By Arielle Hawkins, CNN
Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.
From the Blog:
CNN: Rick Warren cancels presidential forum; mixed explanations as to why
High-profile pastor Rick Warren has called off plans for a presidential forum that he said was scheduled to include both major party candidates, but there are conflicting accounts about why the event was canceled. Warren told the Orange County Register that he was nixing his "civil forum" because of the toxic political climate.
CNN: Conservative Christians rally around Akin in face of GOP criticism
Even as the official Republican Party continues to try to derail Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin over his remarks about “legitimate rape,” a powerful force within the GOP has begun rallying to the candidate’s side: the party’s socially conservative base. Powerful Christian activists in the GOP have begun pushing back against party leadership, alleging it has gone too far in trying to thwart Akin and that it is attempting to sideline issues that social conservatives care about, such as abortion.
CNN: Cardinal Dolan to offer closing prayer at Republican Convention
Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, America’s highest-profile Catholic official, will deliver the closing prayer at next week’s Republican convention, in another sign of how important the Catholic vote is expected to be this year. Dolan is the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church’s U.S. arm, and has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s rule requiring insurance companies to grant employees no-cost contraception coverage.
Tweet of the Day:
[tweet https://twitter.com/JoelOsteen/status/238786924452642816%5D
Belief on TV:
Enlightening Reads:
Huffington Post: Joe Walsh Meeting With Muslims In Illinois After 'Radical Islam' Remarks
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) is no stranger to controversy, but in the wake of his recent comments about radical Muslims “trying to kill Americans every week,” members of the Muslim community in Illinois are hoping to show the congressman they are just as American as he is. According to the individuals leading the effort, Walsh, who represents Illinois’ 8th congressional district, has agreed to meet with members of the local Muslim community on Friday.
Religion News Service: Romney says tax returns would publicize private Mormon tithing
Mitt Romney says in a new interview that one of the reasons he’s distressed about disclosing his tax returns is that everyone sees how much money he and his wife, Ann, have donated to his Mormon church, and that’s a number he wants to keep private.
JTA: RJC, ECI demand removal of ‘radical’ rabbi from Obama list
Two conservative groups called on the Obama campaign to sever ties with a "radical" on its newly-released list of more than 600 rabbis who support the president's reelection. The campaign rejected the demand. The Republican Jewish Coalition on Thursday “expressed profound outrage” that Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, a Renewal rabbi from California that the RJC described as a "radical rabbi", is part of Rabbis for Obama, which was launched Tuesday. Gottlieb sits on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that is active in the campaign to use boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank, and that has no official position on whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state.
New York Times: Preserving the Passion of India’s Roots Music
Lakha Khan sat on the floor of a stone hut, legs crossed and white turban in place. There he coaxed a bright, high-pitched, dizzyingly fast melody from his violinlike sarangi. Mr. Khan, 66, is one of the few remaining Sindhi sarangi players among the Manganiyars, a caste of hereditary Muslim musicians who live in this desert state of Rajasthan. He usually plays for hours with no more company than a couple of passing goats, but Ashutosh Sharma and Ankur Malhotra are working to preserve the music of the Manganiyars, whose songs — devotionals as well as stories of births, deaths and love, often about the Hindu families that are their patrons — have no written record.
Quote of the Day:
I am making it very clear that the interest of religious freedom is something I support wholeheartedly and will work with him [Cardinal Dolan] and with others to assure that each piece of legislation that we consider is thought also in terms of its impact on religious freedom and tolerance. This is a nation where our first freedom is the right to worship God as we choose, and any effort on the part of the federal government to intrude on religious liberty and to reject tolerance in favor of a government mandate is a violation of that first freedom.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney discusses religious freedom with Raymond Arroyo in an exclusive interview on the EWTN show “The World Over.”
Join the conversation…
CNN: Anti-abortion movement stands by 'no exceptions' orthodoxy amid controversy
Both Todd Akin’s claim that women’s bodies can prevent contraception in cases of “legitimate rape” and the GOP’s newly-adopted platform language calling for a constitutional ban on abortion have provoked controversy for largely the same reason: They showcase the belief that all abortions should be illegal, without exception.
Yesterday morning, "Heaven Sent" posted thisTruthPrevailsNOT, I'm so tired of you twisting and contorting the truth in the Bible. All the races were created on the 6th day, Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day. If all the races were created on the 6th day, were is the incest that you want to insert with your own untruth. I gave you that site to read it for yourself, so you have no excuse to stay the ignoramus."
If all the races were created on the 6th day, and Adam & Eve were on the 8th day, just WHAT were these other races supposed to be? What species? They couldn't be human, because the big book of fairy tales says that Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans. How can you have humans on the 6th day, when the first two didn't come around until the 8th day?
Heaven Sent ... care to spin your little book to answer this? Hey, I used YOUR own words, now you need to defend what you said. Let's hear it.
Mirosal, it's not my problem that you are a moron. All the races were created on the 6th day and God said it was good. Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day to bring forth ... generation after generation Jesus Christ.
Oh, what's the matter Mirosal, you folks can't run around and claim that we worship incest? You will continue anyway, no matter how much a Christian tells you truth which is opposite of your LIES.
Right away your book is in contradiction. Your "god" said let us make man AND women in OUR image (does that mean god wasn't working alone?) on the 6th day, but on the 8th day, it says he formed man from the ground and Eve came later.. so which IS it... were they created at the same time on day 6 or was it day 8? You'd better re-read your little book
And if you've EVER studied Gregor Mendel's work, you'd understand WHY no species could have survived for more than a few generations at the most from Noah's ark.. humans included. But, that's legitimate science, and you'd be too scared to walk into THAT classroom. You'd be afraid to learn something that your priests don't want you to learn about.
Mirosal, learn whom you follow:
Matthew 23:1-39
Revelation 3:9
Everything came out of nothing, and everyhting will go back to nothing.
So, maybe God is nothing.
Actually, it's man (meaning women too) that is nothing until we love and follow Jesus' truth.
You miss the whole point HS.
I am not talking about meaninglessness, I talk about nothingness.
Now since you bring it up,
Why does God exist? And why are we here?
Simran, read John 1.
Man is here on earth because this life is our 2nd chance from God. God destroyed the first earth age due to 1/3 of His angels following Lucifer's lies to rebel against God.
Prayer changes things*
Then pray for some imagination
Veritas, taking the Romans' meaning of truth doesn't make you spiritually alive. Only, JESUS can do this.
Even Jesus so poignantly expeienced in the Gospel of Mark, people who "did not hear" and respnded in anger....
For example, The Chad could easily slide through a loophole in which "sockpuppet" doesn't mean what we think it means.
testing 1 2 3 trans
trans-muted
Oh it's sm-ut!
Stupid frikking filter
smut
smut
smut
smut
smutty
smut
I feel for you, man.
That's a sneaky one.
@ME II,
thanks! It took something like 30 minutes for me to figure it out. I had checked every word fragment on my list twice.
I even think I saw it on a list once – but several lists exist and they are not comprehensive. LinCa might have it on his.
When are the debates?
I have Asperger's but will you all help me get through high school biology?
I think I've got physics and bible studies covered. I've got a solid C in one of them anyway.
What is your problem?
The cause of ASD is not known. Current research points to brain abnormalities in Asperger syndrome. Using advanced brain imaging techniques, scientists have revealed structural and functional differences in specific regions of the brains of children who have Asperger syndrome versus those who do not have the disorder. These differences may be caused by the abnormal migration of embryonic cells during fetal development that affects brain structure and “wiring” in early childhood and then goes on to affect the neural circuits that control thought and behavior.
For example, one study found a reduction of brain activity in the frontal lobe of children with Asperger syndrome when they were asked to respond to tasks that required them to use their judgment. Another study found differences in activity when children were asked to respond to facial expressions. A different study investigating brain function in adults with AS revealed abnormal levels of specific proteins that correlate with obsessive and repetitive behaviors.
Scientists have long suspected that there are genetic and environmental components to Asperger syndrome and the other ASDs because of their tendency to run in families and their high concordance in twins. Additional evidence for the link between inherited genetic mutations and AS was observed in the higher incidence of family members who have behavioral symptoms similar to AS but in a more limited form, including slight difficulties with social interaction, language, or reading.
A specific gene for Asperger syndrome, however, has never been identified. Instead, the most recent research indicates that there are most likely a common group of genes whose variations or deletions make an individual vulnerable to developing ASD. This combination of genetic variations or deletions, in combination with yet unidentified environmental insults, will determine the severity and symptoms for each individual with Asperger syndrome.
Current studies are showing a link between abnormal intestinal microflora and autism spectrum disorders.
It's fascinating stuff and hints that some symptoms can be significantly improved by changes in diet.
In 2005, Anne McCartney, a microbiologist and senior research fellow at the University of Reading in the U.K., found that children with autism have higher-than-normal concentrations of Clostridium bacteria, a microbial group that can produce neurotoxins.
researchers set out to determine whether gut microbes can shape brain development. They examined two sets of mice: one group has a normal stew of the microbes, whereas the other has squeaky-clean guts devoid of bacteria.
Comparing the behavior of these two groups, the researchers found that the bacteria-free rodents are more hyperactive and more likely to take risks than those with microbes. The sterile mice also show abnormalities in the expression of dozens of genes and in the way they process several neurotransmitters — including noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.
I see someone is pretending to be me. What sort of little kid gets his jollies from stealing other people's usernames? w-t-f?
Chad, my buddy Thinker22 disappeared on me, so I'll pose this question to you.
Is God nothing?
The empty set? Thoughts Chad?
I think that the only things you can expect Chad to be able to do would be on the level of asking him if he thought his god helped him brush his teeth today. Anything more complicated than that and you are wasting your time.
I'm sorry for "dosappearing" on you but there is life in this world besides this discussion. To answer your question I have no reasons to believe that God is "nothing".
@Thinker
Then what sort of matter or energy is god made of?
Hey Thinker, I meant no disrespect. To the point of the question. Given that answer I think we could agree that "the absence of matter, space and time" is a poor definition of the word nothing. And in that case, neither of us think there was "nothing" before the Big Bang.
Huebert,
I believe someone may just say dark energy.
@Lunchbraker
"I think we could agree that "the absence of matter, space and time" is a poor definition of the word nothing."
Really? What would be a better definition for the word nothing?
I thought of this old paper for Chad (fanning the flames): http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9603008v1.pdf on information and the universe. Interesting to fevered minds in the context of the opening of John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "
@Simran
Dark energy would be an acceptable answer.
Huebert- " What would be a better definition for the word nothing?"
The empty set or "that which can be described by the empty set". No members, no operations. I brought up somewhere that some philosophers think that such a definition admits a plurality of "nothings". Thoughts?
Huebert, the problem with the defenition I mention (not webster's BTW), is that it assumes matter, time and space are the only "things" in existance. Now if we could just define "thing". 😉
@The other one
I like the idea of a plurality of nothings, after all their is an infinite number of infinities, so why not have more than one nothing. We can have a physical nothing, no matter, energy, or dimensions, and a philosophical nothing, the empty set. I'm sure you can come up with others, but ultimately I'm a fan of the concept.
Huebert,
Yes, that is what I have heard many physicists also say. But then I just wonder how it would fit with the concept of God as laid by most religions.
@lunchbraker
I would say that a thing is anything* that can interact with or be described to or by an observer.
* (I don't want to use that word but my vocabulary is failing me)
lunchbreaker
Thing is a viking word that basically means a gathering of the clans...Don't know how that relates to your arguement
I'm not sold on the idea that "things" recquire an observer? But, as an observer, I can't much disprove that.
Well, THING here might refer to all "matter, radiation, and energy", while nothing would refer to quantum vacuum
I understand the focus on things, but there is more that nothing should not include than things. Facts, for example.
Lunchbraker
I understand the resistance, I'm not 100% on that position myself. I guess it could be amended to a thing is anything that can interact with another another thing or be described to or by an observer.
Though this would mean that a universe with only one "thing" is the same as a universe with out any things.
The other one
I would say that a fact is a thing. Not a physical thing, but a philosophical construct, it is a type of thing that would require an observer in order to exist.
Can facts be put in the ?category of nothing?
What are facts before they are recognized?
Once a fact is recognized, it doesnot remain nothing. And before it is recognized – maybe it is nothing.
So a fact has to be known? It is not true until then?
Is a fact really any more than electrical impulses contained within an observer's nuerons?
@The other one
A fact is a description of something so i would say that the fact does not exist until it is known or recognized. It is not that the fact is untrue before it's recognition it simply isn't their.
@Lunchbraker
Well that depends. Is reality objective or subjective? Personally I think that it is objective but I can't prove that.
lunchbreaker... The absence of matter, space and time can be defined as "nothing". Further, the absense of time means that there was no "BEFORE" the moment time started counting. Further, the dark energy is most certainly a feature of the spacetime itself and, therefore, it came into existence together with the spacetime.
Huebert... I'm sorry to disappoint you but not everything in this world is known to us, humans. I have to admit that I don't know what kind of mattter or energy God is made of. Please let me know if you'll find out this vauable information somewhere. If you'll be able to support it by vefifyable facts you'll have a Nobel Price. Guaraneed!
@ Tom,
"So a fact has to be known? It is not true until then?"
Not sure what is truth till I know it?Yes, I agree that the truth may exist even if I don't know it yet, and the same would apply to all of us – truth may exist even if we all do not know it.
Now that would beg the question "What is truth?"
Well, if you look at Correspndence theory – truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to "things", so it cannot be nothing.
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system – again not nothing.
Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community.
Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.
William James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."
I could go on with other theories too.
When the facts and your beliefs contradict each other it's not the facts that should be corrected...
It is pretty naive to take the Bible or any other religious book LITERALLY as these books are clearly full of poetic allegories. It is pretty easy to find contradictions between different statements of the Bible itself leave alone the contradictions between the Biblical statements and the scientific facts. This being said, however, there is no doubt that the Bible contains tremendous amount of valuable historical information that can be pretty useful if not taken literally.
Not really. In terms of historical data, archeologists have yet to prove that Moses even existed or that the Jews "wandered" for 40 years in the "wilderness" much less any other claims to non-supernatural events. There is no supernatural stuff, all those priests and scribes clearly lied about anything supernatural, and it appears, after some investigation, that they lied about other things as well.
If you want facts, the bible is the last place you should ever look.
Timzer... There are literally THOUSANDS of places and events mentioned in the Bible that were confirmed by the archeologists. Therefore, the Bible is certainly NOT the last place they should look into. This being said, however, the Bible as well as all other religious text should not be taken literally meaning that it is entirely possible that the Jews wondered only 28 years (and not 40) on their way to the Promised land and that the name of their leader was Jeremia and not Moses.
Timzer... I'm not sure what is YOUR definition of "supernatural" but everything in this world is NATURAL by definition. This being said, however, we should realize that the amount of human knowledge covers only a very tiny amount of NATURAL things existing in the Universe and that there are possibly civilizations in the Universe (or even in our own Galaxy) that existed and developed for millions of years and that their abilities would certainly seem "supernatural" to most of us. We should NEVER forget this.
Chad-
The Bible makes no statement about the age of the earth that I can recall. The book is imprecise, vague, and contradictory and inferences made from it go badly wrong as you know.
In short it is the Stone Age book of Moral Sciences
It does very clearly state that the earth was created three days before the sun, and that plants are older than the sun, so it's absolutely wrong on these matters, right out of the gate.
Sir
I have actually heard it was a first draft of the Harry Potter series, because that is all you have left when you remove all the deviance from it.
Atheists always whining about the Bible that they never took the time to study.
Here's a bible study site that did all the work for you. All an atheist need do is read.
http://www.biblestudysite.com/begin.htm
@heaven
Yeah, so I took a gander at your site and can only conclude that it is some fiendish plot to entice people to willingly give up enough IQ points to make it make sense.
Damocles,
You seem to have missed the part where it also wanted to give up some bucks too!!!
Damocles, don't concern yourself with IQ points. The teachers that conditioned you knew to get you to heel like a dog, all they needed to do was stroke you.
Anyway, for you not to spend days in that site, proves the atheists are L A Z Y.
@simran
I seem to recall something like 'send us 9.95 and we will send you a drool bib since you are now a vegetable like the rest of us'.
Heaven forbid an atheist takes a buck out of their pocket and use it for anyone else, but, themselves. I bet you folks count your bills looking at you too. LOL.
HeavenSent,
Yeah, I went to that site and all of my posts were BLOCKED by their Mod Squad!
(just kidding... I know that Nick (Groggy Noggin) Goggin is a hard-core bloviating delusional who would never allow discussion boards)
Maybe the shrinks are correct? You atheists may have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (also referred to as Adult ADHD) if you can't be on that site for more than 2 minutes.
Get Real, your personal opinion about a Christian is irrelevant. His work is incredible and many biblical scholars are flocking to the site, as well as rabbis and other clergy of other faiths. So much for your personal assessment.
@heavenscent(smells like fear and sour cream)
Ah, I see.... learning, going to school, all that is not needed, eh? 'Deity done did it' is all you need to know. If you want to be empty headed and glassy eyed, thats fine by me, it suits you perfectly. Happily I can not sink that low.
HS,
Atheists are
L – Logical
A – Analytical
Z – zealous
Y – Yearning for knowledge
Now go ahead, find some dirty words that spell lazy. But remember, Jesus is watching you when you say bad things. On second thoughts, you can just sin and later repent.
Get Real, why would he want to read the atheists whining on his site? Get real, Get real.
@HS
I have helped more than few people out with money/clothes/a place to stay/listening when they needed someone to talk to. I am a horrible, horrible person. Curse my willingness to help people out of simple kindness! *curses*
Simran
Atheists are:
L – Logical suckers to manipulate do to their egos.
A – Analytical to figure out who will do their homework
Z – zealous over the hatred for Christians because they know more than them.
Y – Yearning for knowledge of the Bible because it's a frontier we need to conquer.
Yes, why would he want a differing viewpoint? I mean, that would be crazy right?
Damocles, good to know that Christian principles made an impression on you.
God Bless.
HS,
Give me one good reason why I should read the Bible?
@HS
Disagreement does not equal hate, you try to play that card entirely too much.
@HS
You are as dense as concrete pudding.
Let me ask you something and just answer the question, its not a dig at you or anything, just a simple question. Why do you crave the attention of a deity?
"L – Logical suckers to manipulate do to their egos.
A – Analytical to figure out who will do their homework
Z – zealous over the hatred for Christians because they know more than them.
Y – Yearning for knowledge of the Bible because it's a frontier we need to conquer."
Now please prove these statements too –
Monipulate due to their egos??? Manipulate what?
Analytical to figure out who will do their homework? – Which homework? Please specify?
Zealous in their hatred of Christians bcoz they know more? Now exactly what is it that Christians know more???
Yearning for the knowledge of Bible coz it is a frontier to conquer? – Oh, that frontier was conquered long ago. The Christians seem to be on the defensive now, trying to manipulate by coming up with different interpretations of their God's word, every time we put them in the corner.
HS in reference to Damocles having Christian values)
Now, me not a Christian, never was, never shall be. I keep doing my bit of good work whenever I can. Now how do u define that???
@simran
Its sad really... HS believes that man can only be evil without a deity. Kindness without belief is a conundrum to people like her(?).... still not sure what gender he/she is. Ive heard rumors....
HS
Please read this information:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bm7insight.pdf
damocles
Now, I have serious issues when people say HS is a she??? It is an insult to women, just like the Bible insults women by how they describe their creation.
HS is the FROG OF THE BIBLE!
That reminds me, Topher is MIA today. Probably still trying to figure out how to prove that ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE A CONSCIENCE.
@simran
Yeah, well, being a guy I don't want HS on my side either. I'm cool with calling HS an it.
@HS
Are you going to answer my question?
HS always disappears when asked questions. One of those kids in school...who fall sick on exam day.
@simran
Probably it is looking up some biblical quote or something. I'm breathless with antici.......... pation.
HS,
Doing a bit of looking around, it seems that Nick Goggin is MIA. His (biblestudy) site has not been updated since 2010 and other presence on the internet is nil.
So Chad, have you convinced anyone that "day" doesn't mean day, and "create" doesn't mean create, and "sun" doesn't mean sun yet?
For God to be perfect, and the bible to be the perfect word of God, ain't it funny that it's so difficult to interpret? Seems like He would have just had them say what they mean.
weird.
Simran, I don't disappear when asked a question. I LOG
Simran, to continue. I log off my computer when I'm leaving this blog. That's it. Nothing sinister.
The reason you need to love and follow JESUS CHRIST is because He is truth. Life is a test from God, to see if we love and follow Jesus, or love and follow satan. That's it. 2 choices. Choose wisely because your spirit going on through eternity depends on it. Don't pay attention to all the nay sayers because those fools haven't the courage to follow Jesus Christ's truth, they love to get stroked by satan's lies.
HS,
So there you appear. How blessed I feel! You took a whole day to come around. But wait, are you the real HS or the fake one?
That is question 1.
Now up above were several questions? Any answers???
The reason you need to love and follow JESUS CHRIST is because He is truth.
Now how do I know for certain that he is the truth???
Simran, you would know it's God's truth when you read the Bible of how Holy men, inspired by His Holy Spirit scribed His truth. If you rewrite His truth how you want it to read, you won't get anything out of it. If you accept what is written, you will get to know Jesus and what He wants from you and for you.
If you still argue with me, know that you got conditioned by the following:
Matthew 23:1-39
Revelation 3:9
WOW
Tweets coming from Cuba (Near Havanna) are claiming dozens of buildings have collapsed due to Isaac
Now I know Jeebus hates the commies, but what are the freaks going to say when it wipes out Pensacola?
They are going to say he hates Pensacolians.... Pensacommies... those people from Pensacola as well.
I'm sure there is at least one gay person living in Pensacola that they can blame it on.
It seems the shooter in the Empire State Building only shot one guy.
Looks like the good olde NYPD shot everyone else!
At this rate, let the nuts have guns, but take them from the cops! Less people would be hurt!
Your comment struck me as funny enough to shoot mt dew through my nose. Thank you!
Yeah, the NYPD (and as a disclosure my father was on it for 25 years) always reminded me of a cross between the Gestapo and the "Gang that couldn't Shoot Straight".
My city is being mutated into a police state.
Sooner or later we are going to have to reel them onto a tighter leash.
I just hope we don't need a Rodney King / rioting in the streets before we admit all this GI Joe nonesense is getting a little out of control.
Hate to say it, but it probably will take something along those lines before changes are made.
I have a susp.icion that, if you were to look up the definition of a police state, you would find we passed that point many years ago...
Given that:
Johnson* was a Manhattan resident and had worked as a designer of women's accessories at Hazan Imports
* The shooter
After this and the DC shooting and irrespective of any facts, the fundies will declare that the gays have started a rebellion against righteousness.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/neutrinos-and-solar-storms
RADIOACTIVE materials decay at a predictable rate—so predictable, in fact, that scientists widely use them to date artefacts and geological objects. That, at least, is the received wisdom, which Jere Jenkins and Ephraim Fischbach, from Purdue University in Indiana, think may need revising. In 2006 Dr Jenkins noticed that the decay rate of the radioactive isotope manganese-54 dipped 39 hours before a solar flare came crashing into Earth's protective magnetic field. Now it seems that the sun might affect other types of decay, too.
As the researchers report in Astroparticle Physics, the decay rate of chlorine-36 increases as Earth approaches the sun. The difference is tiny: the rate fluctuates by less than 1% between the aphelion and perihelion, the points on Earth's orbit when it is farthest and closest to the sun, respectively. But it is discernible and persistent. As-yet-unpublished data for manganese-54 suggest that isotope follows a similar pattern. If confirmed, the insight might, among other things form the basis of a system for forecasting dangerous cosmic storms.
Solar flares, in which charged particles are ejected from the sun, can damage satellites and ground-based electronic infrastructure. In 2005 an unseasonal solar storm knocked out a number of Global Positioning System (GPS) birds, some of them for good. It also forced airliners to be redirected from Arctic routes, where Earth's magnetic field provides least cover from the nefarious effects a hail of such particles can have on the people's, and machines', health. And that was a mere breeze compared with the solar storm of 1859, thought to have been many times more devastating on the basis of the disruption it caused to the nascent telegraph service. These days, another Carrington Event, as the 19th-century episode is known, risks crippling a planet increasingly reliant on all sorts of electronic gubbins.
A number of advance-warning systems, enabling countermeasures such as temporary shutdown of vulnerable electronics, are in the works. But reliable forecasts are scarce. This is because solar storms are not yet well understood. Paradoxically, Dr Jenkins and Dr Fischbach think this might change with the help of neutrinos, the ethereal particles which pervade the universe but rarely interact with anything—and themselves a cause of much head-scratching among physicists.
Neutrinos are a byproduct of the nuclear fusion which powers the sun. Earth's elliptical orbit means that the flux of solar neutrinos which stream through it varies during the year. The changes in chlorine-36 and manganese-54 decay rates observed by the Purdue team, including the dip prior to the flare in 2006, mirror the changes in neutrino flux detected by other experiments. Unlike their tiny radioactive sample, though, those existing neutrino detectors are vast (to shorten the odds that the elusive particles deign to react with at least one atom inside it) and often sit deep underground (to shield the detectors from other particles which leave neutrino-like traces; only neutrinos, thanks to their signature unwillingness to react, are able to penetrate ). As a result, any system based on such detectors would be hard to scale up.
If Dr Fischbach and Dr Jenkins are right about neutrinos affecting radioactive decay, it would herald a new era in neutrino physics, not just space-weather forecasting. That is still a prodigious if. For a start, like many things neutrino-related, the mechanism through which the particles might affect decay rates remains a mystery. On the rare occasions that they do interact, neutrinos do so via the weak nuclear force, which is also responsible for the sorts of radioactivity present in chlorine-36 and manganese-54. Physicists critical of the work point out that in the Purdue team's proposal the strength of the force, which can be calculated from the observed changes in decay rates, is much larger than established particle theory would have it.
Such discrepancies might be explained if a neutrino somehow amplifies the decay rates. In the conventional view, most neutrinos pass through matter without so much as a shudder. Those that do interact tend to do so only once; the likelihood of a single neutrino scattering off one atom and then another in short order is infinitesimal. However, rather controversially, Dr Fischbach thinks that the large number of neutrinos that seem not to be interacting may in fact be doing so, just that the effects of these interactions in stable matter are too small to see. In an unstable radioactive sample, he speculates, they might come to light, because decay rates are known to be extremely sensitive to the energy released in the process. As a result, if solar neutrinos transferred a mere millionth of their energy to a decaying nucleus, that might have a big effect on the rate at which it breaks up.
Whatever the mechanism, the correlation between radioactive decay rates and neutrino flux looks striking, and has been observed in a number of samples in different laboratories. Wary neutrino physicists warn that it could all yet prove to be an artefact of the way the experiments were conducted. That was the case in 2011, when their colleagues in Italy clocked neutrinos travelling faster than light, only to discover that the result, at odds with Einstein's cherished theory of relativity, was down to a loose cable.
Even if this time all cables were taut, many hurdles remain. Dr Fischbach admits that while whatever process generated the flare in 2006 also caused a dip in neutrino flux, and a corresponding drop in radioactive decay rates, other processes seem to have the opposite effect. For example, a storm in 2008 was preceded by a spike in manganese-54 decay rates.He suspects that what is loosely termed a "solar storm" may in fact be a number of distinct processes whose common feature is that they affect neutrino production in one way or another. That is a far cry from a reliable space-weather forecast. But it has not stopped the university from applying for a patent on a decay-based neutrino detector technology, just in case.
Which came first, the Earth or the stars?
Bible claims the earth, yet stars are a certain distance away, and we see them.
We cannot see things further away than the distance between us multiplied by the speed of light.
Are you implying the stars are less than 10,000 light years away, or are you implying Einstein was wrong and light moves faster than the speed of light when it wants to?
Not implying anything. Just wanted to share a neat article i read today.
@William Demuth "Bible claims the earth, yet stars are a certain distance away, and we see them."
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1
leaving the order of what was before what undefined...
note also: Job, says that at the time the corner stone of the earth was laid, the stars already existed (Job 38)
Chad
Please review your book.
20 percent of all Bibles say the Heaven (singular) rather than Heavens (plural).
If you guys can't even get line 1 correct, how can we take any of it seriously?
Oh, and Chad, please review day four.
Fourth Day
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
My goodness, mama kindless had too much tea and you all have her thinking about that movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" early in the day. Two things I've always wonder about from that movie:
First, what were those those big black monoliths? Were they portals to other places in space, or were they supposed to be just a tool for creating new stars, or was it something else? And did the story say who created those monoliths? Depending on what they were supposed to be, I could see where they were something created in some way by the universe in a completely natural way.
The other thing I always wondered about that movie was the message at the end. Was that supposed to just be a message from the live, real character that was somehow able to traverse time? Or was it supposed to be something more on a supernatural level?
@William Demuth "20 percent of all Bibles say the Heaven (singular) rather than Heavens (plural)"
=>I'm confused.. what's the difference between Heavens and Heaven?
perhaps this will help me:
the word translated "heaven" and "heavens" is Strong's H8064 – shamayim
1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
==========
@William Demuth "Oh, and Chad, please review day four. Fourth Day 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
=>sorry,, I'm still confused..
the word translated "lights" Strong's H3974 – ma'owr
refers to the actual light.. not the star itself. It is clearly not a statement about a creation event..
so, that would mean the light became visible at that point, but the actual stars themselves were created earlier (Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3974&t=KJV
Chad line 16 clearly states me made the STARS.
As for what is the difference between heaven or heavens, is about the same as the difference between God or Gods.
Decisive difference, central difference, and a critical difference
Actually, on the current theories about the primordial Universe there was a longish epoch over which the Universe was not transparent to light. About the first 300,000 years I think. After that "there was light". Sorry to interrupt. I thought that tidbit might be useful to Chad.
So Job conflicts with Genesis, both via traditional interpretation. Why am I not surprised . . .
Tom,
I tried to read that concept, but couldnot understand. Can u elaborate a little in layman language?
Thanks
@William Demuth "line 16 clearly states me made the STARS."
@Chad "hmm..but so does line 1.. and Job 38 says earth after stars.. and, also the word translated "created" in verse1(bara) is a different word than the word translated "made" in verse 16 (asah)
seems like two different things are being related?
=====
@William Demuth "As for what is the difference between heaven or heavens, is about the same as the difference between God or Gods."
@Chad "really?
you sure of that? you might look it up..
in any case.. that is a translation issue.. right?
That isnt an issue with the original Hebrew?
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "Actually, on the current theories about the primordial Universe there was a longish epoch over which the Universe was not transparent to light. About the first 300,000 years I think. After that "there was light". Sorry to interrupt. I thought that tidbit might be useful to Chad."
=>that has been an exegetical interpretation of Genesis that has been proposed for centuries.. I was not aware that we had any scientific data supporting it.. I need to do some reading.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
True, but my premise stands.
The furthest thing we can see is determined by light speed.
The Sphere of visibility is equal to T (Time) multiplied by c (Speed of Light)
If a star is further away than than it's duration in years times the distance light can travel in a year, we haven't seen it yet.
In fact some we are seeing no longer exist in real time.
As a result, if the earth came first, and is 10,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see anything further away than 10,000 light years.
@William Demuth
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but the light from stars would have still travelled to the space that the earth was going to occupy, right? So even if the earth was 10k years old, the light would have still travelled to that point.
My dog is not in this fight William. Good luck!
Here's the atheists' star (LOL).
And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
Revelation 8:11
Amen.
Simran-
I'll give it a shot: The early Universe was dense and full of charged particles, for example free electrons, that interact strongly with light. When a photon of light originated anywhere it almost immediately interacted with one of those particles. That means light could not propagate.
Jim, thank you for sharing that interesting article from, strangely enough, the economist magazine.
It is old news in the science community, having come out years ago. I suspect they needed something to fill the pages and couldn't quite manage to find something more recent to publish.
William, it almost hurts my brain to see the different ways in which your lack of science knowledge is combined with your ability to misunderstand incomplete information. I will not enumerate your many errors but will simply agree that the bible is total nonsense regardless of our level of scientific progress and that one doesn't need a physics degree to see the hundreds, even thousands, of lies in every so-called "holy" text.
There is no god, no gods, and one doesn't need science to prove this, only logic and epistemology.
Tom,
Ya, I was just reading that – is this the dark ages and dark energy you are talking about? Was an interesting read. Thnx
Tom, I would like to point out that if there is EM, then it is indeed "propogating" and that it may not have gone very far at the time, yet it existed and did travel an actual distance, thus knocking down your misconception that EM could not have existed at that time...also, there were supposedly no particles until much later, so saying they were blocking EM would be ridiculous.
@Chad,
Re: "Strong's H8064 – shamayim"
So, neither "heaven" nor "heavens" implies "stars", is that correct?
Timzer-
Just as light propagates in a metal? Early on, the Universe would have been less transparent than that. Regarding the existence of particles, did you read the part about it being the first 300,000 years? I think free electrons and positrons were around before 1 sec.
@ME II Re: "Strong's H8064 – shamayim" So, neither "heaven" nor "heavens" implies "stars", is that correct?"
@Chad "I wouldnt say that..
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
for example
Of old 6440 hast thou laid the foundation 3245 of the earth 776: and the heavens8064 [are] the work 4639 of thy hands 3027.
the "earth and heaven' is clearly meant to mean "everything there is"
@Chad,
"the 'earth and heaven' is clearly meant to mean 'everything there is'"
So it is a summary statement, 'in the beginning God made everything' and then follows the actual sequence of said making. Is that right?
Or, are you saying that everything was made at the same time, at the beginning? And, the sequence apparent in Gen 1 is not the sequence in which things were made?
The EM spectrum is more than just what you can see.
Electrons are electromagnetic. When you can explain how an electron can block EM radiation or how EM radiation can occur in the absence of "matter", then maybe you won't feel quite so willing to speak about theoretical states of dimensional energy in that intemperate and ignorant way.
I can only hope.
From the most basic of observable cosmological events combined with quantum theory, all that can be solidly inferred is that our continuum once occupied a much smaller per unit volume and that all the dimensional energy involved was correspondingly condensed per unit volume. If you posit a quantum foam theory of gravity, then at some point EM becomes a manifestation of "spaces" within the foam and not necessarily an impossibility at any time from the moment of expansion onward regardless of energy density per unit volume.
We measure time according to the rate at which it is observed to flow – and it flows according to the geodesic of the frame of reference being used. We do not have any way of measuring the flow of time outside of this continuum.
The Big Bang has two main elements that are often ignored – 1) Expansion implies an earlier time when the continuum occupied a smaller volume in the 5 (?) dimensional space that is outside of our continuum – at some point our continuum had a minimum radius of some sort not yet specified despite claims to the contrary (such as claims to a singularity). – 2) Energy, whether you want to be all-inclusive and call it dimensional energy or want to merely address only the energy that is manifested by matter, EM, quarks, acceleration, etc. that we tend to think of when we say the word energy, ...at some point also had a much higher density per unit volume.
Extrapolating backwards from what we observe over 15 billion years later is pretty straightforward until you reach certain energy densities per unit volume. Going back past those points is where most people jump to unwarranted conclusions and thus we have conflicting "reports" that started out as musings and guesses and later misunderstood to be firm theory – yet they remain hypothesis that can only be tested using data we do not yet have, including a Grand Unified Theory (which we also do not have) in addition to a quantum theory of gravity (which we also have yet to establish).
In short, this discussion is ridiculous as it stands. There is nothing to even suggest anywhere that anything supernatural exists in any way. It doesn't matter what physics comes up with, since there is not any suggestion or any evidence whatsoever that a supernatural being is responsible for anything whatsoever within our continuum.
I'm going to have some coffee in a bit, run an errand or two, and I may give up on you people and this discussion.
Regardless of what EM may or may not have done before a certain stage of the Big Bang, the fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that a bunch of lying, primitive tribal priests did anything but lie their asses off when writing Genesis.
And to argue about it with a bunch of religious nuts is more of a typing exercise than something with the possibility of getting through the thick-witted skulls of a bunch of idiotic and delusional dingbats who couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag, so you shouldn't worry about the physics stuff. Just point out the fact that their god does not exist and leave it at that...unless you're an agnostic, in which case I would send you a get well / get a clue card.
The Chad consistently denies using sock puppets to congratulate himself, but the evidence certainly points the other way. We at Chadwatch suggest the best approach is to weigh his denial alongside the level of honesty he demonstrates in other respects (ahem).
Tom, Tom, the Other One, the truth is, God destroyed the first earth age due to Lucifer (also known as satan, the devil or a host of other names) got 1/3 of God's angels to follow his lies and rebel against God. Lucifer, due to the sin of envy (which is pride0 wanted to sit in God's mercy seat and be God. Here's a great bible site that put's the scriptures together.
http://www.biblestudysite.com/begin.htm
As for the nonsense of the Big Bang or Evolution, notice this fact. None of these lies teach you anything, including ethical and moral standards, or the laws to live by to creating harmony among each other? None of those lies tell you how to be the best that you an be. They pit people against each other? Why? They encourage your ego to flourish? Why? That's the question none of you atheists ask.
How old does the bible say the earth is?
I don't believe the bible makes any direct mention of the earth's age. But I have herd calculations from young earth theorist that range between six and ten thousand years old.
Huebert, you can't believe a word of any of it, can you?
Seriously? Like for real?
I would LOVE to find someone who actually admits to believing this kind of silliness.
@Will
Of course not. The earth is around 4.6 billion years old. I trust geologist and cosmologist far more that I trust young earth theorist.
It doesn't. Next question.
@lunchbreaker "It doesn't. Next question."
=>I'm confused then.. If what you are saying is true, why do atheists claim the bible is incorrect because it says the earth is 6,000 years old?
"why do atheists claim the bible is incorrect because it says the earth is 6,000 years old?"
I never maid such a claim. I have said young earth theorist, who base their theory on the biblical account of creation, are incorrect because they, the theorist, claim that the earth is between six and ten thousand years old.
I would guess, Chad, that the Bible in some way supports whatever age for the earth you need.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "I would guess, Chad, that the Bible in some way supports whatever age for the earth you need."
but,, what does it actually say about how old the earth is?
Chad, I agree with you on that point. I think most athiests are just disagreeing with young earth creationist statements.
From what I've seen/heard the bible says its roughly 6 days old which means anything from 6 days to billions of years depending on how much you need to twist it to suit your fantasies.
Chad-
The Bible makes no statement about the age of the earth that I can recall. The book is imprecise, vague, and contradictory and inferences made from it go badly wrong as you know.
People infer the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years by adding up all the "begats" in Genesis.
@Chad,
"How old does the bible say the earth is?"
That depends on one's interpretation of it.
It does, however, appear to say that the time between the "beginning" of the universe and the first "man" was 5-6 days, which is clearly inaccurate.
@Doc Vestibule "People infer the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years by adding up all the "begats" in Genesis."
@Chad "you consider that a wise approach? You feel that's an extrapolation that the original writers would have agreed was reasonable? Especially with the understanding of the common Hebrew practice of telescoping of genealogies?
============
@ME II"How old does the bible say the earth is?" That depends on one's interpretation of it.
It does, however, appear to say that the time between the "beginning" of the universe and the first "man" was 5-6 days, which is clearly inaccurate."
@Chad "the word translated as "day",, does it mean a 24 hour day?
also..I'm confused on one thing.. how is it that someone could claim the bible says the earth was created on the third day, but at the same time claim that there was a a "day" (one revolution of the earth) on days 1 and 2?
@Chad
I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. You asked why some say the Bible postulated a 6000 year old Earth. YEC proponents take the Bible as the literal, inerrant Word of God and if you do the math with that mindset, you get the 6000 year number (give or take).
@Rufus T. Firefly "It does very clearly state that the earth was created three days before the sun, and that plants are older than the sun, so it's absolutely wrong on these matters, right out of the gate."
@Chad "I thought it said that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. genesis 1
plants were later, right?
@Chad the disenguous,
Are the plants not created on the third day, and the "two great lights that mark night and day" created on the fourth day?
Why do you engage in these futile attempts to entrap people in webs of insubstantiality?
Huebert, you posted "@Will, Of course not. The earth is around 4.6 billion years old. I trust geologist and cosmologist far more that I trust young earth theorist."
Answer: The earth theroists are on the atheists' team. No true Christian pays attention to them, especially when an atheist brings it up to post (LOL).
"I know we've only known each other four weeks and three days, but to me it seems like nine weeks and five days.
The first day seemed like a week and the second day seemed like five days.
And the third day seemed like a week again and the fourth day seemed like eight days.
And the fifth day you went to see your mother and that seemed just like a day, and then you came back and later on the sixth day.
In the evening, when we saw each other, that started seeming like two days, so in the evening it seemed like two days spilling over into the next day and that started seeming like four days, so at the end of the sixth day on into the seventh day, it seemed like a total of five days.
And the sixth day seemed like a week and a half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow if you want to see it." – The Jerk
@HeavenSent,
Chad brought it up. We call him many things, but atheist isn't one of them.
@Chad "the word translated as "day",, does it mean a 24 hour day?
also..I'm confused on one thing.. how is it that someone could claim the bible says the earth was created on the third day, but at the same time claim that there was a a "day" (one revolution of the earth) on days 1 and 2?"
I agree, it is very confusing and apparently contradictory. As in your example, it also states near there, "And the evening and the morning were the second day." which seems to imply a 24 hour, earth rotational day.
Probably best to treat the whole thing as accu.mulated poetry and philosophical meanderings and not put to much meaning into the details.
@GOPer "Are the plants not created on the third day
@Chad "plants are created on the third yowm (Strong's H3117 – yowm), (day, time, year, period)
@GOPer" and the "two great lights that mark night and day" created on the fourth day?"
@Chad no, not created (Strong's H1254 – bara'), rather made (Strong's H6213 – `asah)
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
do you know what the difference is?
@ME II "I agree, it is very confusing and apparently contradictory. As in your example, it also states near there, "And the evening and the morning were the second day." which seems to imply a 24 hour, earth rotational day. Probably best to treat the whole thing as accu.mulated poetry and philosophical meanderings and not put to much meaning into the details.
@chad "as you point out, the "contradictions' are in most cases "apparent" ones, (Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so).
I have a different approach, I keep investigating to find out the truth..
@Chad the semantacist
Are you now arguing over the difference between "created" and "made"?
Rufus' point (that I merely echoed) is solely related to the sequence:
arbitrary time period number 3: plants
arbitrary time period number 4: sun, moon and stars
I'm delighted if you interpret the "day" of the KJV as an arbitrary period of time and that evolotion is God's method – great, as I've said to you before, its a way to syntheize belief with the hard evidence – lots of people do this. The point that Rufus made is that in Genesis, plants arrive before the sun, which is backwards by any sensible notion.
@Chad,
"I have a different approach, I keep investigating to find out the truth.."
Aren't you assuming there is "truth" in it to be found?
@GOPer "Are you now arguing over the difference between "created" and "made"?"
@chad "you are confusing me.. you dont want them to be two different words?
or, you dont want to know what the difference is between the words?
I cant help that in the original text, two different words are used, and they have two different meanings.. can I?
=======
@GOPer Rufus' point (that I merely echoed) is solely related to the sequence:
arbitrary time period number 3: plants
arbitrary time period number 4: sun, moon and stars
plants arrive before the sun, which is backwards by any sensible notion.
@Chad "hmm.. when was sun created?
@ME II "Aren't you assuming there is "truth" in it to be found?"
@Chad "A. I do believe in the existence of absolute truth
B. Havent found an error in the Bible yet, nor have millions of people who have scrutinized it for centuries..
It is the most heavily peer reviewed publication in the history of the world.
What a lie you tell Chad. Did you take Martin Luther seriously when he said it was a good thing to lie for Jesus?
@Chad,
"Havent found an error in the Bible yet, nor have millions of people who have scrutinized it for centuries..
It is the most heavily peer reviewed publication in the history of the world."
So, how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction in the meaning of "day"?
@Chad the semanticist
I don't care about any distinction between 'created' and 'made' – you brought it up as one of your little move the ball routines.
If not Genesis 1:14-18, in what verse is the description of the manifestation of the sun in Genesis 1 – according to your lights?
@ME II,
----–
Sigh...
don't you know what yowm (Strong's H3117 – yowm), (day, time, year, period) means????
Maybe you should do some reading???
----–
Take a deep breath before the plunge 😉
Wait, wait, let me guess the response from Chad. Any apparent contradiction to us isn't to him because he has the correct interpretation because he says so, and anything he can't rationalize is from god and god is god so it doesn't matter.
@GOPer "I don't care about any distinction between 'created' and 'made' – you brought it up as one of your little move the ball routines."
@Chad "I am quite aware you are not interested in understanding what the bible actually says 🙂
which is a fundamental problem, if you are intent on discussing it.. right?
this is PRECISELY the complaint that i always have with atheists. You have an agenda, and cant be bothered to understand the actuality of anything in the Bible. You know what you want to say, and cant be bothered if it is true or not
All of the matter in the universe was created on the first "day"
I never cease to be amazed by the complicated word games, logical somersaults, and tangled webs that Christians will go through in order to avoid the simple obvious fact that Genesis creation is just wrong. No matter how much special pleading and how many arguments of accommodation they put forward, it simply can't be avoided that it is utter hogwash.
@Chad: why do you use @Chad in your own replies.
=======
@Chad: beacuse @Chad is an idiot. Next question!
"All of the matter in the universe was created on the first day" – And then what happened?
Where did anti-matter go as per the Bible?
@ME II "So, how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction in the meaning of "day"?"
@chad "the same way you reconcile the "contradiction" in the meaning of the english word "age',
namely, it isnt a "contradiction", the plain truth is, it can mean different things. The precise meaning is made clear in context..
right?
age (n)
1. The length of time that one has existed; duration of life: 23 years of age.
2. The time of life when a person becomes qualified to assume certain civil and personal rights and responsibilities, usually at 18 or 21 years; legal age: under age; of age.
3. One of the stages of life: the age of adolescence; at an awkward age.
4. The state of being old; old age: hair white with age.
5. often Age
a. A period in the history of humankind marked by a distinctive characteristic or achievement: the Stone Age; the computer age.
b. A period in the history of the earth, usually shorter than an epoch: the Ice Age.
c. A period of time marked by the presence or influence of a dominant figure: the Elizabethan Age. See Synonyms at period.
6.
a. The period of history during which a person lives: a product of his age.
b. A generation: ages yet unborn.
7. ages Informal An extended period of time: left ages ago.
@Chad
Since when do you cre what the bible actually says? Try being honest and just say that the only thing you care about is your interpretation of the bible.
@Simran ""All of the matter in the universe was created on the first day" – And then what happened? Where did anti-matter go as per the Bible?"
@Chad "bible doesnt say anything one way or the other about anti-matter as far as I know. It isnt a science textbook"
@Chad
this is PRECISELY the complaint that i always have with atheists. You have an agenda, and cant be bothered to understand the actuality of anything in the Bible. You know what you want to say, and cant be bothered if it is true or not
The funny (or sad) thing about this Chad is that you are oblivious to the fact that you are describing your own behavior.
@Rufus T. Firefly "I never cease to be amazed by the complicated word games, logical somersault...."
=>I'm confused why you think examining a translation to get a better understanding of what the original author intended to communicate const itutes word games?
Awww how sad that Chad is ignoring my posts once again. A least his MO is intact.
So, it is a moral science book??? Then why the argument to defend it?
@Thor "The funny (or sad) thing about this Chad is that you are oblivious to the fact that you are describing your own behavior."
@Chad "My complaint about atheists is that they cant be bothered to really investigate, as you can see on this thread, they are not interested at all in understanding what the bible actually says.
if you are equating my behavior with theirs, what exactly are you saying I havent investigated?
@@Chad
Yes and if you examine it long enough it will say exactly what you want it to say.
"I'm confused why you think examining a translation to get a better understanding of what the original author intended to communicate const itutes word games?"
Because the wording is very clear, and very clearly wrong. Your desperate attempts to understand "what the original author intended to communicate" assumes that for some reason the author intended something entirely different than what he said. Why would he do that?
@Chad
You never actually answer any quetions anyway! You continue to say "oh they don't do the research they don't know this or that or this or that", and yet you never actually fucking give a refutation to anything anyone says! The only thing you ever do is blow it off, go to a specific website for a definition that would suit you at the time, or ignore the posts that you can't immediatey blow off!
@Chad,
"the same way you reconcile the 'contradiction' in the meaning of the english word 'age',
namely, it isnt a 'contradiction', the plain truth is, it can mean different things. The precise meaning is made clear in context.."
But isn't the "context" of Gen 1, ""the evening and the morning," i.e. a 24-hour, earth rotational, day?
"I'm confused why you think examining a translation to get a better understanding of what the original author intended to communicate const itutes word games?"
Chad, stop with the lies. You know as well as I do that response is beyond dishonest. You know exactly what Rufus was refering to which is that every time a bible thumper has their own book debunked they have to come up with new ways to read something or a different meaning of a translated word that fit's better into their preconcieved world view. They have been doing it for more than a thousand years. For centuries the Church claimed absolute truth in the bible on pain of death to such an extent that the very idea of a spherical earth was heretical, then when the scientific evidence was overwhelming you had the apologists come out saying "Well our understanding of scripture was in error and the word "circle" that was a direct translation of a word meaning drawing compass that is used obviously refers to a spherical earth so the bible isn't wrong, just our understanding of it was. But not anymore, we know just what it means now and the earth is absolutely only 6 to 9 thousand years old based on the time line of decendants down from Adam that Genesis gives... except that we must be reading that wrong now that science shows the earth to be closer to 4.5 billion years old ....but the bible is not wrong, we just must be reading it wrong...
You are not reading it wrong Chad, the bible is wrong, plain and simple, it has little to no basis in fact and specificly the Genesis account and the flood account are total fabrications that cannot be explained away to appease your faith. If you continue to defend the blatant inconsistencies and out right errors, then you are nothing more than an ignorant liar.
@Rufus T. Firefly "Because the wording is very clear, and very clearly wrong. Your desperate attempts to understand "what the original author intended to communicate" assumes that for some reason the author intended something entirely different than what he said. Why would he do that?"
@Chad "what HEBREW wording to you feel is very clearly wrong?
remember, it was written in Hebrew.
testing 1 2 3
Nothing more Chad? You always seem to inexplicably disappear when a conversation gets to this point. Sometimes I think your a complete poe, and hope that as well. If you're real and believe everythig that you say here and are really that much of a dishonest douche, then I'm having way to much hope in humanity.
Wow CHad's still around not answering questions. Amazing.
Mass Debater
you are going to have to give me a specific example.. just saying "it's wrong" is not much of an argument..
@Chad the disingenuous, Chad the semanticist, Chad the dimpled
All of the matter in the universe was created on the first "day"
Genesis 1, from the Holy Bible according to Chad
on the third yowm God morphed matter into plants ...
on the fourth yowm God ignited the matter of the sun into a brilliant fusion furnace and the stars and the moon, plus all that separating night from day stuff, so presumably the earth started spinning then too ...
So that it could illuminate the plants that were already growing and photosynthesizing in the absence of any light.
weird.
@ME II "But isn't the "context" of Gen 1, ""the evening and the morning," i.e. a 24-hour, earth rotational, day?"
@Chad "at first glance yes, but you have to read it carefully to see if that is what the author actually meant.
For example, if the author intended to say the sun was created on day 4, why are they talking about "day and morning" on the first 3 days.. they arent retarded, even ignorant goat herders know the light comes from the sun.
If the earth was created on day 3, then how in the world do you have "evening and morning" on the first 2 days, with no earth and no sun?
obviously the author had something different in mind.
By Odin's beard this filter is annoying.
I had transm-uted in my post above where 'morphed' is.
It must have taken 30 minutes to find the sm-ut inside. Sm-ut not being on my list.
Chad: "@Chad "what HEBREW wording to you feel is very clearly wrong?
remember, it was written in Hebrew."
And Chad has the gall to ask "what word games?" Here's the central issue in Hebrew "MESAPER SHKARIM"
No,not one atheist can hold their own when it comes to the truth.Also, they seem too lost and in total disarray when it comes to arguing with CHAD.
Chad wins once again!
@GOPer
write a MS word macro, inputting all of the naughty words.. saves hours. dont say I never did anything for ya!
naughty words: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-tuesday-may-22/comment-page-1/#comment-1332617
macro instructions: http://forums.techguy.org/business-applications/729127-solved-macro-finds-highlights-specific.html
Chad-
The book of John has some things to say about the origin, as you know:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "
Here's a paper you might find interesting in that context: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9603008v1.pdf
@Observation
LOL either you're just as dishonest as Chad is, or you're the same person.
@Chad the disingenuous, Chad the semanticist, Chad the dimpled,
ignorant goat herders from Mespotamia no less,
-----–
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.
-----–
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.
This doesn't strike you as being a bit mixed up?
We have light and dark, morning and evening on the first day, then on the fourth day we have sun moon and stars – the earth clearly coming BEFORE the sun moon and stars. So your thesis is the original light is some kind of directional cosmic background radiation.
It is so garbled up that it could only have been written by bronze age sheep herders their heads addled by Sumerian ale.
Thank you Chad,
I was maintaining a naughty word list. The word macro is a very good idea.
The list below needs to be updated to include sm-ut and necrophi-lia
naughty words:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-tuesday-may-22/comment-page-1/#comment-1332617
macro instructions:
http://forums.techguy.org/business-applications/729127-solved-macro-finds-highlights-specific.html
Hawaiiguest "LOL either you're just as dishonest as Chad is, or you're the same person."
The Chad consistently denies using sock puppets to congratulate himself, but the evidence seems to point the other way. We at Chadwatch suggest the best approach is to weigh his denial alongside the level of honesty he demonstrates in other respects (ahem).
For example The Chad could easily slide through a loophole in which "sockpuppet" doesn't mean what we think it means.
@GOPer ""This doesn't strike you as being a bit mixed up?..."
@Chad ""at first glance yes, but you have to read it carefully to see if that is what the author actually meant.
For example, if the author intended to say the sun was created on day 4, why are they talking about "day and morning" on the first 3 days.. they arent retarded, even ignorant goat herders know the light comes from the sun.
If the earth was created on day 3, then how in the world do you have "evening and morning" on the first 2 days, with no earth and no sun?
obviously the author had something different in mind.
@Chad,
"at first glance yes, but you have to read it carefully to see if that is what the author actually meant."
"they arent retarded, even ignorant goat herders know the light comes from the sun."
"obviously the author had something different in mind."
So what is your answer?
How do you reconcile an "evening" and "morning" "day" (Gen 1:13) with a the sun being created on the third "day" (Gen 1:14) and then another "evening" and "morning" "day" (Gen 1:19)?
What exactly did the author have in mind?
typo: (Gen 1:14) should read (Gen 1:16)
Chad, have you convinced anyone yet that "day" doesn't mean day, and "create" doesn't mean create, and "sun" doesn't mean sun?
For God to be perfect, and the bible to be the perfect word of God, ain't it funny that it's so difficult to interpret? Seems like He would have just had them say what they mean.
weird.
@Chad,
if you want to lawyer your way through the sequence, you cannot overlook Genesis 1:14-18 as unambiguous references to the sun moon and stars.
So you end up with:
Genesis 1:3 ... (Light) Cosmic background radiation from the origin location of the universe – earth spins to create night + day, morning and evening.
... then later:
Genesis 1:14-18 ... ignition of sun and stars, formation of moon + more talk about night + day
The Genesis sequence is:
Earth ... light ... atmosphere ... dry land ... plants ... sun, moon, stars ... etc
Which is still messed up compared with the normative
big bang ... star ignition ... planetary accetion ... earth is formed ... collision forms moon ... atmosphere ... etc.
At best Genesis is allegory. It is fairy tale cosmology by bronze age storytellers over Sumerian ale. The goat-herders heard it later, and probably got the order mixed up.
How do I reconcile it?
A. I dont completely know, that's just a fact of life.
B. If you look at the different usage of "create" and "make" you get some insight into what was what..
C. I think Genesis 1 clearly identifies the singularity instance
D. It's no coincidence that the basic order of created things mirrors what we find in the fossil record
E. I think the sun, moon and earth were completely formed by the end of the third time period, were they formed before? I dont know.. all matter in the universe was created in Genesis 1. (universe is a closed system.. another amazing concept for goat herders to have gotten right)
F. I dont think that the "morning and evening" refers to one revolution of the earth on it's axis. It just doesnt make sense, the first day occurred prior to the earth being formed.
@Chad,
Wow, not one but six red herrings to follow.
@Rufus T. Firefly "have you convinced anyone yet that "day" doesn't mean day, and "create" doesn't mean create, and "sun" doesn't mean sun?"
=>no, but then again I havent tried to..
I have argued that "yowm" doesnt always refer to the elapsed time for a rotation of the earth on its axis
I have argued that words translated as "create" and "make" are different hebrew words, with different underlying meanings.
I have argued that the words translated as "lights" may not actually refer to the physical star itself..
@Chad,
For future reference, this is just one example of an unresolved contradiction in the Bible.
Chad
@Thor "The funny (or sad) thing about this Chad is that you are oblivious to the fact that you are describing your own behavior."
@Chad "My complaint about atheists is that they cant be bothered to really investigate, as you can see on this thread, they are not interested at all in understanding what the bible actually says.
>
Chad....have you considered that perhaps they have reviewed the bible and it has very little relevance and at best is more a novelty item much like Harry Potter. It has no historical value. Um nice fantasy though
Chad: " It's no coincidence that the basic order of created things mirrors what we find in the fossil record"
...except that it doesn't. Birds before land animals? Dolphins before insects?
Just more lies, Chad.
"At best Genesis is allegory. It is fairy tale cosmology by bronze age storytellers over Sumerian ale."
.
bingo
.
If Chad is an adult and still has unresolvbed "truth" issues witht he bible...it isnt the bible that is the problem...its Chad lacks proper critical thinking and therefor defective.
@GOPer "At best Genesis is allegory"
=>it very well could be, that is precisely what Francis Collins (director of the human genome project) considers it..
At the end of the day, one should never trust to much what you absolutely believe is true.. Continual investigation and openness to going where the data leads is the only reasonable thing to do.
the only thing standing between you and truth is your own preconception
"D. It's no coincidence that the basic order of created things mirrors what we find in the fossil record."
Not an exhaustive list, but sufficient to show this isn't the case.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geev.htm
@Chad,
"How old does the bible say the earth is?"
"it very well could be [allegory],"
After all this?
So you spend the last few hours trying to convince everyone how Genesis is accurate only to fall back on allegory when pinned down on the details.
Meh... shouldn't have expected anything more I guess.
Later...
Peace
@Chad
"At the end of the day, one should never trust to much what you absolutely believe is true.. Continual investigation and openness to going where the data leads is the only reasonable thing to do."
Take your own advice! LOL
Hey Chad, why did you conspicuously ignore the second part of my post? Here it is again.
For God to be perfect, and the bible to be the perfect word of God, ain't it funny that it's so difficult to interpret? Seems like He would have just had them say what they mean.
weird.
Any post hoc accommodations as to why a perfect God would choose to be obtuse?
@Chad,
there's no harm to a belief in the Christian God (we'll leave the whole pan-dimensional father/son incarnate/pervasive spirit thing for now) in considering the Genesis account as pure allegory meaning no more than God directed existence to manifest itself.
A Christian is a believer in the new covenant anyway, so arguably the whole OT can be disregarded by someone professing Christianity anyway.
The fundies insistance on it being the absolute and inerrant utterance of the divine gets them into way too much cognitive dissonance for a functioning brain to manage properly.
As to truth, all fairy tales – being morality stories – contain truth. "The three little pigs" contains great 'truths'.
@Mystical Pizza ".have you considered that perhaps they have reviewed the bible and it has very..."
=>considered and rejected it.. VAST majority of atheists have little understanding of the bible, and are quite content to keep it that way.
Chad: ""it very well could be [allegory],"
Well, if the very first information presented in the bible is allegory, why not the rest of it?
@ME II "So you spend the last few hours trying to convince everyone how Genesis is accurate only to fall back on allegory when pinned down on the details."
@Chad "A. I have spent this time showing you that your uneducated misunderstanding is just that. There is more there than meets the eye and you have to be very careful drawing conclusions on what you THINK it says, or doesnt say..
B. I dont believe it's an allegory, that is one viewpoint, not mine..
@Rufus T. Firefly "Well, if the very first information presented in the bible is allegory, why not the rest of it?"
@Chad "A. I dont believe Genesis is an allegory, that is one viewpoint not mine
B. The bible is 66 books penned by over 40 authors over the course of 1500 years. It contains poetry, allegory and historical fact. Obviously you cant just characterize the entire thing as one or the other.
the question is, what was the original authors intent?
that's the task of exegesis.
=================
http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geev.htm is based on a young earth creationist interpretation, without that viewpoint, it falls apart.
"...is based on a young earth creationist interpretation, without that viewpoint, it falls apart."
Your claim, "D. It's no coincidence that the basic order of created things mirrors what we find in the fossil record." from above is (albeit minimally) addressed in the chart from the link. The relative order presented in Genesis does not reflect what the fossil record indicates and this discrepancy is independent of the degree of literalist or allegorical interpretation employed.
Chad- "the question is, what was the original authors intent?"
I guessed at this: authors' intent
I have trouble believing that there was any uniformity of intent.
Another comment: If believe the creation story not as myth or as allegory then you are left with talking snakes, actual fruit that brings good and evil into the world etc. Things that really sound like allegory.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "I have trouble believing that there was any uniformity of intent."
=>well, you're guessing though.. right?
that isnt based on an understanding of it.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "Another comment: If believe the creation story not as myth or as allegory then you are left with talking snakes, actual fruit that brings good and evil into the world etc. Things that really sound like allegory."
=>A. Eden was a different place, I have no clue even where it was.
B. "serpent" didnt become a crawling snake until after the fall..
I've no doubt that you are certain that the authors, over many centuries, were writing in accord. That's not something I would guess or assume.
Did you grab that paper I suggested in connection with the opening of John?
Chad: "the universe is a closed system.. another amazing concept for goat herders to have gotten right"
Closed system? But Chad, your whole shtick is that God exists outside space and time and affects change in the universe at will. The universe can't be a closed system if it is receiving input from outside. These things you claim with such certainty really haven't even been thought through very clearly, have they?
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "That's not something I would guess or assume."
=>and why would you not do some reading to find out?
Bizarre how averse atheists are to do any kind of investigation into what they are so confident is not true... think of all the ammo you could get!!
======
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "Did you grab that paper I suggested in connection with the opening of John?"
@chad "that thing is huge, and represents no small amount of time to consume..
I'll make a deal with you.
I'll read that, if you read the Gospel of John
We both come back with regular progress updates and a synopsis at the end.
deal?
That's the fake heavensent's post. Man's logic is vanity. I don't follow the vanity lies of man.
Read it for yourselves how old the world is:
http://www.biblestudysite.com/begin.htm
Chad, ignoring the hard questions again?
How do you reconcile the universe being both a closed system and the result of a supernatural force that lies outside of it?
@Rufus T. Firefly "How do you reconcile the universe being both a closed system and the result of a supernatural force that lies outside of it?"
=>you are looking at the wrong definition...
Thermodynamics closed system: A closed system is one where energy can cross the boundary, but matter cannot. eg a sealed test tube. http://thermal-energy.net/
Why is mine the "wrong" one? When were we talking about thermodynamics?
But for the sake of argument, let's go with yours. How does God create the universe from nothing without introducing matter?
first the system has to be created.. right?
Prayer changes things, see it work at saladandchips.com.
Please don't feed it.
It changes nothing.
There is nobody listening except the make believe (insert name of your god here) in your head.
But keep wasting your time.
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!~
It's because prayer doesn't work you have to keep repeating it over and over again.
That question has been answered many times roger. do you suffer from short term memory loss or are you stupid to the bone?
Hilarious, HeavenSent says he needs more evidence for evolution despite the mountains of evidence, and then turns around and believes the bible despite the fact that the bible is the only evidence that the bible is true.
HeavenSent is female.
It may have male organs, but it definetly has a female orientation.
Timmy, I work with fundies, and the hypocrisy they exibit is dumbfounding.
They condradict themselves daily, yet are so obsessed with their magic man that they don't even see it.
I have given up trying to reason with them. One cannot reason with people who have no reason.
It is sad really. They have staked everything in their lives on their fairy tale and have become blinded and closed minded to anything that might go against their beliefs.
I am counting down the days that I can leave this job and not have to be around them any longer.
Mountains of evidence for the lazy generation that never does their homework/research. Just admit it Timmy, you are brainwashed and still haven't a clue how to do your own work. Oh, but that site said it was true. Oh, but, my teacher told me so ... ROTFLOL.
William Demuth, what's the matter, selfish people don't like being outed?
niknak
I believe Dr. House said it best. "You can't reason with religious people, if you could they wouldn't be religious."
I bet you go to the doctor when you get sick Heavensent.
I guess those doctors are just lazy right?
They use "science" to heal you.
The same science that came up with all these neat drugs and procedures to fix you when you are ill is the exact same science that totally smashes your fairy tale.
Every year science pushes you fundies further and further into a corner.
Just like the previous myths that your current myth is based on failed, your will fail too and be supplanted by yet another myth that will come along that incorporates current scienctific facts that will be too hard to fight agaisnt (like the earth NOT being the center of the universe etc).
Enjoy your long slide into oblivion.
So true Herb.
But the problem is the fundies are not content to be on their hill out in the middle of nowhere and howl at the moon, they want everyone else to howl with them.
And they are heavily armed with high power weapons and will use them to kill those that don't go along with them.
Deeply religious people scare me more then anyone/anything. They have no problem killing your children to show you how much they love their god.
All the dummy handles come out to assist Timmy. Atheists are such pathetic liars.
Can you give us one example of where we have lied?
You really are quite boring to have a discussion with.
But that is nothing new, I have the same issues with the fundies I work with.
Science is so beautiful, and so much more interesting then fairy tales.
I sure hope Heavensent doesn't get a flu shot this year, as it is the result of the science of evolution, and she doesn't believe in that, so she must believe flu shots don't work.
niknak, use your brain. God created ALL means He created doctors and scientists too, along with every profession. The Apostle Luke was a physician. You'd know that if you read the Bible.
You atheists need to get new material to make your point for not focusing on your studies, on your own, of the Bible.
Speaking of flu shot. It's election time. Where's the health agencies spreading the warning for an outbreak? Then people run to get their shots, which pay for elections. LOL.
William,
Now I take that as an insult to womanhood dear. Heavensent can be abything but a female.
HS has no orientation other than going around in circles within the pond of Bible. May be HS is a FROG IN THE WELL.
Simran, wormwood means lies.
Wow HS, u seem to be the perfect replics of ur God. Always present everywhere all the time and yet evading everything. So typical.
Simran, doesn't take Einstein to figure out how you were brainwashed.
Matthew 23:1-39
Revelation 3:9
Theists frequently behave like drug addicts., yet they want to claim their smoking of Bronze Age crack is really no different than someone who drinks coffee.
Mental addictions, like physical ones, seem to put many who suffer from them in militant denial.
The addicted try any means possible to relate their bizarre and irrational behaviors to a normal belief system, as if it was being essentially just another expression of free will. They insist EVERYONE behaves the same way, because they are unable or unwilling to recognize their affliction as an illness
Alas it is not. If it t has ALL the standard trademarks of addiction, it most probably is.
Jeebus freaks are really nothing more than junkies in the saddest sense of the word.
Listen to Mr's Reagen and Just Say No
William, you are a Putz in any language.
From you that is an honor.
In all honesty, you do recognize your ill correct?
How much disruption of a normal life will you absorb before you detox from old Jeebus?
Or do you plan on being another Whitney Houston?
William, what are you going to do, change dummy handles several times in one post and beat me down? LOL.
This one time I met Jesus and He called me a Putz. It didn't seem very Christlike, but if Heavensent does it, it must be what a proper Christian would do.
Hey JR, at least you waited a few minutes before posting LOL. I noticed there is no other posts of yours, but, you zeroed in on just where you had to write.
Get a life folks.
@HS
"get a life folks"
You used the plural, So are we all Scott or are we a large group of posters with little in common, other than a shared belief that your are bat sh!t crazy?
Heaven you arre paranoid.
I do not post under any name other than this one (I have reversed the font to annoy you in the past)
It is easier for you to believe all those who mock you are one person, just as it is easier to believe in your imaginary Bronze Age Super Hero.
Ask me if I really care what you atheist think? ROTFLOL, LOL, LOL. Not one of you has ever thought a single concept you spew from start to finish.
HS, Having 1 or 2 scoops of paranoia with your coffee?
J.R., only those that insist on shutting up a person's right to freedom of speech ... lies about the person opposing them with take your meds, is crazy, paranoid etc. etc.. How many insults have I received? Each, and everytime I post truth, my handle gets hijacked to write nonsense all across the blog. Why? To divide and conquer knowing folks will skip over my real post because the phony heavensent post so many ridiculous posts. Atheists on this blog, refuse to hear Truth because their paychecks come from the liars.
HS, and where do YOUR paychecks come from? What makes you think anybody is paid to post things here? So tell us, where do your paychecks come from? Who pays YOU? Or do you get that good old government check for mental disability?
Mirosal: I think it's the latter...either that or she is a maid somewhere in the deep south dutifully obeying her Master every minute of every day.
TruthPrevailsNot, you were conditioned to not believe Jesus' truth. Do you believe you thought this up on your own?
Matthew 23:1-39
Revelation 3:9
Every religion is a FAITH, a belief based on set of unprovable assumptions. Atheism is no different. Traditional religions claim that the Universe and everything in it was created by someone having the knowledge and technology to create Universes. Atheism claims that the Universe came into existence all by itself from nothing. It's up to each and everyone of us to decide which version looks more plausible.
So you are saying we are all [insert insulting word here]?
I would like to add that the Big Bang theory can only account back to a certain time. The theory specifically says that the universe expanded from a hot dense state. It does not claim that there was nothing before the expansion.
Atheism makes no claim! Atheism is the disbelief in god(s)...nothing more! Science made the claim and science has been able to provide evidence to back it...they may not know what caused the Big Bang but they do know it is the most plausible explanation to the beginning of the universe! Theists like to plug the god factor in for all unknowns...we simply take the honest stance and say we do not know!
Bull Droppings
Many of us Atheists are quite comfortable postulating nothing at all.
A man may not have a specific answer and still be QUITE capable of recognizing an incorrect one.
It is a skill taught in third grade, I recommend you return to school so you shall be taught it next year.
K-switch... You know better than I who YOU are. Feel free to use your own words to describe yoursself.
lunchbreaker... Time is one of the dimensions in this Universe and it started together with everything else. Further, the Big Bang theory says that the Universe started from a SINGULARITY, a point having INFINITE density and ZERO dimensions, not just "hot dense state". There were no dimensions PRIOR to the Big Bang meaning that there was no time either and, therefore, no "prior" state.
TruthPrevails... The fact is that the Universe EXIST and there is overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that it had a beginning known as the Big Bang. This leaves us with two possibilities. One is that the Universe was CREATED by someone knowing how to do it and the other is that it came into existence all by itself from nothing. Rejecting the first theory leaves the atheists with the second do you like it or not.
Thinker
The big bang was most certainly not "nothing".
Thinker
"One is that the Universe was CREATED by someone knowing how to do it and the other is that it came into existence all by itself from nothing."
This is a false duality. It is impossible to describe events before the Planck Epoch, the moment after the big bang in which all forces and dimensions in the universe were one. But, It is impossible to apply any rules or logic from the current incarnation of the universe to it's previous state, this includes causality.
Atheism gives permission to those that refuse to brake in life, refuse rules and regulations, refuse morals and ethics, as they proudly allow their egos to get bigger and bigger with no consequences to their actions.
Vanity, vanity, vanity of men.
Ecclesiastes 1:1-18
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all [is] vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
4 [One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
:8 All things [are] full of labour; man cannot utter [it]: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 [There is] no remembrance of former [things]; neither shall there be [any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come after.
12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all [things] that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.
15 [That which is] crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all [they] that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.
17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
18 For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Amen.
@HS
Will you kindly fcuk off. Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how well I play you are just going to cr@p all over the board and then strut around victoriously.
Well thinker23, your thinking, although I applaud you for doing so, is too narrow. This is because you are limiting the choices between atheism and religion. This is a common mistake. One can be atheistic toward all religion, and reject all that nonsense, and at the same time agnostic about deities and the creation of the universe. This is how I am – I dont' believe, but rather common sense and humbleness toward nature leads me to not be a know-it-all about things I just don't know – this is the agnostic part, like a supreme being or the creation of the universe. For all mama kindless knows, there was a supreme being that was not even spiritual, but real, who visited earth long ago and is not coming back. Or maybe we, by nature, are good, but the only spiritual being out there is like a devil. I can think of many different weird variations, but it's kind of silly to do so because we just don't know. We learn more and more about things in the universe and the creation, but to me, it's silly to say we know things based on any religion and it's also silly to say that there is no god, because we just don't know.
On the other hand, we do know that charlatans and politicians and their lobbyists and salesmen have been selling religion to folk since the beginning of time. These are things, writings etc. that we can see and read and use our powerful brains to make sensible decisions on. And the writing is on the wall so to speak. Man is an expert since long ago at selling things to each other including what they call non-tangible things like ideas. They do it sometimes to survive, but also for political purposes. All religion is man-made. And although there are some interesting stories in the bible and religions writings, I reject that the characters in those stories actually communicated with any supreme being. That's the atheism part for mama kindless. It is so obvious. My mother made me learn christianity well when I was young – all the way through college. Daddy was an atheist, and only insisted that I do well in school. After studying a little theology, mama kindless realized that many of the things Daddy said to her years ago were true in her heart, but more importantly, they pointed out obvious things that only the blind or ignorant would ignore.
That HS idiot said "Atheism gives permission to those that refuse to brake in life . ." Does anyone know what this child is saying? mama kindless doesn't stop in life for anything – "ain't no stopping us now . ." oh dear, you put the boggie in mama kindless early in the day – my goodness.
No you fool. Atheist make zero claims of how the universe came into existence.
Why?
Because at this point in time, we don't know.
And there is no shame is saying so, because that is the truth.
On the other hand, you theists say you do know, yet have zero proof of your knowledge.
THAT is the difference between us.
One is base on facts, the other on faith.
I have no problem with you believing in imaginary beings, that is your problem.
What I have a problem with is you trying to force your belief on me and my family, and politicians who want to make policy based on faith not facts.
HeavenSent said: "Atheism gives permission to those that refuse to brake in life, refuse rules and regulations, refuse morals and ethics, as they proudly allow their egos to get bigger and bigger with no consequences to their actions."
Ok I think I see where this girl with the damaged mind is going now. But that is just ridiculous. Quite the opposite really. Because atheist thinking makes one take more responsibility for themselves. They don't try to hide their misdeeds in their religion – where the religion makes the person feel better, but hides their crime from society. and atheists can be quite moral and ethical people – religious people try to claim they own those attributes but that is just nonsense. I think this silly girl needs to show examples of what she means by refusal to do this and that – what a bunch or crazy ranting this chile does – my goodness!
Thinker wrote, " Every religion is a FAITH, a belief based on set of unprovable assumptions. Atheism is no different. Traditional religions claim that the Universe and everything in it was created by someone having the knowledge and technology to create Universes. Atheism claims that the Universe came into existence all by itself from nothing. It's up to each and everyone of us to decide which version looks more plausible."
This, of course, is simply more fundiot nutter bullshit.
If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby. You also posit an association between atheism and Cosmo.Oct that does not exist. You also demonstrate your own profound ignorance about the science of the early universe.
To put it bluntly, you are an idiot.
Haha, Huebert. I'll have to remember that little comment about playing chess with a pigeon.
What's the odds that all the angry, bitter atheists that use foul language are all posting on the same site at the same time on the same post beating down a Christian? Don't look at that atheist behind the curtain, he's the all and powerful twirp Scotty.
HS
Yes It's all me (cue evil laugh). I spend all my time hunting you down, I have a team of atheist minions dedicated to tracking your every move, which is honestly pretty easy since you haven't left the psych ward since '04. I'm such a talented writer that i can write in as many voices as I choose, male or female. I can also make multiple different post on different boards at the same time. So far you are the only person on belief blog capable of seeing through my awesome powers.
William Demuth, you posted "Bull Droppings, Many of us Atheists are quite comfortable postulating nothing at all."
Answer: You atheists know nothing, stand for nothing, learn nothing, are angry and bitter because you believe lies.
LOL. Scott is a TWIRP.
An atheist thinking. LOL. Atheists hide behind everyone's and anyone's work or steal from those that laid the ground work.
HS
It's not stealing. Scientist publish their work for the purpose of sharing it with others and increasing the body of collective knowledge. One person, heck one university, would be unable to preform even one years worth of published experiments. But they are published so they don't have to.
Thinker, is God nothing?
Reading these posts, I just have this image that when HS is cornered, she is just frantically grabbing bits of all these slips of paper from her old job: the 'Pat Robertson Fortune Cookie Factory for the Spiritually Enlightened' (I understand they hired a LOT of their mentally challenged followers.).
William Demuth said: "A man may not have a specific answer and still be QUITE capable of recognizing an incorrect one."
I like that William. Mama kindless needs to find ways to say what you say so, shall we say, economically.
As usual, the atheist skips over the vanity issue cause that's all they are. Big ego means vanity.
niknak posted "No you fool. Atheist make zero claims of how the universe came into existence.
Why?
Because at this point in time, we don't know.
And there is no shame is saying so, because that is the truth.
On the other hand, you theists say you do know, yet have zero proof of your knowledge.
THAT is the difference between us.
One is base on facts, the other on faith.
I have no problem with you believing in imaginary beings, that is your problem.
What I have a problem with is you trying to force your belief on me and my family, and politicians who want to make policy based on faith not facts."
Answer: Back pedaling on the left (LOL). niknak, I don't force you to do anything. Never have, never will. You need to find one of the people you are angry with and let them know.
Heavensent,
Do you think God created a hierarchy among his creation and put man at the top of it? Made man in his image?
Priceless. Tommie Tom talks with his dummy handle of Huebert. How many handles do you have going here Scott? 30? 40? 50?
LOL.
Simran, God created all for His pleasure. It pleases God for man to love and follow Jesus' truth. It displeases God when man needs to have his ego stroked by following the lies of satan.
All those that displease Jesus will not go on through eternity.
All those that please Jesus will dwell with Him for eternity.
Choose wisely and get over and past your sins by repenting of your sins that you know of and haven't a clue were a sin ... to Jesus Christ. Ask Him if you can get closer to Him (by reading, comprehending and abiding in His truth in the Bible). Then of course, sin no more.
You want to discuss "ego stroking"?? Your "god" makes all others pale by comparison. Hitler was a NICE guy compared to your deity. And Stalin was a mouse next to your "god" when it comes to ego.
So basically you are saying that God has the BIGGEST EGO of us all and is displeased if we have even a small measure of ego??? Now considering the vastness of the Universe he (BTW why did he have to be a male? – smelling male arrogance here!) created, his Ego would be almost INFINITE. And yet he worries about my teeny tiny bit of ego!
How cool?
HS,
Now that wasn't even the question here, was it?
Let me repeat the question for you:
Do you think God created a hierarchy among his creation and put man at the top of it? Made man in his image?
Simran, the Tommie Tom posting the same question over and over again is beyond boring.
God created all for His pleasure. Everything else was created for man to use with righteous respect.
If you can't grasp this concept, it's because you were conditioned by satan's lies.
Matthew 23:1-39
Revelation 3:9
Call the Pakistani Embassy in DC (202) 243-6500 . Or e-mail them on their contact us at their website and ask them if they make it a habit of making war on mentally handicapped children. An 11-year-old girl is locked in a prison cell while you sit comfortably at your computer. Call these ass clowns and ask them what gives? Ask them about Asia Bibi and for her release, too, while your at it. And to think some of you idiots embrace the religion of "peace and tolerance". Shame on you, too. You may as well be the one who threw this child into her cell.
I feel anger just as you do. I don't feel guilt or any responsibility for what the Pakistanis do, but your idea is a good one. I'd add that people can also try to add pressure on Obama, Harper and other heads of state to find ways to influence Pakistan. International pressure may help Pakistan find courage to deal with it's own people.
It is disgusting! I will gladly write the embassy here in Canada and voice my concern, I can only hope others will do the same.
Keith.
Christianity and it's churches are responsible for KILLING thousands of children.
Just in the past three generations, their preachers conspired to bugger 30 thousand little boys rear ends.
I would suggest you get your own cult in order before you worry about the camel jockeys
The US is equally responsible for feeding Pakistan with the necessary support, something which turned out to be a huge mistake in retrospect.
TruthPrevails, I never thought I'd see the day where you and I actually agreed on something, but I THANK YOU for your support of this defenseless girl-you just did more than the majority of Christians will do to help her. Thanks again.
William Demuth, Never have I condoned or offered support for the action of these perverted priests. They will have giant millstones chained around their necks on their descent to hell. The girl in this case has Downs-syndrome. Way to go jack.ass.
Keith: The only thing we will never do is convince each other of our stance on belief. If you can set that aside and agree to disagree life can be pleasant. As for this child, it wouldn't matter what her belief, I would stand by her. The children are our future and as with all children, this one deserves an honest chance.
Prayer changes things
What other living things??? Human's are the only species to have a belief in your imaginary friend!!
All creation honors and obeys God, only mankind has the option to choose and of those only the very foolish minority reject God. God bless
Prayer cannot change anything, as per your own beliefs. It's simple grade school logic, or is that too advanced for you to comprehend?
Bullying is a poor excuse for intelligence. Mensa my ass
What bullying? I made a statement, then asked a question. Where was the bullying?
your ass hole commentary is first bullying and second inaccurate. Mensa my ass
your ass hole commentary is first bullying and second inaccurate. Mensa my ass
It's the Great Cap'n Sayin' Atheism Isn't an Angry Pervert Rangerfield!
Point out the bullying, and be specific. Then explain, in detail, what is inaccurate. Let's see if you can actually debate, rather than expel a series of brain-farts.
just spewin: WRONG!!! Given that no other species has a way of speaking what they believe you have just proven your dishonesty. Might I suggest some de-programming via a mental health specialist?
Too funny, all the dummy handles used by the same atheist fool is writing at the same time to the same article. What are the odds that all these atheists handles belong to individuals? Then figuring those odds out, what's the odds that they'd all be attacking a Christian.
Atheists are sad creatures.
TruthPrevailsNot, are you telling us your ape relatives are not able to talk yet? I'm sure they communicate except you don't understand their language, just like you don't understand what Jesus Christ teaches.
HS: First off: Who is posting using the same handle???
Second: Those apes are also your relatives....human's share 96% of our DNA with chimps. I understand that you do not accept this as fact but instead support the buybull's version that incest is okay (how many innocent children have you raped recently?). You have no comprehension of how evolution works and therefore, your opinion on the matter does not deserve validation.
Third: Not much to understand about the teaching of Sheep Herding Mean who had no comprehension of the world! Those men made up those stories to instill fear in to the weak minded and to control you. I'm not a robot, I do not need to be controlled!!
HeavenSent-
Attack is a strong word. I see some ridicule and I also see people trying to hold Christians and others to some standard when they make extraordinary claims. What's wrong with that? And why aren't you and the other Christians who post such claims up to providing evidence and arguments to support them? Wouldn't your God want you to do a better job?
should have read MEN not Mean
@doc vestibuke
Please show the proofs of your assertions.
An ape's vocal chords are about 2 inches too low in the trachea for verbal speech, but they CAN talk. Google "Coco the gorilla". Coco was actually quite eloquent and had a rather good vocabulary.
Mirosal: Cool 🙂 I know that they do learn sign language and that numerous other tests have been done to study how they learn. I think HeavenSent would fail to accept the similarities and facts about evolution regardless of how much evidence is put her in face. She can continue to live her fantasy, as long as she learns to keep it out of schools, government and the public square.
TruthPrevailsNot. Don't put me in the atheist category. I didn't get brain washed in school with the evolution lies as your generation did. Genesis 1 tells us when man was created by God, as well as the animals.
HS: So you believe in incest? I didn't need to go to school to see that the buybull is so full of fallacies it makes Grimms Fairy Tales-The original version look tame!!
You enjoy your delusion, we'll continue to fight to make this world better for your grandchildren while you continue to live a fairy tale.
Tom, Tom, the Other One, you posted "HeavenSent- Attack is a strong word. I see some ridicule and I also see people trying to hold Christians and others to some standard when they make extraordinary claims. What's wrong with that? And why aren't you and the other Christians who post such claims up to providing evidence and arguments to support them? Wouldn't your God want you to do a better job?
Answer: Atheists are immoral and have no standards. Every time a Christian sites where information is obtained, those Web sites get blocked, books are pulled etc.. Therefore, do you own research or stay ignorant.
TruthPrevailsNOT, I'm so tired of you twisting and contorting the truth in the Bible. All the races were created on the 6th day, Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day. If all the races were created on the 6th day, were is the incest that you want to insert with your own untruth. I gave you that site to read it for yourself, so you have no excuse to stay the ignoramus.
TruthPrevailsNot, you posted "HS: So you believe in incest? I didn't need to go to school to see that the buybull is so full of fallacies it makes Grimms Fairy Tales-The original version look tame!!"
Answer: LOL, the only fallacies is in the unlearned minds of how to read or cross reference the Bible. Time to get off your butt TruthPrevailsNot and learn the Bible. Here's an excellent Bible Study site http://biblestudysite.com/indepth.htm
HS: I really don't give rats ass if you're tired of me twisting a book of trash stories!!! When you are able to back your claims without using that book, your opinion will be taken seriously!!! I asked you a question and given that you didn't answer it, as you do with us, I will do with you and I will assume that you support incest. How the hell else do you suggest the earth was populated??? Try using something other than your buybull (which has been debunked time after time). You are a brainwashed idiot!!!
@HeavenSent
When God caused the Great Flood, the only humans to survive were Noah, his three sons and their respective wives.
For a healthy gene pool, a minimum of 40 genetically distinct (IE: no cosanguinity) breeding pairs are required.
Any less and there will inevitably be a population bottleneck in which allelic drift will cause negative phenotypes to propagate. In layman's terms, incest leads to birth defects which lead to extinction within just a handful of generations.
This is basic Mendelian genetics.
Doc, how many times does a Christian have to post directly to you, that Noah's flood was not global, but regional, and you continue to ignore the answer? What's the point? You love being a Putz?
Here's a great teaching site to learn scriptures:
http://biblestudysite.com/indepth.htm
Doc, do you know what Genesis to Revelation are? These books explain Jesus Christ's life, his lineage back to Adam and Eve, who He met while He walked the earth. What occurred when He walked the earth. His truth about life and the hereafter. Why we are here.
Now for the family of Noah. That flood was regional, not global. Other people who lived throughout the globe were still alive and well because they did not live in the area of the Flood where Noah lived. Noah's family was the only family left in the lineage of Jesus Christ's that weren't corrupted. The Bible explains Jesus Christ's lineage and how the devil keeps putting in wrenches of the wheels to prevent Jesus Christ's birth.
@HS
" the devil keeps putting in wrenches of the wheels to prevent Jesus Christ's birth."
So you are saying the devil has enough power to interfere with god's plan? Sound's like your god isn't nearly as powerful or omniscient as you claim.
@HeavenSent
The Bible does not indicate a local flood.
God said, "I am surely going to destroy both them (the people) and the Earth" (Genesis 6:13)
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the Earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19–20).
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gensis 9:1)
Oh and one more: God's own words in this case.
"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7-4)
Hmmmm...
I provided clear, unambiguous Bible quotes showing that the Genesis flood was supposed to have been a global one, thus discrediting Heavensent's rationalizations.
Response from HS? *tumbleweeds* * silence*
I think that means I win...
Doc, you continue to be the moron and will never win. The katabole is what destroyed the first earth age. God then decided to erase our memories, let us be born of woman, to live on earth. Why? This life is our 2nd chance to love and follow Jesus Christ's truth and reject satan's lies. Noah's flood was regional, not global.
Read it for yourself: http://www.biblestudysite.com/begin.htm
Huebert, cough Tommie Tom, stop trying to insert lies into my mouth. Your lies when you hijack my handle proves you atheists are nothing but liars.
As for satan. He's smarter than you atheist. That's why he has you following his lies.
He fell from God's grace due to the sin of envy/pride.
What you atheists don't get. Life is a test from God. There are 2 rules to this test. Rule # 1 is Jesus' truth. Rule # 2 is satan's lies.
You have a choice of picking one of the two rules.
Choose wisely, your soul depends on it.