is He?
Just sharing that I believe God did it. Now whether the big bang and evolution of some things is how he did it, I don’t know. The God I worship could have literally done it just like it is stated in Genesis. Or perhaps the creation narrative is a very general summary, I don’t know. Is the earth 6,000 years old or millions of year old? I don’t know. I find the debate and the science all very interesting but no matter how much we discover or theorize about how it happened I still believe He is the creator.
God is a spirit
I agree with this summary of the first sentence in the Bible.
The first sentence is a slam dunk and the main purpose of Genesis. To be honest, I don't understand several of the paragraphs after the first sentence. I think that Josephus explains the meaning somewhere in the literature. What I do know is that it is not smart to draw the conclusion that it is not consistent with science.
The Big Bang for beginners: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/02/the_big_bang_for_beginners.php
I know that most of you thumpers out there won’t take the time to read it but that’s OK. You probably wouldn’t understand it anyway. It’s written at a 10th grade reading level.
There is no need for your god of the gaps.
God is not a god of the gaps. He is the God of everyone and everything. He pulled the trigger for the big bang, and that's what led to the quiet (not really a bang), hot expansion of the singularity that lead to our universe. He acted outside of time and space and created it too. God is in the world, but not of the world.
Went and read the big bang stuff and it was really cool. Not sure why you think we don't need God, but thanks for the website.
Still not sure why you think we need god?
In the context of this discussion. You need God to create time, space, energy, and matter. Without which you can't have the big bang and evolution. Not to mention the creation of life.
On a more personal level I believe we all need God. He created us with a need for him and only He can satisfy that need. Some seek to fill that need with the wrong things. Like trying to put the square peg in the round whole. It just won't work. Seek and you will find.
Or you could be honest and say that you have no idea how that stuff came about. Seriously, what evidence do you have that god created those elements?
I think we may be going circles but I will do my best. Jesus said in Matthew 12: 39 “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it…” They wanted him to show them a miracle, sign, evidence, or proof that he was the son of God. He refused. We can’t prove to you the existence of God by use of physical evidence. The witnesses of the events recorded them in the Bible and those who have been saved can give witness or testimony of their personal spiritual experience. So, if you require physical evidence of the existence of God you are not going to get it, but if you can accept the testimony of multiple witnesses we may be able to help.
In Pauls first letter to the Corinthians chapter 2 he explained it this way “13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” So, while human (fleshly) knowledge and wisdom are wonderful gifts of God, they can’t be used to prove his existence or to connect with him, because it has to be done in and through the spirit.
Robert, of course the bible has its own "Catch-22"s. Those who don't believe aren't sons of god–those who do not have faith will never understand the kingdom–those who want a sign won't get one. It's pretty standard for holy texts to have such statements; it makes the believer feel special and absolves him of ever having to give a good reason for his belief. And stories collected 2000 years ago that were written 50 years after the fact about who saw what and when does not provide proof of anything. You wouldn't accept the stories about some other god belief, but you accept them about your own god belief because it's more comfortable to do that then be honest about how you give the bible special treatment.
If your god is invisible and can't be proved, then we should treat him that way. We certainly can't count on him to do anything that we can measure. Because of that, god beliefs are mere philosophies, and do not deserve to be elevated beyond that category.
Quoting the bible on ANYTHING will get you nowhere. It isnt a reliable reference on ANYTHING. Not for science, not for morality, and certainly not for how to live your life.
It's obvious that only wicked evildoers tainted by the air of Satans world would ever actually "ask" to see the golden plates that Joseph Smith used to transcribed the holy book of Mormon...
"But GodPot" you reply "We are not Mormons! We do not believe in the divinity of that book!"
Okay, so whats the difference between that book and your book? Both were written by humans who claimed divine inspiration...
I don't see it as a catch 22. Maybe I didn't do a good job of communicating. Let me try again. God loves humans and wants them to love Him and each other. He has given us a recipe for how to accomplish that. If you want proof of God follow his instructions and you will find all the proof you need.
"God loves humans and wants them to love Him and each other. He has given us a recipe for how to accomplish that. If you want proof of God follow his instructions and you will find all the proof you need."
Isn't one of those instructions to believe completely in Him? Those who believe don't need evidence, do they?
"God is spirit."
Who created spirits?
God created everything, humans and spirits included. He didn't create any robots though. The creation gets to make choices.
I tried the recipe with full faith and assurance for nearly 50 years. I lost my faith by way of intensive, decades-long bible study.
I certainly was sorry to read your last and hope you find it again. I have had some powerful spiritual experiences reading the Word. Probably more in prayer, singing hymns, or listening to good preaching. If you can think back to the last really overwhelming spiritual experience you had with God, that might be the best place to start. An old Pastor told me one time God doesn't leave us, we drift from him, but He is right where we left Him.
The cool thing is that spirituality can increase once a person is willing to admit that their religious beliefs are just as silly as the religious beliefs of others. Believers are very good at compartmentalizing their brains. They can study other religions and see all the silliness and realize that it is myth, but they put their own beliefs beyond reproach. Once you look at your own religion (christ relationship, whatever) with the same critical eye as you use when looking at Islam or Scientology, you see how ridiculous it really is. But most people don't have the courage to do that whether they are muslim or christian or anything else.
Now, I get the same sense of "spirit" looking at nature or learning about the cosmos. In fact, it's more incredible and mind-blowing than most of the wonderful and comforting experiences of "spirit' when I fasted and prayed in seclusion for weeks or when I laid hands on the sick and saw them recover or during powerful prayer sessions with fellow "sisters in christ." Your brain is wired to give you an awesome sense of connection with the universe, and I think it's pretty cool! It's much more incredible when your brain is not chained to a 2000 year old myth/model. I had incredible and amazing spiritual experiences with christ, and now I have incredible and amazing spiritual experiences without christ. You know, you can tell yourself your own story without forcing it to fit a ridiculous, magical model of ancient myth.
"God is spirit."
"God created everything, humans and spirits included."
So God created Himself?
No, I believe God is the creator. We and everything else are the creation. But your question makes me wonder if he gave creative powers to any of his creations. For example, did God create evil spirits demons etc. or did God give satan some creative powers? I don't know.
Simple answer is that there is no god. That solves all of the silly problems that come up.
-–Atoms have protons, neutrons and electrons. The electrons don't orbit the nucleus in the way that you imagine the planets orbiting the sun. In fact, based on QM, they have only certain probabilities that they will be in any certain place and time.-–
Are you making the claim that the electrons are God magic because they disappear and reappear and no one knows exactly where they go while they are "disappeared"? Are they enjoying long walks on the beach with your God in the timeless Heaven dimension? Or fattening up on dark matter at the Beatified Buffet? I know you may be blind, but do you have to be deaf and dumb as well?
Everything I just said in the original text is correct and based on science. You just added a bunch of deluded ideas to my original statement.
Correct, I was asking what your point was from the well known "Christian" perspective you so often express. You initial statement looks like it was just a cut and paste from Science Daily or something, it doesn't make any claims, just states our current understanding of an atom. Soooo, you must have some Christian spin on it, spit it out already...
Your very limited understanding of theology is actually better than your knowledge of science. I think this is part of the reason why you've become comfortable with a certain level of scientific ignorance that allows you to ignore God. For those of us that really know science understand that the existence and persistence of the universe requires a Creator.
All claims and no evidence, huh? Typical christian arrogance.
It encourages me that believers are so stupid that they don't even realize the stupidity of their own "arguments." I'm sure you won't understand this video, but others might.
"For those of us that really know science understand that the existence and persistence of the universe requires a Creator."
Who showed the moon where to hide till evening?
A magic being that nobody can prove? Why doesn't it stay hid during the daytime? I see it in the afternoons all the time.
Just remember, the other side of the earth didn't exist at that time so God had to to hide the moon until later when he needed more space for his chosen people to spread out so he smoothed off the edges and rounded out the earth and created the other side that now gets bright during the day... and all those people and cultures and ruins found in North and South America were obvious planted there by atheists along with all those fossils dating back millions of years. Since we know what the bible said we know that Mayans and Inca's didn't exist because it says that Babylon, Egypt, Siria, Persia and Rome ruled the world. I don't know of any scriptures that say they only ruled "the known world"... and since you claim the author of the bible knows all things he would have known they were there during the time he was cavorting with his "favorites", right?...
I have to plug my nose everything you ask a question. This sort of stuff is easily answered within the realm of known science. God created the universe and sustains it too.
I have to plug my nose everything you ask a question. This sort of stuff is easily answered within the realm of known science. God created the universe and sustains it too.--
Blind CS, why is that any sillier than asking who told the big bang to happen?
@ Blind CS or Bumper or Jesus-Darwin...whoever you are,
your reply to Momoya: "Reread the Bible and let the message go to your mind and marinate in your heart"
Your reply to Manda: "...Apparently, your small mind can't comprehend though" and "You probably do not know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning though."
Also at one point I believe you told everyone they could go to hell.
Are you SURE you're a Christian? Have you ever actually heard the voice of Christ? You certainly do not seem to have his Spirit. What you seem to have is the spirit of pride that every person is born with but I see no indication of the Spirit of God. Christ was about love and compassion, not condescension. Perhaps you should follow your own advice to Momoya and if you're going to tell me that I should follow it...........I agree.
In the past, some individuals have stolen my monikers and put words in my mouth. As I've already stated, it's not what you put into your mouth that defiles, but what comes out. This is true for comment posting too.
By the way, I do often refer to Darwin's theory of evolution as just "Darwin". In my opinion, his ideas were just the ramblings of a miserable old man who wanted to spite the clergy and Victorian views of society.
I, for one, am glad. With your horrible misunderstanding of evolution, it'd be unnaturally weird if you thought otherwise of "Darwin."
Further, Darwin's idea was inductive. In other words, he did essentially ask future generations to bring in evidence to prove his false premise. In this sense, he is standing posthumously. You probably do not know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning though.
That's cute. My feeble little mind only understands induction to be a legitimate component of the scientific method, and typically the process by which exploratory data analysis is used to generate hypotheses. Hypothesis testing is carried out by positing test implications for the hypothesis via deduction. Thus, the property of science wherein explanation is equal to prediction. But I'm sowwy, that's all my widdle bwain can undewstand.
Just for fun a little nonscientific theory. You have seen pictures and descriptions of atoms and of our solar system. They seem similar in appearance. They both have an energy source or charge in the center which hold rotation objects around it. What if our solar system is the equivalent of an atom and our observable universe is just some small part of something way bigger. Like our solar system is an atom in the heart of God and our universe and all the other ones that we can't see make up the whole.
Cute idea, but the solar system type analogy for the atom went out the window a long time ago.
Your hypothesis is called Pantheism... interesting to ponder, for sure.
Just having fun. Went and read about Pantheisn. Decided I am not one. Went and read about quantum. Too much for me. But take it the other way too. What if every atom is a solar system with planets and its own atoms to infinity.
It's an old idea–that we are just trillions of universes contained in our atoms or some other fundamental particle. Perhaps our universe is one of god's atoms; who knows? Either way, the problem remains. God does not communicate and work as so many of the myth-books claim; and really, how aware are you of what goes on in all your trillions of atoms? Can you go down into a single atomic universe out of the trillions that makes up your body and affect any change at all? It's an interesting philosophical hypothesis, but there's no practical application.
Atoms have protons, neutrons and electrons. The electrons don't orbit the nucleus in the way that you imagine the planets orbiting the sun. In fact, based on QM, they have only certain probabilities that they will be in any certain place and time.
Its turtles, all the way down.
Darwin is standing on the shoulders of the scientists that did quality scientific work to seemingly validate his inaccurate conjecture.
That doesn't even make any sense. How can he stand on the shoulders of giants that weren't even alive yet? And how could he rely on their research of they hadn't done any yet? Very confusing. I don't think you understand what that saying means.
Blind CS/ Bumper/Jesus-Darwin idiotically call evolution, "Darwin". It's like calling geometry, "Euclid" or gravity, "Newton", and although he has been informed about this many times, he persists in being a dope about it.
He's standing posthumously.
I understand what it says because I'm the author of that posting. Apparently, your small mind can't comprehend though.
Standing on the shoulders of giants refers to the humility of acknowledging that your work is based on great works that came before it. Isaac Newton classically stated that "If I have seen further it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." One's work cannot stand on the shoulders of future giants. If anything, those future researchers would have to be standing on Darwins shoulders – he is the one that provided the foundation for their research.
Interesting. No doubt Darwin stood on the shoulders of folks like Lyell and Malthus and the countless artificial breeders providing evidence of morphological plasticity. But I also see the inverse notion of Darwin having been validated, certainly not in every respect, but in the principal notions of common ancestry, the role of heritable variation in providing fodder for natural selection and the generation of novel species.
Science always works in both directions, expanding on previous knowledge and standing or falling in light of subsequent new evidence. What I believe makes Darwin's contribution so unique is the near universal applicability of the notion of selection as a driving mechanism generating novelty, be it chemical, biological, economic or cultural.
Reread the Bible and let the message go to your mind and marinate in your heart. If you get stuck, seek out Bible based counseling and encouragement from your local pastor.
Or, you could live in the real world.
I did that for almost 50 years, BCS, and what I found out was that "the heart" was no indicator of correct interpretation since so many people who use 'the heart" claim different interpretations of the same section of text. The bible makes sense as a book of gathered myths, nothing else.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
Even their own bible says they shouldn't trust it...
The biblical heart is referring to your "core" inner self and all that flows out of it. Bascially, we live out of our hearts.
How old are you? You appear to be in the eleventh hour of understanding, ability to make choices out of your free will agency. Perhaps now is not the best time to be denying Spirituality and questioning the existence of God. Ultimately, we all have an appointment with the Lord, and he will judge us based on our heart condition.
That's a good point, and only Jesus can transform our hearts. By nature, the heart is wicked and and wants to pursue hedonism. God knows our hearts. That's the point.
"and only Jesus can transform our hearts. By nature, the heart is wicked and and wants to pursue hedonism."
I see, so if the heart is wicked the only solution is to pray to otherworldly beings we can neither verify or test so as to stave off our imperfect nature. I guess saying no to your heart and thinking rationally with your brain and using empathy for others to adjust our behavior is just to much to ask from Christian barbarians who would be at our throats with knives if it weren't for their God helping them to calm their wicked hearts. Thats why every atheist in the world robs, steals, r a p e s and pillages everyone and everything around him, right? I'm sure you can name a few in your neighborhood right? Or is it that you just assign all violence, vandalism, assaults and general mayhem on the "godless people" because no real Christians would do any of those things, even if they do profess a belief and attend a church...
No, God is Not other worldly and, not everyone that professes a belief in Christ, will inherit eternal life with Him. By not everyone, this certainly includes pastors too.
No, I'm sure there are many peaceful atheists out there, but you can't intellectulize yourself to righteousness or a clean heart. Also, irregardless of what people think, they always end up "acting" from the heart. Righteousness is not just about what you think in your mind, but everything that is in you that flows out of you. Jesus understood this concept very well and taught that it's not what a person put into their mouth that defiles them (Jewish dietary laws), but what comes out of the mouth that defiles. Inward vs. outwad defilement.
"Jesus understood this concept very well and taught that it's not what a person put into their mouth that defiles them (Jewish dietary laws), but what comes out of the mouth that defiles. Inward vs. outwad defilement." So even though the Mosaic law said that it was a sin to put certain things in your mouth, like pork or penis, you are saying that only what comes out of it could be considered a sin?
"I'm sure there are many peaceful atheists out there, but you can't intellectulize yourself to righteousness or a clean heart." So being peaceful, law abiding, thoughtful, intelligent, rational, empathetic people still won't make you righteous or clean? But murdering women and children in the name of your God will? Sure, you may have detached yourself from your Churches past and claim you don't hold a gun to anyones head trying to force conversion now, but even your book is full of examples where God commanded his people to murder and kill innocents who they claimed "offended" their God just because they were not Jewish and were occupying land their God had promised them.
So peaceful atheist bad, mudering zealot for God, good... Do I have it about right?
No, Jesus ushered in the new commandments.
So you are allowed to put pork and penis in your mouth now? Love your neighbor as yourself?...
"Nothing causes otherwise honest Christians to become liars so immediately and so enthusiastically as does the mention of evolution."
I'm not denying "evolution", I just pointed out why Darwin was wrong. Darwin spent time studying with the clergy, and fell away from theology. I think he tried hard to come up with an idea that would bump up against the most ignorant of literal fundamentalist teachings.
But even that is just clearly untrue. Darwin was reluctant to even publish his ideas, and kept them largely to himself for decades. It took Wallace and Huxley to convinced him to publish. He felt so badly about the implications of his work that he wrote that it was "like confessing a murder."
Yes, and in some sense, Darwin committed "murder" by not doing good science and– only serving to encourage others to stray away from a belief in God as Creator.
You can’t expect a mid 19th century naturalist to have a comprehensive theory of how a new branch of science works. You are being VERY disingenuous. This great man led the way to investigating how we have developed on this Earth and the people who have stood on the shoulders of this giant have proven the fact of evolution.
Evolution is theory. Just a little different than fact.
Gravity is a theory, too. Better hold on to your keyboard in case you float away!!!!
If it is because of the rapture. You can have my keyboard.
The Xtian definition of the word theory is much different than the scientific definition.
Dont worry about the rapture, there wont be one. Stop believing in fairy tales and live a happy life.
Gravity and evolution both qualify as theories and facts. Theories are not made of facts, they explain facts. The fact of gravity is what makes apples fall out of trees. Newton, Einstein (and thousands of others) arrived at the body of theory explaining how gravity is the result of the affect of solid bodies on time and space. The fact of evolution is that living things vary through time and space. Darwin, Watson, Crick, Gould, Dawkins (and thousands of others) arrived at the body of theory that explains how evolution is the result of filtering genetic variation through natural selection and gene flow.
When someone says "just a theory", just like when someone says "there's no transitional forms" or "then why are there still monkeys", it is a pretty good indicator that they don't really understand what they are trying to talk about.
I think Nonimus said it best:
@jimtanker "You can’t expect a mid 19th century naturalist to have a comprehensive theory of how a new branch of science works"
=>why not? After all illiterate goat herders 3500 years ago got the order of creation correct. Darwin had thousands of years to do better and utterly failed at that!
makes ya wonder doesnt it?
Makes me wonder how a rational person could make that statement.
In some sense, Jesus should go viral on the earth because he it the way, the life and the truth!!
He is the way, the life and the truth.
No, "he" is a character in a work of fiction.
Where do you guys get this idea that Christ is fiction? There is more literary and historical evidence for the existence of Christ than Pilate.
NO, there is no contemporary extraneous evidence of your jesus. NONE. If you have some hidden somewhere then why don’t you produce it?
I watched this video last week and thought I would share it with anyone that loves science.
Bumper, if anything, I have understated my involvement with your belief. I have spend thousands and thousands of hours with various biblical texts researching every possible interpretation that has been written or might be considered. I've spent more time with the bible and with various apologists and scholars and their work than you can imagine. Any interpretation you have for a passage, I've considered that one and five or ten others. I came to atheism by way of the bible.
I am no "hedonist;" you yourself know that you are wildly misinterpreting my words when you use that label on me. When you willfully twist the words of others and label others based on one man who wrote one flawed book (Darwin) you prove your character and show that you care nothing for true and honest inquiry. When you turn away from the facts you are shown, and instead insist on your own mischaracterization of their words or supposed lifestyle, you force us to see you as a liar and opportunist. I don't care if you ever stop believing or not, but please grow up and put away your childish ways. Don't you want to be better than you've shown yourself to be on this one comment section.
I understand that you may have had some sort of limited academic understanding of the Bible.
I think one of your main issues is that you let Jesus go to your head and not your heart.
This sort of superficial understanding of the text is viral and non-sense.
You seem to be searching for a sign of God's existence, but this is an anti-faith and Bible approach.
This is especially true given the weight and gravity of what is in the Bible.
Your brain has been taken over by a virus that does not allow you to assess one particular text with the same scrutiny as you would asses any other "holy book" text. I've had the illness, and so am inoculated against it. Your time might be better spent discussing your illness with others who also have the virus; it's bound to be more fruitful for you.
Viral for Christ is a good thing.
I've assessed other religious and science books at both and head and heart level. Of course, for the science books, it was just a head level. There are very simple and important reasons why other "holy texts" fall short. I don't have time to digress in this area though.
Funny how people brought up under those other holy books would say the exact same thing about yours. Seems like more than a coincidence. Seems like there is a subconscious bias in how one evaluates the claims of holy books, when one of them happens to be their own.
Granted, there are some merits to other "holy texts", but they usually screw up the part that is relational to Christ.
For example, relegating him to only prophet status, etc...
I would venture to say that the only thing potentially supernatural about the Bible, apparently according to many, but no single, proponent, is its ability to be read both too literally, or "superficially", and not literally enough, or without "understanding", at the same time.
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.