User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
The 7 days creation

Hi everyone

I haven't done so much resarch on this question, so sorry if it has already been answered.

My question is this:

How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round?

I mean, how can you say it took one day, to create what has let us to the definition of a day?

You cant use the definition "day" before the premisses of the definition is created.

Can you guys follow my thinking?

Regards

Philip Denmark

There are so many flaws with the creation story that one can't take it too seriously.

Don, I don't want to repeat the dreadful creationism thread here. I'm cool with big bang and evolution and all. Just a question - don't you think the story of creation makes some metaphoric sense?

E.g. when a lion kills a human for food, we can consider the lion dangerous, but I don't think we can call the lion evil. Whereas when a human kills a human knowing that killing is evil, it completely changes our moral judgement of the act. This "knowledge of good and evil" does seem to create human capacity to knowingly do evil. Also, moral judgment of ourselves creates a feeling of shame. Moral judgment of others also seems to create all kinds of problems. It does seem that this "knowledge of good and evil" is the source of human moral suffering.

I understand your adversity towards religion, but setting the stigma aside and considering the philosophical side of the myth (which it is), does it still make no sense at all?

In the myth, God frames Adam and Eve for a problem he created.

Snakes don't have legs (apparently). Many people have a snake phobia. Snake eat dirt (the ignorant think.) Let's invent a "Just So" story to explain it, ignoring the real evidence.

Does it make sense to anyone that our "natural state' should be nothing more than mindless obedience?

The story has a strong patriarchal slant and women's "evil" becomes the reason for the suffering of their childbirth, actually encouraging otherwise sensible people not to mitigate it.

The hole "fall" dogma is nothing more than a blame-the-victim con, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see much of merit in it.

Don, I agree regarding the partiarchal slant.

Re: "In the myth, God frames Adam and Eve for a problem he created." and "Does it make sense to anyone that our "natural state' should be nothing more than mindless obedience?"

That's where I see the value of the story. It raises a multitude of philosophical questions - omnipotence/omniscience, free will/determinism, power and authority vs. obedience etc. There are no answers, but the questions are important to understand ourselves.

Of course, mindless obedience is not our natural state. But who do we blame for our own choices and consequences thereof - God or Satan or other people for "framing us"? Wouldn't we be better off without having these choices - if we didn't have the opportunity or possibility to do wrong? But now we are at square 1 with the question regarding obedience. I think, there is value in contemplating these questions.

And a significant amount of harm, in fact.

Philip Said: How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round?

Philip, The information in the Bible is the science, law, and politics of people who lived thousands of years ago.

As you look further back in time, human culture becomes more and more primitive and dysfunctional. The old testament god is monstrous. The new testament god (Jesus) is an improvement. Human culture today continues the trend of improvement over time.

The Universe was not created in seven days.

Science tells us that, and Richard Dawkins tells us that.

Pat Robertson tells us:

"If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was."

See? - - - The fundamentalist things no longer apply, as time goes by.

From: Chuck Johnson (Posted Dec 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm)

Philip Said: "How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round?" Chuck Johnson said, "Philip, The information in the Bible is the science, law, and politics of people who lived thousands of years ago."

The Bible supposedly is of divine inspiration; it can't be a "Holy Book" otherwise. The prophets of the Old Testament wrote, "Thus saith the Lord" throughout because of the claim that it was the inspired writings of God's word.The Old Testament was translated from books written in Hebrew. The words in Hebrew olam or qedem mean an unknown or long period of time, but none of these words are used in Genesis. The Hebrew word for day is yom, and it is used as day many times in Genesis along with the phrase "morning and evening", and the phrase "morning and evening" are used with each of the six days of creation.

It is comical to watch apologists, who claim to believe in the truth of the Bible, twist and turn those words into something that was never meant or whatever they need it to say. Creation week lasted six ordinary days according to the Bible. A study of the use of the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 clearly informs that Creation week was six twenty four hour days. But because they don't want to argue with science they have to stick in millions of years when it clearly wasn't there and doesn't fit.

We have the same kind of problem with dinosaurs that became extinct many millions of years ago, long before the Bible was written. It was supposedly written by and for the Chosen People of God. Genesis starts "in the beginning" - not after some other creations etc.

The dinosaurs were not mentioned in these inspired writings because the prophets had no way of knowing that they had ever existed. The Bible is not an inspired writing about anything, an all knowing God would have known and acknowledge the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs, which were huge lizards, were not grass eating behemoth or lavianthan (supposedly Satan) because man and dinosaurs didn't inhabit this planet at the same time ever.

God created all the animals on the fifth and sixth day of creation. The birds and sea creatures were created on Day five. The land animals were created on Day six.

This is a real problem (it is necessary to explain) if dinosaurs once covered almost all of the entire earth why is there no Biblical creation model that includes the dinosaurs? This can be proved by reading the Biblical account of creation. Biblical ideas can't be reconciled with science by hiding them under a facade like, "it was before the Bible." So, it just wasn't worth mentioning? Evolution is not a belief held only on faith and creation is not science.

Church Johnson said, "As you look further back in time, human culture becomes more and more primitive and dysfunctional. The old testament god is monstrous. The new testament god (Jesus) is an improvement. Human culture today continues the trend of improvement over time."

The only thing that would be an actual improvement would be to admit that religion is something used to control the masses and scare the hell out of little kids and idiots.

Chuck Johnson said, "The Universe was not created in seven days."

No, the Bible says it was six days and "He" rested on the seventh day. And anyone who works on the sabbath is to be put to death according to God's word.

Chuck Johnson said, The Universe was not created in seven days. Science tells us that, and Richard Dawkins tells us that. Pat Robertson tells us: "If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was."

"See? - - - The fundamentalist things no longer apply, as time goes by."

Yes, but what about those people who believe someone can hear god or heal them over TV? It's mostly the poor and uneducated that aren't all that engrossed in science anyway. They will have to fix a lot more than "why the Bible left out dinosaurs" (which is what inspired those comments) before anyone with a lick of sense doesn't determine that the entire Bible is a crock-pot full of horse hockey.

Anti-science and purely religious vitriol has proven to be a losing proposition; and there has been an effort to make peace with science (or at least give it lip-service) by many religious leaders around the world. The nicety of covering up underneath a facade of moral values. But many evangelicals in America still are trying to fight evolution (one tactic) calling evolution a religion as much as creation.

Real progress would be to admit that religion has nothing real to offer but science does.

Well I guess it depends on who you are asking and what definition of the Hebrew word "yom" they are using. Go to www.oldearth.com for a word study. As you know the Book of Genesis in Hebrew, therefore we must consider the Hebrew of the day, its expressions, etc. to get a better understanding of what is meant.

The Hebrew word for day and the context in which it appears in Genesis is how we know that the use of yom means a 24-hour day.

Philip said, "How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round?

I assume that means the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis, which is defined as a day.

Philip said, "I mean, how can you say it took one day, to create what has let us to the definition of a day? You cant use the definition "day" before the premisses of the definition is created."

Philip must mean that we can't say creation took a 24-hour-day because there wouldn't have been a 24-hour-day yet. That's a really good point Philip, and now maybe Philip would like to explain how there was a "morning and evening" without a sun?

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour-day, describing each day as the "evening and the morning" makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to "evening and morning" make no sense unless it means a 24-hour day. What some people have done is to reinterpret the Bible after realizing that length of time involved in the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and life in the universe are very much in conflict with Genesis. Apologists claim that Bible doesn't change but science does, but if that's true then why are they trying to make the Bible conform to science, and the fact that the Bible never changes but science does is not in their favor. Science eliminates the wrong answers or theories but things like evolution, which has been observed and established as a fact, won't change. Theories about evolution can change or be improved upon with discoveries like DNA but the fact of evolution will not change. DNA supports the theory of evolution.

The one area in our lives that exceeds anything with deception is the religious chicanery (trickery) and it impacts us all. Some people try to say that the word day in Genesis does not really mean a 24-hour day, but instead each day means a very long period of time. Hebrew scholarship does not support this concept or misconception of the Biblical text. Outside of Genesis yom plus a number always represents an ordinary day. In Genesis it's used simultaneously with numbers, first day, second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, sixth day and seventh day. These are 24-hour days not an unknown period of time. The words "evening and morning" together always indicate a day. Yom and "evening and morning" always indicates a normal day. When yom is used with a number it means a twenty-four-hour period. Olam or qedem mean a longer period of time not the word yom.

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath."

Anyone who can face facts knows that the use of the word yom or day is only one thing among a myriad of problems with Genesis. I can give you a run-down on that too.

Would you like to try and address the fact that: We have the same kind of problem with dinosaurs that became extinct many millions of years ago, long before the Bible was written? It was supposedly written by and for the Chosen People of God. Genesis starts "in the beginning" - not after some other creations etc.

The dinosaurs were not mentioned in these inspired writings because the prophets had no way of knowing that they had ever existed. The Bible is not an inspired writing about anything, an all knowing God would have known and acknowledge the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs, which were huge lizards, were not grass eating behemoth or lavianthan (supposedly Satan) because man and dinosaurs didn't inhabit this planet at the same time ever.

God created all the animals on the fifth and sixth day of creation. The birds and sea creatures were created on Day five. The land animals were created on Day six.

This is a real problem (it is necessary to explain) if dinosaurs once covered almost all of the entire earth why is there no Biblical creation model that includes the dinosaurs? This can be proved by reading the Biblical account of creation. Biblical ideas can't be reconciled with science by hiding them under a facade like, "it was before the Bible." So, it just wasn't worth mentioning? Evolution is not a belief held only on faith and creation is not science.

Hi Philip,

A day may not mean 24 hours, but an era (a longer period). It is written in the Bible that for God "One day is like a thousand of years" and this idea may apply there. Anyway, this is not important. The most important point is that there exists a Creator of the world, and the rest are for people who like to talk in vain....

If I can take a sentence and redefine a word of my choosing within it, I can make any sentence true.

Take the sentence: "Belief in gods is good." If "good" actually means "evil", the sentence is true.

Don,

It's an interesting point. So, we cannot define what a day is until we have an Earth spinning around its axle. But how can we define a year until we have an Earth rotating around the Sun? Then what does it mean that the universe is 13.7 billion years old if there was no Solar system for the first 9 bln years of that period?

OK. We may compare earth years to some more stable periodic process like radiation of Cs atoms. But Cs atoms, too, did not form before the first stars. So, to say that the first stars appeared 150 mln years after the big bang is meaningless without redefinition of a second.

And we go back and back in time until we don't have any periodic processes to define a second - no nuclei of any kind, no photons, and even laws of physics not working as they do now. Then what does it mean to say that "expansion of the universe took place between 10^-42 and 10^-32 seconds"?

None of this, of course, proves any religious points, but I'd say, it's the creation story that made me think about what this all means.

As for redefinitions of words, sometimes we need to give words new definitions. Take "marriage", for example.

My point was really about spin. The "day" used in Genesis 1 is no different than the "day" used in other parts of the Bible. Trying to refine it is just a dishonest apologetics tactic.

Another question: who is the narrator? How does that person know any of this?

It is true that words change meanings over time. "Prophet" used to mean "story teller" and not psychic. "Spirit" used to refer to breath. And "marriage" has changed a lot. It used to be a property exchange with the bride's father. Yes, with women as property.

Because words change meanings, Thomas Paine argued in his "Age of Reason" that no god would use the written word to convey an important message.

Re: "Another question: who is the narrator? How does that person know any of this?"

This is a very good question. Don't you think it's also appropriate to ask a scientist how he knows that the universe started from nothing if we cannot, in principle, measure length smaller than Planck length (10^-32 cm) and time smaller than Planck time (10^-44 s). Any statements that "something was smaller than Planck length before Planck time of 10^-45s after big bang" are fundamentally uncertain, because "According to the generalized uncertainty principle, the Planck length is in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length - and no improvements in measurement instruments could change that." - that's from Wikipedia article about Planck length (I know, Linda despises Wikipedia, but I'll let her deal with it). Such sayings simply don't have meaning - they are using terms which are undefined in this context.

This "nothing" from which the universe allegedly started cannot be defined, detected, or measured in principle (as one would expect).

Re: "no god would use the written word to convey an important message." I like that saying. It seems to me that anything conveyed with words is quite meaningless. Meaning exists in our head only. This seems to apply to religion and science alike.

From: George (Posted Jan 30, 2013 at 1:50 am) GEORGE SAID: "Hi Philip, A day may not mean 24 hours, but an era (a longer period). It is written in the Bible that for God "One day is like a thousand of years" and this idea may apply there.

LINDA SAID: The Bible states "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". If Creation week took six days (a thousand years long) that's six thousand, but if a years was 24 hrs it's 6 days. According to Genesis the morning and the evening were the first day and that is a 24 hr day.

Even so, some creationists revised the 6 day idea to 6-10 thousand when scientists started to date rocks and found some were much older than 10 thousand years. As a matter of fact, the ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age. So, even if a day was like a thousand years it wouldn't be nearly long enough still. The universe began about 15 billion years ago. It took about a hundred million years, to develop from the early mammals to us. The necessary planetary conditions for our form of life may therefore have existed from about four billion years after the Big Bang.

GEORGE SAID: Anyway, this is not important. The most important point is that there exists a Creator of the world, and the rest are for people who like to talk in vain....

LINDA SAID: And we all know why this is not important don't we? You are the one talking in vain since you have no evidence for anything being created or a Creator. Scientists study the evidence to determine what the truth is (like the age of the Earth) and what they have found is credible evidence that the Earth must be billions of years old. Although, Christian fundamentalists continued to vehemently deny all the scientific evidence - as usual.

Happy Monday Philip!

You're conflating the ancient Hebrew definition of a solar day with that of the creative days. he fact is that the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God's creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one "day" continued into one or more of the following "days." For example, before the first creative "day" started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth's surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first "day," this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.

On the second "day," the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth "day," the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear "in the expanse of the heavens." (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures--including insects and membrane-winged creatures--started to appear on the fifth "day."

The Bible's narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative days.

Any questions?

Why would a superior being or god, who is responsible for creating everything, be telling the story of creation by using words like evening, morning, and "first day" that don't compute to millions of years? If He meant a day was millions of years and everything evolved; why not just say so?

What are the excuses for all of the unenlightened writing in the inerrant word of God. Here are some more examples, perhaps you would care to explain (make excuses) for all of this.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day. Genesis 1:3-5 Genesis is saying God is separating the Day (light) from the Darkness (night). Genesis does not mention that the Earth rotates completely once every day. We all know that the Earth rotates on its own axis. If the Earth didn't rotate there wouldn't be night and day. There would be a light and dark side of the Earth. The side with light would be very hot and the dark side would be very cold. The rotation of the Earth is a very important factor in the development of all life. But God never mentions making the Earth rotate or that this is the reason why there is darkness and light. He doesn't know?

And another problem is that Genesis states: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5 but Genesis 1:14-19 states that God didn't create the Sun until the fourth day. Much of the order of events of Creation written in Genesis (defies reason) and is not scientifically possible. Genesis states that God created the Earth before the Sun. We know that the Sun is much older than the Earth, and the Earth orbits around the sun. Genesis also has the creation of the plants before the sun. etc..(And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) The early universe was not dark. We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of decoupling, about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to (the face of the waters.) If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. We know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water (none at all) or any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. We know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is wrong. (Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.) This verse implies that the (heavens and the earth) were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the heavens, or space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a third generation star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars. In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang. (And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.) Those who wrote the Bible believed that darkness was an element separate and distinct from light. This is just wrong. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. On the first day, God created light Genesis 1:5 (And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.) To say that there was morning and evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. In the morning, the Sun is low and in the evening, the Sun is also low. To say morning or evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. However, the Sun was not existing at that time. The Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16). There was no existing Sun - therefore - no morning or evening could have occurred on the first day. Also, the second day when God separated sky and Earth, it still claimed the morning and evening without the existence of the Sun (Genesis 1:8). The same problem holds true on the third day, as well (Genesis 1:13). A morning and evening cannot exist without a Sun. These are obvious errors in Genesis (especially concerning when the sun was created.) The first light that traveled throughout the Universe was (CMB) Cosmic Microwave Background. This light - much dimmer today is incontrovertible proof that the Universe experienced a Big Bang. (And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.) The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says, (the windows of heaven were opened) and also in Genesis 8:2, which says (the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.) There is no "firmament"that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of gravity, simply assumed that this hard clear sphere must be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the firmament must have "windows" to let the rain through. (And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.) Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. (And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.) According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. Grasses weren't the first forms of life. Grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the last major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also wrong. We know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong. On the third day, God created vegetation (Genesis 1:12). Plants contain a chemical known as chlorophyll that turns sunlight into energy. However, the Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16), after the creation of plants. Plants could not exist without the creation of the Sun. The creator didn't first provide the resource required by plants - the Sun - and then the plants that would have used the Sun. We know that, contrary to the Genesis account stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is just wrong. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth, and from this impact debris increase to form the moon.

In Genesis 1:16, God created two great lights within the sky. One rules at night and one rules at day. The moon simply reflects the light from the Sun giving the impression that it is a great light. However, the fact remains clear: the moon is not a light source, or a (great light.)

The Genesis account places the appearance of marine life after earthly grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this is wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first marine life. Whales very recently evolved, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other earthly animals (creeping things - the literal translation of the Latin root for "reptiles"). Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.

No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Verse 6 - A mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Genesis 2:5-7 Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. In Genesis woman was created from the rib bone of man (Genesis 2:22). What was the reason God created woman from a rib bone? (God had no more dust left?) It is not reasonable that God could not create woman the same way he created Adam. Primitive man wrote that out of his ignorance. (And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.) The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, and reptiles at the same time as the creation of mammals (cattle.) According to Genesis, these things all appeared after grasses; fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land. The reference to the creation of (cattle) is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. (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.) The second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.

I've heard all the excuses for all of this, such as, god didn't write any of that man did. That makes no sense, a book that your very salvation depends upon, why wouldn't god give the correct answers to man since He is all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent?

I think you need to look for some correct answers before you start teaching. The only way to continue superstitious beliefs is to limit the access to information and education. Pseudoscience is not a valid educational choice. I don't know how many ignorant people will be interested in your excuses for all those mistakes, but If I were you, I wouldn't count on all that many.

Happy Wednesday Linda!

I. He did: "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) As such, there is no reason to arbitrarily affirm that a timeless, transcendent, immaterial, extraordinarily powerful being as God experiences time the same way mortals do.

II. Re: Genesis 1:14-19 -

Your exegesis here is faulty for Genesis 1:1 clearly informs us that "In [the] beginning God created the heavens." As anyone familiar with this expression knows, "the heavens" refers to the celestial firmament. Concordantly, with this succinct and exquisite statement we're informed that God created all of the celestial and planetary bodies. More to the point, this expression is a clear reference to God's creation of the entirety of the universe.

III. As far as your appeals to a mythical evolutionary process, you overlook the fact that the gradualism of a class of organisms into another distinct class has never been directly observed. The argument here is that this takes millions of years - which no one has ever witnessed because, well, it takes millions of years - but the fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years, shows the opposite but it is hoped that the "missing" fossils of these intermediate species will one day be found. In summary, the sole evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. If that's not circular reasoning, what is?

From: Maxximiliann (Posted Feb 6, 2013 at 2:56 pm) MAXXIMILIANN SAID: 1. "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) As such, there is no reason to arbitrarily affirm that a timeless, transcendent, immaterial, extraordinarily powerful being as God experiences time the same way mortals do.

You didn't answer most of the issues because you can't. This answer is an excuse because you can't even prove that a God exists let alone how long his day was.

The (inspired writings of God) The Bible is riddled with mistakes. Many of those mistakes were scientific ones. "There was evening and there was morning," we are told, "one day... a second day... a third day," but as any astronomer knows, evening (night) and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning. Your scenario where God is talking about the light in one part of the Earth and the darkness in the other doesn't help at-all. Genesis is saying God is separating the Day (light) from the Darkness (night). Genesis does not mention that the Earth rotates completely once every day. We all know that the Earth rotates on its own axis. If the Earth didn't rotate there wouldn't be night and day. There would be a light and dark side of the Earth. The side with light would be very hot and the dark side would be very cold. The rotation of the Earth is a very important factor in the development of all life. But God never mentions making the Earth rotate or that this is the reason why there is darkness and light.

Another problem is that Genesis states: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5 but Genesis 1:14-19 states that God didn't create the Sun until the fourth day. Because these are not inspired writings - it's the writings of primitive illiterate sheep herders. MAXXIMILIANN SAID: II. Re: Genesis 1:14-19 -Your exegesis here is faulty for Genesis 1:1 clearly informs us that "In [the] beginning God created the heavens." As anyone familiar with this expression knows, "the heavens" refers to the celestial firmament. Concordantly, with this succinct and exquisite statement we're informed that God created all of the celestial and planetary bodies. More to the point, this expression is a clear reference to God's creation of the entirety of the universe.

According to the "Word of God" the Bible begins by stating: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. God formed the Earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting", all at the same time. Even though, we know that there are many planets that are much older than Earth. The big bang theory of how the universe evolved includes the atoms that make up the molecules that make up life; did not exist before the big bang. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang. When the initial extremely hot universe began cooling the heat was converted into volume. As a result of the cooling of the universe subatomic particles were able to condense into the matter that we recognize in the universe today, things such as electrons, neutrons, and protons. About a million years later (when the universe was cooler) there was a condensation of subatomic particles into hydrogen atoms (much fewer helium atoms and even fewer lithium atoms). These hydrogen atoms continue to make up a large part of the matter in the universe. Beside these forms of matter there was a formation of the physical forces in the universe. The singularity, big bang, inflation and then the cooling created the energy and matter in the expanding universe, except for that life would not exist in the universe. The gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneous (clumps) was the source of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planet formation. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and composition of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.

The Hubble Space Telescope documents how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. These studies allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: III. As far as your appeals to a mythical evolutionary process, you overlook the fact that the gradualism of a class of organisms into another distinct class has never been directly observed.

Silly me, I thought evolution was a scientific theory and a fact. I thought evolution was a well-substantiated theory that answers questions and makes predictions and has been tested for 200 years. Beliefs are not theories and beliefs can't be tested. Beliefs do not answer scientific questions. Their so-called "theories" are not scientific theories because they cannot be tested, they do not answer questions, and they do not provide the basis for additional research. That's because they are based on false statements.

Advances in science (DNA) confirmed evolution to the point that it was hard to deny evolution without looking ridiculous. That is why some theists thought that they could separate themselves from ignorant creationists with Theistic Evolution. However, most scientists reject Theistic Evolution as well, and so did Darwin. It is not supported by the theory of Evolution. The Bible makes no statement that would lead anyone to conclude that Theistic Evolution's claim that there was a Creation of Evolution by the Creator to make things evolve. The Bible states that God created animals after their kind. All species of animals were created in six days, and no new species has ever appeared since. That would mean that the life forms that were created didn't evolve. We know that there are transitional fossils. The Bible claims that God made man from the dust of the ground not that man evolved from a common ancestor. All organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some primordial life form. The missing link refers to fossils that are the first link to all humans; like Ida, scientists think she could be a common ancestor of apes and monkeys - and humans. Ida is an astonishingly well-preserved primate fossil. Scientists think this fossil is the first link to all humans. Lucy, the famous Ethiopian fossil (Australophithecus afarensis) that is 3.2million years old, is just 40 per cent. complete. Ida is around 44million years older and is roughly 95 per cent complete. Individual hairs can be seen imprinted into the rock. She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but she is probably not on the direct line. Ida comes from a time when the primate family tree was splitting into two groups - one with humans, apes and monkeys, the other with lemurs and bush babies. Her teeth appear to indicate that although she appears more similar to a lemur, she is actually closer to the line that resulted in apes, monkeys and humans. Ida is an incredibly well preserved lemur-like creature who died in a lake 47million years ago. Scientists claim she is an important 'missing link' in mankind's family tree and will shed light on a crucial part of evolution. The lemur's skeleton shows distinct physical characteristics of human beings, such as opposable thumbs - or hands that can grasp things

Dr. Kefyn M. Catley, staff scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, found a centipede in Central Park that she couldn't identify, so she sent it to Richard L. Hoffman, curator for invertebrates at the Virginia Museum of Natural History. Hoffman couldn't identify it either, so he sent it to scientists in Italy, who proclaimed it one of a kind, a new genus and species. They declared that the centipede was a first and named it after Hoffman: Nannarrup hoffmani, or Hoffman's dwarf centipede.

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: The argument here is that this takes millions of years - which no one has ever witnessed because, well, it takes millions of years - but the fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years, shows the opposite but it is hoped that the "missing" fossils of these intermediate species will one day be found. In summary, the sole evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. If that's not circular reasoning, what is?

Reading an apologist's explanation of evolution really does not require any scientific knowledge; it is pseudo-science, and does not explain anything scientific. Your premise is based on pseudo-science and has nothing to do with the theory of common descent; it is not the way it works. Say 50 million years ago a mutation occurred in a population. As that population diverged into many species we would expect all of the species to have that mutations until it was altered by another mutation. It is predictions like this that are being proven true by genome sequencing. If there were a "designer" his work could not be finished in a week. In 2006, geneticists showed for the first time that they could identify truly novel genes. In fruit flies, they came across five young genes that were derived from non-coding DNA between existing genes and not from pre-existing genes. As a result, other researchers started looking for novel genes in other species.

Meanwhile, while looking for gene duplications in humans, geneticists Aoife McLysaght and David Knowles of Trinity College Dublin kept coming across genes that seemed to have no counterparts in other primates, suggesting that new genes arose in us as well. In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. "DNA would have falsified evolution - instead it has confirmed it.

Scientists have proven that there is no "abrupt appearance" we know this from the transitional fossil record. There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has. If something is science, hypotheses or theory it makes predictions that could be wrong. If so it will be possible to falsify these ideas. What is found with the progression over time seen in the millions of fossils unearthed around the world is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Unicellular organisms appear before multicellular ones. Jawless fish precede jawed fish. Lunged fish precede amphibians. Amphibians precede reptiles. Reptiles with scales precede mammals and birds with modified scales (fur and feathers). Apes precede humans. All it would take is one or two exceptions to seriously challenge the theory. No such exceptions have ever been found anywhere. There have been a few claims to this effect, of course, but even most creationists admit that these claims are fraudulent. The prolonged action of 'natural selection' can be expected to leave traces behind in the structure of modern organisms. And when scientists go looking for those traces they invariably find them in droves. Natural selection operates by preserving small, favorable variations that occur naturally in any population of organisms. Over time these variations accumulate to the point that large-scale change is the result. This implies that natural selection works by modifying structures already present in the organism. It does not craft new, complex systems from scratch. This observation is crucial in distinguishing between those systems that could have been crafted by selection and those that could not have been. If we find that a particular organism possesses a complex system made from parts wholly distinct from anything to be found in the organism's closest evolutionary cousins it will be difficult to explain that system via selection. But if we find that the system appears to be cobbled together from parts that were readily available, then natural selection remains a strong candidate. Charles Darwin employed this principle in his studies of the complex systems used by orchids to attract pollinating insects. He discovered that these contrivances, as he called them, were indeed fashioned out of modified versions of parts present in closely related flowers. You have to have some knowledge of biology and genetics to understand common descent. Ring species go a long way to proving the Darwinian mechanic. Some anti-evolutionists argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution - the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle - natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species. The red panda was the original panda and was discovered before the giant panda. Both share a common ancestry, as indicated by shared derived characters to three different groups of animals that include skunks, weasels and raccoons. DNA hybridization studies suggest the giant panda is in the bear clade, while the red panda is in the raccoon clade. Both shares a common ancestry as indicated by shared derived characters, followed by convergent evolution of other characters.

There are many transitional fossils, the primate-human transitional form, Australopithecus. A fossil named Ida (announced in May 2009) is an extraordinary find a perfectly preserved 47 million year old fossil found in Germany - a 'missing link' in human evolution. Eusthenopteron shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between the lobe-finned fishes and the amphibians. The transitional fossils between amphibians are so various and so intermediate that it is difficult to define where one group ends and the other begin. Archaeopteryx (most primitive bird known) is clearly intermediate between reptiles and birds. In spite of such reptilian affinities as a long bony tail, toothed jaws, and clawed wings, creationists declare that because Archaeopteryx had feathers, it was a bird, not a transitional stage between reptiles and birds. Having no explanations of their own, the creationists attempt to deny the transitional fossils out of existence. More fossils are discovered every year, and each one further weakens the creationists' position.

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms. The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota's are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, as a result, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well

The longer ago the common ancestor (in genetic change timeframe) the less viable and fertile the offspring become. Species with a recent common ancestor have a high fertility rate. Species with older (in genetic change terms) common ancestors the fertility rate starts dropping and the viability rate starts dropping.

I. Argumentum ad Lapidem. You've done nothing to dispel my argument. Try again.

II. So magic? Actually what you proffer is worst than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat you have the rabbit and the hat! What you propose is that the universe came from nothing by nothing for nothing. That's clearly wrongheaded and delusional.

III. As many, many scientists in many, many different fields have confirmed through evidence, gradualism is a canard. That you conveniently gloss over this fact doesn't change it or make it go away.

Without gradualism evolution is as viable as a flying invisible pink unicorn ... without a brain.

Although I imagine you could always try to bring back Lamarckism, Telegony. Alchemy or Emication. After all, many unbiased scientists are working so very hard to resurrect the dead, and inane, theory of Spontaneous Generation (reincarnated as Abiogenesis).

As far as any supposed genetic evidence that purportedly shows common descent, drawing dogmatic conclusions based on just 0.0025% of all available genetic evidence is a grossly fallacious Dicto Simpliciter. It's poor reasoning like this which led sooooo many scientists in the past to arrogantly proclaim canards as truth.

Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

Just another case of the blind leading the blind ...

On Feb 6, Max Says: In summary, the sole evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. If that's not circular reasoning, what is?

On Feb 11, Max Says: As many, many scientists in many, many different fields have confirmed through evidence, gradualism is a canard.

Chuck Says: Max, with these assertions that you have made, you are lying. Respecting these lies with extensive refutation (as Linda tries to do) would be a waste of time.

Stupid is . . . . . Stupid.

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life," say evolutionary paleontologists like David M. Raup, "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution." (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)"

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and ** no transitional forms ** were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly)

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."--The Immense Journey

After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: "At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously *** not *** an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it's not even a well-supported theory."

LINDA SAID: There were many, many scientist's responses but I only copied the one mention by Maxximiliann about David M. Raup.

NATIONAL CENTER for SCIENCE EDUCATION Misquoted Scientists Respond

Creation Evolution Journal

Title:Misquoted Scientists Respond Author(s): John R. Cole Volume:2 Number:4 Quarter:Fall Page(s):34-44 Year:1981

I never cease to be amazed at the skill with which Dr. Morris employs the writings of the top evolutionists themselves to develop an air-tight case against evolution. Thomas G. Barnes

Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation out of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in bogus appeals to authority. Creationists seem to be saying, "Don't just take our word for it—look at what Professor X has written to prove our case."

To respond to such arguments is difficult for anyone who is not working full time at checking every quotation or tracking down for comment each quoted person. Teachers, parents, policy makers, journalists, and other interested persons are therefore at a disadvantage, and it is for them that this anthology of responses from the scientific community has been compiled. Leading evolutionists in various fields were asked to comment briefly on misinterpretations of their areas of expertise and of their work. Most scientists who were approached replied, although a few cited other commitments that prevented their participation and a couple noted that they could not explain their position in just a few paragraphs.

Half of the following comments were especially written for this article, and the other half are from previously published material, excerpted with the authors' permission. Many topics—and scientists—are not included, but, as an introductory survey of scientists' responses to misquotation and misrepresentation by "scientific" creationists, it is hoped that this anthology will be useful as a representative sampling.

Dr. David M. Raup

Dean of Science, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; "punctuationalist" whose writings, along with those of Gould and Eldredge, are among the most influential contributions to that theory and among those cited by creationists in an attempt to bolster their case.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the current creation-evolution debate is that many of the creationists equate Darwinian theory with evolution. They are saying, in effect, that if Darwin's theory falls, then so does evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. To me, there are two basic questions: Has evolution occurred (in the sense of change in the biological composition of the earth over millions of years)? By what mechanisms has evolution occurred? Darwin's contribution was to the second question. He proposed a biological mechanism: natural selection. Whether Darwin was right or wrong has no bearing on the question of whether evolution did or did not occur.

On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about which we can be more confident. The geologic time scale has been checked and rechecked by many independent methods. Although individual dates may be subject to error, the overall chronology stands firm. It is used every day in petroleum and mineral exploration, and, if there were basic problems with it, I am sure that industrial geologists would have blown the whistle. The fossil record is intimately tied in with this chronology and shows a record of change in organisms through time. What we are not sure about is just how the biological changes took place. Natural selection surely played a part, but there may be other biological processes that have operated. One of the challenges of biology and paleontology is to find out what other processes were involved.

Max, Regarding your February 18th post:

You seem to forget that Google allows me to easily check out all of the quotations that you have listed, and to learn something about the authors of those quotations.

Your Feb 18th post is dishonest, stupid, ignorant, and it is inspired by an eagerness to sell a political and religious story thinly disguised as science.

Science is aimed at finding and publishing the truth. To the extent that science gets off target, science can efficiently correct errors. This correction process has been built into the scientific discovery method over centuries.

Politics and religion will use truth (as needed) and lies (as needed) to achieve their goals. This dishonesty is not really a problem, because as Richard Nixon and the Pope found out, you can easily cover your lies with more lies. - - - That fixes everything.

Max, you need to examine your source material with more sincerity and more insight before you can expect me to find it persuasive, or even respectable.

Darwin's theory is not scientifically controversial.

So gradualism is not in dispute?

Max Said: So gradualism is not in dispute?

Chuck Says: Max, do not dispute the fact that evolution has proceeded, both very slowly (over billions of years) and very rapidly (just a couple of years).

The fast pace and the slow pace proceed simultaneously, and various other evolutionary processes also proceed at intermediate rates.

Next, also consider the enormous number of individual organisms alive on Earth at any given moment, and understand that each organism is exposed to the effects of mutation and selection pressure throughout its lifetime.

This extraordinary symphony (or cacophony) of evolutionary events is understood by biologists to be the reason for the enormous diversity of life on Earth.

An example of slow evolution is the persistence of ancient biochemistry. It would seem that ancient life forms made use of structural proteins, globular proteins (enzymes) DNA as a genetic code carrier, a lipid layer to form a cell membrane, and the use of water to give the cell form and structure. The water is also necessary to transport chemicals, and to allow biochemical reactions to proceed. These basic attributes of life on Earth have not changed much over billions of years.

An example of fast evolution is the formulation of influenza vaccine, which must be different from year to year. These yearly changes do not mean that there are an infinite number of flu strains. It means that older flu strains mutate and evolve into new strains which are resistant to the previous year's vaccine.

Evolutionary changes can be observed over a very wide range of timescales.

The point is that there is no historical evidence for macroevolution. Regarding the time spans that separate many fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: "The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: "Life appears to have had ** many origins **. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root." Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: "The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla."

For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as "the Cambrian explosion." When was the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step! Thus, Genesis 1:21 is manifestly affirmed.

I had to laugh at this. I guess you're not aware of DNA.

As far as any supposed genetic evidence that purportedly shows common descent, drawing dogmatic conclusions based on just 0.0025% of all available genetic evidence is a grossly fallacious Dicto Simpliciter. It's poor reasoning like this which led sooooo many scientists in the past to arrogantly proclaim canards as truth.

Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

Just another case of the blind leading the blind ...

Do you have any proof that genetic evidence has disproven common descent?

I will ignore your magical percentage as it's likely been pulled out of your ass.

Seriously, you should read a book, like "Why Evolution is True" or "Unweaving the Rainbow".

Since you're such a fan of the sciences, perhaps you might consider a more intellectual and less perfunctory study of nature and the universe?

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

"In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point."

-Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

"Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly."

-Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."

-Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

"Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created."

-Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

P.S. How many animals do we have complete genetic sequences for? There's your minuscule percentage.

Thanks for the quotes. I hope you're aware that the vast majority of elite scientists are atheists:

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/17/the-atheistdominated-national-academy-of-sciences/

Yes, we do not yet have compete sequences for all animals. Maybe your god is hiding in the DNA of a yet-to-be-discovered sea slug, or under a rock on a distant planet yet explored. Do you have any positive evidence for your god, or is the argument from ignorance the sum total of what you have?

Really? I'd check where you're getting your information from because, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure Atheism. (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx)

I used the word "elite". Read the article I posted.

There's overwhelming tangible evidence for the existence of God. Question is, do you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence?

Do tell. You'd be the first.

Certainly! Just need you to first clarify for me, do you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence?

I'll accept any evidence proportionate to the claim. If you use lies, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation it tells me you have no evidence.

Would you like a drum roll, too? xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxo

Let's start by considering the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ:

Historical fact (1): After being impaled on a stake, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

Historical fact (2): On the third day following his death, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female disciples.

Historical fact (3): Different individuals and groups, on multiple occasions and under various circumstances, personally witnessed the resurrected Christ. This testimony even includes that of enemies and detractors of Christ.

Historical fact (4): His first disciples beleived Christ had been resurrected from the dead despite having every predisposition to the contrary.

As I've shared before, no naturalistic hypothesis explains these four historical facts better than the obvious: That God did in fact resurrect Christ.

Prominently, in his book, "Justifying Historical Descriptions", historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" passes all these tests:

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus' own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn't be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection solution.

None of the things you list are considered historical facts by serious scholars.

Look up the Jesus Seminar. They couldn't all agree that Jesus even existed.

There is nothing supernatural that was claimed of Jesus that was not also claimed by earlier mythologies. Consider that resurrection mythologies are a dime a dozen:

1) Ugaritic Baal (Hadad) - Canaanite god killed and eaten by Mot and later resurrects. 2) Melqart - Phonecian "The annual observation of the revival of Melqart's "awakening" may identify Melqart as a life-death-rebirth deity" 3) Adonis - Greek "He is an annually-renewed, ever-youthful vegetation god, a life-death-rebirth deity whose nature is tied to the calendar." 4) Eshmun - Phonecian god of healing 5) Osiris - Egyptian god of the dead "Through the hope of new life after death, 6) Osiris began to be associated with the cycles observed in nature, in particular vegetation and the annual flooding of the Nile." 7) Attis - Phrygian god of vegetation 8) Dumuzi - Syrian god of vegetation

Note that these mythologies were part of the melting pot of Rome at the time the Jesus legends were created.

Also, look up "pious fraud". Early Christians were happy to lie to bring in more converts.

There is nothing outside of the Bible written by contemporary sources concerning the existence of Jesus or his alleged miracles. See The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jews-Never-Knew/dp/1578849160). All you have is stories of accounts. We do not know who the gospel writers were, but we do know the earliest dated from around 90AD and the earliest copies of that didn't even mention the resurrection. It's not that it was cut off. It's that the author didn't know about it or didn't think it was important. The remaining gospels are known to be derivative works.

Your "historian" has an agenda. Note that his argument 4 makes your whole proof a circular argument: "Given that god exists. <!bullshit mumbo jumbo> Therefore god exists."

Could the tomb be empty because nothing was put in it? (Assuming there was a tomb.)

Sorry. This isn't the least bit convincing.

What "serious" scholars are you referring to? I gave you a whole list of NT scholars who treat Christ's resurrection as a historical fact. Where's your list of "scholars"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Did you even read the article you reference? These yokels are the Michael Behe of NT Scholarship.

Are you so desperate to believe in non-belief that you're willing to subscribe to the musings of fringe "scholars"?

I'm pretty sure Michael Behe had nothing to do with this group. I'd put the scholarship of Richard Price above the yokel who you cited as claiming we know "facts" from one book with unknown authors.

BTW, I have a video tape that a Christian group sent out that they claimed had already been seen by 3 billion people. False. Again, look up "pious fraud". It sill goes on today.

Max Said: Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

Chuck Says: Max, add to that list, Jesus rising from the dead, Noah's ark, the burning bush, and many more examples of old and inadequate science.

Science parted company with religion centuries ago. Science uses the tools of curiosity, competence, and truthfulness to move the human race forward in understanding. As we continue to know more, we continue to do more. Look at the world around you which has been built by scientists and by engineers. By their fruits, ye shall know them.

Religion uses ancient stories, obedience to authority, and strong emotions to shape human society, and the results are harmful. The results become more harmful with every passing year. Just look at the news headlines.

The ascendance of rationality, and the corruption and failing of religion can be easily explained. Belief in the supernatural was a valuable and necessary part of the cultural evolution of mankind. Such cultural evolution brought us forward from ancient chaos and violence into the modern civilization that we now experience. We are better off now.

Those ancient superstitions were shot through with things that were erroneous. As the centuries passed, those errors evolved into fraud, deceit, and lies. As newer, and better explanations of the world around us were provided by people using rationality as their tool, the ancient superstitions required more and more dishonesty in order to keep the churches and mosques filled with the faithful.

Max, you are a prime example of this religious dishonesty. If you would study Darwinian evolution, you might begin to understand it. If you would understand it, then you would know that it is true. You are intellectually lazy.

As a child, you were gullible. You were indoctrinated by adults, who were deceitful. Now that you are an adult, you are deceitful, and you visit this atheist forum looking for people who have a childlike gullibility. You will not find such in me.

When you were a child, you spoke as a child, you understood as a child, you thought as a child: but now that you have become a man, you need to put away such childish things.

Max, You are getting your science from theologians and from politicians who are masquerading as scientists, and from internet gossip. If you want to understand science, learn it from scientists. Not everyone who calls himself a scientist really is.

"Scientists are finally beginning to crack nature's biggest secrets at the genetic level. The results are confirming the brilliance of Darwin's insights while revealing clues to life's breathtaking diversity in ways the great naturalist could scarcely have imagined."

This two-hour special from PBS NOVA can help you to understand some things that Darwin never knew:

http://tinyurl.com/27q9pj6

You could also watch this same video on Youtube. DVDs are available from PBS. Books are available from Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/ckqmy3j

Watch some videos. Read some books. Learn the science. When I was twelve years old, I learned this science in school, and I knew that it was true.

At the same time, I learned the science and morality that the Bible had to offer in church and in Sunday school, and I knew that it was preposterous.

Science is true because scientists work hard to make it true.

Religion is false because theologians work hard to make it appear to be true.

From: Chuck Johnson (Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm) CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: "Science is true because scientists work hard to make it true. Religion is false because theologians work hard to make it appear to be true."

I had posted this on Feb 23, 2013 and it is just below all of this - just one post down.

To: Chuck Johnson and MAXXIMILIANN From: Linda (Posted Feb 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm)

LINDA SAID: Some people are interested in finding the truth, especially scientists, because lies do not help them what-so-ever. Lies only help promote ignorance and superstition. There are no Supernatural explanations there are naturalistic explanations. If someone is finding supernatural explanations for any of these questions, it's not science and it's not an explanation. The "God did it" explanation doesn't answer any questions.

Does that sound familiar?

LINDA SAID: Advances in science (DNA) confirmed evolution to the point that it was hard to deny evolution without looking ridiculous. That is why some theists thought that they could separate themselves from ignorant creationists with Theistic Evolution. However, most scientists reject Theistic Evolution as well, and so did Darwin. It is not supported by the theory of Evolution. The Bible makes no statement that would lead anyone to conclude that Theistic Evolution's claim that there was a Creation of Evolution by the Creator to make things evolve. The Bible states that God created animals after their kind. All species of animals were created in six days, and no new species has ever appeared since. That would mean that the life forms that were created didn't evolve. We know that there are transitional fossils. The Bible claims that God made man from the dust of the ground not that man evolved from a common ancestor. All organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some primordial life form.

This explains that DNA proved Darwin was right - but you have to know how that works - and Max you don't. It has to do with being able to prove that all life came from a common ancestor.

To: Chuck Johnson and MAXXIMILIANN

From: Chuck Johnson (Posted Feb 14, Chuck Says: "Max, with these assertions that you have made, you are lying. Respecting these lies with extensive refutation (as Linda tries to do) would be a waste of time. Stupid is . . . . . Stupid."

LINDA SAID: Before CHUCK JOHNSON mouths off that someone is a liar again to interrupt a tirade from a bible thumping boob (because he's lost an argument) he better be able to show me where I'm lying about science like Maxximiliann did. He is posting 1. 11. 111. like he is numbering his arguments, when all he's doing is railing out at someone who told him he was wrong, and posting well known apologists arguments.

Please add to the mix "God called "evening" and "morning" the first day? In Leviticus 23:32 we find that sunset to sunset is the measure of a day." to all the real evidence I gave Maxximiliann on the 7 day creation issue, which is what started this, and notice that all he gave were half quotes from the Bible.

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: Happy Wednesday Linda! I. He did: "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) As such, there is no reason to arbitrarily affirm that a timeless, transcendent, immaterial, extraordinarily powerful being as God experiences time the same way mortals do.

LINDA SAID: Here MAXXIMILIANN simply repeats erroneous verses of the Bible and claims that there is a God (without any evidence) and that "God doesn't experience time the same way mortals do", which doesn't answer what I said, LINDA SAID: Why would a superior being or god, who is responsible for creating everything, be telling the story of creation by using words like evening, morning, and "first day" that don't compute to millions of years? And why would a superior being or god, who is responsible for creating everything, be telling the story of creation by using words like evening, morning, and "first day" that don't compute to millions of years?

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: II. Re: Genesis 1:14-19 - Your exegesis here is faulty for Genesis 1:1 clearly informs us that "In [the] beginning God created the heavens."

LINDA SAID: LINDA SAID: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I suppose it would have been better if God had left off "heavens and the earth" and only given half of that (just heavens) like MAXXIMILIANN SAID: "Genesis 1:1 clearly informs us that "In [the] beginning God created the heavens." No such luck MAX-IE-BOY! That's a half quote -you answered my rebuttal with this for obvious reasons.

LINDA SAID: Genesis 1:1 states the "heavens and the earth" were created in the beginning. We know the heavens appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a third generation star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.

Linda (Posted Feb 8, 2013 at 1:19 am) LINDA SAID, in reply to:

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: III. As far as your appeals to a mythical evolutionary process, you overlook the fact that the gradualism of a class of organisms into another distinct class has never been directly observed.

LINDA SAID: Silly me, I thought evolution was a scientific theory and a fact. I thought evolution was a well-substantiated theory that answers questions and makes predictions and has been tested for 200 years. Advances in science (DNA) confirmed evolution to the point that it was hard to deny evolution without looking ridiculous. That is why some theists thought that they could separate themselves from ignorant creationists with Theistic Evolution. However, most scientists reject Theistic Evolution as well, and so did Darwin. It is not supported by the theory of Evolution. The Bible makes no statement that would lead anyone to conclude that Theistic Evolution's claim that there was a Creation of Evolution by the Creator to make things evolve. The Bible states that God created animals after their kind. All species of animals were created in six days, and no new species has ever appeared since. That would mean that the life forms that were created didn't evolve. We know that there are transitional fossils. The Bible claims that God made man from the dust of the ground not that man evolved from a common ancestor. All organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some primordial life form.

MAXXIMILIANN SAID: The argument here is that this takes millions of years - which no one has ever witnessed because, well, it takes millions of years - but the fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years, shows the opposite but it is hoped that the "missing" fossils of these intermediate species will one day be found. In summary, the sole evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. If that's not circular reasoning, what is?

LINDA SAID: This nincompoop thinks that there is no evidence for evolution or transitional fossils. I gave him a butt load of information on evolution and the transitional fossil record. And other proof including: LINDA SAID: In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. "DNA would have falsified evolution - instead it has confirmed it.

From:Maxximiliann (Posted Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 pm) Maxximiliann SAID: "I. Argumentum ad Lapidem. You've done nothing to dispel my argument. Try again. II. So magic? Actually what you proffer is worst than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat you have the rabbit and the hat! What you propose is that the universe came from nothing by nothing for nothing. That's clearly wrongheaded and delusional."

LINDA SAID: I've proven alot more than you have with your through-the-looking-glass Creation story. MAXXIMILIANN has given no proof or presented any credible evidence for his any of the statements that he has made.

Maxximiliann SAID: III. As many, many scientists in many, many different fields have confirmed through evidence, gradualism is a canard.

LINDA SAID: Not one credible scientist of any note would deny evolution is a theory and a fact. Even David M. Raup (that Maxximiliann posted a quote from later) that supposedly disproved evolution! I found this on a web site where many, many scientists were disputing quotes creationists had used from them, David M. Raup was on that list he said, "On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about which we can be more confident."

Evolution has more proof than many theories, and I posted the web site with many, many scientists disputing what creationist claim they have said about evolution below (including David M. Raup) below.

Maxximiliann jabbered on but never actually produced any proof or actual rebuttal to any of the information in my post, and he didn't mind trying to use old out-dated pseudo-science to try and prove something, but evolutionary biology is widely applied in every aspect of science and medicine, the branch of science that deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases. Geomorphology is the study of the evolution of landforms. Anyone who thinks I need to lie about science is flat ass stupid, it's the religious fairytale that needs deception, lies do not help science. If I am lying why don't you prove it?

From: Maxximiliann (Posted Feb 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm) MAXXIMILIANN SAID: "paleontologists like David M. Raup, "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution & Climate Science

Misquoted Scientists Respond Creation Evolution Journal

Title: Misquoted Scientists Respond

I never cease to be amazed at the skill with which Dr. Morris employs the writings of the top evolutionists themselves to develop an air-tight case against evolution.

Thomas G. Barnes

Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation out of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in bogus appeals to authority. Etc.

Dr. David M. Raup: On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about which we can be more confident. The geologic time scale has been checked and rechecked by many independent methods. Although individual dates may be subject to error, the overall chronology stands firm. It is used every day in petroleum and mineral exploration, and, if there were basic problems with it, I am sure that industrial geologists would have blown the whistle. The fossil record is intimately tied in with this chronology and shows a record of change in organisms through time. What we are not sure about is just how the biological changes took place. Natural selection surely played a part, but there may be other biological processes that have operated. One of the challenges of biology and paleontology is to find out what other processes were involved.

There is no evidence that the Bible is true; the Bible is a myth not science; which requires proof. The Old Testament came from Ugarit when the Jews lived with the canaanite's and adopted the Canaanite's Pagan religion and Pantheon of Gods. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood was copied from Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is the language of Ugarit. El was the chief god at Ugarit, and El is the name of God used in many of the Psalms among pious Christians. When reading these Psalms next to the Ugaritic texts you'll see that the very attributes for Yahweh is the same for El. These Psalms were originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El. El is called the "father of men", "creator", and "creator of the creation". These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament. But all of it came from the Pagan religion of the Canaanite's in Ugarit.

Investigation of copies of Gospel manuscripts (The New Testament) by scholars, indicates that all four Gospels were written in Greek, at least thirty to sixty years after the alleged death of Jesus. The New Testament Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark, and John was written in stages by multiple authors using a variety of written sources, and much of John directly contradicts Matthew, and this is just the tip of the iceberg concerning problems with this book. Not one piece of evidence has ever been found to support the Book, so, there can be no analogy made about something with evidence and something with none.

The "first cause" explanation is "if we don't (yet) know how something happened we should just assume that "God did it", and then we also have to assume that "God existed forever". Planck time occurred about 14 to 15 billion years ago, and at that time the universe was small enough to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. To know precisely what happened before Planck-time requires a theory of quantum gravity, which combines general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Some people are interested in finding the truth, especially scientists, because lies do not help them what-so-ever. Lies only help promote ignorance and superstition. There are no Supernatural explanations there are naturalistic explanations. If someone is finding supernatural explanations for any of these questions, it's not science and it's not an explanation. The "God did it" explanation doesn't answer any questions.

LINDA said: "But God never mentions making the Earth rotate or that this is the reason why there is darkness and light. He doesn't know? "

GEORGE: Bible is not a technical book to let you know how God created the world. He mentioned only what He wanted. He knows why, be sure. He is almighty but he cannot do whatever we want because we want things which are contrary to His nature. He has a nature and all what He does is based on that. But He is the Truth, the Love and Justice and I love these.

Furthermore: I regret to inform you that Moses never existed - There was no Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible. Archeologists and Scholars know that many different people wrote them over many centuries. When people do honest research they don't start out to prove something they already believe is true -they are looking for what is true, and they let the evidence tell them what is true. Archaeologists are very competitive and they want to discover important finds. They can't be concerned about whether or not the public will like what they have found. Archaeological sweeps of the Sinai have failed to find any evidence of Moses et al wandering there. If someone wants to research the claim that archaeological finds attest to the fact that the religious beliefs of Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia were transformed into the Bible's worshiping the Golden Calf story on Mount Sinai. The facts back that up found in the material on this subject in library books, chronicles, archives and records. When you find that the only god specifically called a Golden Calf by the ancient Egyptians in their writings is Pharaoh in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts. That information was found in letters from Canaanite princes addressed to Pharaoh Akhenaten. If this was transformed into the Bible's worshiping the Golden Calf story on Mount Sinai who was Moses really. Akhenaten was able to abolish the complex pantheon of the ancient Egyptian religion and replace it with a single God. The same story is told about Moses. Akhenaten and his followers had to exodus Egypt into the Sinai, isn't that a coincidence, so was Moses. A number of archaeologists and scholars have found through research that there were never any Hebrew slaves in Egypt, no exodus or wandering the desert.

The OT story claims Moses was given the law on Mt. Sinai and was ordered by God to bring the law down to his people. That is not true, because it can be demonstrated to be false. It is also a fact that the Ten Commandments were not given to Moses on Mt. Sinai they came from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This can easily be found to be true with a little research. In the bible story Aaron is portrayed as casting a molten calf of gold from jewelry, earrings being given by the recently freed from Egypt Hebrew slaves (Ex 32:2-3). In the bible story they declare that the Golden Calf led them up out of Egypt to the Holy Mount. The two stories are morphed together.

Cuneiform texts of Ras Shamara - Ugarit attests that much of the Old Testament and the ancient Hebrew god were borrowed from the Canaanites. The Jewish people evolved from polytheism to monotheism with the promotion of a god who had been known by a variety of names, into one supreme God, Yahweh who had a consort, Asherah. This female entity was later merged by Greek and Roman traditions into Aphrodite and Venus, and known earlier to the Egyptians as Isis. I think that this is much more fun than reading one book and believing every word is true. We now know that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah. Scholars know that a single individual did not write the first five books of the Bible. The first five books are a compilation of conflicting diverse writing composed over many centuries. Moses (One person) was not the author of the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (the law) or the Pentateuch. In which, by the way, Moses recounts his own funeral.

The Phoenicians also seem likely to have been the intermediaries through whom some of the Egyptian proverbs of Amenemope found their way into the Biblical Book of Proverbs almost verbatim. And the Canaanite origins of chapters VIII-IX of the Book of Proverbs, on the theme of Wisdom are the same themes in the Phoenician literature unearthed at Ugarit. The Sumero-Akkadian story of the creation of the World found its way to Palestine long before the Israelites' coming there, and they learned the stories from the Canaanites on whom they imposed themselves. 'There is a flood mentioned in Canaanite (Phoenician) literature in Hebrew works composed between the seventh and the third century BC in Job, Deutero-Isaiah, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Jubilees, and part of Daniel. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. Ugarit experienced a very long history. A city was built on the site in the Neolithic period around 6000 BC. The oldest written evidence of the city is found in some texts from the nearby city of Ebla written around 1800 BC. At that time both Ebla and Ugarit were under Egyptian hegemony, which shows that the long arm of Egypt extended all along the west coast of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The population of Ugarit at that time was roughly 7635 people. The city of Ugarit continued to be dominated by the Egyptians through 1400 BC. The texts discovered at Ugarit were written in one of four languages; Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic. The tablets were found in the royal palace, the house of the High Priest, and some private houses of evidently leading citizens. Ugaritic literature provides an open window on the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible

The OT and NT are Egyptian mythology and savior gods mixed with the idea of death and rebirth. As in all pagan religions there was a connection with the seasons (winter = death, spring = rebirth) and with the sun setting and rising. In the Egyptian myth it became associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and with the new harvest each year in the Nile valley.

There is a difference between opinion and the facts. It can be proven beyond any doubt that the Jewish religion comes from Ugrait, and the concoction you call Christianity is a mixture of pagan- Jewish myths that have their origin in Egypt. So, no matter what meaning anyone puts on the parables they didn't originate with Christianity. The oldest New Testament Bible is an archaeological treasure and its origin is in Egypt. The New Testament manuscript in question is the Codex Sinaiticus, distinguished from earlier manuscripts by virtue of its completeness, containing all the canonical texts along with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, the former of which has been shown to have a provenance of Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the Codex Vaticanus, the CS is the oldest intact manuscript, dating to around 350 AD/CE. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered and evidently written in Egypt and is proof that Christianity had it's origins in Egyptian religion and mythology. It's unquestionably out of Egypt the "Christ" story was invented as a mythical rehash largely of the Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus. The Sinai Peninsula, where this text was found in the oldest Christian monastery, St. Catherine's, was the only established land route to Israel, possessing numerous important Egyptian sites, including a massive fortress and temple to Horus at Tharo/Tharu. In this location, countless thousands of travelers passed between the two nations over a period of several millennia. There was countless interchange between cultures that occurred in this very region. It is no wonder that this site would be a sacred hot spot for the establishment of what turns out to be a Jewish-Egyptian hybrid called Christianity. The Book Of Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no Savior beside me."

Christianity is stolen Kemetic / Egyptian religious philosophy and spirituality, including its rituals and beliefs, remade in an Aryan image. Author and scholar Gerald Massey, once a Christian Priest, began investigating the origins Christianity found the trail leading to the civilization of Kemet / Egypt. As a consequence Massey became a student and investigator of Ancient Kemet / Egypt, and subsequently revealed his findings in four major publications - Books of the Beginnings, The Natural Genesis, Ancient Egypt the Light of the World and The Lectures. Gerald Massey over the course of twenty or so years presented facts proving Christianity was fabricated upon what was stolen from Kemet / Egypt; and that Christianity was in no respect original or from any god. Ancient Egypt the Light of the World is the comparative list Massey compiled demonstrating that Christianity is a plagiarized fabrication from its Kemetic / Egyptian origins. The list is eight pages in length. If you haven't read these publications of Gerald Massey to learn the truth about Kemet / Egypt and its impact on the fabrication of Christianity for yourself then you can't deny any of it. Reading the Bible and letting someone tell you what it means is not what we are referring to. You don't know what any of it means because you have never read any scholarly work on the subject. The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology. Ancient Egyptian texts, including the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi, remain virtually intact. The Egyptian texts date back at least three thousand years, and some to the Old Kingdom and even earlier. They predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by a minimum of one thousand years. It is true that some of these have been defaced, but only by the Priests of Amen who were trying to remove any trace of Akhenaten, the religion of the Hyksos Pharaohs, and the Hebrew God, Aten who in Greek became Adhon or Adonis. Fortunately thousands of the missing stones bearing texts from the days of Akhenaten have been recovered, painstakingly identified and put back into their original order, so that they can be read once more. The message from Ancient Egypt is therefore practically intact. We can easily see where the Bible stories originated, and with that knowledge we can unravel the Bible mysteries, and see where The Book was born, and what was the true meaning behind the Mysteries.

You can't teach people who are far better informed than you are, brainwashing is not knowledge. All you can do is learn from them, if you are capable of that. The bible isn't true, it is a book of rehashed myths. You're a perfect example of a quote by Christopher Hitchens - "the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep."

From: George (Posted Feb 7, 2013 at 12:27 am) GEORGE QUOTES LINDA: "But God never mentions making the Earth rotate or that this is the reason why there is darkness and light. He doesn't know? "

GEORGE SAID: Bible is not a technical book to let you know how God created the world. He mentioned only what He wanted. He knows why, be sure. He is almighty but he cannot do whatever we want because we want things which are contrary to His nature. He has a nature and all what He does is based on that. But He is the Truth, the Love and Justice and I love these.

LINDA SAID: That's right George, as soon as they were told that the Bible didn't answer anything correctly about how the universe or life in the universe evolved, they started yelling, "the Bible is not a science book." However, they had people put to death, burned and tortured for saying that the planets orbit the sun -because that was heretical- in other words the Bible knew more about science.

Religion once had the power to tell people how things happened because humans were so ignorant. That's why the Bible rails out against knowledge throughout.

Evolutionary science describes how complex life has developed through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations; it asserts that all species of life on this planet, including humans, are products of this process. It is also now known that humans share 98 percent of our genetic code with the bonobo (officially classified as Pan paniscus), 90 percent with mice, 21 percent with roundworms, and fully 7 percent with the bacterium E. coli. This scientific perspective does not support the theories espoused by theistic religions.

Re: " How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round? I mean, how can you say it took one day, to create what has let us to the definition of a day? You cant use the definition "day" before the premisses of the definition is created. Can you guys follow my thinking?"

I follow your thinking. The 7-day creation story sounds pretty absurd. Science offers a much more clear picture now. Let's see...

Now we know that Solar system was formed 9 billion years after the big bang. A year is defined as a period of rotation of the Earth around the Sun. There was no Earth or Sun during these 9 billion years. Hmm...

Perhaps, we can use a more advanced definition of time units: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html). Caesium forms within stars and there were no stars until 150 million to 1 billion years after the big bang (whatever that might mean). Hmm...

Physicists laid out chronology of the universe down to the Planck time (10^-43s). Is there a way to define time without any periodic process to measure it? To have such a periodic process, we need a massive particle, at least, a hydrogen atom. These did not appear until the first microsecond after the big bang. So, how can we speak of any time line before formation of matter? Hmm...

We also know that mass and velocity change the properties of space and time. We also know that we cannot define or measure time intervals smaller than planck time (10^-43s), even theoretically. We also know that laws of physics, perhaps, did not exist as we know them before the electroweak epoch which started 10^-36 after the big bang. This implies that anything we say about what was before this time is a speculation. It's also interesting that as you look at the universe chronology graphs, the time scale is logarithmic whereas the big bang is marked as "0 linear time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang. 0 does not exist on a logarithmic scale... Hmm...

Here is more on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1947v1.pdf

This, of course, does not imply that god created anything or that science is wrong. I don't know what this all implies...

AG (QUOTES) Philip: "Re: " How could God create the Universe in 7 days, if a day is defined as being the amount of time it takes for the earth to spin a round? I mean, how can you say it took one day, to create what has let us to the definition of a day? You cant use the definition "day" before the premisses of the definition is created. Can you guys follow my thinking?"

AG SAID: "I follow your thinking. The 7-day creation story sounds pretty absurd. Science offers a much more clear picture now. Let's see..."

LINDA SAID: Yes, especially since there was no Sun, so, there was no morning and evening. Philip obviously understands that the story in Genesis doesn't make sense - I think he's saying how can anyone believe it? Nobody can make science conform to the kind of mistakes that are made no matter how hard they try.

AG SAID: "Now we know that Solar system was formed 9 billion years after the big bang. A year is defined as a period of rotation of the Earth around the Sun. There was no Earth or Sun during these 9 billion years. Hmm..."

LINDA SAID: The Old Testament was translated from books written in Hebrew. The words in Hebrew olam or qedem mean an unknown or long period of time, but none of these words are used in Genesis. The Hebrew word for day is yom, and it is used as day many times in Genesis along with the phrase "morning and evening", and the phrase "morning and evening" are used with each of the six days of creation. So, when Genesis in the bible states that the "morning and the evening" were the first, second, third etc... day it's absolute proof that it's not what was going on "in the beginning" you can't have it both ways. Either God's inspired writing is about the actual facts of the matter or it's not (I pick it's not) because it's always been a lie; the bible is not the inspired writings of any God, all holy books make that claim. The Sun didn't exist "in the beginning" and neither did water but they both do in Genesis, I guess the answers really aren't in Genesis? The Bible supposedly is of divine inspiration; it can't be a "Holy Book" otherwise. The prophets of the Old Testament wrote, "Thus saith the Lord" throughout because of the claim that it is inspired by God.. Um Hum!

AG SAID: "Perhaps, we can use a more advanced definition of time units etc..."

LINDA SAID: It doesn't matter what kind of time anyone uses since the story in Genesis is the issue that Philip is referring to. I don't think he needs an explanation of how time works. The actual issue is that the inspired writing of God transcribed by Moses in Genesis demonstrates no "understanding" of the rotation of earth on it's axis. We know there was no Sun (in the very beginning) for the Earth to rotate around and that the Sun is before the Earth, but the Creator doesn't. So, why would anyone doggedly obey a book that is obviously full of shit?

AG SAID: "Physicists laid out chronology of the universe down to the Planck time (10^-43s). Is there a way to define time without any periodic process to measure it? To have such a periodic process, we need a massive particle, at least, a hydrogen atom. These did not appear until the first microsecond after the big bang. So, how can we speak of any time line before formation of matter? Hmm..."

LINDA SAID: Time didn't exist before the big bang, so, there was no time before time -to speak about. The mistakes in Genesis were not only about the length of time it took for things to come into being, it also got the arrangement of events out of order of their actual occurrences. The Earth could not have existed before the Sun and neither could plants.

AG SAID: We also know that mass and velocity change the properties of space and time. We also know that we cannot define or measure time intervals smaller than planck time (10^-43s), even theoretically. We also know that laws of physics, perhaps, did not exist as we know them before the electroweak epoch which started 10^-36 after the big bang."

LINDA SAID: The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. We cannot measure anything which exists below the Planck Time. Using principles from quantum theory, special relativity, and general relativity, a quantized space-time (resulting in the Planck scales) can be demonstrated. That means, there is the possibility that space-time is not continuous, but kind of a collection of irreducible clumps, anything below that time is meaningless; time does not exist independently of our universe, so, it makes no sense to ask what happened before.

AG SAID: "This implies that anything we say about what was before this time is a speculation. It's also interesting that as you look at the universe chronology graphs, the time scale is logarithmic whereas the big bang is marked as "0 linear time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang. 0 does not exist on a logarithmic scale... Hmm..."

LINDA SAID: Time did not always exist, there was no time before the Big Bang, the sudden explosive origin of space, time, and matter. Time emerged out of space in a continuous process. Continuous meaning time-like quality of a dimension, as opposed to space-like quality, it is not all space or all time; there are shades in between. Time does not exist independently of our universe; so it makes no sense to ask what happened before the Big Bang. There is no space outside of the universe; there is no "nothingness" that the universe exists inside of. Everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity. The universe is completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.

At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero.) The singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (the smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy (spontaneous energy) equivalent as the initiator. According to the Big Bang Theory, the notion of time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time is a computable element that cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound. Quantum mechanics is all about the very small. Below a certain size, the "common sense" laws of the universe cease to hold and quantum effects dominate. The size at which this occurs is known as the "Planck length".The Planck length is the shortest unit of measurement that has any meaning. Below this scale any measurement becomes meaningless. it is meaningless to try to consider what "happened" to the universe at an age less than Planck time.

Planck time is sometimes referred to as the "natural unit of time" for the universe. A unit of Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel, in a vacuum, a single unit of Planck length, it is part of the larger system of natural units known as Planck units. One unit of Planck time - a quantum of time - is, according to modern physics, the smallest amount of time that makes "sense". The concept of Planck time relies on both quantum physics and relativity. This gives us the fundamental lower limit on time measurement and is termed Planck time, the smallest units of length and mass can be found as well. Using the fundamental constants of nature. According to this formulation, the classical notion of points in a continuous space-time does not make physical sense, and the physics below the Planck units requires the differentiation between vacuum and matter which this is yet not possible through known physics as measurements are not possible at these scales.

AG (gives a web address for more information) and says - "This, of course, does not imply that god created anything or that science is wrong. I don't know what this all implies..."

LINDA SAID: You gave that same web addresses about time on - General Discussion "Disbelief as the default position" (topic) and on Atheist Community of Austin (topic) "We who believe there is a God need to see point of view of those who do not believe."

I think it's obvious that some people hope that anything that hasn't been explained "yet" is going to be where God is hiding (somewhere in all of this science) like maybe just before Plank Time, also time was really different before time. But every time they fill in a gap God has to look for another place to hide. The whole Genesis story is absurd on so many levels that it would take way more than quantum physics to fix it.

AG Said: It's also interesting that as you look at the universe chronology graphs, the time scale is logarithmic whereas the big bang is marked as "0 linear time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang. 0 does not exist on a logarithmic scale... Hmm...

Chuck Says: AG, I can help you with logarithmic scales.

A linear scale has numbers on it that get added together, or subtracted. A yardstick is a good example. Each number signifies another inch of length. A linear scale can have zero on it, and a linear scale can have negative numbers, too.

A log scale has numbers on it that get multiplied or divided. Your Wikipedia link above shows an example. There is no zero and there are no negative numbers on the log scale.

Log scales are fairly common in science and engineering. They are used to avoid having all of the interesting events all crowded at one end of the graph with a large stretch of almost empty line for the rest of the graph.

You would choose a linear graph or a log graph depending on which type of graph would display your information in the easiest-to-read manner.

The log graph has no zero because you CAN NOT reach zero by dividing numbers down, smaller and smaller. You approach zero, but never reach it.

The linear graph has zero because you CAN reach zero by subtracting numbers.

I remember this stuff from when I used to use a slide rule. The slide rule uses log scales to do multiplication and division.

AG Said: This, of course, does not imply that god created anything or that science is wrong. I don't know what this all implies...

Chuck Says: AG, the core beliefs of science are on solid ground, and they don't get updated very often. Such updates might be small refinements of theory to accommodate newly discovered data.

The frontiers of science are where the action is, and where headlines (such as Higgs Boson headlines) are made.

Science at the frontiers includes the very small (subatomic particles), the very large (our observable universe), and the very distant (the far reaches of our universe).

Science at the frontiers is correct to a certain extent, and incorrect to a certain extent. It consists, in part, of speculation, confusion, and error. In the end, the theory that best fits the observed and experimental date wins out. It's a jungle out there, and only the fittest will survive.

Publication and peer review help to keep science on track as error gets discarded, and correct theories get promoted. In this way, the frontiers of science move forward into new unknown territories.

This is the natural way of science.

Scientists working at the frontiers of knowledge might give you the impression that they know exactly what they are talking about, but they only know in part, and they prophesy in part.

From: Chuck Johnson (Posted Feb 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm) CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: AG Said: This, of course, does not imply that god created anything or that science is wrong. I don't know what this all implies... Chuck Says: AG, the core beliefs of science are on solid ground, and they don't get updated very often. Such updates might be small refinements of theory to accommodate newly discovered data.

LINDA SAID: There is no such thing as absolute certainty with science. Scientists make no claim for eternal truth, but we all know the bible thumping fundies do (the bible is true, today, yesterday and tomorrow) and then they attack us for pointing out the holes in their claims. In science the term fact is used when something is confirmed to the extent that it would be near impossible to disprove it. Although, evolution is as certain as death and taxes but the theory is updated as new things are discovered all the time (but it has only improved the theory) for instance the discovery of DNA and mapping the human genome, but the basic theory has not changed. Other changes in scientific theories because of advancement in our knowledge would be like Euclidean Geometry, which is based on the mathematics of Euclid 330 B.C., he developed the first comprehensive deductive system. Euclid's approach to geometry consisted of proving all theorems from a finite number of postulates axioms. Euclidean Geometry is the study of flat space. In flat space, we know such concepts as: the shortest distance between two points is one unique straight line. the sum of the angles in any triangle equals 180 degrees. Euclidean Geometry works just fine on Earth for all practical purposes, so, it's not wrong but in a curved space-time the laws of Euclidean geometry no longer hold: the angles of a triangle do not in general add up to 180°, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is in general not pi, and so on. This curvature in turn affects the behavior of matter. In Newtonian physics a particle with nothing pushing or pulling it will move in a straight line. In a curved space-time what used to be straight lines are now twisted and bent, and particles with no forces acting on them are seen to move along curved paths. Newton's theory of gravity worked and still does work, but Newton's law of gravity explained gravity on Earth and the orbit of the moon about the Earth, the motions of the planets about the sun and etc. General Relativity also explains all of those things, but in a very different way. In General Relativity, a massive body like the sun causes the space-time around it to curve, and this curvature in turn affects the motion of the planets, causing them to orbit around the sun. There are small differences that can and have been measured in the solar system, and to date all the data have matched the predictions of General Relativity.

CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: "The frontiers of science are where the action is, and where headlines (such as Higgs Boson headlines) are made. Science at the frontiers includes the very small (subatomic particles), the very large (our observable universe), and the very distant (the far reaches of our universe)."

LINDA SAID: The LHC is the most powerful machine on Earth, and is capable of producing huge explosions of energy that generate particles. The LHC as well as at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in the United States have found the Higgs boson predicted by Peter Higgs 50 years ago. The Higgs boson is a subatomic particle that is a crucial building block of the universe. It is demonstrated by how it interacts with other particles and its quantum properties. Particles can generally be classified into two categories, according to the quantum mechanical rules that they obey: fermions and bosons. The Higgs particle is called a boson because it falls into the second category. The discovery of the Higgs boson shows how brilliant the experimental physicists and engineers around the world are who built the Large Hadron Collider, and it show how brilliant the theoretical physicists are who predicted the Higgs boson almost 50 years ago. The Higgs boson has long been thought the key to resolving the mystery of the origin of mass. This discovery bears on the knowledge of how mass comes about at the quantum level. The Higgs boson is associated with a field, called the Higgs field, theorized to pervade the universe. As particles travel through this field they acquire mass. The Higgs Boson is the missing piece in the Standard Model; every particle predicted by the Standard Model has been discovered except the Higgs boson.

CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: "Science at the frontiers is correct to a certain extent, and incorrect to a certain extent. It consists, in part, of speculation, confusion, and error. In the end, the theory that best fits the observed and experimental date wins out. It's a jungle out there, and only the fittest will survive."

LINDA SAID: Most hypothesis of modern scientific theories are rigorously tested and very well established before they ever become a theory. In physics for instance, not only do we know certain things, but we have a very precise understanding of the limits of our reliable knowledge. There is an enumerable set of ways that motion of test particles can deviate from Newtonian gravity, as well as, from general relativity and we can tell you what the limits are on each of them. At small distances, the inverse-square behavior of the gravitational force law can certainly break down; but we can tell you exactly the scale above which it will not break down, at about a tenth of a millimeter. We can also quantify how well this knowledge extends to different kinds of materials; we know very well that Newton's law works for ordinary matter, but the precision for dark matter is not as good, but the discovery of the Higgs boson (they are hoping) will shed some light on dark matter.

CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: "Publication and peer review help to keep science on track as error gets discarded, and correct theories get promoted. In this way, the frontiers of science move forward into new unknown territories."

LINDA SAID: If you want to know how well it's working just look at the success of particle physics and quantum field theory. The total budget for high-energy physics worldwide is billions of dollars per year. So I would think there must be some reason that they are very happy to support scientific research.

CHUCK JOHNSON SAID: "This is the natural way of science. Scientists working at the frontiers of knowledge might give you the impression that they know exactly what they are talking about, but they only know in part, and they prophesy in part."

LINDA SAID: There are things that modern science does not understand yet, but there are also many things that it does understand. Scientists do predict things like the Higgs boson or the cosmic microwave background but they have accumulated a lot of information that points in that direction first, it's not prophecy, and that statement is worthless; that's not how science works. Science accumulates empirical evidence for or against various hypotheses. AG Said: "This, of course, does not imply that god created anything or that science is wrong." for the Big Bang theory (that is being tested by the LHC) to be proven wrong and prove a supernatural event occurred, which is incompatible with all the tests and experiments for many, many years, and is also incompatible with the laws of physics, they would have to prove all these findings are wrong. Good luck on that one! Since I don't think any country is putting even a dollar a year into Creation science research.

It is not fair my posts are not published. I sent more posts which were not published.

George Says: It is not fair my posts are not published. I sent more posts, which were not published.

Chuck Says: George, I write my messages in a word processor program and then post them to the forums.

I always keep a copy of the message, and if something goes wrong in posting, I can repost them later. You can try this.

Thanks Chuck.

Do really believe anyone here can answer that question? Can you see things from God's perspective? I guess you can be closed minded like some atheists who have responded to you asserting it's all "just so" stories. Well, I don't think you should go to ignorant people to have your questions answered. Atheists cannot help you understand God's word. Also, you cannot reason your way to God. Stop worrying about things like that and start paying attention to the signs being fulfilled around us. If you cannot see what is occurring in the world, then you need to find Christ, because that is the only way to have the veil lifted. This is all biblically sound.

You make sense my friend. Over the years, skeptics have challenged-- and continue to challenge-- the Bible's accuracy regarding the names of people, events and places it mentions. Time and again, though, evidence has proved the skepticism to be baseless and the Bible record to be trustworthy.

For example, at one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840's, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.

Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus'death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate's name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.

Before 1993, there was no extra-biblical evidence to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words "House of David" and "king of Israel."

Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible's account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that "Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible," states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as "district ruler" and Gallio as "proconsul." (Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province "beyond the River," the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province "Beyond the River."

Regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible, the October 25, 1999, issue of U.S.News & World Report said: "In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments-- corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus." While faith in the Bible does not hinge on archaeological discoveries, such historical accuracy is what you would expect of a book inspired by God.

Maxximiliann (Posted Mar 6, 2013 at 9:11 pm) MAXXIMILIANN SAID: You make sense my friend. Over the years, skeptics have challenged-- and continue to challenge-- the Bible's accuracy regarding the names of people, events and places it mentions. Time and again, though, evidence has proved the skepticism to be baseless and the Bible record to be trustworthy.

LINDA SAID: This Post was taken from the: "Watchtower Online Library" You eliminated the introduction and some references to bible verses.

I'll answer (the introduction) Maxximiliann post and the Watchtower article:

WATCHTOWER SAID: " -1 Build Confidence in the Bible" All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight." - 2 Timothy 3:16." WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE? Many maintain that the Bible is nothing more than a book of human wisdom. Some believe that it is historically inaccurate. Others claim that the Bible's counsel is impractical or out-of-date. HOW CAN YOU OVERCOME THE CHALLENGE? Often, those who question the reliability or usefulness of the Bible have not investigated the matter for themselves. They merely repeat what others say. However, the Bible warns: "Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps."--Proverbs 14:15.nstead of blindly accepting what others say, why not follow the example of the first-century Christians who lived in Beroea, in what is now northern Greece? They did not just accept what others told them. Rather, they had a reputation for "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) Let us briefly consider two reasons why you can have confidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Bible is historically accurate."

LINDA SAID: There was never any evidence of the authenticity of the Gospels or who wrote them. The majority of people rejected Christianity and for that reason it was necessary to intimidate the population in order to force a state institutionalized religion on humanity. If Christianity had been true it would have been obvious to most people; there would have never been any reason to commit genocide and burn other books in order to spread the truth. Instilling a perpetual fear in people was how this barbaric religion got sway over its victims until science and rational thinking dispelled these myths, which has taken away the ability to persuade with fear. However, even though there are many people who suffer psychological damage from being terrorized all their lives with stories of hell, the devil and the sadistic suffering of nonbelievers in the afterlife, many of preachers are still involved in the same sort of coercion. One of the primary reasons to rid the earth of these barbaric teachings is the terrorizing of the human race that is without a doubt one of its biggest crimes.

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "Over the years, skeptics have challenged--and continue to challenge--the Bible's accuracy regarding the names of people and places it mentions. Time and again, though, evidence has proved the skepticism to be unfounded and the Bible record to be trustworthy."

LINDA SAID: The reason for not taking the bible as the word of any one god is not about finding real people existed - after all Paul Bunyan is a book with people and places that existed but the story is fake. That kind of story telling is very common. Archeologist don't make decisions on things like not being able to find something in the Middle East because it's hard to dig there because of a lot of war. The problem is claims that something is true when it's very anti-science (for instance) virgin births, creating a man out of dirt and a woman out of his rib, man created before animals, which is wrong, and animal species created as they are right now. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (it's not consistent with the biblical creation story) from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one fossil that has been found that's out of order. There's all of that and I didn't even mention the talking snakes.

There is no scientific evidence that there was ever a world wide flood. There is no geological evidence that it ever occurred - none - but plenty that it didn't. Igneous (volcanic rocks) in flood sediments would all be in the form of pillow lava, which are extruded underwater. There could be no segregation of igneous rock types. Basalt would be the only igneous rock type because all activity would have been extrusive. There would be a complete absence of volcanic layers within the strata, but there are very clearly defined volcanic layers, from which radiometric dates are obtained. How can we observe layers of volcanic rock within the strata if there was a Flood at at the time? The only "evidence" of a world wide flood comes from biblical scripture but the scientific evidence disputes their claims because this myth was derived from the earlier Babylonian flood mythology. The Old Testament is not the beginning of what became the Jewish religion it goes back much farther than that. The Jewish religion has its roots in Ugarit. There were many flood stories not just one. The worldwide flood described in Genesis is a combination of flood stories that came from Sumeria, Ugarit and Mesopotamian flood narratives. The most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh (with the same flood story) known today is preserved on 12 clay tablets from the library of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (685-627 BCE) long before the OT was written.

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "For example, at one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840's, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings."

LINDA SAID: Sargon King of Assyria referenced in Isaiah 20:1 was for many centuries a complete mystery, for a very long time the only mention of this great king was found in Isaiah 20:1 "The year that the Turtan came to Ashdod, when Sargon king of Assyria sent him." It was archaeological efforts that brought to light by their excavations of Botta at Khorsabad in 1842 the palace of Sargon, erected by him in his new city of Dur-Sargon. Archaeologists find things written about in all kinds of ancient writings all the time -they wouldn't still be looking if they were claiming someone or thing didn't exist. That does not confirm a thing about biblical mythology.

The Ugaritic alphabet is among the oldest that has been discovered; the transliteration (the practice of transcribing a word or text) has proven that the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period come from Ugarit. Texts (which were discovered at Ugarit) were written in one of four languages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic. The tablets were found in the royal palace, the house of the High Priest, and some private houses of evidently leading citizens. One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was Dan'il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel (while predating him by several centuries.) Most scholars agree that the Canonical prophet was the Ugarit Dan'il. The text was first called the epic of Daniel. This Ugaritic Daniel is not a Jewish prophet, or a follower of a monotheistic God, but a polytheist worshipper of Baal.

The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is the culture and religion of the Hebrews in their earliest period. The destruction of Ugarit can be accurately dated to around 1200 BC, which means that these tablets, and the ideas they convey, were around earlier than most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. The Ugaritic literature demonstrates the Hebrews and the Canaanites of Ugarit shared a common literary heritage and a common linguistic lineage. They are related languages and literatures. Much of the Old Testament can be found in Ugarit texts long before the OT was written.

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus' death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate's name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel."

LINDA SAID: The Jewish historian Philo wrote about Pilate, mentioning his abuses, but not a single word about anyone remotely resembling a miracle working Jesus who was supposedly crucified by Pilate. There were supposedly actual letters of Pilate but these specific letters are found in the minor Pilate apocrypha, the Anaphora Pilati, or Relation of Pilate, in which, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "There exists a puerile correspondence consisting of a pretended Letter of Herod to Pilate and Letter of Pilate to Herod." These spurious texts are no older than the fifth century. Whether Pontius Pilate exited isn't the problem and I never heard anyone deny that there were many real people and places written about in the bible and other books of that time period. It's about Jesus' existence as a man/god/son of god who performed miracles, but nobody at that time in history had written a thing about his life or death. Jesus is not mentioned outside the Bible and the gospels were written many years after Jesus' supposed life time. I am sure they accept the historical part of the Bible. Many people (like Julius Caesar) and places like Egypt can be found in the writings of 1st century. There are pictures of Julius Caesar, coins with his likeness, letters to a from him etc. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus and, there isn't a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. Some of the gospels have Jesus crucified beside two thieves, but the Romans did not crucify thieves. All documents about Jesus came long after the life of the alleged Jesus from either unknown authors (the gospels) people who had never met an earthly Jesus (Paul) or from fraudulent writings.

Historical Soundness - Watchtower online Library wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007403

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone [2], dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words "House of David" and "king of Israel."

LINDA SAID: Some biblicists claim that archaeological discoveries verify David was an historical king of Israel. The word "house" is used in the bible with two meanings--the temple which should be built, and the descendant who would build the temple. House of David could mean, not a dynasty, but those (people) who owe allegiance to the God David and worship him at his temple (house). The Persian administrators had a purpose in using a historical romance to give a basis to unity. The later Hellenistic editors had even more reason. The style alone is sufficient to show that it has been edited by a refined editor at a much later date. The obvious times were during the priesthood of the second temple and more especially during Hasmonaean times.

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "Events. Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible's account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that "Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible," states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.Proper titles. There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as "district ruler" and Gallio as "proconsul." (Luke 3:1 Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province "beyond the River," the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province "Beyond the River."

Thomas Levy has excavated a copper-smelting operation at Khirbat en Nahas. Levy dates one of the periods of copper production at the site to the tenth century B.C., which, according to the biblical narrative, is when David's antagonists the Edomites dwelled in this region. However, some maintain that Edom did not emerge until two centuries later. Levy says of his discovery. "the scale of metal production is that of an ancient state or kingdom." Most criticism has come from advocates of a "low chronology" or "minimalist" school of early biblical history. They contend that in David's time Edom was a pastoral society, and Judah not much more advanced. In this view, ancient Israel did not develop into a true state until the eighth century B.C. A century and a half after David. More widely held in recent years is the estimate that Edom did not become a complex society and kingdom until the eighth or seventh centuries, presumably as a consequence of rule by the Assyrian empire. Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University and a leading proponent of the low-chronology model, has said the new research does "not shed new light on the question of state formation in Edom." He argues that perhaps the copper operations were controlled by chieftains in Beersheba, to the west, and supplied material for urban centers west and north of Edom. Levy and Najjar said their excavations showed that "this image of external control is not convincing." Piotr Bienkowski, of the University of Manchester, England, and Eveline van der Steen, of East Carolina University, in Greenville, North Carolina, who have excavated the Edomite highlands, criticized the statistical analysis of the new dating and suggested that the data had been used to support an unjustified interpretation.

"One 'fortress' does not make a kingdom," they argued in a paper.

MAXXIMILIAN (WATCHTOWER) SAID: "Regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible, the October 25, 1999, issue of U.S.News & World Report said: "In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments--corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus." While faith in the Bible does not hinge on archaeological discoveries, such historical accuracy is what you would expect of a book inspired by God. The practical wisdom contained in the Bible benefits people of all backgrounds."

LINDA SAID: Archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the Bible and has clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. For instance, the discovery of Ugarit and the Ugaritic Texts in 1928. In the Ugaritic texts we find there was a Ugaritic Pantheon, and that's why the prophets of the Old Testament rail out against Baal, Asherah and various other gods, because the people of Israel worshiped these gods along with Yahweh, the (now) God of Israel. These Canaanite gods being denounced were the very gods that were worshiped. El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh. When you read these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts it's clear that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El. El is called the "father of men", "creator", and "creator of the creation". These attributes are also given to Yahweh by the Old Testament. In 1 Kings 22:19-22 Yahweh is meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the "sons of god" are the sons of El. Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist. This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal, Asherah, Yam and Mot. What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death. One of the most interesting of these lesser deities, Asherah, plays a very important role in the Old Testament. There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh!

However, the archaeological record has not been helpful to theists on one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. There is a strong consensus of opinion among archaeologists and scholars that there is no evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.The idea that the scribes were making meticulous copies of the Old Testament is a fallacy perpetuated by evangelical apologists. Nobody knows what was originally written, we only have copies that were copied from other copies today. The first five books of the Old Testament called the Pentateuch, Tanakh or Torah were written by at least four authors and were based on older oral myths. A fifth author compiled the work of the previous authors into Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. This theory called the Documentary Hypothesis is the most widely accepted view within the Biblical scholarship community. Throughout the New Testament Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. There was never a worldwide flood. What these ancient myths provide is proof that the Jews copied them from other ancient Sumerian myths and the Romans copied from the Jews. The Old Testament was copied from older myths and Moses never existed.

I guess this was just on that WATCHTOWER article it SAID: Long before the discovery of microorganisms and their role in spreading disease, the Bible recommended hygienic practices that are still relevant today. (Leviticus 11:32-40; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) Family members who apply the Bible's advice about how to treat one another are happier. (Ephesians 5:28-6:4) A person who lives by Bible principles may become a more conscientious employee or a more reasonable employer. (Ephesians 4:28; 6:5-9) Applying Bible principles is beneficial for emotional health as well. (Proverbs 14:30; Ephesians 4:31, 32; Colossians 3:8-10) Such practical advice is what we would expect from our Creator. WHAT IS THE REWARD? The wisdom found in the Bible can make even an inexperienced person wise. (Psalm 19:7) In addition, once we gain confidence in the Bible, it can help us as no other book can in taking the next step toward having stronger faith.For more information, see chapter 2, "The Bible--A Book From God," in the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?

LINDA SAID: As for trichinosis - and all the rest of it - Marvin Harris has pointed out in his work entitled: Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture (1989), pigs can not carry anthrax while cattle and sheep can. Cattle, pigs and sheep can carry Tapeworms. Although pigs can carry Trichinosis, it's seldom fatal (unlike anthrax), and most humans recover completely with a good immune system. The solution for the problem of parasites should have been the way the food was cooked. The clean animals are just as likely to have parasites as the unclean animals. As for scientifically superior goes - Leviticus 11:20 "All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you." Leviticus 11: 6 "And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you." There are no insects with four legs - all insects have six legs, not four - and hares do not chew a cud. Clean and unclean animals are listed in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 God does not say that camels have more parasites than cows, or that fish-eating herons are more hazardous to us than fish-eating ducks. Honeybees are unclean but honey can be eaten. Today we know that honey contains botulism and there should be precautions about giving it to an infant or foods that contain honey that may be processed, but may not be pasteurized, and so may still contain botulism spores in them and should not be given to infants.

Deut. 14 begin (verse 2) and end (verse 21) with a similar setting apart. If the Israelites found something dead, they were not allowed to eat it, but a gentile could eat it. "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God." Of course clean and unclean originated with sacrifices. It involved many things not just meat. The rules about uncleanness separated the Israelite nation from gentile nations. That is all this was ever about it is not rocket science. The regulations God gave the ancient Israelites were various laws about cleanness and uncleanness. These laws were not concerned with simple hygiene, but ceremonial status. People who were unclean were not allowed to participate in religious ceremonies. If God had been giving these laws for health purposes why didn't He indicate which mushrooms are dangerous, and which herbs increase our chances for cancer. He would need to tell us about the more dangerous health hazards.

There were various devices for holding an ethnic-religious group together even though it might be fragmentized into scattered communities. Laws of purity, especially those pertaining to diet, kept different groups apart. Each normally respected the other's rules, but the fact that each group had different taboos kept them from breaking bread together and mingling socially. They could do business with each other in the marketplace, but they could not fraternize in each other's homes. Above all, laws of purity were deterrents to intermarriage, the major factor that breaks up religious communities and encourages homogenization.

Is this for realsies? You can't reason your way to god... but just believe it's "the second coming"? I hope you all have a boloney detecting kit...this takes it to a whole new level! Is there an End Time prophecy about a time in the end of days when morons will spread utter bull shit? Maybe the end time is here? I mean just look around and... OH! HOLY SHIT IT MUST BE THE END TIMES!!!

Linda said: "If Christianity had been true it would have been obvious to most people;" George said: This is not necessarily true. For example, Physics is true but it is not obvious for many people. You do not take into acount the evil power that permanently try to destroy all what is holy and good.

To add to your sound reasoning, I'd only like to point out that there is more historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Christ than there is for evolution. In fact, any denial of the historicity of Christ's resurrection is comparable to denying the US declared its independence in 1776 or that Columbus landed in America in 1492.

In his book "The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus", Michael Licona provides a list of scholars who attest to the historicity of Christ's death and resurrection which includes Brodeur, Collins, Conzelman, Fee, Gundry, Harris, Hayes, Hèring, Hurtado, Johnson, Kistemaker, Lockwood, Martin, Segal, Snyder, Thiselton, Witherington, and Wright.

Concordantly, British scholar N. T. Wright states, "As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." (N. T. Wright, "The New Unimproved Jesus," Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)

These are just a minute sampling from the massive throng of scholars who all attest to the historicity of Christ's resurrection - http://amzn.to/13MQiTE

Prominently, in his book, "Justifying Historical Descriptions", historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" passes all these tests:

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus' own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn't be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection solution.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

ACA members! It's time to renew your ACA membership. You can do so online if you log in and then click here or check your e-mail for alternate instructions. Thanks for supporting the ACA.

The after-the-show meetup after the Atheist Experience TV Show has moved to El Arroyo, 1624 W 5th St.