 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
Want the truth from the bibles own words...Google –GOD IS IMAGINARY....
And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God....
I think it strange that so many people in the 1700 years of western religions NOT ONE PERSON has ever explained WHERE GOD AND HEAVEN ARE......we're talking over 5 or 6 billion people since then.....even pope John change the idea of heaven and said it was a STATE OF BEING....but I don't think many CATHOLICS care about believing that since that means HEAVEN IS A DEAD END NOWHERE PLACE.
There is no sense getting into a war on words. People believe what they believe. Creationist will not win at trying to prove God by the evidence. At the end of the day Gods creation is a miracle and you can only know God through faith. If God can be proved by the evidence then there wouldn't be any need for faith. If you need evidence to confirm your faith then you are on shaky ground. In fact i would go as far as saying the quality of your faith and relationship with God is greater if you dont have the evidence. As Christ said to doubting Thomas when he resurrected. You have see n me and believe but greater are those who believe and haven't seen. In the end all will be revealed and i believe as science gets closer to the very core of the atom and our DNA they will see there are things that go way beyond the understanding of man. All they are doing is pulling Gods creation apart and trying to understand it.
"... they will see there are things that go way beyond the understanding of man ..."
If it is beyond human comprehension, how do you know?
Just because there are things we do not understand, does not mean that a god did it.
It doesn't mean God DIDN'T do it either.
But Jim we know where the elements of life came from !
Phosphorus made in supernovas, study confirms
Last of 5 heavier elements essential to life to have stellar origin confirmed
Phosphorus, a key ingredient in your DNA and bones, was originally made in exploding stars, a new study confirms.
By Emily Chung, CBC News Posted: Dec 12, 2013 4:00 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 13, 2013 11:10 AM ET
Why cant I post a response ?
Jim, you are probably being busted by the word filter that looks for letter combinations that mostly appear in dirty words. Like "t!t" in "const!tution" and "v@g" in "v@gue." Remember, CNN does NOT edit posts before they appear. They only deal with them after they have posted.
You don't really trust me, stop lying you are a fake and you know it. That is why you are not going to get any more presents for the rest of your life.
Ma Yuenan : I have always believed that the professional thing to do professional people . I also believe that Zhou boss having chosen me, that he would give me enough support. I'm not worried about the class, a normal school class coach .
Lancel Bb
You know the children – creationists !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrZYecJ8QA#t=0
Here is now MORE evidence that we EVOLVED through inter-species relationships rather than 'creation:....read on...
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests/?intcmp=features
The study says...' we propose" and quote" Scientists found that the clay hydrogel could have protected the chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells fully developed". The words "propose" and "could have" are suggestions only and they have not even been defined as of yet.
Let's see if you can pick up on those same type of words in the articles that user "Science Works" keeps linking to. I'm sure you can. What's said is that "Science Works" can't.
Yep Paul science does work !
Americans' Belief in God, Miracles and Heaven Declines
Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution rises
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx
The Bible clearly says man was formed from the "dust" of the ground. There couldn't have been any "clay" yet because at this point "the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth." Dust does not equal clay. As bad as Jim is here, I've witnessed members of every sect engage in this practice, from Mormons to Muslims and all in between, i.e. declaring the divine accuracy of their preferred holy book by finding a passage, then find some science which tangentially appears to support the passage. If the book was truly divine and written with the intent to communicate, one would think it would be less open to such divergent interpretation, e.g. the literal/allegorical divide exhibited by Jim v. Paul back on p. 75 towards the bottom. Instead, we have a book where the lack of a clear interpretation has generated untold strife and misery between the just the warring factions who subscribe to the very same holy book (not even considering the strife and misery between adherents of competing holy books).
To be fair, it's no more proper to use a given scientific study to try and support a strong atheist position (i.e. a definitive claim of "no gods" v. weak atheism claim of "no evidence of gods and therefore, gods likely don't exist").
Chad does too 1
christians please provide proof of the existence of jesus......see this page for the challenge
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.255871661235687.1073741878.147108948778626&type=1
oh, i thought he just wasn't divine, now you question His existence at all. Is that because accepting His life makes you nervous because He was so amazing? What do you want a birth certificate? Seriously, it sounds as silly as the birthers.
Either provide some evidence or move on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We are only asking for "ordinary" evidence. You cannot even provide that.And yes...birth records would be nice...census.....what ya got"
Extraordinary evidence, that a man lived 2000 years ago? Not sure why that is warranted.
Anyway, in Luke, IIRC, he gives the foundation He names Jesus' family back 14 generations. He names the time of Herod, at the time of a census, he even names the tiny town where Jesus was born and lived.
That and the small matter that a humongous church sprang up in his name, as well as a nearly 2000 year old book still survives to this day might be a hint for you, but maybe that isn't evidence for atheists somehow.
vmoore
What you stated is only evidence that people believe the story. That has no bearing on the validity of it. 2000 years, 200,000 years makes no difference to the validity of the belief.
Face it, you believe because you WANT to, not because there is any actual, verifiable, corroborated evidence.
Just because 1 billion believe it, also does not lend any credibility to the belief.
Igaftr it's not evidence that the story is true but it is certainly evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus.
Whether or not there was a man, there is NO evidence he was anything more than a man.
The Jesus character is a metaphor....the living embodiment of the potential "good" in a person, set against the Satan character, the living embodiment of the potential "evil" a person can do. Metaphors...nothing more. Add in a heaping helping of the teachings of the Buddha, and you have your Jesus character. Odd your Jesus never mantions Buddha, even though most of what he allegedly taught came right from Buddha, who lived over 400 years before they created your god.
Well, the question was of His very existence. Although I'm not sure why atheists would need to go there unless the real Jesus causes problems for their position.
As far as Buddha, or the code of Hammurabi, or the other Atheist explanations for His teachings that's just an opinion too.
Lets say he was real. What is your evidence.Where are all the historians reports that should be there. After all...we are talking about god aren't we? There should be tons of reports....there are reports of MANY men by the name of jesus at that time. Do they really know where he was born yet? What his birth date is? The records of Herod and his killing all the first born?? There appears to be no real record of this even. Besides biblical records there should be lots of historical evidences.....I mean they were writing things down for centuries previous to this soooooo...You are claiming the existence of the most spectacular persona in ALL of human history....c'mon...give us some REAL evidence. It's your claim not mine.
And the preeminent historian of the time, Josephus, doesn't count because...
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138
I had already seen news about neanderthal genes being present. Not that it matters, but we still all trace back to one mitochondrial 'Eve', right?
no...the Eve of the bible is not neanderthalish....CREATED PERFECT from the rib of a man.....lol....
And yet there she is, one mother of all mankind. I didn't believe the Adam and Eve story literally anymore myself, thinking Adam and Eve represented all mankind. So I was surprised to see science find an 'Eve', even if she was a cavewoman.
Are you people daft??? They didn't find an "eve'. They found a woman's toe bone that has genetics of two species...proof of interbreeding between species that represents "evolution" through inter species relationships...No Adam...no Eve...when they find them they will have tattoo's on their backsides..ADAM...EVE...to satisfy your belief that their is an Adam and Eve.....sheesh.
Wow, I'm not referring to the story you posted, but a different finding. Try googling mitochondrial eve.
Negativity much?
Hmmm, and apparently there is a Y-chromosomal Adam, ie, the one man who we all trace back to paternally. Wild.
Better hope the creationists don't learn about this stuff. Hahaha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc
The problem with Professor's like this is that they never for a moment consider the possibility that they might be wrong. He is no different than a Christian fundamentalist. Were it demonstrated to him that earth was the only planet in the entire universe where life formed, he would still deny even the possibility of God. That's not intelligence. It's stubbornness.
Here is a different faith analogy that is hopefully not offensive to anbody (except maybe opera lovers).
Faith may be like the loving the opera. If you grew up with it or decided to give it a try and learned about it you started to understand it. The human drama, the emotion poured out by the players, the vocal skill required to actually perform, etc. Then you realized what a thing of beauty opera is and regularly attended.
On the other hand, if you're like me, you heard snippets in school or TV and it sounded awful. Or maybe your mom made you study it when you wanted to be outside playing. In these cases Opera sounds like fat people screaming and you detest it and can't believe anyone likes it.
So it fair for the opera hater to say opera sucks? What about the opera lover, they must see something, right?
You can't be serious.
While the trolls are busy on the GQ magazine tactics article to con people, here is a fantastic opportunity to let the evolutionist know that, evolution is a myth!
Grow up as human beings!
Leave that frivolous thought of you having been a chimp once upon a time to excuse your lack of intellect to pursue all things real!
Is that what you think evolutionists believe? That WE were chimps at one time....hahahahahahaha....you couldn't be more absolutely wrong about what evolution is. Did you get your education about this from the bible believers perhaps?...lololol...
our ancestors did interbreed with chimps supposedly, I read we are a small percentage chimp.
Our last common ancestor was about 3 million years ago and each branch has evolved since then. That's why the DNA is so similar and it is probable that there was some intermingling in the early years.
In pursuing things that are "real," scientists use evolution to identify critical genes involved in human embryonic development by comparing commonalities and differences between species (i.e. those regions of the genome which are and are not under selective pressures). If evolution were false, there would be no basis for making these comparisons. This includes the "common designer" argument, because there is no way to reliably predict when or where in a genome the designer might choose to imbed particular features. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts relatively precise timing and locations of the relevant differences. What we continually see is that these phylogenetic analyses do, in fact, identify the relevant genes contributing to developmental disorders. Designer baby concerns aside, it is evolution which produces these discoveries and it will be the further application of the same science that supports evolution that will eventually result in therapies to replace or complement defective genes prior to their manifesting in developmental disorders. This is "macroevolution" in application.
Here's a study which demonstrates the power of phylogenetic comparison while also demonstrating that relatively small #s of mutations in genetic regulatory regions can and do produce rather dramatic morphological effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18772437
This work simply makes no sense if evolution is false, but as the results show, using evolution to guide biological research provides tangible and meaningful results. No such results are available using ID/creationism because they offer no useful mechanisms to apply . . .
It's amazing how you gather tidbits of information that are meaningless. Why don't you attempt and trace current human life all the way to the origins.
A simple trace would suffice. Do not bother providing links or videos just give us your understanding of evolution and tracing life from its beginning.
That didn't explain why you think redzoa's info is meaningless, Chad.
@Chad – You know full well my understanding of evolution based on prior discussions where I repeatedly corrected your miscomprehension and misapplication of PE (you never quite understood that PE is restricted to the species level), your miscomprehension and misapplication of molecular biology (the role historic genetic contingency in novel functionality, e.g. Lenski's E.coli) and your further miscomprehension regarding how evolution operates at both micro and macro scales (pretty much all of your other arguments). As stated above, you didn't even attempt to respond to the content of the post.
Nonetheless, regarding human "origins," the fossil record provides a clear temporally and morphologically overlapping picture of the history of modern humans. At a larger scale, the fossil record provides a clear progressive order of the vertebrate classes, i.e. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. Beyond this, we can trace the various phyla back through the fossil record to simple multicellular, and then still further to simple single cell communals. All of the aforementioned fossil evidence is corroborated by phylogenetic analysis of extant and extinct forms. With respect to humans, such phylogenetic analysis allows to point to vestigial molecular fossils in out own placental mammal genomes such as our defunct gene for egg yolk protein. We might never have a clear picture of precisely how abiogenesis may have taken place. But this current absence is irrelevant to the evidence for biological evolution, including the evolution of modern humans from non-human ancestors.
You reenter here as if you have something new to offer, yet both then and now, you betray yourself as one who is either hopelessly disingenuous or hopelessly and willfully ignorant of the relevant science.
redcoats-
The poster 'Chad' asked you to simply provide the trace of human origins. If you understand evolution then provide this trace, you seem to get ahead of yourself with your psycho babble for which we have no time. An average reader understands from your posts that you strongly believe in culling out bits of information from various sites and have no real knowledge about what you are talking. We won't suffer anymore with your babbling and don't have time to put up with nonsense, articulate your understanding clearly or be gone.
@Fiery Saturn – Feel free to point out the specific failings of my description of the tracing of the origin of humans or ask a specific question regarding the points I offered. Alternatively, feel free to direct your criticism to my initial response and the cited paper. Targeting your criticism to a specific failing would help avoid confusing you further with my "pyscho babble" (though I confess, I don't see any reference to psychology any where in my posts . . .).
Chad was fond of using sockpuppets, e.g. "Rachel." There's something about the similarity of phrasing, e.g. "bits of information" and the declared familiarity of Fiery Saturn with my posts (despite never having seen this moniker before) that makes me wonder if Chad isn't engaging in the same practice again. Also similar is the failure to directly respond to an argument while demanding a complete recapitulation of the entire body of relevant scientific evidence supporting evolution, although this appears to be common among virtually all ID/creationists . . .
"Keep the merry, lose the myth"?
Umm,, guess where the merry comes from? No, not the myth, the "good tydings of great joy", not the stampede at Wal Mart.
It all comes from ancient pagan traditions, anyway. They just decided to lump in Jesus alleged birthday in the mix.
Gee. We all thought it came from the stampede.
Sure is nice to have you folks around to tell us.
The Mormon church no longer against people with black skin are evil...lmfao....a change in doctrine? Divine revelation is what they would've called it in older times.....but they can't get away with that crap nowadays....... This is how most things got changed along the way in every religious organization. FRAUDS ALL OF THEM. THE WORD OF GOD IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TOOL TO MANIPULATE THE MASSES AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN. This is but a small example..... god...nowhere to be seen...nowhere to be heard....except for the planted " thoughts from reading a book that is full of crazymaking...never meant to be taken literally.
Typical conclusory argument
You bet...just the same style you use....doesnt make a lot of sense does it?
Here's one, atheists claim to be fact based logical thinkers. Urnotathinker made a fallacious argument. Urnotathinker is an atheist.
ALL ATHEISTS ARE FRAUDS WHO STEAL LAME QUOTES FROM MARX CAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO SAY;-)
@Vmoore.....You dont like it when given answers in the same style and illogical way as you answer others....you sound like a little girk crying for her mama with your little rant. You totally avoid and focus on the real issue and thats why everyone here is commenting on how irrational and non logical and how off topic you are. Your diversions and side tracking are without evidence and ad nauseum.
Conclusory again.
I thought it was funny, but ok. When you attack people's personal beliefs with words like fraud, or stupid, etc, etc you can't really expect them to be that nice.
I'm not on here personally attacking atheists for being dumb or such, I always say being atheist is a reasonable belief. Try to be considerate
"I'm not on here personally attacking atheists for being dumb or such, I always say being atheist is a reasonable belief."
Really? You recently said that an atheist is like a deaf person who thinks sound doesn't exist. And you expect others to be nice to you with comments like that?
Former xtian, umm the deaf quote was an analogy not an insult. Atheists don't get faith, but many do, and yet they strenuously deny it exists.
And in just the previous post urnotathinker called me a little girl, called God afraud, called religion a conspiracy to control the masses along with many other negative insults that are constantly in his/her posts.
And you're focused on my analogy. Fail. If I wanted to be mean I could have come up with something insulting but didn't see any need to respond in kind.
"Former xtian, umm the deaf quote was an analogy not an insult"
Hilarious! The only problem is an atheist would have to be pretty dumb to think like that. So, it's an insult. Totally mistaken, of course, but still an insult.
"Atheists don’t get faith"
Really? And here I thought we just rejected the idea!?
Please explain what we're not getting!
"but many do, and yet they strenuously deny it exists".
Uhhh....what!? I've never met >anyone< who would deny that some people have faith. That's absurd!
As to whether any wise person SHOULD have it, that's another matter.
See chikkipop if you got that faith was not just a blind hope you would no that if someone has it there is nothing unwise about it.
You made my point in your own post.
OK; faith is not just blind hope.
You've told me what it ISN'T, so now tell me what it IS.
Ok chikkipop, at the risk of your usual pointless reply, I will try.
Faith is KNOWING, in your 'heart of hearts' as the saying goes, that God is real.
Ironically, it IS based on evidence. From reading what the wise, sincere people wrote in the New Testament to seeing the world with the capacity for love, beauty, knowledge and the amazing unexplained universe. Eventually, you can feel the presence of God in your life and know that He loves each of us.
How did animals get their stripes? Here are two versions. BIBLE GENESIS:30:37-39 Jacob carved stripes and spots into a tree and put his herd in front of them when they mated. When they gave birth their babies had stripes and spots.
SCIENCE SAYS: Over a long period any one animal has changes in their colouring. Some colour changes allowed allowed others to survive better than other of their species.These small changes piled up over time resulting in a colour scheme that allowed the animal to survive and reproduce. This is how animals got their stripes and other colour schemes.
Which story would you believe???/ HINT ...scieince.
I'd say both you're wrong on both your premises. First, those verses in Genesis are not saying that is how leopards got spots or zebra's got stripes. Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that the animal or its dna somehow determined that if it changed its coding it could better protect itself. That's complete nonsense.
And BTW, I do believe that leopards evolved spots and zebra's evolved stripes. But e really don't know why they did. We guess.
and btw...read it again.
I'd say both you're wrong on both your premises. First, those verses in Genesis are not saying that is how leopards got spots or zebra's got stripes. Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that the animal or its dna somehow determined that if it changed its coding it could better protect itself. That's complete nonsense.
First...then you can please tell us what they were implying.
Secondly...I SEEM to be suggesting??? Is that what you read into it?.......animals EVOLVED overtime and developed their camoflauge.....this is a no brainer....obviously you people are just playing games with twisting what is said on here. ...no intelligent conversation here with people who aren't interested in factual information....adios...
We do know why they did. It's not because the genes realize that they need to change. It's because random genetic changes happen and the more advantageous changes are more likely to survive and reproduce after certain big environmental changes happen.
Jim,
"...you seem to be suggesting that the animal or its dna somehow determined that if it changed its coding it could better protect itself."
He's not saying that at all. Reread the comment.
Long time ago, in a far away pond, there once lived fish named 'magic'. Magic lived in the pond with his other brothers and sisters, one day 'Magic' ventured out of the pond and fell in love with a frog named 'dreamer', together Magic and Dreamer made a handsome couple, their little offspring was nothing short of the best of Magic and Dreamer's DNA. They named their little one 'fearless Lizzy'. Fearless Lizzy was not afraid to crawl on the ground and soon met her handsome Prince charming. When they gave birth they were overjoyed to see 'Lemur', who could not only crawl but did all kind of antics to amuse his parents. Little Lemur was very skilled in hopping, skipping, jumping and in climbing trees just as his athletic father Lizzy would do.
Finally it was time for Lizzy to grow up and voila he turned into Tarzan, the prince of the jungle who explored the modern world and left his family behind in the jungles. Tarzan has never forgotten his humble beginning in that far away pond. Thanks to Old Ancestry.com , he was able to track his ancestry back to 'magic' the fish.
The End!
That evolution story makes perfect sense. In the absence of evidence as to what morphed into what, that story actually puts the pieces of the puzzle together.
Uh-oh! Somebody needs a biology 101 class!!! Animals don't just morph into others or give birth to different species. Evolution does not suggest this anywhere. But hell, that tale of above STILL sounds more realistic than most religions.
So, atheist like to claim zero evidence for God. There is no conclusive evidence, but I see bias.
Let's compare the theory of dark matter to my 'theory of God.'
Dark matter cannot be seen or touched, only it's effects are observed. Yet it is readily accepted to the point of building expensive detectors underground searching for particles that may not exist. Other explanations are possible.
With my theory of God, exhibit A is the universe. It didn't create itself, no other plausible explanations have yet been found. Yet it exhibits Goldilocks properties that need to be just right to support life. And the universes complex, balanced laws suggest a designer.
Add to this the human witnesses who were so moved an enduring nation was born that knows no boundaries or suffering great enough to extinguish it.
Again other explanations are possible, but these qualify as evidence. Maybe not enough to convince atheists, but evidence nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyFw8UF85A#t=0
Question with boldness even the conclusions of scientists !
Agreed. Question everything. Don't just believe something because someone said so.
Do you know how people question science? By performing experiments to try to prove something different, or show that the result is not a constant. This is how science advances. You are welcome to become a scientist and do all the questioning that you'd like. The problem is when those who aren't scientists act like they have equal knowledge to one and try to talk around it.
Another problem is, when a group of scientists get together and decide to prohibit any other ideas from being considered. That's what happened to Galileo.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
"Another problem is, when a group of scientists get together and decide to prohibit any other ideas from being considered. That's what happened to Galileo."
Ahh . . . no. Other scientists didn't "prohibit" Galileo from presenting his ideas. Many argued against them, but they did not prohibit their consideration. The Church, however, did ban Galileo's works. Why you would think your link supports your argument is bizarre to say the least.
As it appears you are still attempting to suggest that ID has been prohibited from discussion, I again point to the fact that Behe, Minnich and many other ID proponents maintain their academic positions (they haven't generated any positive evidence for ID, but they maintain their positions). I again point to the fact that the Discovery Inst-itute is still pumping out ID public relations material (but not any actual research). I again point to the fact that ID/creationism is well represented in the "science" classrooms of private religious schools. And I again point to the fact that ID has no testable/falsifiable mechanism and is not a scientific proposition, it offers no means to distinguish "actual" design (via an intelligent designer) from apparent design (via evolution), it is primarily a continuation of "creation science" (e.g. "cdesign proponentsists"), it is nothing more than a compilation of negative arguments of incredulity, and that it remains principally a religious proposition (as evidenced by the various statements of leading ID proponents at Kitzmiller).
Your evidence is subjective. The effect of dark matter can be observed and measured. It has been verified to be a real phenomena, regardless of what causes it. The effect of god cannot be measured, observed or quantified in any way whatsoever. Your best point is really that the universe can't create itself but god can? You have evidence of either of these points? Also 99.99999% of the universe is uninhabitable and instantly lethal to life. Sounds REALLY logical that god would create this vast emptiness so that he could set up life in a tiny little corner somewhere, instead of just making the universe friendly to life. There is not a single piece of objective evidence for a creator. Your arguments are philosophical at best, and the universe is huge enough to account for millions if not billions of Goldilocks zones out there.
I'm starting to notice atheists are little subjective too, emotionally attached to their prior conclusion.
So it's funny that God created life in just this tiny corner of the universe? Except that's what He says in the Bible with the 'mustard seed' being earth.
And of course the big bang also lining up with the Bible story of creation in an instant too. Except, you have a better answer for that too: the entire universe existing in a infinitely small point in a place without time or space. Or maybe, there are infinite parallel universes and of course we just happen to be in the unlikely one hospitable to life.
Yeah that's the ticket...
vmoore, If you had evidence of a god there could be a discussion, but you're clinging to the ignorant imaginations of Bronze Age goatherders as encapsulated in the bible. Using that as your starting point, you reject the evidence of modern science. Trying to undermine evolution, Big Bang, etc. does not constitute evidence for creationism.
I'm not trying to undermine the Big Bang, it supports my position. I'm just pointing out all thw hoops people jump through to try and prove their is no beginning and thus no first cause.
I also don't disagree with evolution.
Nobody's emotionally attached to anything, stop with the generalizing insults. Basic logic says that something is real when you have tons of evidence for it, just like logic says that something does not exist without corroborating evidence. Science is not subjective, and people like me who have worked in the field their entire life get offended when you try to pigeon hole it based on nothing but faith in an ancient text book, and in general ignorance of science. Matter and energy existed prior to the big bang. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed based on Einstein's theory of relativity, your claim that the bible coincides with the science is demonstrably wrong (unless you can prove that energy can be created or destroyed). It still makes no sense why god would waste time creating a huge universe when life is only in 1/10923801923801923rd of it. It's not logical in the least unless the dude is an egomaniac and just wanted to show off for humans, which is absurd. This isn't an attack on your faith, it's logic, based on what we DO know from science.
Matter and energy existed before the Big Bang? Really? Where and when? Tough feat in the absence of time or space or anything else for that matter.
Jeez, read a science book. It's not that complicated. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefor it HAD to be there before the big bang, unless you are suggesting Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong. If you ARE suggesting this, then I have to assume that you have already run the calculations and crunched the numbers to show that it is wrong. I don't understand why people who aren't familiar with the science constantly nitpick it, while refusing to show the same scrutiny for their religious beliefs. Stop being a hypocrite. This is why atheists attack you guys. You don't look at anything objectively. Science has never suggested that energy did not exist at any point. If you can prove this, by all means, have at it.
Well, atheists feel free to attack religion when they often have no clue what they are criticizing, so humor me.
I get that energy cannot be created or destroyed in our universe under the laws of physics. But the universe has a beginning 14 odd billion years ago. Before which there was nothing or a singularity if you prefer, same thing.
No universe, no energy, no matter.
I've never read anything claiming the universe has a beginning, but energy is forever. Unless you are referring to the convenient use of the singularity to house everything because you can't explain it.
In which case, I call bs
"But the universe has a beginning 14 odd billion years ago. Before which there was nothing or a singularity if you prefer, same thing."
This is why I say to read a science book. You haven't a clue about it. You cannot prove the universe had a beginning. "Nothing" is not the same thing as a singularity. A singularity is indeed something and it is indeed composed of energy. Our scientific calculations can only measure back to a moment just after the big bang started expanding, so we don't know what was there prior. You cannot definitively say there was nothing, just like I can't definitively say there was another universe or a white hole or another dimension. Nobody knows the answer to the origin of energy, including you. I have beliefs about what it could be, but I wouldn't dare pass it off as fact, just as you shouldn't pass god off as fact, that's all. Science knows for an absolute fact is that the energy was at one point very close together and then expanded. All this stuff about something from nothing is speculation. Science may find the answer one day, but for now they are still working on it. Creationists constantly move goalposts to put god in the gap of knowledge. Before we knew about space, that was where god lived. Now that we have mapped millions of galaxies, and determined it all expanded together, god has been relocated to "the guy outside of the universe that caused the big bang". If we eventually discover that the big bang was caused by dimensional collisions, then god will be moved outside those dimensions and it will be claimed that he made the dimensions. If we discover that the dimensions were caused by dark energy interacting with anti matter, then god will again be moved to the guy who made the energy. Creationists have been doing this since the dark ages when they believed god was right up in the sky and caused all the weather patterns based on his mood.
Professor, I posted a quote from a veteran physics/quantum physics researcher who stated time, space, energy and matter cannot exist separately. He explained that before the big bang, there was no universe, thus no laws of physics, and thus no time, space, matter or energy.
I'm not sure where the post went but apparently my thinking was correct ,or at least 'mainstream', and your derision of 'read a science book' is just the usual atheist drivel.
Everything else in your post is the usual rant, nothing noteworthy.
So stop with the ad hominem attacks as an argument tool.
I'm getting the impression atheists are insecure in their beliefs and tend to react as the insecure schoolyard bully to make themselves feel better.
You seem generally reasonable, but many others aren't.
Vilenkin perhaps, vmoore? I suggest you find your quote again. It's important to note when researchers in this field are speaking about this universe versus what might have been on the other side of said beginning, and other universe possibilities.
I understand it quite well, thanks Doris. And it's not that difficult to see where the facts end and conjecture begins.
It's not drivel, it's fact. Obviously OUR UNIVERSE did not exist prior to the big bang. That doesn't mean something else didn't or that it's automatically nothing. We don't know for sure. Don't accuse me of ad hom when you've been throwing cheap shots at atheists since your 2nd post.
vmoore
There is only a god hypothesis, not a theory. There would have to be some test that could be designed to verify it, if it were a theory.
The god hypothesis is only one of an infinite number of other hypotheses.
There is dark matter and dark energy, so called only because we do not yet know what it is. They continue to close in on it though....not so for any gods.
The don't have to verify it, just support it.
Virgil,
Your attempt to use Dark Matter as an analogy for God fails. Dark Matter is indirectly observable. We can measure it's effects on galaxies and light. So we can tell for certain that something is indeed there. If you doubt it, you can take the measurements yourself, and do the calculations yourself (although you would need to get some schooling to learn how to do this). But that's how science works. Other people can test your claim, or you can test theirs. This is not true of the God claim. It is deliberately designed to be unverifiable. Indeed, anytime someone comes up with a way to test the God claim, like measuring for the effect of prayer, believers move the goal posts–"but God doesn't work that way!"
Furthermore, scientists do not claim to know exactly what Dark Matter is. We will need more evidence through observation. On the other hand, believers claim to know all about God–this all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being–they know all about him. "He's not subject to the laws of the universe." "He can't do evil because it's not in his nature." In fact, on these blogs, just about anytime a doubter has a logical question or objection, a believer will make something new up to account for it. I should start copying them. I'll bet I could fill pages and pages of massive, sweeping, unsubstantiated claims believers make up and assert on these very pages on a daily basis. For many of them, you can't even find these claims in the Bible. Apparently they are just made up and labeled "logic" by believers.
My final objection to your analogy is that no one will ever tell you that you will go to Hell and burn forever if you do not believe in Dark Matter. Don't believe it? Fine. Go off and make your own theory, and present it and the evidence for it. But your theory is "God did it" and you have no hard verifiable evidence whatsoever.
So Christians are forced to resort to special pleading, promises of Eternal Bliss and threats of Eternal Hellfire. The God claim is the most extraordinary claim ever made, backed only the biggest bribe ever offered, and the biggest threat ever made.
Thanks for the effort.
Actually, the universe is an observable phenomenon also. And we don't know what caused it either. What if I called my theory Dark God?
The other evidence I mentioned isn't conclusive but it does support my hypothesis, just as some things don't.
So it is an apt comparison.
"And we don't know what caused it either."
Nuff said . . .
Hey Paul
great news for education and the children – Rick perry not so much !
A final victory in Texas
by NCSE posted on December 17, 2013 07:13PM GMT
http://ncse.com/news/2013/12/final-victory-texas-0015248
A testimonial from John Compere, PhD
"I was a fifth-generation Baptist minister, ordained at age 18, while in college. I served until age 32 when I left the ministry and the church to get a PhD in Clinical Psychology. I had already completed a three-year seminary degree following college, which only increased my doubts about the authenticity of the theology I had learned from childhood. Leaving the ministry was not an easy decision to make since all my friends and family were in the church. But it was a decision I ultimately HAD to make if I didn't want to risk being publicly phony and privately cynical. I became an agnostic, then an atheist, NOT because I hadn't read the Bible, but because I had! An atheist, by the way, is simply someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. I am convinced that the evidence supports that view. All religion suffers from being bound by unchanging myth.
As a psychologist, I continued to try to help people find meaning in their lives. I taught at the university and medical school, had a private clinical practice, and then became a professional speaker on "Psychology You Can USE!" I seriously doubt that life has any ultimate meaning, but I'm convinced that we can make our own meaning, and I have spent the last 45 years since I left the ministry trying to help people do just that. Success is not the goal - all therapists have dealt with many a successful person who was miserable - life satisfaction is the goal.
When I made my career change, I was essentially on my own. I wish something like The Clergy Project had been around then. I could surely have used it. The goal of this project is not to try to convince believing clergy to give up their faith. Rather, it is to help those in the clergy who, for their own individual reasons, are no longer able to believe, to try to figure out how to make a huge sea-change in their lives. It may well be the absolutely most challenging career change anyone can make. We simply want to help make it easier."
"An atheist, by the way, is simply someone who does not believe in a supernatural being."
At least John Compere understands what it means to be an atheist.
So?? I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who have comverted.
Here is the testimony of one, feel free to hum along:
Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see
So I will sing to you this song of thanks
For giving me abundant grace
You broke the stones around my heart
In you I've been redeemed
Through many dangers, toils and snares
We have already come
Twas grace that brought us safe this far
And grace will lead us home
When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Then when we've first begun
I know you don't want to hear this, but religion is slowly dying. Information and knowledge is out there at the click of a mouse. Nobody is convinced by subjective god arguments or scientific ignorance anymore. They can look anything up and verify its accuracy. You can only fool society for so long before people begin to catch on. In 50 years tops, organized religion will be practiced by just a small minority of people. Again, if you want to believe, then go ahead and believe, just stop trying to insult atheists and tell scientists they are wrong. That's the thing that urks people more than anything.
That's funny, because even though you don't want to hear this, in fifty years you're going to be a major believer;-)
vmoore
What do you suppose is going to happen in fifty years to make anyone believe that myth....same old doomsday/"judgementday" that religious zealots have said since the beginning of religious zealots.
No reason nor logic that can be applied to come to that conclusion.
I was presuming piccolo would be enjoying the afterlife by then.
What afterlife? There's an afterlife? How do you know?
John 3:16
vmoore...you do know that quoting the bible is NOT evidence. Any sixth grader knows this in this day and age. Welcome to the REAL world. If the bible were so the world would've been a much better place as it is the qu'aran and the bible were built on the exact same foundations. You should be talking with your muslim brothers rather than not being able to have a conversation with the poor and lowly atheists who seem to outwit you at absolutely every turn with their words based in reality. The bible is not a scientific anything built on ANY reality.
Urnotathinker kind of full of yourself, thanks for supporting my theory about atheists. So, wonder what you will do when you find out you are wrong about my citation?
Im hardly 'full of myself" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. You're "theory" of atheists is full of holes just like your drivel. You make absolutely no sense and if my reaction is the same as other "atheists" then maybe its not us but you who has a problem. If you want to play mindfk games do it on someone else's time.
vmoore,
Yep. Just believing gets you eternal life. So the repentant killer of 22 is likely in heaven, but the nicest, kindest person who ever lived without hearing of God is in hell.
Makes sense to you. Personally, I wouldn't admit it if I believed that.
Observer, yes that would be absurd. Jesus did not go through all of that suffering to leave anyone behind. So if you get that mass murderers could be forgiven (after repenting, ie becoming a good person) you recognize He is not interested in sending anyone to hell. Not some native in a tropical forest, not atheists, not sinners.
Granted some believers will say that, just like some say Jesus had to be crucified for some cosmic ledger. Both fail to understand what Jesus was about.
vmoore
" he doesn't WANT to send anyone to hell"....that's a load of crap. If he didn't want to send people there, he should not have created the place in the first place.
Your god is exactly like a school yard bully...he doesn't WANT to make you punch yourself, you just won't give him your lunch money, you won't do what he commands you to do so he has to make you punch yourself....no difference in your god....he created the threat of hell, he can remove it, but doesn't. Nothing but a bully.
Generally speaking, benevolent, loving people do not create torture chambers to use on folks who don't agree with them. Hell is a torture chamber only far worse because it's eternal. Wow god must REALLY love us.
Piccolo, what John 3:16 is saying is that God loves all of us so much He sent His Son to help us learn to live with one another knowing He would be crucified. So to save our selfish, hardheaded butts He put His Son through a horrible experience. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do that for anyone I know, let alone some d-bag.
I admit the hell thing weirds me out a little sometimes, but then I think about Jesus replying to His apostles question about the worst sinners. He says He forgives them knowing they will love Him more than anyone else due to the amount forgiven. So if the worst sinners are safe, who could possibly go to 'hell.'
vmoore
"He is not interested in sending anyone to hell. Not some native in a tropical forest, not atheists, not sinners."
Nonsense. Based on the Bible, BILLIONS of people were sent to hell BECAUSE they never heard of God. So much for caring and fairness. Read a Bible.
vmoore,
Quoting the bible is not evidence, and the idea that an omnipotent god needed to send a son to save anyone is preposterous.
Observer, my turn to ask for some evidence. The Bible says no such thing. It says those that believe in Him shall have everlasting life. It does not say 'and those that don't or didn't hear of Him get to go to Hell.'
Granted many fundamentalists will say that but they have no basis for it.
And why couldn't someone come to believe at the gates of St Peter? Why go through all the trouble to be crucified saving people then send them to hell on a technicality?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. This basic principle explains big bang, emergence of galaxies, solar systems, comets, amino acids, abiogenesis, RNA evolving into DNA, and modern evolutionary synthesis in one big package. It's simple, yet effective. It also goes against the idea of a universal creator. The universe is constantly changing. Changes add up over billions of years. We can measure up to the big bang, but before that we simply cannot determine how long it took to even get to that point. 1 year? 1 trillion years?
I'd be lying if I told you I knew the answer as to what happened prior to the expansion. The same holds true for anybody else that claims they know. Creationists most often deny that they do not know the answer for sure. Faith by definition means you do not know for sure, but people just can't seem to admit that! If they were more open minded to other's beliefs when professing their faith, it would be different. But instead of admitting that their faith is faith, they go all out trying to justify their belief system, including denial and slander of science as well as promoting lies found on AIG or other ID propaganda sites as facts.
Those are the type of people we are talking about, not the rational theists. The dishonest portrayal of their faith(IE Ken Ham, AIG, Hovind) is why so many agnostics and atheists are annoyed with theists. That is where all the so called hostility is born. If you want to help solve the problem of atheists constantly having a bone to pick with Christians, treat them as equals, listen to them and kindly explain why you believe what you do and what good it has done in your life. Do as Jesus would do. Don't attack them and talk to them like they are children. Don't tell them they are wrong or tools of the devil. Understand that each person can follow different pathways to the same ultimate goal. One's belief about the universe is different than another's but that doesn't mean you both can't find happiness or heaven or whatever you want to call it. Show this respect to an atheist and I guarantee they will show the same back to you.