home
RSS
June 17th, 2014
02:36 PM ET

'Cosmos': the creationist version

"Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it.

Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping? Weigh in below.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (1,386 Responses)
  1. bostontola

    This video is intended to be funny. Some people laugh, some get offended, some are somewhere in between. I would expect no different reaction to any comedy video on any topic(s).

    It does raise some interesting questions though for the people who know God.

    Does God have a sense of humor?

    Are humans allowed to make God the center of a joke?

    Many humans think jokes are funny until it is centered on them, that is human weakness, does God have a similar weakness?

    June 18, 2014 at 7:46 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      We know the Father best by looking at the life of Jesus since Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." And when Jesus gave His sermon in Luke 6, when he says:

      "Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye."

      Surely, Jesus is using hyperbole in saying that a log can be in a man's eye. I'm sure that was intended to get a grin – but in even getting us to grin, there was an intent to teach a lesson. So if you're asking if God would do something just for the simple purpose of getting a laugh? I don't know, there's no record of that that I am aware of. But a sense of humor with an intent to teach a lesson? Absolutely.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:18 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      One thing we DO know for sure though...

      Galatians 6:7 – Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:19 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        i love this quote; main reason is as follows.
        "Galatians 6:7 – Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

        what religion has reaped from what they have sown over the past few milliniums?
        war,
        prosecution
        ethnic extermination
        poverty
        segregation
        discrimination
        disease

        the list goes on and on, any questions ask for examples or just open a newspaper.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:32 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        Theo....you don't know ANYTHING for sure. You are guessing just like all of us.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          If you wish to retreat into solipsism, then that's your right. But just because you feel that you don't know anything for sure outside of your own mind, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world shares your philosophy.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:48 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....you do not know anything for sure. I'm really not understanding why you can't grasp that simple concept. You don't have evidence of life after death. You don't have proof that god exists. You don't know for sure what your purpose even is. You are just guessing. If there was proof, we would all believe. There is not.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:52 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Theo....you do not know anything for sure. I'm really not understanding why you can't grasp that simple concept. You don't have evidence of life after death. You don't have proof that god exists. You don't know for sure what your purpose even is. You are just guessing. If there was proof, we would all believe. There is not."
          --------------------
          If Jesus had never walked this earth, your case might have some footing. But point of fact, Jesus did live, and He presented Himself as God to the masses, providing evidence through miracles, and finally furnishing proof to all men by raising from the dead. And libraries of irrefutable material have been written to validate the claims of the Bible.

          Because Jesus lived, we KNOW...

          June 18, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....I believe Jesus lived. I also believe Mohammed lived. I also believe Joseph Smith lived. And I believe Gilgamesh lived. What I don't believe is any of the embellished stories about any of them, even though their 'bibles' state their stories as fact. Why would you choose one particular book story over another then claim your book is the only true one? Delusion, that's all.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:20 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Theo:
          Do you have faith?
          If so, that means you don't know for sure, you just act as if you do.
          That is what it means to accept a proposition on faith.

          In the words of the great philosopher "Lint" Armstrong:
          "All I know is that I don;t know nothing – and that's fine."

          June 18, 2014 at 9:20 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Why would you choose one particular book story over another then claim your book is the only true one? Delusion, that's all.
          ----------------
          Because the life of Jesus is the only story that, through much scholarly inquiry, has not been found wanting.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo..,,that is completely wrong. It has not been found wanting by Christian theologians. It has not been found to be anything more worthy than a story by the secular world. The Quran has not been found wanting by Muslim theologians. I don't believe them either. Your book is no more valid than their book.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Except, of course, for the story of His birth which is historically inaccurate.
          And what was He up to for the 2 decades not described in the Gospels?
          Maybe the reason he took up the Messiah gig is because He failed his carpentry apprenticeship...

          June 18, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Do you have faith?
          If so, that means you don't know for sure, you just act as if you do."
          -------------
          That's not the definition of faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

          I have hope in salvation through the life of Jesus, having never seen Him with my own eyes, I have become convicted of the truths that He taught, first through the revelation of the natural world that proves to every man that "a" god is necessary, secondly through the specific revelation of the Bible which, through scholarly inquiry has not been found wanting, and lastly through my spirit, which His spirit has born witness that I have been saved from the stranglehold of the power of sin and its consequences.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....there is nothing wrong with hope. There is, however, something wrong with attributing hope with reality. You don't know anything for sure, regardless of what you hope will happen. You do not know for sure

          June 18, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          And theo.....nothing 'proves' that a god is necessary. That is total speculation on your part. There simply is no proof, period

          June 18, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Hoped for, unseen things = unproven.
          You do not KNOW – you fervently wish and behave as if it were fact.
          If you have proven facts, it negates the need for faith.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Proof does not solely rest in the results of scientific inquiry. You must realize that science is absolutely useless in the study of certain things. Epistemology envelopes MUCH more than scientific inquiry. And if men rely solely on science to obtain truth, then it's no wonder that so many people retreat into solipsism.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....you reject everything scientific theory shows that conflicts with your philosophical bent and belief. That is insane.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          "Truth" outside of science and mathematics usually just boils down to popular opinion. Without the safeguards against personal bias that science uses, how do you know that what you feel is true through religious experience isn't just your personal opinion?

          June 18, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          ""Truth" outside of science and mathematics usually just boils down to popular opinion. Without the safeguards against personal bias that science uses, how do you know that what you feel is true through religious experience isn't just your personal opinion?"
          -----------------------
          Be careful in that in your desire to discredit what I posit as truth, you also negate all that scientists have ever said about our origins. (remember cosmogony is one of the areas where science is absolutely useless) Science and mathematics can serve to prove nothing if that which it posits is not observable, nor aligns with reality.

          Therefore negated through the nature of being unverifyable "science" must include ideas such as big bang cosmology, gravitational singularity, quantum gravity, string theory, multiple universe theory, panspermia, loop quantum cosmology, and on, and on, and on...

          June 18, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Theo Puffy Words conveniently ignores the fact that science and the scientific method do not require that something be directly observable. . ."
          ----------------–
          Really? That IS news to me! I have always understood that for something to be termed "scientific," any method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence... In other words, just because you have a theory based on a math problem, it isn't automatically scientific if it isn't testable.

          Based on what YOU just said, zombies are now scientific even though they aren't directly observable. There are math formulas that depict methods of zombie infestations, so it MUST be scientific.
          See: “Mathematical Modeling of Zombies” (University of Ottawa Press, 2014), Robert J. Smith

          June 18, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....there are govt regulations on what to do in the event of a zombie apocalypse

          June 18, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Theo....there are govt regulations on what to do in the event of a zombie apocalypse"
          ---------–
          Just in case there was any doubt that the government wastes our tax dollars...

          June 18, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          What predictions made by zombie math have been tested and proven valid?
          --------------------–
          The U.S. Center for Disease Control has a "Zombie Apocalypse" plan because "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack."

          Although epidemiology is an important field of study, using a fictional "zombie virus" to illustrate how quickly an illness can become a global pandemic as an exercise in the mathematical principle of epidemiology is not without problems. Being that zombies are fictional, everyone makes assumptions about them. Is it a virus? Are they just monsters? Are they cursed into being zombies? Is it magic? It all depends on who you ask, so if a scientist assumes that zombification is accomplished through a virus, then he can develop mathematics along those lines.

          The same is true of origins. What assumptions are being made that directed the mathematics of those who would make claims to that which can never be observed?

          The point is, if it can't be observed and doesn't align with reality, it isn't scientific, no matter WHAT math you have to back up your claims.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • Akira

          Not that I agree with the zombie apocalypse theory, mind you, but if one happened, you know people would inevitably ask, "Why didn't the government prepare for this??" in incredulous, outraged voices.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          theo. Not sure if you're serious but in case you are – from the CDC site

          Wonder why Zombies, Zombie Apocalypse, and Zombie Preparedness continue to live or walk dead on a CDC web site? As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform. We continue to reach and engage a wide variety of audiences on all hazards preparedness via Zombie Preparedness; and as our own director, Dr. Ali Khan, notes, "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack." So please log on, get a kit, make a plan, and be prepared!

          June 18, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Not that I agree with the zombie apocalypse theory, mind you, but if one happened, you know people would inevitably ask, "Why didn't the government prepare for this??" in incredulous, outraged voices."
          -----------–
          I suppose you're right... It just seems more of a task suited to Steven Spielberg rather than the CDC...

          June 18, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          As far as cosmogony goes, science has gotten us from the various creation myths, through the flat universe model, all the way to the Big bang theory and Hawking's work. "Useless" would be if we just settled with the Genesis story and others like it.

          Clearly you have not been watching the actual Cosmos series. Seems like people like you always claim that something is "unverifiable" until some scientist develops an experiment that changes all that.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • kudlak

        If this video does not correctly portray God, then he should not feel mocked by it, right?

        The fact that you feel that he should feel mocked would then indicate that you see some truth in it.

        June 18, 2014 at 10:20 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Some of God's prophets at least have a sense of humour.
      In 1 Kings 18, Elijah rips a good zinger on the worshippers of Baal, suggesting that the reason their god didn't win a contest with Jahweh was because he was taking a nap, or maybe on the celestial sh1tter.

      'Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.'

      June 18, 2014 at 8:33 am |
  2. MadeFromDirt

    This video is not funny, so that leaves the alternative, which will not be funny either for the producers, absent the grace of their Creator. But it is instructive, although not in a way the producers intended.

    My biggest complaint about it is that it sets up strawmen and attacks false presumptions about what the Bible really says. The underlying attack on misplaced blind faith is summed up when it says "the Bible says don't ask why." That is totally wrong about what the Bible says, but I can't really fault the producers for having that impression. The mentality of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is one of the damaging approaches taken by evangelism today. Living in the Spirit of Christ means, among other things, using the minds that God gave us to seek His truth with the confidence that God through our endeavors will draw us closer to Him, who is the only source of knowledge and wisdom. Christians should continually ask questions, seek reasons, test our understanding, and contemplate the deepest mysteries. Doing so reveals more and more about the wondrous nature of our Creator and His will.

    June 18, 2014 at 4:15 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Actually doing so reveals the wondrous nature of...well nature. Your god remains conspicuously absent.

      June 18, 2014 at 6:55 am |
    • Reality

      When I was a Christian, I continually asked questions. The answers are within the following:

      The Apostles' Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

      Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen
      (References used are available upon request.)

      June 18, 2014 at 7:30 am |
      • awanderingscot

        you've revealed you were never really one of us. you're an apostate.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:16 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Judge not lest ye be judged....Reality has not revealed such a thing. If anything Reality has proven he/she has gained knowledge of the book for what it is and comprehends logic. If anything Reality has proven that he/she cares about peer-reviewed evidence.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:27 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If you're calling Reality an apostate, that means he was once "one of you".
          You cannot abandon a religion you never adopted in the first place....

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM

          June 18, 2014 at 8:37 am |
        • awanderingscot

          They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. – 1 John 2:19, NKJV

          June 18, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • G to the T

          "you've revealed you were never really one of us. you're an apostate."

          By definition, an apostate is one you used to beleive something but now doesn't. So you statement is completely contradictory (not to mention offensive).

          June 18, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • G to the T

          "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us"

          Yes – a very convenient way to dismiss the beliefs of others out of hand without actually having to assess what it is they believed in the first place, and why they no longer believe those things.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:42 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      We get the impression in reading Genesis that one of Adam's tasks was to investigate and experience this fascinating world that God had created. And so that fascination of the world around us continues until this day.

      But in as much as the scientist wishes to dig into the intricacies of the natural realm around us as long as he sticks to means of scientific investigation, he will only ever be able to see this world in light of secondary causes.

      Until he realizes that his own devices of investigation are flawed in the sense that they are completely useless in investigating certain aspects of this present reality – namely, cosmogony – then he will never be able to see reality as it truly is, and he will be forever trapped into thinking that secondary causality is all that exists.

      But as long as his investigations delve only into those things which are dependant in nature for their own existence, his only destination is insanity for answering the "why" and ultimate "how" questions of existence.

      June 18, 2014 at 7:33 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        That's rather circular...using the book written about this god to defend the stories. Circular reasoning fails because you have yet to prove outside of the book that your god exists. You merely apply everything to this god because your book tells you the way it is.
        This video is extremely accurate when you look at it from the outside in.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Actually, it's not circular reasoning because we have the life of Jesus.

          And there are LOTS of extra-Biblical evidence that backs up the claims of the Bible regarding Messiah. And I have given extensive reading lists on this blog before regarding that as well.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....it's circular. Get over it. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it, not because there is proof. You are no different from any other cult member.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:43 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No we have nothing. What you have are stories and studies that all revert back to the same book and set of beliefs without one iota of peer-reviewed evidence to support that your god even exist. If jesus existed, there is no evidence of him resurrecting...nothing was written about him until 30-40 years after he died, making those stories extremely unreliable.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          TruthPrevails1,
          You haven't studied, so do not proclaim as fact, that which you declare in ignorance. Name 3 books on textual criticism that you've read in the last year.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:42 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Seems you're claiming facts her also while using circular reasoning. You're no more any expert than anyone else here is and you shouldn't assume stuff about people just because you disagree-that's simply arrogant. It is a well known fact that nothing was written about your jesus until 30-40 years after his apparent death. We know that there is no scientific evidence supporting a resurrection. We know that the main way stories passed back then was via word of mouth, we know further based on that, that over time stories tend to get embellished...so thus we know that given the complete lack of evidence outside of the bible for this, the stories are very highly unlikely to be accurate. We can expect some bits of realistic things in the bible...most good stories throw in things-it makes the story more plausible.
          I know enough to do my research and to look at things according to the evidence presented...so far none of it supports your god or any other god So please don't make assumptions when you yourself are rather biased.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:51 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          You're claiming that I'm the one making assumptions when your post was absolutely loaded with them. The difference between you and me is that I can point to a list of books that prove you wrong.

          And we DO have scientific proof of God. Science is what, seeing, touching, that sort of thing? Well, Jesus was on earth, He was observed to do miracles, and so on... You just automatically refute anything I could ever say about His life because He doesn't fit your worldview. And because no one alive today has seen Jesus, it makes it easy for you to dismiss Him.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:59 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          That was quite the load of bull!! Point to one peer-reviewed paper that proves your god.
          I don't accept your claims, it's that simple. I see many reasons not to, just you have chosen to ignore the evidence against your bible.
          Call it what you wish, this debate only ends when we see the fall of the church...it will happen, just not soon enough.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Call it what you wish, this debate only ends when we see the fall of the church...it will happen, just not soon enough."
          ---------------
          And that will one day happen, but thankfully it will only last for 7 years.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • fintronics

          Or this guy.....

          http://www.truthaboutstair.com/

          June 18, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        "We get the impression in reading Genesis that one of Adam's tasks was to investigate and experience this fascinating world that God had created."

        well i get the "impression" that genesis is just a very boring story........and the link-pin in the whole "original sin" guilt trip the religious leaders use to keep the money flowing.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:39 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      How extremely biased! Of course you see this god in everything, you fail to see that nothing proves its existence therefore everything is the result of your god, although Muslims would see it differently.
      Your version is no more plausible than that of anyone else.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:04 am |
    • awanderingscot

      i agree with you Dirt, this video attacks a simple faith in God for which there is nothing to be ashamed of. i'm personally not offended because it once again shows the pride, ignorance, and animosity of people who are without God.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:11 am |
      • observer

        awanderingscot

        "it once again shows the pride, ignorance, and animosity of people who are without God."

        You continue to project your personality onto others. Examples of each trait can easily be found in comments YOU have made.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:51 am |
    • kudlak

      Ok, what the Bible really says is "Accept our answer, and don't bother trying to discover the real one."

      June 18, 2014 at 10:18 am |
  3. sealchan

    It is a fine line between a universe that can explain itself through its internal consistencies as a rational proposition and the universe being intelligible as a final outcome on faith in human rationality and the universe's apparent ability to "know itself". Of course, with no one smarter around, we naturally appear to be quite intelligent and know "everything there is" to know.

    June 17, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
    • evolveddna

      Sealcan.. who said we know every thing there is to know? That is the position of religion, but science and human intelligence is finding out new things every day, and also disproving things we thought were correct at one time. The universe has gained consciousness though us, at least on this planet,,and who knows where else the same thing has happened.

      June 17, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
  4. sealchan

    Treating the creation story in Genesis as a literal truth somehow directly communicated from God to a person just doesn't do God justice. If it was so easy for God to explain how he created the Universe, then it probably wasn't what you would call a "technical description". The Genesis creation story is an amazingly good one if you compare it to other creation myths. It would, I suspect, stand up better than most others as far as conformity to today's scientific perspective.

    I suspect that the 7th Century BC authors/recorders of this story probably wanted to paint as straight-forward a picture as possible of creation and so produced a fairly "common sense" story. However, given the science at the time,

    The beauty of faith is that God does not have to be proven to exist in order for belief to work its effect. At the same time, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to God's laws. As far as nature is concerned, science is the best reader of those laws.

    All good humor, it seems, comes from taking a short cut to "truth" such that a sufficient amount of "effort" is avoided. This video is no exception. So we laugh because we realize how "nice" it would be if it were that easy.

    Could someone produce a video that mocks science for being right but irrelevant to today's practical needs? I don't mean, of course, to ignore all the technology we have and rely upon to get through the day, but maybe we must wait for science to develop practical results before it registers as relevant to most people. Science could also be seen as enabling war, global environmental destruction, economic exploitation...many of today's greatest problems.

    June 17, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
    • bostontola

      Could someone produce a video that mocks science for being right but irrelevant to today's practical needs? I don't mean, of course, to ignore all the technology we have and rely upon to get through the day, but maybe we must wait for science to develop practical results before it registers as relevant to most people.
      –> Over 100 years ago people used science to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and make large amounts of fertilizer. Without that, most people would starve. You could say it also ushered in overpopulation. You can't have it both ways. What about all the medical science that saves and extends lives and enables better quality of life? That's practical to me. Weather science warns people of impending disasters, saving lives, again pretty practical. The list goes on and on. Science has greatly improved quality of life.

      Science could also be seen as enabling war, global environmental destruction, economic exploitation...many of today's greatest problems.
      –>Science is nothing more than knowledge. How it is used is up to people. Intelligence services have been used long before science to gain knowledge useful in war. We all should hope that humans use knowledge wisely so we don't destroy ourselves. I think our track record has been very good. When we learn of negative effects, we eventually find ways to fix it. The problem now is how fast we generate knowledge. Can we be just as fast at fixing the unintended negative effects.

      June 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
      • saggyroy

        Just go to you tube and look up Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. Then you can always visit Answers in Genesis, or go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. You could probably even watch C-SPAN to watch science denying legislators tell us that we don't have to worry about climate change because god gave us dominion over the Earth. You don't have to look too hard.

        June 18, 2014 at 5:27 am |
    • ddeevviinn

      I am very curious as to your basis for determining how an infinite, creator God should or should not act/communicate, and if you think your finite mind is adequate to make such a determination?

      June 17, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        But that is what all believers do devin...and then they deny they are doing it.

        June 18, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          No cheese, there is a real difference. I do not derive my thoughts about God based on how I FEEL he should act or communicate, but rather on how HE has told me He acts and communicates. World of difference. Now I know we completely disagree on the nature and validity of the bible, but that is a separate issue.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:42 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Devin....people that hear voices in their head are usually locked away in Bellevue.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Not really. The fact that you think the bible makes sense as to how God acts and communicates is itself a judgement. Just because you have judged it correct does not change that.

          And the fact that you reject other religions that empirically are just as valid as yours is also a judgement.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          The issue is the ability, or lack thereof, of the human mind to determine what " does God justice".

          I'll go out on a limb here and state that every philosophical thought and idea you have formulated over the years is based solely upon what seems " right" to your rational way of thinking. This is not the case for me. The God that I follow does not operate and is not confined to the rational parameters which I may have established in my mind.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "The God that I follow does not operate and is not confined to the rational parameters which I may have established in my mind."

          So you say...and the Muslims and Jews, ect, ect. can say the same thing. But you have judged those versions of god as not making as much sense as your version of god.

          And I will go out on a limb as well. You have judged your version of CHristianity to be the correct, or more correct version over others.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          I've stated previously that I do not subscribe to this argument from multiplicity. The fact that there exists a multi tude of faith's, each one claiming to have the real scoop on truth, this does not negate the possibility that there does exist one true path and that the designer of that path has made it known.

          I understand how this could be perceived as pure arrogance on my part. I can only tell you that in reality it is quite the opposite.

          Need sleep.

          As always, enjoyed the conversation. Have a good night Cheese.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:30 am |
        • MadeFromDirt

          As Ddeevviinn was saying, knowledge of God's truth (as opposed to mere belief in it) comes from understanding that all other worldviews, philosophies, and religions are devised by man for man, and only the Gospel is devised by God for God. All others are correct in recognizing man's need for reasons for existence and for solutions for the problems of evil and our separation from our infinite perfect Creator, but either covertly or obviously, they all discount and thereby deny the absolute sovereignty of our Creator, and substi-tute various aspects of humanity in God's place. The true Gospel affirms God's glory and man's helplessness. Of course, you will say that the Gospel was written by men even if it is "for God", but at least admit you cannot deny this clear distinction from all other spiritual truth-claims, which should give you pause. The true Gospel is not attractive or pleasant to human nature.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:46 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dirt....wow. The lengths you people go to in order to justify your delusional belief that you, and only you, have it right. There are billions of people out there with different nuances of faith that also think only they have it right. The height of arrogance.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:27 am |
        • igaftr

          dirt
          How sad that you claim all OTHER religions were made by man, but cannot recognize it with your religion. Not one word in the bible was put there by any gods, it was all written by men, meant to be propogated to the people...same as all religions.

          Yours is no different...a collection of stories and myths, with various supernatural claims, none of which can be verified.

          ALL religions are by men, for men. No sign of any gods.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          devin,

          It does not negate the possibility that there is one true path. My point is you had to personally judge which path that was. You judged the others wrong. You have judged what you perceive to be the most reasonable path that God laid out. In doing so you did just what you say you didn't do.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dirt,

          If you would have written "Quran" instead of "Gospel" throughout your post Muslims would be able to completely agree with it. That is how arbitrary and nondiscript it was.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Cheesemaker, there is no way to put "Quran" in place of "Gospel" in my comments, because Muslims elevate man and man's deeds at the expense of God, and they make God needy and changeable. The Gospel has none of that.

          It is difficult to convey complex principles in this limited space. I try to be as concise as possible but still I know from most responders that their attention spans are usually shorter than my comments (or at least easily diverted by their internal biases before getting to my closing point). Such is the nature of a reprobate mind, in desperate need of regeneration.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "because Muslims elevate man and man's deeds at the expense of God, and they make God needy and changeable. The Gospel has none of that."

          Now THAT was funny...

          The history of Christianity is all about making god needy and changable. You project into Islam exactly what is equatable to christianity.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Cheesemaker, no no no! Those are false versions of Christianity that make God needy and changeable. Jesus warned that there will be many who act in His name but do not fully put their trust in Him, thus He does not know them. Do not let those false teachers cloud your view of God's Gospel.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
  5. bostontola

    Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping?

    Based on the comments it's and, not or.

    June 17, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
    • sealchan

      Those who are offended should explain how the video short cuts the sense of truth portrayed by a literalist reading of the Bible. If they are just offended, they will not enlighten anyone.

      June 17, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
      • believerfred

        Get real, God does not look like a cosmic Santa. Right of the get go we have the classic mocking image of grey bearded old man in the clouds. That image is not to be found in the Bible unless the image is attempting to display Moses.

        June 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        @Fred,

        I thought it took until 1:20 in a 3:17 bit to get to the old man with a beard image – rather from 'right from the get go' as you seem to think.

        Right from the get go, the bit started with "God did it". I see that here every day.

        June 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
      • believerfred

        The Bible does not show God as an old wise cosmic Santa. What makes the Bible stand out as Divine relative to other holy books is that it expresses God as a substance unknown to man, NOT made of known things like the other gods. At best we attributes of God revealed through the Bible the predominate one being a burning holiness. A holiness that is intense and so overwhelming that Moses had to be hidden behind a rock as God passed by. This bright light common in near death experiences, knocking Saul of Tarsus of his high horse, filling the temple, the light of men........

        June 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Most satire involves some stereotyping.

      Whether it is offensive or not often depends (as it does here) on whether the observer cleaves to the stereotype.

      I thought it was sharp satire.

      June 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
  6. Vic

    Hilarious!

    The guy in the video reminds of SNL alum Kevin Nealon, very funny.

    "...cars, America made 'em but God made America, sandwiches, God made 'em, Everything, God made it....we seem to 've answered all of your questions in the first two minutes, so we are going to air colored bars with subliminal massages for the rest of our time..."

    God bless America!

    How about Pepsi Cola for subliminal messages?! LOL!

    How about an SNL Digital Short with all the subliminal messages "God did it...God did it...God did it...God did it...God did it...God did it...God did it...," isn't that the "Truth?!"

    June 17, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
    • Vic

      Oh, I believe it is sharp satire. I love it.

      I believe it can be offensive stereotyping only if it's taken out of comedy.

      June 17, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
  7. Dalahäst

    http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8d10

    June 17, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
  8. new-man

    LOL!
    This is a whole lot funnier, especially the end!

    June 17, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
    • new-man

      was meant as a reply to the video posted, which has now disappeared!
      hmmm..
      Editors, as stated in the video you've posted, equal time to all sides would be nice!

      June 17, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
      • sealchan

        I see the Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox parody now

        June 17, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
  9. Dalahäst

    ddeevviinn

    Did you post a video and it is now gone?

    June 17, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      Yes, I just posted again.

      Perhaps we stepped on someone's sensitive toes ?

      June 17, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I hope it was an accident, not a sensitive editor censoring.

        June 17, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • CNN Belief Blog EditorCNN

          Please don't post videos on the blog, folks. We have to get the legal rights to post videos on our site. I appreciate the desire for equal time but please make your points with words instead of videos.

          thanks,
          Daniel

          June 17, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That's a justified issue to be sensitive about!

          June 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Daniel

          Is this " legal rights" issue a recent development ?

          June 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are currently videos posted on the blog in other threads.

          June 17, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • Doris

          Daniel, with all due respect – one day I made a point of replying to this video music post that someone makes frequently and usually on every single article visible from a current BB page (Coldplay cover by "MYM"). I replied with a video that conveyed religious opinion. My videos replies were removed leaving the lame music videos that many here have come to abhor. So what exactly are your rules on videos?

          June 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • CNN Belief Blog EditorCNN

          Our rules are no videos. If I find them, I have to remove them, sorry to say.

          thanks,
          Daniel

          June 18, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • kudlak

          Editor daniel
          You might be able to prevent most videos just by making the word "youtube" one of the naughty words that can't be posted without altering, although some people seem to be able to get around it.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:34 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        try using the html coding in the url...it might be the word filter

        June 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
  10. ddeevviinn

    Tal

    In that I am primarily interested in First Cause, as opposed to how it all eventually played out, I would be fascinated to know how the "current scientific view" trumps " religious claims". I would certainly appreciate a list of peer reviewed articles and scientific literature that support this claim. Factually based sources, not those predicated upon speculation and conjecture of course.

    June 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      Sorry, meant for previous post.

      June 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
  11. bostontola

    While there are people in developed countries who believe the earth is flat, and others who believe the earth is the center of the solar system, they are very, VERY few.

    What is shocking is that there are millions of people in developed countries who believe the universe is around 10,000 years old. It is about as preposterous as the above assertions. That is a power of faith.

    June 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      bostonola....you are being too kind....it is not the power of faith, it is the power of stupidity.

      June 17, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
  12. Alias

    I didn't see anything in that vidoe that was inaccurate.

    June 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
  13. bostontola

    My daughter showed me this a few months ago, very funny. Making fun of creationism is pretty easy though, it is like making fun of the Flat Earth Society.

    June 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      http://galileowaswrong.com/

      June 17, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • bostontola

        I know, it's hard to believe.

        June 17, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        And this isn't a joke?

        June 17, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • bostontola

          That guy is selling books on geo-centrism. It may be a joke, be it is being handled as serious. He has been on TV shows, etc.

          June 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
    • igaftr

      Have you ever heard of the Breathairians. They believe that all things necessary to sustain life is in the air, and you can sustain yourself by breathing, and nothing else. No food, no water. Though some of them have been able to push the limits of human biology, not one has actually been able to go without food or water for any substantial time. When they fail, they either die, or they feel they did not believe enough to be successful.

      It is a Hindi sect, and I'm not making it up.

      June 17, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • bostontola

        It is amazing that there are people who will believe the strangest things with complete conviction.

        June 17, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
    • kudlak

      There's also the Flat Earth Society

      http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

      Creationists are far from the only people who flatly deny science. (pun intended)

      June 17, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • bostontola

        They have almost 200 members (although not all believe the earth is flat).

        June 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
  14. tallulah131

    I love funny or die. The original Drunk History episodes remain some of the funniest things I've ever seen.

    June 17, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • Akira

      Oh, I agree! Drunk History was hilarious!

      June 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        I heard on Comedy Central radio that they are bringing back Drunk History.

        June 17, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I liked the earlier ones better than the later ones. The Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr story remains my favorite.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
  15. Theo Phileo

    To the editors of CNN, how is THIS an opinion piece?

    This is nothing other than pure mockery. I'm concerned that you are in serious danger of getting splinters under your fingernails from scraping the bottom of the barrel to find such drivel.

    Mature adults can have discussions about differing ideas and worldviews without resorting to such childishness as this.

    This is enough to walk over to the CNN Center and voice a complaint personally. Take this down, this is beyond contemptable for any organization expecting civility and integrity in any of its dialog.

    June 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
    • Akira

      What is your complaint, exactly? This isn't what you believe?

      June 17, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        No. My complaint is that this isn't an opinion. It's just mockery.
        You and I have disagreed often, but have you ever once heard me mock you? Have I at any point even been disrespectful to you? It is possible to disagree without mockery. Mockery only serves to discredit the author as it sends the message of desperation.

        June 17, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • G to the T

          Couldn't it also just be increduality? Have you never heard something so outlandish that you honestly couldn't believe anyone thinks that way?

          June 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          If it's incredulity, then what exactly are they mocking? Christianity in general, or those who actually believe that fossils are a Satanic hoax? So then the question is over whether or not they are mocking those who merely CALL themselves by the name of Christ, but don't know what the Bible actually says. OR are they mocking atheists who don't know what the Bible says who are making a charicature of Christians based on their experience with Christians who didn't know what the Bible says....

          The point is, it's mockery. Not an opinion piece. And mockery is NEVER excusable. We chasten children for doing this in the classroom, and yet we allow adults to do it in their occupations.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Akira

          Why do you think it's mockery?
          My MIL sounds exactly like this. These are her beliefs.
          This is what those beliefs sound like, spoken out loud.
          Replace the narrator with my MIL, and is it mockery? No. These are her beliefs.

          Since when is belief spoken out loud mockery, when it accurately portrays the belief?
          Is it the website FoD that bothers you! If Ken Ham had narrated it, would that made any difference?

          June 17, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "when it accurately portrays the belief?"
          --------------–
          If by "the belief" you are referring to the concepts of the Bible's teachings held by some adhearants, then I grant that some certainly do honestly feel that way. But you have to agree that the tone of the video is not in opinion, but one of mockery.

          If by "the belief" you are referring to the Bible, then I challenge you to show me where the Bible says that "fossils are a deception of Satan." For that I'd recommend starting in Job 40-41.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Creationism is a mockery of the truth. There is NOTHING whatsoever to support religious claims, whereas the current scientific view is supported by a preponderance of evidence. If more evidence emerges, that view will change accordingly, because that is how one deals honestly with information.

          As long as believers pretend to offer an "alternative" history based on nothing more than their own religion, their dishonesty will be targeted for mockery.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          It's surprising to see you reference Job since that was one of the low points in the Bible for any claims that God is loving and fair.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • bostontola

          Theo,
          Mockery is a form of criticism. Criticism is valid on an opinion page imo. I agree that mockery should be used very sparingly, only in cases where the target is considered absurd and no bullying is included. I think this topic (literal creationism) and the video meet that standard. But that's just my opinion.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Ah – Job 41 has o ne of my favourite Biblical monsters – The Leviathan.
          A huge, fire breathing sea creature with an impenetrable double hide, tight scales on its back like shields and tightly joined, immovable flesh. It is so invulnerable, it is said to laugh at any weapon dreamed of by man.

          How could you possibly doubt the existence of an aquatic creature that breathes fire?

          June 17, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo
          To a lot of people, creationism is nothing more than a mockery of science.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • Akira

          By belief, I mean that what was portrayed in this clip is precisely the same belief as what many, many, MANY people believe.

          June 17, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Alias

          Doc
          Haven't you seen the latest Godzilla movie?
          That movie was made by Christians to show us something.
          The beast that starred in the show was forseen by the old testament.
          More proof we are living in the end times.
          REPENT!

          June 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • Reality

          Let the deserved mockery continue:

          JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

          Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

          Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

          Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.

          Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah/Argentinian white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

          So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?

          June 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I think Christians just have a different way of mocking others. They do it by claiming to be victims whist secretly telling themselves "Oh, they are gonna get it when they find out how right we are!" They mock the hard work and dedication of our science community impuning bad or even Satanic motives whenever the evidence points to a non-Genesis version of creation or our origins. They claim the moral high ground without realizing they share it with atheists and humanists and buddhists and muslims who have chosen peace, love and empathy above separation and exclusion based upon theology.

          As for this video, it simply mocks those who refuse to see what is right in front of their face because it's funny, not because they are working for the great Satan and are fighting against you servants of righteousness. I mean, even writing it makes me laugh a bit.

          June 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Creationism deserves to be mocked. There is nothing about it that deserves respect. In 2014 humans have advanced past the ancient mythological desert dweller phase.

          June 17, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Clearly it is an opinion.

      It is a parody in the style of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's show Cosmos.

      Perhaps what you find so offensive is just how silly creationism sounds when not cloaked in the trappings you are accustomed to hearing it in.

      June 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I thought it was a very accurate representation of christian belief...

      June 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Doris

      Theo, didn't you ever read the news paper? Think of this as being like the funny pages or the cartoon section if you will.

      June 17, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Feeling slightly persecuted? After all 'God did it' is the standardized response from Creationists-right? It's what you wish young children to believe-right? Oh and if God didn't do it but stood by and allowed it to happen, then the answer is "God had a reason for it"...right?
      So this isn't a mockery, it's merely showing the silliness of the belief...sorry you fail to understand humor for what it is.

      June 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      If there is anything in this world that deserves to be mocked more than creationism, I have no idea what it could be.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:10 am |
  16. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    The story so far: in the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire Universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call ‘The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief’, are small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory was not widely accepted outside Viltvodle Six. – Douglas Adams (HHGTTG)

    June 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
  17. new-man

    well, this is funny.
    mr. sagan was correct, man is made from 'star stuff' – says it right there in the Bible.
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    Where did this dust come from?
    Yes, we know that dust comes from the earth, but where did the dust in the earth come from?

    The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
    Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world [cosmos]

    June 17, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • new-man

      credit: The Articles of Configuration. C.Armstrong

      June 17, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      You are right, your premise and scriptures are indeed laughable when faced with the reality of the universe.

      June 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
      • new-man

        and what exactly is the 'reality of the universe'?

        June 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          It is all the physics of our universe discovered so far that gives us a broad picture of whats out there but which contains zero supernatural phenomenon.

          June 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • new-man

          friend,
          physics, science, chemistry, gravity, magnetism etc. already existed because the creator Himself created them-without any human input. we have only stumbled upon them through our natural curiosity and God-given mental abilities.

          while these disciplines (physics etc.) serve in helping us to understand our physical world and how it functions, know that the information we've gained from all our tedious study so far is nothing compared to the information that has been provided to us by the Creator Himself.

          June 17, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          what is science but knowledge. i am amazed at some of the idiocy uttered by supposed 'scientists' such as the comment from one stating that the universe contains "zero supernatural phenomena" as if dark matter, dark energy and other supernatural phenomena in the cosmos did not exist or even better known but not fully understood supernatural phenomena here on this planet. and yet somehow these same 'scientists' can authoritatively state that a supernatural being we call God absolutely does not exist and that He could not have ever have possibly made His presence known to us much less create the cosmos. this is pure arrogant ignorance and pride. in Genesis 1:1-2 we are told the heavens and earth were created, and that the earth was without form and void in the beginning (most likely the accretion stage) and that this was before the first day (one can only guess the age of the earth and universe at this point in time) and one could point to what scripture has to say about the first day when God created light, dividing the light and the dark. Yet assuredly we would be met by the astute observations of 'scientists' saying this is because of the rotation of the earth that provides for the "day" and the "night". they reason correctly that a perfect distribution of light and dark on earth, night and day, would require a near perfect rotating sphere. but how could the "illiterate" bronze-age wanderers possibly know about this fact were it not for that supernatural phenomenon known as God. and how could they also have known then that the universe was expanding, since they did not have the tools of science we use today. they could not possibly have been told by God since "zero supernatural phenomenon" exists. right? the antidote of course for their foolish hearts and minds, 'the fear of God is the BEGINNING of wisdom but they will not turn to Him to be healed. for now we can only endure the continuance of their prideful ignorance.

          June 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • observer

          The Bible says that when the sun goes down, it then RACES around for the dawn.

          Some people are actually IGNORANT enough to think the Bible is correct.

          June 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, They could observe night and day even though they did not know the cause – we still have the terms sunrise and sunset to describe the apparent motion.

          June 17, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "as if dark matter, dark energy and other supernatural phenomena in the cosmos did not exist "

          lol. Sorry, but there is no evidence that dark matter or dark energy is supernatural in any way. It too respects certain laws of physics and quantum physics.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:04 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "happy" atheist

          "It too respects certain laws of physics and quantum physics."

          such as what? what laws of physics or quantum mechanics do these unknowns respect? the only thing we do seemingly know about them is that one attracts and the other repels, we don't know the composition or anything else about them.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Dark matter and dark energy are simply blanket terms at this point because we don't know exactly what we are looking at. At least to some extent, they do adhere to the known laws of physics, otherwise we would not have been able to detect them.

          Still nothing showing any gods.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • fintronics

          @newman... "physics, science, chemistry, gravity, magnetism etc. already existed because the creator Himself created them-without any human input. we have only stumbled upon them through our natural curiosity and God-given mental abilities. "

          WOW.... just WOW..... "the creator himself created them......"....... incredible, the delusion!

          June 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          flintronics
          It is really hard to take either of you serious when it comes to matters of fact since you do not even know if Tooth Fairy exists.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • AtheistSteve

          You're right. I don't 'know' if the Tooth Fairy exists but I suspect it doesn't based on a complete lack of evidence to the contrary and the fact that such a creature only serves to alleviate a childs concern over losing their teeth. Your God is dismissed for similar reasons. Someone in an earlier discussion asked me if I thought creation was a supernatural event. This was in response to my saying that we have no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. As I see it the question itself has 2 major problems. For one the labeling of the origin of the universe as 'creation' implies a 'creator' and second is the notion that 'natural' is an aspect that must be confined to within our universe. I see no problem with the idea that the universe and its emergence is the 'natural' consequence of the conditions that exist outside our bubble of space time. The unknowns of a reality that exists outside our universe are the same whether you believe in God or not. The only difference is between giving the underlying cause the agency of intent and intelligence or not.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:31 am |
        • believerfred

          Atheist Steve
          There is no tooth fairy and there never was one. What you are saying is that it is possible by accident or some cause or in some other space time bubble a creature like a tooth fairy, that just happens to fit a children's story character, exists.
          WOW, I now understand how a world view based on non scientific extrapolation of observed evolution cannot see how irrational it is to believe a rock turned into intelligent life.
          Can Mickey Mouse come to life from a Disney Coffee Mug given 100 billion years?

          June 19, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • AtheistSteve

          "There is no tooth fairy and there never was one."
          Right...and I explained why I believe that despite not having proof to back it up. The rest of your rant is simply foolish. Just because I can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist it doesn't follow that it's therefore possible that it does. But this is exactly the flawed argument used to wish a God into existence.

          "cannot see how irrational it is to believe a rock turned into intelligent life."
          Who believes that? I know I don't. Furthermore hydrocarbons aren't rocks and amino acids aren't rocks. Both occur naturally and both are precursors to living organisms. But if we really want to see which one of us believes in that ridiculous idea then aren't you the one saying that man was created by God from mud? Mud which is just wet powdered rock?

          You're gonna have to do better than that fred. So far every argument you posed to discredit my view is mirrored by your own flawed arguments for your God.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • believerfred

          AtheistSteve
          "There is no tooth fairy and there never was one."Right...
          =>finally an atheist that sees the Tooth Fairy for what she is.

          " The unknowns of a reality that exists outside our universe are the same whether you believe in God or not. "
          =>Based on your scientism you cannot make this statement.
          =>Proof is overwhelming that belief in God has changed mankind and our relationship in the known natural. Belief in God has a provable cause and effect relationship.
          =>Our perception of the unknown or unknowable is all we have thus belief in God changes the unknown.

          "we have no evidence of the existence of the supernatural"
          =>evidence is limited to the natural since the tools are limited to the natural out of which they are constructed. The data and conclusion are limited to the natural. Everything scientism accepts must be contained and understood in the natural.
          =>The evidence is overwhelming that the supernatural is not limited by the natural or falsifiable by the natural.
          =>Even Jesus said no proof will be given other than the sign of Jonah. Before leaving he said the testimony from believers is the what we are to give. Those are the two main main proofs in the past 2,000 years.

          "aren't you the one saying that man was created by God from mud? Mud which is just wet powdered rock?"
          =>Dust of the earth it is and from the dust of the earth rest most of current scientific speculation as to origin of life. The dust of the earth contains the necessary minerals and elements for the process of evolution to begin. The Bible does not specify the process God used and some liberal believers think it was evolution.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Hey Fred!

          I just has an anti-theist tell me that the moon is made of green cheese. He says he honestly believes that.

          Another told me the Universe (proper noun) is probably governed by wizards and fairies. Basically because Richard Dawkins says so. Oh, and Richard Dawkins mind is governed by logic and reason. That is why he is perfect and not susceptible to error. So... yea.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • AtheistSteve

          So you have no valid argument and just fall back on cherry picking. Well OK. This should be fun and every single word I pick is yours.

          Fred==> The earth contains the necessary minerals and elements for the process of evolution to begin. The Bible does not specify the process and some liberal believers think it was evolution.
          (finally a theist that sees that the origin and complexity of life is a completely natural occurrence without the need for divine intervention)

          Fred==> Our perception of the unknown or unknowable is all we have...evidence is limited to the natural...The evidence is overwhelming that the supernatural is not falsifiable...The data and conclusion are limited to the natural.
          (Gee whiz Fred I think you're finally getting it)
          Fred==> Proof is overwhelming that God has changed mankind...God has a provable cause and effect...Jesus said proof will be the sign of Jonah...he said the testimony from believers is the what we are to give. Those are the main proofs...
          (Oops...there you go contradicting yourself again. First you affirm we have no evidence and then you claim to have proof...so which is it? Well I guess that just shows how religious indoctrination damages a persons ability to reason.)

          June 19, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • believerfred

          AtheistSteve
          "a theist that sees that the origin and complexity of life is a completely natural occurrence"
          =>Genesis 1 In the beginning God........Genesis 1:11 God said let the land produce vegetation..... Genesis 1:24 let the land produce living creatures. Looks like a completely natural occurrence to me. Creator is God and creation would be the natural result from a known presence. This account from Genesis is not in conflict with all scientific consensus regarding cosmogony and biopoiesis as of today some 6,000+ years after the oral tradition as recorded in the Bible.

          The Bible is the only Holy Book that gets most things right.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred....seriously....."let the land produce vegetation". That's what you're going with as your proof? Men wrote that. They were standing amidst vegetation when they were writing it.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • redzoa

          "This account from Genesis is not in conflict with all scientific consensus regarding cosmogony and biopoiesis as of today some 6,000+ years after the oral tradition as recorded in the Bible."

          The order of creation is directly contradicted by available evidence.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • believerfred

          Atheist Steve
          "without the need for divine intervention"
          =>God does not need anything, creation is an expression of God. The Divinity of God is self evident. You look around and you must intentionally block out all senses that tend to look upward and outward when the awareness of the wonder in creation touches your soul. The atheist must deny soul and have many non scientific ways to justify this denial all of which are in conflict with the atheists naturalism. Then the atheist must pretend purpose for existence is not necessary yet it is self evident that purpose is necessary because atheists have written countless papers on meaning and purpose of life all of which are empty of soul and in conflict with existence itself. Any subset of existence with purpose and meaning for mankind contained within the larger set of existence as a whole without purpose is in fact existence without purpose and meaning. Atheism is self conflicting at almost all points.

          It is known to all those who know there is no such thing as a tooth fairy that existence must have purpose. All written history or accounts reflect mans awareness of and searching for purpose of existence. Science cannot answer such need yet it (search for purpose) exists and is manifest in mankind going back to the days of Neanderthal. You grasp onto natural laws that have predictable pattern and this is beyond doubt a predictable pattern. The Bible again gets this right as creation was a purpose onto God. The deception which atheists fall into is the same since Eve looking to the natural for purpose. The natural ends in death (as you know) and if purpose is tethered to the physical is ceases to exist upon death. A purpose onto God is tethered to a purpose that is existent regardless of the physical thus does not experience death. Just how did these ancients know such simple truth as written beginning with Genesis.

          That is Divine intervention that provides for the creation to continue because it is the nature of the creator. What evidence do you have that creation is finite? None that I know of as even our time and space construct has no possible boundaries. Even you know that matter is neither created or destroyed so any attempt to claim a possibility of non existence is nonsense or just plain denial but at a minimum contrary to your own scientism.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred....even you know that there is no proof of your god, let alone a creator. It is a guess on your part. And, the possibility of it being your particular god is 1 in 2000, since all the other gods make the same claim.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • believerfred

          redzoa
          "The order of creation is directly contradicted by available evidence."
          =>I suspect you have read all the Apologetics regarding the order of creation. Some of these theologians are very knowledgeable in various scientific disciplines yet have allowed their bias to rule known facts. Your posts reflect a very objective perspective so I would be very interested in your take as to order of creation. My perspective is that God used the power of his word as the method of creation. The results of that method did leave evidence that we are beginning to understand.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • believerfred

          gulliblenomore
          Most other Gods can be eliminated simply by virtue of the fact their substance is man made or derived from existent matter and energy. Such Gods cannot be creator as they were created either by man or out of the creation.
          Spinoza did an excellent proof of God that even Einstein found fascinating. Check it out yourself.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred.....every god can be eliminated the same way. There is absolutely no proof for any of them. 2000 years ago, a Jewish carpenter made a name for himself amongst the rabble and 2000 years later, people still believe he was some sort of divine presence. You are basing your life on the words of a few men. I will not. Thanks anyway.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          In a nutshell, the order of creation in the plain language of genesis indicates particular forms of life appearing only after others. This confounds both literal 24 hr day and day-age creationism, i.e. under either hypothesis, we should not observe a latter form existing prior to an earlier created form in the fossil record. This also confounds gap-theory creationism, because we don't see any "gaps" in the fossil record, i.e. once life appears, it continues to appear and progresses through a readily apparent evolution of forms. Furthermore, creationist flood hypotheses (e.g. hydrodynamic sorting, differential escape, floating biomes, eco-zonation) attempting to account for this scripturally-discrepant progressive order defy what is known about the order of the fossil record, i.e. we clearly see forms of similar density/ecology/biogeography separated by many, many layers of strata. This should not be the case under any of the flood models; rather creationism predicts we should see plesiosaurs alongside dolphins, pterosaurs alongside golden eagles, etc. The common examples of out of order creation are:

          1) sun created after earth; evidence = earth after sun
          2) sun created after plants; evidence = plants (i.e. photosynthesis) evolved in response to pre-existing sun.
          3) land plants created before any animals; evidence = marine organisms existed long before land plants, particularly, seed-bearing plants are found long after terrestrial organisms.
          4) birds before land animals; evidence = birds are the last of the major vertebrate cla-sses to appear with direct fossil and molecular evidence tying their evolution to dinosaurs.

          There are some particular examples in the KJV, i.e. the reference to whales in Gen 1:21. Whales have a nice fossil record indicating terrestrial origin. Particularly, the presence of vestigial hind limbs. Additionally, this relative late appearance and relationship to land mammals is corroborated by phylogenetic evidence. The evidence simply contradicts the scripture which states whales existed prior to any land animal.

          Genesis, however, is fine as allegory and as you undoubtedly know, one need not require any literalism of the creation narrative in order to accept the central tenets of Christianity, i.e. man is fallen, man cannot redeem himself, salvation through Christ. Furthermore, there is plenty of room in the unknown first cause to front load a natural process that would ultimately yield man, i.e. theistic evolution. But like literal creationism, theistic evolution, although concordant with the available science, remains a purely philosophical position given there can be no means to scientifically test the proposition.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • believerfred

          gulliblenomore
          "Fred.....every god can be eliminated the same way."
          =>no, God as revealed in the Bible cannot as the substance is not of known matter and energy as are all the other gods you are thinking about.

          " a Jewish carpenter.....people still believe he was some sort of divine presence."
          =>do not confuse God with Jesus who reflected the Glory of God in fullness. Jesus was man of Jewish descent and perhaps a carpenter in physical nature, but he was Christ and Christ, The Holy Spirit and the Father are the trinity of God. No one has seen God yet some saw Jesus and all believers have the Holy Spirit. The presence of God in Jesus was Divine without a doubt and to this day there is power in the Name of Jesus.

          "You are basing your life on the words of a few men. I will not."
          =>sorry to burst your bubble, but your belief is nothing new and did come from a few men.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred....every god can be eliminated in the same way. Every god, including yours. Every religion has their 'bible' that supposedly reveals 'their god'. Yours is absolutely no different than theirs. It holds no more weight than the Quran. You must realize that. Your book is a book. It is no different than any other book. There is no proof of any divinity except that your book tells you so.

          And....I don't 'believe' anything. I just choose not to believe in any gods because there is no verifiable proof. Only what some men said 2000 years ago.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • believerfred

          redzoa
          "There are some particular examples in the KJV, i.e. the reference to whales in Gen 1:21"
          =>"whales" only shows up in the KJV and a few translations that are dependent on the KJV. The word actually referred to big fishes. The KJV was a translation by 47 scholars from the Church of England. I like to check against various translations if there is some question. In this case I note only 4 out of 22 main translations say whale and rest say great sea monsters/ creatures and some say dragons.
          =>I doubt the original meaning was whale if Moses wrote it in 1440 BC. whereas the English in 1535AD would see the big or great fishes as whales.

          June 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • believerfred

          redzoa
          "1) sun created after earth; evidence = earth after sun"
          There is significant difference in the word create and the word made. In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth. In Genesis 1:2 the earth is now formless, dark and empty. I have no idea what happened and we are not told, but since the sun was "made" and not created it was already existing. God did not create the sun after the earth. God on day four made what was already created to be a light in the expanse of the earth. All of the old evidence we discover from 3 billion years ago may have existed in the empty and dark earth before day one of creation.

          2) sun created after plants; evidence = plants (i.e. photosynthesis) evolved in response to pre-existing sun.
          =>No, light was on day one of creation story. This could have been from various sources but light not the sun is necessary for photosynthesis. Lights in day 4 may have only signified as stated "to mark the seasons, days, navigation etc.". Sometime after vegetation and before creatures the sun, moon and stars were in position as we know them today.

          3) land plants created before any animals; evidence = marine organisms existed long before land plants, particularly, seed-bearing plants are found long after terrestrial organisms.
          =>Biological classification is somewhat "new" and a system of man not God beginning with perhaps Aristotle in 334 BC. Marine organisms were classified such much latter in time.
          As to seed bearing plants I have no idea which plants Genesis is referring or why we do not see them until after terrestrial organisms. Lack of evidence does not mean there were no such plants.

          4) birds before land animals; evidence = birds are the last of the major vertebrate cla-sses to appear with direct fossil and molecular evidence tying their evolution to dinosaurs.
          =>Now that is a problem for Moses because I need to go out on a long limb without a tree trunk to explain how science gets it wrong. Perhaps I should let Ken Ham respond to you on that.

          June 20, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • believerfred

          Guliblenomore
          "And....I don't 'believe' anything"
          =>Impossible, everyone has a belief otherwise they could not function. Your belief could be diagnosed in a less than a minute. For example if you think solipsism defines you then your posts say otherwise. My guess is you suffer from naturalism yet lack the knowledge to recognize the lack of evidence to validate your belief.

          June 20, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred....I despise labels, and I despise people that think they have to pigeonhole every person to fit some sort of life system to make themselves seem right. I believe when science proves new theories, but, I don't believe in any gods, Call it whatever you want if that makes you feel better, but frankly, I don't give a fvck what anybody that believes the bible has to say.....usually about anything. If they are nuts in their spiritual life, they are generally nuts outside of it as well.

          June 20, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • new-man

          fred,
          you've done a fantastic job using the information we've been given in scripture bolstered by real science to explain what we currently understand of God's creation.
          I hope you're copying down what you've written as I'm sure you'll be asked these same questions again and again.

          I know we share similar beliefs regarding Genesis and so I'd love to recommend Carl's book: The Articles of Configuration. The Genesis Project. What Happened Before Genesis Began?

          or you can check out his more detailed writings here: dayspringfromonhigh
          Blessings friend!

          June 20, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          new-man....only to you has he done a fantastic job. However, if you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, you have lost all credibility in whatever you say after that.

          June 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • believerfred

          gulliblenomore
          You can throw all the hissy fits you want but you know that you do have beliefs. The fact you reject all gods and are personally hostile towards Christians strongly suggests beliefs. We have been down this path before and you are highly sensitive to any suggestion that you are not 100% free of all genetic and socioeconomic affects upon who you are. Nonsense.

          June 20, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fred....hissy fits? Really? What are you, 12? No....I object to anybody that climbs up on their high horse to portend that they know anything about me at all based on some postings on a blog page. I have already told you in previous postings that I believe only what is proven by science. I have no religious musings whatsoever. Label it all you want, but I consider myself an atheist, which, by definition, says I do not believe in any gods. If god came down and visited me at Starbucks, I would probably change my mind. Until then, a 2000 year old book is not my idea of defining morality.

          June 20, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • believerfred

          guliblenomore
          " I believe only what is proven by science."
          Yes, that belief has a name. A very specific one that is the core dogma of the majority of atheists.

          June 21, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • believerfred

          gulliblenomore
          " I believe only what is proven by science."
          =>Has science proven the universe has no purpose?

          June 21, 2014 at 1:31 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          Fred==>Has science proven the universe has no purpose?

          Has religion proven that stars have a purpose? Let me guess...it's to provide pretty points of light in the night sky for our viewing pleasure.
          Science has nothing to say about the purpose of anything.
          Science seeks only to determine 'how' something occurs. Religion professes to know 'why' something occurs, without proof and always in the context of how it pertains to the cosmic significance of our existence. Such unmitigated arrogance. Get over yourself...we aren't that important and in the grand scheme of things we don't matter at all as far as the unfolding of the universe is concerned. The origin and evolution of life and intelligence is interesting, mysterious even but by no means is it evident that it was crucial. The universe could just as easily, in fact more likely, have expanded without these things occurring, utterly lifeless, so then what purpose would it serve? If the purpose of the universe rests solely on the development of life and intelligence, specifically of the human variety, then to validate that purpose you would need to prove that the universe couldn't have formed any other way. Good luck with that.

          June 22, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • believerfred

          Atheist Steve
          "The universe could just as easily, in fact more likely, have expanded without these things occurring"
          =>But it did not, has not and we have evidence such a fantasy exists. This is the only existence known to man, the only universe known to man. Time to wake up and realize you make up more stuff than the religious. Have you ever stopped to look at all the stuff you make up to explain the impossibility of life yet here we are. You continue to argue for agency because agency is self evident. The real question is why is it so important to you that we are simply an accident without purpose.

          "The universe could just as easily, in fact more likely, have expanded without these things occurring utterly lifeless, so then what purpose would it serve?"
          =>You have just answered your own question. Without life there is no purpose or awareness. We exist fully aware of purpose and all evidence points to man searching after purpose. To the contrary you have no evidence of awareness seeking a void yet fully aware there is no such thing as non existence.

          "If the purpose of the universe rests solely on the development of life and intelligence, specifically of the human variety, then to validate that purpose you would need to prove that the universe couldn't have formed any other way. Good luck with that."
          =>Science has already done that and in the last 10,000 years there is mountain of evidence that supports NO intelligent life developing outside of man. There is a lot of speculation, including existence of tooth fairy, but exhaustive proof clearly shows ZERO intelligent life outside of man.
          =>No evidence of another universe validates there is no other universe. Multiverse is speculative and dependent on assumptions of amplitude on a quantum landscape. Pipe dreams but fun if the music is good.

          June 22, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          You're such a lying word-twister Fred. You completely avoided answering what purpose stars have(no surprise there) and you basically concluded that the purpose of the universe, the reason the universe exists, is to support life and intelligence. There goes your bloated ego again.
          Life is an accident, a happy(for us) accident and the proof is everywhere we look. 99.99999999999999999999999999....% of the volume of the universe is utterly hostile to life of any sort. That's a fact. You know those pesky things you constantly avoid. The universe didn't adapt to allow life to form, rather life formed and took hold in the very narrowest of fragile and rare conditions.
          But just because the possibility for life to form is rare doesn't mean it's therefore improbable. The universe is vast beyond measure and so the very rare happens all the time. Probability is funny that way. If the chance for planets to form in the 'goldielocks' zone was one in a million there would still be billions of potential life bearing planets out there. Odds are 'intelligent' life is peppered throughout the cosmos. And even if that's true it still isn't proof that it's the reason that the universe exists. Only your delusional self importance allows you to make such a preposterous link.
          Anyway I'm done trying to have a reasoned debate with you. You've proven you're not capable of that. The one thing that gives me the utmost happiness is that there's no possibility that I'll have to endure being around you or anyone like you after we're both dead. Now that's what I call salvation.

          June 23, 2014 at 7:29 am |
        • redzoa

          @bf – With all due respect, your defenses don't appear particular strong:

          1 & 2) Your proposition is that the Sun was formed, just not properly positioned yet. The suggestion that the initial light, unconnected to the Sun, was sufficient to sustain photosynthesis absent the proximity of the Sun is wholly unsupported, i.e. absent the proximity, the light was insufficient. If the light was sufficient, and wasn't removed, then what is that source?

          3) It doesn't take complex taxonomy classification to recognize that marine organisms of a variety of types and sizes, both plants and animals (including both whales and great fishes), existed prior to land plants as is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. One can reasonably presume that the plain-meaning of seed-bearing plants are those that bear "seeds" as would be commonly understood both now and then. These spermatophyta first appear towards the end of the paleozoic era, well after a variety of other plants and animals had colonized land and well after plants and animals had existed in marine environments. Yes, the absence of fossils for any spermatophyta prior to this time is not conclusive, but hanging the argument on this absence, despite the incredible abundance and diversity of terrestrial plant and animal life which pre-date the spermatophyta, is at best, unreasonable in light of the breadth and scope of this available evidence.

          4) ICR and AIG have responded and their arguments simply reject the evidence out of hand, e.g. the fossil/molecular evidence is unreliable. But despite these arguments, ICR and AIG inherently concede the progressive order of the fossil record in formulating creationist flood models to account for the fossil order. However, as I noted earlier, the relative order of the fossil record cannot be accounted for by any of the creationist flood models because we clearly see forms separated by many, many layers of strata which, under the creationist models, would necessarily be present within the same strata due to their similar relative density, ecology, and geographic distributions.

          Regarding whales, if these are not the "great fishes," then when and how did they appear? The problem remains that the plain language indicates all the "great creatures of the sea" were produced prior to any land animal. Whales are certainly "great creatures of the sea" and the available evidence clearly indicates whales evolved from terrestrial mammals (as did all marine mammals).

          To suggest the genesis narrative is concordant with available science is simply not true. If one needs to resort to additional supernatural explanations (e.g. God was the light that sustained plants absent the sun, God made the sun and then only when necessary moved it into the correct position without ill effects, etc), then there's really no point in trying to argue concordance with science in the first place because empirical physical evidence of any variety becomes effectively meaningless.

          June 23, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • believerfred

          AtheistSteve
          "You completely avoided answering what purpose stars have"
          =>Stars in Genesis account were a guide to men and part of the lights that separate day and night. Throughout the Bible they have different symbolism.
          "you basically concluded that the purpose of the universe, the reason the universe exists, is to support life and intelligence."
          => No, creation is a purpose onto God. The universe (creation) exists because God exists and creation is an expression of God. Life with cognitive and emotive capacity to receive and reflect back this "Glory of God" the main of which is love. This one emotive expression itself reflects timelessness when embraced fully and it is a timelessness which science cannot account for. To the scientific observer time continues to segment our linear existence with objective boundaries measured by say seconds or nano seconds yet in reality awareness of time is segmented by a non linear function. When you begin to understand this difference you will begin to understand the reality of existence itself which is not bound by scientific measurement (or capacity thereof) but bound (or as the bible says in bondage to) rather by the object of belief. You believe only in science so you are bound by it. You believe only in the physical (even though you know there is something else). I believe in God and my existence is tethered to that which has no boundaries known to mankind.

          "There goes your bloated ego again.":
          =>No, the bloated ego is yours not mine as I believe what 95% of mankind has looked to over the tens perhaps tens of thousands of years. If you wish hold onto that falsehood then you should restate that I have a bloated ego just like 95% of all hominids while only atheists who believe in tooth fairy are humble human beings.

          "Life is an accident, a happy(for us) accident and the proof is everywhere we look. 99.99999999999999999999999999....%"
          =>close but the improbability of existence of intelligent life is 10 to the power of 120. If you wrote it out you could fill the blog pages with zeros. Hawking recognized it as impossible absent an infinite number of universes. That's no accident, but could be. Any logical gambler would put his money on agency supported by the testimony of millions upon millions of those who have experienced God rather than on a known impossibility hinging upon the speculation of an infinite number of universes.

          "the volume of the universe is utterly hostile to life of any sort. That's a fact."
          =>The volume of water in the ocean is hostile to mankind "That's a fact". I didn't realize your belief also dines on anthropomorphism of the natural.

          The universe didn't adapt to allow life to form, rather life formed and took hold in the very narrowest of fragile and rare conditions."
          =>That statement is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. Your scientism is showing again. Your belief is based on faith. What is the object of your belief?

          "But just because the possibility for life to form is rare doesn't mean it's therefore improbable."
          =>That is a false statement as rare is not equal to impossible. I will cut you some slack and say it is improbable. Now let me restate properly what you said: " But just because the possibility for life to form is IMPROBABLE doesn't mean it's therefore improbable."
          =>I agree with that statement.

          "Odds are 'intelligent' life is peppered throughout the cosmos."
          =>sorry, scientific evidence shows NO evidence of ANY intelligent life. Your dogma is very dependent on faith

          "And even if that's true it still isn't proof that it's the reason that the universe exists. Only your delusional self importance allows you to make such a preposterous link."
          =>We addressed this and acknowledge that only atheists are humble. Neither of us have proof acceptable by scientific standards as to origin or purpose of existence. Your faith is yet to be explained as your foundation of belief is based upon our existence consisting only of measurable physical matter and energy which is a known falsehood. Whereas a believer understands existence cannot be reduced to objective scientific observation of the known.

          "Anyway I'm done trying to have a reasoned debate with you. You've proven you're not capable of that."
          =>look close it is you who is incapable of grasping the false nature of your scientism.

          "The one thing that gives me the utmost happiness is that there's no possibility that I'll have to endure being around you or anyone like you after we're both dead. Now that's what I call salvation."
          =>You have betrayed your core belief as you now claim understanding of life after death. You have no evidence whatsoever to support the belief that existence is tethered to your faith rather than the faith of Jesus or Abraham or even faiths that are not monotheistic.

          June 23, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • believerfred

          redzoa
          "1 & 2) Your proposition is that the Sun was formed, just not properly positioned yet. The suggestion that the initial light, unconnected to the Sun, was sufficient to sustain photosynthesis absent the proximity of the Sun is wholly unsupported, i.e. absent the proximity, the light was insufficient. If the light was sufficient, and wasn't removed, then what is that source?"
          =>As I as said we are not told (i.e. the Bible is silent) and I do not know. The Bible does NOT say the sun was created after the earth. On the first day there was day for some period then there was night. Speculation that the earth was covered by a dense cloud layer comes out of day two when the water was separated from the water creating atmosphere. The source of light could have been the sun (obscured by heavy cloud) we know as our sun or some unknown source that was the light created on the first day. Either way I see no conflict with current science.
          We have singularity then light on day one and atmosphere day two of creation.

          "3) It doesn't take complex taxonomy classification to recognize that marine organisms"
          =>As I said taxonomy is not difficult for us, but it was for those with the original oral traditions or Moses written account. Consider it was only in the 1950's that lateral gene transfer was apparent
          =>In the reading of Genesis we have a few words to explain to an audience in Moses day the creation story. Where would Moses put detail of Kingdom , Subkingdom yet alone accepted taxa? Which accepted taxa of which generation? Why don't we marvel at the fact seed trees were in the right cladogram...or how Moses knew that.........because that is speculation on our part. I would not doubt classification changes again significantly in the next 200 years.
          Photosynthesis by blue-green algae algae did happen after day two when atmosphere was being condensed into oceans and these were the beginnings of the algae and plants classification of which seed trees came about. It is collapsed summary but it is not proven wrong. I am not saying Moses used a scientific classification system. Day three was this oxygen / atmospheric process resulting in oceans and dry lands where algae and plants (vegetation) had its beginnings.
          On the fifth day we had water creatures and on the 6th day land creatures. Is that not the general order if you were to lump things?
          Genesis order: singularity=>light=>atmosphere=>blue-green algae=>Sun, moon & stars become visible (atmosphere stabilized) =>water life=>land life=>God rested from creation. Is this not the natural order you see?

          4)" the relative order of the fossil record cannot be accounted for by any of the creationist flood models"
          => The flood was after the 7th day and creationist flood models as well as non believers will miss the boat if they do not focus on the truth of the flood story.

          "Regarding whales, if these are not the "great fishes," then when and how did they appear?"
          =>Even if true that Ambulocetus evolved from a sea creature then returned to sea to become a whale of a story Moses could not have packed that information into the two lines of day 5 in creation.

          "The problem remains that the plain language indicates all the "great creatures of the sea" were produced prior to any land animal. Whales are certainly "great creatures of the sea" and the available evidence clearly indicates whales evolved from terrestrial mammals (as did all marine mammals)."
          =>I do not know that for certain because we do not know the true classification of kinds as created by God. We cannot force our classification system which is relative and subject to constant change upon that which is absolute.
          =>The water did teem with living creatures according to their kind. Ambulocetus is thought to be a whale because of shared traits. I am not certain there is scientific consensus on that.

          "To suggest the genesis narrative is concordant with available science is simply not true."
          =>given assumptions that are acceptable, science does not disprove day one through six.

          "empirical physical evidence of any variety"
          =>How are we not in general agreement
          =>I would think we could agree mankind is a land animal.
          =>I would think we could agree marine mammals are not land animals
          =>I would think we could agree first vertebrates came before land animals
          =>I would think we could agree photosynthesis came before Cambrian explosion of hard-bodied organisms

          June 24, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiosity Law #9

      June 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
    • kudlak

      new-man
      Funny, Genesis clearly states that the Earth was created on the 3rd day while the sun and the other stars were created on the 4th day.

      June 17, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • new-man

        wrong!
        scripture says God created [bara] in the beginning.
        however, God made [asah] the sun, moon and stars to do something; and what that something was -God MADE the sun to rule the day, and He MADE the moon to rule the night. How did He bring about this rule – by fine tuning cloud dispersion, rotation of the earth, and orbital tilt of the earth "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

        If you said "my boss made me to work overtime" does that mean he created you or does it mean he made you do something.

        cr: C.Armstrong.

        June 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "How did He bring about this rule – by fine tuning cloud dispersion, rotation of the earth, and orbital tilt"

          cuckoo for cocochristians...!

          June 18, 2014 at 4:08 am |
        • igaftr

          newman
          The moon does NOT rule the night, it is just as likely to be visible during the day as it is at night, it is NOT a light, it reflects light.

          Another place where your bible is flat out wrong.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:31 am |
        • kudlak

          new-man
          Yet, these "lights" were still set in the solid firmament in the sky, along with the windows that let rain fall from the water above the sun and moon, onto the flat disk of the earth, which itself was floating on top of more water, with pillars sunk into it for foundation, right?

          June 18, 2014 at 10:12 am |
    • bostontola

      new-man,
      Do you believe that the elements (other than hydrogen) are formed in stars?

      June 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
      • new-man

        boston,
        yes, large clouds of dust and gases have been observed in our Milky Way Galaxy, when viewed via multi-spectrum optics.
        "dust-like elements were formed within the stars of the galaxies – the likely result of super nova explosions. and then we have the formation of these elements into dust particles agglomerating into asteroid clouds around a central star. the asteroids agglomerate into roughly shaped planets which existed "before the mountains were settled."

        cr:C.A.

        June 17, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • new-man

        let me also add just to bolster the above point that "scientists have observed that the constellation Orion is a star 'birthing' nursery and our sun in in the Orion spur of the Milky Way.

        June 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • bostontola

          Great, thanks for clarifying that.

          June 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      "mr. sagan was correct, man is made from 'star stuff' – says it right there in the Bible"
      -No it doesn't liar. They knew nothing about cosmology , and there is not one reason to think they did. YOU INTERPRETED it to say that, as in 2014 science is the way humans think, and your ancient idiotic books are not science, and you NEED it to be.

      June 17, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    Man is the predilect object of Creation and the entire Universe exists as it does simply to have us in it.

    The Universe only appears to be billions of years old because The Creator willed it thus.

    God is anthropocentric – it says here right on the label.

    The rest of the universe, oh so simple and boring compared to humanity, is simply window dressing – God really concentrated when making The Earth as opposed to, say – the Andromeda galaxy.

    You see, when God was creating the Earth he placed it in a time dilation bubble in order to give it the attention it needed.

    This is how we see light from distant galaxies – they are, relativistically speaking, billions of years old – but thanks to God's chronoton singularity, we are only a few thousand years old.

    God bestowed certain seemingly normal objects with chronoton field generation capability, like Moses' staff and Noah's ark.

    How else did the seas part or the ark able to support two of every animal despite it's physical dimensions?

    In recent studies, credible theologians have revealed that the physical dimensions of Noah's Ark were actually much, much smaller than those depicted in the Bible. They theorize that the source texts were modified to be more believable as nobody would be able to imagine all life on Earth fitting into a box no bigger than a phone booth.

    The oral histories of a small, reclusive sect of ultra-orthodox Jews say that the Ark made a "Vworrrp Vworrrrp" sound before it gradually faded from sight. Stone tablets retrieved from this same sect show that the name "Noah" is actually an ancient Hebrew word from a long lost dialect that translates to "Healer".

    They also found evidence that Moses' staff was really a small, hand held device about the size of a pen that emitted a high pitched squeal and glowing green light. "Staff" also appears to be a mistranslation. The original word was "screwdriver".

    Leviticus is full of rules of conduct for the Hebrew people, but there was one particular passage that caused so much confusion and strife at the Nicene Council that they elected to omit it from the Bible.

    Scraps of that ancient text were found in the same cave as the Dead Sea Scrolls but have yet to be publically released. The text seems to be proclamations from a long forgotten prophet, but there is little context to make any sense of them.

    Thus far, scholars have translated: "run", "don't blink", and a thoroughly confusing psalm praising the virtues of decorative neckwear.

    June 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Of course people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

      June 17, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Season 8 Premiere
      August 2014 (I already miss the bowtie)

      June 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "Leviticus is full of rules of conduct for the Hebrew people
      --------------------
      Yet despite the presence of the "healer" it contained proscriptions around the wearing of mixed fibers. (I hope all of Tom Baker's scarves were woolen!)

      June 17, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Saw a guy in the grocery store this weekend who looked just like Eccleston.
      Best part is that his shirt said "Trust me – I'm the Doctor"

      June 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Perhaps it WAS Eccleston.... or indeed the Doctor...

        June 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • fintronics

          Isn't that a Doctor Who quote?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  19. Løki

    In the beginning, there were two regions: Muspellsheimr in the south, full of fire, light and heat; and Niflheimr in the north, full of arctic waters, mists, and cold.[3] Between them stretched the yawning emptiness of Ginnungagap, and into it poured sparks and smoke from the south and layers of rime-ice and glacial rivers from the north. As heat and cold met in Ginnungagap, a living Jötunn, Ymir, appeared in the melting ice. From his left armpit, the first man and woman were born. From his legs, the frost jötnar were born, making Ymir the progenitor of the jötnar. Most sources identify Ymir's oldest son as Thrudgelmir, who bore Ymir's grandson, Bergelmir. The other jötnar are usually unnamed. Ymir fed on the milk of the cow Auðhumla. She licked the blocks of salty ice, releasing Búri.

    Búri's son Borr had three sons, the gods Odin, Vili and Vé. The three slew Ymir, and all of the jötnar (giants) except for Bergelmir and his wife, who were drowned in the blood of the others. From Ymir's body, they made the world of humans: his blood the seas and lakes, his flesh the earth, his bones the mountains and his teeth the rocks. From his skull they made the dome of the sky, setting a dwarf at each of the four corners to hold it high above the earth. They protected it from the jötnar with a wall made from Ymir's eyebrows. Next they caused time to exist, and placed the orbs of the sun and moon in chariots which were to circle around the sky.

    Odin, passing through the world of the jötnar, found two beautiful young giants named Sól and Máni, sun and moon. They were brother and sister, and their father had named them after the beautiful lights in the sky. Odin decreed that Sól and Mani should drive the chariots of the sun and the moon across the sky, and to ensure that their journey was always constant and never slowed, he created two great wolves. These wolves were called Hati and Sköll, and they were placed in the sky to pursue the chariots and devour them if they caught them.

    June 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
  20. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    I saw this yesterday – it is hilarious.

    June 17, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
    • tallulah131

      They had me at the minivan.

      June 17, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • kudlak

        I prefer the Simpsons episode with Flanders, Lovejoy and Marge in the "Ministry Machine" a la Scooby Doo.

        June 17, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • fintronics

          "stupid se-xy Flanders!!!"

          June 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.