 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Answers in Genesis:
Claims the world is less than 10,000 years old;
Opposes ALL abortions (tough luck if a woman needs one to save her life);
Opposes stem cell research; and
Claims the Bible "can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on".
Makes sense to SOME people.
Well, it would make sense to me if they provided evidence proving the world was less than 10,000 years old. Let's start there. And while I personally have a problem with abortion, I recognize that it's a woman's choice and right.
Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance
"Well, it would make sense to me if they provided evidence proving the world was less than 10,000 years old."
Take for instance, the moon. The moon is moving farther away from the earth every years. We know this because we can measure it. If you do the math, the moon would have been touching the earth (if I remember the numbers correctly) a million years ago. So it can't be billions like some believe.
Ah, there you are. First off, why is the moon moving away from the earth, and what is the appropriate mathematical model for that?
No idea WHY it's moving away. I'm not an astrophysicist. As far as the math equation, I'm sure you can find it online. I have it in a book, but that's not in front of me at the moment.
What a sad little troll. Really, Topher, you should get some physical exercise. That flab isn't going to go away by itself.
I love how all you guys have is name calling. But that's OK. It strengthens my faith.
Here's an idea, Toupher – since it's your claim, why don't you do the math and the science, and then put it forward for review. By the way, you ignored my evidence on the carbon-14 dating disproving the age of the earth. Also, I did not mention that the other dating methods prove the earth is far older (billions of years). So, with the carbon-14 evidence rejecting a young earth, and the Uranium-lead, Potassium-Argons, etc. methods showing it is far older, there are now several methods refuting your claim.
Topher, since you are a well-known scuzzball of a troll, I have no qualms about insulting you at all. You suck as a human being. Fact.
Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance
"Here's an idea, Toupher – since it's your claim, why don't you do the math and the science, and then put it forward for review."
Already been done by far smarter people than me.
"Also, I did not mention that the other dating methods prove the earth is far older (billions of years)."
There are some dating methods that point to an old earth, true. But something like 90 percent of them point to a young earth.
"So, with the carbon-14 evidence rejecting a young earth, and the Uranium-lead, Potassium-Argons, etc. methods showing it is far older, there are now several methods refuting your claim."
Carbon14 CANNOT point to an old earth.
Topher,
"Carbon14 CANNOT point to an old earth."
Yes because it cannot function for material over 60,000 years old, so your claim is meaningless as proof.
My "claim" is that you can't use Carbon14 as evidence for an old earth. And thus can't reject a young earth.
I didn't mean to push you off about the moon, Topher. Your book may have misled you with a linear model and no explanation for it. The answer has to do with tidal forces and the system is sufficiently complex that it requires a probabilistic treatment. At any rate, a linear model is not in it. Here's a fairly modern paper.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1994AJ....108.1943T
If you do investigate, you may find that you are being flat out lied to - at least it would be lies except that the unsuccessful representatives of the truth feel that as long as what they say is consistent with Genesis it beats everything else out there, and so believe it themselves.
I'm noticing you keep missing this, Topher. (from Observer):
There are some dating methods that point to an old earth, true. But something like 90 percent of them point to a young earth.
"So, with the carbon-14 evidence rejecting a young earth, and the Uranium-lead, Potassium-Argons, etc. methods showing it is far older, there are now several methods refuting your claim."
If you refute any of what's in that statement, then say why. Just repeating what's commonly known about part of types of tests that are used is of no use if you're ignoring other pertinent factors.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
To be fair, how do I know the one being lied to isn't you? Would it be fair to assume you believe in evolution?
@Topher,
"The moon is moving farther away from the earth every years. We know this because we can measure it. If you do the math, the moon would have been touching the earth (if I remember the numbers correctly) a million years ago. So it can't be billions like some believe.
You do realize that the moon was formed in a collision with the earch some 4.5BYA. It's not surprising that it is still moving away, caught in a gravitational tug of war between earth and sun. I stipulate that you were deliberately misinformed.
The current rate is 3.82±0.07 cm per year, but there is no reason to assume that this is a constant rate – which is where your "numbers" come from.
(regarding the quoted statement from Observer)
@Topher
You said, "Take for instance, the moon. The moon is moving farther away from the earth every years. We know this because we can measure it. If you do the math, the moon would have been touching the earth (if I remember the numbers correctly) a million years ago. So it can't be billions like some believe."
The moon is currently about 378400 km from the Earth (semi-major axis minus the radius of the Earth) and is moving away at roughly 3.82 cm per year. And while that rate is not constant, simply dividing the two (after converting them to the same units) yields just under 10 billion years.
See, that is the problem with just repeating the nonsense that you hear without checking it. You get called out and proven wrong.
I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
"You do realize that the moon was formed in a collision with the earch some 4.5BYA."
How do you know that?
"The current rate is 3.82±0.07 cm per year, but there is no reason to assume that this is a constant rate – which is where your "numbers" come from."
Do you have a reason to believe it was once a different speed?
Doris
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean.
LinCA
"And while that rate is not constant, simply dividing the two (after converting them to the same units) yields just under 10 billion years."
How do you know it's not constant?
See, that is the problem with just repeating the nonsense that you hear without checking it. You get called out and proven wrong.
Topher,
Do you believe that the moon and the sun suddently stopped like the Bible says? If so, please explain how critical laws of physics are just optional.
Topher
"See, that is the problem with just repeating the nonsense that you hear without checking it. You get called out and proven wrong."
Whoops, forgot this part. Sorry. Proven wrong? No.
Topher, I've only seen some of the most important fossils out there and they did not excite me. Mathematics does. It is beginning to show that evolution must happen. Can't help but happen. I am a kind of geneticist by training. I see things in genomic DNA all the time that are best explained by the very processes that people appeal to in theories of evolution. I do believe it. But for all that, I don't believe it as you are asked to believe in your God.
My fault, Topher – I copied slightly the wrong set of lines which made my first post unclear. But what Observer keeps saying is:
"So, with the carbon-14 evidence rejecting a young earth, and the Uranium-lead, Potassium-Argons, etc. methods showing it is far older, there are now several methods refuting your claim."
I think everyone understands your issue with the carbon-14, but what about the other methods mentioned?
Observer
"Do you believe that the moon and the sun suddently stopped like the Bible says? If so, please explain how critical laws of physics are just optional."
Well, because you have the One who CREATED physics acting upon it. He can do those things because He's GOD. I know you can't believe that because it goes against your worldview, but in the Christian worldview it fits perfectly.
Topher,
"in the Christian worldview it fits perfectly"
Yes. That is the difference between science, logic, physics, common sense, reality and blind faith. Sad.
Doris
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
"I think everyone understands your issue with the carbon-14, but what about the other methods mentioned?"
I wish everyone DID understand it, but unfortunately it's the third or fourth time today an atheist tried to use it. It's a common objection, but it just doesn't hold up. Now as far as those others, to be honest, I don't remember a thing about them. I'd have to go read up on them again. As I stated earlier, I do know that there are some dating methods that point to an old earth, and I have no accounting for them. But what is never mentioned by old earthers is that something like 90 percent of dating methods point to a young earth.
Topher, if you want to work through the 90% and get to the bottom of things, what they really point to. I'm willing to give you a hand and I won't ridicule you.
Topher, How do you know it was constant? If you put this energy into learning about science instead of trying to discredit it to prop up your creation myth, you'd see how wrong those Bronze Age sheepherders were.
@Topher
You said, "How do you know it's not constant?"
Mathematics, not that it matters. But it's funny that you attack the only thing in my post that could have possibly saved yours. The only way the moon could have been "touching the Earth" a million years ago, is for that rate to change dramatically.
You said, "See, that is the problem with just repeating the nonsense that you hear without checking it. You get called out and proven wrong."
You haven't proven jack-shit. All you do, is try to deflect from your own ignorance.
@Topher,
Do you have a reason to believe it was once a different speed?
Yes is the short answer. At the point of the collision it was zero. Then it quickly increased to a very large number and it eventually settled down to something close to zero again as the orbit became more stable.
I'm not an astronomer but lunar orbital perturbations suggest to me that it changes relatively frequently in an astronomical sense. We're talking about the interaction of non-spherical masses with non-uniform densities whirling around each other at stupendous speeds.
Amongst the many complexities of the lunar orbit it has a precession of nodes where it crosses the ecliptic plane every 18.5 years or so. It's not nearly as stable as I suspect you think it is.
No way, the physics of a collision of two perfectly elastic, uniformly dense spheres with no outside forces acting upon them represents it error-free!
@LinCA,
The moon is currently about 378400 km from the Earth (semi-major axis minus the radius of the Earth) and is moving away at roughly 3.82 cm per year. And while that rate is not constant, simply dividing the two (after converting them to the same units) yields just under 10 billion years.
By my math the constant rate yields 10 million years. A constant rate over 4.5BY would be 84 μm per year. 4.5BY is a long time.
In any case, 10 million is still well over 6,000.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
You said, "By my math the constant rate yields 10 million years. A constant rate over 4.5BY would be 84 µm per year. 4.5BY is a long time."
Did you do the conversions right? Let me step through them.
First, for ease of calculation, round 378400 km up to 400,000 km, and 3.82 cm up to 4 cm.
Next, changing them to the same unit of measure, 400,000 km (400 thousand kilometers) is 400,000,000 m (400 million meters), or 400,000,000,000 mm (400 billion millimeters) and 4 cm is 40 mm.
Lastly, dividing 400 billion millimeters by 40 millimeters per year yields 10 billion years.
I wish I owned a billboard where people want to waste $200G on a message whose intended audience will simply ignore.
Interesting. Who is their intended audience?
Since it is addressed "to our atheist friends", I would stay that literally, the target audience is atheists, which is who I meant.
But in truth the target audience is themselves – the creation museum people. The real target audience is themselves. They want to feel good about their sense of moral and spiritual superiority over non-believers every time they drive by the billboard, which arguably is really no different to David Silverman's billboards.
I, too, wish you owned a billboard that could bring you big bucks. And a private jet. I wish you had a private jet.
And a jacuzzi. And a whelk just in case a supernova makes an appearance. Just kidding about the jacuzzi...
This is an honest question. So if you are going to call me names or insult my intelligence, save it for something else. I do believe in evolution and I believe in God, that God directed it. I've heard evolutionists say that Natural Selection is not by chance. How so? Why is it not by chance? If Natural Selection carefully selects advantages that are presented to it by chance, isn't the basis of Natural Selection fundamentally chance. I had a Creationist use the argument that if you cut up pages from a book, dropped it on the floor, what are the "chances" that it will spontaneously arrange the pages into something legible. It will never happen. Thanks.
An infinite number of monkeys, each with a typewriter will produce Hamlet, but this is purely a mathematical concept.
Pages from a book dropped onto a floor are not subject to pure randomness. Entropy is present, so is gravity, wind resistance and the laws of motion.
These and similar factors affect evolution. It is not chance – the laws of physics influence the outcomes.
Evolution is something you "accept", ghosts, gods, fairies are things you "believe" in. That's like saying you believe in gravity. Living things evolve through pressure from their environment. Don't know what your stress on chance is.
several statements, a couple of questions, and a question that didn't quite come out like a question,
so how can it be honest?
The "chance" is in a mutation that is favorable – you must have misunderstood.
Please look up the term "confirmation bias". It is what most indoctrinated, delusional people use to "reason" things out.
I watched an interesting video on Youtube the other day that talked about how some people only look for sources that support their position; they fail to review the arguments against their positions.
Yes, it's sort of like that. But this is a case of where everything one sees is instantly interpreted to be supporting one's beliefs regardless of actual reality. You're talking about people who go looking for supporting evidence. If the bias is already there, the evidence is anything at all, not necessarily in a scientific way, either. But that's my take on it, anyway.
I hadn't heard of that term before. I looked it up. I think that term probably applies to everybody.
If saying so makes you feel better about it, sweetie, then have fun with that. Not everyone engages in delusional or irrational information processing like you do. You refuse to see what endangers your indoctrinated and horribly skewed world-view.
That isn't something everyone else does either. Just religious people and others indoctrinated heavily in other ways.
Brainwashing is a crime against humanity and should be a capital crime throughout the world. You would agree if you were able to think for yourself, but that will likely never be the case. You are enslaved and your masters laugh as you stumble along. Go back to your masters, slave. Begone and take your filthy chains with you.
MetroMan, your low level of intelligence and inability to think critically actually is part of your problem. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Well, I am only in high school. That's what the kids at school say too.
I'm done here
Your high school is not in the business of removing your indoctrination. We have geezers posting your sort of nonsense here.
Age isn't the problem. Mental illness is. You are schizophrenic. You openly admit it by proclaiming yourself religious.
School isn't going to fix that. Only disillusionment and deprogramming will clear away the BS that's been crammed in your head.
MetroMan–
I think you're still a bit confused and looking for answers to big questions. Keep searching with an open mind and I believe you'll eventually discard this notion that there MUST be a god pulling the strings.
It would be great to have a little stand under that sign selling shirts and pins and stuff with the Darwin fish on them. Quite profitable, I imagine.
The Dodgers won.
All of this is stupid. Even though atheists are right, boasting about it will not convert anyone and the same goes for the creationists. A billboard will not change anyone's mind, it will only make people annoyed.
Not quite. It's a reminder that, (1) they have the answer, (2) God is watching you, and (3) there's punishment for non-believers.
I think it is very attractive and it definitely helps the atheist cause due to its stupidity on multiple levels.
if an atheist is going to spend eternity without God or hanging upside down in empty space.....why do fundies care? are they hoping to get some special reward like 72 virgins, if they some how succeed in changing minds of atheists?
There are a lot of reasons here are a couple. First, God told us to share the good news. Next, with the love of God in our heart we hope to rescue those who are on the broad road.
Hey I have good news! Worship me or burn for eternity! Yea!!
The carrot is much better, hope, peace, & joy.
you take the words of man and attribute it to "god"
not very convincing, robbie
The words of God Sam.
I'd like to hear more about "God Sam".
claims are easy to make robert
particularly when they are repeated over and over by mindless drones who never condidered the POSSIBILTY that they could be wrong
Sam, I am absolutely sure I can be wrong. I know I've been wrong before and anticipate I will be wrong again. Are you ready to surrender to God?
Perhaps sam will consider surrendering to General Zod.
He may surrender to someone tomorrow. I think he went to bed.
Nonsense, Robbie. You have stated that there is no way you can be wrong about the existence or nature of god. Have you changed your mind on this?
How can I surrender to something I do not believe exists?
You don't seem to have a good grasp on logic
Are you ready to surrender to Homer Simpson? How about Zeus? Bugs Bunny?
And, what is this "surrender" about? Are you a prisoner?
Sam, thanks for the laugh this morning. Your references to cartoon characters was very funny.
So you'd welcome Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc. trying to convert you?
Sure it would give me an opportunity to share Jesus with them.
Furthermore, you seek to rescue spare money from the newly converted in order to proselytize more, to gain more converts, to get more money and more power, ad infinitum.
There are no gods or goddesses, demons or devils, ghosts or goblins. Religion was invented by man to control the masses.
Yea, I'm getting rich blogging.
want the good news, robert?
there is no heaven, there is no hell. there is no judgement, there is no god
this is my opinion and i state it as such
do you have the same level of honesty?
or do you continue to bloviate that you and other believers speak for god?
This is what I believe & I state it as such.
why do you feel should give a sh1t what your OPINION of god is?
can you be any more arrogant?
you claim it is a belief, but your tone indicates that it is knowledge you feel you have
for example, rather than stating that you believe the bible to be the word of god, you outright stated it IS the word of god
yet you have no more clue than anyone else
so, you just bloviate to the unbelievers.....sort of like a spiritual self-pleasuring
do you feel all godly when you preach?
do you seriously think people are going to turn to jeebus due to your witnessing?
if so, you have a seriously overblown sense of your own persuasive powers
I'm just sowing the seed Sam, giving what I've received.
It is belief and I don't intend to come across as arrogant. Would it be more believable if I stated belief without confidence?
I believe the bible is the word of God. I do enjoy discussing God and sharing my faith.
I do hope you receive Christ. God does the persuading.
no, robbie, the story is unbelievable in any case
your arrogance just makes you sound dumb
you know, like gopher
and i hope you stop being a slave to the words of iron age sheep molesters, but i doubt you have the humility to do so
what is a creationist? ive never heard of them.
They believe God created everything.
They are a set of whacko believers that believe in the literal truth of Genesis in The Babble, despite having no evidence to support their delusions and much scientific evidence to the contrary.
Check out the http://www.answersingenesis.org website. They'll explain it all there. Quite interesting.
But when you do "check it out," before sure to ask them for their scientifically vetted proof. You'll find they provide none.
They actually provide quite a bit.
They have scientifically vetted "proof" – it might come from the discovery inst!tute, but they're scientists, aren't they? :^))
No, you're confused. Stating that there are physical constants in the universe is not a proof – it's a recognition of the discoveries of science. Your claim is God created the universe, so present your evidence that God exists, and then present your evidence that God created the Universe.
I'll even help you. God walked and spoke with many a person in the Old Testament – have God come and do that to everyone on the planet, at the same instant, with the identical "vision." If that happens, you're going to have a lot of converted atheists joining you.
God did personally come to earth and proclaimed this truth – His name was Jesus. And confirmed it by many, many miracles for both believers and non-believers, and further confirmed it by His resurrection from the dead. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are eye-witness accounts of God coming to earth, His teaching while He was here, and the signs He performed.
Even then, a number refused to believe. And yet, for those who did/do believe in Jesus there is a changed life. If anyone genuinely wants to know, seek Him even now. He is alive and cares very much about you.
"""Even then, a number refused to believe. """
Apparently this included most of the civilization at that time. Must not have been very convincing.
Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."
Oh by the way Bill Nye, YOU BUILD STUFF WITH WHAT GOD HAS ALREADY CREATED, YOU DO NO BUILD FROM THIN AIR, EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED AND THE BRAINS WITH WHICH YOU BUILD IS ALSO BEEN CREATED BY GOD, NOT BY YOUR MOTHER OR FATHER WHO GAVE YOU BIRTH!
Your argument fails on two counts: first you have not proved that God exists, and second, you have not proved that God created the universe. In short, you have no evidence. Your claim is necessarily rejected.
Sarah denies the existence of man-made elements.
Nah, I'm sure she's never heard of such things because she probably flunked basic science in school.
But, but, but! You don't understand! If man invented something, anything, it's because some unproven god allowed it.
sarah.....how do you make that logical leap from a creator to a god?
So the creator-magician was a non-deity?
Since there are no deities that exist that could ever be reasonably described as deities, a non-deity having somehow caused the Big Bang is a definite possibility. There are no gods.
perhaps something that could be described as a creator rather than a god
it seems that the theist line of thinking goes something like this
"something created us, therefore it is God"
Simple question: Why are 99% of all species that ever existed extinct?
Creationists cite the Biblical account of a global flood in Genesis 6 – 9. That's what gave us fossils, extinction of species, and present day geography.
If I told my kids that they would crack up.
No. You don't understand the science behind stratigraphy and radiometric dating. If what you are claiming was true, we would be able to date all of the strata all over the world with the carbon-14 dating method (for ages on the order of thousands of years). You don't your science, you have no evidence; I know my science and have just given you evidence disproving your claim.
I do have a somewhat fair grasp of radiometric dating methods. They do not prove evolution nor disprove creationism. Those methods have their limitations and assumptions. If you'd like to learn more about the creationist scientists' rebuttal of claims that radiometric dating methods are 'proof' for evolution there are a number of articles at the AIG website.
Whoa. Let me guess – you probably think baking only require flour, lard and sugar.
If a person earnestly seek's God/gods and finds no evidence of them, what should he consider himself? Atheist? Agnostic? Failure? The last is what the Christians and other religious would have you believe. They will tell you with one side of their mouths that you just havn't looked hard enough yet, while with the other side they will tell you that you need faith which is of course belief without evidence. So which is it? Seek harder and you will find evidence so you can believe? Or is it that when you say "Seek" what you really mean is "Want". If you "want" something to be true, you can convince yourself that it is no matter the evidence to the contrary. Why do you think there some people are stalkers? They have been told by the stalked they don't want to be around them anymore and yet the stalker is thinking "I know they want me around, I know they love me, they just havn't realized it yet, but i'll show them.." Well I'm tired of being stalked by Christians and I think a lot of other people are too.
"stalked by Christians"
That's funny. Mostly because it isn't true.
It was a metaphor for those Christians who I have said "No thank you" to and yet they keep knocking on my door and think I just must not have heard them correctly. Unwelcome advances is what they are and do amount to stalking once I've asked them to stop.
He should consider himself lost. You are either saved or lost. The way to obtain enough faith to become saved is to hear the word of God preached in the power of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I read your passage from Romans – it has bigottted material in it. Where is your human decency to put forth such harm?
What?
Yeah, that's right, go back an read Romans 18-32. Shame on you.
Which chapter? Also, I don't recall quoting Romans lately.
Ah, you're right. I owe you an apology, Robert Brown. It was Lawrence of Arabia who put that forth. Again, you have my apologies – I mistook you for someone else here – I was wrong.
Perhaps we are in an excited state, say all spin-up, or "saved", or else spin-up and spin-down, "lost". Now, what God needs and what the Holy Spirit can work with is population inversion. The Holy Spirit can bring about the emission of a sort of coherent pulse of souls directed into Heaven.
That sounds nifty. I think there is energy & attraction involved.
it's amusing that you desire eternity with the being from whom you feel you need to be saved
We are saved from sin.
One need not be religious in order to be free from religious sin.
Then again, "sin" varies from religion to religion, and since "sin" is wholly a religious notion, it stands to reason that all atheists by definition are free from sin, too!
what pompous blather, robert
Yakobi, atheist are in bondage because of sin. A slave to sin. Spiritually dead because of sin. Freedom from sin and life are available through Jesus.
isn't pride a sin, robbie?
you have stated that YOU SPEAK FOR GOD
doesn't sound particularly humble to me
i thought you were supposed to be saved from sin
you don't sound like you have gotten over that pride thing
not to mention the arrogance to believe that people actually want to hear your preaching
sin this, sin that
you sure have this sin thing shoved far up your rectum, don't you?
you and your fellow true believers have run from this but, if god is omniscient, there is NO FREE WILL
if god knows who will be saved and who will not before they are born, but allows those he KNOWS will not to be born anyway, destined for hell, is a vindictive pr1ck.
if you want to grovel before this punk, knock yourself out
but don't expect that you will convince anyone
"You are either saved or lost."
Saved from what? And how can you be lost if you know right where you are. It would appear that your God is lost since many have promised his return but 2,000 years later we're all still waiting...
Saved from the consequences of sin, primarily separation from God. You are lost in a far country separated from the love of God. Maybe he is waiting on one more to be saved before he returns. Maybe that one is you.
come on, just.....the savior got lost in traffic, i think he is on the 401.
you would think an omniscient being would not need a GPS
yep, maybe it's just one more, robbie.....one more.....annnnny time now, the savior is coming back annnnnnny time,,,,
i don't understand how you can believe this tripe
God is great and I go to Heaven because....
Because someone told you it was so....
before the religious start claiming all their good works,, how about we end their grant money, our tax dollar. In fact catholic charities is funded mostly by grants. All to provide cheap services.
Lay off my tax dollar because it's using my dollar for your religious exposure.
I would put better odds on the Matrix being true, than any Monotheistic or Polytheistic approach thus presented by Mankind in our 170,000 or so years evolved on our 4 billion year old world.
it could have been an infinite number of times an an infinite number of universes.. In which case, I'd add, this is as far as we've gotten? We haven't done so well.
Using state-of-the-art genome sequencing and bioinformatics, the researchers resolved a long-standing, unanswered evolutionary question. Scientists found that ants and bees were more closely related, than to wasps. The scientists combined data from the transcriptome - showing which genes are active and being transcribed from DNA into RNA - and genomic (DNA) data from a number of species of ants, bees and wasps.
How can evolution deniers accept genetics and deny evolution?
um...they are delusional schizophrenics, son. They aren't rational. Don't expect them to be and don't waste your time on crazy.
It's easy really.
How can atheists deny the mathematical impossibilities of evolution?
Show me and I'll discard evolution.
I was just going to say that the mathematics of information theory makes it hard to understand how evolution could be avoided.
And yet, here you are denying the mathematically impossibility of creationism, MR_K.
Isn't irony wonderful? lol
The odds that all the elements coalesced into a single planet the right distance from a star, all the way through the complexity of DNA forming for every living thing in spite of the laws of physics (e.g. thermodynamics)that would suggest such things don't naturally occur, and numerous other dependent variables required for evolutionary theory to produce the world exactly as we see it today are statistically zero^50. It is mathematically impossible and a number of secular, evolutionary scientists have noted such.
Your batshit craziness is duly noted. Thanks for stopping by.
I would suggest that when you consider exactly what does occur, the probability is usually close to zero for anything but the simplest events. Oh, and from the standpoint of mathematical arguments, probability zero does not mean impossible.
No scientist has said it is impossible, what they say is that small variations in certain parameters would have made the events that led to the creation of an environment hospitable to life on Earth impossible. As others have stated the odds are not impossible because clearly here we all are! Science has explanations based upon evidence; the bible is the imaginings of Bronze Age Middle Eastern sheepherders.
Details on some of the statistics on the probability of evolution can be found at AIG's website: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Because THAT'S a reputable peer-reviewed and mathematically sound website...
Details about the Flat Earth Society can be found on their website:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org
They're just as wrong as the creationists.
Mr K, even if your so-called "mathematical impossibilities" exist (and I'd contend they don't, at least not in any way that invalidates the theory of cosmic evolution), they're negligible alongside the myriad contradictions, biological and physical impossibilities that pepper your Bible.
Some random dude rises from the dead after 3 days? Lucky he didn't try it in Romania (he'd have been staked through the heart) or modern-day USA – he'd be double-tapped by Carl or Rick before he finished rolling away the stone...
Noah built a ship big enough to house 2 of every land-dwelling species? A shame he couldn't fit in a single dinosaur, or even a wooly mammoth...
Creationists would say that dinosaurs and woolly mammoths were included on the ark, but became fully extinct sometime in the thousands of years since the flood, possibly because of the changes in climate following such a catastrophic event.
And yet the creationists would be wrong, because Noah could not have possibly built a vessel large enough to contain two of every species that ever existed on the earth.
Noah didn't need to bring the biggest, oldest animals of every species. Young ones would fit easily within the ark, as described in the Bible.
I even think someone is re-engineering a full-sized model of the ark to prove this point.
2 million different animals. 2 or more of each (take your pick). Months and months of food supplies including fresh meat for all the carnivores. Special diets like those required by koalas. No exercise for millions of animals. Keep them cooped up on a ship smaller than current cruise ships for months. Then when the animals are finally freed to walk on land, kill some of them for sacrifices. All plant life and all other animals (for food) destroyed.
Noah's Ark may be the first science fiction story.
It is an extraordinarily Christian Billboard, on the one hand they call you a friend, but their smug smiles tell you that they are really thinking about how Heaven is built with a little perch that you can look down into Hell from and see all the sinners and take comfort in your love of God and your faith in Jesus that you chose wisely and are living the good life in Heaven for all eternity....
UM. Yeah. Ok. MADNESS!!
I haven't actually met any Christians with that perspective and I very much doubt that is a fair representation of that organization. God describes Himself in the Bible as someone who wishes that everyone would be saved from their sins and judgment and that none should perish. No smugness. It's people who choose not to believe or seek God; it's not God's fault.
But that circular logic presupposes a god, but there aren't any gods.
muslims are now atheists too!!
How do you know this?
JP81, They don't believe in your version of god, nor do followers of all the other religions.
Since there is no scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of a creator, atheism is no less a faith than any religion.
No, that's an ignorant statement. There is not one piece of evidence that supports religion is true. Not one. But there is a great deal of evidence behind science. Shame on you.
Atheist don't have faith that there are no gods. If they bother to do so, they believe there are no gods.
If you insist on portraying a lack of a belief as equivalent to a belief, you may as well admit you also claim them both to be worthless in the same breath, as that is the point you made, perhaps unintentionally...
...in other words, your comment is stupid, moribund, and ridiculous. But we love you and wish you would take your meds.
@Keith B Rosenberg
You said, "Since there is no scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of a creator, atheism is no less a faith than any religion."
Bullshit. There is just as much evidence for the Tooth Fairy as for any god. Does that mean that we should seriously consider the possibility that she is real?
Without evidence it is completely ridiculous to believe any gods exist. Beliefs in gods are no more reasonable than beliefs in monsters under your bed, or in the Easter Bunny.
You guys talk as if there isn't scientific evidence for Intelligent Design and that only evolution has science to back it up. Take a look around before making that assumption, will you?
Start here, The Law (yes law, not theory) of Thermodynamics.
We have looked at the evidence. If you have a claim, please make it; I'm open to new discoveries. But, you'll need evidence, just like you do for everything else here in life.
@MR_K
You said, "You guys talk as if there isn't scientific evidence for Intelligent Design and that only evolution has science to back it up."
If you have a case to make for ID, make it. People far smarter than you have tried, and failed. Miserably.
You said, "Take a look around before making that assumption, will you?"
I am looking around, and have yet to see the first indication of any supernatural creature.
You said, "Start here, The Law (yes law, not theory) of Thermodynamics."
The fact that you emphasize that it is a law and not a theory, speaks volumes about your scientific ignorance. But that aside, please explain how the laws (there are 4) provide any evidence for a creator?
Fred! Chad! Long time no see! Still retarded about the laws of thermodynamics, I see.
Still wasting your time here, too. Good idea. Wouldn't want to actually do anything rational, would we?
the possessed toaster.. (soon to be renamed the Scalia toaster)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgXbXLJUHUA
So Keith, do you have faith that invisible Unicorns do not ride comets around our galaxy?
I see no evidence to disprove or prove that statement, so does that mean I must rely on faith to draw that conclusion? Or might I be relying on logic and reason to conclude that a premise without evidence should take no faith to disbelieve but should be dismissed out of hand until there is evidence to support the claim.
Great comment. Atheist offer as much evidence as theists do.... Even Science til some extent is a believe. There will always be room for the "Mystical" cus there is just so much our science can prove.... not long ago science would hold as ultimate truth things we now know are not true....
atheism is not an affirmative claim that god does not exist. rather, it is non acceptance of the claim that god does exist
Well said, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. This one is as thick-headed as they come.
I don't believe in Atheism. Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin ruined more lives in a very short amount of time than a so called "religion" could have. Granted, some religions aren't much better ,such as Islam. Anyone citing the crusades thanks for the laugh. What 12 million people died in that? And it's a war. It's not like ,a war on their own people, like the atheist regimes have done.
That's an old claim that's been refuted on the net. It would be wise if you explored the arguments against your claims before putting them forward.
I hear A.H. was pretty big on religion, Smarmy.
I don't really think so. He posed for a picture in front of a church. But wasn't a religious man. He had fantasies of reviving a culture that never existed. He had fantasies of ruling the world. He had his own beliefs, but I don't know if you could call it a religion.
Bible readers should ditch their ridiculous book for just one year and actually study some of the papers being published by the academic/scientific communities....fascinating stuff happening in our Universe without the need for any man made iron age deities 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
The bible is the most easily disprovable book ever printed by Man.
Zeus doesn't exist, never did, a fictional god like all the others so why pray to it?
Fools, wasting your life, because you give yourself licence to believe in nonsense ie. another life after this one.
That's quite a claim. Have you tried disproving the Bible? It's not as easy as you would think.
Try open one right now to any page and see what you get.....garbage! Once you negate the existence of this deity since their is no more proof for it than Apollo or Loki or Thoth, the whole thing falls apart in shambles. Look what I just flipped to...
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
CREEPY!
But you can't disprove something by simply stating that you 'negate the existence of this deity'. You are starting with your personal assumption and declaration that God does not exist. To disprove the Bible one must look at the entire Bible, honestly understand what it is saying, and look for flaws in logic or contradictions. If you were to fairly examine a Biblical worldview and compare it with science, logic, and against itself without atheistic assumptions you would have a much more difficult time disproving the Bible than you might think. In fact, I know of a number of people who have become Christians after taking up such a task.
You should study your history. Back when Slaves were from the local area and also further, they were actually treated like family. They often took on the family's name, lived on the residence and were paid quite well.
Don't get America's treatment of slaves as a symbol for everywhere else.
John Paul 81 – From a former Catholic to you, the Bible made possible the slavery in the colonies and the inhuman treatment of native Americans in the New World. You, sir, should examine your Bible, starting with the question, "What if I am wrong?"
MR_K,
Read a Bible sometime. It gives instructions for how badly you can hurt your "BELOVED" slave without any punishment.
Get serious.
So what you are saying mr k is that it is ok to own another human being if you treat them nice?
On the contrary, you are the one making the claim that it is true so it is your responsibility to provide proof for your claim. So far, no evidence has been provided by anyone on your behalf.
And yours is full of holes, still unproven and you have to ass 10.000 years to your timeline every year do to new discoveries. How old do you think this universe is? Pick a number and keep it.
Actually, disproving the Bible is extremely easy. All a person has to do is read it for what it says instead of what religious-nuts spin it to say.
I could provide hundreds of examples but a single well-substantiated fact irreconcilible with a belief is sufficient to prove that belief false. So, here's one.
Jesus stated in Mark 11:23-24 Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore,, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Clearly, Jesus believed this to be true and he wanted you and I to believe it is true. But the fact is, it is not true. We can believe whatever we want, but our belief, no matter how strong it is, cannot alter reality and get us the outcomes we desire.
Will religious-nuts use apologetic flim-flam arguments in an attempt to nullify the obvious? Of course the will. Which is why presenting evidence to them is a waste of time. They will never accept any evidence, no matter how compelling or obvious it is.
Of the thousands of Biblical flaws, a religious-nut will never acknowledge a single one.
"... a religious-nut will never acknowledge a single one."
Perhaps they won't acknowledge a single one because there truly aren't any, including the one you quoted.
JP81,
Why not read a Bible someday? Besides some good morals, it also contains errors, contradictions, hypocrsy and nonsense.
(Gen. 7:21) “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and ALL HUMAN BEINGS”
So did ANY HUMAN BEINGS survive the Flood?
I have read the Bible. When looking at the verses around the one you quoted it is abundantly clear that Noah, his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives were the only survivors of the flood as described. It is not a contradiction to explicitly state that eight people survived, as well as the pairs of animals in the ark with them, and that nothing outside of the ark survived. There is no contradiction.
But why even bother to disprove it? The "bible" makes some fantastical claims and so does the people that read/interpret it. The Claims of a God and his book and gang are the ones that needs to be proven. And non have. Ever. Still people "know" that their fantastical fairies are true.