home
RSS
Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
January 10th, 2012
04:18 PM ET

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

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.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (6,504 Responses)
  1. Troy in Austin

    I still cannot believe anyone thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
    Evolution ????? Really in 2012, you STILL don't see the logic or the DNA.

    We will someday find life elsewhere, I guess they will deny that too!

    March 9, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  2. Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

    I can send you the links that talk about baby universes. It is not a replacement for the singularity, but helps to fill in some of the perceived holes in the Big Bang theory.

    Something for nothing is not a credible position and that's precisely the point. Nothing can be user defined. For example, in the context of my examples, nothing does not exclude the existence of Spirituality. However, it is possible to make the distinction between physical "something" and non-physical "something".

    God created causality along with the universe. His creation includes both causality and acausality.

    There is no problem with waiting for science to answer many long awaited questions about the universe. However, there will always be a level of abstraction beyond which there is no scientific answer to its ultimate cause or origin. This is true and always will be until the end of the age. God certainly wants us to know more about the universe through scientific inquiry, but we are limited in science, and should ultimately hunger and thirst after Him as Creator.

    March 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Falsum I agree, unfortunately everyone does not feel the same and until such time, just stay stead fast in your belief.

      March 9, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      I assume you meant this post for me.. I know what "baby universes" supposedly are, but that theory does not relate to anything having to do with god having a role in the expansion of the singularity.. Yes, if you have a link for ANY THEORY that affects the Big Bang Theory please post it..

      And for the billionth time, nobody is talking about "something from nothing.". As for distinctions between a physical and non-physical "something, that language is too va.gue for me to do anything with.. You could be talking about any number of phenomena, and if you want to show that it has anything to do with a god, please provide the details and the reasoning..

      When you say this:
      >>>God created causality along with the universe. His creation includes both causality and acausality.<<>>"There is no problem with waiting for science to answer many long awaited questions about the universe."<<>>"However, there will always be a level of abstraction beyond which there is no scientific answer to its ultimate cause or origin."<<>>This is true and always will be until the end of the age.<<>>God certainly wants us to know more about the universe through scientific inquiry,<<>> but we are limited in science, <<<>>and should ultimately hunger and thirst after Him as Creator.<<<
      .
      More pure conjecture.. You haven't any reason to believe there is a "creator" so any statements you make about him or his desires are pure conjecture.. You've been raised to view a particular myth's values as the ultimate goal.. The problem is, it's just myth; you don't even believe in the same god as the Puritans of 200 years ago.. If you described the god you believe in, based on the same bible as they use, they'd have no idea what you were talking about.. The monks who copied the bible 500 years ago would have no idea what you were talking about–yet they'd have the same bible as you do.. These myths and the gods within them evolve WITH the evolution of culture.. Your god bears no relation to any except within your culture.. Your god is just a story character, and you can't show otherwise–that's what makes him a mythological character.

      March 9, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      Thanks, I think I'll take the Apostle Paul's advice here:

      O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [of God's word and Christian Faith] of science falsely so called.

      I Timothy 6:20

      March 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      I assume you meant this post for me.. I know what "baby universes" supposedly are, but that theory does not relate to anything having to do with god having a role in the expansion of the singularity.. Yes, if you have a link for ANY THEORY that affects the Big Bang Theory please post it..

      And for the billionth time, nobody is talking about "something from nothing.". As for distinctions between a physical and non-physical "something, that language is too va.gue for me to do anything with.. You could be talking about any number of phenomena, and if you want to show that it has anything to do with a god, please provide the details and the reasoning..

      When you say this:
      >God created causality along with the universe. His creation includes both causality and acausality."There is no problem with waiting for science to answer many long awaited questions about the universe.""However, there will always be a level of abstraction beyond which there is no scientific answer to its ultimate cause or origin."This is true and always will be until the end of the age.God certainly wants us to know more about the universe through scientific inquiry, but we are limited in science, and should ultimately hunger and thirst after Him as Creator.<
      .
      More pure conjecture.. You haven't any reason to believe there is a "creator" so any statements you make about him or his desires are pure conjecture.. You've been raised to view a particular myth's values as the ultimate goal.. The problem is, it's just myth; you don't even believe in the same god as the Puritans of 200 years ago.. If you described the god you believe in, based on the same bible as they use, they'd have no idea what you were talking about.. The monks who copied the bible 500 years ago would have no idea what you were talking about–yet they'd have the same bible as you do.. These myths and the gods within them evolve WITH the evolution of culture.. Your god bears no relation to any except within your culture.. Your god is just a story character, and you can't show otherwise–that's what makes him a mythological character.

      March 9, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      Sorry for the reposts; the stupid program is deleting huge chunks of my writing.. FVCK you CNN!!

      The "something from nothing" stupidity is just nonsense; if you want to make a point about a difference between physical and non-physical "somethings" then do so.. I'm sure that many physicists will be interested in your definitions if you can prove their usefulness within the scientific method.

      You say:,,,,,,,,,God created causality along with the universe. His creation includes both causality and acausality.

      Pure conjecture.. You'd have to prove god's existence for anybody to take that statement seriously–it certainly does nothing to advance any knowledge of the universe or help us in any other way.. If that's a tenant of your myth, then that's all it is.

      You say:........There is no problem with waiting for science to answer many long awaited questions about the universe.

      Science MUST wait for answers and attempt to find them through testing hypotheses.. If you have a better method than science to discover truths about the universe then that's pretty big news.. You'd already be famous by now if you did, though.

      You say:......However, there will always be a level of abstraction beyond which there is no scientific answer to its ultimate cause or origin.

      How do you know?? You have no idea..

      You say:....... This is true and always will be until the end of the age.

      How do you know? How do you know there will be an 'end of the age'? This is more pure conjecture.

      You say:.......God certainly wants us to know more about the universe through scientific inquiry,

      How do you know? You haven't even proved god exists and you're already claiming to know his desires? LOL!!

      You say:......but we are limited in science,

      Duh.

      You say:.......and should ultimately hunger and thirst after Him as Creator

      How do you know? You have no idea if there is a Creator.. If there is, you have no idea what he wants or doesn't.. This is just pure conjecture that you've learned from the dominant mythology of your culture and upbringing..

      Science deals with what can be tested; myth deals with reoccurring and evolving stories of heroes in culture.

      March 9, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • momoya

      Well, that's probably the most move for you, Falsum, seeing as it's the only one left.

      March 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      I've already eloquently stated my points in the previous posting. If you are looking for proof of God through science, you won't find it, but you have to have faith in Him. No finite number of abstract theories will bring the answer to the origin of the universe. In the limit of an infinite number of abstractions, you end up with God. God is not a God of the gaps, but he is the God of everything and everyone. Just look at the beauty of the world around you. That alone should be proof of God's existence to you.
      To find proof of God, put your faith in Him and live according to His word. If you are interested in a very good summary of Christian theology, read Romans chapter 8.

      As I stated above, I'm not going to continue to listen to your vain babbling and anti-Biblical approach to seeking God.

      Good luck in your sisyphean quest to seek proofs and answers.

      For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

      John 3:16

      March 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  3. Trinitarian Baptist

    Hello – I am Bill Nieporte, a Baptist Pastor in Richmond, VA (ministerial blog at http://www.nieporte.nam). I am very interested in gathering information about the most important over overlooked doctrine in my Baptist heritage – that of the Trinity. As such, your site was very helpful. Thanks.

    March 9, 2012 at 11:26 am |
  4. WASP

    theory of nothingness"Nothingness Theory accommodates this contradiction by distinguishing between relative nonexistence (nothingness) and absolute nonexistence. Nothingness is defined here as a state of perfectly uniform static equilibrium consti.tuting relative nonexistence. A state that exists relative to absolute nonexistence but does not exist relative to temporal existence. Absolute nonexistence is defined as the absence of existence, the absence of nothingness, and the absence of absence. It is what is not being referred-to under any circu.mstances. Its definition is that which cannot be referred-to, named, or defined. It is the non-state to which everything including nothingness is attracted."

    how a thunderstorm is caused"Thunderstorms form when an air mass becomes so unstable that it overturns (convects) violently. "Unstable" means that the air in the lowest layers is unusually warm and humid, or that the upper layers are unusually cool, or oftentimes, both."

    theory of nothingness doesn't state that nothing as the general public uses the word, but that nothing we see existed because at that point in time/space it was all in perfect balance. then just how a thunderstorm is created something caused an inbalance then, bang it all blew up into what we know as the universe today. if you've ever watched a thudercloud form on a hot summer evening it really is a sight to see, you have clear blue skys(everything in a balance) then you notice a small cloud form and expand rapidly(the inbalance caused by differences in heat etc etc) i've seen thunderheads form in five minutes or less and once the inbalance has been nurtrilized everything returns to a state of equalibrium until the next disruption. nature as a law tries to maintain a balance, an equalibrium.....only when something(pardon the pun) disturbs the force....do you see the effects of nature trying to return to that neutral state.

    March 9, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • momoya

      Very cool!. thanks WASP; I really appreciate that!

      March 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • WASP

      @momoya: np glad to be of assistance. i believe the main issue between atheists and religious people is a misunderstanding of terminology use. that and doesn't help when only half the information or a twisting of terminology is used to up hold anothers position.you are correct the research i did, didn't show any of the known physics authorities as to have reported on this subject. however if i'm incorrect then someone can merely post the known physics research authorities link and i will re-evaluted my stance on no true physics official accepting this theory. just so no misunderstandings are made a physics authority would have his stuff published in the American Insti.tute of Physics or another well known physics insti.tute.

      March 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Good synopsis wasp.

      March 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • momoya

      Agreed, WASP.. It seems to me that the arguments believers use do not take into account what the nonbeliever believes or professes.. The whole "something from nothing" nonsense is one example.. Atheists don't claim that something came from nothing, but it's an easy strawman that believers hear from the pulpit and then parrot back whenever they think it's an easy win..

      Also, I think that if believers really took the time to comprehend the terminology, there'd be a lot less believers..

      March 9, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
  5. A

    Well, of course most pastors don't believe in evolution, because they all believe in magic.

    March 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  6. Pastor Bill Nieporte

    If you recieved an odd post from me earlier, I apologize. I was having PC "issues." I am a pastor and my ministerial blog is http://www.nieporte.name – I am a real person, not a machine – and I have been interested in all things theological. Our church is struggling, like most in this pluralistic/post-church era, to make a difference. One area whenre we are seeking to make a connection is on the itnernet via our church site and ministerial blog. We are looking for ways to make a local connection, have global impact, and become sel-sufficient in the process. That is what put me on a search that landed me on your site. have enjoyed reading your posts. My request is for a linkback to my blog; a candid review of my site's strengths and weaknesses, and any pluging/themes/or strategies to enjoy the success you seem to be experiencing. Of course, I will be happy to provide a linkback to your site as well. My best email is billnieporte@pastor.com – I monitor it daily.

    March 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  7. Pastor Bill Nieporte

    Also, if you have suggestions on how to make such a ministry self-sufficient, that would be great. The cost of being online is steep as you know. I have many older folks in the congregation who do not understand the internet and think is a waste of time. If it paid for itself – or even turned a profit – that would set their minds at ease. But you have to be careful not to get connected to anything that seems unethical.

    March 8, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  8. Pastor Bill Nieporte

    Certainly some of the old ways still work and we do not want to toss the proverbial baby our with the bathwater, But we know that there have to be some new methods to communicate the gospel.

    March 8, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • WASP

      @pastor bill: people tend to be fond of reading what they like and makes them feel good about their religion and not reading the parts they don't like.....that's not only cherry picking it's also lieing about what the book truely contains and leaves out the complete message written within it's pages. if you aren't reading the book from front to back then you're not being fair to the practioners. point is there isn't any new way to read the bible other then what is there, it's impossible to make a statement about killing millions sound any better and if you choose to leave that part out then it is lieing. the whole killing millions was implied during the story of noah's arc. if god truly flooded the world then millions would have died leaving noah and his family to repopulate the whole world, niether is a pretty thought god killing everyone or the thought that humans are inbred due to god's wrath.

      March 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Mike

      @ Wasp....It seems that the Biblical phrase about Noah being "perfect in his generations" refers to a strong possibility that the dna of the entire human race had been corrupted through interbreeding with ET's or fallen angels. Noah preached for 120 years but none of them listened and if God would have allowed the world to continue to the point where even Noah's lineage became corrupted.....then there would have been absolutely no way for the Messiah, Jesus Christ to have been born in the future. God destroyed millions of those who had sided with and become genetically corrupted by Lucifer and his fallen angels or ET's as we know them today. He destroyed millions so that billions could live.....through Christ.....................Your choice.

      March 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  9. momoya

    @ Falsum

    Did you really mean to say this in your last post????

    >>>Bear in mind that causality is not really important until after the universe is created.<<<

    You do realize that YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT rests on the opposite of this statement?!?!?. Are you just writing down the words that form in your alphabet soup, again??

    March 7, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
  10. Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

    ___________________________

    Madame Momoya:

    Sorry for yelling at you, but I keep repeating myself. It's ok to use the singularity, but it is not the same as a baby universe. I prefer to use the baby universe because it is a better scientific theory. We don't know which idea is correct, but both are theories.

    Let me explain this at a fifth grade science level for you to understand and use a biology analogy with a time line. Bear in mind that causality is not really important until after the universe is created.

    I) In the beginning was God (or you can insert what you like, but don't pick nothing)

    II) God pulled the trigger.

    III) Pulling the trigger called into existence beautiful, but very abstract rules

    IV) One rule is called quantum mechanics. As a consequence of this rule, it is possible to have both a Planck Volume (or vacuum space) and Planck Mass. Think of the Planck Mass as a sperm flagellum and the Planck Volume as an egg.

    V) The Planck Volume is just the right size to support the Planck mass, and it emerges from the volume.

    VI) Once the Planck Mass is inside the Planck Volume, fertilization of the baby universe begins.

    VII) After the baby Universe is fertilized it begins to grow and evolve according to the popular theories in cosmology or perhaps, the descriptions that you probably ripped off Wiki and misunderstood.

    Any questions?

    March 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      Please tell me where I can find a scientific journal that explains the differences between "baby universe theory" and "singularity."

      You say: "I) In the beginning was God (or you can insert what you like, but don't pick nothing)"
      .
      You can't start a scientific proposition by making sh!t up..You're the only one insisting that "nothing" is a viable state.. Nobody else is..
      .
      As for "in the beginning.". I've already explained to you that the singularity produced its own time when it inflated.. For some reason or other, the singularity inflated generating its own time, space, and "beginning.". Since nobody can prove anything about why it inflated, there's no use in "picking" anything–especially nothing magical..
      .
      .
      You say: "II) God pulled the trigger."
      .
      You can't continue a scientific proposition by making sh!t up.. You are assuming three things that are pure conjecture.. You're just imagining things to fit your beliefs, and that's just stupid.
      You assume:
      1. Something existed outside of the singularity..(You have no reason to assume this; science doesn't because it would be stupid)
      2. That thing that existed outside of the singularity had power/agency..(You have no reason to assume this; science doesn't because it would be stupid)
      3. That thing that existed outside of the singularity had the power to "pull the trigger" and begin the expansion process..(You have no reason to assume this; science doesn't because it would be stupid)
      .
      .
      You say: "III) Pulling the trigger called into existence beautiful, but very abstract rules"
      .
      No.. You can't include in a scientific proposition imaginary linchpins (triggers), imaginary beings (god), and imaginary processes (called into existence).. When the singularity inflated that expansion of energy caused certain rules to come into existence as almost all matter and antimatter cancelled each other out and as matter and energy coalesced around the framework of the intergalactic web... As we see in cosmological evolution and biological evolution, the simple and dense(singularity) expands and "thins" (expansion of the BB) toward greater and greater complexity (laws of physics).
      .
      .
      In closing, when you can show WHY your outside-of-the-singularity-agent (god) is necessary, let me and the scientific community know.. You do realize how logic works, don't you?. It's very hard to believe that you're as stupid as your statements seem to indicate.

      March 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  11. Momy+Falsum= a cute couple!

    Their tireless pursuit of each other with lengthy exchange of *&^%^* is intriguing!!!

    March 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Michigan

      And they keep bickering and bantering and teasing each other like a ole married couple, already!
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPPjS4uMwtw&w=640&h=390]

      March 7, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
  12. Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

    Madame Momoya:

    Did you used to work as a lawyer? You do a good job with asking loaded questions and putting words into my mouth, but you don't have a firm grasp of science. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would know that a vacuum space is required to create the Planck mass that leads to the baby universe. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE VACUUM SPACE WAS REQUIRED TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE BIG BANG. GOD CREATED THE VACUUM SPACE DURING THE BIG BANG AND PULLED THE TRIGGER HIMSELF.

    Don't get it twisted.

    March 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • momoya

      @Falsum

      Wow, that whole thing with the ALL CAPS is SOOOO EFFECTIVE.. How do you manage that much power of persuasion?!?

      My replies from below:

      You should do a better job of explaining yourself, then. You are putting words in the atheist's mouth in every post you make, yet that doesn't seem to bother you.. Why do you keep refusing to answer simple questions?

      You said just now:
      >>> "I DID NOT SAY THAT THE VACUUM SPACE WAS REQUIRED TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE BIG BANG."
      .
      .
      You said above:
      .
      >>> "However, if you eliminate time and just think of the universe as a reconfigurable geometric space, you still need vacuum space to create the milligram of baby universe."
      .
      Nobody but you is insisting that the singularity (I assume that's what you mean by "baby universe" even though that's a wrong description) was ever created.. Words like "before" don't work for the singularity since the singularity generated it's own time and space.. Words like "create" are loaded because no scientist is claiming that the singularity was "created.". God believers claim that the singularity was created, but that's just an empty statement with no evidence or reasonable argument to support it.
      .
      .

      You said:
      >>>"GOD CREATED THE VACUUM SPACE DURING THE BIG BANG AND PULLED THE TRIGGER HIMSELF."
      .
      So now you're just making empty assertions??. Okay.. You can't see unicorns because they're invisible, but they're all over the place.. Do you now believe in unicorns?

      You said that I was "putting words in your mouth," which I don't think I was doing.. I was attempting to make some sort of sense out of all the scientific jargon used completely incorrectly in some sort of mash-up mumbo jumbo that only makes sense to you.

      Meanwhile, the ENTIRE ARGUMENT we are discussing, now, is because of the words you are attempting to put in the mouths of atheists with the whole strawman "something from nothing" stupidity.. Atheists, like scientists, say, "our understanding is limited to X, Y, and Z. As to D, and E, we're not sure. As to F, and G, we don't know if they exist or not."

      You're trying to win the dart game by throwing a basketball at the board and asking why there's no rim or net hanging.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      Madame Momoya:

      Sorry for yelling at you, but I keep repeating myself. It's ok to use the singularity, but it is not the same as a baby universe. I prefer to use the baby universe because it is a better scientific theory. We don't know which idea is correct, but both are theories.

      Let me explain this at a fifth grade science level for you to understand and use a biology analogy with a time line. Bear in mind that causality is not really important until after the universe is created.

      I) In the beginning was God (or you can insert what you like, but don't pick nothing)

      II) God pulled the trigger.

      III) Pulling the trigger called into existence beautiful, but very abstract rules

      IV) One rule is called quantum mechanics. As a consequence of this rule, it is possible to have both a Planck Volume (or vacuum space) and Planck Mass. Think of the Planck Mass as a sperm flagellum and the Planck Volume as an egg.

      V) The Planck Volume is just the right size to support the Planck mass, and it emerges from the volume.

      VI) Once the Planck Mass is inside the Planck Volume, fertilization of the baby universe begins.

      VII) After the baby Universe is fertilized it begins to grow and evolve according to the popular theories in cosmology or perhaps, the descriptions that you probably ripped off Wiki and misunderstood.

      Any questions?

      March 7, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  13. False Dichotomy

    So, where does this assumption that there was once nothing come from? If matter is infinite, then there was always something. "Nothing" is an abstract construct – there is no empirical basis to "nothing." As far as we know there has never been "nothing."

    "Nothing" is what creationists need to assume in order to have their god create everything. "Something from nothing" is a misguided, misleading, mistaken notion that creationists try to use as a strawman. It's like saying "why are there still monkeys" with regard to evolution.

    March 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      @False

      you are posing the question wrong and providing incorrect statements.

      First of all, matter is not infinite. If it were, we would not exist. This is scientific fact. There are empty vacuum spaces that have potential to create matter.

      I think you meant to question whether or not matter is eternal. Once again, the aswer is no. This is true according to both science and theology.

      In answer to your other question about how God called the universe into existence without energy or causality. IF you read my posting carefully, you will see that I said energy was used, but causality was not required. God is infinte in energy and called the fractured portion or singularity or baby universe into existence from outside of time and space dimensions. At the point that he created the universe, it was bundled in with causality and acausality.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Correction False Dichotomy science is what came up with theory of nothingness, the Bible say that which is invisible.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Kendrick Benjamin

      I have access to almost all scientific journals, so could you please give me the ti.tle of the article in which scientists describe the "theory of nothingness?"

      According to Wiki, physics has this to say about "nothingness."

      "In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with particles continually popping into and out of existence."

      March 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Falsum, you are correct – I meant eternal.

      As for not paying attention to the rest of your silly description of how god makes things, it's like accusing me of not focusing on what size of needle was used to sew the emperors new clothes. Like accusing me of not understanding the chemical composition of magic pixie dust.

      March 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Momoya-Google it.

      March 8, 2012 at 7:38 am |
    • momoya

      @Kendrick Benjamin

      I did google it; no articles.. You're making sh it up again, aren't you.. ;)

      March 8, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Momoya- Did you place Theory on Nothingness in the search area and depress search. I just did and it's there as plain as day. I don't know what you are doing wrong.

      March 8, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  14. Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

    It is Barbaric to say that God did not create the universe because that can't be proven by science, but is noticeable through the physical world and discerned through Spirit.

    For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

    Matthew 16:26

    March 7, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • momoya

      Another fail.. How is it "barbaric?". And how is god's creation "noticeable?". If 'god's creation' were as "noticeable" as mathematics and chemistry it'd be as provable and as practical as mathematics and chemistry.. It isn't "noticeable" because god believers are in constant disagreement about who god is and what he wants.. God is unique for each believer, and as such, is the author of confusion concerning himself.. How stupid.

      March 7, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Falsum -You are saying God created the Universe and Momoya is saying she doesn't know science haven't gotten there yet.

      March 7, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      In this particular context “nothing” can be defined as absolutely NO: (a) energy, (b) “time” (debatable if this really exists), (c) space, (d) causality, (e) acausality or (f) quantum states.
      In some sense, quantum physics screws us when it comes to both “time” and causality (or acausality). This is especially true since time may not exist. However, if you eliminate time and just think of the universe as a reconfigurable geometric space, you still need vacuum space to create the milligram of baby universe.
      Every known theory in Cosmology is dependent upon one of the ingredients listed above (a)-(f) independent of time or any aspect of causality. Something may have existed before the singularity or baby universe that created our existing universe. However, my argument just applies in duplicate back to the original multiverse singularity or seed baby quantum foam. This is true and always will be save some supernatural discovery within the realm of science itself.

      March 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      Correction, every known Cosomology theory is dependent upon either a, c or f or some combo.

      March 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      You said:
      >>>"In this particular context “nothing” can be defined as absolutely NO: (a) energy, (b) “time” (debatable if this really exists), (c) space, (d) causality, (e) acausality or (f) quantum states."

      Okay, why assume that your "nothing" ever existed or even CAN exist.. Nobody but you is claiming that "nothing" is even a viable concept.. Prove that "nothing" ever was, and we'll talk.
      .
      .
      You said:
      >>>In some sense, quantum physics screws us when it comes to both “time” and causality (or acausality). This is especially true since time may not exist. However, if you eliminate time and just think of the universe as a reconfigurable geometric space, you still need vacuum space to create the milligram of baby universe.

      No, you don't "need a vacuum.". You are misunderstanding the principles of the big bang.. The big bang produced it's own space as it expanded.. Because of how the big bang expands, and because of the implications of quantum mechanics, an entire universe could produce enough of its own space anywhere at all–there could be a trillion universes between two molecules of one of your eyelashes.

      Nobody, but nobody, claims that a vacuum was required before the big bang could occur. Do your research.
      .
      .
      You said:
      >>>"Every known theory in Cosmology is dependent upon one of the ingredients listed above (a)-(f) independent of time or any aspect of causality."
      .
      No, you're wrong.. You shouldn't make absolute statemetns when you don't understand the foundational precepts of the theory you are exploiting to make your suppositions.
      .
      .
      You said:
      >>>"Something may have existed before the singularity or baby universe that created our existing universe."
      .
      Yep, but nobody knows.. Quantum mechanics makes certain inferences, but we can't test the hypotheses to find out which are closer or further from the truth.. Science doesn't do what religion does and state unknowns as facts.
      .
      .
      You said:
      >>>"However, my argument just applies in duplicate back to the original multiverse singularity or seed baby quantum foam. This is true and always will be save some supernatural discovery within the realm of science itself."
      .
      I have no idea what that gibberish is supposed to explain.. Instead of trying again, go do your research, first.. Perhaps that will cause you to say less stupid things that aren't even sensible questions in any scientific sense and claim they are absolute fact.

      March 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      _____________________________________*******

      Madame Momoya:

      Did you used to work as a lawyer? You do a good job with asking loaded questions and putting words into my mouth, but you don't have a firm grasp of science. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would know that a vacuum space is required to create the Planck mass that leads to the baby universe. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE VACUUM SPACE WAS REQUIRED TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE BIG BANG. GOD CREATED THE VACUUM SPACE DURING THE BIG BANG AND PULLED THE TRIGGER HIMSELF.

      Don't get it twisted.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • momoya

      @Falsum

      You should do a better job of explaining yourself, then. You are putting words in the atheist's mouth in every post you make, yet that doesn't seem to bother you.. Why do you keep refusing to answer simple questions?

      You said just now:
      >>> "I DID NOT SAY THAT THE VACUUM SPACE WAS REQUIRED TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE BIG BANG."
      .
      .
      You said above:
      .
      >>> "However, if you eliminate time and just think of the universe as a reconfigurable geometric space, you still need vacuum space to create the milligram of baby universe."
      .
      Nobody but you is insisting that the singularity (I assume that's what you mean by "baby universe" even though that's a wrong description) was ever created.. Words like "before" don't work for the singularity since the singularity generated it's own time and space.. Words like "create" are loaded because no scientist is claiming that the singularity was "created.". God believers claim that the singularity was created, but that's just an empty statement with no evidence or reasonable argument to support it.
      .
      .

      You said:
      >>>"GOD CREATED THE VACUUM SPACE DURING THE BIG BANG AND PULLED THE TRIGGER HIMSELF."
      .
      So now you're just making empty assertions??. Okay.. You can't see unicorns because they're invisible, but they're all over the place.. Do you now believe in unicorns?

      Don't get it twisted.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      You said that I was "putting words in your mouth," which I don't think I was doing.. I was attempting to make some sort of sense out of all the scientific jargon used completely incorrectly in some sort of mash-up mumbo jumbo that only makes sense to you.

      Meanwhile, the ENTIRE ARGUMENT we are discussing, now, is because of the words you are attempting to put in the mouths of atheists with the whole strawman "something from nothing" stupidity.. Atheists, like scientists, say, "our understanding is limited to X, Y, and Z. As to D, and E, we're not sure. As to F, and G, we don't know if they exist or not."

      You're trying to win the dart game by throwing a basketball at the board and asking why there's no rim or net hanging.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • WASP

      @falsum: time exists. there are four dimensions in our existance. length,width, height........and time. if you take a person or any object that is in our reality, they adhere to a four dimensional universe. i.e. a person that is six foot tall(heigth) two foot wide(width) and nine inches think(length) also has a duraction; we call it life. if they live to 80 years old that is their duration in the fourth dimension. so time can't be argued even though most people lack understanding of a four dimensional existance because time as we see it is realitive to our perspective due to the fact we are trapped in time.

      March 8, 2012 at 7:23 am |
  15. Pastor Bill Nieporte

    Hello Pastor/Clergy – My name is Bill Nieporte, a pastor in Richmond, VA. I hve been searching the web for website/blogs similar to my own clergy blog. I am looking to exchange articles, essays, sermons, studies, and links. I would love it if you could take a visit to http://nieporte.name and get back with me to exchange backlinks. Feel free to included links to any info on my site. And if you have a blog post you think would be good for your site, please send me the link at billnieporte@pastor.com. I am a real person- with a real site.

    March 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
  16. False Dichotomy

    The infinite regression:
    Consider how unlikely it is for any complex thing to have come about by natural forces (e.g., the universe, complex life, etc), without the design of a creator. I'll admit, it seems staggeringly improbable (though there's reasons for this).

    Now consider that anything capable of bringing those complex things about through creation (God) would have to be far more complex than those things, and therefore far more improbable. Following the typical creation logic that things are too complex not to have been created by God, it follows that it is even more impossible for God to exist without having been created by something else. and so on and so on....

    Shrugging complexity off onto a more complex cause doesn't solve the problem, it compounds it.

    March 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • momoya

      Besides, even if we assume that the complexity of the universe requires a complex mind, it still gets us no closer to any god so far described by the human species.. When believers use the deistic argument, it's still a null effect; no believer can show how his version of "god" is THE one who of the deists position.. Again, I claim that any sensible god would make himself as obvious as math or chemistry.. He, or his principles, would be categorically practical, and so obvious as to be beyond debate..

      March 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @False

      You got the analogy wrong. God used simple elements to create a complex universe. It's kind of like a human computer programmer that uses simple binary logic (0's and 1's) to write an elaborate program that runs a robot. We can continue with the usual atheist type arguments and say that the program just willed itself into existence or, admit the truth, it was designed and created by a complex human being.

      March 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Falsum, it's not an analogy, it's a direct extension of the original creationist logic. You seem to be missing the point. The universe is complex, and you guys consider that to be evidence that it must have a creator. But a creator has to be even more complex than the universe itself in order to create it, which makes God even less probable than the universe itself.

      And if you try to say, "but God was always there, so we don't have to worry about his creation" then you have simply made a more complicated form of the simpler argument that the universe was always there.

      As opposed to simplifying things, the addition of God makes explaining the universe MORE complicated and makes your argument LESS probable because there is so much more to be accounted for.

      March 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      It does represent reality too. The difference is that God did NOT use binary logic to create the universe, but fractured energy.

      March 6, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • momoya

      Uh...what?. Who cares?. Christians have always claimed one sort of magic as "good"–god's magic.. God's supposed method of creation has absolutely nothing to do with the point False Dichotomy is making to you.. If complexity requires a conscious designer, then the power of the argument INCREASES for the designer–unless you claim a simple designer which produced "things" more complex than itself–which is exactly what current cosmology and evolution declare, now.

      The Big Bang PRODUCED time; the singularity that existed outside of the big bang picture seems to be one, simple, direct "ALL.". Cosmological change over time (cosmo. evolution) and biological evolution and all the sciences scream out at us that in this universe dense simplicity thins out into greater and greater complexity.. Atoms make up molecules, molecules make up dna, dna provides the laws for its own "universe"–the cell, the cell functions within a system (organ), the organ supplies the organism–you, or a fish, or a plant.. There's even multi-organisms that thrive as a colonial group (man of war "jelly")..

      Perhaps it would help you to think of it within the vernacular of your faith.. The singularity can be thought of as "God 'the Father'" since it probably contained pure energy with the ability to bring into existence all the possible laws–and it existed outside of time as we perceive it.. The expansion and continuing "thinning" of the universe can be thought of as Jesus sacrificing himself because the singularity has to expand and spread itself thinner and thinner to bring about more and more complexity.. The "Holy Spirit" can stand for the immense amount of dark energy/matter that is continually overcoming the pull of gravity so that the universe does not annihilate itself by collapsing into a single force but continues to spread out into greater and greater complexity and diversity.. Our universe is slowly (relatively) disintegrating, but as it does that it creates more and more complex systems.. Who knows what the end result will be..

      If you're gonna worship god, just consider that the inflation and expansion of the big bang occurred, and it's slow death is somehow giving rise to very cool, complex stuff by the way of an invisible force–dark energy.. See, we have plenty of mystery with what we know.. Now what was that about god whining about wanting his name repeated all the time in the right ways, and getting all angry when his creation didn't do what he didn't give them the ability to do (pure, holy living), and wanting blood sacrifices to cleanse magic body parts (soul) so he doesn't have to torture you forever even though he loves you?? Please, grow up..

      March 7, 2012 at 12:07 am |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      I don't have a problem with theories related to cosmic evolution.

      I have a problem with barbaric statements about God Not being required as the Creator of the Universe.

      For the billionth time, you can't get something for nothing.

      The universe did not spring into existence from quantum fluctuations or simply nothing. Quantum fluctuations require a vacuum space to create that little milligram nugget of mass known as the baby universe. I agree that the baby universe can do all of the things you describe in your email (minus the "Shack-Like description of the Trinity), but God created the universe and sustains it too.

      March 7, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • Nonimus

      @Falsum,
      "For the billionth time, you can't get something for nothing."

      And following @False Dichotomy's example, where exactly did you get God from?

      March 7, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • momoya

      What is "barbaric" about the statement: God is not required as the Creator of the Universe???. It seems like you are just using that adjective to describe your subjective offense at such a claim..

      For the billionth time, NOBODY is saying that you get "something" for "nothing.". Why aren't you paying attention?. What the heck is "nothing," anyway?. Nobody is saying that the universe "spr[a]ng into existence from quantum fluctuations," or "simply nothing.". There are different theories about how the singularity came to be or how it began its inflationary process, but nobody states anything for sure.. I don't understand why you keep insisting that science says what it does not say!!
      .
      .
      Let's try this again:

      Science: The universe was at one time a very dense singular point of pure energy that had the ability to create all possible laws upon its inflation and change over time.
      .
      You: Nuh-uh! Science says that something came from nothing, and that can't happen; only a magic sky daddy can come from nothing!!
      .
      .
      Science: We don't know how the singularity occurred, but it's an interesting question that requires us to imagine different theories and come up with ways to test those theories;however, we may never know..
      .
      You: No, the magic sky daddy I believe in with no proof at all had to "come from nothing" first, and then he must have created the universe and somehow he maintains it till today..
      .
      .
      Do you see how science DESCRIBES those facts it has determined, and how science tries various ideas that are vetted by their alignment with current knowledge and by looking for testable hypotheses?
      .
      Do you see how your claims about what science says are completely inaccurate, and do you see how your claims are just superfluous statements of "must be magic"??
      .
      Why do you keep lying about what science says, and why do you feel that it's necessary to assign a va.gue label (god)to what neither you nor science knows?.. How does it help you to insist on inserting into the process a being with magical properties?. Hoe does it help you to insist on a va.gue being that does unprovable magic?

      March 7, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • momoya

      @ Nonimus

      Right?!?. God believers do share a common trait: the ability to completely compartmentalize their concluded minds so that logic is fairly applied in all mental processes except the those that deal with their religious indoctrination–there, logic has been replaced with unmalleable dogma.. In other words, the religion virus.

      March 7, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      Wrong. THe science is correct, but YOU MADAME are wrong. I'm not stating that something from nothing is a scientific position. I'm claiming that is a corner that atheists are forced into .Science descriptions start after the fact that God created the universe. Nothing is not quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are something.

      March 7, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • momoya

      Wrong.. "Something from nothing" is NOT a "corner that atheists are forced into" at all.. If the "science is correct" then the atheist is correct since the atheist isn't disagreeing with any of the science.. This should be obvious to you, but you're too worried about misrepresenting the atheist position..

      Science doesn't start "after the fact that God created the universe.". Science and atheists agree that they don't know the why or how of the singularity's existence.. We'd like to know, but we don't.. YOUR POSITION claims to know what it cannot prove or know, and YOUR POSITION uses unidentified magic.. YOUR POSITION wants to say what is and isn't "nothing.". Science and most atheists don't assume that "nothing" is a possibility at all.. YOU want to claim that "nothing" is a possibility, and you have no reason to do that except to prop up your belief in the myth you've been indoctrinated into..

      Why should anyone, you or the scientist, christian or the atheist, assume any "nothing" at all??. Can you even describe "nothing?". Can you show why a "nothing" state should even be considered?.

      If you want to rationalize your existence in this universe by imagining imaginary and magical beings, then do it, but don't do it at the cost of lying about what your dissenters agree on–that's just facile immaturity, and everybody knows it but you.

      March 7, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      _______________________

      In this particular context “nothing” can be defined as absolutely NO: (a) energy, (b) “time” (debatable if this really exists), (c) space, (d) causality, (e) acausality or (f) quantum states.
      In some sense, quantum physics screws us when it comes to both “time” and causality (or acausality). This is especially true since time may not exist. However, if you eliminate time and just think of the universe as a reconfigurable geometric space, you still need vacuum space to create the milligram of baby universe.
      Every known theory in Cosmology is dependent upon one of the ingredients listed above (a)-(f) independent of time or any aspect of causality. Something may have existed before the singularity or baby universe that created our existing universe. However, my argument just applies in duplicate back to the original multiverse singularity or seed baby quantum foam. This is true and always will be save some supernatural discovery within the realm of science itself.

      March 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Falsum,
      So how did God cause the universe to exist without some form of energy and causality?

      March 7, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Nonimus

      It's the god-believers dilemma; They are intent on claiming that the answer is "magic by magic by magic" without it sounding so silly.. As in every other claim, back them up far enough into their own proclamation, and it turns into "faith" which is nothing more than "I believe because I believe because I believe."

      That's really all it is–EVER!

      March 7, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • momoya

      @Falsum

      I know that this is the same thing above, so please don't reply, here, but up there.

      You said:
      >>>"In this particular context “nothing” can be defined as absolutely NO: (a) energy, (b) “time” (debatable if this really exists), (c) space, (d) causality, (e) acausality or (f) quantum states."

      Fantastic.. Now explain why anybody would assume that such a state CAN even exist at all?. Much less prove that "nothing" is possible or likely.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
  17. Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

    @ The wrath of the OT was brutal. Jesus died on the cross to take away this wrath.

    March 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • momoya

      O.o

      What a twisted freak!!

      "I gonna be berry berry mad at ere'ybody 'till I see some blood!!! NO!! Not just any blood!! The blood of my only chile!! I not gonna be satisfii 'till den!!"

      March 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      No. Please seek out Pastoral counseling and read the Bible.. Spiritual leaders are usually more than happy to help others.

      March 6, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • momoya

      Falsum, nobody can explain the silliness of god sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself by exploiting a loophole in a plan he made himself.. get real.

      March 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      Well, you know, there is no free ride in the physical or spiritual realm. Just like the inevitability of death and taxes, everything has an associated cost. You can't have several thousand years of abject sin without some type of payment.

      March 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      momoya, I've never heard it put quite that way. It sums up the absurdity nicely.

      March 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      But there's a free ride for the believers because jesus had a bad weekend for their sins?!?. Why did god build a universe that allows sin to occur?. That's like telling a person that something is "bad" before that person knows what "good and bad" is..

      "Don't eat from that tree; it's bad.
      "What's this 'bad' you're talking about
      "Well, the tree's fruit gives the knowledge of 'bad' and 'good,' but it would be bad to eat it.
      "Ummm... so what's 'bad' again
      "Well, you see, you'd have to be 'bad' in order to find out what 'bad' is by eating the fruit, but just trust me.
      "I still don't understand what 'bad' is..
      "Hmmm.. it seems we have a problem; maybe you should go eat the fruit, or go get your rib-wife to do it, then we can blame women and treat them like animals for a couple thousand years
      "Why not? I have no idea what 'bad' is..

      March 6, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

      What is the definition of Majestic Poetry?

      March 7, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • momoya

      It's online, I bet; try your search bar.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  18. The Dawkin's Delusion

    @ Robert

    Abiogensis is perplexing, but ok within the realm of science. I was referring to literal "something" from literal "nothing.

    @ Momoya

    I'm mostly referring to M theory and Stephan Hawking's 'Taliban-Like' assertion that God did not create the Universe.

    March 6, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • momoya

      I'm still not getting you.. Can you please explain what M-Theory says about "something coming from nothing?". Also, what does one scientists claim about god's existence or lack of existence have to do with "something coming from nothing?". Are you saying that IF "something came from nothing" then that means a particular sort of powerful mind is the only explanation?.

      thanks for being patient with me on this

      March 6, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • momoya

      @ Dawkins Delusion

      Oh, and how can an assertion be "Taliban like?". thx

      March 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Something from nothing?
      No

      In the beginning God...

      March 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • momoya

      Robert, are you saying that the "beginning" came from "nothing," or that god did?. I'm confused.

      March 6, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      I believe God is eternal. So, I am saying that there was God and in the beginning he created. Now if the questioner is assuming that God existed prior to creation then you might say the answer to his question could be yes. God didn't say he took some stuff and made the universe. It just says he created. In that case there was nothing except God and he created the heavens and the earth.

      March 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • momoya

      Thanks for the clarification, Robert.. Please correct me if I am wrong.. You are saying that "nothing" did not literally exist, just that at one time god was "everything.". Then god used a portion of his "everything" to produce the universe.. Is that a fair assessment?

      March 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • The Dawkin's Delusion

      I agree with Robert.

      This one is easy. God created the Universe.

      @ mo

      I will answer your question, but first iI want you to answer mine. At one point you stated that the books of Jermemiah and Hosea are most relevant to you. Explain what you meant.

      March 6, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • momoya

      That's not what I said at all, Bumper, and besides, I have zero interest in expounding upon scripture with you.

      March 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • The Dawkin's Delusion

      That's a strong statement coming from someone who claims to have spoke in tongues for ten hours straight without farting.
      By the way, the Apostle Paul stated that speaking in tongues is one of the "lesser gifts" and should only be done with an interpreter. Also, the book of Hosea is about a woman of ill reputation. I question your values, judgement and sense of morality.

      March 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • momoya

      I claimed no such thing, DD.. Why do you keep lying about what I've said?. Is your god so weak that you have to sin (lie) in order for you to feel like you're keeping up with the discussion?.

      As for you questioning my values and whatnot, I'd have it no other way.. Thanks.

      March 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
  19. Falsum in uno, Falsum in omnibus

    The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

    Isaiah 60:19

    March 6, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • momoya

      Then Zimri, who commanded half of the royal chariots, made plans to kill him. One day in Tirzah, Elah was getting drunk at the home of Arza, the supervisor of the palace. Zimri walked in and struck him down and killed him. This happened in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa's reign in Judah. Then Zimri became the next king. Zimri immediately killed the entire royal family of Baasha, and he did not leave a single male child. He even destroyed distant relatives and friends. So Zimri destroyed the dynasty of Baasha as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu. This happened because of the sins of Baasha and his son Elah and because of all the sins they led Israel to commit, arousing the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their idols. (1 Kings 16:9-13 NLT)

      March 6, 2012 at 11:48 am |
  20. The Dawkin's Delusion

    The idea that literal "something" can be derived from literal "nothing" is not scientific and never will be.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Scientists have pretty much given up on abiogenesis on earth. Panthermia is now gaining popularity. They speculate life occurred on another planet where some unknown conditions existed to allow it to occur. Then it was carried to this planet via a meteor.

      I will stick with God as the creator. Not because science can’t yet explain the creation of life but because I have experienced God for myself. Seek and you will find.

      March 6, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • momoya

      @the Dawkin's Delusion

      What are you talking about?. How do you define "nothing?". What branch of science, or what scientists, say that something comes from nothing?

      March 6, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • jimtanker

      Makes more sense than saying that some perfect being "always existed" and then breathed everything into existence. Now that sounds really stupid.

      March 6, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • Nonimus

      @Robert Brown
      "Scientists have pretty much given up on abiogenesis on earth."

      You might want to tell these folks:
      http://origins.asu.edu/
      Or these:
      http://www.case.edu/origins/index.html

      Or, try looking for the information. I did a quick Google Scholar search on 'abiogenesis' since 2011 and got 147 hits:
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=abiogenesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2011

      "Life's Chirality From Prebiotic Environments"
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5048

      "Position of Cyanobacteria and Algae in Origin of Life"
      http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AV/article/view/5316

      "Three-stage Origin of Life as a Result of Directional Darwinian Evolution"
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0384

      "Mosaic nucleic acids that bind purine nucleotides"
      http://gradworks.umi.com/34/62/3462147.html

      "Marginal stability in chemical systems and its relevance in the origin of life"
      http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v84/i3/e031931

      March 6, 2012 at 10:52 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Previous entry
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.