 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
Is in the Bible, read it! Atheism is Total stupidity the Bible does not sugar coats it.
Thank you for proving that the bible is stupidity in full bloom in all seasons.
Sal maybe you can work out the flaws if you ever decide to you know !
'Designer Sperm' Inserts Custom Genes Into Offspring
Dec. 2, 2013 — Get ready: The "new genetics" promises to change faulty genes of future generations by introducing new, functioning genes using "designer sperm."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202171926.htm
Not the same as Creating EX NIHILO does not stop aging and death. Your asinine argument et al proves my point. Atheism is Total stupidity all over.
You from Texas Sal ?
Salero21 is Total stupidity all over.
Wait, you're claiming that atheism is stupid because of something being created from nothing, yet isn't that exactly how you claim your god did it? Thanks once again for proving creationism is stupidity and hypocrisy in all seasons in full bloom.
There is a lot of fecal matter in the bible. So what? It prove nothing.
Actually it does prove something. That the bible is stupidity in full bloom, all seasons, now and forever more. Ramen.
The Bible is Total stupidity Salero21 does not sugar coats it.
A little word game creationists – what is the word of the year according to Webster ?
The Merriam-Webster word of the year is "science." Science is awesome! The scientific method is awesome! Fairy tales about life coming from non-life – not awesome.
Cool stuff !
Oldest Hominin DNA Sequenced: Mitochondrial Genome of a 400,000-Year-Old Hominin from Spain Decoded
Dec. 4, 2013 — Using novel techniques to extract and study ancient DNA researchers at the Max Planck Insti-tute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131204132018.htm
Yeah science is awesome, yet you don't even know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg&feature=player_detailpage
There are numerous transitional/intermediate fossils throughout the fossil record; the most notable bridge the major vertebrate classes (which by creationist argument, shouldn't exist at all). The absence of fine-scale gradations at the species level is an expected observation due to the small population #s of novel sister species and the very low probability of capture within the fossil record. Although Punctuated Equilibrium dominates the fossil record, there are still examples of classical gradualism (e.g. the Foraminifera). The Cambrian Explosion took place over ~70 million years with the most rapid diversification taking place in the first 10-20 million years (an explosion by geologic time scales, but not by biological evolutionary time scales). The forms did not appear out of thin air, but were preceded by forms in existence during the pre-Cambrian.
Note: Neither this video nor any other creationist video remotely accounts for the progressive order of the fossil record.
Cambrian explosion? You mean the 10-20 million year emergence of species? The argument is always the same. OMG they suddenly all appeared out of nowhere!!! Um no. It took millions of years longer than it took for ancient ape to become modern humans, yet scientific illiterates continue to bring it up.
Rather than highlight the yellings of factually challenged fundamentalists, both the theistic and atheistic varieties, it would be more helpful if CNN were to publicize people who know what they're talking about and communicate politely. New atheism is no more honest than creation science; both pretend that science supports their position through blatant misrepresentation, bad logic, and obnoxious ranting. Attacking evolution or promoting a young earth is just as untenable as claiming that atheism has a good record on human rights or that science implies atheism. Just as Mormonism is not Christian because it says that we are saved by doing good works rather than through trusting in what Jesus did for us, so creation science is not Christian because it says that we are saved by believing in creation science and attacking evolution (misdefined to be whatever science creation science advocates don't like). Likewise, the fact that most brutally genocidal regimes have been atheistic does not prove that all atheism is bad. There are sensible atheists and theists out there who deplore the misconduct of others, but they aren't going to be the ones out in public making a scene.
Looks like you did not click on the blue links in article.
You might want to do that then comment again.
Nobody claims science supports atheism. What it does do however is NOT show any objective evidence whatsoever for god, so atheism wins by default because you need proof to suggest anything exists. Non existence is the logical default in any situation where evidence is not presented. It's not the atheists faults that most creationists can't grasp that or understand basic logic and burden of proof. Science only supports atheism in the in the way that everything that we've ever researched and studied in the universe does not require a god to function. Everything works just fine on its own, and no evidence of a creator has been discovered. People used to believe the wind and lightning were controlled by gods because they didn't know the real cause, but we now know that isn't true. God only fits in the gaps of scientific knowledge and the more we discover, the smaller that gap gets. Today people squeeze him into the "what caused the big bang" section. One day we'll probably know that answer and then the goal posts will be moved and god will be placed somewhere else that science hasn't fully researched yet. Biblical creationism is the one that's debunked by science because we know for a fact that the genesis story is not the way it went down.
"Non existence is the logical default in any situation where evidence is not presented. It's not the atheists faults that most creationists can't grasp that or understand basic logic and burden of proof."
Sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand basic logic or burden of proof. If an atheist says "No god exists", that is a universal negative catagorical proposition which are proven all the time in logic. "No Senators are Muslim" is one such statement. So if an atheist claims "No god exists", the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Paul, if I were to say, elves do not exist, is it reasonable for me to make that statement? Do I need to prove they don't exist? How about Superman? The Easter Bunny? If someone claims dragons do not exist, are you going to turn to them and demand that they cough up proof of their non-existence?
Is it up to the boy to prove the emperor's invisible new clothes do not exist?
Let's say I claim to have a dragon in my garage, and you come by to see it. Only you can't. Then I say–well, it's invisible. Then you say, "well, let's throw some flour on the floor and see it's tracks." I say–"it floats in the air." Then you say, well, then let's spray paint the air, and the paint will coat it's body." I say–"it's incorporeal." You say, "well, I don't hear or smell anything either," and I say, it's silent, and does not have a scent or odor," and so on, each time a test is proposed, I move the goal posts. What is the difference between an incorporeal, invisible dragon with no sound, smell, etc.–and NO dragon at all? Is it not reasonable for you to say–"There is no dragon here!"
Let's take it even further. I also claim that those who do not believe in the dragon will be burned for all eternity in another realm, and that there is no purpose without the dragon, and that you cannot be moral without the dragon, and the dragon watches everything, and so on.
Extraordinary sweep claim, after extraordinary sweeping claim, but not a sliver of hard evidence! This is why it is reasonable, and not dogmatic or absolutist–to say "no god exists."
@Dandintac,
The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. If you say "No god exists.", then the burden of proof is on you.
I actually agree with Paul. The statement "No gods exist" is different from the statement "there is insufficient supporting evidence for the existence of gods."
Whaddaya say Paul:
Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
Is it possible that the God of the Bible does not exist?
But Red, is "there is insufficient supporting evidence for the existence of gods" really any different in substance from "there are no gods". If someone says "no gods"–don't they really mean the same thing? If you were standing next to your neighbor in his garage, and he was showing you his invisible dragon–would you really say "there is insufficient supporting evidence for the existence of your invisible dragon"–or would you just say "there's no dragon"?
Saying there's NO of something is not an affirmative claim–no is always negative or null.
"If an atheist says "No god exists", that is a universal negative catagorical proposition which are proven all the time in logic."
Please prove to me that unicorns do not exist. You are wrong. They are not proven all the time in logic. Logic is misunderstood by creationists.
Atheists just say, "I don't believe you, show me proof". It's not on them to prove you wrong. It's on you to prove you are right, because burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim of existence, not the person who calls your claim BS. And not all atheists believe absolutely that no god exists. If there were any evidence whatsoever, it would be different, but there isn't. Bottom line, end of story. Look up burden of proof.
"Saying there's NO of something is not an affirmative claim–no is always negative or null."
This exactly. Paul needs to take a logic class. Whether you say, 'I don't believe in a god', 'there are no gods', or 'your god is BS', it's a negative claim. If you cannot present proof of the positive, the negative wins by default. A simple google search for burden of proof would settle this instantly, but something tells me Paul isn't seeking legitimate knowledge here.
@Former Xtian
"Please prove to me that unicorns do not exist." –Former Xtian
If you read my post, I said "The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim." I did not make the claim that unicorns don't exist so the burden of proof is not on me. If someone were to make the claim that unicorns don't exist, the burden of proof would be on them to prove it.
@Dandintac – I agree they are substantively the same; however, I believe there is a subtle difference. I don't pretend to be a student of formal knowledge, but the statements "gods exist" and "gods do not exist" are both affirmative statements in that they make definitive "truth" claims. The statement "there is insufficient supporting evidence for the existence of gods" is a qualified subjective position statement which inherently reserves the possibility (however infinitesimal) that one could be wrong, i.e. new evidence may change the position. Again, I believe this is different from statements which claim absolute knowledge.
Oops. Should've read, "I don't pretend to be a student of formal logic . . ."
Paul, But you are making the affirmative claim – you claim that there is a god, so the burden of proof is on you. Got any evidence of a god?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Mdk4MqNRqbo
Creationists have continually failed to address the progressive order of the fossil record. "Hydrodynamic Sorting," "Differential Escape," "Eco-Zonation," "Floating Biomes," etc, all fail to account for the observation of organisms of similar density and similar ecology separated by many, many, many layers of geologic strata. Fossilized marine organisms aren't "on" the tops of mountains, they are distributed "within" the various strata of the mountains. We can see periods of wet and dry within various strata which clearly confounds a global flood as the single source for most fossils (e.g. the Coconino Sandstone). Another classic issue is that of saline tolerant & intolerant marine forms, i.e. if the flood waters were fresh, then salt water organisms would have died; if the flood waters were salt water, then the fresh water organisms would have died. The list of objections to literal creationism are too long to list, but they are many and the creationists offer no reasonable explanations. Because evolution is supported by every relevant scientific discipline, creationists require that our understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc, must be so fundamentally flawed as to be effectively useless, yet we can readily see the validation of all these branches of science in daily application.
Physical evidence doesn't require interpretation. Creationists constantly claim they are just interpreting the evidence differently. Scientific data is not the bible. It's not up for interpretation. It either proves something or it doesn't. Based on genetics and the fossil record, common descent is a slam dunk. Nobody even attempts to debate it the scientific community anymore because it's so solid and there literally are mountains of evidence. Don't take it personally, resolve your faith with science, instead of being stubborn to a literal INTERPRETATION of ancient stories that have been rewritten and translated multiple times. It's nonsensical to deny science over a few stories that may not have even happened.
Unamerican and Unchristian to taunt other peoples religious beliefs.
Contradiction for Christians: Evangelism vs Judging Others.
[The vast majority of people think evangelism is the achilles heel of christianity.]
By the way 'American Atheists' does not represent me or most Atheists, and I denounce their billboard taunting, also.
Bill Nye the Science Guy urging parents not to teach creationism 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."
If you want an example of what happens when you put religious doctrine in charge of schools, look at the NY Times article "Pakistan’s Islamic Schools Fill Void, but Fuel Militancy", "With public education in a shambles, Pakistan’s poorest families have turned to madrasas, or Islamic schools, that feed and house the children while pushing a more militant brand of Islam than was traditional here."
No gods needed.
Human Stem Cells Converted to Functional Lung Cells
Dec. 1, 2013 — For the first time, scientists have succeeded in transforming human stem cells into functional lung and airway cells.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131201140209.htm
BLASPHEMY!!! WHAT IS THIS SCIENCE YOU MENTION? I ONLY KNOW THE BIBLE!
Stem cells Bush did not like them either !
More holes punched in the evolutionary fairy tale every single day, a tale which would soon become a folk lore and extinct not too far in the future.
What holes? The only holes creationists refer to are in their heads, based on a general misunderstanding of what evolution is.
The sing in above picture.
CONVERSATIONS IN SCIENCE
Q&A: Richard Dawkins discusses evolution, religion and his fans
British author and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins talks about evolution, religion and his 'appet-ite for wonder.'
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-richard-dawkins-20131130,0,1868354.story#ixzz2mMXE7tb4
We are privileged to be in reality. We get here by a process which happens to be my subject — evolution, Darwinian evolution — and the fact that we understand how we got here is itself wonderful.
*Sign*
"They refuse to look at the real world.
They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.
Here is The Ultimate Evidence, Mr. Silverman!
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
Well, If you're going to be dumb.
be dumb in BIG letters.
Jesus if he was was born on the continent of Asia at Asia Minor . Syria too is the same area where Jesus grew up . Syria is the same place Christians recently refused to go to stop the killing of the very people that were the ancestors of those that Jesus walked with .
We humans are but mammals on a planet and our Bible is a book of stories written by human mammals . When we die we turn into dirt and our mind no longer works . When we are dead we are simply like a computer that has lost its electricity .
dispelling science in NO way proves the bible. The bible is ancient mythology written by people who believed the world to be flat.
Looks like cjeddie8 is another victim of the flat earth myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth
Nicely done
@Paul
Your wiki link actually links out to the correct source (i.e. not middle age europe, but ancient near-eastern cultures):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ancient_Near_East
I've already and repeatedly conceded that I could be wrong, i.e. the God of the Bible could actually exist and evolution could be false. I could no longer exclusively accept evolution if a rabbit were found in pre-Cambrian strata, human fossils were found alongside dinosaur fossils, a true chimera was discovered, or if special creation of an organism ex nihilo was observed and recorded on video.
I've been patiently waiting for your responses and have to wonder why you've been reluctant to provide any to the following questions:
Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
Is it possible that the God of the Bible doesn't actually exist?
Not everyone believed the earth was flat, but many did. Similarly people believed that the rest of the universe revolved around the earth for no reason other than the biblical claim. Galileo got shunned for discovering the truth that the earth revolved around the sun because Christians were too stubborn to use logic and acknowledge scientific discovery. Science was repressed for hundreds of years and held our society back big time. The dark ages are over. People need to get with the times. We live in a science based technological society now where information is readily available to the public at the click of a mouse. Science works, and has been working just fine for a while. There's no excuse for scientific ignorance anymore.
Job 26:7 says that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing" and Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God dwelling above "the circle of the earth". The same Hebrew word for "circle" also means sphere. So your assumption of those in the Bible believing the earth is flat is wrong and further inspires my faith that the Bible is inspired by God because all of this was written before advanced science.
I don't pretend to be a student of Hebrew, but from what little reading I've done, there does appear to be a clear difference between "chuwg" (circle) and "duwr" (ball). Why would one use "chuwg" when "duwr" was available and more appropriate?
Creationist and atheist are by-products of religious propaganda to dominate and control literary thought both past and present...with neither one having a foundation for their existence.
Atheists don't believe in any deity so whose existence should they prove? If you mean evolution, that has long been proven and is just as certain as gravity and electromagnetism. For example, why are we getting antibiotic resistant bacteria? Through evolution!
"For example, why are we getting antibiotic resistant bacteria? Through evolution!"
So by "evolution" you mean an adaptation or variation within the same kind. Do bacteria adapt and become resistant to antibiotics? Of course they do. But is that proof of "molecules-to-man" type of evolution that's never been observed? Nope.
it's a hell of a lot better proof than two people committing incest over and their offspring committing incest to produce mankind everywhere from the Incas, Abhoriginis in Australia, to the Chinese, to the Africans all in 6000 years. LOL, you might as well believe Santa Claus is real.
Paul, what do you mean by "kind"? Species? Order? Family? I've seen Creationists use the term "kind", and this term does not exist in Biology. Also, what do you mean by "molecules to man evolution"? Also, are you aware that "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are actually the same process–but just on a different time span? Also–evolution leads to adaptation. They go hand-in-glove.
Paul you are fallaciously using a broad generalization to describe evolution. You think the transition from cell to man is so hard to imagine that it must be wrong. But such a transition never happened. What happened is a cell became a different cell, that became a slightly different cell, that became a slightly different cell (times a million). The cells eventually worked together and after a billion years or so became multi-cellular beings. From there, they developed sensitivities to environmental factors, which slightly changed, then slightly changed again, that slightly changed again (times a million). And what I just said there is a tiny fragment of evolution and even I had to generalize it because it's so complicated it would make your head spin. But yeah, you don't understand it, so obviously generalizations and flat out denial is the best option.
I'd still like you to answer one question for me, Paul. You've been avoiding it and deflecting it for a the last 10 pages.
Why can't small evolutionary changes add up over time? What prevents this?
You keep saying changes within a kind, implying long term change cannot happen, and you are right. The immediate changes ARE within the same species, but it takes millions upon millions upon millions of small changes separated by various environments before you'll notice a substantial change. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
We all know it's really just the ego and the need to feel special. The problem is god could have used evolution as a way to create, so if that's the case you are fighting science for no reason whatsoever other than a literal interpretation of ancient stories that have been rewritten and translated multiple times. I can totally imagine god the evolutionary process to create humans, and people like you slapping him in the face for it. Can't you see evolution makes god that much greater and humans that much more special? We're talking about a 3 billion year process to make human life possible. If that isn't dedication, I don't know what is. Can't you see that the story of genesis might be metaphorical?
@Dandintac
"Paul, what do you mean by "kind"? Species? Order? Family? I've seen Creationists use the term "kind", and this term does not exist in Biology."
Thanks for asking the question. "Kind" is a layman's term. That's why you're not going to find it in a biology textbook.
In most cases, "kind" would be equivalent to the "Family" level of the classification system. But there's a few cases where it would be at the "Genus" level.
Kind: a group of people or things that belong together or have some shared quality : a particular type or variety of person or thing.
The Biblical definition, taken from Genesis, is that animals that can procreate are the same kind of animal.
"Also, what do you mean by 'molecules to man evolution'?"
The idea that life arose from non-life.
@Paul – (as copied from above and from numerous other postings on this thread):
I've been patiently waiting for your responses and have to wonder why you've been reluctant to provide any to the following questions:
Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
Is it possible that the God of the Bible doesn't actually exist?
You can't use layman's terms to describe a scientific process. Sorry.
The earth is not 6000 years old, evolution is true and so is the fact that it is God behind the whole darn thing.
A recovering extraterrestrialist
"...and so is the fact that it is God behind the whole darn thing."
How is that a fact? Please provide your evidence.
I believe the scientific evidence. There is no conflict between evolution and creation. The Bible tells us there WAS a beginning. Science later confirmed it with the big bang event. The Bible tells us that the waters were divided. Science later confirmed that waters exist in every galaxy and ARE divided by great distances. The Bible tells us that God created life FROM THE EARTH and that plant life formed from these seeds of life. Science later confirmed that life WAS brought forth from the earth and photosynthesis began, which generated enough oxygen in the atmosphere to allow higher creatures to evolve. The Bible tells us that all the creatures were brought forth abundantly from the waters. Science later confirmed this occured during the Cambrian explosion. The Bible tells us; let earth to bring forth the cattle and beasts after their kind. Science later confirmed that there WAS a great diversification of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs, that led to the modern day cattle and beasts that we see today. And finally, The Bible tells us that man was formed at the very last, at the very end of the very last day of God's creation. Science later confirmed that man DID indeed form in only the most recent geological period. The days of creation were in reference to the original source of light created on the first day, not our sun. God created the sun on the 4th day of HIS creation, from HIS perspective of time to provide man with his perspective of time in days and years. Further, no scientists has been able to replicate the formation of life from natural chemistry. And no life has been discovered outside the earth.
No problem, as long as everyone is having fun!
I'm looking over the advertisements from these Atheist groups and it's pretty unbelievable how shameless they get with their Reductio ad absurdum tactics.
I'm a Mormon and the banner they show here about Mormons is way off the mark of what our actual beliefs are. It's like they heard the first words out of some haters' mouths out and assumed it was the whole story and ran with it. Take some time to really learn what I believe and then consider attacking it. You look every bit as stupid as any religious extremist who makes up absurd arguments about science based on not having studied it.
I'm also a firm believer in science, and I believe that at some point we will learn that religion and science correspond perfectly. What is lacking is our understanding of both.
Considering the mult*i*tude of mormon denominations it's a wonder that you know what you believe. Having read a number of Christian blogs, people who call themselves Christians seem to wonder if mormons are really christians. Have you read anything about your prophet Joseph Smith? Strange man, strange history, lots of wives...
Care to correct the inaccuracies? Do you believe in the planet Kolob? Some LDS do. Do you deny the church baptizes dead people? How long did the Mormon church prohibit the ordination of blacks and when was that ban lifted? What is the curse of Ham? My wife is a recovering Mormon from Idaho, so I'm not ignorant of that religion. I can easily see how some LDS would find the banner offensive, but I find it to be substantively accurate. The church IS rich. Those temples are expensive. I've been to SLC and seen the expensive Mormon office buildings with the fountains out front. I also observed that bigotry was pretty thick in the church, although to be fair bigotry was just as thick outside the church in that place and time.
I didn't know that moronism is a religion...
That's strange, I knew.
There is more evidence for evolution than for anything else on earth. The truth is that even those who claim to not believe in evolution accept it but won't admit it.
That depends on your definition of "evolution". If you mean the adaptation or variation within the same kind of animal then , yes, evolution happens. But if by "evolution" you mean "common descent" then, no, there is no evidence of evolution.
Except, of course, the progressive order of the fossil record, phylogenetic analyses of extant and extinct forms, the presence of molecular vestigial fossils (e.g. our defunct gene for egg-yolk protein), etc, etc . . .
Any response to the above questions?
Paul, they are the same thing. Please explain to me why you are forcing your own definition of evolution and why you think small changes cannot add up over time to become bigger changes? This is one roadblock that will debunk your argument every time. You just take the typical creationist way out and deflect the question and change the subject. I'll ask again. Why can't millions of small changes add up to become big ones? If you can't answer that, then you have no grounds for debating common descent, a subject that is universally agreed on in the scientific community.
I liked the last one...It was very pretty! I believe in Jesus the Christ and have accepted him as my Savior, I'm pretty much like a lot of people I know, I felt I was a fairly good person, never did anything really, really bad, but I started reading the bible and realized that I do need forgiven, I have wronged people, I've wronged myself. Then one day around six years ago I asked for forgiveness and I told Jesus that I do believe in Him and have been trying to keep confessing my sins to him on a daily basis, You see I am still a sinner and will always be that way until He returns for me or calls me home. I know he is real, He is everything to me, He's that still, small voice in my heart that calls me, admonishes me, and tells me how much I'm loved. He is my King and I am his servant, but I'm also a heir, so I am a daughter. Pick up a bible and start reading, He is waiting for you and he loves you so much, He doesn't care what you have done....He forgives you.....Answer Him.
That was a very good imitation of one of those mindless Bible thumpers! Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them these days.
Let's hope the trend continues!
Very funny!
In reality, that voice inside of your heart is your spirit / higher self (subconscious). You attribute it to Jesus because that's what you want to believe. In reality, you could have read the holy book for almost any religion and be moved by it and feel the same way resolving that "voice" or feeling to become Jesus rather than yourself. Give yourself some credit. You want to be a good person, but that can easily make you susceptible to believing in things that may not exist to resolve that feeling you have in your heart with a divine power.