home
RSS
Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?
Camels, shown here in the Liwa desert outside Abu Dhabi, are the subject of a surprising new discovery.
February 11th, 2014
01:56 PM ET

Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?

Opinion by Joel Baden, special to CNN

(CNN) - It’s been a rough 2014 for the book of Genesis.

First a Noah’s Ark discovery raised a flood of questions, then there was the much-hyped debate over life’s origins between Bill Nye the Science Guy and creationist Ken Ham.

And now this: a scientific report establishing that camels, the basic mode of transportation for the biblical patriarchs, weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said to have wandered the earth.

Using radiocarbon dating of camel bones that showed signs of having carried heavy loads, Israeli archaeologists have dated the earliest domesticated camels to the end of the 10th century BCE.

But according to the traditional biblical chronology, the patriarchs were schlepping around Canaan on camels over a millennium earlier, all the way back in 2100 BCE

Taken on its own, this may seem a rather minor problem.

After all, this is Genesis, in which some people live to be 900 years old (hello, Methuselah), all of humanity emerges from Babylon, and the Dead Sea is created from the backward glance of Lot’s wife. (Not to mention the six-day creation story and the stuffing of all land animals on a single boat.)

How important could camels really be?

For those who believe the Bible to be fundamentally true, this is hardly going to change any minds. For those who believe it to be entirely false, this is surely not the most damning piece of evidence.

What the camels in Genesis reveal, in fact, has nothing to do with the “truth” of the biblical story at all.

Instead, the presence of these camels in the story highlights, in a very clear way, the essential humanity of the biblical writers: like the best authors, they simply wrote about what they knew.

The patriarchs are depicted as nomadic, never settling for long in one place, but moving constantly from location to location throughout Israel (and beyond).

An ancient Israelite, wanting to tell the story of the wandering of his ethnic and national ancestors, would have naturally looked to the nomadic peoples around him as models. And indeed, throughout the Bible camels are commonly associated with those tribes who lived in the desert: Midianites, Ishmaelites, Amalekites, Kedemites.

The biblical authors simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past.

There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present.

They had no real alternative. In ancient Israel, in the period when the Bible was written (which ranges, conservatively, from the 10th to the third century BCE), no one had any way of knowing that camels had not always been domesticated pack animals. After all, we didn’t know that for sure until this past week.

Without any evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly natural to assume that things have always been the way that they are now. Today we have more information about the past than any other moment in history. In ancient Israel, they had virtually none.

And yet we still fall victim to this basic, very human, historical fallacy.

It has been suggested that this anachronism in the biblical text is akin to importing semitrailers into the medieval period. But this is a level of ridiculousness too far.

I would suggest that it is more similar to describing a medieval Italian as enjoying pasta with tomato sauce. How many people, even today, know that tomatoes only came to Italy from South America in the 16th century?

The camels in Genesis may be “wrong,” but they are not a “mistake.” We all imagine the past to the best of our knowledge, the biblical authors included.

The lasting lesson of the camel controversy, such as it is, is a simple one: no writing, not even the Bible, is timeless or without context. Views of the past are contingent on both what we know and how we know it.

The Bible is a historical record, but it tells us just as much, if not more, about the people who wrote it as it does about the people they wrote about.

Since the stories of the Bible remain so central to who we are as a culture, even today (and even for those who dismiss it), it seems entirely fitting that we should be equally interested in the ancient people who composed them.

Despite their lack of historical knowledge — and, equally, because of it — they, more than the characters in the Bible, are our true cultural ancestors.

Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Judaism • Middle East • Opinion

soundoff (3,276 Responses)
  1. tewise

    I am not trying to be a smart butt here but I really would like to hear the answer or answers. Allegedly a lot of people started writing all these stories on paper or rocks. They basically were diaries.

    At some point in time someone wanted to put all these stories down for a much larger book. After all the hands they made it through some not so savory types, Israelite, Greeks then they end up with the Catholics. Interpreting what is wrote in another language, and if the Catholics couldn't figure it out, what do you think they did?

    What happened to the other missing books, where did they disappear too and why, could there have been information in them that the Catholics did want to be known? We produce books daily in the USA in the world that will be left behind for ages. I hope they don't find the Harry Potter series and think that really happened, or the Freddie movies.

    How do we know what we read in the bible is the true word and not the word that someone else wanted us to read instead of what should have been read. How do we know they didn't change the scripts to feed more into the image they wanted to protect? I can think of two things they would hide:

    1) Was Jesus married
    2)Why are women subservient in so many religions.

    February 19, 2014 at 7:17 am |
    • Alias

      There is a long standing debate about jesus beig married. I won't even beging to go into details here, but there is no definitive answer accepted by everyone.

      Many historians believe women were a second class because the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and most work was labor. Therefore women were dependent on men in many cases. Also, it was necessity for women to care fo rthe babies – bottle/formula were not available – women had the house duties while men were the laborers/bread winners.

      February 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
  2. wolfbitn

    Easy Peasy.
    Alias, hot air and truth prevails have ALL been challenged to debate these issues in a MODERATED forum where they would be forced to debate and not troll and spam.

    Since they prefer trolling and spamming to cover the fact they arent able to stand in a moderated debate, they run... and run... and spam... and troll... and run... to try to bury the pages showing their cowardice.

    February 18, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
    • hotairace

      Not running anywhere. I'll be right here to witness your victory, if you ever get the guts to state your case here and actually make it which I highly doubt you can do, or more likely watch you go down in flames.

      February 18, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        already made and it still stands... you ARE running. Why are you willing to spam and troll here but you cant debate in a moderated arena? Because you cant debate in a moderated arena... you dont even know the definition of theory. So spam, troll, run from any moderation that would force you to actually debate... run fast... spam more... you're the hero of Atheism eh? now please continue spamming and trolling to show everyone what you got lol... and keep running from the moderated debate... to also show what you arent carrying around below the belt.

        Run along now...

        February 18, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          Don't forget to wipe the spittle and foam off your chin. . .

          February 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ahh did I hear you just accept a moderated debate or are you still just spamming?

          The fact is I have already shown Genesis 1 to be more scientifically sound than the big bang... I'm still here trying to get you guys into a moderated forum to MAKE you debate it... anyone who would choose to duck this bold challenge and continue spamming and trolling is nothing but a coward and a child ...so lets enjoy the show, I already know which you are... make it plain to everyone else 🙂

          February 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • hotairace

          Where did you say we can find your definitive evidence for your alleged by unproven god?

          February 18, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Here through these many pages of comment OR EVEN BETTER...

          Meet me in a moderated debate forum... come get it

          February 18, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          "The fact is I have already shown Genesis 1 to be more scientifically sound than the big bang..."

          Doesn't the fact that you can interpret Gen 1 in so many ways, evidenced by so many different extant interpretations, belie it being scientific in any way?

          February 18, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I believe when the main emphasis of the particular words here, with no help from me in any way, matches the records we find in stone, there is no need to change it or believe it in any other way. When thee MAIN sense, makes COMMON sense and matches these records, then it deserves credence in the fact that it is not being falsified but verified in it's accuracy. Of course this post is entirely my opinion, but if this were math instead of Hebrew, and a theoretical physicist can work things out using popular interpretation of symbol, would he not be applauded for doing so, and wouldn't he be criticized for NOT doing so?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
        • hotairace

          So, no coherent, "A to Z" argument with evidence for your alleged but unproven god, just as I thought.

          What is your fascination with a debate elsewhere? Why can't you perform your miracle here? What's stopping you from simply posting your theory much like reputable scientists do when they submit their scholarly articles for review in their entirety?

          You remind me of Newt Gingrich, another loser always whinging for a debate according to his selected rules during the recent presidentially elections. None of his compet!tors saw a need to coddle him and I don't intent to coddle you. So it's here, soon or never.

          February 18, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          LOL hot are you really are a hoot... youre a real GPS machine arent you... that is Garbage Per Second.

          Why will you not debate in a moderated forum? Because you cant

          Not a single atheist here has been able to stand up to the plate now for almost a week

          You are making Darwin roll in his grave in shame lol

          February 18, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          I'm sorry what "records we find in stone" are you talking about specifically? Surely you aren't equating "became desolation", if that is correct, with a specific meteor strike. Why not the Yellow stone super-volcano explosion, or the near planetary collision that formed the moon, or Pompeii, or the Cambrian extinction event?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          The Cambrian is too early because it would necessitate then that Genesis record several more extinction events before we come to "this age", And Yellow Stone would not have thrown enough water into the atmosphere to bring about Genesis 6. Ash yes possibly, but not the water.

          February 18, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          "Yellow Stone would not have thrown enough water into the atmosphere to bring about Genesis 6"

          Are you really claiming that the Yucatan strike caused a world wide flood, much less one that involved humans? 65mya really? So either humans were around back then or the water, enough to flood the entire world mind you, hung in the atmosphere for tens of millions of years, or am I missing something?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No that is nothing like what I said... you already brought up the separation of the waters from the waters, and I sent the link and part of the article form the science blog regarding the water vapor surrounding a small planet to show THIS it is then verified that this can indeed happen... We THEN see WAY down the line through history Genesis 6... understand that if this is a history, and I maintain that it is, then it stands to reason that we see the laws of cause and effect setting thing up to occur possibly millions of years down the road.

          Certainly every butterfly flapping it's wing has it's effect upon the entire earth in time.

          February 18, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          I'm must have missed the link, where was that?
          Regardless, however, you did say that Yellow would not have thrown enough water in the air for Gen 6. The implication being that you think the Yucatan strike did.

          But, I may have misunderstood, what exactly did you mean by "Yellow Stone would not have thrown enough water into the atmosphere to bring about Genesis 6"?

          I'll have to catch up later though, I need to sign off for now.

          Have a nice evening.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • wolfbitn

          No problem. Good talking to you Ken. I will send another link or 2...AHHH links thats why you didnt get the post. Ok I will still get you the story.

          Have a good night, Great talking to you

          February 19, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Ken this will be here when you return, so this is for you...

          Yes I did make reference to Yucatan and then Genesis 6 but only in the context that Genesis 1 demands that there be enough water in the atmosphere to bring about anything near the proportions of water demanded by Genesis 6. Please understand though I am looking at scripture in geologic time, not 24 hour time. These 2 events were obviously separated by millions of years. Even the reading of the ages, the first day through the 6th, takes place over a very long period of time.

          In genesis 1 we also see reference to waters. Now Both these very same waters in chapter 1 and the language surrounding them have to be separated.

          We see it states there was a separation of the waters from the waters, and then in the Hebrew it states that God placed a firmament between them called "heaven". The writers recognized 3 "heavens"

          our atmosphere
          Space and it's inhabitant bodies
          God's abode

          This is OBVIOUSLY talking about the earth being void and empty so the context is our atmosphere... In other words there was a water vapor around some level of the atmosphere. This would demand obviously a very large amount of water for us to even be able to put a quarter inch of vapor around any layer.

          There is certainly precedent for this event to occur.

          From the Huffington Post regarding a nearby planet... point being that it is possible for an atmosphere to be surrounded by a water vapor...:

          Super-Earth Alien Planet May Have 'Plasma' Water Atmosphere
          Space.com | By Nola Taylor Redd
          Posted: 10/02/2013 9:21 am EDT | Updated: 10/03/2013 12:01 pm EDT

          Astronomers have determined that the atmosphere of super-Earth Gliese 1214 b is likely water-rich. However, this exoplanet is no Earth twin. The high temperature and density of the planet give it an atmosphere that differs dramatically from Earth.

          "As the temperature and pressure are so high, water is not in a usual form (vapor, liquid, or solid), but in an ionic or plasma form at the bottom the atmosphere"

          There are really better examples but i had to find this quickly, the idea though is valid. Now WAY down the road, although this was not likely a plasma in the lower atmospheres, this is certainly not the only form of water vapor surrounding planets.

          At any rate, the more water outside the lower levels of this atmosphere the better, because Genesis 6 has to wreak havoc.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • tallulah131

          So wolfie. You say that you are not using your own translation, but are using the Hebrew translation. Since you are not speaking Hebrew here and have admitted that you have no degrees, whose translation are you using? Could you reference the source of your translation so that we can verify the source of your personal interpretation? Science must stand to scrutiny. If your claims are to be taken seriously, they must be scrutinized as well.

          So are you a trained linguist? Are you a trained historian so that you can understand the context in which Genesis was written as well as understanding the nuances of the language used at that time? Are there any scholars who have investigated and agreed with your interpretation?

          Let's have your credentials. You make a lot of claims. Give us a reason to take you seriously.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Posted from elsewhere to someone else with little to no no credentials...

          wolfbitn

          .... My information comes from 40 years of study. Studying the OT from the original languages, mostly Hebrew and Chaldean, as well as the earlier Latin and greek manuscripts. I also studied the manuscripts themselves, when and in what area of the world they were widely distributed. I studied early hebrew thought, early church teachings as compared to 400-500 ad where many things changed. I have studied IN DEPTH with Orthodox reformed Jews, Orthodox unreformed, and messianic Jews to get a better feel for not just the definitions but the nuances as well in the words from their own ancient literature. I have studied with preachers you would know if I named them, and I have debated the famed christian authors of the left behind series regarding their trashing of the original meanings of scripture and their merchandising of their so called faith.

          I have also studied sciences from various fields. I absolutely love the sciences including music. I love astrophysics, theoretical physics, geology, and I am fascinated with studying fossils. History is a fairly strong point as well.

          This is where I have gotten my information

          As for Hawking, Iv read everything he has done I would imagine... My favorite thought from Him is the simplicity of his description of the infinite finite nature of the universe. Specifically being that it is as finite as a baseball is finite and infinite in that it can be traversed for instance from west to east infinitely.

          Theoretical physics teacher Alan Muth, most recently formerly professor ay MIT is someone else I have followed closely. A developer of sort of a chaotic string theory, I am still however trying to wrap my head around his quantization of a Scalar field.

          What else would you like to know?

          And what are yours?

          February 19, 2014 at 2:56 am |
        • tallulah131

          So you are a dillitante with no real credentials who makes wild claims on the internet that you cannot back up. You demand debates, yet you can't even present a case without insults and name calling. When one poster claims he came upon one of your debates and observed that the moderator appeared to give up, you blamed the moderator and your opponent and did not even take into account your own behavior (which appears to be a pattern with you).

          I'll be honest with you. Your story sounds implausible. You simply sound like a person who read the bible a certain new way, but was not taken seriously. This is why I believe you go to internet blogs and spoil for a debate while making unsupportable claims and insulting people who don't instantly fall at your feet. If you are for real, then peer review and publish. Surely one of those scholars you studied with will help you, if they concur with your remarkable new translation.

          February 19, 2014 at 9:32 am |
        • wolfbitn

          no its more like you site here and troll and spam all day trying to feel superior to us ignorant Christians... then when your back is pushed against the wall and the challenge is in your face... you go limp. But you DO love to troll and spam

          February 19, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • wolfbitn

          now... what are YOUR credentials

          February 19, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • igaftr

          considering how quickly you ran from me when I made many specific points, your credentials are moot, since you refuse to face what you DEMANDED of others. No one will sponser you in a debate siince you have shown you cannot debate, and refuse to address what YOU claim. Genesis has not only no basis in science, it has no basis in reality. It was written by ignorant men who had no knowledge of how the universe works.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • wolfbitn

          O now this is rich considering every one of you were shut down and "God" is the only ting on the table that is verified as opposed to falsified...

          So bring your trash to a moderated debate and debate it like someone who isnt afraid... or just troll like you do because you CANT debate it... i dont care what you do everyone reading knows the diff between a challenger and someone running...

          February 19, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • igaftr

          bitn
          If you can start by addressing my specific points. You keep demanding a moderated debate, but you have yet to show yourself capable of a debate. I have given you several starting points, line by line of how genesis is flat out wrong.
          This forum is fine.
          Present your argument, or run and hide like you have so far.

          We are waiting...

          February 19, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • wolfbitn

          so far a large portion of it has been drawn out and it is left unaddressed by everyone but Ken... and we have been discussing it civilly and it still stands to scrutiny

          Now if you think you can blow anything iv said out of the water, feel free.
          Also as you KNOW moderation ensures a debate without spam and without troll... I believe if someone runs form moderation its because all he was bringing in the first place was spam.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • igaftr

          bitn
          So you choose to run away...not surprised.
          This forum is fine...you keep DEMANDING...too bad. I am not running away, but YOU refuse to back up YOUR false claims.

          I have given you MANY, MANY chances, but you do not actually want a debate...you keep making DEMANDS as if you have any authority, then when people decline, you claim some sort of victory because your demand is silly.
          You are like a 12 year old child challenging Mike Tyson to a fight, and claiming victory when Mike politely declines.

          Put up or shut up...right here...right now.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • wolfbitn

          lmao you keep telling me to put up and yet at the same time you say NO I CANT DEBATE IT....
          I told you bring it... bring it... try bringing something besides "hu-uh no it didnt"

          February 19, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • tallulah131

          My credentials, wolfie? I'm a rational human being with too much common sense to take seriously an anonymous internet braggart who makes ambiguous claims but never offers an ounce of proof.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • wolfbitn

          ahh so you have nothing at all to rest an argument on other than a biased point of view. You slant everything in science from an atheist bias when you know perfectly well it can then only reflect an atheist outcome. Science is objective, science is not an atheist.

          I bring you fact from the Hebrew language, as well as geological FACT..., you bring nothing but "hu-uh"... which is why a moderated debate intimidates you.

          see if next post you can post something substantial instead of more spam....

          February 19, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • tallulah131

          Your entire argument, wolfie, hinges on the accuracy of your translation and interpretation. You claim 40 years of study, but you have no credentials to show for it. Can you at least cite a published translation that supports your own so that we might determine the credentials of that translator? Until the veracity of your translation can be verified, there is no reason to take it seriously. And after that, do you have a corroborating scholar to confirm that your word usage is contextually correct?

          I trust science because before anything is taken as possible, it is tested and scrutinized by people who have nothing to gain by lying. I don't trust the words that a would-be scholar culls from an old book of myths. Your words are spin, proof only of your arrogance.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • wolfbitn

          lmao... wait... you cant falsify a THING that I presented, my credentials obviously outshine yours, you RUN from a moderated debate, choosing rather to troll and spam, I HAVE PRESENTED time after time the definition OF the Hebrew FROM legitimate translation sites, and DESPITE the fact that YOU have no credentials, and study everything not with objectivity but from the bias of an Atheist, AND despite the fact you say things have to be scrutinized and accuse me of lying... YOU refuse to step up to the plate and do it in a moderated forum that would FORCE you to do more than spam and troll.

          Dude I will meet you head on any time. You wont say the same.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • igaftr

          I already gave you the first 5 lines of your myth and why they are flat out wrong. It is YOU refusing to address it and everyone can see you just tap dancing away.

          Perhaps if you can show an intelligent argument here, you may get to a moderated debate, but you need to show you are worthy, especially considering your behavior on this forum to this point.

          On a thread from yesterday, I posted the first five lines...I know you saw it because someone else told you to address my post and you responded to them.

          Start there and let's see if you can put together a cogent argument.
          What is your response to the first five lines of your book?
          show your work.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • wolfbitn

          i told you... bring it
          Right here right now... but since i am at WORK bring 1 item at a time and prepare to defend yourself.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • tallulah131

          Before you take on the Big Bang, perhaps you should debate real biblical scholars. I wonder how many of them agree with your personal interpretation.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Been there done that and won.

          February 19, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • Alias

          According to rational people the bible says:
          1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light "; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good ; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse ; and it was so.

          According to Woflbitr,
          God created the heavens and the earth. He filled the earth with plants and dinosaurs. He killed the dinosaurs with a massive meteor. THEN he brought the light, made day and night, and separated the land from the sea.
          HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

          And he claims he has won debates with bible scholars!!!
          I'm sure he did. Just exactly like he wins all of the discussions here!
          ROFLMAO!!!

          February 19, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You read not one thing right if that is the understanding you got from that. It is not at all what was said. There was an expanse BETWEEN the waters called "heaven".

          The Hebrew recognized 3 heavens...

          Atmosphere
          space
          God's abode.

          It is SHOWN already that other planets exist with a water vapor surrounding the atmosphere and this is exactly what is stated in Genesis 1... You have to do SOMETHING with all the billions of tons of WATER shewed into the sky during the event at Yucatan, and this is certainly proven by observation to be feasible... again it is not falsified but verified.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          (wolfbitn: Creationism2 Electric Bugaloo)

          February 19, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          bitn
          genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.

          First, no signs of any gods, and no sign of any "heavens", so that cannot be confirmed.

          1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of god was hovering over the waters.

          If the earth existed, it must have had a form and could not be "empty" ...something was there. Also, when the earth was formed, it was VERY hot, if there was any water,
          it would be in the atmosphere...it would be vapor, not water, so nothing for
          "god" to "hover" over.

          1:3 "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
          Stars had to form LONG before any solid masses, since you need stars to create atoms of elements higher in the periodic table than hydrogen.
          There was hydrogen, the hydrogen coalesced into stars, the stars begin to burn out, it begins to make elements higher and higher on the periodic table.
          Those elements are then available to begin to form planets, asteroids, comets etc.

          Light HAD to come before earth...billions of years before.

          1:4 "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."
          An impossibility. Darness only describes absence of light. Dark and light are only varying levels of the same thing.

          1:5 "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
          Light existed long before there was any earth, long before there was "morning"

          1:6 "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
          That just makes no sense.

          1:7 " So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so."
          And it continued to make no sense.

          1:8 " God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
          So the sky is water separated from water?

          1:9 "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
          The ground would be there long before it was cool enough on earth for water to "gather in one place"

          1:10 " God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."
          1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so"
          No it was not so.
          Cyanobacteria was the first life. Not vegetation. It would take MANY MILLIONS of years before life evolved into vegetation.
          The cyanobacteria in escense terraformed the planet by creating free oxygen. This process alone took MiIlions of years...LONG before vegetation.

          1:12 " The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

          1:13 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.'
          Millions and millions ( several Billion actually)of years have passed to this point...the third day

          1:14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

          There are no light in the vaults of the sky. OUTSIDE of our atmosphere, there is the sun, shining at full intensity continuously. Our earth spins creating periods of more and less direct sunlight.
          Also, if the light was not already regulated, there would be no vegetation. The cyanobacteria on the other hand, can use the volcanic vents for energy, and still do.

          1:15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so
          the lights they are referring to must mean outside of our sky...I know the first light is the sun, but there are no other lights. The moon, does reflect light, but is not a light itself.

          1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars
          again...one light is the sun...where is the other light.
          The moon does not govern the night, it is just as likely to be "up" during the day as night.
          If they meant the moon, they clearly got it wrong, if they did not mean the moon, where is the second light?

          There's the first group...clearly the writers of the bible had no clue about how the universe took shape after the Big Bang, clearly have the order wrong, and in many spots, they just got it plain wrong.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          What you present has ALREADY BEEN shot down.

          You have no understanding of what was even said.

          FIRST of all you are speaking with atheistic bias and science is not bias... if you cannot LOOK OBJECTIVELY at the possibility of a God you are NOT practicing science but preaching a cultish opinion.

          2) the translations rendered void and without form DO NOT MEAN IT HAD NO FORM in the HEBREW language...
          In the Hebrew, first and most important MEANING of the words state that it "Became Desolate and Devoid" as in devoid of LIFE. as was ALSO shown to be the meaning in Jeremiah 4

          as for the IDIOTIC point you made:

          "“Let there be light,” and there was light.
          Stars had to form LONG before any solid masses, since you need stars to create atoms of elements higher in the periodic table than hydrogen."

          IF YOU EVEN BOTHERED TO READ you'll see i state EMPHATICALLY that THIS was not a creative event, the atmosphere was filled with WATER ASH AND EARTH, DEBRIS FROM the Yucatan event. Stars EXISTED the sun EXISTED the moon EXISTED at the time of the Yucatan event. But the atmosphere was FILLED with this water and debris because of the impact and only a bit of light could begin to filter through

          Hell I'm stopping here... its been said over and over and YOU STILL misrepresent everything because you have OBVIOUSLY not read

          No Im not stopping... im going on

          The Moon DID INDEED rule the night in that THEY COULD NOT SEE without a fire or without a bright moon... You know perfectly well the night was always regarded as a more dangerous time simply because of the LACK of light.

          Now work on something i actually DID say and at least make it LOOK like youv read anything iv written.

          THIS is why you guys are afraid of a moderated debate... youll not be able to get away with spamming misrepresentations and troll.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • tallulah131

          "wolfbitn

          Been there done that and won."

          Prove it.

          You really are a very well-prepared troll. But even will all your preparation, you remain a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, prove some of your pretentious claims. Until then, be prepared to be ridiculed.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Talluah, if you wont accept the scholarly meanings of the Hebrew language, taken from SEVERAL sites, why should i present more to someone who is not going to objectively admit that this is spot on?

          Please feel free to pick out anything about this... IF you want to seriously discuss it i will, but the trolling and senseless spamming of "no ya didnt yes i did" has to stop for us to get anywhere.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • hotairace

          Given that wolfie has been spewing his crap for 4+ years, I would have thought he'd have one or more docu.ments, complete with references and supporting statements, readily available to anyone that wished to read it, much like reputable scientists do every day.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Hot air, as much as you talk and say nothing, I thought you were a mime.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          The yucatan metoer struck around 65 million years ago. Well after creation. Life flourished, and continued to flourish after the impact. This is just one of MANY major meteor strikes.
          The Yucatan meteor had NOTHING to do with genesis.
          You can make up garbage all day but I thought you wanted a serious debate, then you bring up this garbage which basically says : I've reinterpretted everything and tried to find a wy to make it fit the bible. I don't agree with your base premise.

          Please come back if you want a serious debate. Your point is ridiculous...trying to claim creation after creation..ridiculous.
          Now I assume you are going to claim victory because I refused to be baffled with BS.

          If you want to try again, get serious.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          AND if you read ANYTHING I said youd know i stated there is a HUGE amount of time between the first and 2nd verse and that each "Day" is actually better rendered in the Hebrew as AGE...

          In the Hebrew it reads: "and the earth BECAME" or "it came to pass THAT THE WORLD became DEVOID AND DESOLATE, OF COURSE IN EFFECT SAYING life flourished and then we see the extinction event.

          Now READ what i said and come back when you comprehend it and stop spamming your ridiculous misrepresentations.

          February 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          I did read what you said. You act as if YOUR interpretation is correct.

          Tell you what...you get your translation to be accepted by christianity, and perhaps you may have a leg to stand on.

          Your interpretation is just another in a long line of people re-interpretting in order to fit fact with bible.
          I have not spammed anything.

          also you have shot down nothing.
          If you claim the accepted interpretations are wrong, then EVERY branch of christianity that uses those bible is also wrong.
          You have your work cut out for you.

          You have a wildly fringe take on this, but it still makes no sense.
          considering you are going from a different book than everyone else, you cannot have a debate...we are not on the same page (literally).
          By all means, publish YOUR version of the bible, get it to be accepted mainstream, and then I might consider your point of view.
          I thought we were going to debate one subject, and then you change the subject.

          I do comprehend what you said, I simply reject it, as do most people who read their bibles.

          Let me know when your version is out, and if the othe bible "scholars" don't shred it word for word and actually accept it, then we may be able to get on a level playing field.

          How absurd that you want a debate about a book, but you decided to switch books, and expect credibility. That's like a defence throwing evidence in last minute with the prosecutor not having a chance to review the evidence in the first place.
          that is just dishonest...you claim you have won debates...I seriously doubt it, since you have not presented your argument honestly.

          You have no credibility.

          If you would like to try again, get your version to be accepted mainstream. Until then, you are showing you are just another hack with firnge interpretations.

          February 19, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          dont talk about someones credibility until you can stop misrepresenting what they say.

          I told you to bring it, and you bring complete BS completely in contradiction to what I DID say.

          THATS why you cant stand in an acrual REAL moderated debate... THEY would MAKE you represent properly and address what WAS given to everyone here.

          February 19, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitr,
          One more thing – Here is a docmented sourse that says your translation has been tried before, and it is wrong.
          http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/without_form_and_void.html
          Have a nice day trolling!

          February 19, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          yeah and if they choose to leave out the MAIN PRIMARY meaning of the word this is their prerogative... i prefer to be intellectually honest. Tell HIM to debate me lol

          February 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • igaftr

          I did not misrepresent what you said..YOU did. You said you could show that genesis has a more scientific base than the Big Bang....You did not say it was YOUR verison of Genses, not what EVERYONE else accepts.

          You cannot win any debates with the garbage you have said. You also act as if I have read every other thread you have been on, so you may think you have already addressed what I said, you haven't as far as I can see.

          Why you would try to place the meteor from the yucatan into your twisted theory is beyond me, but that happened LONG after everything in Genesis. By that time, the earth was teaming with life, so I can't imagine why you brought up that meteor...all of genesis 1 will have come and past LONG before the event 65 million years ago, so as far as I am concerned, you are just another hack, trying desperately to make your false book true. You don't want truth, you want your beliefs to be true.

          Your initial challenge to debate was deceitful and dishonest since you were going to attempt to debate from hypothesese that aren't even accepted within christianity at all.

          You lose the debate due to disqualification...using YOUR OWN interpreataion of the bible, and them just plain making stuff up to try to get it to jive with your bible.

          You lose for simple dishonesty.

          February 19, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          WTH do you mean? LMAO absolutely EVERYTHING you said was ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY to what I said... all you proved is that you read genesis 1 in a translated version and read NOT A SINGLE WORD I SAID in that regard lol

          run along lil troll... you need moderation and you're afraid of it.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • hotairace

          Hey wolfie, how about you pull your debate challenge stunt with the author of the above article and let us know how you make out and where we can watch The Grear Debate.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I would LOVE to... get him and bring him to me, I'm hungry

          February 19, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          If you had an honest stand point you would have presented it honestly. I do not accept you interpretation of genesis.
          What you have done is the same as in sales called bait and switch. you did not say you would be debating from YOUR interpretation, and baited people to debate your standpoint, then switched version to YOUR interpretaion.
          Very dishonest.

          Calling me a troll is also dishonest since I have clearly given you every opportunity to address me, and I present cogent arguments. I did not change the interpretation, you did. Do you even know what trolling is? I certainly do not fit any defintion I have found.

          If you had been honest from the start, we would be at a different point, but since you decided to NOT present your challenge honestly, again, you lose before it starts. I am not afraid of being moderated, that is just untrue, which is not surprising considering the rest of your made up BS based on debunked translation.

          Care to try again with a specific accepted version of the bible?

          also...please explain how a metoer in yucatan has anything to do with it. what you wrote makes no sense since life was flourishing long before and long after that particular event.

          Perhaps you may still be able to save face.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          how can you say you dont accept it when you SHOWED you dont even know what it is lmao... you boys crack me up... spam more though... troll please... spam more... RUN from a moderated debate...

          It takes immature children and cowards to bait and troll and spam but RUN from a REAL moderated debate where their lil arsies are actually MODERATED and MADE to debate or look stupid.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • hotairace

          For $50,000/year, I'm happy to be your agent. Pay up or shut up!

          February 19, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          For 50 grand a year I'm afraid I would need someone who can read 🙂
          Check out big bird for a couple years and then come back and we will see.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • hotairace

          What part of "Pay up or shut up!" did *you* fail to read and comprehend?

          February 19, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          what part of PUT UP or SHUT UP do you not understand? Open your mouth in a moderated forum

          February 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • hotairace

          I'm beginning to think wolfie is really CNN 's latest token fat, white, christian, adulterous, republican dude – Newt "Debate Me" Gingrich.

          February 19, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Likely not, But its VERY likely I would take you in the ring as well as in a moderated debate forum. I'm sure you're not up for either 😉

          February 19, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          Thanks for the reference (Super-Earth Alien Planet May Have 'Plasma' Water Atmosphere).

          Unfortunately there are problems with what that suggests, a few of the major problems being:
          1) Even the Yucatan meteor impact wouldn't have put enough water into the atmosphere to flood the entire world.
          2) Even if it were enough water, that much water vapor would basically cook the planet between the pressure, temperature, and greenhouse effect (water vapor is much worse than CO2).
          3) Your exoplanet example demonstrates these very issues, i.e. it is a super-earth with much higher gravity and therefore pressure and being plasma denotes high temperature almost by definition.

          Unless you can cite serious research on how this might even be possible that much water seems extremely unlikely on the face of it.

          February 19, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Like I said there are better examples, that one was quickly pulled up. The point being there are several ways this can occur, it IS possible, and this is the idea expressed by Genesis 1.

          This comes from esa dot int :

          22 January 2014

          ESA’s Herschel space observatory has discovered water vapour around Ceres, the first unambiguous detection of water vapour around an object in the asteroid belt.

          With a diameter of 950 km, Ceres is the largest object in the asteroid belt, which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. But unlike most asteroids, Ceres is almost spherical and belongs to the category of ‘dwarf planets’, which also includes Pluto.

          It is thought that Ceres is layered, perhaps with a rocky core and an icy outer mantle. This is important, because the water-ice content of the asteroid belt has significant implications for our understanding of the evolution of the Solar System.

          There is the example of w dwarf planet, cold and icey, ALSO surrounded by water.

          So yes it really is plausible, not only is it plausible, but it further goes on to explain what we find in rock... but this would be getting ahead of ourselves.

          Now lets consider something else... Tsunamis It is not necessary for there to be enough water to cover the entire earth, IF the catastrophe is also in conjunction with other catastrophe... for instance an earthquake ( which almost certainly would have accompanied the comet impact at Yucatan) And then tsunamis... which also certainly would have been the case at Yucatan.

          February 19, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          ... also re-posting at end

          February 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          You seem to be conflating the idea of water vapor in the atmosphere around planets and dwarf planets with the much less likely idea that this common phenomena could account for the huge amounts of liquid water necessary to flood the entire planet.

          Unless you have serious research that accounts for, not just the mere presence of water vapor in atmosphere, but the necessary amounts needed, then it's seems highly unlikely.

          "So yes it really is plausible, not only is it plausible, but it further goes on to explain what we find in rock..."

          As I asked before what is found in rock to support this concept?

          "It is not necessary for there to be enough water to cover the entire earth, IF the catastrophe is also in conjunction with other catastrophe... for instance an earthquake ( which almost certainly would have accompanied the comet impact at Yucatan) "

          1) If I understand correctly the Bible does state that all mountains were covered, not just hit with waves.
          2) You seem to be, yet again, equating the Yucatan meteor strike with the Genesis flood, but that would require humans to present at that time which contradicted by the evidence.

          February 19, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          What it does not say is that the mountains were covered for a year or even a day. Surely the tidal reactions to the initial impact would have been enough to send this earth reeling, especially since it hit partially in the water and partially on land.

          We do know it would be more common than not for there to be further reaction such as earthquakes and tsunamis. This would most certainly sloshed back and forth for a considerable amount of time.

          Add to this that tsunami after tsunami hit us, not just one, and it is more likely than not that this activity lasted for a considerable period of time.

          It is not said the mountains STAYED covered at all. So yeah sure it is entirely possible that this repeated tsunami in tsunami out sloshing back and forth across the globe could have conceivably swept through the mountains on more than one occasion. You DO have to consider that the bible, and MOST especially the OT, is also VERY poetic, so this scenario could certainly fit the event.

          Hebrew thought regards several destruction's... 2 of which were by water, not just one. I know this can lead to some confusion, plus i have to be brief because i am actually working atm... so apologies for this.

          I believe both of these incidents were eventually related to Yucatan.

          Genesis 6 comes into it when the atmosphere eventually cooled enough to allow for the water to condense and fall. Most likely this is helped along by volcanic activity.

          February 19, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          If that seemed confusing ask me to clarify please lol

          February 19, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          should read...
          ".... but that would require humans to be present at that time which is contradicted by the evidence."

          February 19, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Ok Ken, I am going to draw this out in a more coherent way lol.

          1) There are circles of Hebrew thought that, like the Mayan, believe in more than one past destruction. They believe for instance we have 2 massive ancient floods.

          2) Both floods would have "covered the mountains" although this is most likely referring to washing over them as a SUPER tsunami might

          3) The impact at Yucatan explodes earth, water ash and debris into the atmosphere so thick that the heavenly bodies cannot be seen, though diffused light begins to filter through

          4) This also caused the 'separation of the waters... the waters UNDER the atmosphere gathering back into the seas and lakes etc.

          5) The waters ABOVE the firmament called heaven or atmosphere helps to create a greenhouse effect that causes even the poles to enjoy a subtropical climate.

          6) In time, MASSIVE worldwide volcanic activity takes place, cooling the atmosphere and allowing the vapor to condense and the lower pressure allows the water vapor layer to collapse. THIS would be the flood from Genesis 6, and this event is separated from Yucatan by possibly tens of millions of years.

          I am not sure what you mean though by saying this requires humans to be present... Yucatan?

          February 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          It seems that you are again conflating normal phenomena with extremely unlikely events. While you might want to factor in some tidal forces and large waves, I suspect that you still won't have enough water vapor in the atmosphere, by orders of magnitude. But again, let's see the research that supports your concept.

          "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b]"

          That certainly seems, to me, to imply that it was not fleeting or momentary event, unless 40 days is fleeting.

          February 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Now you're talking about the flood specifically in Gen 6 of course. I submit that the world oceans, slopping back and forth in gigantic tsunamis, triggered by massive volcanic activity, and the sudden addition of the collapse of the water layer, and who knows HOW many massive earthquakes like we have never even seen causing MORE tsunamis, We certainly could have seen exactly what you just described.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          "We certainly could have seen exactly what you just described."

          Not sure what you mean by "what I described", but you are making assertions that are not supported by evidence. We've seen tsunamis, like the one in 2004, which had waves up to 100 ft high, foothills maybe but not mountain height and certainly not global, and we've seen the evidence of floods in the geologic record, again not global, neither of which support your scenario.

          The two main problems with your scenario, as I see, are 1) there isn't enough water present to have accomplished a global flood even with tsunamis (100's of feet), and tidal forces (10s of meters*) when mountains, even in the middle east, are thousands of meters**, and 2) the earth's atmosphere couldn't hold enough water to make up the difference without pretty much cooking the planet or crushing its inhabitants.

          * "The world's largest tidal range of 11.7 metres (38.4 feet) occurs at Burntcoat Head in the Bay of Fundy, Eastern Canada.[2]" – wikipedia

          ** "Mount Damavand, a dormant volcano and the highest peak in Iran, is located in the middle Alborz Range. Standing tall at 5,671 meters, it is also the highest point in the Middle East and the highest volcano in all of Asia." - google return

          February 19, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          We have seen extremely small tsunamis in our lifetime compared to past ages. I am talking tsunamis possibly many thousands of feet high, and remember too that mountains then would not have been what they are today.

          Now consider a cup. You dont have to fill that cup to cause water to reach the top height of the cup. All you have to do is slosh it back and forth.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          1) Pure speculation.
          2) How would Noah have survived such massive speculative waves?

          February 20, 2014 at 8:19 am |
        • wolfbitn

          If it is speculation, its only based on what scripture says, AND what we find in rock, and the fact they harmonize, but it is FAR LESS speculation than any atheist speculating on the cause of the Bang... we should not be double minded here... the point is, Genesis will stand tested and not falsified... We DO know when taken as written in the Hebrew, it has withstood scrutiny to the point that these very same events are written in stone... this cannot be denied

          February 20, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • igaftr

          bitn.
          "It takes immature children and cowards to bait and troll and spam but RUN from a REAL moderated debate where their lil arsies are actually MODERATED and MADE to debate or look stupid."

          You want a moderated debate...I don't debate with people who are so immature that they call people names, cowards and troll, idiot.
          Your ridiculous "theories" of how you can reconcile genesis with reality are so off base that NO ONE will take that garbage seriously. It takes someone who has to change the bible AND what we know has happened on earth to maybe almost attempt to fit your scenario.

          When you decide to apologize and approach people with some civility instead of making ridiculous demands, perhaps you will get the debate you want, but I know any moderator that saw your comments, would throw you off the debate just for your side comments, and not for the baseless ridiculous "theory" you have attemted to squeeze into the bible.
          The only reason you are grasping at such a straw is because you realized that science has disproven the bible, and you can't accept it.

          February 20, 2014 at 8:39 am |
        • wolfbitn

          well you call christians idiots and belief in the bible foolish and outdated. Quit crying when actions displayed her are described for what they are...

          In a moderated debate such things would not be able to occur though... so just another idiotic excuse.

          February 20, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • igaftr

          "well you call christians idiots and belief in the bible foolish and outdated"

          I do not call christians idiots. Nor do I say belief in the bible is foolish. I say the truth. That there is no valid logical reason to believe it, and enough of the bible has been proven wrong (even your take makes no sense unless you either throw out genesis, or change the accepted interpretations to more closely match our information.)

          Now you are bearing false witness on me eric, so you may start with apologies, as your bible indicates you need to do for your violation of your ninth commandment.

          February 20, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • wolfbitn

          What would you call a "valid reason" to believe the bible? And genesis matched your information 3500 years before you even had it

          February 20, 2014 at 10:30 am |
        • tallulah131

          One can only wonder why wolfie thinks he will be taken seriously when he dodges even a simple request to prove that he has debated biblical scholars and won. I don't think that he recognizes that all his claims are nothing more than his own highly biased opinion. As others have said, he is a legend in his own mind.

          February 20, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • wolfbitn

          try googling some of my articles, they detail some of it 🙂
          I DO recognize your fingers are typing checks you cannot cash in a moderated debate.

          February 20, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          wolfbitn
          If it is speculation, its only based on what scripture says, AND what we find in rock, and the fact they harmonize, but it is FAR LESS speculation than any atheist speculating on the cause of the Bang... we should not be double minded here... the point is, Genesis will stand tested and not falsified... We DO know when taken as written in the Hebrew, it has withstood scrutiny to the point that these very same events are written in stone... this cannot be denied

          @wolfbitn,
          “If it is speculation, its only based on what scripture says,”

          Hardly more encouraging.

          “... AND what we find in rock, and the fact they harmonize,... “

          I have yet to actually see what you mean by “find in rock”, despite requests.

          “...but it is FAR LESS speculation than any atheist speculating on the cause of the Bang... “

          Why even compare the two? The “cause” of the Big Bang is unknown. What’s your point?

          “...the point is, Genesis will stand tested and not falsified... We DO know when taken as written in the Hebrew, it has withstood scrutiny...”

          So you claim, I don’t speak Hebrew, but the vast majority of english translations are demonstrably wrong. Perhaps you should be complaining to the publishers.

          “... to the point that these very same events are written in stone... this cannot be denied”

          Again, what is written in stone, exactly?

          February 20, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No
          I claim that every language has words with primary and secondary meanings. You allow it in English, you should be objective enough to allow it for Hebrew. If something is understood in the primary sense from ancient times, it is intellectually dishonest to strip that word of its primary meaning and assign a secondary meaning.

          To be objective, you should allow for the primary meaning of the Hebrew.

          By written in the rocks I am of course referring to the geological and fossil records which bear witness to Genesis 1... NOTHING in the way of geological or fossil records falsify Genesis 1... And the facts of Genesis 1 are only verified by these very same records.

          Also I have studied with Jews for 2 and a half decades... Jews of several types of thought. My understanding of the Hebrew comes from Orthodox and Messianic Jews, and though I am only partially conversant without a lexicon, I DO have some very fine lexicons approved by the people who Gave us the OT., and I DO have the understanding of the words and their implications that they themselves (Messianic and orthodox Jews) have.

          February 20, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          No
          As I said I don’t speak Hebrew, but in English if the junior (lower in status, not less mature) meaning of a word is used then it should be read that way, I would think. Just because a word has multiple meanings does not justify using whichever one best make your case. That is a logical fallacy called equivocation. Not that I would know if you are doing that because I don’t speak Hebrew, but few, if any, English translations seem to use your definition.

          As for what the geologic and fossil records show, it would seem to me that it does falsify Genesis (in English anyway).
          Does it not say that “God made” two lights, the sun and the moon on day 2(?), after the Earth had already been created on day 1(?)? That hardly seems to be the right order.
          Does it not say that “God created” all the sea creatures on the fifth(?) day after He had already “Let” there be fruit bearing plants, i.e. flowering plants, on the third(?) day, which did not appear in the fossil record for 400+ million years after fish? That certainly does not appear to agree with the fossil record.
          Not to mention the whole day – age issue when Genesis seems to specifically mention morning and evening, but even the order seems incorrect.
          ... just to name a few

          Now if you want to claim that Noah’s flood was really just a big tsunami that got the mountains wet instead of a global “flood” as the Bible seems to state, then I’m sure there is plenty of evidence of tsunamis that you can claim as ‘Biblical’ since tsunamis happen all the time, geologically speaking.
          But isn’t that like saying, ‘look the Bible says God created the sun and there is a sun’? In other words, if you boil down the words to a va.gue enough description then of course you’ll find corroboration.

          “...in the last days there will come times of difficulty.”

          When isn’t there times of difficulty?

          As to your Hebrew qualification, congratulations!
          … but please excuse me if I don’t trust an internet commenter over the vast majority Bible translations already in existence.

          February 20, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Youre missing the point... WAS or BECAME does not change the meaning at all... They say the exact same thing... BECAME just allows you to see it from a point of view youve not previously considered, but it is the proper meaning in both cases...

          It matters not if something BECAME void and lifeless or it WAS transformed into a lifeless void... it says the same thing and the meaning doesn't change. Only what you see has changed because of inflection.

          February 20, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          By the way... you can easily verify whaat i am saying... if you go to blue letter bible dot com you will find an excellent CHRISTIAN lexicon of the Hebrew and i would be happy to show you how to use it... or there are many lexicons too that are actually supported by Jews which would verify they both say the same thing. Im happy to send you sources for your own study

          February 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          Apparently it does matter, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about it. As I said, I don't speak Hebrew (although all the versions I see at blueletterbible.org all show "was"), but in English the difference between the two is that "became" implies that it was something else prior, which apparently gives you license to wedge in a few billions years between a period (which I have heard Hebrew doesn't even have) and earth.

          Wasn't the "gap theory", if that's what it's called, discarded a long time ago?

          Also, I'm sure you have explanations for the other errors in Genesis that I mentioned (no sarcasm, honest), so let's hear them.

          February 20, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Not at all... taking it for it's classical meaning without changing a thing allows for this gap. Not my fault if you want to force us to use something other than the classical meaning

          February 21, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • tallulah131

          What articles, wolfie? I don't know your name, so how can I google you? If you have posted a link, I missed it. (I don't hang on your every word.) Could you post the link again so I can see your proof?

          February 21, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Search Eric Jewell with the key words lahaye moon

          February 21, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • tallulah131

          Okay, I googled the name you use on WordPress. Are you the guy who puked Hot Pockets on that tech show? There are quite a few people who have the same name as you do, so you'll have to post a link to be sure I can find the right one.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • wolfbitn

          The dude that puked is a sports announcer... I am the writer, then there is the biker, but then I bike too, but I am no sports announcer. I also provided the key words to use to pull up a few of my articles, but if you cant google key words youll likely not appreciate the articles.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I did google and all I found was an article about christianity and the NWO. Is there more?

          February 21, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • wolfbitn

          There are several more, but at least the unholy alliance 4 part series, as large as a book, will show you i dont just debate atheists... I am even harder on a corrupted church.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • hotairace

          A new Wolfieism: One must use the classical definition of a word unless wolfie wants (needs!) to change the definition in a disparate attempt to get out of a losing argument.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • wolfbitn

          that would hold water only if you could show where i suggest never using the primary meaning of a word. I would not suggest such a stupid thing.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          “that would hold water only if you could show where i suggest never using the primary meaning of a word. I would not suggest such a stupid thing.”

          I’ll try to address earlier questions later, but just had to ask which meaning you assign to these:
          “day” (gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, etc.)
          “morning” (gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, etc.)
          “evening” (gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, etc.)

          February 21, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @wolfbitn,
          “Not at all... taking it for it's classical meaning without changing a thing allows for this gap. Not my fault if you want to force us to use something other than the classical meaning”

          (sigh) I’m not forcing you to do anything I’m just reading what nearly every translation states. You seem to be the one trying to force everyone else into your preferred translation. Whether it be the primary or the “classical” meaning, if it’s not used that way in the text why try to force it?
          That being said, I don’t really care whether there is a billion plus year gap between one sentence and the next, there are many issues with Genesis that don’t agree with the evidence, some of which I already mentioned.

          “I also provided the key words to use to pull up a few of my articles, but if you cant google key words youll likely not appreciate the articles.”

          I’m sorry, but you’re just being an ass… if you can’t post a frggin link you shouldn’t be on the internet.
          (p.s. I’m just matching tone.)

          http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm (see it’s easy)

          (Un)Holy crap! you’re a full-on conspiracy theorist. No wonder you twist and dance so well.
          Good luck with that….

          (psst I’m reporting you to the Bilderberg’s, fair warning)

          February 21, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Reposting at end because this thread is too long.

          February 21, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Hey wolfie? Could you link to the proof that you won a debate against biblical scholars about the meaning of the bible? You seem to write a lot, but that isn't proof that you won a debate. How about an article from a neutral party to confirm your claim?

          February 21, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
      • believerfred

        Alias
        Actually wolfitn has presented Genesis accurately. Some simply leave the gap between the first two verses alone and attribute it to writing style but the reality is that everything written in the Bible has purpose. Over the past 200 years many theologians saw this gap as an explanation for geology of earth that points to millions of years vs a new creation viewpoint. Since the Bible is not about science and has its focus on the purpose of existence and our position within that purpose there is not a lot of debate concerning this gap.

        February 19, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A member of your fan club left a message for you on the Snake Handler story, page 5

          https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/was-snake-handlers-death-preventable/comment-page-5/#comments

          I also had a comment and wanted to see if you agreed.

          Thanks.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
  3. Alias

    this bears repeating:
    Alias
    We know gay people exist and we don't know if god exists, but people are willing to deny gays equal rights in case it makes god angry.
    February 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply

    wolfbitn
    I do not believe that happy people deserve to enjoy the same rights enjoyed by those who are miserable.
    February 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm | Reply

    Alias
    Perfect example of how you intentionally change the meaning of a word amd then argue against a statement that was never made.
    You are a liar.
    February 16, 2014 at 7:50 pm | Reply

    wolfbitn
    WHAT??? I used the ORIGINAL CLASSICAL meaning lmao... What grade are you in?
    February 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm |

    Alias
    exactly my point.
    Everyone knew what definition was appropriate, and you chose another.
    you are a liar and a troll.
    February 16, 2014 at 8:42 pm |

    Read this exchange carefully woflshtn.
    Everyone here knows you intentionally used the wrong meaning of the word 'gay'. Even though in this case you were just being a pompous ass, this is all you have to offer a biblical debate. You are fooling no one.
    BTW – you stated that you would not respond to trolls, and after a short pout you have been replying to me even though you keep calling me a troll.
    I win every time you do.
    You are openly rude to everyone who dissagrees with you. People like you are primarily why I left the christian faith.
    So please, go moderate yourself and bedate that.

    February 18, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      wolfbitn is only the latest person to serve God in this way. It's the God of irrationality and funny walks.

      February 18, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
  4. MidwestKen

    @wolfbitn,
    "In essence, Hebrew scholars tell us what we find written in stone in geology... 3500 years before modern science did."

    I'm confused. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Gen 1:1 describes a meteor strike and the aftermath. But the Yucatan impact didn't wipe out all life, as in "void", just a large percentage. In addition, what is "written in stone", post Yucatan impact does not agree with the order of appearance of organisms as described in Gen 1 because most of the "kinds" of organisms didn't disappear in order to reappear, but still existed.

    February 18, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      Thats because as always "and yet will I preserve myself a seed" accompanies His destructions as stated pretty much throughout scripture...

      February 18, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        So how does that match with "formless and empty"?

        February 18, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Desolate and devoid does not at all necessarily imply a full end, especially in the Hebrew. ... just a very great one

          Jeremiah chapter 4 is a great example of this, using the very same hebrew wording:

          Jeremiah 4:
          4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

          4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

          4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

          February 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Well It's your faith so, I guess you can interpret it any way you want, but how does that match with a "vault" called "sky" that separated water from water on the second "day"?

          February 18, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
  5. Derek

    The world's most eligible bachelor was snagged by watering camels!

    🙂

    February 18, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • Derek

      The world's most eligible bachelor was snagged by a beautiful woman who watered ten camels!

      🙂

      February 18, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
  6. Alias

    @wolfbitn
    All you have is more of the ridicules wordplay you have demonstrated here.
    Was = Hayah
    Hayah does not translate to “Become, come to pass, happen”. Those are possible other meanings of ‘was’. It is completely invalid to translated a word and THEN changes the meaning based on the word you translated to. Total failure.
    Same problem with
    without form = Tohuw.
    You are making some extreeem context reaches to say ‘without form = devoid of life’
    Void also does not mean desolate in most cases. You could put it into a specific case/context where the words are equal, but that does not mean they are always interchangeable. Another total failure.
    Genesis is widely accepted to relate the beginning of creation. You want to interpret it to mean the beginning of a new age. The big glaring problem with that is god would have had to made the heavens, earth, etc., filled it with life and not mentioned any of that in his creation story. Then he skips forward a few hundred million years to kill everything and recreate all the life mentioned in text like man and stuff.
    So much for the 6 days part of the story, eh?
    There is no reasonable justification for this.

    February 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      You've just proven yourself exceedingly inept... you certainly have not gone to any Hebrew lexicon or asked a rabbi lmao....
      The Hebrew word means EXACTLY what i showed... bring a source with you and shoot it down... we dont accept a hebrew lesson from someone who knows nothing about it. Bring a legitimate source dont say "it doesnt fit what i think so youre WRONG" lol Youll find no source to legitimize your ridiculous statement.

      February 18, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
      • Alias

        @Wolfbitn
        All you are doing is desperately trying to read the bible to fit the world as we see it.
        You are mistranslating the text, and demanding that I cite a source that disproves you.
        You are A JOKE! No one is fooled by your attacks on me.
        If you want to change the interpretation of the bible and prove all the seminaries wrong, the burden of proof is on you.

        February 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ahh so you WITH AUTHORITY tell everyone i am mistranslating the Hebrewand yet offer no source to prove it lmao... who taught you hebrew and where is your source?

          But since you are so full of ....whateever it is you're full of out there Alias, I am going to take the time to embarrass you completely..

          Let all readers click into this Hebrew lexicon, to the word "WAS" as translated in the KJV, view the actual Hebrew word AND the actual meaning... right here:

          http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1961&t=KJV

          Black and white dude, and another one bites the dust... yes hide your head now 😛

          February 18, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • Alias

          SAY IT AINT SO! A WORD HAS MORE THAN ONE MEANING?
          HOW WILL MY REPUTATION EVER RECOVER!!! 😦

          If only the correct meaning of a word were to depend on its usage……
          If only it were wrong to pick a single word out of a book, select the definition we want, and then put it back and expect all other readers of said book to now see it on our new light.
          But what kind of a pompous ass would do such a thing?

          February 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          yes eat those words... no apologies needed or wanted.

          February 18, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      of course you can always feel free to come to the debate forum where you will be moderated and forced to debate as opposed to trolling. But we both know what youre trying to imply here, that I am a liar, does not hold up... youd be left with nothing but trolling which would get you banned from an actual moderated forum. in my view this is a very cowardly act on your part. If what you say holds up there youd shut me down... YOU cannot shut me down.

      February 18, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
      • Alias

        Shut you down? Me??
        Haven't you noticed there are not a lot of people still on this worn out thread?
        I'm enjoying the way you keep acting superior about your deeply flawed self education and stupid arguments.
        I'm trying to keep you going.

        February 18, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          lol if that makes you feel better to make yourself think that go right ahead...

          February 18, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Apparently wolfbitn Eric here has all the answers to every question and there are no more mysteries as the good book answered them all already, we are all just to dumb to understand it.

      So what happens when your debate opponent does not accept your soggy old book for anything more than a disused phone book? I mean, i've read it several times but just reading it doesn't make it true. If it did then i'm still awaiting the arrival of my friends, the Zax, one was going North and the other going South so they must be a long way from their Prairie of Prax...

      If you have even the tinest bit of evidence, the smallest smidgeon, the teensiest crumb of empirical evidence for anything supernatural I will meet you in front of the TV cameras to introduce it to the world and you will be hailed as a spiritual hero. If you do not have said speck of proof then please stop wasting everyones time with spurious claims and fanciful wishes.

      February 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        It really is too bad the only thing you guys are up to is trolling... well spamming too, I'll give you both. Full of talk for not one of you being able to stand in a REAL and MODERATED debate where you cannot troll. If you can shut me down as you claim you can, i would think youd be there accepting my challenge, not just flapping lips in the wind... so we know whats up with you.

        My dear old teacher used to say... SHOW up or SHUT up... not that I would put it to you this way.

        February 18, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
  7. Alias

    In case anyone cares – and most of you will not
    http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php?sid=4dc8cf8c5eab5dd69a3c0e07c9f441d9 Is a christian site called 'Debating Christianity and Religion' where our latest and greatest troll wolfbitn wants to have a debate. Did I mention it is a christian site?
    This is probably where our friend has obtained most of the information he claims to have but refuses to divulge.
    Out of pure morbid curiosity, I will attempt to dabate on the existance of a christian god, if they ever approve my account.

    February 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      No my ittle /Alias friend, My information comes from 40 years of study. Studying the OT from the original languages, mostly Hebrew and Chaldean, as well as the earlier Latin and greek manuscripts. I also studied the manuscripts themselves, when and in what area of the world they were widely distributed. I studied early hebrew thought, early church teachings as compared to 400-500 ad where many things changed. I have studied IN DEPTH with Orthodox reformed Jews, Orthodox unreformed, and messianic Jews to get a better feel for not just the definitions but the nuances as well in the words from their own ancient literature. I have studied with preachers you would know if I named them, and I have debated the famed christian authors of the left behind series regarding their trashing of the original meanings of scripture and their merchandising of their so called faith.

      I have also studied sciences from various fields. I absolutely love the sciences including music. I love astrophysics, theoretical physics, geology, and I am fascinated with studying fossils. History is a fairly strong point as well.

      This is where I have gotten my information

      As for Hawking, Iv read everything he has done I would imagine... My favorite thought from Him is the simplicity of his description of the infinite finite nature of the universe. Specifically being that it is as finite as a baseball is finite and infinite in that it can be traversed for instance from west to east infinitely.

      Theoretical physics teacher Alan Muth, most recently formerly professor ay MIT is someone else I have followed closely. A developer of sort of a chaotic string theory, I am still however trying to wrap my head around his quantization of a Scalar field.

      What else would you like to know?

      February 17, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Whatever it is you claim to have that will cause everyone to believe that a god did it.

        February 17, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Santa.. as surely as you sit there now, I can show you in the hebrew language that the events found in Gensis chapter 1 are in the exact sequence and detail we find written in rock... I can show you that science has ALREADY verified and ESTABLISHED the events found written in that first chapter.

          February 17, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Santa...
          Heres what I have... Describe the events of (what is most accepted as) 65 million years ago. An asteroid hits the Yucatan peninsula...

          How many HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of tons of water, earth, charred former life, ash and steam were exploded into our atmosphere?

          We theorize and find in fossil record that the atmosphere was blackened to the point that photosynthesizeing ceased, plant life died, plant eaters died, and then the predators died.

          Then the atmosphere slowly began to clear. Light began to filter through the atmosphere, but the sun and the moon and the stars could still not be seen... just a diffused light in what we would have then called "day"... and then, ocean life again began to thrive, then plant life and herbs, then trees, then mammals became the dominate life force, as land animals began to surge forth. Finally the atmosphere had cleared to the point that the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars could be CLEARLY seen..

          Genesis 1, Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah and other places tell of CYCLES of life AND extinction. For instance Ecclesiastes states clearly that one age comes, another age goes, but the earth still abides. It then speaks of seemingly ENDLESS cycles of life stating that What is, has already been, what is to come has already been in times we cant or dont remember. It states clearly there is NOTHING wherein we can say "This is new". There is no new thing under the sun because it has ALREADY been done. This hints strongly at very advanced past cultures, which incidentally also kinda coincide with many of earths most ancient stories.

          Then we have 3 key words from Genesis 1

          3 key words from Genesis 1:1-2

          1) Was = Hayah

          Become, come to pass, happen.

          without form = Tohuw
          The idea of being "devoid of life"... empty..

          void = Bohuw
          Desolate
          It is used in the following way:
          Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

          This completely changes the way Genesis 1 should be understood. Not only does the Hebrew bear witness to an earth experiencing cycles of life and extinction, as youll see in a moment, It is verified in Ecclesiastes, Revelation, Jeremiah and elsewhere.

          With this newer understanding of the Hebrew and scripture elsewhere we now have the following picture:

          1) After the earth's creation it BECAME desolate and devoid of life. Meaning that it HAD to have had life flourishing before this point. It cannot BECOME desolate if it is ALREADY desolate. So it states :
          "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME desolate and devoid of life. And God said "let there be light", and there was light.

          This is NOT a creation of light. It was simply light. Now after the desolation earth saw at Yucatan, The filtering of light through the darkness was the first part or the first age of restoration of life on earth.... the morning and the evening were the first AGE as it states in the hebrew... then carry on with genesis 1 through to the end, following the natural pattern of the healing of the earth and restoration of life AFTER this last most disastrous comet impact, and they walk hand in hand.

          In essence, Hebrew scholars tell us what we find written in stone in geology... 3500 years before modern science did.

          February 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, were you there, throughout the millenniums and cycles to witness this personally? Do you have actual, proven eyewitness accounts of these cycles? Or are you simply assuming The Babble is truly the word of an as yet unproven god, and then finding whatever science you can to build a story supporting The Babble?

          February 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
        • Doris

          That's very interesting, wolfie. But I find it just as easy to see that the folklore could just as easily be what's left of something that was describing a much more close knit scenario (in both time and setting) than what you make it out to portray. I find it much more reasonable to think that what was being described that found its way into the OT pertained to a that very small portion of the world. What reason is there to think that when people who lived a few thousand years ago were trying to describe the earth and its origins that they were not just talking about the little part of the earth in which they lived, with the catastrophic events that came upon it now and again?

          February 18, 2014 at 10:12 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Hi Doris... That is certainly a fair question and point. I do however (without trying to sound like an a$$) Believe that verse 1 indicated that this is not a localized story at all, but a story of the earth itself when we see "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth then became desolated and devoid of life."

          Then if we cite the actuality of the comet at Yucatan, and put it side by side with the order of events in chapter one of Genesis... they are identical. This doesnt force one to believe that the bible is the word of God, but it does bring the word of God pp to a respectable status simply because nature does not falsify it, nature signifies that this is the correct order of events after such devastation.

          February 18, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • Doris

          OK, but, and maybe I missed this from above, but what is it from Genesis that you think corresponds to the Yucatan event – can you quote the passage that you think supports this?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:07 am |
      • wolfbitn

        and once again, I have done Mister Alan GUTH the very great disservice of a typo.... sorry sir lol.

        February 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        @ Hotair
        You said
        "Wolfie, were you there, throughout the millenniums and cycles to witness this personally? Do you have actual, proven eyewitness accounts of these cycles? Or are you simply assuming The Babble is truly the word of an as yet unproven god, and then finding whatever science you can to build a story supporting The Babble?"

        ARE YOU KIDDING? lmao
        Now you say even though SCIENCE ITSELF reveals cycles of life and extinction, YOU CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ? LOLOL O thats just hilarious you have me rolling.
        Geological and fossil finds are now regulated to BABBLE?lmao JUST BECAUSE Genesis said it first 🙂

        February 17, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
        • hotairace

          Ummm, as usual you demonstrate that you cannot read and comprehend. . .

          I made no such assertions. I merely asked you some simple questions which characteristically you did not answer.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • yukon12

          The best reply I have seen yet out of the the almost 3,000 comments on this board;from an agnostic point of view. Good one wolfbitn.

          February 18, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • wolfbitn

          uh thank ya, thank ya very much

          February 18, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • hotairace

          It might be a good reply, if I said what wolfie says I did, but I didn't so he's just making it up.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          it is already in black and white.... too late

          February 18, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        No... Hotair, you just challenged pretty much the entire scientific community

        February 17, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • hotairace

          No, I asked *you* questions. Questions similar to the ones you use when attempting to dismiss scientific theories. So what are *your* answers?

          February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Show me where I ever asked you that question or any other question that stupid. lol
          I didn't.
          But at least it appears that your blundering challenge against all of geology isn't your only mistake... it wont be lonely. At least you're being CONSISTENTLY wrong 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • hotairace

          You asked me what I saw 65 million years ago, implying, sarcastically I'm sure, that I was there, or that what you think I know could not have been through first hand knowledge therefore not correct. You repeatedly chide others that the Big Bang should not be considered a theory because it has not actually been tested, implying that firsthand accounts and re-creation are required to fully test a hypothesis. You should look up the word similar.

          February 17, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Well again... and consistent you ARE you are wrong... You are wrong about you "presenting a scientific theory" and you are wrong as to how I responded. So your wrongs are building up to be a baseball team...

          You did NOT present any sort of reasonable thought let alone any theory lol... you said facetiously :
          "Wolfie, I do not know. Are *you* saying that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Please answer this very simple question with a yes or no."

          When I said absolutely nothing of the sort...

          I asked "I dunno what did you see 65 million years ago" which is a reasonable question for such a stupid question. Not that it even MATTERS but it is entirely possible some small pockets of various life forms, even large life forms, could have made it through just because a butterfly flapped it's wings.

          I went on in further posts to clarify there are endless possibilities, but we were not there 65 million years ago, we do not have a COMPLETE fossil record recording every type of life that ever lives, so it's pretty damned stupid to believe we KNOW much of anything except what we DO dig up and the fact they existed.

          so there ya go... It isn't in me to cop out and it isnt in me to ask totally stupid questions.

          February 18, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • hotairace

          So, how do you *know* that a god exists and that genesis is *fact*? You weren't there, you don't have, or won't present here, any physical or firsthand evidence for anything, you can't prove that a god exists or that The Babble is the word of any god. You just blather on about what you think you know and can do, without delivering the goods. You are a phony!

          February 18, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I know what i have presented already, no one has even bothered to try to refute including yourself... you want to ask the ridiculous question instead "were you there" and then accusing me of asking you if you were there at the big bang lmao...

          You ARE entertaining.

          How THANKFUL i am that everyone else here is having a great discussion in spite of it 🙂

          Now... accuse science again and again... and me too while you're at it...
          I know i know... we're bad...
          Science and i have had this thing going on a long time now... we're caught... im busted... we are bad for suggesting that this earth has suffered cycles of life and extinction... May the god of science strike me dead for thinking this earth EVER saw mass extinction Geology and I are total frauds. I will issue a press release at 5

          February 18, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes that's right... d a m n us to h e ll with Galileo and Jesus...

          February 18, 2014 at 12:47 am |
        • hotairace

          I have not made any claims about science. I have claimed your religious believes are bullsh!t because you cannot defend them. You are the one that claims science supports genesis yet you have not made the case because you cannot prove any god exists. No god means no bible means you are full of sh!t about genesis.

          February 18, 2014 at 12:58 am |
        • wolfbitn

          uhhh i just defended them... no one debunked them... have a nice day 🙂

          February 18, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • hotairace

          Always the clever one with the word play.

          You may think you defended them but not successfully, and you certainly haven't proven anything.

          You did not challenge "No god means no bible means you are full of sh!t about genesis." By your twisted logic, I think that means you agree.

          You best take a break from here and get ready for your god/no god debate. Based on your performance to date, you are in big trouble.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:10 am |
        • wolfbitn

          huh? LMAO ok whatever that was supposed to mean you win, i give up. Me an Geology is a coupla foo's bent to distruxun. We admits it, please jus dont take mah 'shine

          February 18, 2014 at 1:18 am |
        • hotairace

          Where did I say anything about geology? It's you who is trying to align geology and The Babble as if The Babble has the same value/status as geology. I am not attacking geology or any aspect of science. I am attacking your ability and success to date of proving the existence of any god. Again, no god means no bible means you are full of sh!t about genesis.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:28 am |
        • wolfbitn

          No.. it is the Hebrew language and the fossil/geological tables that are shown to align.... and you called it SO CALLED science. you say "o no it isnt sooooooo" like a little child, and yet come with nothing to refute the hebrew interpretation OR the geological record and you attack them both... THIS is what i find hilarious 🙂
          Have a good day 🙂

          February 18, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • hotairace

          Precisely where did I use the phrase "so called science"?

          February 18, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • wolfbitn

          have a good night hotair 🙂

          February 18, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • tallulah131

          Wolfe is a troll, and I don't think he even knows it. As far as I can tell, his entire argument is based on his personal interpretation of his personal translation of biblical texts.

          I wonder how a person who has admitted that he has no credentials even got his hands on these texts, and why he expects anyone to take the word of an admitted layman over the word of scholars who have spent their lives learning ancient languages and researching these texts. To me, this is just another instance where ego has overwhelmed common sense. His demands for a "moderated debate" are little more than a cry for attention.

          February 18, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • wolfbitn

          uhh wrong again, I provided the HEBREW translation, not my own... you should at least GOOGLE IT before you call me a liar and look as stupid as you do now

          February 18, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • Doris

          wolfie: "Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah and other places tell of CYCLES of life AND extinction. For instance Ecclesiastes states clearly that one age comes, another age goes, but the earth still abides."

          Is that what you are now calling "the Hebrew language and the fossil/geological tables that are shown to align...." ??

          lol. I would call that quite a stretch, wolfie.

          February 18, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • wolfbitn

          well Doris you are not seeing our entire conversation. When Genesis chapter 1 already details exactly what would have happened 65 million years ago in exact sequence, and this aligns perfectly with our record in stone, you cannot ridicule the scripture as backwood and ignorant when It makes this observation 3500 years before science did.

          February 18, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Doris

          The correlations you are making still seem a stretch to me, and how can you claim that the claims were made 3500 years ago?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Because the oral traditions were handed down WAY before the written. The written expressed the oral

          February 18, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          These are the credentials you gave, Wolfe:

          "I am a simple researcher with no degrees. I do however enjoy Hawking, Guth and others who are credentialed. My fields of study however include Theoretical physics, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, and theology, most especially theology based on the earliest manuscripts, and NOT based on translations. When you put all the facts together it can be very eye opening and answers a lot of questions. I can assure you though you will not be disappointed. What I put on the table is testable theory. Also a moderated venue protects us both in debate and insures that we both answer the hard questions and nothing is ducked. It is either answered or a simple "I dont know" can be offered, but everything is addressed. Im sure that would be fair to both sides in any debate."

          So if you are working from an original manuscript, then you translated it and interpreted it. So did you translate it yourself, are you working from someone else's translation, or was your original post a fabrication?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • wolfbitn

          uhhh no, you failed AGAIN to read... i simply ACCEPT the HEBREW meaning of the various words USED in the passage

          February 18, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • igaftr

          bitn
          "this aligns perfectly with our record in stone, you cannot ridicule the scripture as backwood and ignorant when It makes this observation 3500 years before science did.

          I don't see why you decided to go with a bold faced lie such as this.

          starting with just the first 5 lines, it is already wrong.

          genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.

          First, no signs of any gods, and no sign of any "heavens", so that cannot be confirmed.

          1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of god was hovering over the waters.

          If the earth existed, it must have had a form and could not be "empty" ...something was there. Also, when the earth was formed, it was VERY hot, if there was any water,
          it would be in the atmosphere...it would be vapor, not water, so nothing for
          "god" to "hover" over.

          1:3 "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
          Stars had to form LONG before any solid masses, since you need stars to create atoms of elements higher in the periodic table than hydrogen.
          There was hydrogen, the hydrogen coalesced into stars, the stars begin to burn out, it begins to make elements higher and higher on the periodic table.
          Those elements are then available to begin to form planets, asteroids, comets etc.

          Light HAD to come before earth...billions of years before.

          1:4 "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."
          An impossibility. Darness only describes absence of light. Dark and light are only varying levels of the same thing.

          1:5 "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
          Light existed long before there was any earth, long before there was "morning"

          February 18, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • wolfbitn

          you cant say its wrong with any authority at all, you can simply say you dont believe it and thats fine.

          Ironic how it is the atheist who makes so many illogical jumps and claims to know that which he certainly does not KNOW. You are beginning to sound 'cultish'

          February 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ...add to this you have seen the theory and not been able to falsify any of it.
          Falsify the order of events if you can listed in Genesis 1... that which CAN be tested holds water in absolutely EVERY case which cannot be said for the event of the Big Bang... hold to straws and discard the facts if you like, doesnt matter. What does matter is it stands if no one can falsify it.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Doris

          Doris: "The correlations you are making still seem a stretch to me, and how can you claim that the claims were made 3500 years ago?"

          wolfbitn: "Because the oral traditions were handed down WAY before the written. The written expressed the oral"

          Well of course, but how do you confirm WAY (or rather 3500)?

          February 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          How do you account for the dating of the writing of Beowolf and when it began as an oral tradition? Yet you do not question Beowolf. How do you account for Mesopotamian tablets portraying what was even THEN ancient myth and when THAT began as an oral tradition. It is ALL done methodically and unbiasly. Get with a Jew and ask them if you dont take my word, or even GOOGLE IT...

          February 18, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, how about responding to each of igaftr's points. If you don't or can't, we can only conclude that he is correct and you are full of sh!t.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          hot air, turn it off lol... iv presented fact of language and rock... no one can debunk it nor have they even tried.

          Sign up for a debate if you have the guts... the forum is moderated so youll HAVE to debate rather than troll... which is why every one of you few refuse a moderated debate in favor of your attempted childish spam fests.... your hatred for Christians is way too apparent.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • Alias

          your logic reminds me of the time Bill Clinton wanted to debate the meaning of the word 'is'.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Explain how I have been anything but forthcoming... are you saying I should not be able to use the Hebrew meaning attached to a Hebrew word?

          February 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitn
          All you have is more of the ridicules wordplay you have demonstrated here.
          Was = Hayah
          Hayah does not translate to “Become, come to pass, happen”. Those are possible other meanings of ‘was’. It is completely invalid to translated a word and THEN changes the meaning based on the word you translated to. Total failure.
          Same problem with
          without form = Tohuw.
          You are making some extreeem context reaches to say ‘without form = devoid of life’
          Void also does not mean desolate in most cases. You could put it into a specific case/context where the words are equal, but that does not mean they are always interchangeable. Another total failure.
          Genesis is widely accepted to relate the beginning of creation. You want to interpret it to mean the beginning of a new age. The big glaring problem with that is god would have had to made the heavens, earth, etc., filled it with life and not mentioned any of that in his creation story. Then he skips forward a few hundred million years to kill everything and recreate all the life mentioned in text like man and stuff.
          So much for the 6 days part of the story, eh?
          There is no reasonable justification for this.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          So if the Hebrew definition for a Hebrew word is "become, or come to pass, I should not use that.... I will tell all the Hebrew scholars... they will thank you.

          February 18, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, igaftr made several specific points. You did not post a specific response to igaftr. You think you have responded, but as I think any neutral moderator would agree, you dodged the specifics.

          Do you really think that you can deflect and distract with your irrelevant blather about moderated debates and hatred? Quit p!ssing around and answer igaftr with specifics.

          February 18, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          you atheists are the only ones running from a moderated debate... i am still making the challenge... if you cant step up to it i WILL find someone else... matter of fact I believe I have a taker... will know very shortly.

          ...you dont want a moderated debate because you cant troll there... youd have to give answer and actually address facts.

          so step up or just keep trolling hoping no one notices how fast you can actually run from a real debate.

          February 18, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Wolfie, the Silly: "How do you account for the dating of the writing of Beowolf and when it began as an oral tradition? Yet you do not question Beowolf."

          Who said we don't question Beowolf?

          February 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ahh so you do, thats cool What do you disagree with regarding Beowolf

          February 18, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • Alias

          Excellent point.
          I saw the movie by that name, and it stunk.

          February 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, when are you going to reply to igaftr's specific points?

          February 18, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          when you agree to meet me in a moderated debate that ensures no trolling or spamming... then youll get more than you can deal with

          February 18, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
        • hotairace

          Deflect, deflect, deflect.

          Blah, blah, blah.

          This a perfectly good forum for you to lay out your grand discovery. No one is preventing you from saying whatever you want to say without interruption. You have the same forum and opportunity available to anyone who wants to lay out their argument start to finish, much like a serious scientist writing a scholarly article. Except. . .

          We're back to square zero. You can't answer igaftr 'cause most likely you've got nothing new. No evidence for any god, so The Babble is crap and you are full of sh!t about genesis. You are a coward. Unless you can prove me wrong. Go for it oh wise one!

          February 18, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
      • Alias

        I find your obsesion with chapter 1 interesting.
        Could it be that things in chapter 2 contradict you?

        February 18, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Not at all... nor has anyone falsified a single thing I said about chapter 1 with science. I find your obcession with trying to pretend christians are ignorant interesting

          February 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Alias

          No one has faslified your creation interpretation with 'science'.
          What an accomplishment.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • otoh2

          wolfbitn,

          I think that @redzoa, for one (haven't read everything yet) debunked one of your main points.

          - Your translation of "void" and "barren", given DOUBLE emphasis by using redundancy, does not hold up unless and until you can show evidence of worldwide TOTAL lack of life at any time, after living things appeared on the scene.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Alias

          please read my post above 😀

          February 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes, when Genesis 1 was laid side by side with the facts found in geology every one of these events stood in the right sequence of events we see unfolded in rock... THAT is solid theory And its more than you have for the Big Bang

          February 18, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          The geology does not show any record of a global flood.

          February 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        I'm curious Wolf, of your fascination and constant citation of Guth. It seems a bit at odds with most of your arguments against the Big Bang as a viable theory. He basically modelled the inflation that is the current prominent theory of the first moments after said Big Bang. Your primary argument really only addresses the parallels between Genisis and geology, nothing really to do with anything Guth, or even Hawking. Unless I missed something.

        February 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes He did... and the reason he is one of my favorite theoretical physicists is due to his honesty. He actually concluded that even his brand of string, though it is a beautiful idea and answers problems with flatness and inflation, in the end the math just does not work out. If Dr Guth is man enough to make this statement,he certainly has my respect.
          As to HOW this supports Genesis:

          1) hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on string and the Big Bang.

          2) resources going toward the project have not been a problem... colliders as big as a city have been built to test string.

          3) It has been falsified.

          After decades of this, I believe it is time to consider that we are missing fey factors to the equation that simply will not ALLOW it to work out without these factors. It is time to broaden our minds a bit.

          Not only this but KEY elements in scripture also very poetically refer to what could be the Big Bang when we are told that God "flung out the stars", the idea being the expansion outward from a central source...

          There are many biblical references that can be added to this... excuse the fact it took a while to get this to you... work is crazy today ...

          February 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
  8. alonsoquixote

    Does anyone have a list of strings that are not allowed in words in postings? I can understand blocking some offensive words, but many common innocuous words appear to be blocked, simply because they contain a substring that is not permitted. E.g., I've learned after initially having 1/3 to 1/2 of postings never show up that I have to separate any occurrences of the letters "t", "i", and "t" in consecutive order, so that I have to use "substi tute" and "docu ment", because "c", followed by "u", followed by "m" isn't allowed, but sometimes I can't figure out why a posting seems to be accepted, but never appears.

    February 17, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I don't have a list, but one of my all time favorite is "v.ag" as in "v.ague".

      You just have to go through your post with a fine tooth comb. It helps to have a large vocabulary in naughty words.

      February 17, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        Thanks! I've gone over a posting I've tried to submit as a reply several times, but can't figure out what string is in there that it won't accept. I learned some time ago to always copy and paste a post into a notepad temporarily, since the filter seems to be exceptionally capricious and developed with no consideration of the inclusion of blocked strings in common words. I've even checked some online naughty words lists, but can't figure out which string is triggering the filter in this case.

        February 17, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I completely understand. I couldn't get a post to go the other day because I mispelled a word with an extra t to make a t.it in the mddle and it was extremely difficult to find. Very frustrating and it functionally meaningless.

          February 17, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
    • otoh2

      alonso,

      I just happen to have the list handy since someone asked for it on another board.

      Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN Belief Blog/WordPress automatic filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.

      ar-se.....as in ar-senic, coa.rse, etc.
      Ch-ardonnay
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
      co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      crac-ker…
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, sopho-more, etc.
      ho-oters…as in sho-oters
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      inf-orms us…
      hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      ni-gra…as in deni-grate
      nip-ple
      o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
      p-orn… as in p-ornography
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      que-er
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sl-ut
      sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
      sn-atch
      sp-ank
      sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
      strip-per
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      wt-f....also!!!!!!!
      x-xx…
      There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).

      February 17, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        Many thanks! When starting to search the posting using your list, I realized that the posting was blocked because of "va guely". It was actually the "v", "a", "g" that Blessed are the Cheesemakers had mentioned, but I hadn't started my prior search for it at the beginning of the text I had for the posting, so missed it.

        February 17, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
  9. thesamyaza

    Dalahäst

    your part Irish and your OK with worshiping the god that sent your people to the annals of myth. have you no sense of pride, your no different then a black man worshiping the god of his slavers, or a native worshiping the god that striped them of their homeland. Stockholm syndrome is no reason to follow an evil god. maybe you have not had the opportunity to learn of your ancestors or your real god luckily myth remains, but it is just myth maybe you should learn Danu and father oak, learn of their children our ancestors. your a stagg, not a sheep get away from the shepherd and come back to the glen, the shepherd will do worse then fleece you.

    perhaps your to domesticated,..

    February 17, 2014 at 11:36 am |
    • Dalahäst

      I am black, too.

      "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

      Martin Luther King, Jr

      February 17, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • Vic

        That's a beautiful quote.

        February 17, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          It is so true.

          Hate and resentment hurt the person that is holding it as much as or even more than the person being hated.

          “Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.”

          ― Nelson Mandela

          February 17, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • thesamyaza

          the hate i feel is channeled from my ancestors and your ancestors. i am the anguished one, The Samyaza. the pain i feel is of more then 150 generations of hate from yahweh. i feel the pain Yah inflected on the world the suffering of nature the persecution of those that revere nature. you god seeks he destruction and i am the embodiment of what his injustice.

          every injustice, great or small, begets a spirit that rages at the injustice. given the opportunity, each will return that injustice to its owner tenfold. -Sensei Hisoka

          February 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • bostontola

          One of my favorites.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        you stare at the light to long you go blind

        "Gaia" 4.54 billion years ago (she has a pension of lying about her age to make her self sound younger)

        i fell to see what you quote has any relevance to.

        are you saying African darkness needs to be driving out, darkness plays a vital roll in nature, diversity is need to maintain a health ecosystem, and didn't the African predominantly worshiped the sun, Venus and earth, before the slavers came. none of these thins are dark. and the ones that did palo mayombe, only hold decay in reverence they understood it is needed in the circle of life. they are still predominantly a nature centric faith, but chrsistians belive the earth is sin, i cant comprehend this.

        sorry what you believe to be evil makes no sense to me i find creation to be perfect even in her imperfections. thats just they way life rolls. but i cant make a necro centric person to understand that. just hurry up and go to heaven stop making our world worse, if you don't like her leave.

        February 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – "are you saying African darkness needs to be driving out"

          NO. Do you honestly think Martin Luther King, Jr was saying that "African darkness" needs to be driven out???

          Seriously??????

          Really?

          That makes sense to you??????????????????????????????

          He was talking about the civil rights movement he was leading. He was telling both the whites and blacks not to resort to hate (darkness), but to use light (love) to overcome our differences.

          Is this satire? Is somebody setting me up?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          then your quote was entirely irreverent to the conversation. and you have avoided the question.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry I am having difficulty comprehending what you are writing or trying to say. I am trying to understand. Is English your second language?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          yes it is a second language.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ok, no problem. I was getting confused because there were no question marks (?), which we usually put after a question.

          Darkness is a metaphor for hate. Light for love. When dealing with an enemy, Martin Luther King, JR suggests using love, not hate. Using hate will destroy your enemy and you. Using love can save your enemy and you.

          You don't fight fire with fire. You use water.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • otoh2

          Dalahäst,
          "You don't fight fire with fire. You use water."

          1. You don't use water on electrical fires or on certain chemical fires.
          2. Back-fires are often used to prevent brush fires and the like from spreading.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "Instead of trying to burn the offending user's face, try pouring a nice cold bucket of water over the flames and show them the proper way to behave. After much gentle nudging, they gradually learn how to be civilized. You don't have to fight fire with fire. After all, water works much better."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_fight_fire_with_fire

          That is the context of that analogy. Not that you can't literally fight fire with fire.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          define the proper way to behave. once again i think the christian is a choice; one that unnatural and a determent to society, and harmful to nature and the human condition.

          try pouring a nice cold bucket of water over the flames......water boarding

          After much gentle nudging, they gradually learn how to be civilized.

          i don't even feel we are a civilized society, we think locking people up for the rest of their life is less morally reprehensible to killing them, we believe in penance not rehabilitation. and we treat family as a burden not as our pride.

          we are not civilized so why force some one to be uncivilized.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – "try pouring a nice cold bucket of water over the flames......water boarding"

          haha. 🙂 I love this guy.

          Ok, what pagan tribe or tradition do you follow?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Are you anti-American or anti-Christian? Or both?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          Ok, what pagan tribe or tradition do you follow?

          I'm a Druidic-Shintoist if that makes much sense to you

          Dalahäst

          Are you anti-American or anti-Christian? Or both?

          both

          and wolfi how I'm i raciest.? or are you using an ad hominem to avoid answering my question?

          February 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        Respects to Dr. King... one of the greatest men in modern history.

        February 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        With that name I was expecting Scandinavian origin.

        February 17, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm a honorary black, especially when a white guy starts spouting racist crap.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      Some of you guys sure seem racist to me.

      February 17, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      thesamyaza...,. you really are full of crap arent you lol. You appear pathetic, crying your eyes out because God inflicted us with love. You also seem racist. I notice you bring race into this and even insult with your statement regarding race.
      I think its time you suck it up, grow up... put on your big boy pants and stop crying about your frustrations.
      Your distortions regarding statements in the bible are amazing. If you cant be intellectually honest, at least try the man pants.

      February 17, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        how I'm i raciest.? or are you using an ad hominem to avoid answering my question?

        also i prefer a skirt thank you vary much, or at lest some jeans that show of my hips.

        if you got it flaunt it if you don't, flaunt it any ways. some one will like it, rule 34 ah yeah.

        February 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          if anything I'm prejudice.

          February 17, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ok not fair, you just made me laugh 😛

          February 17, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          ... and mark the calendar... this is ONE time you'll hear me say, "I stand corrected" 😛

          February 17, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          your just not going to ever answer the question are you, oh well at least i made you laugh.

          February 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
  10. rajneeshchellapilla1026

    This is kind of trivial. Just because the oldest dating they have found is around the 10th century it doesnt mean that camels were domesticated before then. I am not a Bible nut and do believe in the scientific standards. However ruling out a book which made note and passed information down for several melinnia becase they find radio carbon dating is a weak case.

    February 17, 2014 at 11:13 am |
    • rajneeshchellapilla1026

      What if they find older evidence ten years from now. Archeology is always finding evidence of techniques and trades that predate our currnet understanding. From the domestication of animals, the making of spirits (liquor), control of fire, and ceremonial burial.

      February 17, 2014 at 11:16 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I think more the issue is that the Bible is supposed to be the 'word of god' and yet more and more inaccuracies, contradictions, ect. are being found. I doubt any of this would be a problem if it was looked at like any other piece of literature like the Illiad for example. It is that it is viewed as communication from 'god'. If the Bible gets this wrong, how can anything the Bible says, that can't be independently verified from other sources, be trusted?

      February 17, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      Exactly..and look at the fact he ADMITS older camel bones were found at the very same location in deeper older strata... absolutely ridiculous claims...

      February 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it...

        February 17, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Missing information must be yours... thats what the article this blog is based on actually states
          You should ALWAYS go to the source FIRST so as to not look like you do right now 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The report said there was not signs of domestication previous to a certain date, the evidence is the signs of domestication on the bones, not that there weren't Camels at all. This shouldn't bother you a bit, I doubt any amount of evidence would change you mind.

          February 17, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
    • hotairace

      I think the worst mistake the author made was calling The Babble a historical docu.ment when The Smithsonian has clearly stated it is not.

      February 17, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
  11. thesamyaza

    1 You are attributing to GOD what men did..When most of Benjamin was killed, the kidnapping of the women was encouraged by and carried out by men... not God.

    god told them to do it,.. unless your saying the bible is a lie i'm merely asking you to judge actions of your god in the same light you would judge a mans actions. and make a choice is he or is he not evil according to how you view evil. or does he work above morality he cannot be judge so what he does is good even if he command rape,..thus in the eyes of your god rape is good only when he says it is.

    2) You say Evil is abstract and an illusion. Does this then mean that in reality, all illusion aside, R A P E is not an "evil" act?

    yes, dolphins rape does that make them evil, when their morality says its not.

    February 17, 2014 at 11:08 am |
  12. hotairace

    Please add posts here to keep track of the questions wolfie won't answer:

    – Won't give us his definition of evil.

    – Won't say if it is possible that there are no gods, not even just one.

    – Won't tell us if he thinks dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

    And of course, the big omission is he won't lay out his argument for genesis being more credible than the Big Bang, but if he can't deal with the small stuff, we shouldn't expect him to actually come through on what would be a groundbreaking argument.

    February 17, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • Vic

      IMHO, such a discussion needs to follow a chronological order to be of essence. The first step of such discourse is the "Origin" of life and matter. Once that's established, it becomes the chronological "basis" for what follows.

      February 17, 2014 at 11:43 am |
      • the0g0to0the0t

        I wouldn't agree with that Vic. That is only true if you assume a common source for all. Better to examine each in turn and on their own merits. If the evidence points to a common source then...

        February 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • igaftr

      Dont bother with wolf.
      He keeps saying the same BS over and over, but will never actually state any point of view, only tries to take pot shots.
      He claimed no respectable scientist would say the Big Bnag was proven.
      He was given a couple, would not acknowledge that he was given the names and quotes, then simply ridiculed them for saying what they said...top scientist, and he has the idiocy to rifdicule them.
      Then when pressed for any specific info from his point of view, nothing...tap dance .

      He tried calling me out, and if I did not IMMEDIATELY respond with HIS demands, then I must be a troll.
      I provided him with the info, and requested repeatedly info from him...again...nada

      Him trying to call out to a debate, is like a 12 year old calling out Mike Tyson...then claiming victory when Mike politely declines.

      Don't waste your time with this disingenuous poser.

      February 17, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Vic

        Well, scientists project observable phenomena, e.g. Cosmic Microwave Background Radian, as reasons to know that the Big Bang happened; however, there is no empirical data that can prove the theory.

        February 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • Vic

          "Radiation"

          February 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          incorrect vic.
          From the observations of Hubble (1929), through the work in the forties, the ground breaking work in the sixties, to Nobel Prizes in Physics in 1978 and 2006, plus HUGE amounts of corroberating data, we know the Big Bang happened. The only thing we do not know is the cause.

          I suppose you think that people really don't get sick because of germs since Germ Theory is still only a theory.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Vic

          You can get a Nobel Prize in "Theoretical Physics," no problem there.

          The unexplained "cause" of the Big Bang is not the only fundamental problem with the Big Bang Theory. 'Inflation' and what powered it is a grandeur fundamental problem. Also, the 'acceleration' of the expansion of the universe is another fundamental problem since matter creates resistance and is supposed to slow down the expansion.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • hotairace

          There is no bigger fundamental problem than the origin of every god, none of which has ever been proven. In fact, no physical, verifiable, objective or independent evidence for any god has ever been produced.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Also, the 'acceleration' of the expansion of the universe is another fundamental problem since matter creates resistance and is supposed to slow down the expansion."

          Has nothing to do with the Big Bang...the acceleration cause is theorized, but does not change the FACT that everything is accelerating away from a single point...a single effect...a single event we know as the Big Bang.

          Don't bother throwing smoke like that Vic...thought you were better than that.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • igaftr

          "You can get a Nobel Prize in "Theoretical Physics," no problem there."

          Except theirs were in Physics...not theoretical.
          They provided proof of the Big Bang...as I said before, we know it happened....we are just trying to find the cause now.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Vic

          With all due respect, the Big Bang Theory, the 'Origin of Species,' aka 'Evolution of Species' and Abiogenesis, have NEVER been empirically proven, they are ONLY upgraded hypotheses.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • hotairace

          And the Theory of God as presented in The Babble and other works of fiction has never risen above myth status.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic
          Not hypothesese...they are theories. Often with theories, much can be proven as in the case with evolution, Big Bnag, and Germ theories.
          The Big Bang has been proven to have happened, evolution has been proven to be happening, and germs have been proven to cause illness.
          There are portions that have not been proven as well. Abiogenesis has not been proven, nor has the cause of the Big Bang...but to throw out the entire theory because certain pieces have not been proven is ridiculous.

          On the other hand..gods existance is a hypothesis since there is NO supporting information at all.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
    • hotairace

      Focus people! Questions that wolfie refuses to answer! We can rehash the answers elsewhere.

      February 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
  13. Vic

    Well Happy Presidents' Day Everyone.

    February 17, 2014 at 9:37 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Christians stole President's Day from the pagans. It was originally a day set to honor tribal leaders. Maaaaaannnnn!

      February 17, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      • Vic

        Presidents' Day was originally for celebrating the birthday of the first US President George Washington, then it became for celebrating the birthdays of Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Nowadays, with all its original intents and purposes, it is for celebrating all US Presidents.

        February 17, 2014 at 11:33 am |
      • thesamyaza

        oh i get it; nice one,... happy perz day

        i use this celebrate dead prez
        [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwTNOxJXMYM&w=640&h=360]

        February 17, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • thesamyaza

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHyLiZTMmqg&w=640&h=360]

          February 17, 2014 at 11:43 am |
      • bostontola

        Dalahast,
        Don't worry, I found your comment funny.

        February 17, 2014 at 11:40 am |
  14. Reality

    Camels , wild or domesticated? So what, as it has little bearing on the nitty-gritty of religion.

    Again for the new members:

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    February 17, 2014 at 7:03 am |
  15. thesamyaza

    oh and to the follower of the prophet Luthar

    you cults sect is evil as well

    Vom Schem Hamphoras

    February 17, 2014 at 2:59 am |
    • Dalahäst

      I don't think Luther is a profit. Other people started the name "Lutherans" as a putdown and the name kind of stuck. There are some movements to change the name. Some colleges are dropping the "Lutheran" from the name.

      Maybe it is like the Apache Native Americans. "Apache" is the word for "The Enemy" by their rival tribe. So the French named them "The Enemy" and it stuck. And now some Apache want to be Hopi, because they are not the enemy.

      February 17, 2014 at 4:15 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Not a prophet!

        February 17, 2014 at 4:16 am |
  16. bostontola

    (CNN) - A Kentucky pastor who starred in a reality show about snake-handling in church has died - of a snakebite.
    Jamie Coots died Saturday evening after refusing to be treated, Middleborough police said.
    On "Snake Salvation," the ardent Pentecostal believer said that he believed that a passage in the Bible suggests poisonous snakebites will not harm believers as long as they are anointed by God. The practice is illegal in most states, but still goes on, primarily in the rural South.

    February 17, 2014 at 12:15 am |
  17. thesamyaza

    wolfbitn, i believe i game you amble time t answer my question, I'm a patient person. so let me rephrase it.

    judging from what you consider to be absolute evil ie. rape and murder. your God called for murder and rape does that make him evil.

    Judges 21
    Numbers 31
    Deuteronomy 20
    2 Chronicles 15:12-13

    or does it make him evil in the past, has he been reformed?,.. keep in mind, he said Hebrews 13:8. does this make him a liar? can you trust any one who is such an obvious "lair"?

    think about this

    if a person (God) walks into a room of full of people(Gods) and says "all of you are liars, I'm the only one who tells the truth" can you trust a person like this?

    February 16, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
    • wolfbitn

      So are you saying evil exists and are you serious?
      As for the rest, nowhere there does God say to take ANY woman to himself.

      February 17, 2014 at 12:28 am |
      • Dalahäst

        I think he is asking how do you reconcile God's actions in the OT (harsh) with Jesus in the NT (loving)?

        Why does the God in the OT say to kill some of their enemies? And Jesus in the NT says love your enemies?

        February 17, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • wolfbitn

          of course we love our enemy. This was not the command in the OT however, But this is different and has to do more with WHO these 'people' were. I know what he meant, i just dont let them get away with their intentional exaggerations.

          February 17, 2014 at 9:49 am |
      • thesamyaza

        yes evil does exist, as illusion, you know a fictional idea. evil exist like "Miku Hatsune" exist.

        Judges 21:10-24
        So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

        The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

        Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

        (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

        They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

        Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

        "Why does the God in the OT say to kill some of their enemies? And Jesus in the NT says love your enemies? this is not what i am saying at all Jesus to was evil and not loving in accordance to how i view evil."

        make no mistake the christian believe Christ is a triune god so Christ=Yahweh=and Metatron are one, in the christian mythos. its no different with Mórrígan what Mach done Babd done , and Nemain done. actualy she is a famlie deity so what I do Mórrígan does

        the one of the differences between Jews and Christians

        Jesus kept the lie going that nature belongs to man, this notion is evil to me Genesis 1:26

        Jesus cam to bring a sword to divide families once again in my definition is evil Matthew 10:34
        Jesus also taught people to hate their family, or any one interpretation is to love god more then family which to me is equally monstrous. Luke 14:26

        in fact Jesus teachings are responsible to the current crises the family faces now. not to mention our current ecological crises

        one of the differences between Jews and Christians is Jews believe Yahweh has feelings and grows learns even that he changes from time to time. that idea is blasphemy to Christians.

        February 17, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • thesamyaza

          oh and yes wolfbitni am serious. under what i hold evil to be. Yahweh aka Marduk aka Jehovah aka Allah and Aka Jesus; is evil. in fact hes probably the 3rd most evil deity, kinda a running tie with Orochi, but not as bad as Ahriman.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Matthew 10:34.

          Like in revelations Jesus had a double sided sword coming out of his mouth. He didn't literally have a sword for a tongue. It was a metaphor that Jesus will fight with his words.

          He is covered in blood, but it is his own blood. He sacrifices himself.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:42 am |
        • thesamyaza

          i understand he was speaking in parables he did that but his meaning was still bad. he know what he said would cause strife in families, and to him it was OK as long as people followed. also I'm a biblical scholar i know that sword=word of god. i may be a pagan but we polytheist learn about all gods, so learning about the worlds major god is a no brainier. i probably. no i know your god better then you,know his mother Athirat and his father Baal Hammon. i am well versed in the Canaan Pantheon. i also know he was called Marduk in Babylon making Athirat=taimat Baal Hammon=Apsu and of course the the primal wastland=el elyon or as he is called in the bible bohuwa hence the confusion translation with the Canaan god Yahweh go of war when the cult of Yahweh took the power in Canaan to change it to Israel i'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:16 am |
        • wolfbitn

          1 You are attributing to GOD what men did..When most of Benjamin was killed, the kidnapping of the women was encouraged by and carried out by men... not God.

          2) You say Evil is abstract and an illusion. Does this then mean that in reality, all illusion aside, R A P E is not an "evil" act?

          February 17, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • Alias

          @woflbitn
          your argument fails if the men were acting on orders from god.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • thesamyaza

          sorry this goes here

          1 You are attributing to GOD what men did..When most of Benjamin was killed, the kidnapping of the women was encouraged by and carried out by men... not God.

          god told them to do it,.. unless your saying the bible is a lie i'm merely asking you to judge actions of your god in the same light you would judge a mans actions. and make a choice is he or is he not evil according to how you view evil. or does he work above morality he cannot be judge so what he does is good even if he command rape,..thus in the eyes of your god rape is good only when he says it is.

          2) You say Evil is abstract and an illusion. Does this then mean that in reality, all illusion aside, R A P E is not an "evil" act?

          yes, dolphins rape does that make them evil, when their morality says its not.

          and an added note to use curse words such as rape add an hyperlink between the words such as bold text

          February 17, 2014 at 11:11 am |
  18. Vic

    Skimming through the comments, I just would like to point out that there is a difference between not understanding something and not believing in something. Christians intelligently understand the matters of this existence; however, we don't believe in just any scientific hypothesis or theory.

    Regarding the discussion over the Big Bang Theory, besides the problem of unexplained cause, it also has a fundamental problem of not explaining the acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Dark Matter is ONLY a hypothesis. Furthermore, it has a problem called 'inflation' pertaining to the universe being homogenous.

    Quick Reference:
    http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

    Previous Post on The Big Bang Theory:
    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/11/is-camel-discovery-the-straw-that-broke-the-bibles-back/comment-page-12/#comment-2945834

    February 16, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
    • hotairace

      Ummm, the Theory (not used scientifically 'cause there is no actual evidence for any god under the scientific method) of God also suffers from the problem of unexplained cause.

      February 16, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      You are dealing with people who want something proven to them. People have been scammed by religion. You should understand they are going to be weary.

      The scientific theories appear to be more reliable then insisting that Genesis was a literal explanation. I think Genesis is a spiritual story, not meant to explain the material world. What is the story? Human beings, by really no fault of her/his own, lives in a fallen world. An imperfect world that fails to live up to its own ideals. So we will make mistakes. But that is ok. God forgives. He is preparing us for something better to come. Stay tuned...

      February 16, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        God fogives us? For what? I didn't do anything that requires forgivness from some god....

        February 17, 2014 at 12:18 am |
        • Dalahäst

          All Christians have caused harm and are in need of forgiveness. I you are blameless than you are better than me.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • hotairace

          A cult's rules only apply to members of that cult.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Can you define cult?

          I see 2 definitions:

          Is it a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous?

          Or

          Or a system of religious beliefs and ritual?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Oh I have wronged people, and they are the ones I ask forgivness from. I haven't done anything to wrong a god though.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:03 am |
        • hotairace

          Definition of cult – both.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:07 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Then you are good.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:11 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Then I'm not in a cult.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:13 am |
        • hotairace

          Christianity is a cult.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:20 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I agree with this man's understanding, which I believe is the way most people view it:

          "Cults claim exclusivity, are highly secretive, and authoritarian. To many of my atheist friends, religion fits the bill. What distinguishes religion from cults is the ability to question without being shunned and ability to reject dogmatic tenets without being shunned.

          Many religions make exclusive claims to truth. There is nothing wrong with that. Many systems of philosophy do the same. Kantianism's categorical truths are, for example, incompatible with utilitarianisms balancing of harm and good.

          The harm stems from a system that shuns and ostracizes adherents that don't accept their exclusive claims to truth. That is where conventional religion becomes a potentially harmful cult. Forcing people to conform by using the subtle threat of social alienation is a form of coercion. "

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/when-organized-religion-become_b_3996139.html

          February 17, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Christianity gives people the disease (sin) with one hand and then offers the cure (salvation) with the other.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:26 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No it doesn't.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am |
        • hotairace

          Forcing people to conform by using the not-so-subtle threat of damnation is a form of coercion.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:40 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Actually it does, it is based on the idea that humans have angered god through the "fall of man" and/or our individual actions (which absolutely no one is immune from) and we need to reconcile with god, and the Chrisian god (Jesus) gave us the only way to do so...through our belief and confession of out "crimes".

          February 17, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I avoid churches and organizations like that. My church doesn't force people to conform by using the not-so-subtle threat of damnation as a form of coercion.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Blessed Cheesemakers

          That is not what they preach at either church I go to. And nobody is forced or coerced into anything.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:50 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Not sure what version of Christianity you are associated with then. I was educated in a christian school and have attended quite a few different denominations. These are not controversial issues I bring up, at least among the Christians (of varying faiths) that I know.

          Are you saying belief in Jesus and his 'sacrifice' is optional in order to be reconciled to god in you church?

          Are you saying you do not have to admit you are a sinner?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Not sure what version of Christianity you are associated with then. I was educated in a christian school and have attended quite a few different denominations. These are not controversial issues I bring up, at least among the Christians (of varying faiths) that I know.

          I'm ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. I am a member. I serve in committees and education. I also attend and volunteer at a non-denominational Christian church. They do not have memberships, for they want all to feel welcome.

          + Are you saying belief in Jesus and his 'sacrifice' is optional in order to be reconciled to god in you church?

          Jesus has sacrificed himself for us. We don't have to do anything. We live in response to that gift.

          + Are you saying you do not have to admit you are a sinner?

          I'm not required to. I choose to. If I didn't think I was a sinner, I wouldn't go. I'm free to do that.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "And nobody is forced or coerced into anything."

          Is there any "downside" for those people who reject CHristianity in your church? i.e. annihilation, not being let into heaven or an afterlife, ect?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Jesus has sacrificed himself for us. We don't have to do anything. We live in response to that gift."

          Will those who don't believe Jesus is god also share in that gift? i.e. those who reject outright as a fabrication?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:21 am |
        • thesamyaza

          Can you define cult?

          i define it as any religion that is centered around a human/Avitar/Demi-god

          Jesus is all three thus Christianity is a cult. in fact it came out in the time of Rome were cults were huge, it just one the cult war is all.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No. We don't participate in annihilation, nor determine the after life.

          We are not to judge like that. That power is in Jesus' hands.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "We are not to judge like that. That power is in Jesus' hands."

          That doesn't answer my question. I know you and your church don't do the judging, is god going to judge humans in the end?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:26 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "i define it as any religion that is centered around a human/Avitar/Demi-god"

          Then you would call us a cult. But most people wouldn't, because that term is used to describe a dangerous group.

          I guess you could say we are a cult dedicated to serving others and making our community a better place.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:27 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "Is there any "downside" for those people who reject CHristianity in your church? i.e. annihilation, not being let into heaven or an afterlife, ect?"

          No.

          "I know you and your church don't do the judging, is god going to judge humans in the end?"

          I don't know. I'm agnostic about it.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:33 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I don't know. I'm agnostic about it."

          Is the ELCA agnostic about this question too?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I really don't know. My pastor told me they don't get everything right. We are big on confession, forgiveness and the Lord's Prayer. There are probably certain positions that require one to affirm their belief, but that is voluntary.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          From the ELCA's website.

          Simply stated, the Scriptures tell about Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit uses the Scriptures to present Jesus to all who listen to or read them. That is why Lutheran Christians say that the Scriptures are the “source and norm” of their teaching and practice. As the Gospel writer John wrote, “these things are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

          This seems to imply that "life" comes from "belief", and therefore lack of belief would (or at the very least 'could) lead to a 'lack of life'. I would say that this a form of coersion, very subtle, but it is there.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:50 am |
        • thesamyaza

          "Then you would call us a cult. But most people wouldn't, because that term is used to describe a dangerous group. "

          no i do not describe a cult as dangerous; but yes your cult is extremely dangerous. i have a left side of my body to prove it, i have a girl friend who was raped and another who was torched and maimed to prove it. i have an inter heritage stolen
          your cult is evil and so are its teachings how much hate speech does Christianity preach. Jesus Christ him self called my people a disease that needs a doctor "him" my homeland is gone and to this day is occupied member's of your cult. i will never see Lochland again it has like my people been relegated to myth just like my people. that is the worst atrocity is the knowledge that I'm a fictional being that we Sidh are something J. R. R. Tolkien wrote up. not even the first invaders to my homeland treated us the way your cult did. I'm to "Irish" to even celebrate St Patrick because that day is a constant reminder of what your cult did to my people,..so yes your a dangerous cult it erased my people.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          And how does your Pastor know the difference between what they get right and don't get right?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:56 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Blessed –

          They basically are just saying they believe our actions have consequences. So the life we gain is along the lines of being reborn. When we get the power to not sin through Jesus there are good consequences to that in this life.

          Nobody is forced or coerced into this. Jesus demonstrated how to do it.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          – Blessed

          – And how does your Pastor know the difference between what they get right and don't get right? –

          She was saying that in the context of nobody gets it all right. I would imagine she would say the ideal is to use discernment.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          It very specifically says that belief leads to life. One is rewarded for belief, and therefore not rewarded for non-belief.

          I know the ELCA is a very liberal form of Christianity but my experience with them (and yes I have had a good amount of experience at an ELCA church) is that belief matters...it is not just an option. I know that they teach that in the end it is up to god, but the bible they use has plenty of passages that spell out very clearly that those who do not believe will not have "life"...including the words of Jesus. I know you don't hold the ELCA as an authority and I commend you for that. One of the reasons I ended up leaving was I felt like I was just "making it up myself" and did not feel it was a path to what is actually "true"

          Just an aside....I liked the ELCA church. Very good people and very caring, I have to ill will towards them. I just don't agree with their belief.

          I will check back here tomorrow. Nice conversation...I enjoyed it.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:21 am |
        • thesamyaza

          so your pastier says pick and choose does she, so you decide what is evil and what is good,.. not your god

          so back when society said slaver was not evil that was the word of god, then when slavery became immoral in society that we men who perverted the word of god for their own selfish desire....the god of cognitive dissonance every one. in five years god did not think homosexuality was a sin humans miss interpenetrated his words,. it was lying with another man in lust not love.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:26 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Thanks for chatting. I am being a little picky, but no one ever words it the way you did in regards to what we believe. At least not at the churches I go to. I feel it is a little too simplistic to be sufficient. But you seem to have the gist of it. So in a way, you basically summed up the Apostles Creed.

          So, yes, our salvation in contingent on Jesus. And not being saved, yes, means a probably bleak outcome. Or else what is Jesus really saving?

          The message I really hear is that we are saved by our baptism in Jesus and not by anything we do. Lets live in response to that gift and be a blessing to others. That is the "good news" to me.

          It really isn't dangerously cult-like. I think most in our community see us as good neighbors. And we let secular neighborhood groups use our building during the week.

          Right now things are difficult. Because the ELCA is welcoming to g.ays. But some of our older members don't care for it. We had an intern that was preparing us for the "Reconciling in Christ" program.

          http://www.reconcilingworks.org/what/ric

          Anyway, some people are not that happy about it. And it is making some church activities very awkward...

          February 17, 2014 at 3:52 am |
        • Dalahäst

          thesamyaza,

          I'm sorry to hear about how you've been harmed. That is unfortunate. I am part Irish. And also Swedish. My family left Sweden for the USA to escape persecution from the Lutheran Church, actually. They settled in a free state and became farmers. They practiced their religion in peace.

          February 17, 2014 at 4:01 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dalahast,

          It is a blunt way of putting it. I think it is valid though. Christianity teaches we need saving, that we are tainted and need redeeming. Many forms of Christiainty are very good at making this concept look flowery and wonderful. I don't think it is.

          That doesn't mean I think Christians themselves are bad...I just think the world view is awful.

          February 17, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I haven't been taught I need saved. I've experienced it. I really never hear about Christianity being a hell avoidance program, which I hear a lot of outsiders complain about. We rarely focus on the afterlife, because nobody knows what it will really entail. We go to be with God when we die, whatever that means. Not everyone agrees. It is about the now, today and the future for me.

          I was surprised how hopeful, positive and encouraging the religion can be. They carry out a lot of good work. Other groups do, too. So it is not exclusive.

          February 17, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I haven't been taught I need saved."

          I am not sure how one would come up with that concept without being taught that. Jesus taought that the "Only way to the Father" was through him. I consider that a form of coersion. "My way or the highway". It doesn't have to mean eternal punishment, it can mean just taking the reward away. If Jesus came and died for our sins and did not require ANYTHING in return it would be a sacrifice, but that isn't the case. Christianity requires, at the very minimum, our belief.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have experienced brokeness and despair. I needed help. I find that help I need in Jesus. I searched different areas for help and got help in different areas, too. I didn't need to just believe something. I needed to also do something. And Jesus shows me what to do.

          This man says he was taught the same thing you were. He gave up on that idea and later discovered:

          "Today, I realize that what Jesus was really saying is this: "I am the way," as in, "I know the way." "I've discovered it" which, by implication means, "you can, too." Elsewhere, he put it like this: "I and the Father are one" and he prayed that we would discover the same as well (John 17). Which is precisely why he said continually, "Follow me." In other words, it's as if Jesus was saying, "If you believe anything, believe not WORDS but the WAY to Life itself. My way, like many other ways, will guide you into the Eternal. In fact, you cannot separate the way to God from God herself. The way to God IS God.""

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/jesus-said-i-am-the-way-b_b_1318405.html

          I'm not saved by what I believe. If I'm wrong, I hope God is merciful and forgiving. If not, I die and that is the end.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          But here is the rub, I don't believe it, and I don't think belief or non-belief is a justification for rewards. I think you believe in a very loving and accepting form of CHristianity. Not all do, many teach it is ok to alienate and even discriminate based on the Christian bible. There is no way to settle the argument because each is able to use the bible, so it becmes a Mexican Stand off with bibles. No one is right because no one can be shown to be wrong. That creates a huge problem.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I do believe it, and I don't think belief or non-belief is a justification for rewards, either.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I am glad you don't and I am glad you support and promote equality regardless of belief or orientation. If humanity is going to improve that is the direction we need to go regardless of where it comes from.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is a good ideal.

          February 17, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Vic

      There exists no reliable scientific theory regarding the Origin of matter and life, hence the universe. We believe in scientific facts regarding how God's creation physically works; Christians founded the branches of "Modern Science" AND the "Modern Scientific Method," and they continue to pioneer in the advancement of science and technology across the board.

      February 16, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Can you name some of the Christians that continue to pioneer the advancement of science and technology across the board?

        I know of some that are doing this, but I'm not sure they would agree with you. A Christian helped in introducing The Big Bang Theory, right.?

        February 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm |
        • Vic

          With all due respect, I am not the census bureau; however, we all know that 76%+ of the US population is Christian and make up the vast majority of the workforce in all disciplines.

          And yes, a priest "founded" the Big Bang Theory.

          February 16, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
        • hotairace

          Translation: I am a Babble Humper, free to make whatever claims I want without having to substantiate anything."

          February 16, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • hotairace

          “I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.”

          ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

          February 16, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Vic,

          There are other Christian scientists, like that priest, that believe in the Big Bang. And they (working with others, like atheists) seem to be the ones that are pioneering the advancement of science and technology across the board.

          So I was asking if you could name some of those Christian pioneers you are talking about.

          February 16, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • Vic

          Quick References:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

          http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

          February 16, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • Vic

          Here are some good reads on the subject matter:

          http://www.cslewis.org/journal/science-and-christian-faith-conflict-or-cooperation/

          http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm

          February 16, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          But don't most of those scientists believe in the big bang theory? Also, I saw an evolutionary biologist listed.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • Vic

          http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm

          February 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Name something a Christian Scientist has been able to demonstrate about reality using Christianity?

          The reason Christian scientists are relevant is the science (provided it can be replicated) not their religion.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Christianity is a way of life, not a means for studying science. There is nothing inherent in Christianity that prevents scientific advancement.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I never said there is anything that prevents a Christian from doing good science.

          My point was their religion was in no was relevant. Saying there are really good Christian scientists is akin to saying there are really good Republican Scientists...so what....one has nothing to do with the other.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Then I was agreeing with you, not Vic.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • joey3467

          Vic is slightly crazy, so I wouldn't be to surprised if he doesn't consider Catholics to be Christians.

          February 19, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Actually Greek pagans Muslims founded the branches of science and math, Vic. Too bad you never studied history.
        Who started anything is irrelevant. Christians have never, and do not now "own" science. The vast majority of the National Academy of Science are atheists. For most of it's history religion attempted to thwart science.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        "We" believe in no such thing. YOU believe in your "god's" creation. YOU have no evidence for any deity. The only reason you NEED one, is because you need cognitive closure ;;; you god is a god of the gaps. She must feel great about the fact as soon as humans DO have an explanation, you will dump her.

        February 16, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          This God of the gaps idea is wrong. Most believers don't believe because they need to plug something into the unknowns. They believe because they have experienced God which they express as knowing God.

          February 16, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • hotairace

          Faith: Pretending to know things you do not know. Peter Boghossian

          February 16, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          On your own you can believe there is a God, but faith comes from God.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Most believers don't believe because they need to plug something into the unknowns."

          You are absolutely right Robert, but it IS what they use to justify their belief to others.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        Vic, you write "With all due respect, I am not the census bureau; however, we all know that 76%+ of the US population is Christian and make up the vast majority of the workforce in all disciplines." A 2009 Pew Research Center survey (see "Scientists and Belief" at http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) found:

        "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

        Note that of those who believe in a god there will be adherents of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

        But almost no scientists believe in the young earth creationist notion that a god created man in his present form just a few thousand years ago, though that is, unfortunately still prevalent among a large portion of the general public who have been misled by creationists to believe that there is some controversy among scientists about evolutionary theory, e.g., see http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm. The percentage of scientists in the life and earth sciences that accept evolutionary theory is more than 99%. The percentage that believe in young earth creationism is only a tiny fraction of 1%, about 0.15% (Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation).

        February 16, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
      • sam stone

        "We believe in scientific facts regarding how God's creation physically works"

        How do you make the logical leap from a creator to a God?

        February 17, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Certainly a creator would be a God to the created.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • sam stone

          not necessarily

          a creator could just create and walk away

          otherwise, it appears that the reasoning is something like "something created us, therefore jesus died for your sins"

          the possibility of a creator does not in any way imply a god, or heaven, or hell, or sin, or redemption

          February 17, 2014 at 10:50 am |
        • sam stone

          your parents created you. are they gods to you?

          February 17, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • wolfbitn

          A creator that created and walked away would have nothing invested. A creator who creates and walks away could not be said to CARE... really CARE about His creation.
          Maybe YOU would create and walk away... I would not.

          February 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • sam stone

          "A creator that created and walked away would have nothing invested"

          So what?

          "A creator who creates and walks away could not be said to CARE... really CARE about His creation."

          See the above comment

          "Maybe YOU would create and walk away... I would not."

          Don't christians constantly blather on that we are not to judge god by human's senses of right and wrong? Isn't that precisely what you are doing?

          you sure make a lot of a-s-s-umptions

          February 18, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
    • hotairace

      There is no verifiable, objective, physical, independent, factual evidence for any god therefore there is no evidence for "God's creation." Without a proven god, all god-based stories are just that – stories, fiction.

      February 16, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        You are speaking out of your bias a$$. There is more proof for God than there is the BB but, you are the one who cant stand up to a moderated debate, so you may as well drop it... you wont stake a thing on what you say so it is worthless.

        February 17, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • hotairace

          Then you should be able to present the case for god, complete with actual evidence, but no, you are ducking and diving, like a cornered rat.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Accept a moderated debate and I will be happy to... now let's see what cornered rat squirms and runs from a real debate 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • Alias

          Fine. I accept.
          Let's have a debate about the existance of your god.
          Where, when, and who will moderate?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          That is awesome... we can start any time you like. I will even let you tilt the field to your advantage to pick an exceptional forum for this debate, and I am not even adverse to letting someone from here moderate. If you prefer that I find the venue I am happy to, but I give you first choice.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • Alias

          No need.
          Where and when?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Very cool... lets go here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php?sid=4dc8cf8c5eab5dd69a3c0e07c9f441d9

          They do not allow trolling or name calling etc, I have never been there and just signed up for an account. If you sign up for an account use your name here, I used Wolfbitn so anyone from here will know who we are if they look for it.

          You will have to forward a verification email to another address you will be sent when you register. It will be a level playing ground and I'm sure we will not have a problem getting a moderator.

          The subject, Debating whether or not Genesis chapter 1 is a better founded scientific theory than the Big Bang.

          Once you create your account and forward the verification email, your account will be unlocked within 24 hours. I just signed up myself so they should be unlocked around the same time.

          I do wish you good luck in the debate.

          Are you approaching this from the standpoint of a pagan or an Atheist?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • Alias

          Are we going to debate, or did you run away?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          did you not get my message?
          I posted it a while back...
          I just set up my own account here:
          http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php?sid=4dc8cf8c5eab5dd69a3c0e07c9f441d9
          Set up your account and we will debate there. You will have to FORWARD the response you receive from that forum, to an address they provide to you in the email for your account to be activated.
          Neutral ground. and I do not know anyone there.
          Then we can meet there, I am registered as I am here, Wolfbitn. I suggest that you register with the same name you use here so people from here will recognize us both if they want to watch.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Alias

          One little problem there, I agreed to debate if your god exists.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • Alias

          There is nothing scientific about Genesis chapter 1.
          It is a creation myth. All religions seem ot hav a creation myth.
          " god said 'be', and POOF it was!"

          February 17, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          then you should have no problem with me eh?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Are you approaching this from the standpoint of a pagan or an Atheist?"

          You do realize that atheists ARE pagan...it depends on what definition, but is really moot since it is just another pigeon hole to put people in.

          Are you debating from the delusional or the REALLY delusional? ...similar question .

          February 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          It is good you recognize atheists are pagan... most of them won't admit that. It is stupid to believe however that science is a God when it only helps us to understand what God did 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          " It is stupid to believe however that science is a God when it only helps us to understand what God did "
          No one thinks science is god..that is as ridiculous as claiming there is a god, since there is no indication that any such creature exists.

          Science is findinig more and more that gods are not needed for our natural world though.
          Anthropology ( the science of studying man) HAS shown that men like to create gods tin answer to his own ignorance. I see no reason not to put your god into that very same catagory ( with the other thousands of gods).

          February 17, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes I regard radical atheism as not just a religion, but as a cult.

          February 17, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
    • Vic

      Edited:

      "Christians intelligently understand the matters of this existence; however, we don't believe in just any scientific hypothesis or theory while we do understand them."

      February 16, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
  19. lunchbreaker

    With all due respect to wolfbitn, I would be more impressed if he could convince a fellow Christian of his interpretation of Genesis. Where is Liv4Him when you need them? For anyone curious about the such here is the link to one of his debates. http://talkspotcentral.com/index.php?/topic/1799-creation-vs-the-theory-of-evolution-one-on-one-debate/

    February 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I've learned about Genesis as just being an origin story. All cultures have them. Native Americans had some, for example. They may sound completely ridiculous to us now, but to them they made sense. And it reflected what they knew.

      The story in Genesis was pretty sophisticated for its time. And that it was passed down orally and later recorded in print and maintained for so long is remarkable. Often people attack the text like it was written by ignorant fools, which it wasn't.

      For me it is obviously allegorical. Presented in a way just like Jesus did when he told parables. We don't have to literally believe there historically was a father who had a prodigal son who left, blew his inheritance and returned.

      The reason God, and Jesus, used allegorical stories is because he is speaking to our creative hearts, not just our rational minds. God already has a rational mind. He wants our hearts.

      February 16, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
      • Anthony Crispino

        My nephew Toolie brought home that movie Skyline. It was pretty creepy and if you ask me, I'll bet there are some aliens out there somewhere that are more into gizzards than brains. God could be an alien. Maybe even a group of them for Pete's sake.

        February 16, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • hotairace

          You could be correct, that there are aliens out there, but why extend their possible (perhaps even probable) existence to them being "God" or believing that the alleged god of The Babble exists?

          February 16, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I sometimes wonder...

          ...if the stories are about aliens. Moving stars (ufos?), heavenly bodies (aliens?) – and Moses turning red (radiation sickness?) after being in God's presence on the mountain top?

          February 16, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • Alias

          the only problem is that with our current laws of physics, travel between solar systems is not feasible.
          The amount of energy it would take to accelerate and decelerate is an obsticle we see no way to overcome.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • wolfbitn

        @ Dalahast
        I understand why it would be tempting to believe genesis chapter 1 in a figurative manner, especially in light of what a mess modern theology has made of things in just about every area imaginable.
        I believe it is absolutely literal however. Just a few key words in verses 1 and 2 change the entire meaning from what is presently taught in seminary. Cemetaries generally study mainly the newest translations. I have concentrated my studies in the earliest manuscripts possible, i certainly studied it from the original languages, and then the early latin and greek translations.
        In the Hebrew Genesis 1, verses 1 and 2 actually state that after God created the heavens and the earth, there was a period of time that passed and that the earth then BECAME desolate and devoid of life.... This then changes the understanding of the entire rest of the chapter.

        February 16, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are other Christians that have studied those things too, and have not drawn the conclusion that it is literally true.

          February 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          try reading it from that aspect one time...
          Then think of that asteroid that hit the earth as some estimate 65 million years ago...

          on the beginning and end of the first age, light began to filter through but you could not see the stars...

          2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day the atmosphere is clear enough to see the lights of the heavens,,,

          It literally is in exact sequence of life rebuilding on this earth, that we see in stone and fossilized stone.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Well that sounds poetic. I'd never seen it described that way.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • wolfbitn

          yes it is poetic, but it also perfectly describes what would have happened immediately after an asteroid impact the size of what his the Yucatan. There is absolutely no discrepancy at all. There is SO much more proof of this in genesis and beyond. To perfectly explains why we find in stone the things we do... And we KNOW this earth has suffered cycles of destruction... Ecclesiastes tells us that one age comes and another age goes, but the earth remains... Jeremiah 4 uses the same language in the hebrew as the greek, and tells of all the life that died during this cataclysm. Not only is it fully supported THROUGHOUT scripture, but in stone as well... literally.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          So is that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:41 am |
        • wolfbitn

          apparently, yes

          February 17, 2014 at 9:47 am |
        • hotairace

          And were there humans at the time the asteroid hit the earth?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • wolfbitn

          i guess you KNOW there wasnt lol

          February 17, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitn
          You have definately developed skills when it comes to redefining words and changing the meaning of things.
          It is so unfortunate no one else seems to agree with you.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I am the one taking words for what they are... Theory for instance has to be testable or it is hypothesis.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:32 am |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, I do not know. Are *you* saying that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Please answer this very simple question with a yes or no.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Tell me what you saw 65 million years ago...

          February 17, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • hotairace

          I personally did not see anything beyond about 60 years ago. I am merely trying to find out what you think but you seem incapable of answering simple questions.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Questions answered on my side... Im stilkl waqiting for you to state whether or not you believe evil exists of and by itself.

          If society were to think of r a p e as an acceptable thing, would it still be an evil act, no matter how many people felt it not to be?
          Easy question.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • hotairace

          Sorry, but you have not yet provided your definition of evil, so I can't answer your question.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Hot air, SURELY you know the definition of evil... youre not a school child and even they can define it. You either believe evil exists of and by itself regardless of how many people believe differently, or you do not believe evil exists in and of and by itself.

          You either believe R A P E is ALWAYS EVIL regardless of who thinks it isnt, or you believe noting is an 'evil' act.

          Couldnt be easier, theres your definition to go by.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • Alias

          If the translations are so obvious, and they are so much better than what is being taught in seminary, why are you the only one who has figured this out?
          Isn't it time you tried to publish in a peer reviewed source?

          February 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Im not the only one. There are a LOT of us. One thing you may not know is that the church was prophesied to"leave the truth". For thousands of years, what I believe was taught prominently.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "Tell me what you saw 65 million years ago" in response to the question "Are *you* saying that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Please answer this very simple question with a yes or no." You have offered several times to debate others regarding your views, but when questioned regarding specifics of your beliefs you appear to be evasive sometimes. I'm still uncertain whether you believe the biblical account of a worldwide flood that wiped out life on Earth, except for two pairs, or seven pairs for some creatures taken on-board an ark by Noah, was an actual historical event that occurred as described in Genesis based on your reply to me on February 15.

          I wonder how closely your views mirror those of others, such as Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D., the author of "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible", who is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center. He was also the 2012 winner of the Trotter Prize awarded by Texas A&M University's College of Science for "for pioneering contributions to the understanding of the role of information, complexity and inference in illuminating the mechanisms and wonder of nature". He attempts to reconcile current scientific knowledge with Genesis in the aforementioned book based on the use of early commentaries on Genesis provided by Onkelos (ca. C.E. 150), Rashi (C.E. 1040-1105), Mainonides (C.E. 1135-1204), and Nahmanides (C.E. 1194-1270) and the writings of physicists such as Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Edwin Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, and Alan Guth, geophysicists, such as A.G. W. Cameron, Frank Press, and Raymond Siever, and biologists and molecular chemists, such as George Wald and Francis Crick.

          So some of your prior comments regarding relying on very early texts and the writings of physicists such as Guth remind me of his book.

          Though he attempts to reconcile the Genesis flood story with science in his book "Genesis and the Big Bang", he does not address what I see as common sense questions requiring no detailed background in any science that should arise from even a minimal attempt to rationally examine the Genesis story, such as how creatures such as koalas and kangaroos from Australia, American bison and turkeys from North America, sloths from Central or South America, giant pandas from China, etc. traveled to Noah's ark nor what the creatures would have eaten on-board the ark and after disembarking. E.g., a single barn owl (Tyto alba) eats at least one or more rodents per night, yet Genesis 7:1-3 states:

          "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

          So there would have been 14 barn owls, which are just one variety of owl, but only 2 mice as mice are regarded as "unclean" animals in Judaism. There are lots of predators who rely primarily on mice to sustain themselves. And what about the many other predators on-board who feed on other herbivores? Or even the herbivores with special dietary requirements, such as giant pandas who eat bamboo almost exclusively? So how do you make that seem plausible?

          There are many other implausibilities to the flood story, he does not address. I'm wondering how you address them, but based on your prior answer, I can't even be certain whether you believe the story provides accurate details on an actual historical event.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I am at work... no offense but you see my posts are brief and they are brief for a reason... I work. I will take any point you want, but pick one at a time while I am working please. I have not problem with the issues.

          I jsuit did answer the first question... with you dont know I dont know... KNOWING is presumptuous, but there is physical evidence to support the idea, for instance ancient depictions of various types of dinosaur. We do not KNOW that the Yucatan disaster did not leave pockets of LIFE somewhere and it is more possible that it did than it didn't. For ANYONE to say they KNOW either way is ridiculous.

          How far back do you think we can trace modern human?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          According to you ra.p.e is evil...not according to your bible. The stain on the woman who was ra.p.ed is HER mark of evil, and according to your book, the ra.p.ist can make everything OK by giving his victim's father 50 sheckles of silver and then marry her, making her an honest woman. This is still practiced in Morocco by both Christians and Muslims. This has led to many young women taking their own lives to rid themselves of the abuser.

          The ra.p.e is immoral, but the bible's take on it is FAR more evil.

          February 17, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You are very wrong. God hates R A P E consistently throughout the bible. He views it as evil.

          Now do you believe r a p e to be an evil notwithstanding human views on the subject, or is nothing evil in your view?

          February 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You would be talking about a false r a p e accusation... in an actual r a p e the perp was immediately killed.

          As for did humans and dinosaurs co-exist, the answer is NONE of us KNOW... but there is certainly evidence for the possibility. Even with the Yucatan catastrophe it is entirely POSSIBLE that SOME reptilian life survived SOMEWHERE. As much evidence FOR it can be provided however than evidence AGAINST IT.

          Perhaps youve never seen some of the ancient depictions of dinosaur like animals... I certainly have seen some of them, and though this proves NOTING, you would be extremely foolish saying "NO, WE KNOW they did not co-exist" In my opinion youd be as foolish as a christian who believes the earth to be only 6000 years old despite what scripture itself says.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          Wrong again. Not false accusations at all...actual ra.p.es.

          The ra.p.ist pays the father and marries the girl, thus removing HER STAIN OF IMPURITY.
          Where did you come up with the false accusation BS.
          It is part of their law, and it is straight out of the bible and the koran.
          Evil works of men that they are.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          You cannot point out a single instance where R A P E was condoned by God. To insinuate God condones it flies in the face of scripture it is NOT supported.

          But feel free to hide from the question as to whether evil exists... spam it over again, go ahead... i can keep asking 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • hotairace

          *I* may or may not know what evil is but that is irrelevant at this time. You asked a question about evil so it is up to you to clearly define what you mean by evil. Once you give a clear definition, I will tell you if I agree with you and what I think about evil.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Well if you dont know the definition of evil dude, that is cool. Do you believe in good and bad?

          February 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, many thinks are possible and some may even be probable. Do you believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted? Do you believe it is possible that all god stories are just that, stories, myths, bullsh!i?

          February 17, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Genesis 1 is a fact, not a myth, unlike the BB which is only a hypothesis. I am happy to prove this any time you want a moderated debate.

          I believe it is entirely possible that in the remote past some pockets of what we call dinosaur, may have existed up to a few hundred thousand years ago and maybe beyond. It is entirely possible, but for ANYONE to say they KNOW one way or the other is nothing but stupidity and bias showing.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "As for did humans and dinosaurs co-exist, the answer is NONE of us KNOW... but there is certainly evidence for the possibility...Perhaps youve never seen some of the ancient depictions of dinosaur like animals.." What evidence? You say paleontology is one of your interests, so can you provide any evidence from the fossil record? When you write "Perhaps youve never seen some of the ancient depictions of dinosaur like animals", without any specifics I think of Ken Ham claiming in one of his creationist videos that a "computer enhanced", aka "photoshopped", picture of a mud stain on a cliff wall at Kachina Bridge depicts an ancient petroglyph of a sauropod dinosaur. E.g., see "Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all by Phil Senter and Sally J. Cole at Palaeontologia Electronica – http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/236.pdf

          February 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Ken Ham does not represent my belief, nor does he represent what we see in the Hebrew/Chaldean languages of the OT.
          Nevertheless, even ancient pictographs, should be presented as evidence to the possibility. Ancient myth is chock full of reference to dinosaur-like creatures. We look for instance at the mythology regarding Beowolf. which was an ancient myth at the height of the ancient Mesopotamian civilization.
          These are just a few.
          At any rate no one here would be able to say they KNOW we did not co-exist.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          "You are very wrong. God hates R A P E consistently throughout the bible. He views it as evil."

          did i disprove this already? do we have to do this again the next day.

          February 17, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          No you did not disprove a thing except your own bias in reading. You PROVED God hates it.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          I know youre not biased already however... you dont need to prove it 🙂
          I will give you middle of the road, looking at everything equally... 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolbitn, you state in regards to the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs that you just "did answer the first question... with you dont know I dont know... KNOWING is presumptuous, but there is physical evidence to support the idea, for instance ancient depictions of various types of dinosaur." For me that is no different than if I claim that mischievous fairies hid my car keys, whereupon you claim that is absurd and I respond "with you dont know I dont know... KNOWING is presumptuous." One can make any number of absurd, unsubstantiated claims that contradict any conclusions reached by rational analysis by that means. Such a claim is contradicted by the fossil record. And without even one example, a statement regarding "ancient depictions of various types of dinosaur" seems far less credible than claims of ancient depictions of alien astronauts, when those making that claim are at least willing to put forward specific examples for criticism.

          In regards to your question "How far back do you think we can trace modern human?", we can trace anatomically modern humans back about 200,000 years. The Omo remains discovered by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia are dated around 195,000 +/- 5,000 years of age. Humans certainly don't extend back in time to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65 million years ago.

          I don't expect an immediate response to comments or questions nor even a response the same day.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          in other words you are unwilling to look at any evidence that disagrees with your foregone conclusions. I do not make this mistake.

          Also you make the mistake SO many others make when you put a limit on things or pretend it is CLEARLY DEFINED... it is NOT clearly defined. ... for instance, we agree probably that anatomically correct humans may have existed 200,000 years ago... how do you KNOW that anatomically correct humans did not live 250,000 years ago? you don't.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • hotairace

          Wolfie, you have moved from claiming that genesis is more credible than the BB to genesis is a fact. Aren't you now in the same category that you claim Lawrence Krauss is?

          February 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Genesis 1 is FULL of facts that are verified by science... but you dont have the will to debate it in a moderated forum, so find someone who does, sit back, watch and learn.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • igaftr

          wolf
          "Genesis 1 is FULL of facts that are verified by science... but you dont have the will to debate it in a moderated forum, so find someone who does, sit back, watch and learn."

          No one will debate you because you have proven that is not what you really want. Also, you have not shown any actual ability to dabate, and actually have shown you don't know what the word means. You offer NOTHING except the same BS that you have figured some way that Genesis is backed by science. That will take an awful lot of twisting not only your bioble, but the sciences as well.

          You have the opportunity right here right now. Make your case or show your true troll/poe self.

          February 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          nice try at looking like the bold challenger.... I am the bold challenger though and you continually make excuses why your debate cannot be moderated. We know it is because you do not WANT a moderated debate. You want an arena you can wreak havoc upon... something orderly that you can disrupt... something that would edify both sides and actually instruct as to what the original languages say, and turn it into a spamming session that only frustrates the reader... THIS is why you wont accept a moderated debate 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "in other words you are unwilling to look at any evidence that disagrees with your foregone conclusions. I do not make this mistake." You provided that response when I gave you my answer to your question regarding how far back we can trace modern humans. I'm willing to consider evidence that humans extend further back in time. I've requested evidence from you several times on this and other matters, yet you never provide any.

          I've also asked your position on the flood story in Genesis and how, if you assert it to be a historical event, you address implausibilities in the story I mention. If you expect to convince others who don't share your views that your views are correct, you should hardly expect anyone to be swayed by such tactics.

          February 17, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          To understand my view on the flood, you have to first understand my view on Genesis 1... im not trying to be an a$$... yes I do believe a flood of biblcal proportions occurred... No I do NOT believe it was 6000-10000 years ago. I am not Ken Ham... no offense intended. I can actually show you HOW genesis chapter 1 is written in the geological table, and youd be very surprised to see that Genesis 1 is literally written in stone.

          I will be away for a short...

          February 17, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, since geology is an area of interest for me, I look forward to your response regarding how evidence for Genesis is found in the geological record. As I said, I don't expect an immediate response; I understand that a full response would likely take more than a few minutes.

          I had not previously noted one of your prior responses to one of my postings regarding dinosaur-like creatures being found in mythology. I've been interested in mythology since boyhood. You wrote:

          "Nevertheless, even ancient pictographs, should be presented as evidence to the possibility. Ancient myth is chock full of reference to dinosaur-like creatures. We look for instance at the mythology regarding Beowolf. which was an ancient myth at the height of the ancient Mesopotamian civilization."

          Beowulf is an Old English epic poem written between the 8th and 11th centuries; it is not an ancient myth from Mesopotamia. It can be read courtesy of Project Gutenberg at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20431. Grendel, the monster in Beowulf, is portrayed as somewhat human-like. Seamus Heaney, in his translation of Beowulf, describes Grendel as va guely human in shape, though much larger:

          "... the other, warped
          in the shape of a man,
          moves beyond the pale
          bigger than any man, an unnatural birth
          called Grendel by the country people
          in former days"

          There are characters in mythology with the bodies of men and the heads of other creatures, hippogryphs, centaurs, chimeras, glaistigs, etc. That doesn't mean those fantastical creatures were based on actual creatures that were observed by humans. I'm willing to listen to claims that some creatures from mythology are based on observations by humans of dinosaurs, but I don't believe the Grendel of Beowulf provides any evidence for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans. I can't think of one with a similar sounding name at the moment, but, perhaps you meant another character or creature in Mesopotamian mythology.

          February 17, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes excuse the fact I wrote that from work alon.

          What i was saying is Beowolf, Mesopatamian literature, and I should have also said Viking stories, Chinese etc. Of course Roman and Greek.

          Just to cut through discussion of hoaxes, if you go herre http://paleo.cc/ce/dino-art.htm , this appears to be from the scientific standpoint and eliminates SOME as hoax, but then goes on to verify some of the native american petroglyphs...

          Point being that this in certainly implied through ancient stories world wide as well as description portrayed in petroglyphs. Every ancient civilization without fail has these stories which causes me to believe this may be more than myth, as legend is usually based on some fact.

          I believe it is very possible pockets of ancient life continued on into more recent ages. We do know we do not have a complete record in stone before us, as we find new things quite frequently. I believe this allows some credence to be paid to ancient literature and stone art.

          February 17, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you wrote "Just to cut through discussion of hoaxes, if you go herre http://paleo.cc/ce/dino-art.htm , this appears to be from the scientific standpoint and eliminates SOME as hoax, but then goes on to verify some of the native american petroglyphs..." I'd point out that the author of the article notes that all of the Native American petroglyphs discussed in the article resemble numerous Native American petroglyphs of eagles and other birds or lizards standing erect. He writes "Senter (2012) also analyzes several other alleged dinosaur and pterosaur petroglyphs, and finds none of them convincing." The Senter he mentions is Phil Senter whom I mentioned in my prior posting in which I mentioned:

          "Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all by Phil Senter and Sally J. Cole at Palaeontologia Electronica – http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/236.pdf

          So, yes some of the petroglpyhs are authentic, but are depictions of known creatures, i.e., birds or lizards familiar to the Native Americans, not dinosaurs.

          When you note "Every ancient civilization without fail has these stories which causes me to believe this may be more than myth, as legend is usually based on some fact", I'd point out the article states regarding mythical creatures, such as dragons, that many appear to be:

          just fanciful renditions and combinations of modern animals–such as snakes, monitors and Dracos ("flying lizards"), fish, and crocodilians.

          And the author also notes:

          Based on his reasoning, ancient people also must have seen griffins, cyclopes, unicorns, sphinxes, and mermaids. More likely, just as with dragons, they were combined products of living animals, fossil remains, and some imagination or artistic license. By the way, griffins are believed to be based on Protoceratops skulls combined with lion and eagle features; the cyclops legend based on elephant or mammoth skulls, and unicorns possibly inspired by narwhale nose horns (at least they were sometimes sold as unicorn horns in medieval times.

          The article is offering no support for the supposition that some ancient cultures depicted dinosaurs living at the time those cultures existed.

          When you mention Greek and Roman myths as perhaps providing supporting evidence, I'd recommend "The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times" by Adrienne Mayor who shows that many of the giants and monsters of Greek and Roman mythology may well have a basis in fact – they were created based on the abundant fossils found of ancient, long-extinct dinosaurs. E.g., the myth of a gold-guarding griffin griffin was likely derived from the fossilized remains of Protoceratops found in gold mines in the Altai mountains of Scythia.

          You state "I believe it is very possible pockets of ancient life continued on into more recent ages." Perhaps, but even if that were so, how would that make Genesis more credible?

          February 17, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Yes I have also recognized that greeks and romans knew about various fossil finds and assumed them most likely to be some type of contemporary monster. Ido allow for that. I also understand the idea in the link i presented to you, but honestly i didnt want to send you any sort of christian link, i thought i would present critical evidence. I do partially agree with him regarding SOME petroglyphs, but really its a matter of opinion, and there are some around the Nevada area that i believe look strikingly 'dinosaurish'... at any rate, it sure isnt anything im dogmatic on, but i do believe it is wise to give this as well as ancient myth SOME acknowledgement. Its still a very interesting subject... I am not dogmatic insisting it occurred, but i do recognize a distinct possibility.

          What all this has to do with Genesis 1, is that genesis 1 tells the entire story that we see found written in stone without discrepancy, and in the exact sequence we see written in stone. Annd really the story of cycles of life and extinction... earth cycles, is spoken of throughout scripture if people would only read it for what it says most especially in the Hebrew language.

          Our seminarian leaders know the difference the Hebrew makes to modern understanding, yet they refuse to teach it... I blame an infiltrated corrupted leadership. Of course you know power corrupts... its even so in the church unfortunately.

          February 17, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          alon
          here is a more in depth answer from another post I posted elsewhere

          Heres what I have... Describe the events of (what is most accepted as) 65 million years ago. An asteroid hits the Yucatan peninsula...

          How many HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of tons of water, earth, charred former life, ash and steam were exploded into our atmosphere?

          We theorize and find in fossil record that the atmosphere was blackened to the point that photosynthesizeing ceased, plant life died, plant eaters died, and then the predators died.

          Then the atmosphere slowly began to clear. Light began to filter through the atmosphere, but the sun and the moon and the stars could still not be seen... just a diffused light in what we would have then called "day"... and then, ocean life again began to thrive, then plant life and herbs, then trees, then mammals became the dominate life force, as land animals began to surge forth. Finally the atmosphere had cleared to the point that the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars could be CLEARLY seen..

          Genesis 1, Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah and other places tell of CYCLES of life AND extinction. For instance Ecclesiastes states clearly that one age comes, another age goes, but the earth still abides. It then speaks of seemingly ENDLESS cycles of life stating that What is, has already been, what is to come has already been in times we cant or dont remember. It states clearly there is NOTHING wherein we can say "This is new". There is no new thing under the sun because it has ALREADY been done. This hints strongly at very advanced past cultures, which incidentally also kinda coincide with many of earths most ancient stories.

          Then we have 3 key words from Genesis 1

          3 key words from Genesis 1:1-2

          1) Was = Hayah

          Become, come to pass, happen.

          without form = Tohuw
          The idea of being "devoid of life"... empty..

          void = Bohuw
          Desolate
          It is used in the following way:
          Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

          This completely changes the way Genesis 1 should be understood. Not only does the Hebrew bear witness to an earth experiencing cycles of life and extinction, as youll see in a moment, It is verified in Ecclesiastes, Revelation, Jeremiah and elsewhere.

          With this newer understanding of the Hebrew and scripture elsewhere we now have the following picture:

          1) After the earth's creation it BECAME desolate and devoid of life. Meaning that it HAD to have had life flourishing before this point. It cannot BECOME desolate if it is ALREADY desolate. So it states :
          "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME desolate and devoid of life. And God said "let there be light", and there was light.

          This is NOT a creation of light. It was simply light. Now after the desolation earth saw at Yucatan, The filtering of light through the darkness was the first part or the first age of restoration of life on earth.... the morning and the evening were the first AGE as it states in the hebrew... then carry on with genesis 1 through to the end, following the natural pattern of the healing of the earth and restoration of life AFTER this last most disastrous comet impact, and they walk hand in hand.

          In essence, Hebrew scholars tell us what we find written in stone in geology... 3500 years before modern science did.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:05 am |
        • redzoa

          "Annd really the story of cycles of life and extinction... earth cycles, is spoken of throughout scripture if people would only read it for what it says most especially in the Hebrew language."

          Even if one accepts the old-earth creationist arguments of past eras of life/extinction, how does this synthesize with a clearly progressive fossil record, including a nice record of the pre-hominid through hominid lineage? How does this not render the biblical deity a highly imperfect and redundant tinkerer?

          February 18, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • wolfbitn

          wow red... thats a mouth full lol.
          Listen, I AM from kentucky, I'm not a hivk nut its after 1 am and iv had my nightly shine lol
          I dont know if you read all Iv presented in this thread but I pretty much showed that we do know our fossil record isnt complete of course, and I dont know how some alleged pre hominid is playing into the question. Do you mean anything specific like "Lucy"?

          February 18, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • redzoa

          "and the earth BECAME desolate and devoid of life."

          To my knowledge, there is no clear start/stop/restart, i.e. even throughout the major extinctions, various complex vertebrate lifeforms were continually captured in the fossil record.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:13 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Sure red, I completely agree, which is
          1) why life began to flourish again so quickly

          and

          2) also why it IS possible that even pockets of Jurassic life may have been preserved in certain biosphere like situations.

          I completely agree with you on this, and so does Jeremiah chapter 4 where it is wrotten regarding the desolation created upon the earth, "Yet I shall not make a FULL end"... in the very same context of an extinction event.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:25 am |
        • redzoa

          What I'm referring to by "progressive fossil record" is that in every form of life, we can see a progression, e.g. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. Straight off, the genesis account of creation doesn't jive with the fossil record, e.g. whales and birds appear long after early terrestrial forms. The same is true of flowering plants.

          Regarding the hominid/pre-hominid lineages, they produce an otherwise nicely temporally/morphologically overlapping progression. I presume you are referencing H. sapiens as the "man" of genesis 1, but where does H. neanderthalensis or the Denisovan lineages fit in given their overlapping temporal/morphological fossil (and now, phylogenetic) records?

          Although the major extinctions were dramatic, the fossil record continues through them, i.e. there is no complete absence of life once life gets rolling.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:32 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Wait red... just clarifying to understand, not being an A$$... are you putting neanderthal in our family tree?

          February 18, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • redzoa

          ""Yet I shall not make a FULL end"... in the very same context of an extinction event."

          Does this not a full end mean: a) allowing some forms to escape otherwise naturally; or b) specially-creating replacements immediately after an actual complete extermination?

          I'm particularly interested in how this absence of a full end synthesizes with the genesis flood . . .

          February 18, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Red, my experience in scripture and rock, is that God at times intervenes but mostly He allows the natural process to carry through. He created natural law in my belief system, and yet He tends not to break it. He set things in motion but only intervenes in critical time to "preserve a seed" as it is stated throughout scripture.

          February 18, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • redzoa

          "Wait red... just clarifying to understand, not being an A$$... are you putting neanderthal in our family tree?"

          Yes. A genetically distinguishably separate, but related lineage born of common ancestry.

          Regarding your response to the biblical deity not engaging in a "full end"; do you believe the genesis flood was a complete extermination to be replenished solely by the "kinds" pairs, or do you believe it was an incomplete extermination with various escapees?

          February 18, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • wolfbitn

          I certainly believe that the extinction was massive. Complete? I believe the language allows for "pockets" here and there. I believe The writer of Jurassic Park well said, "Life finds a way".

          Is neanderthal an Ancestor? Not according to the most recent DNA testing. Is he related? I leave room for that possibility simply because I see where scripture justified the possibility in more than one place. Do I believe in evolution? I believe in SOME aspects of it, no problem. Cross Genus/family? no.

          Escapees? It sure looks probable given other passages of scripture and the rock record.

          February 18, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • redzoa

          @wolf – I appreciate it's late and you've had a long day posting (not to mention the medicinal elixir). I'll check back in tomorrow . . .

          February 18, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Sure thats good. i did forget neanderthal... ancestor? no, possibly in the tree? yes but for reasons yet unexplained and not conventional. Get into that tomorrow... and thanks for the break :P)

          February 18, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, in your reply to redzoa you asked "Is neanderthal an Ancestor? Not according to the most recent DNA testing. ." Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are believed to have a common ancestor in Ho_mo heidelbergensis. Many scientists believe that there were matings between ancient humans and Neanderthals and that the genomes of non-African people contain about 2-3% Neanderthal alleles and haplotypes. Such matings may have strengthened the immune systems of the offspring of those matings. E.g. more than 50% of the variants in Europeans of one human leucocyte antigen (HLA) gene have been linked to Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA while for Asians the percentage is believed to be more than 70% and for people of Papua New Guinea up to 95% of the variants for the gene have been linked to Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. The HLA family of genes plays an important role in defending against foreign invaders such as viruses. E.g., see "Neanderthal s_ex boosted immunity in modern humans" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14673047. That article mentions that there are those, such as such as John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US, who have some doubts about that conclusion regarding Neanderthal contributions to our HLA genes, though.

          February 18, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          That is extremely interesting. I will definitely make time to look more into that. Thank you.

          A bit off the wall here and off subject... but not really lol, What do you think of the possibility of intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe? And the possibility of them achieving space flight or 'time flight' if they could achieve light speed and beyond or utilize worm holes?

          February 18, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, you state that Genesis "is verified in Ecclesiastes, Revelation, Jeremiah and elsewhere" and point to Jeremiah 4:27 "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end." In a later posting you state:

          'and so does Jeremiah chapter 4 where it is wrotten regarding the desolation created upon the earth, "Yet I shall not make a FULL end"... in the very same context of an extinction event.'

          Jeremiah 4:26 refers to towns laying in ruins. As you likely know, the Kingdom of Judah was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in 597 BCE. The Babylonians pillaged Jerusalem and its Temple and took many of the kingdom's prominent citizens as captives to Babylon. The Jews would naturally ask themselves, "why would God allow this to happen?" The Book of Jeremiah was written as an explanation for that question, portraying the disaster for the kingdom as due to their god being angry with them. Though Jeremiah 4 mentions the "tohu wa-bohu", I don't see the misfortune suffered by the Jews as a result of the Babylonian conquest, the waste and ruin of Jeremiah 4:27, as being an extinction event. I agree that the same term is used in both places and that "tohu wa-bohu" can be interpreted in a number of different ways, e.g. "waste and empty" as in the Darby Bible, "formless and void", etc. I don't think it is unreasonable of you to conclude that means "devoid of life", I just can't conclude that implies preceding extinction events.

          I recognize that there is some support from at least one prominent early rabbi for an interpretation of Genesis that leads to a view of multiple creations, e.g., Rabbi Abbahu (about 279-320 CE), who was Dean of the Yeshiva in Caesarea, said "The Almighty created many worlds and destroyed them ... until our present world was formed." And, though every translation of Genesis 1:1 I've seen in an English language Bible has read "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", I know that some, e.g. Daniel Berry (see https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/FTP_SITE/reprints.journals.conferences/bresh_it.accepted.pdf – remove the underscore) believe the correct translation should be "In a beginning" rather than "In the beginning". But to accept those alternate views is basically to say that Christians have misinterpreted Genesis since the formation of Christianity through to this day. It seems to me that is your position in regards to Genesis 1. Of course, many rabbis have said that Christians rely on mistranslations of Old Testament material to portray Jesus as the expected messiah.

          In regards to whether Genesis 1 can be viewed as matching the geological record, the order of creation in Genesis 1 is contradicted by the fossil record and is not plausible based on our knowledge of botany, biology, etc.

          Genesis 1:11 (3rd day) – And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

          Genesis 1:14 (4th day) – And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

          Genesis 1:20 (fifth day) – And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

          Genesis 1:24-31 (sixth day) – And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind...And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

          According to Genesis 1, plants such as grass and trees existed before the sun. We know today that plants need sunlight for photosynthesis, so that sequence is implausible. The fossil record shows that gymnosperms, i.e., seed producing plants appeared about about 390 million years ago. Life in the oceans goes back far longer than that. E.g., trilobite fossils go back at least 540 to 520 million years ago. Stromatolite fossils date back to more than 3.5 billion years ago. Creatures lived upon the land long before any flew over it.

          Genesis 2, which seems to have elements borrowed from Sumerian mythology within it, has a different order of creation, likely due to Genesis 1 being written by the Priestly Source whereas the older creation story in Genesis 1 was written by the Yahwist. In Genesis 2, Yahweh creates man before plants, the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air. That story, too, is contradicted by the fossil record, which shows man to be a relatively new arrival among the organisms populating the earth. It is quite implausible that humans could have existed before plants and animals and the fossil record contradicts that sequence for the appearance of life on earth.

          In regards to a formless or void state, i.e. "chaos", preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos, there are are also traces of chaoskampf myths of other religions of the Ancient Near East in the Bible. In chaoskampf myths the deity battles a chaos monster. Often it is a storm god fighting a sea serpent representing a clash between the forces of order and chaos. For example, Baʿal versus. Yam (Canaanite), Marduk versus Tiamat (Babylonian), Ra versus Apep (Egyptian), and Yahweh versus Leviathan (Jewish).

          Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:21 states in regards to the great sea monsters Yahweh creates in Genesis 1:21: "God created the great sea monsters—taninim. According to legend this refers to the Leviathan and its mate. God created a male and female Leviathan, then killed the female and salted it for the righteous, for if the Leviathans were to procreate the world could not stand before them."

          Job 3:3-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+3%3A3-8&version=CJB) mentions Leviathan while Job 41:1–34 describes the great sea monster in detail. Isaiah 27:1 (http://biblehub.com/isaiah/27-1.htm) states that Yahweh will battle the remaining sea monster at Judgment Day:

          "In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword– his fierce, great and powerful sword– Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea."

          In regards to your comment about "very advanced past cultures, which incidentally also kinda coincide with many of earths most ancient stories", I presume you are referring to the Atlantis legend, which Plato mentioned in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias circa 360 BCE. The Atlantis of Plato's dialogues appears to be a fictional creation meant to represent his conceptualized ideal state. Many centuries later the legend has been so embellished that many people today imagine there was some super advanced civilization that existed in the ancient past and it has become a popular element in some science fiction and fantasy books. It is an example of how myths and legends can grow well beyond relatively humble beginnings over time.

          February 18, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Alon, i read every word and i will try to do it justice because those are fair points and questions.

          Your Jeremiah explanation is spot on. Its all true... Still the scriptures themselves indicate that we find ideas from scripture woven throughout like a tapestry. It is a systematic teaching that reinforces itself throughout in every major theme. The same can be said with the thread of destruction and yet "preserving a seed". Also being EXTREMELY poetic throughout, I believe this is poetically reinforcing the theme in Genesis 1 because as you note the language is basically the same in regards to the destruction.

          I also subscribe to the thought that there have been many "beginnings" and many "ends" and yet we do see at least very small pockets of life of some sort, preserved even through the worst.

          Regarding the 4th day, I addressed it elsewhere but basically on the first day we had simple light... this was not the CREATION of light it was the diffused light trying to cut through an atmosphere cluttered with ash, earth, debris, steam and since it struck the Yucatan, WATER... So we see the light filtering through and yet we still cannot see the heavenly bodies... the sun the moon and the stars...

          When we come to the 4th day now, we see that by now... we can see NOT JUST the sun, but the moon and the stars. In the translations many times it stated "God created" but in the Hebrew "created" should be rendered "Caused to appear".

          It was allowed to finally be seen clearly because by now the atmosphere has finally been healed and cleared...

          Now whats REALLY cool is the waters that were separated from the waters, and a firmament called "atmosphere" was between them...

          And im not referring to Atlantis per se... but rather the idea of atlantis... I believe it is ENTIRELY possible that this earth has seen technology in it's distant past... possibly even very different and in ways more advanced than ours.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          Wolfbitn, as for intelligent life in the rest of the universe, I think is is unlikely that the Earth is the only planet in the universe that harbors intelligent life. And I think it is quite possible that there are beings elsewhere that may be far more technologically advanced than humans, so that they may be capable of interstellar travel.

          Since we have not yet even fully explored our own solar system, I don't think we can even state definitively that life does not exist elsewhere in our own solar system, even if it might only be at the level of complexity of bacteria. We have not fully explored Mars yet and there might be life on Ti_tan or Enceladus, which are moons of Saturn. The Cassini spacecraft has detected water ice, methane, carbon dioxide, propane, ethane, and complex organic compounds in plumes ejected from Enceladus. Ti_tan has complex organic chemistry with hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and seas and lakes of liquid methane. On Earth, life uses water as a solvent for chemical reactions, but it is possible that life elsewhere, such as on Ti_tan, might use methane.

          February 19, 2014 at 12:22 am |
  20. Alias

    I would suggest we all stop feeding the troll woflbitn, but it would be too easy for it to just switch names and start over.
    Besides, even though making fun of the mentally disabled is rude, I love some of its posts.

    February 16, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Let it keep spewing. It does the belief system it fights for no justice and only makes itself look the fool. I'm still waiting for it to define Atheistic Cosmology but like many other claims that it can't back, I suspect this is just another one and so it evades the question in favor of its 'holier than thou' arrogance.

      February 17, 2014 at 6:56 am |
      • Alias

        After reviewing some of our new best friends comments, I find it amusing that his arguments start with his interpretation of old manuscripts. He genuinely has no concept that his bias will make his conclusions totally unreliable.
        Add to that his frequent demand that all evidence be peer reviewed when his own 'study' was done without any formal education or review by others.
        We need this guy here. Especially since the old reliable christards seem to be scared away by the new forum.

        February 17, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • tallulah131

          The guy is either a very clever troll or terribly out of touch with reality.

          February 17, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • wolfbitn

          It says what it says... I didnt write it nor do I make up the meaning. I present the Hebrew word with it's translation... live with it and get over it 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Alias

          How do you explain why your interpretation/translation is better that the one most other people use?

          February 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Yes we do need him, just like we need Austin. I think these people tend to forget that it's not just the 30 and up generation who read what they are writing here. Most kids these days are not as sheltered because they have the internet, so if they happen to run across these articles wolf and Austin's tales are almost certain to give the belief a bad name. Why would anyone wish to belong to a group where arrogance and self righteousness rein high? Where they speak of hate and denying rights to others?
          I would love to know why LionlyLamb disappeared but I think that happened long before the change. As for Live4Him, I am guessing he is one who was using many aliases and simply got upset that his game was up.

          February 17, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Alias you asked:
          "How do you explain why your interpretation/translation is better that the one most other people use?"
          It was not for a very long time an unusual take on these passages. It is a very old thought. It was nearly wiped out. Today there are many who see this as I do, especially those who know and understand the Hebrew, or at least know the implications made form the Hebrew. Some of us are of a brand that want to know what it originally said AND implied. The original language as you can understand,is absolutely key to catch the intent sometimes.

          February 17, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          Truth Prevails... what a name for someone who is intentionally so insulting and condescending. Your hatred for my kind is dripping like saliva from fangs. It's too bad you wont accept my challenge to debate... I would grant you no mercy 🙂

          February 17, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          wolf: I don't hate the believer, I hate the belief and when people like you use it to justify hating others or denying equal rights. Keep it in your home and church and out of the public view and all will be well.
          You speak over people...you're another Ken Ham. Why would anyone give you any amount of time when you really don't care to hear another opinion?
          However I challenge you to call Matt Dillahunty at the the Atheist Experience and ATTEMPT to debate him (if you're brave enough to, that is).

          February 18, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • wolfbitn

        That is a fairly stupid question... An atheistic cosmology would be a cosmology biased by and therefore limited by your atheism. You guys really have a hard time understanding English... which may explain your hatred for those who do

        February 18, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          wolf: Not at all a stupid question when you are the one mincing definitions. Atheism only defines a lack of belief in any god, nothing more!
          Stop the holier than thou crap...it proves nothing more than your arrogance and ignorance.

          February 18, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          no no it proves scientific bias. Science is NOT biased, and certainly no christian or atheist should be biased when studying fact... actual physical evidence. You study it with the bias of an atheist and youll be assured of bias in the outcome. Hence your ignorance is showing when you say you can study science from a biased point of view and not objectively... science is objective not biased and you KNOW this. So yeah not only was it a stupid question, it is just a stupid thing to be biased and then say you objectively studied or tested...

          February 18, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          stop spinning this! You refuse to define it and make it my issue that you're too inept to...WOW!
          I'm not giving you the battle you're looking for...you're an infantile idiot, nothing more!

          February 19, 2014 at 6:08 am |
        • wolfbitn

          Why are you running from moderated debate? Because you cant do anything but lose in one and you know it.

          February 19, 2014 at 9:49 am |
        • Alias

          @wolfbitr,
          Here is a docmented sourse that says your translation has been tried before, and it is wrong.
          http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/without_form_and_void.html
          Have a nice day DEBATING THAT! 🙂

          February 19, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • wolfbitn

          yeah... God forbid you would use something reputable like an actual Hebrew lexicon 🙂

          February 19, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.