home
RSS
January 25th, 2012
12:52 PM ET

My take: Reclaiming Jesus’ sense of humor

Editor’s note: James Martin, SJ, is a Jesuit priest, culture editor of America magazine and author of "Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor, and Laughter are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life," from which this article is adapted.

By James Martin, Special to CNN

Here’s a serious question about levity: The Bible clearly paints a picture of Jesus of Nazareth as a clever guy, but he never seems to laugh, much less crack a smile. Did Jesus really have no sense of humor; didn't he ever laugh?

Well, one difficulty with finding humor in the New Testament is that what was seen as funny to those living in Jesus' time may not seem funny to us.

For someone in first-century Palestine, the premise (or “setup” as a comic would say) was probably more amusing than the punch line. "The parables were amusing in their exaggeration or hyperbole," Amy-Jill Levine, a New Testament scholar at Vanderbilt University, said in an interview. “The idea that a mustard seed would have sprouted into a big bush that birds would build their nests in would be humorous."

People in Jesus’ day would probably have laughed at many of his intentionally funny illustrations: for example, the idea that someone would have lit a lamp and put it under a basket, or that a person would have built a house on sand or that a father would give a child stones instead of bread.

But contemporary Christians may be missing the humor that Jesus intended and that his audience understood.

Father Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, professor of New Testament at Boston College, agrees. "Humor is very culture bound," he told me. "The Gospels have a lot of controversy stories and honor-shame situations. I suspect that the early readers found these stories hilarious, whereas we in a very different social setting miss the point entirely."

Let’s repeat that: hilarious.

Or maybe we just know the stories too well. Too many Gospel stories have become stale, like overly repeated jokes. "The words seem to us like old coins," wrote Elton Trueblood, a 20th-century Quaker scholar, "in which the edges have been worn smooth and the engravings have become almost indistinguishable."

In his book "The Humor of Christ," Trueblood recounts the tale of his 4-year-old son hearing the Gospel story of seeing the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye and ignoring the log in your own and laughing uproariously. His son recognized the humor that someone else, who might have heard the story dozens of times, might miss.

There are other indications in the Gospels that Jesus of Nazareth had a lively sense of humor. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is castigated for not being as serious as John the Baptist. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking," Jesus said, "and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard.’ ” In other words, the Gospels record criticism of Jesus for being too high-spirited.

"Jesus and his disciples," said the Rev. Richard J. Clifford, SJ, a biblical scholar at Boston College, "are criticized for living it up!"

After his time on Earth, some of this playfulness may have been downplayed by the Gospel writers, who, scholars say, may have felt pressured by the standards of their day to present a more serious Jesus.

"There were probably things that were compressed and shortened, and some of the humor may have been leached out," Clifford said. "But I see Jesus as a witty fellow, someone who is serious without being grim. When the disciples argue among themselves, Jesus brings wit into the discussion."

Jesus also embraces others with a sense of humor. In the beginning of the Gospel of John comes the remarkable story of Nathanael, who has been told by his friends that the Messiah is from Nazareth. Nathanael responds, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

This is an obvious joke about how backwards the town was; Nazareth was seen as a backwater with only a few hundred people.

And what did Jesus say in response? Does he castigate Nathanael for mocking his hometown?

Jesus says nothing of the sort! Nathanael's humor seems to delight him.

"Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit," Jesus said. In other words, here’s someone I can trust.

Nathanael then became one of the apostles. Jesus’ welcoming of Nathanael into his inner circle may be the clearest indication that Jesus had a sense of humor.

Besides, what kind of a person has zero sense of humor? I asked Eileen Russell, a clinical psychologist based in New York who specializes in the role of resilience, how she would describe the psychological makeup of a person without a sense of humor.

“A person without a sense of humor would lead to that person having significant social problems,” she said. “He would most likely have difficulty making social connections, because he wouldn’t be able to read signals from other people, and would be missing cues.”

That’s the opposite of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. Yet that's just the kind of one-sided image that many Christians have of Jesus. It shows up in Christian books, sermons and in artwork. It influences the way that Christians think about Jesus, and therefore influences their lives as Christians.

If part of being human includes having a sense of humor, and if Jesus was “fully human,” as Christians believe, he must have had a fully developed sense of humor. Indeed, his sense of humor may be one unexamined reason for his ability to draw so many disciples around him with ease.

It’s time to set aside the notion that Jesus was a humorless, grim-faced, dour, unsmiling prude. Let’s begin to recover his humor and, in the process, his humanity.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • TV

soundoff (1,367 Responses)
  1. Phillip Evans

    Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till (Gr. heos AN – hypothetical) all these things be fulfilled.

    Mat 23:39 – CONDITIONAL

    Mat 24:30 – UNCONDITIONAL

    IF the generation has been accounted (P), THEN the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations. (Q) Psa 22:28, 30.

    Messiah the governor is cut off (~Q) Dan 9:25-26

    THEREFORE, NOT the GENERATION has been accounted. (~P)

    P -> Q
    ~Q
    + ~P

    VALID REASONING

    The apostles were justified in saying that the end was near: IT WAS, but conditionally upon Israel's repentance.

    Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
    Act 1:7 And he said unto them, IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

    Learn logic. Read all the text. Conduct statement analysis.

    http://biblicalvalidity.blogspot.com/

    January 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
  2. Believer

    Oops forgot 2 give you the website
    http://history-world.org/archeology.htm

    January 30, 2012 at 11:44 am |
  3. Iqbal Khan

    Israeli Assassinations and US Presidents

    By Alison Weir

    There is evidence that in 1991 an Israeli undercover team planned to assassinate a U.S. President. The intended victim was George Herbert Walker Bush. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30362.htm

    January 30, 2012 at 12:36 am |
  4. Springwater3

    Religionis4Dolts, I have a question about carbon dating. Scientists say that fossils are a certain number of years old, but how can they actually tell? Carbon does start to leave the fossil after awhile, but can't there be events that can alter the amount of carbon that goes away?
    Couldn't there be changes in the environment that causes problems in the way carbon dating is used?

    January 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      What you have to ask yourself (and do the research on) is how much any flaws affect the results. When you're dealing with objects that have been dated at tens of thousands of years old, the margin for error is negligible. Creationists, for example have NO explanation for Neanderthals, which are not modern humans, but which according to the fossil record and to DNA tracing have apparently mated with modern humans at some point before they went extinct. And since Neanderthal fossils are dated at roughly between 30,000 at the youngest find, all the way to 350,000-600,000 years ago, the margin for error in the dating methods used is nowhere near enough to nullify the theory that these fossils predate any allegedly 6000-year-old earth.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      FACT: Adam does not call Eve the mother of all "mankind".

      FACT: Nowhere does Genesis 2 claim to be re-telling the story of the Sixth Day.

      Gen 1:25-27.

      Gen 2:5

      Gen 2:7-9, 15-17, 18-19.

      P: the first humans Gen 1:25-27.

      Q: foragers

      R: tillers of the ground (agriculture Gen 4:2-3 "the fruit of the ground")

      ~R: NOT tillers of the ground Gen 2:5.

      IF the “men and women” “created” on the Sixth Day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q), OR they were tillers of the ground (R). Gen 1:25-27.

      “and there was NOT a man to till the ground.” (~R). Gen 2:5.

      THEREFORE, IF the “men and women” “created” on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q).

      (P -> Q) v (P -> R) : P -> (Q ^ R)

      ~R

      + P -> Q

      VALID REASONING.

      ARCHEOLOGICALLY & ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SOUND.

      Try getting that from Gilgamesh, dolt.

      January 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Gilgamesh was written down 1150 years (at least) before the Jews wrote down their counterfeit story about Noah. Sorry, Babylon wins by a landslide (or should I say a deluge?)!

      January 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  5. Tom Bryant

    Excellent article! I will be siting this article, I'm sure, in a paper at some point.

    Tom Bryant
    BA Philosophy – Clemson University
    MA Religious Studies – Univ. of South Florida

    January 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
  6. Believer

    A Paleontology, there has been nothing foolproof that prooves the non existance of God, did you research those blood cells in the t rex bone yet? Also it relies on assumptions to get the dates from carbon dating I ignore both sides creationist and evolution as soon as I get a date from carbon dating.
    B. Archealogy, Every time the Bible says that a city is somewhere that we are allowed to dig in, we find a city there with the same rulers of that city that the bible says.
    C. Geology, study of rocks see paleontology. earthquakes and other stuff do not disprove God.
    D. Astronomy and Cosmology both show that the universe had beginning and how hard it would be for all of this to be just by pure chance.
    E. Physics once again does not prove or disprove God, although can I just say that Creationists love it to disprove evolution?
    http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/
    According to Biology things are became more complex, while in Physics says things become more chaotic. Seems like a contradiction.
    F. History see archealogy

    January 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Believer

      wrong spot

      January 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
  7. Iqbal Khan

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_IUwwGq-A&w=640&h=390]

    January 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  8. Reality

    After the laughing subsides:

    newbies = new members of this blog- for all others please scroll past the commentary- Danke Schoen !

    Only for the "newbies":

    origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review

    ( Thu-mping the) New Torah For Modern Minds – One more time-

    “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

    Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

    The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.

    The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."

    January 29, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      REALITY do u realize that u use a lot of legal arguments in ur submissions to support UR position. thats all well and good. Unfortunately I take God because He presents all the sides for me to choose. He does not block out one side picking and choosing what favours Him. I can't trust u the same.

      January 29, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • RightTurnClyde

      It is not really important whether Abraham or Moses existed or the tablets or the ark. The only ting that is significant (from a single individual perspective) it that individual's "r.e.l.a.t.i.o.n.s.h.i.p" to the u.l.t.i.m.a.te Creator being. That r.e.l.a.t.i..o.n.s..h.i.p may not exist (in the case of atheists) In the case of the f.a.i.t.h.f.u.l. it is probably true that no two believe the same thing (about the Creator). Very d.i.f..f.i.c.u..lt, then, to pr.e.d.i.c.a.t.e a universal premise, but this is also true about h.i.s.t.o..r.i.c.a..l.l.y. d.o.c.u.m.e.n..t.e..d people like Gen. C.u.s.t.e.r, Robert E. .L.e.e, Napoleon, King John, FDR, JFK, MLK. No two o.p.i.n.i.o.n.s are the same. John Wayne, Jack Webb, Clint Eastwood .. no two people p.e.r.c.e.i.v.e them t.h.e. .s.a.m.e. way. So what does it m.a.t.t.e.r??

      January 29, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Reality

      Some nitty gritty via a prayer:

      The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

      Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen
      (References used are available upon request.)

      And by the way, the word filter chokes on "docu-mented" so save yourself some added typing next time as the other separated words are AOK.

      January 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  9. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    Speak Lord God for your servant listens

    January 29, 2012 at 7:28 am |
  10. Believer

    1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
    2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
    3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
    4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
    5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
    This is the definition of God from dictionary.com it does not mean nothing as you say. If there was a god he would be all powerful and would have been around all the time. That was what I was saying to your comment of if there was a god where did he come from.

    January 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Believer

      I agree religion is for dolts, this is so annoying that you cant delete the post when you put it in the wrong spot. Thats a suggestion CNN

      January 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      "I agree religion is for dolts"

      I do too. That's funny, even though I'm taking your comment out of context. 😉

      January 28, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      If you do not believe in God and think belief is for dolts THEN why is it so important to you? You make it important; more important than many of the faithful. If I prefer Toyota it does not become an obsession to bash Chevy owners. If I own a a sailboat it is of no importance to me if you do not own a sailboat. What to you care about the "dolts?" Why is it important. So many of the atheists come back to this BLOG day after day so it has got to be very important to them .. and yet they claim that they do not believe in God. It really does not add up. God is very important to atheists.

      January 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Payback is H&LL isn't it?! Non-believers (or even believers in OTHER religions) have had to put up with FASCISM and CONVERSION-BY-MURDER from all branches of Judeo-Christo-Islamo-FASCISM for millenia!

      January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  11. ReligionIs4Dolts

    "The very definition of God means..."

    ....means NOTHING! What do you not understand about CIRCULAR LOGIC?

    January 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      intended as a reply to another post. ARGH!

      January 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  12. RightTurnClyde

    Well we need to understand how the bible came to be (to exist). There was no bible for the first 100 years (or more) after Jesus ascended. There was no written Talmud when the Romans destroyed Israel (and Masada). The Romans were persuaded to allow the priests who knew the Talmud to leave Jerusalem before they destroyed it. Everything was "oral tradition." So the "Mass of the Catechumens" was HOW the Gospels were passed along (and something similar for the Talmud). In time things were written and in further time they became a bible. Oral tradition was a primary teaching tools all over the globe (Asia, the Americas (myths and dances), the Artic, the Norse, etc. Men learned to navigate oceans by oral teachings (apprenticeships). The Internet and animation may be turning education back to more visual and aural tools.

    January 28, 2012 at 11:25 am |
  13. stubbycat

    You are free to believe anything...but what does your believing and living demonstrate? "By their fruits you shall know them" is a precept from the one who healed all manner of disease through his understanding of divine Love. Who today believes in and demonstrates divine Love? Is Love optional? It is as necessary as light. If you are devoid of divine Love then your life lacks the light of Love, its joy and harmony and consequently the dis-ease and disease inherent to darkness sets in. The choice of truth or error is yours and this is true no matter who or what you say you believe.

    January 28, 2012 at 6:09 am |
  14. Atheist #1

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucVDpmFz-E&w=640&h=390]

    January 28, 2012 at 1:12 am |
  15. Believer

    It is widely believed that the youngest fossil must be around 10, 000 years old, as the fossilisation process cannot be completed in any shorter frame of time (except in the instances of freezing and preservation in tar pits).

    Thats what I got from your article, however diddnt you and I establish that fossils must be created quickly or else the organism would decay? And once again this article is based on carbon dating which as I have stated before uses assumptions

    January 27, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Believer

      Sorry world this is in the wrong spot

      January 27, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
  16. TSA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhOQS-wRebA&w=640&h=390]

    January 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Guest

      that was honest and funny!! creative geniuses!

      January 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  17. Nate

    Clean Christian humor sites like Sanitaryum or Inherit the Mirth (like Larson's Far Side) are great at driving the Jesus' humor point home. Christians should be able to laugh at something. Wish thee was a scripture that plainly said "Jesus laughed." 🙂

    January 27, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      I laugh when I think about Christians who must be thinking about Jesus watching them while they're having s&x.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Nii Croffie

      How many times does it have to be repeated? The Scientific Method IS NOT the philosophy of Scepticism. The Natural Sciences are based on the Scientific Method. Atheism is based on Scepticism. Atheists please do not confuse the two. The SM may be applied to Law but Law is not a science. CSI is!

      January 29, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      I was an agnostic X'tian till a couple of years back. I prophesied in the middle of laughing @ God's prophets. I don't do the religious/agnostic/atheist thing anymore. I have decided for God and I'm not going back.

      January 29, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      Angry atheists are not rational but emotionally immature. I wonder why they think they are if it is not self-delusion. Emotional maturity is akin to agnosticism n spirituality with the added bonus that ths spiritual are ethical. Christ never cared for religion. Look @ de parable of de Good Samaritan

      January 29, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      Science was/is never proof dat God doesn't exist. I've seen enaf misinformation in 1wk not 2 believe anything an atheist writes but off course its not important to me. Some scientific 'theories' misquoted and liberal use of the word hypothesis may sound scientific but it is not. Very legalist!

      January 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
  18. Reality

    More insanity than humor!!

    To wit:

    JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

    Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

    Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

    Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.

    Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

    So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, "funny" preacher man would do or say?

    January 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • stubbycat

      What Jesus said and did as recorded in the scriptures has been repeated by genuine Christian workers and other devout spiritually mental thinkers throughout human history. "By their fruits you will know them" is universally true. By your fruits you will be known. The question is by what evidence will you yourself be known? Your thoughts externalize themselves. This is a mental universe. The quality of ones consciousness counts absolutely. This is what Jesus taught and lived throughout and its value is everlasting while matter and mere materiality is not.

      January 28, 2012 at 6:21 am |
    • Reality

      Matt 7: 16 "...... fruits will know them" has been thoroughly analyzed by many contemporary NT scholars. Many of these scholars have concluded that said passage was not said by the historic Jesus. For example: Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 153......"this passage has been formulated by the community or by Matthew himself:" and also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=041_Trees_and_Hearts (remove the hyphen in ti-tle before accessing the web site)

      January 28, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • Believer

      Then you have not fully read the Bible. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, the spread of the church, Pontius Pilate, Ceaser Augustus, The Pharaohs, King Nebuchednezzer. This is just a small sample size of the history that has never been proven wrong. As for Science read Theophilus 7's posts about the Bible and Science in the Bible misconceptions page, you will find it interesting.
      And as for your system being better? The Bible says he tried that with Adam and Eve. It diddnt work, there was a 100% rebellion there. We are human, and therefore rebellious. As soon as something is forced upon us we automatically dont like it, and he would have lost so many more people than he has.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
  19. Guest

    hello

    January 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  20. ReligionIs4Dolts

    REPOSTING DUE TO A LACK OF RESPONSES:

    What no lame-brained defense of your phony "god"? Please try, I'd like to have a few laughs today.

    There is no sense of humor (unless you're talking about SICK humor) in a phony religion that purports to have the "one and only correct answer" to some alleged "salvation," as if there were something to be "saved" from! If this "god" were so powerful, then "god" wouldn't have relied on MAN to deliver "his" message. Instead "he" would have written this seemingly all-important message in permanent ink in the sky (in every possible language, dispersed geostatically by region so that no one would need a translation). By doing so, this sky-message would have proven that the message was unequivocally written by "god" alone, without any tampering, misinterpretation, etc. by fallible and opportunistic man, and it would have been available for ALL TIME to EVERYONE ALL AT ONCE. This point alone proves all religion is man-made! But before some religious freak jumps on that tired, lame-@$$ "free will" pseudo-argument, if "god" had written his message in the sky, that would NOT be equivalent to "god" forcing man to follow "him," so the "free will" thing fails....so there's a pre-emptive S T F U for ya!

    Oh yeah, and before anyone says "Not all people had written languages," or "We know mankind (as a whole) did not always have written languages," then well gee, an all-powerful, all-knowing "god" would have certainly been able to make accommodations by either MAKING all men have written languages from the beginning of time, or "god" could have posted "his" message in YouTube videos in the sky instead of using permanent ink. But this phony "god" did no such thing. Irresponsible DOLT!

    January 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • jerrod

      You make me laugh. It's people like you that took God out of the schools, christmas, and out of everyday speech. You don't believe in God, that's your opinion. People like you have no meaning for life. People like you will take a gun to school, because you're to enraged with God not being a part of your life. You have no proof, as do we. We believe, you don't. You capitalize the letter in the first name when talking about a person, or a belief of someone's imagination. I got the memo from God, you didn't. It shows. Die well, burn in Hell!

      January 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • jerrod

      Jesus did and will always have a sense of humor. He puts up with idiots like you don't he? He allows you with those nose picking fingers, I'm on my lunch break, instead of exercising. I think I will eat my meatball sandwich and cry because Jesus forgot to put cheese on it. There must not be a God! Get a life, sorry get a belief besides that all you can buffet commerical.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      jerrod: "People like you have no meaning for life."
      My meaning is to live responsibly, taking care of the Earth Mother that nourishes every one of us, and to not be confrontational or obnoxious to others (unless they start it, like Judeo-religious-freaks often do).

      "People like you will take a gun to school, because you're to enraged with God not being a part of your life."
      Don't own a gun. I was raised on this Christo-Fascist crap and no "god" was ever part of my life. My imagination WAS, however.

      You have no proof, as do we."
      Belief is not proof.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Guest

      hmm, u are not confrontational or obnoxious uh?

      that was a poor joke...yet i would laugh at that poor joke...haha funny!

      January 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Guest: You obviously can't read (or like a typical religious freak you only take what you want and leave the rest).....

      I clearly stated: "unless they start it, like Judeo-religious-freaks often do"

      When is the last time you have been accosted by an atheist standing on a street corner yelling:
      "Where will you go when you die?! TURN OR BURN!"

      January 27, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Guest

      Ah, yes that.

      I surely can relate to that...the last time I saw someone close to the edge of a cliff, I screamed and yelled out to them warning them of the impending danger.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Guest: Impending danger? From WHAT? Your imagination? Unicorns?

      The boy who cried wolf DID offend the villagers because he kept raising the alarm for nothing.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Guest

      You know, there is something deep inside that tells me I have to warn someone if I know they are going down a destructive path...

      I just can't help it. It is innate.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • J.W

      It would not be as much fun if God did everything for us.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • J.W

      Besides what is wrong with using man to spread the message? It has worked hasn't it. I mean everyone has heard of God now. If people just saw something written somewhere or saw an image in the sky they may still not believe it. The most powerful way to make someone believe something is to hear it from other people.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Observer

      I believe it is God who can do the convincing. It is the duty of every believer to make sure they spread the gospels and the good news as presented in the gospels.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      J. W.: The point is that IF Jews living thousands of years ago were the source of the ONE AND ONLY "correct answer," and knowing like we all know nowadays, that those Jews had no idea the world was any larger than a relatively isolated region around the Mediterranean Sea (at least for sure we know that they thought the world was flat), and given that, for example, Native Americans wouldn't have had the chance to hear this alleged "correct" message for 1500 years....well, you see where I'm going, right? Not only that, but to continue using the Native American example, NA's already believed in their own versions of god, the Great Spirit, etc. Why did they NEED to hear this belated message from the other side of the globe at all? Didn't stop arrogant, greedy, murderous Christians from converting and murdering the Natives, stealing their gold and their land.

      What's WRONG with letting stupid Monkey Man spread the message is that man always screws things up, inserting his own view into the translation, using the message for POWER and CONTROL (like Catholics are well known for in Europe and like Protestants are well known for in the US), and not being able to get the message to everyone all at once (which would have only been logical if this message were so important), etc., etc.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
    • Observer

      Lord said it best in the Parable of the Sower.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      No responsible god would have left that much to chance if this message were SO IMPORTANT....but obviously god must have thought the world was flat too. god must not have known about "the Americas" or even China or India to have just let the "gospel" spread out at a snail's pace from the Middle East over more than 1500 years.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Observer

      Yeah go google where the disciple Thomas went to spread the gospels.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • J.W

      Well I have thought there is a possibility that God had taken different forms and people are not necessarily wrong for having a different view of God. We do not know what God looks like or sounds like, or what God actually said back the outside of what we have written about him. However all across the world it seems there was some version of a god, whether the Hindu, pagan, Jewish, etc. I look at it as people across the world have experienced God, but each various religion does have its own message to share.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @J.W.

      At least you are somewhat open to other ways of thinking. Unlike people like jerrod who seems to find delight in sondemning someone to eternal fire and torture. Guess not all Christians are as "moral" as they would claim. I would not wish something like that on my worst enemies, and I'm an atheist. As to one of your earlier posts, spreading your message is fine. Talk to people but never try to brow-beat like some do. Legislating "morals" based on a specific minddset is also a big no-no.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      J. W. good point about how every religion has something to share. So why do adherents to Jewish-based religions (including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormon, etc.) typically insist confrontationally that they have the ONLY correct answer. Why not live and let live if everyone has already heard of god? You have only to presume that "god" already exists in some form or other all over the world and that everyone already believes (or doesn't believe) in the version they want, so why even continue proselytizing?

      January 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • jerrod

      @ religious 4 idiots or whatever your name is. Please do not state anything about my comment for it was intended for the idiot above me. I served my country numerous times, I go to church, I teach my kids about Christ, and I support anything in life as long as the Lord is by side. obnoxious to others, comment taken from your little 2 cent speech, and another comment taken again from another(or like a typical religious freak you only take what you want and leave the rest). Really! For you to say I have no meaning, I believe your yhe one that cannot read. Get your facts straight before you point the negative, black hearted finger in my direction. Read both comments first. Nonreligion, burn in hell. History channel watching fool!

      January 27, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "why do adherents to Jewish-based religions (including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormon, etc.) typically insist confrontationally that they have the ONLY correct answer. Why not live and let live if everyone has already heard of god? You have only to presume that "god" already exists in some form or other all over the world and that everyone already believes (or doesn't believe) in the version they want, so why even continue proselytizing?"

      =>because Jesus Christ is the only way.

      Many folks consider the Judeo-Christian viewpoint very narrow, however one must remember that it isn't ours, it's what the bible says.

      If there was any other way to Heaven, then Jesus Christs prayer in Gethsemane went unanswered:
      "36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" – Mark

      there is no other way.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Jerrod..why do you need to teach your kids about "Christ"? do you allow debate as to his existence or is it just agreed that your kids have to accept it because you have. Are you kids aware that morality was around before any religions or gods were invented? that we evolved as creatures who had to co exist or die.. as all other animals do. Do you explain that the "lord" appears to dislike little African kids as they die so young from the nice diseases god invented...sorry teaching about Christ is just about as useless an education as is possible to inflict on children.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Jen

      Thanks Chad, that was spot on!!

      January 27, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Chad: "heaven," "hell," "god," "devils," "angels," "demons," "witches," etc. are merely hearsay, and so is "needing to be saved." Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Chad: furthermore you are not addressing the topic of this post, which is "Why is such an allegedly important message being sent via fallible, opportunistic, meddling man vs. a permanent message written unequivocally by this alleged "god" ALONE so everyone could see all at once instead of forcing people to have to wait up to 1500 years before they even had a chance to hear this alleged 'good news'?"

      January 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " "Why is such an allegedly important message being sent via fallible, opportunistic, meddling man"
      =>because that's the only kind of man here, we are all fallen.

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " vs. a permanent message written unequivocally by this alleged "god" "
      =>Jesus Christ is permanent, His resurrection is proof of His divinity and His message.

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " ALONE so everyone could see all at once instead of forcing people to have to wait up to 1500 years before they even had a chance to hear this alleged 'good news'?""
      =>you have to remember, this world is fallen, has been fallen, as unfair as it may seem from your/mine perspective, we have no claim on God. We were permanently estranged until God stepped in with a plan for our salvation. The Jewish nation was/is His chosen people for delivering both the Law (proof of our unrighteousness) and Jesus Christ (our righteousness).

      If you dont believe a man rising from the dead, what would you believe?

      January 27, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " "Why is such an allegedly important message being sent via fallible, opportunistic, meddling man"
      =>because that's the only kind of man here, we are all fallen.
      You miss the point. Why would an ALL-KNOWING god not write his message permanently in the sky so EVERYONE WOULD KNOW THAT ONLY GOD WROTE IT? If you send it through a man, then the message is already suspect for tampering.

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " vs. a permanent message written unequivocally by this alleged "god" "
      =>Jesus Christ is permanent, His resurrection is proof of His divinity and His message.
      Resurrection is hearsay. There were no video cameras to record the event. Because someone wrote it down does not make it real.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • Chad

      ReligionIs4Dolts ""heaven," "hell," "god," "devils," "angels," "demons," "witches," etc. are merely hearsay, and so is "needing to be saved." Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence."

      =>no, doesnt qualify
      Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

      The information has been gathered from prophets, from God Himself (dictated to Moses), from Jesus Christ and from people who directly interacted with Him on a daily basis.

      Direct evidence, not hearsay.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • Observer

      Hey religion....Why was there no twitter/FB or other modern means of communication to record the resurrection.?Yeah the list is endless, why adam and eve sinned? why do you need sacrifice? why do you need redemption? It is written and it is so.
      Our minds are curious, but let not be wise in our own eyes. It is by faith and his grace that a believer accepts the written word of God and the plan of salvation. If you earnestly seek you will find him.

      Am sure Chad will have an answer for you.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolt " You miss the point. Why would an ALL-KNOWING god not write his message permanently in the sky so EVERYONE WOULD KNOW THAT ONLY GOD WROTE IT? If you send it through a man, then the message is already suspect for tampering."
      =>A. Not just "any" man, the Son of God, who's resurrection demonstrated the truth of His claims. He sent the message thru Himself.
      =>B. You want a banner, like at the beach with the airplane flying over? That's not the way He works. If you dont believe a resurrected person, would you believe a flying banner?

      no video tapes 2000 years ago. In any case, one could always claim falsification. There is always room not to believe, that's where the choice comes in. Choose life!

      January 27, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      A second hand account of a "resurrected" person I will not believe. A flying banner which I can personally observe and which I know without a doubt was not created by or altered by man, yes.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "A flying banner which I can personally observe and which I know without a doubt was not created by or altered by man, yes."

      =>What if the flying banner occurred before you were born? Who's testimony would you accept? What if you saw the flying banner, then someone asked you about it.. Would you expect them to believe your testimony?
      =>What kind of flying banner would it have to be to guarantee to you that it was altered by no man?

      January 28, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Come on, Chad. That's easy. Can man write anything in the sky permanently? No. Therefore "god" (assuming "he" is all-powerful like you say) could have written the message in the sky in some way so as to be obviously not made by or alterable by man. It doesn't matter what method is used. We're talking about fantasy here, which is your realm. Why do you have a problem understanding it when I try to use it against you?

      January 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Believer

      There is evidence and the Bible tells us what it is. In Romans and Psalms it talks of nature being the evidence for God. Isnt it interesting that when nature was abundant, before man destroyed it with technology, most cultures believed there was a god or gods?
      Also as to your question of people never having a chance to be saved because they could not here Jesus name there is an answer. If someone admits that there is a God, and that we are entirely dependant on him for everything including the afterlife then someone would be saved. If they can come to terms that there is nothing I can do to save myself, I need God.

      January 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Yes! I am saved!

      I can't save myself. I am dependent upon a god. I *know* Thor will look after me when I die!

      January 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Believer: Your post is logically flawed.

      First, your claim that the evidence proving your god's existence is provided in the same text that makes the claim of existence is a circular argument.

      Second, the evidence you reference (nature is proof of god's existence) is not a verifiable claim because you would need a standard (a nature not created by your god) to compare the differences.

      Your claims of knowledge are subject to the same scrutiny as any other hypothesis. Unfortunately, the verification of your supporting evidence is not possible, and thus, not vaild.

      January 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Believer

      wow hot air ace, this rule applies to those who are genuine and completly believe it, sorry if I wasnt clear about that before. You cant just say it u have to truly mean it.

      January 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Believer

      Eric G, i did not say that the word is the evidence, I am saying it tells us where to look for the evidence.

      As to needing a standard in order to be evidence I have this to ask. How can you have a standard when there is only one? I agree that a standard should be used at all times possible, this is not one of those times. Its either created by God or it isnt. Personally I believe that the universe that we live in is far to complex and advanced to have been made by pure chance.

      January 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Believer: The problem with using "either created by god or it isnt" is that you are inserting an unnecessary variable (god). Nature and the processes that produce it work without inserting your god as a cause. Your argument is called the "God of Gaps" position. You have gone to the end of your understanding and inserted your god to fill in the gaps.

      The cause of the universe does not require "belief". Science has not provided a theory that explains it yet, but science makes no such claim. To say that you "believe" that the universe was created by your god is intellectually dishonest.

      January 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Believer

      What I said was that the odds of the universe starting by chance are so minimal that they are next to impossible. Read this article to see what a good friend of Dawkins calculated the odds are. In most cases with science and math a probability that small would be considered done.
      http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/equilibrium03.html

      January 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: That is a useless argument. If the odds of a complex universe forming on its own are so unfathomable, then the exact same can be said for the presumption that some god existed before the universe in order to create it. Who or what created god? What are the odds that an all-powerful, all-knowing being could have just existed out of nothing?

      January 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Believer

      The very definition of God means that he was always there, if he was all powerful all knowing and all seeing how could he not always be there? however we know that the universe has not always been here, that there was a starting point.

      January 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer:
      "The very definition of God means..."

      ....means NOTHING! What do you not understand about CIRCULAR LOGIC?

      January 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      It is so very clear to those of us who have brains that "god" was invented to FILL THE GAP in the knowledge attainable by primitive humans. Science attempts to fill the gap as well, but at least science is INFORMED and can trace one effect back to its cause, and can define the cause before that, and on and on. Of course it, too, reaches a point where it must cease to be applicable because our knowledge is still limited, but at least our knowledge (well our scientists' knowledge, not everyone's) is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than it ever was when people invented "gods". "god" was a neat, simplistic way to just explain away everything (and of course scare the $h|+ out of people in some cultures, like Jewish culture, in order to control the masses), but NOW "god" is no longer necessary to explain what was previously inexplicable. Some of us want REAL answers, not some make believe fairy tale, invisible man in the sky.

      January 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Believer

      You are right in saying that most religions were made up to explain the gaps, however christianity and judaism were not some of those religions. The bible was all about the relationship between God and his people, other than the creation story you will not find a single occurence of people explaining scientific things away by saying it was God. If you want to see some scientific things the bible has to say look at Teophilus 7's comments on bibles 3 big misconceptions page 73 on the comments. It never ever explains natural events by saying it was God.

      January 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Believer

      Believer

      1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
      2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
      3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
      4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
      5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
      This is the definition of God from dictionary.com it does not mean nothing as you say. If there was a god he would be all powerful and would have been around all the time. That was what I was saying to your comment of if there was a god where did he come from.

      January 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      The Jewish myth does not explain anything scientific. People like you only explain away the bible's generic terminology and over-generalized anecdotes by saying that, "Oh well, they must have meant...." Anytime modern man discovers something new that was definitely not known to the authors of the bible, religious freaks always say that....well they MUST HAVE MEANT......

      January 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      and in case you don't recognize it, saying "well they must have meant...." is also FILLING IN THE GAPS, which is all you brain-dead people ever do. You don't look for anything new. You have your heads buried in the sand. I don't want to know if it's not in the BIBLE!

      January 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Believer

      Did you read his posts? And what are you talking about never looking for something new? There are plenty of christian scientists. In fact my mom is a christian and a science teacher. And as for they must have meant... isnt that what evolution is doing? They see two fossils at different layers and go well that must have meant... They have not found any proof that evolution is 100% fact, and yet people are ridiculed if we do not believe it. Im not talking about natural selection which is a fact that most christians agree with. As for not wanting to know about it if its not in the Bible, what are you talking about? We learn many things that are not in the Bible. Calculus for example is not part of the Bible and Christians have no problem learning it. And some of the worlds leading scientists were Christian such as Isaac Newton and Galileo.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Believer,
      "It [The Bible] never ever explains natural events by saying it was God.

      What about?: (and that is as.suming that these events really occurred)

      - A local flood where some old guy quickly lashed together a raft, grabbed his family and his goats & chickens and survived while many others died? No, Goddidit.

      - The 10 plagues of Egypt - all naturally explainable. No, Goddidit.

      - A couple of towns (Sodom & Gomorrah) destroyed in a volcano or possibly a large meteorite. No, Goddidit.

      If I wanted to tax my brain, I could come up with lots of others, but this is a good start in refuting your claim.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      You haven't refuted anything. Show me where the Theory of Relativity is explained in the bible. Show me where it explains how to make a nuclear weapon. Show me where it explains chemistry, even something as simple as an electron's orbit. Where does it show how to drill for oil and manufacture automobiles or make plastic. Come on.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      And I get so sick of people claiming historical scientists were "christian". Think about it. In a time when that was the IN thing to do, who wouldn't want to suck up to the powers that were by filling whatever profile was necessary to get the funding?

      January 28, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • Believer

      Christians believe that God manipulates nature to serve his purposes. For example as I have stated to you earlier the 10 plagues have been deemed entirely possible, we believe that God had the volcano go off just when he needed to. Then he told Moses what was about to happen, in the order so that he can convince the egyptians to let his people free. Also with your flood example there are plenty of cultures that say there was a world wide flood. Now you can take that two ways, either A they all stole it from each other or B it actually happened and the stories passed on from generation to generation. Now if it was a world wide flood that came without warning how could Noah have had time to quickly build a raft and put his goats and chickens on it. God set the events in motion and told Noah about it. And finally with the Sodom and Gomorrah explanation your right it could have been a volcano or meteorite, but once again God told Abraham it was about to happen to suite his purposes. What Christians believe is that God created the universe, with the natural laws that we are continually discovering, and then uses those laws to suite his purposes.
      O hear is where I found out about the multiple cultures and the flood
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
      heres stuff on the ten plagues
      http://masada1234.blogspot.com/2008/04/archaeological-evidence-for-ten-plagues.html
      and on Sodom and Gomorrah
      http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html

      January 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Believer

      Religion is for dolts, the reason why it does not say every little scientific thing in the world is because that is not what it is meant to do. How would telling you how to make a nuclear weapon help you accept Christ? But there is some in there that has some stuff that has turned out right is mine and Theophilus' point. And also how do you know that that was why Newton and Galileo said they were christian? Newtons two loves in life were the science and the Bible. Those were the two things that he studied the most and he found no contradictions between the two.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Anybody writing about an event AFTER it happened can say whatever they want to as to the cause of said event. And obviously there will be people gullible enough to believe the story later....much later especially. How can you believe what any isolated culture USED TO think "the world" was? We know now that no one knew what the WHOLE WORLD was at that time. The technology did not exist for anyone to know what the whole world was, and this includes NO satellite TV, NO Internet, and even the shipbuilding back then was not good enough to make a ship that could travel around THE WHOLE WORLD. Get off it. Besides the Babylonians had written down a story of "a flood" with "a man who saved animals" 1150 years before the Jews wrote it down, so the Jews are copycats. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn, especially if the Jewish version says that the world was repopulated by Jews and their descendants. Their version of the story has NO CREDIBILITY!

      January 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer:
      "the reason why it does not say every little scientific thing in the world is because that is not what it is meant to do."
      Yet you are trying to claim that the bible IS scientific. Make up your mind.

      "But there is some in there that has some stuff that has turned out right is mine and Theophilus' point"
      So what? Nostradamus got some things right. Mohammed got some things right. The Hopi and Mayan Indians got some things right.

      January 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Believer,

      Newton was heavily into the occult (magic), alchemy, numerology and other bizarre offshoots too:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

      Only those concepts of his which have been verified scientifically are accepted.

      January 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Believer

      Yup only the concepts that have been verified scientifically are accepted, but my point was he had no problem seeing both the science and the supernatural working together. Religiion is for Dolts, sorry for not being clearer. The Bible is a religous book that also happens to have some science stuff in it.
      "the shipbuilding back then was not good enough to make a ship that could travel around THE WHOLE WORLD."
      Your right it wasnt good enough to travel, but that is not what the ark was designed to do. It was designed to float. And just because Babylon wrote the story first does not mean that Israel automatically stole it. Look at the geography, when Moses wrote Genesis Israel were hundreds of miles away from Babylon. I can just as easily say that it actually happened, and both cultures wrote about it at different points. There is no proof that the flood never happened, as you said it is a plausible explanation for how the sea creature fossils got on top of mountains. Also just because the stories are similar does not mean that one stole from the other, it could just be two recordings of actual events. If the earth lasts a couple of thousand years from now it would like finding a British book on the French and Indian war. Then finding one that is written a thousand years later by the Americans. They will not say that the Americans stole the story from the British.

      January 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Believer,
      "he [Newton] had no problem seeing both the science and the supernatural working together."

      And there you are... with his personal, unverified-scientifically opinion.

      You too are free to have that opinion, but that is *all* that it is - opinion.

      January 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: You miss the point. We KNOW that there is NO WAY that those people back then could have KNOWN that any flood (no matter how large) was actually covering the WHOLE WORLD because we KNOW that they (1) thought the world was flat, and (2) didn't even have ships that could traverse the whole of the world's oceans.

      This argument is so cut and dried, you have no argument against it. It's not as if I am merely postulating that "you can't believe this because it was written by ignorant goatherds thousands of years ago." The point is we know enough about the limits of their knowledge back then that they could not have verified that the WHOLE WORLD was covered with water. I merely ask that you consider why they would have thought the "WHOLE WORLD" was covered with water when they had NO WAY to verify it. And you MUST be able to do this without saying that "god" said it or the bible said it (which is not proof).

      In regard to your allegation that I said the world could have been flooded.....yeah, inasmuch as it was a result of slow geological forces that shifted tectonic plates in such a way that current land masses used to be sea floors. That's the "plausible" solution I was proposing and in no way was defending some "great flood" at the behest of a magic man in the sky.

      January 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Believer

      Show me how you know that they did not know. If there was a world wide flood all of the evidence for those cultures before it would have been destroyed. Also I believe that before the flood all of the land was one continent and that the flood started the split. If it was one continent then it is entirely plausible that they could have known it was the whole earth. They would not have had to travel by sea to see it.

      January 28, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • Believer

      If there was foolproof evidence that the flood never occured dont you think that scientists would have immediatly published it? That would be a huge story that would cripple the Judeo-Christian religions.

      January 28, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • Believer

      And Bizarre I know that it was just his opinion. I am just saying that it is possible that scientists can study science and still believe in a god because many scientists have done it.

      January 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Believer

      I see where you would strike next so I would like to withdraw the sentence all of the evidence would have been destroyed. I was not thinking when I said that, and it is not true. However I would still like to see where you get your 100% knowledge of these cultures. Also please feel free to comment on the 1 continent theory.

      January 29, 2012 at 1:00 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      REALLY? Show you proof of what they did not know? Well, if I say they didn't have it written down, you'll just come back with your make-it-up-as-you-go counterargument and say something like "the bible doesn't mention micro-organi-sms but that doesn't prove they weren't included in creation….blah blah….THEY MUST HAVE MEANT….." What IS proof of knowledge then? You have to have a source that is verifiable.

      If they HAD known the world was anything more than just the northern part of Africa, the Middle East and the south-easterly parts of Europe, they would have written about it. Where is mention of Scandinavia, Australia, China, the Americas, Greenland, England? (and yes, I am using the current names, not what they were called THEN).

      If they had known the world was not flat, then it wouldn't have taken over a thousand years for some intrepid Norsemen to sail to the "New World," or still later, Spaniards. The very knowledge of a non-flat (and heliocentric) world would have made the work of Copernicus and Galileo unnecessary....but then they WERE necessary. Why did no one else attempt to circ-umnavigate the globe? They would have had to WRITE IT DOWN but then no one ever did.

      Oh yeah, and to refute that tenuous argument that you and Chad have both used: Just because the Babylonians had Gilgamesh written down 1150 years before the Jewish account of Noah somehow does not disprove the latter’s authenticity…. Well, if that’s your argument, then Islam must be the CORRECT religion to follow since it is just another version of Judeo-Christianity and was written down later. If you talk to any Muslim they’ll tell you that their version is the perfected version of Judeo-Christianity. Or better yet, Mormoni-sm is even truer than Islam because it was written even more recently! If you talk to any Mormon, they’ll tell you that their version is just the perfected version of Judeo-Christianity. You can’t have it both ways. Either the later knock-offs of Judai-sm are more true or at least equally true, or else Noah is indeed a knock-off of a pre-existing folk tale.

      Along the same lines, you should look up Hammurabi’s Code. Notice how it contains similar commandments as the Jewish version and obviously predates the Jewish version in its writing (and once again it was done by Babylonians).

      Scientists believe that the earth’s land masses used to be more or less one (Pangaea). But that is hypothetical and would have been hundreds of millions of years ago based on OBSERVABLE geological forces that have been in action since we began recording history.

      You see where your ridiculous belief in MAGIC GOD just enables you to FILL THE GAP WITHOUT ANY OTHER EXPLANATION EXCEPT THAT “IT WAS GOD”? That’s ludicrous! Any time you need something explained: “IT WAS GOD.” “GOD MADE MAGIC HAPPEN.” “I believe the world’s land ma-sses used to be one continent not more than a few thousand years ago and then suddenly (because I need magic to have occurred for this to work out) HOCUS POCUS the world now consists of 7 continents that are nowhere near where they were before the alleged magic flood that I have to keep believing in or else my faith falls apart….” If you’re going to just keep making it up as you go without evidence then this conversation is over.

      January 29, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Something else you should take the time to learn in your pitiful life is the modern acknowledgement of such diseases as schizophrenia, epilepsy,. etc. Schizophrenics, for example, can HALLUCINATE....visually and aurally. They can see "visions". They can hear voices telling them what to do. When they hear voices they may wish to identify them in any number of ways, as a little girl, as a monkey, as "god" or "satan". Schizophrenics having hallucinations could have easily been the people in charge of controlling a people's view of religious practices and beliefs. Ooooh Moses went into the mountains...ALONE......ALONE, mind you.....and came back saying "god" had told him whatever. SUSPECT already. No corroboration, let alone no video recording that I can play back and watch myself. Anyway, not only can schizophrenia cause hallucinations, but so can naturally occurring drugs, malnutrition and other mental disorders. Speaking of malnutrition, didn't those religious freaks a long time ago like to FAST for long periods of time? Have you ever fasted? I have...for three days once.....and that was just a juice fast. I was still getting nutrition and water and I ended up quite light-headed and felt like I was already seeing things. Imagine what 40 days and nights of no food and no water would have done. "satan" (as if there were such a thing) would have talked to anyone under those conditions. I knew a schizophrenic in college. Of course he had been raised a Christo-Fascist so it was no surprise that when he was having an attack one time, he said that "satan" was talking to him. David Berkowitz (another schizophrenic, also a serial killer) claimed that "god" told him to kill.

      If you are more interested in schizophrenia and its ef-fects, I would urge you to read:
      "Autobiography of a Schizophrenic Girl" by M. A. Sechehaye
      or watch:
      A Beautiful Mind (movie based on the life of John Nash, a Nobel Laureate in Economics)

      Epileptic seizures were probably quite alarming for supersti-tious people of yesteryear, who would have likely attributed them to "demon possession" or some such tripe. Hell, anything that couldn’t be explained was likely caused by some “devil” or by “god” depending on how ever the powers that were (or the authors of literature from that time) wanted it to sound.

      With SO MANY GAPING HOLES in your lousy hypothesis, it is a wonder idiots like you keep clinging to it like it’s FACT!

      January 29, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Nii Croffie

      Every religion including Atheism is for dolts. I wonder how angry, emotionally immature atheists believe sincerely dat dey r making rational arguements. De X'tian God is a person not a force so I wonder why u wud logically like him 2 stop another person's decision. U say u don't want evangelism!

      January 29, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Nii:
      This has already been addressed in this thread.
      I said that I choose "to not be confrontational or obnoxious to others (unless they start it, like Judeo-religious-freaks often do). "
      Given the history of in-you-face, shove-it-down-your-throat, convert-or-die evangelism instigated (and INITIATED) by Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., it is no wonder that a NON-BELIEF counter-movement has erupted. And how else to make one's points known except to vocalize (or type) them? Any action causes an equal and opposite reaction. The law of the universe as we know it.

      January 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Nii Croffie

      This is why I do not exclude atheists from among religious. I am thought to b emotionally mature to my enemies. Love them in fact. Typical religious will justify himself rather than do this. In N Korea, and other Atheist countries atheist evangelism and persecution of other religions is rife!

      January 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Believer

      You ask me to provide sources, yet in that huge rant you just had you only mentioned the one with schizophrenia. Yes I am familiar with psychological diseases, I am a psych major.We do not know without a doubt that these men were schizophreniacs, because no one can diagnose someone thousands of years in the past! And as for not even having a video so you could watch it? What kind of an argument is that? there were no cameras back then! The best they had was writing!
      Well, if I say they didn't have it written down, you'll just come back with your make-it-up-as-you-go counterargument and say something like "the bible doesn't mention micro-organi-sms but that doesn't prove they weren't included in creation….blah blah….THEY MUST HAVE MEANT….." What do you want? the Bibles only purpose is to let us know about God. You want every single detail in the book? You want every scientific fact that has ever been recorded in the Bible? Are you kidding me! There is not a single book anywhere that has every single detail in it, and the Bible does allow for you to add to it. Like the creation of Micro organisms. It says that God created everything in the sea, on land and in the air. That includes microorganisms. And as for making it up as I go along, I am not. I have held these theories for a long time, and bring up the parts of it that you request for.

      You see where your ridiculous belief in MAGIC GOD just enables you to FILL THE GAP WITHOUT ANY OTHER EXPLANATION EXCEPT THAT “IT WAS GOD”? That’s ludicrous! Any time you need something explained: “IT WAS GOD.” “GOD MADE MAGIC HAPPEN.”
      The only time I have done this is for the question of origins, which science still has failed to explain. As I stated earlier the Bible records waters coming out of the deep, which would have set off the continental drift.

      Oh yeah, and to refute that tenuous argument that you and Chad have both used: Just because the Babylonians had Gilgamesh written down 1150 years before the Jewish account of Noah somehow does not disprove the latter’s authenticity…. Well, if that’s your argument, then Islam must be the CORRECT religion to follow since it is just another version of Judeo-Christianity and was written down later. If you talk to any Muslim they’ll tell you that their version is the perfected version of Judeo-Christianity. Or better yet, Mormoni-sm is even truer than Islam because it was written even more recently! If you talk to any Mormon, they’ll tell you that their version is just the perfected version of Judeo-Christianity. You can’t have it both ways. Either the later knock-offs of Judai-sm are more true or at least equally true, or else Noah is indeed a knock-off of a pre-existing folk tale.

      It is entirely different. Firstly the story of Noah and Gilgamesh are extremly similar, whereas the book of the mormons, the koran and the Bible have disagreed on many key points. I am not saying that just because it is the newer one it is the correct one, I am saying that it does not mean that the biblical one is an automatic steal. Also judging by the maps of the ancient middle east the babylonians and Israelites were at least a hundred of miles from each other. When the torah, first five books of the bible, were writting down the Israelites were somewhere between Egypt and latter day Jerusalem. Babylon is so much farther to the east that geographically such an influence for the time period is unlikely.

      With SO MANY GAPING HOLES in your lousy hypothesis, it is a wonder idiots like you keep clinging to it like it’s FACT!
      Thats really funny that you say that because I was about to say the same thing about the Theory of Evolution. It too has many gaping holes in it as we discussed earlier and yet you people cling to it as if its a fact. It can provide no missing links, nor any present day example of mutations. read this article http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
      And as for me not providing evidence that a flood happened here you go
      http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
      So know I have provided sources for my argument, where are yours?

      January 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “no one can diagnose someone thousands of years in the past!”
      Likewise no one can know exactly what the motives were for writing down something so unprovable as “god”. But the fact that virtually every culture in the world has come up with a “god “ or “gods” means that either (1) they are all partially right or (2) they are all absolutely incorrect!

      “ And as for not even having a video so you could watch it? What kind of an argument is that? there were no cameras back then! The best they had was writing!”
      And that is not good enough! Because no one talks to “god” and no one sees “god”. The experiment cannot be reproduced. You need to read this thread from the top (my original post).

      “and the Bible does allow for you to add to it.”
      No it emphatically DOES NOT! If that’s what you think then you need to re-read it!
      Revelation 22:18-19
      18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
      Oh but of course to counter that you’ll just say that only refers to John’s revelation scroll, not the entire bible. All too convenient since all you have to do is invent your own interpretation as you go. Your stupid bible is STATIC! Your religion’s story is FINISHED being written. There is nothing new to add to it because it was all based on superst-itions, all of which superst-itions have been debunked by modern knowledge.

      “Also judging by the maps of the ancient middle east the babylonians and israelites were at least a hundred of miles from each other.”
      OOH 100 miles! That really accounts for a “whole world” alright. Please note that the earth’s circ-umference is closer to 25,000 miles! And as I’ve already said they didn’t have ships seaworthy enough to circ-umnavigate the WHOLE WORLD to verify. OH, just cue the camera from the International Space Station for the god’s eye view!

      When the torah, first five books of the bible, were writting down the Israelites were somewhere between Egypt and latter day Jerusalem. Babylon is so much farther to the east that geographically such an influence for the time period is unlikely.
      It doesn’t matter when it was written down. What matters is where the Israelites were at the time of the alleged deluge and what they thought the “whole world” was! It is much more plausible that they found the SAME fossils we see everywhere today and wanted to make up a story to account for it!

      “present day example of mutations”
      You mean like polydactyls (humans with 12 fingers and 12 toes)? You mean like how bacteria and viruses are constantly adapting to every toxin we can throw at them? MRSA is one recent example, but experiments like these have been done since at least the 60’s or 70’s. (Here a reference for you, which is the same as one I gave in an earlier post: “Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker” oh but you won’t read that since he’s an atheist.) You mean how bed bugs are resistant to DDT? Sounds like evolution to me! And larger scale evolution takes MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LONGER to happen (like MILLIONS of years, not mere thousands like what we have written records of to compare with). And like the previous argument I was having with Chad, the fossil record cannot be expected to be in any complete because of the specific requirements for fossilizing remains. There are other reasons the fossil record could be incomplete, so AGAIN I refer you to The Blind Watchmaker! BUT YOU WON’T READ IT because you want to keep your head buried in your little sand box!

      You want references, you need to go back to college! That’s where the information is (especially since you won’t believe Wikipedia, even though every article I’ve read on Wiki has references and every article I’ve read on Wiki except those that are politically charged are pretty much dead on correct!). But you have to take the right courses to get the info that could change your limited outlook on reality. Psych major won’t likely do it.

      Now as a final point for you to consider, especially since you just keep making things up as you go without any evidence (precisely because your stupid bible is STATIC! UNCHANGING!)….. Since you propose that we can’t know what ancient people knew or didn’t know, then I can make the same kind of ludicrous a-ssertions! How do you know “god” wasn’t just an extra terrestrial (like Q from Star Trek) who came along and wanted to stir up some mischief. Hey, watch this! I’m going to perform some “magic tr-icks” and make these simple minded apes think there is a “god” or something! Heh heh! It’s just as plausible as your unsubstantiated argument for “god”. You can’t see god you can’t talk to or hear from “god”. You can THINK you’re talking to “god” but then I could think I’m talking to E.T. You can pray for something. Then if it happens (or if something like what you prayed for happens) you think there is proof of “god”. What if what you prayed for doesn’t happen? Then, “Oh well god must have been busy. god must have had other plans.” You make it up as you go. Unsubstantiated BS! On the other hand, my argument is more plausible because (as we only very recently have come to know thanks to modern, powerful telescopes), we know that there are countless billions of planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone. There are then countless billions of other galaxies like (and even unlike) the Milky Way all over the Universe. The probability that life exists on any of these countless quadrillions? Quintillions? Se-xtillions? Etc.! of planets is increasing at a staggering rate! It doesn’t matter that we think the speed of light is the limit (even though there is some nascent research suggesting otherwise at CERN). What we think doesn’t matter since I can just keep making it up as I go. E.T. MUST HAVE HAD warp speed to be able to travel here. So the existence of E.T. is more and more likely and therefore has much more basis for having occurred than any “god” for which there is NO EVIDENCE other than retards’ imaginations!

      January 29, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Believer

      And that is not good enough! Because no one talks to “god” and no one sees “god”. The experiment cannot be reproduced.
      Ur right, and neither can the evolutional theory that single celled organisms came into complex oraganisms. It cannot be repeated and therefore fails the scientific method.

      “and the Bible does allow for you to add to it.”
      No it emphatically DOES NOT! If that’s what you think then you need to re-read it!
      Revelation 22:18-19
      18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
      Oh but of course to counter that you’ll just say that only refers to John’s revelation scroll, not the entire bible. All too convenient since all you have to do is invent your own interpretation as you go. Your stupid bible is STATIC! Your religion’s story is FINISHED being written. There is nothing new to add to it because it was all based on superst-itions, all of which superst-itions have been debunked by modern knowledge.

      What I meant by saying that I can add to it is that the Bible states what happens, it never says how. I can use science to explain how God made these events happen.

      “Also judging by the maps of the ancient middle east the babylonians and israelites were at least a hundred of miles from each other.”
      What I meant by this post is that the odds of Israel stealing the story from Babylon decrease, and that is also why it was important to state where the Israelites were at the time of the writing. And as for seeing the same fossils we see today how could they if they were buried and not found until recently?
      Also what I meant with the mutations is that we have never seen mutations cause the creation of new species, yes we see mutations today but they never create new species. I forgot to finish my thought on that point.
      As for me not reading books just because I would disagree with them, that is entirely untrue. I have read those theories I have been to speeches of those scientists, my family used to believe in evolution but we asked questions that it could not answer and found the holes in the argument. Also as I have stated previously I am not making it up as I go. Did you read the articles I suggested?
      Yes you can believe in the theory of the aliens coming down and talking to the humans, but that too fails to address multiple things such as origins.
      Your bedbugs and DDT example is actually not evolution as you claim it to be. It is natural selection which is something I believe in. What happened was that the bedbugs that were resilient to DDT survived and were the only ones who passed on their genes. So all of the offspring became resilient. No new species were created.
      And you are right with fossils needing the right conditions, and that it is far from complete. However I would think that one of the millions of fossils would show some sort of missing link. Evolution might have occured, but it is far from a law and if most scientific theories had this many holes in them they would still be regarded as improbable.
      Once again I suggest you read my articles that I posted above and see that I am in fact providing evidence.

      January 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “Ur right, and neither can the evolutional theory that single celled organi-sms came into complex oragani-sms. It cannot be repeated and therefore fails the scientific method.”
      Because we don’t have hundreds of millions of years of history recorded by humans after science was born in order to make a real-time comparison. Chances are our species will not even be around in another 100 million years to even care.

      “What I meant by saying that I can add to it is that the Bible states what happens, it never says how. I can use science to explain how God made these events happen.”
      The fault in your argument is that you want “god” to have made things happen. Leave “god” out of the equation and see if you can figure out how an ignorant, supersti-tious ancient people would have perceived events happening and you’ll be a lot better off. What if ancient people had had our modern knowledge which would have displaced many if not all of their supersti-tions? Would they have invented “god” then? Probably not. Or at least “god” would be relegated to some unexplainable “creation process” and nothing more.

      “And as for seeing the same fossils we see today how could they if they were buried and not found until recently?”
      Fossils are readily found near river beds (especially ancient river beds that have dried up), anywhere there is a cliff, a geological fault line, etc. I have personally had the opportunity to walk around in an abandoned strip mine, in which I found numerous plant fossils (the kind which are clearly extinct today). This means that just a little digging could reveal fossils anywhere. Aristotle is mentioned in this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Fossils) as having known about fossils and we know fossils do not form “overnight” (which is what you are supposing with your young-earth ideas).

      “yes we see mutations today but they never create new species.”
      And we won’t until we have millions of years of recorded history to prove it. The best we can do is deliberately bury something today in sediment that we expect will form fossils without decomposition. Then wait 10,000 years (which is the estimate given for youngest fossil possible, according to the carbon dating which you refuse to agree with because you refuse to open a science book and learn about WHY people think the method is reliable enough, even WITH a-ssumptions, to disprove a world-view that is only 6000 years old).

      “Yes you can believe in the theory of the aliens coming down and talking to the humans, but that too fails to address multiple things such as origins.”
      Does it? Why would I have to limit my expectations of E.T.’s powers based on Q from Star Trek? Well speaking of Star Trek, why wouldn’t Q have just had a matter replicator too? After all, he had warp speed and I can make this up as I go.

      “Your bedbugs and DDT example is actually not evolution as you claim it to be. It is natural selection which is something I believe in. What happened was that the bedbugs that were resilient to DDT survived and were the only ones who pa-ssed on their genes. So all of the offspring became resilient. No new species were created.”
      You don’t fully understand natural selection then. Read The Blind Watchmaker. Also you might to read Origin of the Species. Natural selection may be a part of it, but it is not the whole story. And natural selection is part of evolution theory. You can’t just take what you want from evolution theory and leave the rest, which is what you are guilty of doing with your bible and what you are guilty of doing here in order to syncretize your outdated religion with modern scientific theories.

      “And you are right with fossils needing the right conditions, and that it is far from complete. However I would think that one of the millions of fossils would show some sort of missing link. Evolution might have occured, but it is far from a law and if most scientific theories had this many holes in them they would still be regarded as improbable.”
      Read Blind Watchmaker. We don’t have to expect to find a “transitional fossil” because a transitional species is not required to remain in its transitional form long enough for an example of it to have been caught in just the right circu-mstances for it to become fossilized. And anyway man is FAR from excavating every square foot of earth to prove the matter one way or another. Besides, that feat is so impractical that it can never be expected to be done.

      January 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Believer

      Since I apparently do not understand natural selection, and do not have a copy of the book can you explain it to me? Because according to your favorite source wikipedia it is stated as, Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. That is pretty much how I described it.

      We don’t have to expect to find a “transitional fossil” because a transitional species is not required to remain in its transitional form long enough for an example of it to have been caught in just the right circu-mstances for it to become fossilized.
      I thought you said it takes millions of years for the transition to happen? If that is the case then the transitional period would have been pretty long.
      Also quick question, I understand that the blind watchmaker says that something as complex as the eye is possible because each organisms eye gradually became better, is that right? We see the different levels of sight with bats and other animals and that is how he describes the eye being formed. However how about the se.x organs? those are pretty complex, and you only have one shot to get them right. Not only do you need one organism to get it right you need another one to get the exact pairing of the reproductive system in order for it to work. On the first try because you dont get any redoes of it, how can you without a reproductive system.
      Earlier you said that I am making stuff up these are your exact words
      you'll just come back with your make-it-up-as-you-go counterargument and say something like "the bible doesn't mention micro-organi-sms but that doesn't prove they weren't included in creation….blah blah….THEY MUST HAVE MEANT….." What IS proof of knowledge then? You have to have a source that is verifiable.
      Lets replace some of these nouns,
      youll just come back with your make it up as you go counterargumment and say something like the fossil record doesnt mention transitional fossils, but that doesnt mean that there werent missing links.
      Also did I hear you right? Evolution is untestable because it took millions of years? First off they can accelerate the generations of fruit flies. Second that fails the scientific method as I stated before. If something is Scientific then it must be testable, we must be able to run repeated experiments in order to proove that it is true. Evolution is not a science, it is extremly close to a religion it requires blind faith that the missing links are there even though we cannot see them, it is above the realms of testing and we do not see it happening today.
      And as for your comment about your alien being able to create the origins, I meant the origins of the universe so if your alien can create the universe that awfully does sound like a god to me.

      January 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “Since I apparently do not understand natural selection, and do not have a copy of the book can you explain it to me?”
      Check it out at your local library. (and read it in its entirety, not just an online summary).

      “I thought you said it takes millions of years for the transition to happen? If that is the case then the transitional period would have been pretty long.”
      It is possible that evolution does not require transition. Read the book. Read other books by other experts (and I mean REAL experts, not just bible thu-mpers whose sole purpose is to refute evolution theory).

      “how about the se.x organs?”
      Se-x was not always required. There are ase-xual organi-sms. There are hermaphrodites. Read the book (and others by other experts).

      Evolution is only a theory, but it’s better to keep asking questions than to just accept a “FILL IN THE GAP,” “ONE GOD FITS ALL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS” pseudo-explanation. Furthermore, evolution (flaws and all) is only one small part of the overwhelming evidence against a “god” having created the universe only 6000 years ago. Go back to university and take some courses in science: paleontology, archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc. History would probably help too.

      “And as for your comment about your alien being able to create the origins, I meant the origins of the universe so if your alien can create the universe that awfully does sound like a god to me.”
      It only sounds like a “god” to you because you are already predisposed to expect a “god” at the end of any explanation….which is a meaningless argument because of the infinite regression….who/what made “god”? SUPERGOD? Who/what made SUPERGOD? Etc. You can’t have something that was always there if I can’t have something that was there before it to cause it to be there.

      By the way, any pertinent comments on the original post? Why would an all-knowing "god" choose fallible man to send an all-important message instead of just putting it somewhere that could be permanent and provable that it was not alterable by meddling, opportunistic man and such that it would need no translation and would not be subject to 1500 years' wait in order to get it to all "corners" of the world?

      January 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Believer

      First Natural Selection, is the definition I posted Natural Selection or not?

      Second Experts. I am not allowed to use bible thumpers in the argument, yet you are allowed to use people, such as Dawkins, whose sole purpose is to destroy religion? As I said before there is no neutral ground on this argument and you must study both. I have studied evolution from evolutionists and that is the theory I have come up with. I plan on reading the book you recommended ASAP.
      Third Your right it wasnt always required, but the things you just mentioned would also have had to develop just right, and then somehow evolve into the se.x organs we have today.
      Fourth, evolution is a theory as you said, but people treat it as a fact and ridicule anyone who does not believe it. Isnt that why you get mad at all religous groups? For believing in a theory and shoving it down peoples throats? Once again it relies on faith that the transitional fossils are there somewhere. It still sounds like a religion to me. As to your stance of things not having to transition? Im sorry but that sounds like you are making stuff up as you go along. As I said I will read the book as soon as possible, but this conversation cannot get anywhere unless you explain what you mean by that and show me some evidence. I do not understand why this did not come up sooner in the conversation of the missing fossils.
      Fifth, Of those things you just mentioned none of them proove or disprove the existence of God. Lets take a look at each one shall we?

      January 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Believer

      A Paleontology, there has been nothing foolproof that prooves the non existance of God, did you research those blood cells in the t rex bone yet? Also it relies on assumptions to get the dates from carbon dating I ignore both sides creationist and evolution as soon as I get a date from carbon dating.
      B. Archealogy, Every time the Bible says that a city is somewhere that we are allowed to dig in, we find a city there with the same rulers of that city that the bible says.
      C. Geology, study of rocks see paleontology. earthquakes and other stuff do not disprove God.
      D. Astronomy and Cosmology both show that the universe had beginning and how hard it would be for all of this to be just by pure chance.
      E. Physics once again does not prove or disprove God, although can I just say that Creationists love it to disprove evolution?
      http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/
      According to Biology things are became more complex, while in Physics says things become more chaotic. Seems like a contradiction.
      F. History see archealogy

      January 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      "I ignore both sides creationist and evolution as soon as I get a date from carbon dating."
      There is your problem. You bury your head in the sand and do not bother reading anything more on the subject which might lead you to a better understanding of the negligible margin for error in relation to the estimated age of the dated object.

      "Archealogy, Every time the Bible says that a city is somewhere that we are allowed to dig in, we find a city there with the same rulers of that city that the bible says."
      So what? The same applies to ancient Greek tales.

      "Geology, study of rocks see paleontology. earthquakes and other stuff do not disprove God."
      But they do prove the natural forces that actually DO exist and an understanding of the extremely slow time scale by which such things must happen (unless you want to attribute everything to a MAGIC GOD).

      "D. Astronomy and Cosmology both show that the universe had beginning and how hard it would be for all of this to be just by pure chance."
      But just because things ARE the way we FIND THEM does not mean that they were created with PURPOSE (relying on a MAGIC GOD to have been there all along).

      Evolution: "it relies on faith that the transitional fossils are there somewhere"
      No it doesn't. Read Dawkins. Evolution is just a theory. Of course QUESTIONS are made up as we go along, because asking questions is required to get to the bottom of things instead of just accepting an ancient supersti-tion and burying our heads in the sand.

      January 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Believer

      Sixth, the only reason why your alien does not sound like a God is because you do not believe in a God, once again there is no such thin as unbias. Also as I have stated before based on the dictionarys version of God, if there is one, says that he is all powerful and all seeing. Now if he was not always there he couldnt have been either of these things now can he? The very definition of God suggests he was always there.
      Lastly why would he use fallible man to show his works? Because he wanted us to love him and believe in him because we want to. If he just writes it in the sky, we all become his puppets, which he does not want us to be. And if we were infallible once again we lose our free will. Also the way that God worked, please do not say he diddnt because hes not there argument this is the way we have explained it, is that he guided the writers what to say and then he had the book chosers in rome choose the books that he wanted in there. Like I said before as soon as somebody finds something that is in complete contradiction to the Bible the whole Judeo Christian religion collapses because then the word is not God inspired. As of yet there has been no true contradictory evidence in any of the fields you just mentioned.

      January 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Believer

      Religion is for dolts are you serious? You asked me if those fields of study prove the nonexistence of God, and I showed you they are not. I have already told you why I do not believe that Carbon Dating is reliable, because it relies on assumptions. You blame me for not asking questions? I have and I am asking questions, just not the ones you agree with. That does not mean I am burying my head in the sand and saying LALALA as you suggest. I have told you I went to a public school, I have studied evolution I asked questions and I believe it is false. I asked questions about the dating methods and realized that they are no longer trustworthy. I ask questions about religion, and continually ask questions and I find that there has not been any scientific, or archealogical discovery contradictory to the Bible. Also as you say Science asks questions and adds what they find out to further improve it. Why cannot Christians do this to further improve our understanding of it? As soon as we do you say that we are twisting words, when we are not. We are just able to see the Bible, and God in a new light.

      January 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      "I have stated before based on the dictionarys version of God, if there is one, says that he is all powerful and all seeing. Now if he was not always there he couldnt have been either of these things now can he? The very definition of God suggests he was always there."
      You are basing your judgment on a man-made dictionary so the argument is null and void.

      "Lastly why would he use fallible man to show his works? Because he wanted us to love him and believe in him because we want to. If he just writes it in the sky, we all become his puppets, which he does not want us to be. And if we were infallible once again we lose our free will. Also the way that God worked, please do not say he diddnt because hes not there argument this is the way we have explained it, is that he guided the writers what to say and then he had the book chosers in rome choose the books that he wanted in there. Like I said before as soon as somebody finds something that is in complete contradiction to the Bible the whole Judeo Christian religion collapses because then the word is not God inspired. As of yet there has been no true contradictory evidence in any of the fields you just mentioned."
      You ignored my pre-emptive negation of this fully expected counter-argument (the paragraph ending in S T F U). And you are so enraged right now that you are mixing subsequent discussions about science with the original post, which has nothing to do with science. Anyone saying that an invisible man told him what to write is unverifiable and does not meet the criteria necessary for valid evidence, so there is no point in even arguing about what the ancient people wrote since the invisible man cannot be found anywhere to repeat the message.

      January 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: Yes you do clam up. When you find a single flaw...ANY flaw....no matter how insignificant, you close out the rest and stamp it "unreliable." You don't even bother to ask how much any given flaw affects the results. You just ignore it all as "garbage" because it is not 100% perfect. Carbon dating is reliable ENOUGH to prove that stupid 6,000-year-old earth ideas are ridiculous. Fossils don't form overnight, which is practically what your "flood theory" requires. Pangaea did not just happen to break apart so violently over the course of a thousand years (or whatever date you would like to attribute to your alleged flood, as it has to have happened within the last 6,000 years) such that the present day continents are where they are. That's utterly absurd!

      January 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Believer

      Alrite try this, if he did write it in the sky we wouldnt be debating his existance. However we would be rebelling against him. We would be angry that there is a man in the sky who is not here and does not understand us gets to make all of the rules. Even if he wrote in the sky people would not love him, they would hate him.
      Also as I have said if you take out the hocus pocus stuff as you call it, as I said before I do not believe that he used hocus pocus I believed he use natural means to fullfill his goals, there is nothing scientifically or historically proven wrong about the Bible. That right there ads creedence to the authors of the bible. As I said before if they can prove anything that directly contradicts the historical or the scientific parts of the bible then I would know without a doubt that the resurrection could never have happened. Funny thing is that there has been no proof that that never happened either. We just say it could never have happened.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Believer

      Proove to me that that could not have happened. Just because it is hard to believe does not mean that it did not happen. It is hard to believe that the universe is constantly expanding but we believe that that is true. Also fossils need to be buried quickly in order to form or else the body decays, which is what the flood says. And as for me rejecting a whole theory just because of a small percanage error? Who came up with that error? The same people who came up with the dating? Carbon dating relies on us knowing how many carbon molecules were there in the first place, that everything was a closed system and that the decay rate was constant. You accuse me of putting my head in the sand and ignoring acutal facts? I used to believe in millions of years, I asked questions and I no longer do. Thats my story, I have read both sides of the issue and have decided that the creationist issue makes more sense. Do not accuse me of not searching the other side, because I have, I grew up with it.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “However we would be rebelling against him. We would be angry that there is a man in the sky who is not here and does not understand us gets to make all of the rules. Even if he wrote in the sky people would not love him, they would hate him.”
      But at least the confusion about his/her/its existence would not be a problem, which is so much better than the system we are left with using the written (and oral) records of “god(s)” such as they are. This way though, all-knowing “god” gets to endure more hate because of this irresponsible oversight. Not a good plan.

      “there is nothing scientifically or historically proven wrong about the Bible. That right there ads creedence to the authors of the bible. “
      But then there is not a whole lot of history and even less that could be remotely called “science” in the bible to disprove.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “It is hard to believe that the universe is constantly expanding but we believe that that is true.”
      Not really hard to believe when you know about red shift.

      “Who came up with that error? The same people who came up with the dating?”
      The same people who want a real answer. These people not only include atheists but also people of all faiths. It is not a conspiracy.

      “Carbon dating relies on us knowing how many carbon molecules were there in the first place, that everything was a closed system and that the decay rate was constant. You accuse me of putting my head in the sand and ignoring acutal facts? I used to believe in millions of years, I asked questions and I no longer do. Thats my story, I have read both sides of the issue and have decided that the creationist issue makes more sense. Do not accuse me of not searching the other side, because I have, I grew up with it.”
      In a 6000-year-old earth “theory” you have to a-ssume that fossils form practically overnight (like in a thousand years or something). Have we dug up billions of fossils from all the bodies of people that were deliberately buried by their loved ones? They would all be right at the top. But no, we don’t find any such thing.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Believer

      Then you have not fully read the Bible. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, the spread of the church, Pontius Pilate, Ceaser Augustus, The Pharaohs, King Nebuchednezzer. This is just a small sample size of the history that has never been proven wrong. As for Science read Theophilus 7's posts about the Bible and Science in the Bible misconceptions page, you will find it interesting.
      And as for your system being better? The Bible says he tried that with Adam and Eve. It diddnt work, there was a 100% rebellion there. We are human, and therefore rebellious. As soon as something is forced upon us we automatically dont like it, and he would have lost so many more people than he has.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Believer

      The fact that the universe is expanding was so hard to believe that Einstein at first rejected it.
      As for the people who made up the error percantage, they were the ones who make all the assumptions in the first place! no one knows how far off those assumptions could be, the error percentage is also an assumption. And yes plenty of people have believed in God, and Evolution, but these same people fall in the assuming group.
      And no we do not find all of the bodies of the loved ones, because they decayed! Fossils must be formed quickly or else the body will decay.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “Pontius Pilate, Ceaser Augustus, The Pharaohs, King Nebuchednezzer.”
      Other cultures have written records of these historic personages. So what?
      And why would anyone doubt whether Abraham, Noah, Jesus, etc. actually existed in the annals of Jewish history. What has to be proven is that Noah and Jesus (for just 2 magical examples) were actually participants in some “magic trick” that defies the laws of physics which we have no reason to expect behaved differently thousands of years ago than they do today.

      “And as for your system being better? The Bible says he tried that with Adam and Eve. It diddnt work, there was a 100% rebellion there. We are human, and therefore rebellious. As soon as something is forced upon us we automatically dont like it, and he would have lost so many more people than he has.”
      Really? The “Adam and Eve” story now has a permanent written message in the sky? I missed that part. Circular logic will get you nowhere in an argument.

      "And no we do not find all of the bodies of the loved ones, because they decayed! Fossils must be formed quickly or else the body will decay."
      But surely with your fantasy you must allow that with countless billions of bodies that have existed before us, which would have been buried all over the globe, some of them would have been done quickly enough AND in just the right kind of sediment in order to form a magic 1,000-year-old fossil.

      January 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer you have given me hours of enjoyment! But now I must retire to do something else.

      January 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • Believer

      My historical point is that until they can show that something is wrong with the Bible, it is true. If the Bible wasnt wrong about the proovable stuff how are they automatically wrong with the stuff you cant proove or disproove.
      and no God didnt have a sign in the sky in with Adam and Eve. The bible says that he walked and talked with them.

      But surely with your fantasy you must allow that with countless billions of bodies that have existed before us, which would have been buried all over the globe, some of them would have been done quickly enough AND in just the right kind of sediment in order to form a magic 1,000-year-old fossil.
      Yup and we do, as you said we find fossils on the surface all the time next to lakes, Also heres some evidence, from a secular source, with the Roman City of Pompeii. Which was fossilized in the last 2000 years, http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/pompeii/history.html

      January 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      You mention Pompeii because you found an article with the word "fossilized" on the front page?

      "For over 200 years now, we have been able to revisit the same moment in Pompeii's history, the moment it was fossilized as an archaeological site"

      HA! HA! HA!

      January 29, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Really, now I have to quit. I would like to read my H P Lovecraft.
      Good evening to you, Believer.

      January 29, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • Believer

      Good evening to you, also when you get back I knew about Pompeii before, I just needed to find an article quickly to give to you, and how does what you say make it less true?

      January 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: You're not too bright if you can't figure out that the statement I quoted above from your web link is merely using the word "fossilized" in the figurative sense to talk about the status of the *archaeological site* and in no way insinuates that fossils were found at the site. I see no other web sites that even use the word fossil in conjunction with Pompeii. It appears to me that any "in situ" remains are merely plaster casts created after the excavation efforts revealed empty spaces where human bodies used to be.

      Anyway, the burden of proof is on you. Read carefully before you post.

      January 30, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • Believer

      Read this article about archealogy. It says that they study fossils of humans, which as you agree could only be thousands of years old. Also type in google how long it takes to make fossils. All they say is it takes a long time. How long? It cant be experimented as you say beecause we only live to be about hundred which is not long enough. Alright Ill admit my Pompeii example was rushed and not researched, however I believe that the earth is about 10-6 thousand years old. The fossils that we have found could have formed in the first 4000 and still have years to form based on the definition of a long time. And dont say we know they are not that old because of carbon dating because it relies on assumptions, and the percent error you keep talking about also relies on assumptions by the same people.

      January 30, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • Believer

      oops forgot to give you the article
      http://history-world.org/archeology.htm

      January 30, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer (with head buried in sand):
      I am not getting paid to teach you about radiocarbon dating, but if you care to look at Wikipedia (and any number of other sources, which I know you won't bother researching because you don't want to find answers, you just want to keep believing in your outdated fairy tale), here is a quote from Wiki:
      "[Willard] Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC"

      Even ignoring the fact that radiocarbon dating can accurately estimate the ages of fossils that are a mere 10,000 years old (instead of the nearly 3000 years old that a proven specimen of known age was estimated)....even ignoring this.....

      Even ignoring your ridiculous idea about how the earth's land masses were a sort of "Pangaea" only a mere 6000 years ago (instead of the scientific theories that place Pangaea at 100's of millions of years ago), and that they (according to your ridiculous idea) suddenly and violently separated from each other to instantaneously and magically become located where they are today.....even ignoring this.....

      You still fail to explain how any ancient Israeli could have built a boat (with the limited boat building skills that we both acknowledge they had back then), and could have VERIFIED that the "WHOLE WORLD" was covered with water. You cannot use a biblical reference that "god" told them it was as evidence. We know they could not have independently verified that the WHOLE WORLD was covered with water, so your stupid idea fails miserably.

      January 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      The lack of responses might be due to the sloppy reasoning.

      "If this "god" were so powerful, then "god" wouldn't have relied on MAN to deliver "his" message."

      Why?

      January 30, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      "covered the face of the whole earth" is also used of a local Egyptian plague. Exo 10:15

      Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ALL THE WORLD should be taxed.

      Clearly speaking of all the world under Caesar's control.

      Yes, you have a lot to learn, dolt.

      Nowhere does Genesis 2 claim to be re-telling the story of the Sixth Day.

      Gen 1:25-27.

      Gen 2:5

      Gen 2:7-9, 15-17, 18-19.

      P: the first humans Gen 1:25-27.

      Q: foragers

      R: tillers of the ground (agriculture Gen 4:2-3 "the fruit of the ground")

      ~R: NOT tillers of the ground Gen 2:5.

      IF the “men and women” “created” on the Sixth Day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q), OR they were tillers of the ground (R). Gen 1:25-27.

      “and there was NOT a man to till the ground.” (~R). Gen 2:5.

      THEREFORE, IF the “men and women” “created” on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q).

      (P -> Q) v (P -> R) : P -> (Q ^ R)

      ~R

      ├ P -> Q

      VALID REASONING.

      ARCHEOLOGICALLY & ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SOUND.

      January 30, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      The naysayers are finished on this site

      January 30, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Philip Evans: Meaningless drivel in the guise of "intelligent" symbols. Doesn't explain SH|+ on its own, and is impertinent to the original post. Go away, dolt!

      January 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Phillip Evans: What? No dinosaurs (D)? No Neanderthals (N)? Pithecanthropus erectus?

      January 30, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @ReligionIs4Dolts: Allow me to draw you a parallel that explains Phillip's reasoning:

      "I was sheltered by Napoleon during his exile on Elba. I followed him back to France after his escape and served as a member of his 5th Regiment during the Hundred Days. Following his ultimate defeat at Waterloo, I was unable to hide any longer; I boarded my faster-than-light craft and flew back to my home in the Andromeda galaxy."

      Since all the Napoleon stuff is internally consistent, then there must have been an alien from the Andromeda galaxy serving in his 5th regiment.

      Naysayer. 😛

      January 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Believer

      Hey Evans Im back, maybe the reason I diddnt post is because I was busy doing something else.
      Once again Religion is 4 dolts I have read the articles you have recommended to me, so stop saying I havent.
      Evans I dont know what translation you have for either of those verses about the whole earth, because in mine Exodus says the whole country, whereas Luke says the whole Roman Empire.
      And as for your Genesis thing before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden they were foragers, afterwards they were tillers of the ground not that hard to explain.
      Religion is for dolts, I have been thinking about the Pompeii example. One type of fossil is the imprint fossil. They can fill in the imprints with plaster which is what happened in Pompeii. So there were fossils there, just not the type that either of us were thinking about.
      Read this article on Carbon Dating, it has the Egyptian Ship in it just like yours does. O and it cites references too.
      http://history-world.org/archeology.htm

      January 30, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer:
      "They can fill in the imprints with plaster which is what happened in Pompeii. So there were fossils there, just not the type that either of us were thinking about."
      \
      Irrelevant as usual. Empty spaces filled with plaster are not fossils, and even if in your fantastic imagination you are going to call them fossils anyway, the (real) fossils we were talking about before you grasped at that straw (Pompeii) are not plaster casts or empty cavities.

      January 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Here's a thought for all you Yay-sayers: You require a "god" to have always been there in order to create the Universe. You don't have to explain how this "god" came into existence. "He" was just always there. Well, since the Universe is currently expanding (based on our ability to observe the red shift in distant galaxies as they are moving away from us), it is plausible that it may have to collapse at some point. What if when it collapses to an infinitesimal volume with infinite mass, it reverses the process and effects another Big Bang? What if we are in an infinite loop of such expansions/contractions? If the Universe has always been in a cycle of expansion/contraction, why would there be a "god" necessary to even start the process off? If your "god" can just always have been there, then so can the Universe. No "god" necessary. Things just are the way they are. No matter how they could have been, any ignorant ape creature waking up and finding himself in such an environment would have to marvel at its complexity. Yet it does not require a "designer". It could have been anything and idiots like you would be foaming at the mouth over how utterly unbelievably complex it was and would have to keep filling the gaps of everything you couldn't explain with your magic "god".

      January 30, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: Here’s a point about astronomy/cosmology that I did not bring up. What retarded refutation will you concoct regarding how we can observe celestial bodies anywhere from 8 light minutes away (our sun) all the way up to 13+ billion light years away (and everything in between)? That’s all just made up, huh? Just an atheist conspiracy to disprove a retarded 6,000 year old creation fable? Why would your ridiculous magic “god” have created a Universe 13+ billion years ago, then at the last second create an irrelevant speck of dirt called earth? That’s a terrible waste of time and space! Once again a ridiculous, irresponsible “god” cannot be accounted for.

      January 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Obviously there are celestial bodies closer than the sun, but I am referring to stars since they are the more readily detectable of celestial bodies.

      January 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Believer

      I was not clear, it was not the plaster that was the fossil rather it was the imprint. We accept imprint fossils all the time.
      I do not pretend to be an expert with the celestial bodies. You would be much better off asking other experts. However there are some theories out there. One for instance is that according to Einsteins theory of relativity, gravity affects time. Therefore time is not the same in space as it is in earth. It is a theory just like evolution and scientists are still looking into it.
      Yes you can take the leap of faith and think that the universe keeps on creating itself when it collapses upon itself. It is a theory and if you want to take the leap of faith and say thats what happened I wont stop you.

      January 30, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      I never said Adam and Eve were forages.

      I say that the Sixth Day creation were foragers IF they were the first humans.

      Don't confuse the Sixth Day creartin with the FORMING of Eth Ha Adam in Chapter 2.

      Dolt, if you don't understand symbolic logic just say so. Just say, "I can't refute you logically."

      January 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Believer

      Ur right they were foragers, however if you read the text carefully in Genesis 1 and 2 you will see that God created man on the 6th day. Chapter 2 is zooming in to see how he actually created Adam and Eve differently than the rest of the animals. It never says he did it on a different day.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      "Chapter 2 is zooming in to see how he actually created Adam and Eve differently than the rest of the animals."

      Where does Chapter 2 declare this?

      January 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Believer

      It is implied, Chapter 1 says he created them on the 6th day, chapter 2 says how he does it.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      Then respectfully, I disagree.

      There are too many differences between the two chapters to make that conclusion logically.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Phillip Evans

      FOR DOLT:

      "Just an atheist conspiracy to disprove a retarded 6,000 year old creation fable?"

      If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then L-O-G-I-C-A-L-L-Y CONCLUDE that Eth ha Adam was formed IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Seventh Day...

      OR...

      If you believe that Genesis chapter 2 is re-telling the story of the Sixth Day, demonstrate that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS between the two accounts... GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

      January 30, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: "We accept imprint fossils all the time."

      Who are "we"? I am not included in that. None of the fossils that I have personally found (such as in the strip mine I mentioned above) have been imprint fossils. You are really grasping at straws here. If it does take 10,000 years for a fossil to form, then gee, what would it look like in 1,700 years (Pompeii) after only having been partially fossilized? You would count it anyway even if it had only been 20% transformed into a completely transformed fossil! Give it up!

      Phillip: Your argument makes no difference, regardless of what logic symbols you use. Referencing an ancient text written at a time when people were superst-itious about everything they couldn't explain - and they couldn't explain much of anything since they didn't have any kind of knowledge comparable to what we have today - is circular logic and cannot be entered into evidence. If they did have knowledge comparable to what we have today, then produce the written records to prove it. O/W S T F U!
      And B T W I have a degree in computer engineering, which enti-tles me to a math minor, which means I did take discrete mathematics. I am familiar with your symbols, just no need to refute what is irrelevant.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Believer

      I have read both accounts and can find none, can you show me? Genesis 1:27 says God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them. male and female he created them. Genesis 2 shows how he created Adam out of the dust, and then Eve out of Adams rib. I do not see any contradiction there.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      We Jews made up "god" and we're also saying that the "god" we made up created everything the way we say that the "god" we made up allegedly told us that "he" created everything. No one but we Jews believe this and it cannot be corroborated by any independent source. Circular logic. Does not apply.

      January 30, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Believer

      This is the imprint fossils I am talking about
      http://www.ehow.com/facts_5155010_imprint-fossil.html

      January 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: Congratulations! Imprint fossils contain NO carbon material and consist of imprints left behind by feces, footprints, tracks...none of which are the types of fossils we have discussed previously (my strip mine, Cave of the Winds in Colo Spgs, etc.).

      January 30, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Believer

      My only point with that was that there are fossils in Pompeii, no not the ones we talked about, but they are there. Also I cant believe that you have never heard of Imprint fossils before.

      January 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Believer

      My only point with that was that there are fossils in Pompeii, no not the ones we talked about, but they are there. I have found Dawkins book, at what point does he talk about evolution not needing transition?

      January 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer, the burden of proof is yours, not mine. And your outlandish hypothesis that the "great flood" is somehow validated by the fossils that we can readily find all over the earth's surface requires that those fossils NOT be imprint fossils. Since you are trying to equate, say, a fossilized dinosaur bone or a tree trunk with the mere imprint of a fish tail in rock, you are trying to conclude incorrectly that these types of fossils require the same amount of time to form, which is not proven with your reference about imprint fossils. By the way, I took samples home from the strip mine (3-dimensional, cylindrical plant stalks, not just fern imprints in rocks).

      January 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
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.