951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

I’ve always thought that atheism is disingenuous. How can you ever get to the point that you know without a doubt that there is no God?  Agnosticism I get.  Plain and simple you’re thinking you’re not totally sure there is or isn’t a God and mankind may never know for sure.  An agnostic is at least honest enough to allow for himself to be wrong – however remote he/she may feel that might be.  An atheist by definition has already ruled out any & all possibility.  I think that is irrational.

On the subject of atheism being irrational, I found the following article interesting. Does the writer have a valid point? Without God can there be any real universal logic in only a materialistic existence?


 
Atheism: An Irrational Worldview
 
by Dr. Jason Lisle

Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.” Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain’s leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.”1 Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?2

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Here’s why:

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist respond?

The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

Footnotes

1. “Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America’s unbelievers” The Guardian, October 1st, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2180901,00.html
2. See 1 Peter 3:15.
3. Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen often used this analogy. Dr. Bahnsen was known as the “man atheists most feared.”

72 Responses to “Atheism: An Irrational Worldview”

  1. on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:17 pmJohnE

    I’ve always thought that atheism is disingenuous. How can you ever get to the point that you know without a doubt that there is no God? Agnosticism I get. Plain and simple you’re thinking you’re not totally sure there is or isn’t a God and mankind may never know for sure. An agnostic is at least honest enough to allow for himself to be wrong – however remote he/she may feel that might be. An atheist by definition has already ruled out any & all possibility. I think that is irrational.

    Are you an agnostic when it comes to the existence of the tooth fairy? If you know without a doubt that there is no tooth fairy, should I think you are disingenuous? May I call you irrational please? Replace “atheism” with “disbelief in the tooth fairy” in the paragraph you wrote and see what you get.

    Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.”

    Are you saying they shouldn’t? How about you Christians, preaching about Jesus? (For practical purposes, although it’s not your article I will address my questions to you, since you obviously agree with it)

    The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature.

    Well this is typical. This fellow preaches about logic but then he commits a logical fallacy by using circular reasoning. Logic stems from God? What God, the one whose existence you are trying to prove using the “laws of logic”? Anyway, go ahead and prove your statement, that “God” exists and logic stems from “him”.

    Why is the “law” of contradiction “true” you ask? Because reality is true, that’s why. If a car is in the parking lot, it is true that you contradicting a fact when you say the car is not in the parking lot, you contradict reality.

    Now all that talk about the “laws of logic” being immaterial is non-sense. Materialness or lack thereof cannot be assigned to concepts or ideas. It’s a bit like saying a certain theory has a spherical geometrical shape. Non-sense.

    PS: This Bahnsen fellow was known as the “man atheists most feared”??? I’m trembling already.

  2. on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:56 pmMike Felker

    JohnE,

    There is a degree of circularity that one must implement (some worldviews more than others) in their axiom or ultimate starting point. To illustrate, can you prove that there are laws of logic? Of course, if you use logic to demonstrate logic, then you are engaging in circular reasoning. But this is not the same as the standard logical fallacy of circular reasoning, such as “The sky is blue because the sky is blue.”

    Thus, you cannot accuse the Christian of circular reasoning as if its a fallacy when he asserts something like, “Without the God of the Bible, one cannot prove anything.”

  3. on 13 Mar 2011 at 10:19 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ron S.
    You said, “I’ve always thought that atheism is disingenuous. How can you ever get to the point that you know without a doubt that there is no God?”

    I find that most atheists have undergone some tragic event that they believe a loving and caring God could not possibly allow, if he did exist, hence they conclude that God could not possibly exist. This traumatic event is usually what makes the difference between your typical agnostic and your staunch atheist.

    At the young age of 11 years old, I had a bad experience with an Anglican priest which scarred me for life. Not only did I stop believing in God and become a staunch atheist, when I was only 13 years old, it still effects me to this day. I still don’t trust authority figures and will question anything that doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Hence my “doubting nature”.

    I remained a staunch atheist for almost 20 years, arguing about the existence of God with anyone that would listen to me. In my mind, I was convinced that God could not possibly exist. Then, thanks to the influence of my wife, one day I just opened my mind and said, “Well maybe there is a God.” That’s all it took. Withing a year (thanks to our Father in heaven) I began to believe in the existence of God.

    However it still took many years before I became a Christian. Because of my doubting nature I wanted to look around a bit first. I first looked into Buddhism, and later into Islam, I even read most of the Koran (a beautifully written book by the way). Eventually I came to the conclusion that Y’shua’s teachings made the most sense to me.

    This led me down the long path to eventually becoming a Socinian…

    Hi John E. – Nice to see your still hanging around…

  4. on 14 Mar 2011 at 7:52 pmJohnE

    Mike,
    You are certainly wrong. The use of axioms has nothing to do with circular reasoning. When one uses an axiom as a starting point, the reasoning that follows doesn’t have the goal of demonstrating that axiom.

    And if you’d like to say that the existence of God is an axiom, than that’s the end of discussion, there’s nothing to demonstrate. That’s a nice axiom btw 🙂

    And fwiw, I don’t need to prove that logic exists, since I’m using it. What am I using again?
    That’s like asking me to prove spoons exist while I’m eating soup.

    So see, I *can* accuse the Christian of using the circular reasoning logical fallacy, since that’s exactly what he does.

    Hi DT, nice to “see” you again 🙂

  5. on 15 Mar 2011 at 1:41 amJoseph

    Hey JohnE, nice to see you around KR. Even though I’m not so active on this site as I used to be, I still love to come around every so often and chime in to the current dialog.

    Just curious… in your eyes, what would you say out of all the many religions in the world, which one holds the most common sense, logic, non-contradictory, reality, ect? And why?

  6. on 16 Mar 2011 at 5:08 pmJohnE

    Hi Joseph, nice to see you again too.

    It would be a bit difficult to answer your question, because religions, by definition, focus on the supernatural, and so are not realistic (IMO). The bits of common sense and logic they exhibit also have the supernatural as foundation, but not always. The Golden Rule is one example.

    I’d say religions that reject certain aspects of the supernatural are better than others, like those who reject hell and predestination to hell, the immaterial soul, the trinity. They’re obviously more realistic because those things really don’t exist.

  7. on 18 Mar 2011 at 9:58 amMike Felker

    JohnE,

    You “prove” logic by “using” logic? This assumes far too much. Using logic assumes the very thing i’m asking you to prove: that you are capable of rational thought. The problem is, you haven’t provided a basis by which your worldview meets the preconditions of intelligibility. In other words, what is it in your worldview that can substantiate the fact that man is rational and capable of creating true beliefs about the external world?

    In atheism, you live in a random universe that is nothing more than molecules in motion. Why, in such a worldview, should there be rational thought? You can claim to “use” logic all you want, but until you’ve demonstrated that your worldview can provide the preconditions of intelligibility, your use of “logic” is little more than the neurons firing in your brain, leading you to “believe” that the universe is a particular way, but no guarantee that the belief is true.

  8. on 18 Mar 2011 at 1:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    I also see it the same way as Mike does. From what I understand only the brightest of students are accepted into University Physics courses, and out of those many, if not most, end up dropping out or failing. I think it is generally agreed that theoretical physics is the hardest of the sciences for people to understand and comprehend. Even with our best and brightest minds studying the subject, they still can’t explain everything that they observe around us in the Universe.

    There appears to be a separate set of laws governing Macro events then Micro events. The behavior of these two different worlds appear to be incompatible with each other (no common theory that can explain both). Gravity is another mystery that they can’t readily explain. From what I understand String theory and Super String theory started out as mathematical attempts to explain how gravity works.

    Then you have Biologists who have their own Biological laws which again don’t match either the laws of Macro Physics or Micro Physics. They also seem to be completely independent and separate from each other. If the universe just randomly developed into it’s present state, then where did all these different laws governing the Universe come from???

    An inquiring mind might ask, Who made all these different laws???

    Of course you know what my answer to that question would be… 🙂

  9. on 18 Mar 2011 at 8:05 pmJohnE

    Mike,
    as I already said, I don’t need to prove logic exists, since I am using it. Nobody *has to* prove something they are using exists. If you’re asking me to prove spoons exists while I’m eating soup with one, then don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    You “prove” logic by “using” logic? This assumes far too much.

    Are you for real? 🙂 This does not assume “far too much”, in fact, it assumes nothing at all.

    The problem is, you haven’t provided a basis by which your worldview meets the preconditions of intelligibility.

    If there is a problem, then it’s yours, I don’t have to provide anything. Oh, and “provide a basis by which your worldview meets the preconditions of intelligibility“, “what is it in your worldview that can substantiate the fact that man is rational and capable of creating true beliefs about the external world” and so forh? You’re philosophizing too much. You might as well ask me to prove rain makes you wet.

    In atheism, you live in a random universe that is nothing more than molecules in motion. Why, in such a worldview, should there be rational thought?

    Why do you even raise the question, why wouldn’t there be?

    You can claim to “use” logic all you want

    I do not merely claim I’m using logic, I *am* using it. If you’re willing to honestly question the fact that I do (it’s obvious you are doing it only for polemical purposes), then again, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    Anyway, let’s not lose sight of the fact that all this polemic about “proving that logic exists” is a false problem which you introduced into the discussion just to excuse the circular reasoning your fellow indulged into.

  10. on 18 Mar 2011 at 9:33 pmJohnE

    DT,

    only the brightest of students are accepted into University Physics courses, and out of those many, if not most, end up dropping out or failing.

    Excuse me, what???

    Even with our best and brightest minds studying the subject, they still can’t explain everything that they observe around us in the Universe.

    Unlike the bible writers, who explain everything from A to Z? And what conclusion is there to be drawn when you say scientists are not able to explain everything? That they are wrong in the things they do explain? Or that God exists?

    From what I understand String theory and Super String theory started out as mathematical attempts to explain how gravity works.

    Well then I’m sure the bible explains how gravity works, right? It doesn’t? By the same token then, the bible is not the answer to life’s questions.

    Biological laws which again don’t match either the laws of Macro Physics or Micro Physics.

    ?

    If the universe just randomly developed into it’s present state, then where did all these different laws governing the Universe come from???

    Three words: (the) Weak Anthropic Principle.

    An inquiring mind might ask, Who made all these different laws???

    Of course you know what my answer to that question would be…

    If the answer is “God”, then, as Hawking says in his latest book, the question has been deflected to that of who created God. Who did? If you answer “nobody”, do you mind if I do the same regarding the laws of nature?

    If your question was not rhetorical, and you really want to learn more about the subject, I suggest you read “The Grand Design” by Hawkins and Mlodinow.

  11. on 18 Mar 2011 at 10:14 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    My question was not rhetorical. I was just trying to explain to you how I see things from my perspective (which of course is different from how you see things).

    You asked, “Unlike the bible writers, who explain everything from A to Z?”

    The bible is not a science book, although nothing in it contradicts science or what we know about the evolution of the Universe. Of course there are many people who have misunderstood or misinterpreted the bible and come to the conclusion the Universe is less then 10,000 years old.

    You also said, “By the same token then, the bible is not the answer to life’s questions.”

    I would respectfully disagree with you on this.

    I had said, “Biological laws which again don’t match either the laws of Macro Physics or Micro Physics.”

    To which you responded, “?”

    There are no simple laws governing the Universe. There isn’t even one set of laws that can be used to explain everything. We are forced to create one set of laws to try to describe biology, another to try to explain Physics at the microscopic level, and another set of laws to try to explain Physics at the Macro level.

    Even with the world’s best minds from Einstein to Hawkins spending their entire lives studying and thinking about these things (plus tens of thousands of others), we still have no comprehensive theory that can entirely explain gravity and how it works. Nor can they come up with the “Universal” theory they’ve been desperately looking for.

    Where do all these complex laws come from???

    Did they just appear from nothing???

    I Googled The Weak Anthropic Principle, and it said that it states simply, “If conditions weren’t right for us to be here, we wouldn’t very well be here to remark on the fact.” Sounds like you would have to have more faith to believe in this principle then I would need to believe in Yahweh and his son Y’shua our Messiah and King.

    You also said, “I suggest you read “The Grand Design” by Hawkins and Mlodinow.”

    I’m sure they also have no idea why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness.

    BTW – I hope you have a great weekend, and God Bless…

  12. on 19 Mar 2011 at 12:08 amJohnE

    DT,

    You asked, “Unlike the bible writers, who explain everything from A to Z?”

    The bible is not a science book,

    If you review the context I said that in, it would be obvious that I was not implying the Bible is, or needs to be a science book. It was a response to your criticism that science does not explain everything, and so it was natural for me to point out that neither does your bible.

    although nothing in it contradicts science or what we know about the evolution of the Universe. Of course there are many people who have misunderstood or misinterpreted the bible and come to the conclusion the Universe is less then 10,000 years old.

    Of course, it’s all a misunderstanding 🙂 Actually it is not. The bible does say God created the world in 6 days – yes, “days”, not “long periods of time” or “thousand years” as creationists claim, embarrassed by the contradicting science. After all, those days had evenings and mornings, right?

    You also said, “By the same token then, the bible is not the answer to life’s questions.”

    I would respectfully disagree with you on this.

    How can you disagree when you acknowledge it doesn’t explain gravity? The subject was the explanation of how gravity works, and that is one of life’s questions.

    There isn’t even one set of laws that can be used to explain everything.

    There should be only one set?

    We are forced to create one set of laws to try to describe biology, another to try to explain Physics at the microscopic level, and another set of laws to try to explain Physics at the Macro level.

    And that is bad because…?

    Even with the world’s best minds from Einstein to Hawkins spending their entire lives studying and thinking about these things (plus tens of thousands of others), we still have no comprehensive theory that can entirely explain gravity and how it works. Nor can they come up with the “Universal” theory they’ve been desperately looking for.

    Actually they do. Have you heard about the M-Theory? But even if they wouldn’t, where’s the problem?

    Where do all these complex laws come from???

    As I said, if you’re really interested, read the book.

    I Googled The Weak Anthropic Principle, and it said that it states simply, “If conditions weren’t right for us to be here, we wouldn’t very well be here to remark on the fact.”

    Right. The laws of nature could have been different and would not have allowed life to appear, so nobody could have observed them, and ask where did they come from. But because we have them as they are now, permitting life, we can observe them and ask where did they come from and why are they like they are. Humans are going to ask where these laws “came” from even if they did not “come” from anywhere. After all, a law of nature is only a rule based upon observed regularity and provides predictions that go beyond the immediate situations upon which it is based. Where does something that simply happens “come from”? How does one become a 6/49 winner, by blind chance or by somebody having intended him to become one?

    And as I said previously, if you insist that these laws must have been made by somebody, they can’t just simply exist without somebody causing them to exist, then the same question is to be asked about God. But you didn’t answer.

    Sounds like you would have to have more faith to believe in this principle then I would need to believe in Yahweh and his son Y’shua our Messiah and King.

    Yes, one of the favorite creationist lines 🙂 Actually, for thinking that this principle is true I need no faith, but only reason.

    You also said, “I suggest you read “The Grand Design” by Hawkins and Mlodinow.”

    I’m sure they also have no idea why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness.

    And that’s a textbook example of bias. You didn’t even read the book, but you’re sure they have no clue. Oh and btw, the laws of the universe are not even “seemingly” incompatible.

    As for the “extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness” remark, would you agree that this “God” is much more “complicated” than these “extremely complicated laws”? Did God just magically exist without being created by somebody? Cause that’s what you’re asking me regarding the laws of nature. You see what I did here?

    Have a good weekend

  13. on 19 Mar 2011 at 1:49 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “It was a response to your criticism that science does not explain everything, and so it was natural for me to point out that neither does your bible.”

    The bible was never meant to explain everything. For example it doesn’t tell you how to bake a cake, or make wine, or how various things around us like gravity works. Science on the hand “does” claim to explain everything.

    You asked, “The bible does say God created the world in 6 days – yes, “days”, not “long periods of time” or “thousand years” as creationists claim, embarrassed by the contradicting science. After all, those days had evenings and mornings, right?”

    I will quote my good friend Margaret Collier on this. She is a lot more knowledgeable about science and the bible then I am. “Before the word ‘day’ is used in the narrative of Genesis 1, God tells us exactly what it means. It is the name given to LIGHT (Gen. 1:5).

    To add emphasis to this definition, we are told that God ‘separated’ light from darkness before calling the light “day” and the darkness “night”.

    God gave no name to a unit made of day and night together. Such a combination would have been a reversal of his action in separating them. It seems clear that he intended us to understand the word “day” to mean light without darkness, and to make use of that definition in the narrative that follows.

    That, in fact, is how the word is used throughout the Bible. In Exodus 20:11, for example, men are told to work six days and rest on the seventh day. Not six days and six nights, but six natural days, lasting from sunrise to sunset.

    For us, too, a natural day lasts from sunrise to sundown. That’s why a day in summer is longer than a day in winter. That’s why we can talk about hiking for several days, without having to explain that we didn’t hike at night. We seldom use the word any other way.

    The modern 24-hour day, beginning and ending at midnight, is an artificial (but effective) way to make the measurement of time uniform from one season to another and from one location to another. Sunrise varies from place to place and from season to season: midnight doesn’t. As a mechanical measurement of time, it is very useful. But a natural day is a day of sunlight.

    I cannot find any word in the Bible which includes both day and night. Where both are intended, and where there might be room for doubt, both are named. So in Genesis 7:12 we are told that the rain fell “forty days and forty nights.” The wording is clear: the rain was constant. There was no let-up, day or night.

    How many hours are there in a normal, natural day?

    The Lord’s question in John 11:9 assumes that all his hearers knew the answer: “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” So his advice to them was to walk in the day, when they have light to see. Anyone who walks in the night is going to stumble, because here is no light in him.

    His message obviously conveyed a spiritual lesson; but it was based on what they already knew about an ordinary day. A natural day is a twelve-hour day.

    But the Lord also used the word “day” as a period of time marked by “divine” light. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” he said in John 8:56. And again, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is still day” (John 9:4). Why? “The night is coming, when no man can work.”

    As before, he was using the word “day” in a way that his hearers understood. They were familiar with “the day of temptation in the wilderness” a day that lasted forty years (Psalm 95:8). So are we. They knew that “the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2) is with us still. And so on.

    They knew (and so do we) that such “days” have nothing to do with the familiar days of sunlight, followed by night of darkness. Instead, they were periods of time marked by some particular characteristic, some particular “work” that God was doing. And God’s action in separating the light from the darkness takes on a new meaning. There are no nights where God dwells.

    The evidence seems conclusive. The definition for “day” given by God in Genesis 1:5 holds true throughout the entire Bible, whether it means a normal 12-hour day of sunlight, or a long period of divine activity. It means “light”, not darkness; “day”, not night.”

    I quoted the above from a pamphlet that Margaret published and was kind enough to mail to me.

    You also asked, “Actually they do. Have you heard about the M-Theory? But even if they wouldn’t, where’s the problem?”

    Yes I’ve heard of M-Theory. Because of the problems they have had trying to get their String Theory and Super String Theory to work, they were forced to come up with a new “Unification” theory called M-Theory. From my point of view it is just another feeble attempt to understand God and how God works. I believe we will never completely understand the complexities of God.

    You also asked, “And as I said previously, if you insist that these laws must have been made by somebody, they can’t just simply exist without somebody causing them to exist, then the same question is to be asked about God. But you didn’t answer.”

    I am not an expert, but from my reading of the bible it doesn’t actually say that God came from nothing or that He didn’t have a beginning. It just says that he existed before the creation of the Universe. Which makes perfect sense, since He created the Universe and everything in it.

    You also said, “Actually, for thinking that this principle is true I need no faith, but only reason.”

    You need to have a “lot” of faith that all these extremely complex laws (that our best minds cannot even understand) just randomly appeared out of nothingness. Like I said, from my point of view, I need less faith to believe in Yahweh and His Son Y’shua our Messiah and King.

    You also said, “And that’s a textbook example of bias. You didn’t even read the book, but you’re sure they have no clue.”

    If they even had a slight notion of “why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”, it would be front page news. I don’t need to read their book to know this.

    You also said, “the laws of the universe are not even “seemingly” incompatible.”

    All of these theories of “Grand Unification” don’t even try to deal with the peculiar way which sub atomic particles behave. There behavior is “incompatible” with any theory of Macro or normal physics that try to describe the rest of the Universe.

    And then there is the peculiar behavior of matter at temperatures close to absolute zero. Tests have shown that some materials at temperatures close to absolute zero appear to defy gravity and actually climb up the walls of the containers that they are in.

    Man will never completely understand God and His creation. God’s thought are as high above us, as heaven is above the earth. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  14. on 19 Mar 2011 at 5:27 pmJohnE

    DT,
    all the talk about day not meaning 24 hours was misdirected and unneeded. Whether “day” means 24 hours or just the portion when the sun is up is not the issue here, but the fact that the bible wrongly says the world was “made” in 6 days, making the universe only a few thousand years old. *That* is the problem, not whether the day is 24 hours or not.

    The bible was never meant to explain everything. For example it doesn’t tell you how to bake a cake, or make wine, or how various things around us like gravity works. Science on the hand “does” claim to explain everything.

    Science doesn’t explain how to bake a cake or make wine. That the science allegedly claims to explain everything is just your own claim about science, and a false one. I’ve never seen science, as a whole, claiming anything like that, in fact I’ve read the opposite where scientists were talking about things not known yet. Science is in a continual search for explanations, and finds them regularly – as opposed to religion.

    You also asked, “Actually they do. Have you heard about the M-Theory? But even if they wouldn’t, where’s the problem?”

    Yes I’ve heard of M-Theory.

    If you have, then it doesn’t make any sense to say “Nor can they come up with the “Universal” theory they’ve been desperately looking for.”

    From my point of view it is just another feeble attempt to understand God and how God works. I believe we will never completely understand the complexities of God.

    Well first, you obviously are no position to characterize scientific theories as feeble or not. Or are you a scientist? And second, your claim is false. The M-theory does not attempt to “understand God”. “God” is a hypothesis scientists don’t need.

    I am not an expert, but from my reading of the bible it doesn’t actually say that God came from nothing or that He didn’t have a beginning.

    You are sidestepping the issue. So there was a time when your God didn’t exist? I doubt you’re inclined to believe so. Anyway, FYI, the bible does say that God is eternal, everlasting – Ps 90:2; Hab 1:12. So “God” has no beginning, he is eternal. Therefore you cannot require that the laws of nature had to be made by somebody, when you already accept that this does not make sense in at least one instance. You accept that there actually is something not created or designed by “somebody”.

    You need to have a “lot” of faith that all these extremely complex laws (that our best minds cannot even understand) just randomly appeared out of nothingness.

    As I said before, I need zero faith when it comes to the laws of nature. Science does have an explanation, and I directed you to the book I mentioned already. One excerpt:

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” … “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” If you want more details, read the book.

    If they even had a slight notion of “why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”, it would be front page news. I don’t need to read their book to know this.

    It has been front-page news. Here’s what the Guardian says:

    “Certainly, the blizzard of front-page stories that has greeted publication of the first extracts from The Grand Design has been extraordinary and, over the past two weeks, has given the scientist the kind of coverage that modern authors would sell their souls for ” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/12/the-grand-design-stephen-hawking

    All of these theories of “Grand Unification” don’t even try to deal with the peculiar way which sub atomic particles behave.

    That is false.

    There behavior is “incompatible” with any theory of Macro or normal physics that try to describe the rest of the Universe.

    No it is not, since the theories focus on different domains. The behaviour of sub-atomic particles is not “incompatible” with the one of the macro world, it’s just different. Hawking shows that in fact what happens in the macro world is a special case of what happens at quantum levels.

    And then there is the peculiar behavior of matter at temperatures close to absolute zero. Tests have shown that some materials at temperatures close to absolute zero appear to defy gravity and actually climb up the walls of the containers that they are in.

    Man will never completely understand God and His creation. God’s thought are as high above us, as heaven is above the earth. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

    There’s no need for man to understand “God”, and science doesn’t have that as mission. Science have discovered things, and does things, that bronze-age primitives who attempted to explain the world by inventing the “god” concept have never dreamt of.

    A little comment on your approach to science: you seem to be very unsatisfied that science does not do this, does not explain that, etc. At the same time, you do not demand the same from your god or bible. Double-standard. This tactic amounts to nothing really, does not refute anything I said, or anything science says.

  15. on 19 Mar 2011 at 6:42 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “Whether ‘day’ means 24 hours or just the portion when the sun is up is not the issue here, but the fact that the bible wrongly says the world was “made” in 6 days, making the universe only a few thousand years old. *That* is the problem, not whether the day is 24 hours or not.”

    It seems you somehow missed the last part of what I posted from Margaret’s pamphlet.

    “But the Lord also used the word “day” as a period of time marked by “divine” light. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” he said in John 8:56. And again, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is still day” (John 9:4). Why? “The night is coming, when no man can work.”

    As before, he was using the word “day” in a way that his hearers understood. They were familiar with “the day of temptation in the wilderness” a day that lasted forty years (Psalm 95:8). So are we. They knew that “the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2) is with us still. And so on.

    They knew (and so do we) that such “days” have nothing to do with the familiar days of sunlight, followed by night of darkness. Instead, they were periods of time marked by some particular characteristic, some particular “work” that God was doing. And God’s action in separating the light from the darkness takes on a new meaning. There are no nights where God dwells.

    The evidence seems conclusive. The definition for “day” given by God in Genesis 1:5 holds true throughout the entire Bible, whether it means a normal 12-hour day of sunlight, or a long period of divine activity. It means “light”, not darkness; “day”, not night.” (end quote).

    I think it is clear, from what Margaret says above, that the word “day” used in the creation story of Genesis did not mean a typical 12 hour day followed by a period of darkness. It must have meant a period of time marked by some particular characteristic, some particular “work” that God was doing.

    You also said, “Science doesn’t explain how to bake a cake or make wine. That the science allegedly claims to explain everything is just your own claim about science, and a false one.”

    It claims it can explain the chemical reactions etc… involved in baking a cake or making wine, etc… The bible doesn’t make any such claim. BTW – Science does claim that, given time, it will one day be able to explain everything. Which to me is a “false” claim, since only God can explain many of these things.

    You also said, “As I said before, I need zero faith when it comes to the laws of nature. Science does have an explanation, and I directed you to the book I mentioned already.”

    As I said, “You need to have a “lot” of faith that all these extremely complex laws (that our best minds cannot even understand) just randomly appeared out of nothingness.”

    You can claim you don’t need to have any faith because they are just there, and you accept them as being there, but the fact is your explanation that these extremely complex laws just randomly appeared out of nothingness – Does mean “You need to have a ‘lot’ of faith”. I certainly have no faith in your conclusion.

    You also quoted the Guardian as saying, “Certainly, the blizzard of front-page stories that has greeted publication of the first extracts from The Grand Design has been extraordinary and, over the past two weeks, has given the scientist the kind of coverage that modern authors would sell their souls for. ”

    Any time Stephen Hawkins writes a book the press goes crazy trying to cover it. Stephen Hawkins could write a newly revised children’s book about “Alice in Wonderland” and the press would fall over themselves trying to cover it. This doesn’t prove that they were able to demonstrate in their book “Why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness???”

    You also said, “The behaviour of sub-atomic particles is not ‘incompatible’ with the one of the macro world, it’s just different. Hawking shows that in fact what happens in the macro world is a special case of what happens at quantum levels.”

    To be honest, I haven’t read Hawking’s new book. I know Margaret told me she has read it. My son Jordan bought it a few weeks ago and has promised to let me read it when he is done. So maybe we should leave this discussion until I’ve actually read the book. I will be happy to discuss what I think of the book at that time.

    It seems to me when your saying “what happens in the macro world is a special case of what happens at quantum levels.” What your really saying is exactly what I am saying, and that is there is no common laws governing the macro world and what happens at the quantum levels.

    You also said, “A little comment on your approach to science: you seem to be very unsatisfied that science does not do this, does not explain that, etc. At the same time, you do not demand the same from your god or bible. Double-standard.”

    I am convinced that there are many things that science will “never” be able to explain because God’s thought are so far above our primitive minds, that we are not even able to even begin to comprehend the vastness of his works. BTW – I do not demand anything from God. I’m just thankful for what He has given me.

    Have a good evening, and God Bless…

  16. on 19 Mar 2011 at 8:18 pmJohnE

    DT,

    John E.
    You said, “Whether ‘day’ means 24 hours or just the portion when the sun is up is not the issue here, but the fact that the bible wrongly says the world was “made” in 6 days, making the universe only a few thousand years old. *That* is the problem, not whether the day is 24 hours or not.”

    It seems you somehow missed the last part of what I posted from Margaret’s pamphlet.

    “But the Lord also used the word “day” as a period of time marked by “divine” light. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” he said in John 8:56. And again, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is still day” (John 9:4). Why? “The night is coming, when no man can work.”

    I didn’t miss it, and the explanation of why this meaning of “day” does not apply to the Genesis story can be found in one my first post of on this topic: the Genesis writer mentions, in connection with each of those creation days, the passing of a morning and an evening. This clearly points to a literal day, not a figurative one like the day of salvation or whatever other figurative day. The attempt to make the Genesis “day” a figurative one like in John and Paul is a long shot, and one that fails. You had to go all the way to the far removed John and Paul (Psalm 95:8 does not speak of a day that lasted 40 years as Margaret claims, but of a literal, one day) to find such figurative days. May I point out that there are 3 different writers involved here, and to allege that the Genesis writer had the same kind of day in mind as centuries later John or Paul is something that not only needs to be proven, but that is purely arbitrary, made only for apologetic purposes? Not to mention that you don’t really believe John and Paul were inspired by god, right?

    The writer of Genesis, and the whole Pentateuch if you want, AFAIK does not use the “day” word to signify a large period of time, or an undefined in length period of time, like creationists would like to have in Genesis. It simply isn’t there. Yes, there might be temporal references (like “on that day, you will rejoice” for instance), but it’s not the case of Genesis 1, where we have mornings and evenings. So yes, the word “day” used in the creation story of Genesis does mean a typical 12 hour day.

    You also said, “Science doesn’t explain how to bake a cake or make wine. That the science allegedly claims to explain everything is just your own claim about science, and a false one.”

    It claims it can explain the chemical reactions etc… involved in baking a cake or making wine, etc…

    It doesn’t matter, you were talking about baking and wine making.

    BTW – Science does claim that, given time, it will one day be able to explain everything. Which to me is a “false” claim, since only God can explain many of these things.

    BTW, I don’t believe that, prove that science claims such a thing. In the meantime, I must note that you downgraded your claim that science affirms it explains everything – because you realize you made a mistake. Now you claim science says it will do so in the future. Why do you engage in making such wild claims?

    As I said, “You need to have a “lot” of faith that all these extremely complex laws (that our best minds cannot even understand) just randomly appeared out of nothingness.”

    You can claim you don’t need to have any faith because they are just there, and you accept them as being there, but the fact is your explanation that these extremely complex laws just randomly appeared out of nothingness – Does mean “You need to have a ‘lot’ of faith”. I certainly have no faith in your conclusion.

    DT, you cannot tell me what *I* need to think something, I know myself very well and I assure you, I need no faith when it comes to the laws of nature. You might need it, because you already believe one extremely complicated thing just simply exists uncreated, out of nothingness. I for one though, don’t even think the laws of nature have “appeared”, much less “out of nothingness”. I have no reason to believe that there was a time when the laws of nature did not exist, and then suddenly they started to exist, out of nothing. In fact, from what Hawking writes, the universe was “created” by gravity (more detailed explanation in the book), so apparently he doesn’t think either that the law of gravity just “appeared out of nothing”. It appears that this claim is simply *your* claim. It certainly isn’t mine.

    You also quoted the Guardian as saying, “Certainly, the blizzard of front-page stories that has greeted publication of the first extracts from The Grand Design has been extraordinary and, over the past two weeks, has given the scientist the kind of coverage that modern authors would sell their souls for. ”

    Any time Stephen Hawkins writes a book the press goes crazy trying to cover it. Stephen Hawkins could write a newly revised children’s book about “Alice in Wonderland” and the press would fall over themselves trying to cover it. This doesn’t prove that they were able to demonstrate in their book “Why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness???”

    Well why don’t you mention why I said that, instead of going on a tangent? I wrote about front-page articles on his book because you said

    If they even had a slight notion of “why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”, it would be front page news. I don’t need to read their book to know this.

    So yeah, it was front-page news, so from what you wrote above it would follow that they *do have* “even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”.

    And again, you think that the phrase “these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness” proves something, or indicates the existence of a creator, a God? I repeatedly responded that you in fact do think that this extremely complicated thing (God) just magically exists uncreated, undesigned. So then how does your argument (on the impossibility of the laws of nature just appearing out of nothing) carry any weight, when you yourself argue against it in in god’s case? Well, it doesn’t carry any, you are in effect refuting your own argument.

    It seems to me when your saying “what happens in the macro world is a special case of what happens at quantum levels.” What your really saying is exactly what I am saying, and that is there is no common laws governing the macro world and what happens at the quantum levels.

    No, it just seems to you that way. If something is a special case of something else, the claim that ” there is no common laws governing the macro world and what happens at the quantum levels” is necessarily false. Same laws work on both levels, but at the macro level the outcome is different because of the big size of elements involved. It’s almost as the difference in the case of throwing down a feather and a boulder. The feather will swing left and right before touching the ground, whereas the boulder won’t because it’s too heavy to do so. In both cases the same law of gravity operates, but the movements are different.

  17. on 20 Mar 2011 at 9:40 amDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “…in connection with each of those creation days, the passing of a morning and an evening. This clearly points to a literal day, not a figurative one like the day of salvation or whatever other figurative day.”

    I will again refer to Margaret’s pamphlet since she is so much more knowledgeable than I about science and the bible. The following is another quote from her pamphlet.

    “What is meant by ‘evening and morning’? Genesis does not define ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ for us, but there is plenty of evidence that they meant the same thing in Bible times that they mean to us today. ‘Morning’ is the beginning of the day. ‘Evening’ is the end of the day. So man’s work begins in the morning and ends in the evening (see Psalm 104:22-23).

    If we understand morning as sunrise and evening as sunset, then ‘morning to evening’ is a whole day (Ex. 18:13), and ‘evening to morning is a whole night (Lev. 24:3).

    Things that happened in the morning AND in the evening (2 Chronicles 13:11) were actions that did not continue all day; and things that happened in the evening AND in the morning (Exodus 16:8) did not continue all night.

    I can find no example of ‘evening and morning’ referring to a 24-hour day.

    The only place where ‘evening and morning’ seems to refer to a period of time at all is Daniel 8:26, which begins with, ‘The vision of the evening and the morning’ (both words are singular in Hebrew). THAT VISION COVERS A LARGE CHUNK OF HISTORY, judging by the context. And I wonder: Does this seventh biblical reference to ‘evening and morning’ complete the Genesis story of the seventh day (ch. 2:2)? I don’t know, but it’s possible.

    Then what can we understand from ‘and there was evening and there was morning, day one’? Evening was the end of the day. But because there is no night involved in God’s divine days, the evening of one day is the beginning of the next. So there is evening (the end of one day’s work) and there is morning (the beginning of the next day’s work) merging together at the end of ‘day one’ (Hebrew yohm echad).

    A similar idea can be found in Zechariah 14:7, where the same two Hebrew words (yohm echad) are found, translated ‘one day’. That chapter is all about the day of the Lord, a long day. It is a dark day, with ‘no light’ (v. 6). But in the evening – when you would expect darkness – ‘there shall be light’. There is no night between the evening and the light. They occur together.

    This light in the evening appears to be the beginning of a new day. It is the end of the dark day of Yahweh, and the beginning of a brighter day for Israel. It is the end of their long rejection of the Messiah and beginning of his reign (See ch. 9:9, which alludes to both).

    The similarities between this passage and Genesis 1:5 are remarkable – even though one is past and the other is future. In both cases, there is light in the evening. In both cases (I believe), that light in the evening is actually the beginning of a new day, with no ‘night’ between. And in both cases, the Hebrew words for ‘day one’, or ‘one day’, are identical: yohm echad.

    There are also some similarities between the ‘third day’ of Gen. 1:11-13, which brought physical life, and the ‘third day’ of Hosea 6:2, which will bring ‘restored’ life – the life of resurrection.

    As ‘day one’ is connected with ‘light’, so the ‘third day’ is connected with ‘life’. And Christ, who is our life, was raised from the dead on the ‘third day’, victor over death and the grave. The word of our God is awesome.” (End quote).

    The reason I’m quoting Margaret so much is because we see eye to eye on this subject, and she is a much more elegant and talented writer then I am.

    You also asked, “Why do you engage in making such wild claims?”

    I’m just trying to explain to you how I see things from my point of view (which of course is different than how you see things).

    You also said, “DT, you cannot tell me what *I* need to think something, I know myself very well and I assure you, I need no faith when it comes to the laws of nature.”

    I know you said, you don’t require any faith to believe the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness. But, from my point of view this is a ‘wild claim’ that is obviously inaccurate. Like I said, “I certainly have no faith in your conclusions on this subject”.

    You also said, “In fact, from what Hawking writes, the universe was “created” by gravity (more detailed explanation in the book), so apparently he doesn’t think either that the law of gravity just ‘appeared out of nothing’.”

    Then where did these extremely complicated and contradicting laws come from??? I think it should be obvious, to someone with an open mind anywaze, that there must have been an intelligent mind (God) involved in creating these laws so that you and I, and the rest of the Universe, could evolve to where we are today.

    You also said, “So yeah, it was front-page news, so from what you wrote above it would follow that they *do have* “even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”.

    Actually it doesn’t prove that. It just demonstrates that whenever Hawkins publishes a book it becomes a number one best seller. I myself have purchased Hawkins last 2 books (both of which were best sellers). Not because I agree with everything he says, but because I have always found science fascinating.

    You also said, “I repeatedly responded that you in fact do think that this extremely complicated thing (God) just magically exists uncreated, undesigned.”

    And I responded that I don’t think the bible actually says that God doesn’t have a beginning somewhere somehow. That is just how most people have interpreted it. When the bible says that God is ‘everlasting’, ‘eternal’ etc… it could be referring to the fact that he will never ever die. This doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t have a beginning. I personally like to keep an open mind on this. God didn’t give us a lot of details about himself, because it is not important for us to know these things at this time. The only thing that is important for us to know is that we are God’s children and he expects us to behave like we are “HIS” children, and not like wild animals that just randomly appeared out of nowhere.

    You also said, “It’s almost as the difference in the case of throwing down a feather and a boulder. The feather will swing left and right before touching the ground, whereas the boulder won’t because it’s too heavy to do so. In both cases the same law of gravity operates, but the movements are different.”

    I would say to both you and Hawkins, prove it. Like I said, I don’t believe that we humans with our primitive simple carnal minds can ever completely understand God and his wonderful creation.

    Of course, like always, this is just my own humble opinion…

  18. on 20 Mar 2011 at 1:09 pmJohnE

    DT,

    Your friend admits in the first part that “there is plenty of evidence that [morning and evening] meant the same thing in Bible times that they mean to us today”. That supports my argument against yours. Now on to the bits where she claims ‘evening and morning’ seemingly refer to a period of time, and more precisely, to a “large chunk of history”:

    The only place where ‘evening and morning’ seems to refer to a period of time at all is Daniel 8:26, which begins with, ‘The vision of the evening and the morning’ (both words are singular in Hebrew). THAT VISION COVERS A LARGE CHUNK OF HISTORY, judging by the context

    Your friend was forced to mention that the nouns (‘morning’ and ‘evening’) are in the singular form; that’s because the translations render them in the plural, the correct understanding. Their form is singular, but their meaning is plural. This is not a translation trick, or choice: all the Jewish translations from Hebrew to English to which I have access (JPS Tanakh 1985, JPS Holy Scriptures 1917, Complete Jewish Bible 1998 by David H. Stern) , translate these as “morningS and eveningS”. The same phrase occurs in the same chapter in verse 14, where Daniel speaks of 2300 mornings and evenings; the same singular form of these two nouns is used here as well. It literally says “2300 evening and morning”. Although the form is singular, the meaning is plural. I’d say Jewish translators know better their own language than non-Jewish ones, there’s no singular meaning here. Margaret’s interpretation fails.

    So when we get to verse 26, it is clear that it makes a reference to the phrase in verse 14: “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true”. The vision is of those 2300 morningS and eveningS, not a vision of one morning and one evening. Therefore when your friend makes the argument (copied from other apologists of course) that “oh look, here we have an example where morning and evening refer to a large chunk of time”, she is proved wrong by verse 14 and by Jewish translators.

    Then she goes on to say:

    Evening was the end of the day. But because there is no night involved in God’s divine days, the evening of one day is the beginning of the next. So there is evening (the end of one day’s work) and there is morning (the beginning of the next day’s work) merging together at the end of ‘day one’

    “Because there is no night involved in God’s divine days”??? Her conclusion is based on an invented premise. But anyway, if there’s no night involved here then there are no multiple days here; we have one long day, because after light follows light, not night. This then begs the question, where does one day end and the other begin, for us to end up with six days? They don’t begin and end, so according to her reasoning, turns out we don’t have six days, we just have one. The text contradicts that, showing that her claims are wrong.

    The rest of her text doesn’t even try to assert that “morning and evening” can mean a very long period of time, so I won’t comment on it.

    You also asked, “Why do you engage in making such wild claims?”

    I’m just trying to explain to you how I see things from my point of view (which of course is different than how you see things).

    It’s not just how you see things: you actually claimed science claims something it never did.

    I know you said, you don’t require any faith to believe the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness. But, from my point of view this is a ‘wild claim’ that is obviously inaccurate.

    Why?

    You also said, “In fact, from what Hawking writes, the universe was “created” by gravity (more detailed explanation in the book), so apparently he doesn’t think either that the law of gravity just ‘appeared out of nothing’.”

    Then where did these extremely complicated and contradicting laws come from???

    Are you not reading my comments? Did you read that I said:

    I for one though, don’t even think the laws of nature have “appeared”, much less “out of nothingness”. I have no reason to believe that there was a time when the laws of nature did not exist, and then suddenly they started to exist, out of nothing.

    And again, you think that the phrase “these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness” proves something, or indicates the existence of a creator, a God? I repeatedly responded that you in fact do think that this extremely complicated thing (God) just magically exists uncreated, undesigned. So then how does your argument (on the impossibility of the laws of nature just appearing out of nothing) carry any weight, when you yourself argue against it in in god’s case? Well, it doesn’t carry any, you are in effect refuting your own argument.

    If you did read them, then it makes no sense to ask me again where these laws came from. Where did your God come from?

    You also said, “So yeah, it was front-page news, so from what you wrote above it would follow that they *do have* “even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”.

    Actually it doesn’t prove that.

    Actually it does, because that is exactly what you said it would happen: if they’d have even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, their book would be front-page news. These are your own words and your own requirements, not mine:

    If they even had a slight notion of “why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”, it would be front page news. I don’t need to read their book to know this.

    You also said, “I repeatedly responded that you in fact do think that this extremely complicated thing (God) just magically exists uncreated, undesigned.”

    And I responded that I don’t think the bible actually says that God doesn’t have a beginning somewhere somehow. That is just how most people have interpreted it. When the bible says that God is ‘everlasting’, ‘eternal’ etc… it could be referring to the fact that he will never ever die. This doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t have a beginning. I personally like to keep an open mind on this. God didn’t give us a lot of details about himself,

    Well if you are keeping an open mind that God might have had a beginning, then you are also keeping an open mind that he might not be a god after all. If he might have a beginning, then someone else might have created him, so he’s a creature, not a God. Or if you’d rather think that no-one created him, while keeping an open mind about he having a beginning, then it means he might have just popped into existence, from nothingness. But that is the very thing you are denying the laws of nature, and life. They can’t just appear from nothingness. So it’s time for you to be consistent, and keep an open mind that life and the laws of nature appeared out of nothing (again, not that I believe such a thing).

    You also said, “It’s almost as the difference in the case of throwing down a feather and a boulder. The feather will swing left and right before touching the ground, whereas the boulder won’t because it’s too heavy to do so. In both cases the same law of gravity operates, but the movements are different.”

    I would say to both you and Hawkins, prove it.

    You need to get educated about quantum physics and you’ll have the proof.

    Of course, like always, this is just my own humble opinion…

    Not so humble 🙂 You said I made a wild claim and that’s not humble at all (not that I care, or that I would be bothered, I’m not; I didn’t claim I’m humble either).

  19. on 20 Mar 2011 at 3:21 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    I will let Margaret defend what she wrote if she wishes. All I know is that what she says does seem to make perfect sense to a layman such as myself.

    You said, “It’s not just how you see things: you actually claimed science claims something it never did.”

    As far as I know there is no such thing as a “science” thing-a-ma-jig that claims this or doesn’t claim that. There are just tens of thousands of scientists who all follow the established scientific principles from which they each make claims, very often contradicting each other. As in the case of whether global warming is a man made event or not.

    I have never spoke to this imaginary “science” thing, I’ve only spoken with people that have studied science, and their opinions differ from one to another. Yes, some of them believe that science will one day be able to explain everything. Of course there are some that don’t. All humans (scientists or not) have their own unique way of seeing the world. That’s why Margaret and I, and other people on this site, don’t agree on everything.

    It would be abnormal and unhealthy if we did, because it would demonstrate that one of us is probably blindly following the other one. There nothing in God’s word that says we have to agree with each other on everything, just that we are to live in harmony, showing each other love, respect, dignity and honor. We only have one teacher that we are to follow without question, and that is our Messiah, King and Savior, who was sent by “our” Father to be our teacher, and to instruct us in God’s ways.

    I had said, “I know you said, you don’t require any faith to believe the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness. But, from my point of view this is a ‘wild claim’ that is obviously inaccurate.”

    To which you responded, “Why?”

    Every time science discovers something new it brings forth more questions then it answers. Like why do some materials, when they are frozen to near absolute zero, seem to defy gravity and climb up the walls of the containers they are in???

    That’s why I can confidently say that man’s primitive, carnal mind will never be able to completely understand God’s great mysteries.

    You also said, “I have no reason to believe that there was a time when the laws of nature did not exist, and then suddenly they started to exist, out of nothing.”

    Then why do you dismiss people that say that God has always existed without a beginning???

    BTW – I didn’t say that God had a beginning. I just said I keep an open mind on the subject, since from my point of view the bible is not explicitly clear on this subject.

    As for your comments regarding what Hawking’s book says or doesn’t say, like I said, I think it would be better if we wait till I have had a chance to read the book before we discuss it any further. My son should be finished with the book in the next couple of weeks or so. But, as it stands I don’t believe that they “have even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”.

    Just because some reporters, that have no clue about science, say the book demonstrates or proves this or that doesn’t make it so. Hawking will have to convince me. And, because of my doubting nature, I’m not the easiest person in the world to convince. Some people misinterpret my “doubting nature” with stubbornness. But, like I have said, I have no control over my “doubting nature”, that is just how God made me.

    You also said, “You need to get educated about quantum physics and you’ll have the proof.”

    You are quite correct to point out that I am just a taxi driver who didn’t even finish high school. But, I think I have read enough on the subject to understand the basic ideas. Which, by the way, is all that I’m really interested in knowing. I have no intention of trying to become a scientist.

    I had said, “Of course, like always, this is just my own humble opinion…”

    To which you responded, “Not so humble 🙂 You said I made a wild claim and that’s not humble at all (not that I care, or that I would be bothered, I’m not; I didn’t claim I’m humble either).”

    Actually I was just repeating your own words back to you. I figured if you used those exact words against me, then there is no way you could be offended if I repeated them back to you. Of course I admit that I might have been mistaken.

    Have a good evening, and I pray that God will open your heart and your mind to His word, and to His abundant love, which He has for “all” of us (atheists or not)…

  20. on 20 Mar 2011 at 5:25 pmJohnE

    DT,

    I will let Margaret defend what she wrote if she wishes.

    That’s what happens when you accept uncritically others’ material. When somebody shows where and why it’s wrong, you cannot defend it.

    You said, “It’s not just how you see things: you actually claimed science claims something it never did.”

    As far as I know there is no such thing as a “science” thing-a-ma-jig that claims this or doesn’t claim that.

    That’s funny, weren’t you the one who wrote earlier that “Science on the hand ‘does’ claim to explain everything.”? 😀

    There are just tens of thousands of scientists who all follow the established scientific principles from which they each make claims, very often contradicting each other. As in the case of whether global warming is a man made event or not.

    You present a false image about science. Yes, there will always be a majority and a minority of opinion on certain issues, and that is good and healthy. You, as a self-professed “layman”, are in no position to claim that scientists contradict each other very often. Or have you conducted a study that establishes this fact? Let’s not mistake blanket statements for facts. But before you talk about contradictions in science, look into your own backyard first, where I could point out many contradictions in your bible. In terms of knowledge and applied science, science is superior to your bible all day long.

    I had said, “I know you said, you don’t require any faith to believe the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness. But, from my point of view this is a ‘wild claim’ that is obviously inaccurate.”

    To which you responded, “Why?”

    Every time science discovers something new it brings forth more questions then it answers. Like why do some materials, when they are frozen to near absolute zero, seem to defy gravity and climb up the walls of the containers they are in???

    But your response does not answer the question, which was

    “why do think that believing the extremely complicated laws just randomly appeared out of nothingness, is a wild claim?”

    You respond:

    “Every time science discovers something new it brings forth more questions then it answers. Like materials, when they are frozen to near absolute zero defy gravity and climb up the walls of the containers they are in”.

    In the light of the question, your response doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t deal with the impossibility of the laws arising from nothing, a false issue as I explained that repeatedly already, it’s not something that I believe. It has all the characteristics of a straw man fallacy.

    You also said, “I have no reason to believe that there was a time when the laws of nature did not exist, and then suddenly they started to exist, out of nothing.”

    Then why do you dismiss people that say that God has always existed without a beginning???

    That’s a misrepresentation of my position actually. I have never said that I do not agree that God has always existed without a beginning, that would be for me to concede that God does exist in the first place. Have you already demonstrated God exists and I haven’t noticed? I do not dismiss people who say God has always existed without a beginning. In fact, I used this argument, that there are people who say God has always existed without a beginning, to my advantage, as can be seen in my previous posts.

    But, as it stands I don’t believe that they “have even a slight notion of why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”.

    Just because some reporters, that have no clue about science, say the book demonstrates or proves this or that doesn’t make it so.

    It was a condition you imposed, not knowing that it has been already satisfied, and now when you find out it has been, you flip-flop. You are contradicting yourself. As I quoted you already:

    If they even had a slight notion of “why the laws governing the Universe are so complex, and seemingly incompatible with each other, or how these extremely complicated laws just magically appeared out of nothingness”, it would be front page news. I don’t need to read their book to know this.

    I had said, “Of course, like always, this is just my own humble opinion…”

    To which you responded, “Not so humble You said I made a wild claim and that’s not humble at all (not that I care, or that I would be bothered, I’m not; I didn’t claim I’m humble either).”

    Actually I was just repeating your own words back to you. I figured if you used those exact words against me, then there is no way you could be offended if I repeated them back to you. Of course I admit that I might have been mistaken.

    As I said, I wasn’t offended, not in the least. But repeating my own “wild claim” expression back to me is certainly not humble. And I wouldn’t have said anything if you wouldn’t have expressly talked about your humbleness. Anyway, my assertion that you made wild claims was accurate. Yours was not though. It was made by you because of this:

    “I know you said, you don’t require any faith to believe the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness. But, from my point of view this is a ‘wild claim’ ”

    As I repeated myself 1000 times by now (and I’m starting to get tired of it, please make sure you read carefully what I write and remember it), I do not even think that the laws of nature just appeared from nothingness. So where’s the wild claim?

    I am just a taxi driver

    Hey then maybe we met already (never mind that Canada is huge) 🙂 Where in Canada are you a taxi driver?

    G’night

  21. on 20 Mar 2011 at 6:31 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “That’s funny, weren’t you the one who wrote earlier that ‘Science on the hand ‘does’ claim to explain everything.’? :D”

    You are quite correct that I should have chosen my words more carefully. I have met people, that have studied science, that claim it will one day be able to explain everything. Which is something that I don’t personally believe. Which was the point I was trying to get across. Forgive me for not being clear about what I meant.

    You also said, “In terms of knowledge and applied science, science is superior to your bible all day long.”

    If you mean worldly knowledge you are correct. From my point of view the bible, at it’s most basic form, is a set of instructions on how God wants us to behave toward one another, and toward Him. There are of course other things in there as well, like history, wisdom, inspiration, examples of Godly people, etc…

    You also said, “In the light of the question, your response doesn’t make sense.”

    You are again correct. Now that I look back on it I didn’t properly answer your question at all. All I can say is that from my point of view you saying, “you don’t require any faith to believe that the extremely complicated and incompatible laws that govern our Universe just randomly appeared out of nothingness” is a wild claim. I just can’t understand your point of view and how you can say that.

    Like I said, it seems to me that you require more faith to believe this, then I need to believe in Yahweh and His Son Y’shua “our” Messiah, King and teacher. Something that complicated just can’t appear from nowhere, it must have a beginning. To me it is a clear indication of an intelligent mind behind the entire process. But since we appear to be going around in circles on this point, maybe we should just respectfully agree to disagree.

    I don’t think either one of us will convince the other of our beliefs on this.

    I had asked, “Then why do you dismiss people that say that God has always existed without a beginning???”

    You responded with, “I have never said that I do not agree that God has always existed without a beginning, that would be for me to concede that God does exist in the first place.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your logic here. If your saying that you don’t concede that God does exist in the first place, then you’re dismissing all of the people that say that God has always existed without a beginning. Otherwise you would be agreeing with them, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Which, by the way, has been very cordial and pleasant thus far, considering our beliefs are almost polar opposite to one another.

    You also asked, “Have you already demonstrated God exists and I haven’t noticed?”

    I think you know that God can neither be proven nor disproven. To believe in God requires that a person have faith. Something that I hope I can help you with by sharing my point of view with you.

    You said, “As I said, I wasn’t offended, not in the least. But repeating my own “wild claim” expression back to me is certainly not humble.”

    Why isn’t it??? You kept saying my beliefs were a “wild claim” and I responded back to you using your own words. Just because someone is humble, doesn’t mean they are not entitled to have their own opinion on things. The way I see it, the one has nothing to do with the other.

    You asked, “Hey then maybe we met already (never mind that Canada is huge) 🙂 Where in Canada are you a taxi driver?”

    I didn’t know you were also from Canada. I drive for Central Taxi in St. Catharines, Ont. It’s a small city about 12 k.m. from Niagara Falls. It would be sort of funny if have already met somewhere. I’ve never actually met a Unitarian before, even if you are an ex-Unitarian… 🙂

  22. on 20 Mar 2011 at 6:40 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    I just realized that I forgot to ask you where your from???

  23. on 20 Mar 2011 at 8:34 pmJohnE

    DT,

    I had asked, “Then why do you dismiss people that say that God has always existed without a beginning???”

    You responded with, “I have never said that I do not agree that God has always existed without a beginning, that would be for me to concede that God does exist in the first place.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your logic here. If your saying that you don’t concede that God does exist in the first place, then you’re dismissing all of the people that say that God has always existed without a beginning. Otherwise you would be agreeing with them, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Which, by the way, has been very cordial and pleasant thus far, considering our beliefs are almost polar opposite to one another.

    No, not at all. You’re talking about a specific issue: not simply that God exists, but that he has no beginning. This assumes his existence, an assumption I do not share. I do not dismiss people, I just do not agree with the premise. As to the existence without beginning, as I said:

    In fact, I used this argument, that there are people who say God has always existed without a beginning, to my advantage, as can be seen in my previous posts.

    I never said “how can you say your God is w/o beginning, that can’t be true”. I actually used your belief in a god w/o beginning, against you. I have no intention to argue against it, it is very useful to me.

    You said, “As I said, I wasn’t offended, not in the least. But repeating my own “wild claim” expression back to me is certainly not humble.”

    Why isn’t it???

    I am surprised you are asking me about the obvious, so let me state the obvious: “wild claim” is not exactly carrying a positive connotation; some people do not like being told they’re making “wild claims” (and that’s ok). Don’t tell me you don’t know this. So it’s not a humble way to act, because you responded with the same rough expression. You can call that anything you like, but not humble.

    You kept saying my beliefs were a “wild claim”

    That’s false too. I didn’t “keep” saying that, I’ve only said it once. And not your beliefs were called “wild claims”, but your claims that science says it explains everything, and later that science will explain everything; read this again:

    BTW, I don’t believe that, prove that science claims such a thing. In the meantime, I must note that you downgraded your claim that science affirms it explains everything – because you realize you made a mistake. Now you claim science says it will do so in the future. Why do you engage in making such wild claims?

    You asked, “Hey then maybe we met already (never mind that Canada is huge) Where in Canada are you a taxi driver?”

    I didn’t know you were also from Canada. I drive for Central Taxi in St. Catharines, Ont. It’s a small city about 12 k.m. from Niagara Falls. It would be sort of funny if have already met somewhere. I’ve never actually met a Unitarian before, even if you are an ex-Unitarian…

    Oh ok, you’re pretty close to my city, Mississauga 🙂 Haven’t been to St. Catherines yet although I’ve been to the Niagara Falls. I’ll make sure to take a taxi with you behind the wheel if I’ll ever get to St. Catherines 🙂

  24. on 20 Mar 2011 at 9:39 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “I do not dismiss people, I just do not agree with the premise. As to the existence without beginning, as I said: In fact, I used this argument, that there are people who say God has always existed without a beginning, to my advantage, as can be seen in my previous posts.”

    OK. I follow your logic now. But, Even if you don’t agree with my premise. I hope you can also see it from my point of view, and that is that all these very complicated laws governing the Universe, that appear to be irrreconcilable, seem to me to be a indication of an intelligent designer. At least try to keep an open mind about it. If you can.

    You also said, “I am surprised you are asking me about the obvious, so let me state the obvious: “wild claim” is not exactly carrying a positive connotation; some people do not like being told they’re making “wild claims” (and that’s ok).”

    OK. I will apologize for my what I said. I do realize that sometimes, when I’m in a hurry, I don’t always pick the best choice of words. I know what I mean to say, but putting it into the proper words is not always so easy for me.

    If you hadn’t have used those words, those words would never even have crossed my mind. I am normally not that aggressive when discussing issues. I find it accomplishes nothing, and in the end you just end up with hurt feelings. I know you said your feelings weren’t hurt, but I think you know what I mean anywaze.

    You said, “I’ll make sure to take a taxi with you behind the wheel if I’ll ever get to St. Catherines 🙂 ”

    You made the typical mistake of spelling St. Catharines wrong, but don’t worry about it. Everyone does the same thing. On facebook I had to register my home town as Saint Caharines. Even though it is not, and has never been spelled as Saint. I know we are a small city but it is almost an insult to have my home town spelled wrong on my own facebook page. And the computer wouldn’t let me change it!!!

    BTW – If you ever do get down this way ask for Tom T. (I work the day-shift). There are two Tom’s at work and I wouldn’t want you to get the wrong one. The other one is an extremely aggressive “new” Christian. I admire his faith, but I find he turns non-believers off because he is so aggressive with his beliefs. I pray that he will mellow out, and become less aggressive as he becomes older and more mature.

    May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all…

  25. on 20 Mar 2011 at 10:13 pmJohnE

    Sorry for misspelling it! If I ever get there, I’ll definitely ask for you 🙂

    I’d like to recommend you this BBC documentary; here’s the description:

    Chaos theory has a bad name, conjuring up images of unpredictable weather, economic crashes and science gone wrong. But there is a fascinating and hidden side to Chaos, one that scientists are only now beginning to understand.

    It turns out that chaos theory answers a question that mankind has asked for millennia – how did we get here?

    In this documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili sets out to uncover one of the great mysteries of science – how does a universe that starts off as dust end up with intelligent life? How does order emerge from disorder?

    It’s a mindbending, counterintuitive and for many people a deeply troubling idea. But Professor Al-Khalili reveals the science behind much of beauty and structure in the natural world and discovers that far from it being magic or an act of God, it is in fact an intrinsic part of the laws of physics. Amazingly, it turns out that the mathematics of chaos can explain how and why the universe creates exquisite order and pattern.

    And the best thing is that one doesn’t need to be a scientist to understand it. The natural world is full of awe-inspiring examples of the way nature transforms simplicity into complexity. From trees to clouds to humans – after watching this film you’ll never be able to look at the world in the same way again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxPR0pjGuYw

  26. on 20 Mar 2011 at 10:44 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    Thanks for the link. It is getting late now, so I’ll watch it later this week, when I get a chance. Another atheist friend of mine sent me a YouTube link the other day with a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson. He wants to know what my opinion of the debate is. So, if you don’t mind, I will watch that one first. Probably tomorrow night if I have the time.

    I don’t know if you realize that you were the first person to talk to me when I first came on to K.R. back in Christmas 2009. I had never blogged before and I was very nervous. I had thought that Matthew was an eye-witness (one of the disciples of Y’shua) and you explained to me that he wasn’t, but that Matthew was just a Greek word for disciple.

    I believe that back then you had not yet become an atheist. I just want to thank-you. You were very kind to me, realizing I was new and all. I have found that everyone here on K.R. has been kind to me. Especially since I do have “some” unusual beliefs that most people might even consider to be heretical.

    God Bless…

  27. on 20 Mar 2011 at 11:55 pmJohnE

    Yeah, I remember your first visit and what we discussed; I sensed you weren’t exactly welcomed by certain individuals because of your beliefs, and I could empathize with that. You’re welcome!

    Have a good night.

  28. on 20 Mar 2011 at 11:58 pmJoseph

    John E,

    Hi Joseph, nice to see you again too.

    It would be a bit difficult to answer your question, because religions, by definition, focus on the supernatural, and so are not realistic (IMO). The bits of common sense and logic they exhibit also have the supernatural as foundation, but not always. The Golden Rule is one example.

    I’d say religions that reject certain aspects of the supernatural are better than others, like those who reject hell and predestination to hell, the immaterial soul, the trinity. They’re obviously more realistic because those things really don’t exist.

    Good points in which I do agree for the most part. Coming from my point of view, as I, like many others who struggle with faith, tend to look at religions from a scientific perspective. Having grown up in a Mormon sham religion and delved into many other worldviews I’m not foreign to the disappointment and stupidity and how religious doctrines can blind a human being. I’m amazed to see aged men suckle to beliefs as if they were a newborn baby, never testing their core beliefs and doctrines. To the contrary, I’m also amazed at how religious beliefs can bring about moral wisdom and health in a person’s being, and how the most accurate human history comes from a religious book. It comes down to the eye of the beholder – whether Biblical realities are truth is what can solidify ones faith in the subject matter that involves the unknown/faith.

    But… we know that where lays untruth there is truth to be discovered. Contrary to popular Christian belief, having faith doesn’t mean having to have all the answers. I for one gain my faith that God is “real” from my ability to look at all sides of a particular subject and discern whether it is an absolute truth (true truth), or holds partial truth and great potential and plausibility.

    I’d like to respond to a paragraph in your dialog with DT…

    Well if you are keeping an open mind that God might have had a beginning, then you are also keeping an open mind that he might not be a god after all. If he might have a beginning, then someone else might have created him, so he’s a creature, not a God. Or if you’d rather think that no-one created him, while keeping an open mind about he having a beginning, then it means he might have just popped into existence, from nothingness. But that is the very thing you are denying the laws of nature, and life. They can’t just appear from nothingness. So it’s time for you to be consistent, and keep an open mind that life and the laws of nature appeared out of nothing (again, not that I believe such a thing).

    I agree with this, and I would go further to say that no theory whether it is religious or secular can explain empirically on how the universe began to exist. This is one reason why I don’t need to hold to a secular scientific viewpoint as my basis for truth and still entertain other ideas. I also don’t flat out deny that certain theories that stem from the secular position are not plausible. There are also theories from a Creationist perspective that hold just as much scientific “validity.” I say “validity” with skepticism, as arguing this subject as if to say one position is better than the other is like trying to beat each other in a race to the top of an invisible wall. 🙂

    I do agree with you on how Genesis portraits the creation account as literal days as we would experience them on Earth. I also entertain that a literal creation can, and does, have supporting evidence, and is a very interesting line of research. I would recommend looking into the works of Russell Humphreys and his theory on the starlight, time, and the expansion of the universe. Also, look into the works of Robert Gentry and his work on polonium halos found in the Earth’s granite rocks. These are just a couple of examples to the many that support a younger earth. I’m not calling them facts, just pointing out the fact that science can go any direction, even if the main premise comes from a historical document that says “God did it.” God may very well have done it, and why should any scientist count that out if there is supporting evidence?

    I look at science from a unbiased position when it comes to origins. As you know, the creation of the universe was a one time event and therefore cannot be replicated/observed to prove any one theory as empirical fact. What we do know is that in the Law of thermodynamics, entropy, tells us that the universe is aging and growing older, breaking down. We observe that millions of stars are dying, but we don’t see millions of new stars being born to replace them. So the question posed by many great minds is that since the universe is aging, then there must have been a time when it was younger/new. Saying that an outside force/energy made the universe possible is not outside of science. In fact, science should not and is not biased toward any particular hypothesis or theory. IMO, the only reason a God theory is not so popular amongst the mainstream scientific community is because this position would suggest moral absolutes, which in turn suggests a ultimate judge upon our actions in this life based upon these absolutes. Accountability.

    To rant on a bit (stay with me). Life without a Moral law giver to hold man accountable, makes life very unfair for even those who suffer in this world. For example, if there is no God, then the rapist murderer gets off free with any violent actions that harm others. The one who suffered is never given ultimate justice and the one who suffers can never be healed. I hear people say all the time… “if there is a God, then why does he let good people be murdered…” The logical answer to that is based upon our understanding of what God can do. God has the ability to restore that life, so the person that was murdered or suffered in this life, can be restored in the next one. On the other hand, if there is no God, then the murderer is simply exercising their right of survival of the fittest. And the victim is truly screwed in this life and the next.

    Sure, I can’t show you God and invite him in for tea. But, if what is told to us within a document (the best one that man has on the history of Earth BTW) matches up with how life works, then that is the best option we have at the moment… in my eyes at least. Unless we discover some other historical document that predates that of the Bible and matches it historically, then I’m going to continue believing in what works.

    Please don’t take this response as me trying to prove you wrong or convince you of anything, just wanted to state my position on the topic and dialog a bit. 🙂

  29. on 21 Mar 2011 at 9:49 pmJohnE

    Joseph,
    I’m glad you can see where I come from.

    I also entertain that a literal creation can, and does, have supporting evidence, and is a very interesting line of research. I would recommend looking into the works of Russell Humphreys and his theory on the starlight, time, and the expansion of the universe. Also, look into the works of Robert Gentry and his work on polonium halos found in the Earth’s granite rocks.

    I am aware that there are creationist, Christian scientists, who work on providing a scientific basis for a young Earth model. But these people are on the fringes of science. The theories of these two individuals have been refuted/contested by other scientists. As a rule, a billions years old universe is not a controversial fact among scientists dealing with this matter, from geologists to astronomers. I could not say that these scientists representing the majority have colluded to somehow undermine the Genesis story (and I’m not saying you think so either), but when I hear of these few scientists who support a young Earth theory, they’re always believers.

    Saying that an outside force/energy made the universe possible is not outside of science.

    I’m not so sure about that, can you provide some references?

    IMO, the only reason a God theory is not so popular amongst the mainstream scientific community is because this position would suggest moral absolutes, which in turn suggests a ultimate judge upon our actions in this life based upon these absolutes.

    Yeah, this is exactly what I used to think, and used to say to atheists. That scientists like to think there’s no God because then they don’t have to worry about a superior authority judging them. You can sleep so much better at night when there’s no dangling sword above your head!

    But of course I don’t think that anymore. Napoleon once asked the famous mathematician Laplace, about how come God is not mentioned at all in Laplace’s new book on the system of universe. He answered “I did not need that hypothesis sire”. It’s as simple as that. The scientists cannot believe in supernatural, invisible persons because of their naturalist approach.

    Life without a Moral law giver to hold man accountable, makes life very unfair for even those who suffer in this world. For example, if there is no God, then the rapist murderer gets off free with any violent actions that harm others.

    But then an atheist can say “see, faith is the result of man’s desire for better, for justice”. Assuming you don’t believe in hell, I’m not sure how a rapist murderer is punished other than him being left dead by God. And yes, life is often horribly unfair, despite claims of God being real. There are murderer rapists. When they are caught, they are punished (some with death, some with prison). Others are not caught and live the rest of their lives in peace, then die peacefully in their own bed – despite God being said to exist. Yes, life is very unfair so many times, but this, far being an argument for God’s existence, is an argument against it. The most one can say is that this makes man to desire the existence of God, a punisher who will impart justice in the end. It’s very human to yearn for something like that.

    God has the ability to restore that life, so the person that was murdered or suffered in this life, can be restored in the next one.

    And again, I was saying the exact thing 🙂 The problem is, before they are killed, many people suffer horribly, beyond what words can really express. Even for years – and I’m thinking about the concentration camps, where as you know, millions of people have been tortured day and night. I’ve heard that certain Jews were saying “wouldn’t this be the best time for the Messiah to come and save us?”. Wasn’t that the best time?

    Not to mention, that homo sapiens has lived on earth for about 150.000 years now (the Neanderthal human species remains that were discovered are 40.000 years old). And lived wretchedly. Living at most 30 years, they were being killed by trivial illnesses, killed by animals, killed by their own, eaten by their own, without protection from anybody. A life that we today would consider a really really wretched life. And all the time what was God doing? Watching.

    After 144.000 years of watching these tragedies unfold every single day, he chooses to finally make contact, but doesn’t help much. No “hey guys, here’s the antidote for malaria” or anything else. In the years since, humanity lived an abject reality.

    Sure, I can’t show you God and invite him in for tea. But, if what is told to us within a document (the best one that man has on the history of Earth BTW) matches up with how life works, then that is the best option we have at the moment… in my eyes at least. Unless we discover some other historical document that predates that of the Bible and matches it historically, then I’m going to continue believing in what works.

    Was saying the same 🙂 But in fact, there are much better options than that. IF I were God, I would take my role very seriously. I would intervene in the human affairs without hesitation. Are you about to fall of a cliff? I got you. Are you about to be raped? Saved you. Are you hungry? I would feed you. After all, we humans would do so with our pets or our children without hesitation. With all of them. But God doesn’t do that. The reason, believers like to say, is that you human can’t understand the superior wisdom of God; he knows very well why he’s not stepping in, and it’s all for our good, etc etc etc. These are all justifications, trying to make sense of all this mess. And believers don’t actually know why God doesn’t step in, beyond excuses like “prophecies X Y Z are required to be fulfilled first, or God is testing our faith, or God has patience and wants more people to repent before he does it, etc etc etc…

    Please don’t take this response as me trying to prove you wrong or convince you of anything, just wanted to state my position on the topic and dialog a bit.

    Oh no problem at all!

  30. on 21 Mar 2011 at 10:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    Your last post reminded me of a quote I read from Peter Kreeft.

    “On my door is a cartoon of two turtles. One says, ‘Sometimes I would like to ask why he allows poverty, famine and injustice when he could do something about it.’ The other turtle says ‘I am afraid that God might ask me the same question`.”

    Just some food for thought…

  31. on 21 Mar 2011 at 11:16 pmJohnE

    You mean that God would ask me why *I* allow poverty, famine and injustice?

  32. on 21 Mar 2011 at 11:25 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    When it comes down to it, we are the one’s that allow it. Just think if the money spent on the International Space Station, putting men in space, and all the other wasteful things we do were used to fight poverty and famine instead…

  33. on 22 Mar 2011 at 7:03 pmJohnE

    DT,
    you are most certainly wrong. *We* are not the ones who allow it. I don’t know about you, but *I* do not allow any of this. But you think somebody’s asking for my permission?

    This approach that you mention betrays lack of faith into an intervening God. That is called “Deism”, and has nothing to do with Christianity.

    But for one to believe that a God interested in intervening for the good of humanity, would rather say what you said, that would be infuriating, and cowardly on his part. The one allegedly having the power to stop all this is asking the helpless to end it themselves? Some nerve. That’s insulting, not to mention ridiculous. Why don’t you patrol the streets at night to prevent crimes occurring?

  34. on 22 Mar 2011 at 9:21 pmSean

    JohnE,

    Please tone down the rhetoric. Although you may no longer be a Christian, this website still is and our Communication Policy prohibits blasphemy (trash talking God).

  35. on 22 Mar 2011 at 10:08 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “The one allegedly having the power to stop all this is asking the helpless to end it themselves?”

    I don’t think that members of some of the most rich and powerful countries in the world are actually helpless. If we, all the wealthy countries as a political force, made it clear to our politicians that we want serious action taken on famine and starvation it would undoubtedly happen.

    The way I see it, it might even be possible do it without any government intervention. If everyone in the developed world gave 5-10% of their income to this cause, that would probably be more then enough to prevent famine and starvation. Of course you and I both know not everyone in the developed world would be willing to do this.

    Which, I think, is the point of what the turtle is saying in the above quote…

  36. on 22 Mar 2011 at 10:53 pmJohnE

    Sean,
    I cannot trash talk a god that doesn’t exist. The “some nerve” remark is obviously hypothetical.

    DT, you are talking about one issue, while ignoring suffering and death. I find the idea that somehow the wealthy countries can feed poor countries for any significant time to be unrealistic. And then, is that why God does not intervene, because wealthy countries can feed poor one (but do not do so)? Where’s the excuse for not helping with the crime, wars, tsunamis, quakes? It’s time to face reality DT, there is no God.

  37. on 23 Mar 2011 at 5:59 amMark C.

    Sean,
    I cannot trash talk a god that doesn’t exist.

    Just because you don’t believe God exists does not give you the right to trash talk what we believe in. Sean was reminding you to keep the discussion cordial, as you had been doing for much of it.

    Where’s the excuse for not helping with the crime, wars, tsunamis, quakes? It’s time to face reality DT, there is no God.

    There are many Biblical explanations for this, which you are no doubt familiar with. You have chosen to reject the notion of a God, while most of us on this site have not. Neither side is likely to convince the other, so let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  38. on 23 Mar 2011 at 11:54 amRon S.

    Wow this churned out some interesting comments/discussions!

    JohnE,

    Are you the “JohnE” that use to post here frequently and also had your own pre-existence blog site that argued for Christian belief(s)?

    If so, what pulled you over to the other side?

    Is DT’s observation/suggestion about a tragic event (post #3) true in your case?

    Just curious.

    Ron S.

  39. on 23 Mar 2011 at 5:30 pmSean

    JohnE,

    I cannot trash talk a god that doesn’t exist.

    Yes you can. You can trash-talk anything, whether it exists or not. However, on this website you will refrain from doing so. You will discourse respectfully or else find another place to engage in invective. Furthermore, you will capitalize the ‘G’ on God out of respect for the rest of us who not only believe in him, but love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is not open for debate and you will abide by our communication policy, just like the rest of us.

  40. on 23 Mar 2011 at 8:12 pmJoseph

    JohnE,

    Yes, I can see where you are coming from because I have been there in my ability to entertain the secular position when it comes to challenging my own beliefs. In a sense, I put myself in the Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, ect, shoes before coming to a conclusion.

    am aware that there are creationist, Christian scientists, who work on providing a scientific basis for a young Earth model. But these people are on the fringes of science. The theories of these two individuals have been refuted/contested by other scientists. As a rule, a billions years old universe is not a controversial fact among scientists dealing with this matter, from geologists to astronomers. I could not say that these scientists representing the majority have colluded to somehow undermine the Genesis story (and I’m not saying you think so either), but when I hear of these few scientists who support a young Earth theory, they’re always believers.

    You are correct, they are on the fringe in comparison to the mainstream perspective of science, but that has no bearing on the credibility of their work. If one is truly a scientist then all forms of research are just as valid as any other until proven void by our current scientific methods.

    As far as being refuted, that is a no. Contested, yes, but not proven wrong. In fact, one reason I still have great interest in the scientists who research evidence for a literal Biblical creation model is their willingness to back up and defend their work. Both Humphreys and Gentry (amongst many others) have done so to great lengths. Even against fellow Christians who take the position of Theistic Evolutionists. Here is a good source if you are interested in some of the exchanges between those who have challenged their work… http://www.trueorigin.org/#ca

    On Creation Scientists always being believers, that is not true. Most of these Creation Scientist had a strong belief in Evolution before they started to challenge the theory and research in the direction of Creation Science. From my personal experience in talking to many research scientists and professors is that most scientists that take the side of Evolution as their basis don’t know the opposing evidence from the Creationists side – while most Creationists do know the Evolutionists view, even more-so than an Evolutionists knows their own theory. I have been in debates many times with Evolutionists that are ignorant of the many hoaxes that surround the history of the theory and are unaware of the many positions that Evolution theory holds. I even used to be a ardent believer in Evolution theory, assuming it was fact and the best possible position.

    “Saying that an outside force/energy made the universe possible is not outside of science. ”

    I’m not so sure about that, can you provide some references?

    I never said it was a fact. I’m simply making the point that to say that in no possible way a bigger force beyond our universe could have been the reason our universe exists, is to close an eye to the direction of science. Science should flow like water, going wherever the evidence takes it regardless of the path. Evidence such as Entropy, Anthropic principle, ect, can also weigh in the direction of an outside energy source (God). There are many good theories that I don’t necessarily think are better than other, but I do take into account as many positions as I can.

    Yeah, this is exactly what I used to think, and used to say to atheists. That scientists like to think there’s no God because then they don’t have to worry about a superior authority judging them. You can sleep so much better at night when there’s no dangling sword above your head!

    From my personal experience, I have been in many debates with friends and professors that have openly admitted that the Bible’s position on… a God, sexual purity, drug use, sexual orientation, ect, does not jive with their lifestyle. Just one example, wouldn’t a homosexual’s orientation influence them on which theory they believe in, since the Bible is clear that Homosexuality and sodomy is a sin? Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room, the Bible does take a absolute stance that conflicts with many run of the mill life style choices that affect the way we believe or not believe.

    But then an atheist can say “see, faith is the result of man’s desire for better, for justice”. Assuming you don’t believe in hell, I’m not sure how a rapist murderer is punished other than him being left dead by God. And yes, life is often horribly unfair, despite claims of God being real. There are murderer rapists. When they are caught, they are punished (some with death, some with prison). Others are not caught and live the rest of their lives in peace, then die peacefully in their own bed – despite God being said to exist.

    The secularist can say all they want, but what human history has shown us is that a Biblical moral system has always governed man on Earth. Unless the Atheist can come up with a more accurate version of human history, through historical documents, then it’s simply nothing more than an opinion and a form of plagiarism from Biblical ideas.

    And again, I was saying the exact thing 🙂 The problem is, before they are killed, many people suffer horribly, beyond what words can really express. Even for years – and I’m thinking about the concentration camps, where as you know, millions of people have been tortured day and night. I’ve heard that certain Jews were saying “wouldn’t this be the best time for the Messiah to come and save us?”. Wasn’t that the best time?

    And the Bible has a solution for this, that the pain and suffering in this life for those who are righteous is not reflected on what the ultimate reward is for a created being, eternal life, in which the pain and suffering is absent. That is what I like about the Bible, it doesn’t deny suffering, it rather has a solution.

    Not to mention, that homo sapiens has lived on earth for about 150.000 years now (the Neanderthal human species remains that were discovered are 40.000 years old). And lived wretchedly. Living at most 30 years, they were being killed by trivial illnesses, killed by animals, killed by their own, eaten by their own, without protection from anybody. A life that we today would consider a really really wretched life. And all the time what was God doing? Watching.

    You say this as if it were a fact. It’s not. I for one see the lack of Human Fossils suggests against Humans being in existence for so long on Earth. There have been many Mathematicians who have done the math on on human population and it can show very much contrary to Evolutionary theory. There are very credible studies by Jack Cuozzo and Marvin Lubenow which show Paleo fossils being found are simply Human or a species of Monkey – not some type of intermediate. Especially check out Jack Cuozzo’s work on the Neanderthal.

    Was saying the same 🙂 But in fact, there are much better options than that. IF I were God, I would take my role very seriously. I would intervene in the human affairs without hesitation. Are you about to fall of a cliff? I got you. Are you about to be raped? Saved you. Are you hungry? I would feed you. After all, we humans would do so with our pets or our children without hesitation. With all of them. But God doesn’t do that.

    The point I’m making, is that we aren’t God. What we KNOW is that the Bible says that there is suffering and doesn’t deny it. The Bible says that there is a powerful God that created us. There is a next life after this one. And the Bible tells us that this God can restore our life and take our suffering away that we endure in this life. Would you force your child do do everything you said? or would want your child to have the freedom to choose themselves? God does not want his creation to be robots, but rather choose themselves, each person being unique. IMO, this shows how much God loves us to give us this free will to choose how we conduct ourselves.

    The reason, believers like to say, is that you human can’t understand the superior wisdom of God; he knows very well why he’s not stepping in, and it’s all for our good, etc etc etc. These are all justifications, trying to make sense of all this mess. And believers don’t actually know why God doesn’t step in, beyond excuses like “prophecies X Y Z are required to be fulfilled first, or God is testing our faith, or God has patience and wants more people to repent before he does it, etc etc etc…

    I disagree, the Bible in no way denies suffering, but offers a solution. There is evil and good on Earth. In many cases suffering can do good. From my own personal experience, I was almost killed in a gang attack which left me in the hospital. At the time I was a heavy drug user. It was because of this experience that turned me around, and since I haven’t touched drugs and see life clearer than ever before. Don’t take this as me being a victim poor me boy. My life has been a cakewalk compared to the many who suffered much more than I have. I take this into account and pray that I won’t have to endure horrific things that many others do. But I also have faith that God will keep his promise and fix the suffering in this life for a better next life that allows us a chance at eternal life in his presence. Call it child’s stories, arrogance, or what you want. But I am a very critical thinker, sometimes too much, and I do take into account all other points of view. I’m not saying you don’t, just that it’s not uncommon for two people to see the same thing and come to very different conclusions. This is also why I don’t get mad at you for your position toward God like others in this group do. I also don’t think lesser of you for your position. Everyone is on their own journey in life including myself, and sometimes we are taken on a path for awhile, and sometimes that path changes.

  41. on 23 Mar 2011 at 9:11 pmJohnE

    Ron,
    yes, I am the same JohnE you are talking about. What pulled me to the “other side”? Many things. The biggest blow was realizing that Jesus failed to return during the apostles’ lifetime, as he and they thought and said he will. Jesus failed. That’s very bad. And imagine the following dialog between a disciple and a non-believer:

    B: You know, Jesus was raised; we have seen him.
    NB: He has??? Why haven’t we seen him then?
    B: Because… he doesn’t want you to.
    NB: Why doesn’t he appear to the world, to say “I told you so”?
    B: Well you’re not worthy enough.
    NB: Oookay, but is he in Jerusalem? If we could see him we would believe.
    B: He’s not in Jerusalem, he’s…
    NB: …In Galilee then?
    B: Actually, you cannot find him alive on earth, he went… to heaven!
    NB: I see, so he went somewhere where we can’t go, where we can’t find him, to confirm your story. Why didn’t he stay on earth and restore Israel, crown you as kings on 12 thrones?
    B: Because it’s not time for that yet.
    NB: Ok, when’s the time then, cause we want to hold you to that.
    B: It’s soon, before we all die.
    NB: Ok then…

    All the “facts” of the resurrection seem designed to answer the questions of the skeptics…

    I also gradually lost faith in the Bible as a God-inspired document. Evil in the world had a heavy contribution too (and yes, I had my share of tragic events as well). I realized all the explanations on why God does not intervene were just rationalizations trying to keep the faith system viable for the believer (including me), reactions meant to defend an attack against God, and attempts to make sense of the very painful and embarrassing, obvious paradox – the co-existence of evil on the one hand, and a loving god on the other.

    At one point I stopped taking for granted God’s inaction – which is an axiom in some Christian circles – an unwritten law. I asked myself “why not, why doesn’t God just do something obvious, something even as childish as writing on the sky with golden letters ‘I love you, stop being evil'”? Why not micromanage the world, eliminating all the problems in the wink of an eye. Why not??? Oh, because it’s not God’s way. I got tired of that. It’s just an explanation of why nothing really happens. Give a good man god-like powers and see how he wouldn’t hesitate a second, a second, to use them on a cosmic scale, ending all suffering. And if that involves the destruction of evil people, then absolutely. Really, tens of thousands of years have been enough now, way too much. One hundred years of evil would have been more than enough.

  42. on 23 Mar 2011 at 9:48 pmJohnE

    Sean,
    I can understand you’re upset. I sure can stop “trash-talking” God if you say I’m doing that, although you are wrong. Saying “some nerve” is not trash-talking. There’s nothing trashy about either “some”, or “nerve”, or “some nerve”. Frustration with this alleged God, yes. But trashy? Invectives? Not at all, but maybe it’s just a New York thing, I’m not sure. I’m sure though that you hate atheism (like any good believer), and simply want a reason to get rid of me. That is obvious when you continue saying:

    Furthermore, you will capitalize the ‘G’ on God out of respect for the rest of us

    That’s just ridiculous. Are you sure you didn’t go too far this time? You are ordering atheists around on this blog to capitalize G in “god”??? What’s next, order me to prefix “God” with “Most Merciful”? And is respect a one-way street? I have to respect you writing “God”, but you don’t have to respect me writing “god”? Tell me, what biblical principle visavis non-believers are you applying here?

    And just because this is your blog doesn’t mean you’re entitled to a dictatorial attitude. You will do this, you will do that, furthermore you will do that, because I say so. There are much more benign ways to express your requirements, especially considering this is your church’s official blog. Have you read that “the Lord’s servant must be kind to all, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance?

  43. on 24 Mar 2011 at 9:44 amXavier

    The only true Atheist is a dead one.

    (think about it) 😉

  44. on 24 Mar 2011 at 11:25 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    I’ve been thinking and praying about what you said. I now realize I have been praying for the wrong thing. I had been praying that God would open your heart and your mind to ‘HIS’ truth, but I can see that you are very angry at God about something. I became angry at God when I was 13 yrs. old, and it took me nearly 20 years before that anger subsided.

    It was only after my anger had subsided that I was able to open my mind to the possibility that God might exist. That was the first step for me to finding the truth, and I believe it will be the first step for you as well. I have decided to change my prayers so that now I am praying that God will help you to overcome your anger. That is the first thing that must come before the second step, of opening your mind to the possibility that God might exist.

    I don’t know about you, but when I’m angry I can’t seem to think clearly. That is why it is important for you to try to put your anger aside. I realize this will take time. I just hope it doesn’t take you nearly 20 years, like it did for me…

  45. on 25 Mar 2011 at 9:26 pmJohnE

    Joseph,

    You are correct, they are on the fringe in comparison to the mainstream perspective of science, but that has no bearing on the credibility of their work. If one is truly a scientist then all forms of research are just as valid as any other until proven void by our current scientific methods.

    I strongly disagree 🙂 Of course the fact that they are on the fringe has bearing on the credibility of their work. That’s why they’re on the fringe, because mainstream science does not agree with them, their theories are not credible.

    Basically what happens is, they have to publish their findings/theories in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and then their peers are going to review them (duh!). They will say the paper is scientifically sound, or not, or somewhere in between. It’s hardly unusual for them to be highly divided over one paper or another, but in this case (young earth), they really aren’t. The old earth theory is not controversial at all in mainstream science.

    As far as being refuted, that is a no. Contested, yes, but not proven wrong. In fact, one reason I still have great interest in the scientists who research evidence for a literal Biblical creation model is their willingness to back up and defend their work. Both Humphreys and Gentry (amongst many others) have done so to great lengths. Even against fellow Christians who take the position of Theistic Evolutionists. Here is a good source if you are interested in some of the exchanges between those who have challenged their work… http://www.trueorigin.org/#ca

    Actually, that is a yes. They have been refuted, and by this I mean it has been shown where they made mistakes, and why they don’t have a case. There are too many links for me to post here (my comment will be marked as spam), but you can search on talkorigins dot org subjects like:

    “Polonium Haloes” Refuted
    A Review of “Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
    and Cosmological Perspective” by Robert V. Gentry

    Polonium Halo FAQs

    Dr. Humphreys’ Young-Earth Helium Diffusion “Dates”
    Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data

    I’m not one to get into debates about which scientist is right and who is wrong. I am not a scientist, so I can only defer to others who are. That is, to the majority point of view.

    On Creation Scientists always being believers, that is not true. Most of these Creation Scientist had a strong belief in Evolution before they started to challenge the theory and research in the direction of Creation Science.

    Please provide 10 scientists who believe in a young earth and are not believers. Or as many as you can.

    I said:

    “Saying that an outside force/energy made the universe possible is not outside of science. ”

    and you asked:

    “I’m not so sure about that, can you provide some references?”

    I never said it was a fact. I’m simply making the point that to say that in no possible way a bigger force beyond our universe could have been the reason our universe exists, is to close an eye to the direction of science.

    If it’s not outside of science then it’s inside science, a scientific idea. But if you say if not a fact…

    As for saying that “in no possible way a bigger force beyond our universe could have been the reason our universe exists”, science does not work like that. You will probably never see a scientific paper negating propositions as such, because there is no need to. Science will never declare that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

    Science should flow like water, going wherever the evidence takes it regardless of the path.

    And it does. It flows like a river (mainstream), but a few water drops might splash on the shores here and then (the fringe).

    From my personal experience, I have been in many debates with friends and professors that have openly admitted that the Bible’s position on… a God, sexual purity, drug use, sexual orientation, ect, does not jive with their lifestyle. Just one example, wouldn’t a homosexual’s orientation influence them on which theory they believe in, since the Bible is clear that Homosexuality and sodomy is a sin?

    Oh come on Joseph. You’re not going to tell me that mainstream scientists (the majority therefore) are committing deadly sins, and so this majority adopted old earth as model. Please man 🙂 Imagine this article in a newspaper:

    Believer Says Mainstream Scientists Are All Sinners Therefore Adopt Anti-Biblical Scientific Ideas

    Come on, this is really too much. As for a homosexual, you ask “wouldn’t a homosexual’s orientation influence them on which theory they believe in?” No, or at least not necessarily. I for example have two acquaintances who are a homosexual couple, married to each other. They are almost fanatically Catholic. In fact, I don’t even know people more Catholic than them.

    Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room, the Bible does take a absolute stance that conflicts with many run of the mill life style choices that affect the way we believe or not believe.

    See the example above. In other cases, where people have never believed, there has never been a big elephant in a room, as these people do not believe in the existence of such an elephant. And I can really understand your reasoning. As I said, I used to believe exactly the same thing – not that I knew anything factual on the subject, I simply believed this *has to be* the explanation, there’s no other explanation why they can’t see the truth.

    The secularist can say all they want, but what human history has shown us is that a Biblical moral system has always governed man on Earth. Unless the Atheist can come up with a more accurate version of human history, through historical documents, then it’s simply nothing more than an opinion and a form of plagiarism from Biblical ideas.

    Yeah sure, the Bible has a monopoly on morals. That’s not true at all. The Chinese for example, had laws prescribing what is moral and how to punish the imoral.

    And if there’s any plagiarism, it’s that of the Mosaic Law having statutes found in other earlier codes, like Hammurabi’s.

    And don’t get me started on other morals the Bible exhibits. Kill the witch, kill the Sabbath breaker, slavery, kill all the inhabitants in this town including women and children, and animals(!), dash their children against the rocks, etc? Now that’s what I call morals!

    And again, I was saying the exact thing The problem is, before they are killed, many people suffer horribly, beyond what words can really express. Even for years – and I’m thinking about the concentration camps, where as you know, millions of people have been tortured day and night. I’ve heard that certain Jews were saying “wouldn’t this be the best time for the Messiah to come and save us?”. Wasn’t that the best time?

    And the Bible has a solution for this, that the pain and suffering in this life for those who are righteous is not reflected on what the ultimate reward is for a created being, eternal life, in which the pain and suffering is absent. That is what I like about the Bible, it doesn’t deny suffering, it rather has a solution.

    No, the Bible has no solution to this. The solution is to stop and prevent suffering. It’s like you telling me how you were looking out the window one day, and saw your daughter returning home from school. As you watched, you see these four brutes jumping on her, beating her and ripping her clothes off. And what is your solution? You do nothing, just watch from your window the horrible scene unfolding. After your daughter barely crawles home hours later, more dead than alive, you tell her “You suffered horribly, beloved daughter; I didn’t intervene because I wanted you to have this experience. But I’m gonna compensate all that, the doctors will heal you and I’m going to protect you from now on”.

    The solution is not wait and watch, let the horrible torment run its full course, and compensate later. No rational being does so, and you yourself cannot, and would not do that either, to your wife, or your daughter, or to anybody. You would stop it why it was in progress, or do all you can to prevent it. Sure, I know the refrain, “mysterious are God’s ways” and “God knows better and is wiser than you”. I remember the absurd JW logic, “wouldn’t you as a parent allow you child to undergo a painful surgery, knowing it is all for his own good?”. Oh please.

    Not to mention, that homo sapiens has lived on earth for about 150.000 years now (the Neanderthal human species remains that were discovered are 40.000 years old). And lived wretchedly. Living at most 30 years, they were being killed by trivial illnesses, killed by animals, killed by their own, eaten by their own, without protection from anybody. A life that we today would consider a really really wretched life. And all the time what was God doing? Watching.

    You say this as if it were a fact. It’s not. I for one see the lack of Human Fossils suggests against Humans being in existence for so long on Earth.

    Of course I do, because it is. This is just another thing where there’s no controversy in science – that humans has existed on earth for tens of thousand of years.

    There have been many Mathematicians who have done the math on on human population and it can show very much contrary to Evolutionary theory. There are very credible studies by Jack Cuozzo and Marvin Lubenow which show Paleo fossils being found are simply Human or a species of Monkey – not some type of intermediate. Especially check out Jack Cuozzo’s work on the Neanderthal.

    All believers I guess? 🙂 What scientific journals have they published in and how was it received? Not too well I guess again?

    What I said before is true in this case as well: there is no controversy here. These guys are believers and on the fringe of science. The famous fossils are neither human (except for the Neanderthals, who were human, and tens of thousands of years old as such), and neither monkeys, they’re somewhere in between. They are superior to apes, and inferior to humans. This is again, not controversial at all. Their morphology, characteristics, are a proof of that.

    The point I’m making, is that we aren’t God. What we KNOW is that the Bible says that there is suffering and doesn’t deny it. The Bible says that there is a powerful God that created us. There is a next life after this one. And the Bible tells us that this God can restore our life and take our suffering away that we endure in this life. Would you force your child do do everything you said?

    But free will has nothing to do with disasters. Tsunamis that kill 250.000 people in one swoop are allowed by God because we have free will? Free to be killed whenever, wherever?

    And human authorities allow free will as well, but they swiftly punish the wrongdoers when they can. Can’t say the same thing about God.

    This is also why I don’t get mad at you for your position toward God like others in this group do. I also don’t think lesser of you for your position. Everyone is on their own journey in life including myself, and sometimes we are taken on a path for awhile, and sometimes that path changes.

    I appreciate that Joseph, really. Others could learn from you.

  46. on 25 Mar 2011 at 10:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You made the following analogy, “It’s like you telling me how you were looking out the window one day, and saw your daughter returning home from school. As you watched, you see these four brutes jumping on her, beating her and ripping her clothes off etc…”

    If your daughter is just a random collection of chemicals that accidentally and spontaneously came together, then why should it matter if four brutes (who are also a random collection of chemicals) jumped on her, beating her and ripping her clothes off etc.. ???

    Without God doesn’t life just boil down to the survival of the fittest, or the strongest???

  47. on 26 Mar 2011 at 3:20 pmJohnE

    DT,

    If your daughter is just a random collection of chemicals that accidentally and spontaneously came together, then why should it matter if four brutes (who are also a random collection of chemicals) jumped on her, beating her and ripping her clothes off etc.. ???

    Your question doesn’t make any sense. A person’s worth does not hinge on whether it was intelligently designed or not. The reason I’m saving my daughter is not because because she was intelligently designed! What, you thought this is the reason for parents saving their daughters? This is non-sensical. All mammals protect their off-spring (duh!) and humans are no different.

    Without God doesn’t life just boil down to the survival of the fittest, or the strongest???

    That’s another creationist myth. Wolf, or elephant members of a pack survive just fine even when they’re not the alpha male/female – the strongest. Yes, a wolf/elephant can be killed by a bear (just like a man can killed by one) but living in a pack has its clear advantages: the weaker specimens have a real prospect of a successful life. They survive too, without being the strongest.

    The sad fact is that the principle of survival of the fittest has been working really well in theistic communities. The man killed for gathering wood on the Sabbath was not well adapted to the religious climate of his community. Because he was not fit (or did not fit in), he was killed. You could say that god killed him, applying the principle of survival of the fittest. The same goes for the witch in this theistic community, the adulterer, the apostate, etc. All in God’s backyard.

    Unfortunately other “unfit” people have had to go extinct because they were unfit in the eyes of God. Joshua has been really zealous in decimating whole cities. Yes, theistic genocide, in a life where God was first in everything.

  48. on 26 Mar 2011 at 5:44 pmDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “A person’s worth does not hinge on whether it was intelligently designed or not.”

    If no-one in the world believed in God (an atheist utopia), Why should anyone care what happens to their fellow man (or woman)???

    It would be every man for himself. Atheists say that they can lead a moral life that fits in perfectly well with our Christian society, but, what they forget is that the morals and values of our society come from our Christian background. Without this Christian background, What would the morals and values of a society look like???

    We can look at history and the world around us to see. In India because of their Karma doctrines it is believed to be wrong to help the poor, the suffering, etc… It is believed that these people are suffering because of bad Karma they obtained from a previous life. If you were to interfere, with that Karma, and stop their suffering then they would just have to endure that suffering in a future reincarnation, since it was believed that you couldn’t escape your Karma (whether it was good or bad).

    Look at Germany in the early 20th. century. Anybody born that wasn’t normal, mongoloid, mentally slow, etc… or that became mentally ill later on in life, were hidden away in the attics or basements of people’s houses. The neighbors wouldn’t even know that these people existed. It was considered to be a terrible shame on the family name to have someone like this in your family.

    This accepted social behavior got to the point that under Hitler these kinds of people were deliberately killed by physicians in special hospitals that he set up, because they were considered to be a burden on society and it’s limited resources. Hitler even gassed gays and lesbians, and other social deviants, along with the millions of Jews in the gas chambers.

    Atheists mistakenly think that a society based on atheism would be no different then our modern Christian societies. This is simply not true. Just look at many of the countries of the former Soviet Union that were officially atheist societies. Unwanted children, for whatever reason, were put in special homes where there was only one caregiver for every 100 or so children.

    These children spent their entire lives going around in dirty diapers, and were kept in cold dirty conditions, and they weren’t dressed warmly nor did they even receive any human contact from the caregivers. As a result, most of these children ended up dying at a very young age. Nobody cared! It was every man for himself and the weak and unwanted children were the casualties of these “atheist” societies.

    It is not a naturally born instinct to treat everyone in a society with love, respect and dignity. This is something that has to be taught by the elders of the society to the younger generations of the society. It is something that is passed down from generation to generation. We are not inherently good, kind, loving, caring, and generous as a species.

    Prior to Christianity there was no such thing as social welfare in “any” society. If a person was shipwrecked in a foreign country and didn’t know the local language and customs, they would be rejected by the local people, and would end up dying as a result. One of the first things that the early Christians did was to take in people that were shipwrecked and unwanted etc… and provide them with food, clothing and shelter.

    They would also teach them the local language and customs, plus a trade, so that within an short time they could become productive members of the society, and wouldn’t need to be taken care of anymore. I once read that it was said of the early Christians that they made many men rich, but they themselves remained poor, proud of the fact that they didn’t own anything.

    This, by the way, was written by some pagans that thought the Christians were stupid because they themselves remained poor not owning anything, even though they helped many others out of poverty. Of course there were also many people that respected these early Christians and thanked their God (“OUR” Father) and this helped early Christianity to spread.

    Of course, like always, this is just my own humble observations and opinions…

  49. on 26 Mar 2011 at 10:31 pmJohnE

    DT,

    Oh, so you won’t touch the crimes committed by Judaism. I wonder why 🙂

    John E.
    You said, “A person’s worth does not hinge on whether it was intelligently designed or not.”

    If no-one in the world believed in God, Why should anyone care what happens to their fellow man (or woman)???

    It would be every man for himself.

    Caring for somebody does not happen because one believes in god or not. As previously, your question doesn’t make any sense. If a pedestrian is hit by a car, why do I call 911? Because I believe in god? But I don’t! Why do I donate money to charities? Belief in God is not the cause here either. I care because I can relate to people. I can empathize, not only with humans in distress, but with animals too. And it’s not because of an alleged God, take my word for it. The golden rule is something that goes to the core of what being human means. I will not do harm to someone because I would hate for someone to harm me. I cannot practice what I hate.

    And I do good for the same reason. If I help somebody in need, I do it in the hope that someone will help me too when I’ll be in need.

    Atheists say that they can lead a moral life that fits in perfectly well with our Christian society, but, what they forget is that the morals and values of our society come from our Christian background.

    That is very insulting. You allege that a person can only lead a moral life if he’s a Christian. I’m not even going to take you seriously here. You can’t be so ignorant as to not know there are lots of moral people who are NOT Christians. You Christians simply do not have a monopoly on morals DT. In fact, Christianity has committed abominable crimes, throughout all known history.

    We can look at history and the world around us to see. In India because of their Karma doctrines it is believed to be wrong to help the poor, the suffering, etc…

    One word: belief. This is an argument against theism, not for it. Thanks for providing it.

    Look at Germany in the early 20th. century. Anybody born that wasn’t normal, mongoloid, mentally slow, etc… or that became mentally ill later on in life, were hidden away in the attics or basements of people’s houses. The neighbors wouldn’t even know that these people existed. It was considered to be a terrible shame on the family name to have someone like this in your family.

    If you’re referring to Germany prior to Hitler, than this a Christian Germany. Hitler’s Germany remained Christian. The protestant churches were praying publicly for Hitler and the Reich. The motto on the belts of the soldiers was “God with us”. Although Hitler was Catholic, he had all sorts of “exotic” cvasi-religious ideas, and created some sort of cult – I’ve seen a documentary on Discovery Channel on this. Christianity had also its share of blame for the persecution of Jews. It also turned a blind eye on all these atrocities, and was an accomplice. Not to mention the Concordat the Vatican entered with Hitler’s Germany in the ’30s.

    Atheists mistakenly think that a society based on atheism would be no different then our modern Christian societies. This is simply not true. Just look at many of the countries of the former Soviet Union that were officially atheist societies. Unwanted children, for whatever reason, were put in special homes where there was only one caregiver for every 100 or so children.

    Oh, how misled are we atheists! 🙂 The Soviet Union (and eastern european) leaders , as Hitler, had a cvasi-religious following. I should know because I lived in such a country for a long time. Have you heard of the cult of personality? The leader’s photo was hanging high in every classroom, printed on the first page of almost each book you could find in the library. People always spoke with great reverence about him, and feared him a lot. Songs were sang in his honor, poetry was written praising him more than the bible praises God. We were herded into stadiums where we were made to dance in sync for him, raise placards praising him, singing him praises etc etc. In one instance, this minister even kissed his hand. You couldn’t escape him even on TV, he was on all channels, applauded all time ad nauseam. It all had a feeling of a religion where the deity just so happens to not live in heaven, but on earth. I know what I’ve lived through.

    And when you are singing praises of how Christianity was a good influence on society, while true in many cases, it was also a source of evil. May I remind you about what Christianity has done to the first nations in our country, kidnapping children from their families and putting them into residential schools where they were raped, abused, forbidden to speak their own language, brainwashed, etc. All these schools (more like concentration camps) were run by different Christian denominations. Oh, such a good influence!

    Not to mention the slavery Christianity indulged in for centuries, the witch hunts, the inquisition, pogroms against Jews, persecution of homosexuals, pedofile sex scandals, the persecution of atheists and “heretics”, the oppressive system that the Church was while at the top of power. If I would have lived a few centuries ago in a Christian land and declared myself an atheist, I would have led a very short life. And we don’t even have to go back centuries. The first atheist parliamentarian in UK was kicked out of parliament by his own peers for being an atheist (somewhere in the 1800s).

    Shame on Christianity for all these things, shame.

  50. on 27 Mar 2011 at 12:10 amDoubting Thomas

    John E.
    You said, “Oh, so you won’t touch the crimes committed by Judaism. I wonder why 🙂 ”

    God wiped out entire cities, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because of there wicked behavior. According to Moses God had judged these people because of their wicked behavior and instructed Joshua not to let any of them live. Of the ones that stayed that is. Most of the people in the land that they took had fled before the advancing Israelites. Joshua was just meting out justice on behalf of God.

    You as an atheist can say that you don’t think God’s judgment was fair, but you know that I would say that we cannot pretend to be able to second guess God and his wisdom. God said that if any of them were not killed, that they would contaminate ‘HIS’ people and turn them away from Him to other Gods. This is of course exactly what ended up happening in the end.

    You also said, “The golden rule is something that goes to the core of what being human means. I will not do harm to someone because I would hate for someone to harm me. I cannot practice what I hate.”

    Atheist societies don’t deliberately set out to do harm. It is just a byproduct of this “every man for himself”, “survival of the fittest” mantra that comes into play when we don’t have Christianity to lay out the proper morals and values that a society should have.

    You also said, “That is very insulting. You allege that a person can only lead a moral life if he’s a Christian. I’m not even going to take you seriously here.”

    I actually said that if you don’t live in a Christian society than you wouldn’t be living by Christian standards and ethics (Christian morals and values). This is just common sense. If you lived in Hindu society you would live by Hindu standards and ethics. You would have a caste of people called the “Untouchables”, who do all the dirty jobs no one else wants, and whose Karma is so bad that a someone of a higher caste wouldn’t even be able to touch them.

    The Christian morals and values that most atheists take for granted, like all men are created in the image of God, men and women and slaves are equal in God’s eyes, etc… are simply not found in countries that are not Christian. I’m sure you’re aware of that.

    You also said, “If you’re referring to Germany prior to Hitler, than this was a Christian Germany.”

    I was just demonstrating what we humans will do when left to our own devices. How do we know, today looking back on it, that their behavior was wrong???

    Do you think that the cvasi-religious following of the atheist countries of the former Soviet Union would have thought what the Germans did was wrong???

    Of course not. They did the same things themselves.

    You also said, “Christianity had also its share of blame for the persecution of Jews. It also turned a blind eye on all these atrocities, and was an accomplice. Not to mention the Concordat the Vatican entered with Hitler’s Germany in the ’30s.”

    If it wasn’t for the Roman Catholic church preaching sermons every week for more than a thousand years saying that the Jews had killed God, and inciting hatred against the Jews, the groundwork for the Holocaust would never have been in place for Hitler to be able to take advantage of it. Going right back to the time of Constantine the Roman Catholic church considered the Jews to be their arch enemies.

    You also said, “Have you heard of the cult of personality? The leader’s photo was hanging high in every classroom, printed on the first page of almost each book you could find in the library. People always spoke with great reverence about him, and feared him a lot.”

    That’s what happens when you don’t live in a (true) Christian country. The empty void is filled with personality cults, etc…

    You also said, “It all had a feeling of a religion where the deity just so happens to not live in heaven, but on earth. I know what I’ve lived through.”

    I respect that you have more knowledge on this than I do. Having lived through it. I don’t pretend to know everything. I can only share with you how I see things from my humble perspective. But, from my point of view, growing up in a Christian country, I was taught the basic truths of what’s right and what’s wrong. These basic truths are different then what is taught in countries that are not Christian.

    You also said, “May I remind you about what Christianity has done to the first nations in our country, kidnapping children from their families and putting them into residential schools…”

    This was more a case of human prejudice than anything else. The British empire considered anyone that wasn’t like them (in other words non-white and non-Christian), to be sub human savages. That’s why it wasn’t considered wrong to pay native Africans in worthless beads and baubles for working in British gold mines, etc…

    Since they were considered sub-human, just like the native Americans were, the treat thy neighbor as thyself command, and other commands from the bible, did not apply to them. They honestly believed that the native Americans and native Africans were a sub-human species. Not equal to white Christians. This was human pride and prejudice gone completely amok.

    You also said, “Shame on Christianity for all these things, shame.”

    You are correct that a lot of evil things have been done in the name the name of Christianity. Ever since Constantine pretended to convert to Christianity, and pretended to establish a Christian state, where Roman morals and values suddenly and magically became Christian morals and values, many evil things have been done under the name of Christianity.

    Things that would absolutely disgust Y’shua, Peter, the apostles and all the early Christians. None of these early Christians would recognize what Christianity has, in many cases, become. Bishops, Archbishops, and Popes wearing $500.00 hats, and having people bow down, or kneel down and kiss their rings of authority ect… These are all Roman traditions. NOT CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS!!!

    Most people don’t know that during the inquisition they would pronounce sentence by saying you are being beheaded, burned at the stake, etc… in the name of Jesus. What do you think Y’shua, the man that said love your enemies, and turn the cheek, would think of his name being invoked in this way throughout most of our Christian history???

    I believe I know exactly what he would think…

  51. on 27 Mar 2011 at 2:13 amMark C.

    Gentlemen,

    It appears that the discussion is no longer an exchange of ideas but rather of accusations. As I said before, neither side is going to convince the other, so can we just agree to disagree?

  52. on 27 Mar 2011 at 8:29 amXavier

    “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

    😉

  53. on 27 Mar 2011 at 8:40 amDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    I think you are quite correct that we will not be able to convince each other of our different point of views.

    John E.
    That last post of mine will be my last on this subject. I will continue to pray that you will overcome your anger that you have toward God, so that you can one day you can reexamine whether God exists with a clear and open mind.

    May the peace and love of God “OUR” Father be with you and with us all…

  54. on 27 Mar 2011 at 6:59 pmJoseph

    JohnE,

    I strongly disagree 🙂 Of course the fact that they are on the fringe has bearing on the credibility of their work. That’s why they’re on the fringe, because mainstream science does not agree with them, their theories are not credible.

    Much of an overstatement. If you look at the History of science, everything at one point was on the fringe. I’d say that Evolutionary theory is losing steam ever since we have been able to see on a molecular level. Which is why we have scientists like Michael Behe calling out Evolutionary theory for it’s lack of ability to explain irreducible complexity. I suggest you read his books, interesting indeed. Behe is on the fringe, does that also mean his views and theories are not credible? Does any scientist that believes in Intelligent Design have invalid views because they are on the fringe?

    Basically what happens is, they have to publish their findings/theories in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and then their peers are going to review them (duh!).

    Firstly John, I don’t appreciate the “duh” childish use of language. I don’t think it is necessary to get your point across.

    The fact is, there have been many, in respect to the movement, creationists works published in peer reviewed publications. I’m going to defer to you to a couple articles that go to the source of the subject…

    http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

    They will say the paper is scientifically sound, or not, or somewhere in between. It’s hardly unusual for them to be highly divided over one paper or another, but in this case (young earth), they really aren’t. The old earth theory is not controversial at all in mainstream science.

    Again, read the articles above. You’re proving my point. It is because old earth is not a controversial position is why getting works through on a young earth is so difficult in publications that are governed by those who appose the YEC position. Has nothing to do with whether the young earth theory is valid. I also suggest you watch the video documentary “Expelled” by Ben Stein. He goes into the subject of how Evolutionary theory currently holds a monopoly on the Universities, ect, and how it difficult to express any other position publicly. I imagine that flat earthers at one point held the same position against anyone who was on the fringe.

    Actually, that is a yes. They have been refuted, and by this I mean it has been shown where they made mistakes, and why they don’t have a case. There are too many links for me to post here (my comment will be marked as spam), but you can search on talkorigins dot org subjects like:

    I’m not one to get into debates about which scientist is right and who is wrong. I am not a scientist, so I can only defer to others who are. That is, to the majority point of view.

    If you were to actually read the dialogs in the link I posted, Humphreys and Gentry respond to the counter claims that TalkOrigins agrees with. I know it’s heavy reading, but it will be worth your time if you want to debate the subject. BTW, I remember when Talk Origins was just starting out. I’m very familiar with the site and their position regarding Creation Science. You couldn’t have found a more radical opposing side.

    Please provide 10 scientists who believe in a young earth and are not believers. Or as many as you can.

    You misunderstood me, I’m not denying that YEC are believers in a God. To clarify my point… most, if not all Creation Scientists AT ONE POINT were in agreement with the Evolutionary position, many of them being theistic evolutionists. It was because of their ability to see that Evolutionary theory cannot keep up with modern science, and that there is much evidence for a younger earth that persuaded them to put there efforts into a belief in a younger earth. There has been an estimate that there are around 10,000 creation scientists.

    As for saying that “in no possible way a bigger force beyond our universe could have been the reason our universe exists”, science does not work like that. You will probably never see a scientific paper negating propositions as such, because there is no need to. Science will never declare that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

    I disagree, if one is going to make the claim that the universe was started by the Big Bang, then they will need to provide where the source comes from. Just as if someone is going to claim that an outside force (God) is that source. It is not outside of science to think of such things. Perhaps outside of our current research, but not outside of science because we can see non-direct evidence to support the theories.

    Oh come on Joseph. You’re not going to tell me that mainstream scientists (the majority therefore) are committing deadly sins, and so this majority adopted old earth as model. Please man 🙂 Imagine this article in a newspaper:

    Believer Says Mainstream Scientists Are All Sinners Therefore Adopt Anti-Biblical Scientific Ideas

    Come on, this is really too much. As for a homosexual, you ask “wouldn’t a homosexual’s orientation influence them on which theory they believe in?” No, or at least not necessarily. I for example have two acquaintances who are a homosexual couple, married to each other. They are almost fanatically Catholic. In fact, I don’t even know people more Catholic than them.

    Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that there aren’t Homosexuals that are Christians. Obviously they are part of a very small group. I would be willing to bet you that a HUGE majority of Homosexuals hold to a Evolutionary view – which proves my point – that since the Bible holds to a absolute position in a moral law, many will reject it forthright.

    And it’s not about deadly sins, it’s about having to be accountable, whether one sins or not.

    Yeah sure, the Bible has a monopoly on morals. That’s not true at all. The Chinese for example, had laws prescribing what is moral and how to punish the imoral.

    And if there’s any plagiarism, it’s that of the Mosaic Law having statutes found in other earlier codes, like Hammurabi’s.

    If the Bible is true, then it lays claim to a knowledge of Good and Evil, and laws, dating back the beginning of the human race. I for one, having delved into Hinduism, ect, find that the Bible’s position on Moral law and History to be more in line with reality.

    Modern Atheism is a product of denying a God that came from the knowledge of Judeo-Christian societies. So I’m being very fair when I say that anything Atheism claims to moral absolutes comes from the influence of Biblical law. Take for example how the country’s law system is based upon the Bible.

    And don’t get me started on other morals the Bible exhibits. Kill the witch, kill the Sabbath breaker, slavery, kill all the inhabitants in this town including women and children, and animals(!), dash their children against the rocks, etc? Now that’s what I call morals!

    Aren’t you being a little one sided here?? Can you point out the balance of Grace, Forgiveness, Law?

    No, the Bible has no solution to this. The solution is to stop and prevent suffering.

    No, because that would mean that JohnE or Joseph would need to be forced into a decision. That would be a form of slavery. I prefer the no strings attached position that God offers to his creation. This shows his love for us by letting us ultimately govern our own decisions. And as I pointed out earlier, the Bible tells us that God will rebuke the suffering we experience in this life and intact justice on those who chose to do evil upon others. This is a solution. Whether you agree with it or not is your own contention.

    Of course I do, because it is. This is just another thing where there’s no controversy in science – that humans has existed on earth for tens of thousand of years.

    I wouldn’t consider it a fact concerning the much debate even within the Evolutionists community concerning human origins. Haven’t you ever heard of the two main models that Evolution holds concerning the origins of man? (out of africa and mulitregional hypothosis). As I brought up before, the the lack of human fossils is against the long ages for mankind set by Evolution theory. If man has been on this earth for tens of thousands of years, then there should be more fossils. Instead, we find very few fossils of man, in which can be either explained as either fully human or fully ape.

    All believers I guess? 🙂 What scientific journals have they published in and how was it received? Not too well I guess again?

    What I said before is true in this case as well: there is no controversy here. These guys are believers and on the fringe of science. The famous fossils are neither human (except for the Neanderthals, who were human, and tens of thousands of years old as such), and neither monkeys, they’re somewhere in between. They are superior to apes, and inferior to humans. This is again, not controversial at all. Their morphology, characteristics, are a proof of that.

    I think I’ll take the word of Cuozzo on the subject as more valid. Unless you can provide some proof that Cuozzo is wrong. You may find this to be a good read to understand what you are arguing against more – here is a rebuttal from Cuozzo to a skeptic… http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jc_01.asp

    Since you are into TalkOrigins, here is a good link with debates between creationists and the site… http://www.trueorigin.org/#to

    But free will has nothing to do with disasters. Tsunamis that kill 250.000 people in one swoop are allowed by God because we have free will? Free to be killed whenever, wherever?

    And human authorities allow free will as well, but they swiftly punish the wrongdoers when they can. Can’t say the same thing about God.

    And again, the Bible does not deny that these things happen, but the solution is there, as I pointed out many times. Those that lose their life will be able to have it restored again in the next life, the eternal life. God will judge us by what we know and what we do, and how well we use that knowledge.

  55. on 27 Mar 2011 at 11:19 pmJoseph

    John E,

    To clarify things a bit more, I suggest that you read the counter arguments before coming to a conclusion in unison with TalkOrigins. Gentry and Humphreys are very seasoned scientists that have decades of experience in the research world. I’m going to provide to you the rebuttals to the TalkOrigins analysis.

    Actually, that is a yes. They have been refuted, and by this I mean it has been shown where they made mistakes, and why they don’t have a case. There are too many links for me to post here (my comment will be marked as spam), but you can search on talkorigins dot org subjects like:

    “Polonium Haloes” Refuted
    A Review of “Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
    and Cosmological Perspective” by Robert V. Gentry

    First off, Gentry’s research of the Polonium Halos, amongst other research of his, have been published in main stream science journals – see… http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm

    Second, there are some articles on the Internet that try to “refute” the Polonium halos finding, but these article did not make it into Science publications – according to Gentry, these articles try to “hoodwink the unwary” – see… http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/creation-halos-stand-unrefuted.htm

    Here are also some exchanges between Gentry and skeptics… http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm

    Dr. Humphreys’ Young-Earth Helium Diffusion “Dates”
    Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data

    Firstly, Dr. Humphreys has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals.

    Second, Humphreys responds to Talk Origin’s Kevin Henke’s objections to his research…

    Helium Evidence for a Young Earth (Russ Humphreys)—rebuts Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms of the peer-reviewed RATE findings… http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

    Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure (Russ Humphreys)—rebuts the second edition of Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms of the peer-reviewed RATE findings… http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

    I think you will find both rebuttals by Dr. Humphreys to be quite a good read.

    I’m not one to get into debates about which scientist is right and who is wrong. I am not a scientist, so I can only defer to others who are. That is, to the majority point of view.

    And we both probably agree that majority does not dictate the truth. History has proven this. The more we discover, the less we know. Humphreys and Gentry go to great lengths to rebut anyone skeptic of their research, which shows they aren’t afraid of skepticism and challenge – a mark of a good scientist.

  56. on 27 Mar 2011 at 11:42 pmJoseph

    Dug up a great 5 part audio series from Dr. Humphreys on the Earth’s magnetic field and how it supports a younger Earth model. Very interesting… http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php

    You will need Real Player to play the audio files.

  57. on 28 Mar 2011 at 9:19 pmJohnE

    DT & Joseph,
    my posts are not going through anymore, I am being censored by the admins on this blog. So much for free exchange of ideas 🙂

  58. on 11 Aug 2011 at 8:32 amJoe

    Hey Im no genius, no way near, but the explanation of gravity has been something that I have been trying to figure out since 1985 yes I was 5 years old, gravity, doesnt completely depend on mass, ie einstiens theory, the theory of the small explaining the large is a great start. but even as a child the connection between tha large and the tiny, ie (dead space the space to which no light can excape, but has a distint pattern) (emploding stars) which is something that I dont agree with, the supersymetry. I in my first view of the solar system is not a system born of symetry. The understanding of gravity as unified and slowly becomming weak, has some relevence, but think of gravity as not a force of Pull but as a Push ever existing, but affected by a continuous ever existing field. IE the space as a field that affect each partical in a different way from the norm. “vibrating but in attempts to expand” on one end “gravity pushes and pulls at the same time, the stronger tends to have more affect, on such things. just a thought. Havent had a chance to persue more but remember there were just the thoughts of a first grader. its totally ok to laugh most people did which is why I stopped caring but it seems like everything that I ever thought seems to be true these days.

  59. on 08 Feb 2013 at 5:33 pmMike O

    Wow, you God fearing people are all cuckoo for cocoa puffs!!

    How can any intelligent person actually believe in God? Its just plain NUTS!

    There is no such thing, never was, and never will be. Period. Aliens from other planets are literally more possible ( we are here, aren’t we?) think aboyt THAT. There may be other people on ther planets wondering if we exist. But a man with a long beard that exists in the sky? HOGWASH.

    Jesus’s father’s name was JOSEPH, not God.

    The solar system and all living things were created by SCIENCE.

    Nothing else.

    WAKE UP!

  60. on 08 Feb 2013 at 5:39 pmSean

    Hey Mike O,

    Welcome to our blog. Please take note of our communication policy. I realize we all come from different perspectives, but we require that you treat everyone with respect on this site. Please do not employ sarcasm, name calling, and other ad hominem strategies in the future.

  61. on 08 Feb 2013 at 6:36 pmJas

    Mike O
    Welcome
    You state that Joseph was Jesus’ father as some kind of proof that there is no God. I and several million christians also believe this Yet I am certain of God.
    You also claim the universe was created by science which would be incorrect . The universe was created by physics and if you understood physics you would understand there had to be a starting catalyst . That catalyst was God.
    I can understand how some could reject the God of orthodox christianity but can not understand how one could reject the one of the bible.
    If I had to choose between orthodox christianity or be an atheist I would probably choose atheist but thanks to YHWH I dont have to.

  62. on 08 Feb 2013 at 6:39 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Mike O,
    Welcome to KR!!! I am not a scientist, but from what I understand SCIENCE has never made a claim to be the creator of the solar system and all living things. The theory is that there was a big bang and everything in the Universe came into existence out of nothing. Of course science can’t explain how this happened. This is why it is called “The Big Bang Theory”, because in reality it is just a theory. Just like Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” is just a theory.

    If you are closing your mind to any of the possibilities beyond these “Theories”, than there really isn’t any reason for us to attempt to explain to you what it is that we believe, and why it is that we believe it… 🙂

  63. on 08 Feb 2013 at 10:07 pmtimothy

    Mike O,

    Well, I invite you to read Jesus’ two genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

    Marys old man(Greek-aner), Jesus’ grandfather, was named Joseph.

    Jesus’ one stepfather’s name was Joseph. I have had two, Alonzo and Langdon.

    Jesus’ heavenly, dna father by conception in Marys womb is YAHWEH.

    GOD is light. What do you know about the speed of light and electronics?

    The speed of light = 299, 792, 458 m/s in vacuum.

    Speed of electromagnetic waves = 299, 792, 458 m/s in Physics

    1 Corinthians 2: (kjv)
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Why would not you want to become a spiritual man and receive and know the things of GOD?

    Do you really believe you have evolved from a mosquito larvae?

    Why do two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen combine into water.

    Since, for natural man, the life of the flesh is in the blood, then what is the life of the flesh for a spiritual man.

    Have you ever considered that just as in Star Wars, there is a dark side here on Earth too.

    Matthew 19: (kjv)
    26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

    What was Jesus saying is possible with GOD?

    Mark 9:23
    Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

    Be sure to read our rules of engagement BKA Communication Policy
    October 3rd, 2009 by Sean.

    Timothy

  64. on 09 Feb 2013 at 9:13 amXavier

    An Atheist once said that the reason they don’t adhere to ANY religion is because for them, religions are about rewards. i.e., you do what you do to get something out of it. But the Atheist acts out of their free volition and not to get any type of reward.

  65. on 09 Feb 2013 at 11:57 amtimothy

    Xavier,

    Hello…

    Yeah!!!, we only get eternal, everlasting, life with a new spiritual body and our debts paid off.

    The Atheist gets all Puffed up, with his itchy ears, hearing all his, Einstein, CJ Jung, Singum Freudien, William F Buckley Jr influential thinking and Obamas science odyssey dialog.

    The Christian is full of, pneuma hagion.

    The Atheist is full of, hot air.

    Christians do what they do because they are thankfull for what GOD has freely done for them.

  66. on 09 Feb 2013 at 12:32 pmJas

    Wow
    An atheist is one of God’s children and as christians we are commanded by Jesus to even love those that oppose us.

  67. on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:10 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    You are correct…..I stand corrected.

  68. on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:27 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    How can any intelligent person actually believe in God? Its just plain NUTS!

    I’d recommend Norman Geisler’s book ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist’. It’s a good response to the standard atheist charges and points out the weaknesses in the atheist position. Or, perhaps you can point out the weaknesses in his thesis and better enlighten us as to why we are all nuts? 🙂

  69. on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:43 pmJas

    Tim
    Can any intelligent person actually believe in a triune God?
    We have no idea what Mike knows about Christianity or what unfruitful things he has been called by professed christians.
    How many here have been told by trinitarians that we were going to burn in hell.
    Mike
    The God I know and worship loves you and has showed that by the gift of Grace. It is your choice if you want to know this God.

  70. on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:49 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Jas,

    Was your response to me (Tim) or timothy? If to me, I don’t know what point you were trying to make? My response to Mike was to hopefully get him to elaborate on why he thinks we are all nuts. Apparently he thinks it is self-evident but I was hoping he might give me a little more detail and Geissler’s book, I feel, is a worthwhile starting point.

  71. on 09 Feb 2013 at 5:02 pmJas

    Tim
    Yes to you
    I think the first step is for Mike to know God loves him unconditionally .

  72. on 09 Feb 2013 at 5:27 pmtimothy

    I found these 145 videos from Norman Geisler…..this is a play all link…..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad1YaemX3Qw&list=PLC548EA33C2FF5447

    Timothy

  

Leave a Reply