There was a recent article in USA Today in the Forum section entitled, “We Believe in Evolution and God”. It also has the subtitle, “Nearly half of Americans still dispute the indisputable: that humans evolved to our current form over millions of years. We’re scientists and Christians. Our message to the faithful: Fear not.” It’s written by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. They write, “Like most scientists who believe in God, we find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world. And that includes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.”[1]
What I find difficult to believe is these men are lending credibility as Christians, as believers in God, to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Charles Darwin was a racist and sexist. Darwin said, “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[2] Darwin had a bulldog that popularized his notions, Thomas Huxley. Huxley had the temerity to say that Negro stock would not “be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.”[3]
As far as sexism is concerned, Charles Darwin was clear, just read his works. He once said in his book The Descent of Man under the subheading “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,” that “the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [sic] by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman.”[4]
It’s one thing for Giberson and Falk to say that they believe in evolution, as believer in God, it’s another thing to say that they believe in Darwin and want to save Darwin. Why save the racism and the sexism? My goodness we live in an age of scientific enlightenment.
They go on to say, “Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in 1859 in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This controversial text presented evidence that present-day life forms have descended from common ancestors via natural selection…Christians hoped the advance of science would undermine Darwin's novel theory, which threatened their understanding of traditional biblical stories such as Adam and Eve, and the six-days of creation. In the years since, Darwin argued natural selection was the agent of creation, the evidence for evolution has become overwhelming.” Earlier in the article he had said that “evolution is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity”[5]
What do they give as this overwhelming evidence? They say, “The fossil record has provided evidence of compelling transitional species such as whales with feet.” This is his overwhelming evidence. Now of course the Bible says that living creatures produce according to their kinds (Gen. 1:24). This doesn’t take anything but reading the Bible for all it’s worth, that’s clear and consistent. It’s incontrovertible, that’s what the Bible teaches. This is in stark contrast to the evolutionary hypothesis. Where is the evidence in the book of nature for common descent? Scant fossil evidence is around for the notion of common descent or for one kind evolving into another kind, a hippo evolving into a whale.
Furthermore, in an age of Scientific Enlightenment there is molecular evidence that contradicts fossil evidence. To go from a hippo to a whale requires the stretching of credulity beyond the breaking point. It means that it would require: changes in the skin to make it impermeable to water; an eye protective system that would require massive alterations of brain; diving/emerging mechanisms and a respiratory system so that the whale doesn’t contract the bends; the lactation system; not to mention the existence of sonar. In other words, to believe that hippos became whales takes a lot of a faith. Not faith in evidence—faith in blind faith—not at all faith in reason! This isn’t reasonable faith.
In the article, they continually make a false dichotomy between faith and reason. As though the scientist has reason, the Christian has faith, so let’s all get along and dance and be happy and sing. The truth is that the Christian believes in faith founded in a reputable fact.
I’m still amazed, quite frankly, that USA Today in the Forum would publish an article like this. Again, it’s one thing to believe in evolution, it’s another thing to blame God for it. But in the worse of all cases, you have these guys not only believing in evolution, blaming God for it, but then defending Darwin 19th century view of evolution as if it is now have been proven to be true. If you going to laud Darwin, don’t forget what I said earlier, he was a racist and a sexist.
If you don’t think that ideas have consequences, just think back to eugenics. For eugenics to succeed, it is crucial that the unfit die, as the fittest survive. If the unfit continue to survive indefinitely, they would infect the fit with their unfit genes, and evolution wouldn’t take place. So eugenics took Darwin’s theory of evolution to its logical conclusion. That’s why they took the unfit and sterilized them, or as it unfolded in the Nazi’s death camps, they exterminated them. All done in the name of Darwinian evolution! I think it’s about time we woke up in this age of scientific enlightenment and realized that Darwin was anything but enlightened, and the Bible is anything but obscurantist. This doesn’t mean that we have to allegorize the Bible, it means we have to read the Bible for all it’s worth.
In this article, they set up straw-man after straw-man. The straw-man is always you people that don’t believe in theistic evolution, you try to shoehorn humans and all of human history into only having been around 10,000 years. They attack this straw-man as if this were the only option provided in the Christian community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] “We Believe in Evolution and God” by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk, USA Today, 8/10/09 (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/we-believe-in-evolution-and-god-.html?loc=interstitialskip)
[2] Letter from Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, 316, quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959), 343, quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, public school edition (San Diego: C.L.P. Publishers 1981), 179; emphasis added.
[3] Thomas H. Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, Appleton, 1871), 20, quoted in Henry Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Mich, Baker, 1989), 60.
[4] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, in Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., Great Books of the Western World, vol. 49, Darwin (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 566.
[5] “We Believe in Evolution and God” by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk, USA Today, 8/10/09 (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/we-believe-in-evolution-and-god-.html?loc=interstitialskip)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
119 comments:
Great post, Hank, but let me expand the argument even farther. Here's the basic problem: no matter if you believe the universe came into existence hundreds of millions of years ago, a young or old earth, when biological life began, etc, the simple fact remains that none of us currently in this debate were there. Therefore, science--though a fantastic methodology of study, can ever only offer theory and conjecture as an answer to this question. Not only that, the Bible IS clear and does line up with science in suggesting evolution within kinds. But the Bible, nor science has yet to ever suggest man arrived at enumerable series of missing link jumps from one kind to another. Those that still hold that biological life started with a single cell amoeba and hundreds of millions of years later produced man, have to jump through too many missing link hoops to count. Now THAT'S faith. Blind faith. Finally, there was a person who WAS there. Jesus Christ. Since the Bible provides overwhelming evidences to suggest biblical historical accuracy, prophetic accuracy, textual accuracy, supported by archeological evidence and corroborated by non-biblical texts, it is a much more reasonable faith to trust the Bible for life's origins. Simply stated, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And, "then God said, 'Let us make man in our image.", become much more reliable statements to hang our hats on than finite humans trying to interpret science to dispute the infinite.
Anyone can google The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist and see how Hanegraaf is just parroting long refuted creationist lies and propaganda about Charles Darwin. Creationists know they can’t defeat science or refute evolutionary theory so they attack Darwin personally as if it matters what kind of person discovered natural selection. They also ignore that had Darwin procrastinated any longer about writing his book, today it would be Alfred Wallace’s theory of evolution they’d be trying to banish from our science classrooms. “Man’s special creation is entirely unsupported by the facts, as well as in the highest degree improbable” – Alfred R. Wallace (1823-1913)
Creationism really reared its ugly lying head when prayer was taken out of the public schools. Creationism and its pseudo-scientific hoax, intelligent design magic, are latter-day substitutes for prayer in public schools,
No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus until well into the 19th century. Before that all Protestant denominations held fiercely to the flat immovable earth sitting on a foundation supported by pillars and orbited by the sun every day described in detail in the Bible and clearly implied throughout both testaments. So it isn’t just evolutionary theory the creationists are denying. It’s just about every major scientific theory there is. Creationist propagandists like Hanegraaf purposely blur the distinction between scientific disciplines so an unsuspecting public will not realize that the creationists are intent on continuing the 2000 year long Christian war on ALL science.
Evolutionary biologists have been responsible for developing antibiotics, which did not exist before evolution by natural selection was discovered. They also have developed new medicines, better food crops, better and safer poisons to protect those crops and many other advances that made our lives healthier, safer and longer. The average human lifespan has doubled since science has discovered how nature structures itself through evolution by natural selection.
Despite all the noise they make, creationists have had no impact on science, industry, agriculture, medicine, academia, or any other rational endeavor. We often fail to notice what doesn’t exist, but we shouldn’t overlook the fact that creationists have failed to accomplish anything of any substance whatsoever. Nor are any such accomplishments likely in the future. Creationism is the pathway to intellectual oblivion. Creationism and ID magic have no use in science because they are sectarian Christianity and bad science.
It is not hypothetical speculation that insects evolve rapidly. It is a fact. In the real world, farmers do regularly change their insecticides for just this reason. Companies marketing insecticides must often reformulate their products to keep pace with insect evolution.
Although insect evolution is bad news for farmers, let's consider for a moment the insect's point of view. Suppose that you are among the tenth generation of grasshoppers to live in a farmer's field. You have inherited an almost total immunity to the farmer's brand of poison. Knowing nothing of your species' recent evolution, nor of the near extermination of your forefathers, you marvel that the complex chemistry of your body is perfectly suited to resist insecticide. You ponder the unlikelihood that "random accident" designed your chemistry so precisely and efficaciously. You conclude that the only reasonable explanation for your highly developed state is the existence of a supernatural Creator. You scoff at, or even despise, your fellow grasshoppers that propose evolutionary theories explaining your immunity to insecticide. You consider the evolutionists to be immoral, lacking any basis for a system of ethics or grasshopper family values. You may even quote Scripture, "The foolish grasshopper hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
When we, like the grasshopper, suffer gaps in our understanding of events, we summon our "God of the Gaps" to fill the void. - Alan Mills
Boris, you spent a lot of time talking about research methods, google, Darwin and grasshoppers; you managed to expel 2 VERY LONG comments that resulted in no forwarding data for this argument. It's phenomenally arrogant to suggest that Christians haven't added a single thing to society. The fact that you've gone to school, ever been in a hospital, or been the recipient of a charity, you've come in contact with Christian good will. Also, Christians, like any other persons of humanity are flawed individuals, and you can't transfer the mistreatment of Galileo or Copernicus to the tenants or context of the Bible. Ignorant, legalistic and fear-mongering believers may have wanted to keep the teaching of the world flat or that the earth was the center of the universe; but that is NOT what the Bible claims, so they were wrong. They were not biblically literate; but that shows THEIR flaws, not the Bible's. There's been, unfortunately, some really ugly Christians who claimed the ideals of Jesus without really knowing anything about his teaching. That's unfortunate, grievous in fact, but again, that's just a reflection of the individual, not a reason to throw the Christian baby out with the bath water. Lastly, you give no credit to Christianity or any of the great thinkers that have been Christian. You certainly don't have to ascribe to the gospel, but to think William Wilberforce, CS Lewis or Mother Theresa had nothing to offer humanity sweeps the brush a bit too general, don't you think? There have been some incredible intellects to embrace Jesus Christ--would you really call them stupid? Compared to the atheists of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini , I would say that Christian thought and even more so, the Christian spirit has been responsible for far more good than atheists love affair with evolutionary thinking. One more thing: is there any evidence of the multiple missing transitional links evolution would want us to believe took place between simple cellular activity and the complexity of humankind? Anyone can claim that anything can happen over billions of years, but it takes a real lack of discernment to actually believe it.
If were going to try and stick to the truth in this blog, let's start with the truth:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1: 18-20
Now of course the Bible says that living creatures produce according to their kinds (Gen. 1:24). This doesn’t take anything but reading the Bible for all it’s worth, that’s clear and consistent.
Boris says: Despite loud and angry insistence that creationism is science-based rather than Bible-based the above objection feigns no pretense to a scientific argument. The belief that life-forms cannot evolve beyond their "kind" is based directly and solely upon the Book of Genesis, which uses the term "kind" in the story of Creation. The scientifically recognized method of taxonomical classification is the familiar Linnean system: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. Each step of the Linnean ladder represents a meaningful, clearly defined differentiation among anatonomical structures. The notion of "kind" is a biblical doctrine and represents no legitimate scientific distinction among life forms.
The above "creationist argument" is also a textbook illustration of logical error. The conclusion (that large-scale evolution cannot occur) is built into the supporting premise (that lifeforms cannot progress beyond their "kind"). Such a premise assumes the conclusion that it supposedly proves, and therefore proves nothing at all.
Compared to the atheists of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini ,
Boris says: Now you’ve stooped to outright lies. Both Hitler and Mussolini were devout Christians.
Quotes from Hitler:
Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]
Boris said: Before that all Protestant denominations held fiercely to the flat immovable earth sitting on a foundation supported by pillars and orbited by the sun every day described in detail in the Bible and clearly implied throughout both testaments.
Described in detail? Clearly taught in both testaments?
Isaiah 40:22, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and it's people are like grasshoppers." (hey, ironic about the grasshoppers, no?)
Or Proverbs 8:27, "When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep" (another translation for circle here is compass)
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” now go over to verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. He's describing ONE event with both day and night happening concurrently. This can only happen on a globe-shaped sphere.
Last time I checked, spheres, circles and globes are not flat.
It's phenomenally arrogant to suggest that Christians haven't added a single thing to society. The fact that you've gone to school, ever been in a hospital, or been the recipient of a charity, you've come in contact with Christian good will.
Boris says: That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I have a BA in Ancient Near Eastern Studies for which my language was Ancient Greek from a private Christian college. Like every other Christian college or university at that time and presently this school taught evolution, common descent and all the rest of the science that you creationists deny. You missed my point entirely. What I pointed out is that creation “scientists” and ID magic proponents haven’t produced any viable usable results or products from their “science.” If these things were really science where are the new and better antibiotics, medicines, better food crops or poisons to keep insects from destroying these crops coming from this supposed science? How come it’s the evolutionary biologists and not the creation “scientists” who are making all the scientific breakthroughs? Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, and no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. It’s sectarian Christianity and bad science. What are the creationists going to do anyway? Make a woman from a rib? ROFL!
Ignorant, legalistic and fear-mongering believers may have wanted to keep the teaching of the world flat or that the earth was the center of the universe; but that is NOT what the Bible claims, so they were wrong.
Boris says: Oh really? What is your scriptural evidence that the earth moves? That it rotates and orbits the sun?
There's been, unfortunately, some really ugly Christians who claimed the ideals of Jesus without really knowing anything about his teaching. That's unfortunate, grievous in fact, but again, that's just a reflection of the individual, not a reason to throw the Christian baby out with the bath water.
Boris says: I don’t blame modern Christians for the fact that political and religious leaders have perverted the teachings of Christianity and committed human rights violations to further their own power-mad ambitions. Yet you and your cult leader Hanegraaf try to blame atheism for the human rights violations committed by supposed unbelievers. Is it fair to condemn a school of thought for perversions of its teachings? Then why do you do it? Because you have no case against atheism unless you spread lies about atheists and atheism. That’s why.
Lastly, you give no credit to Christianity or any of the great thinkers that have been Christian. You certainly don't have to ascribe to the gospel, but to think William Wilberforce, CS Lewis or Mother Theresa had nothing to offer humanity sweeps the brush a bit too general, don't you think?
Boris says: Your idea of what constitutes a great thinker is obviously different than mine.
C.S Lewis? Oh please. Mr. Dreary and Absurd?
One more thing: is there any evidence of the multiple missing transitional links evolution would want us to believe took place between simple cellular activity and the complexity of humankind? Anyone can claim that anything can happen over billions of years, but it takes a real lack of discernment to actually believe it.
Boris says: You have a lot of nerve using that argument. Whenever you creationists are cornered with another Bible absurdity or creationist fallacy you invoke your God’s magical boogyman powers and claim anything is possible with God. Talk about a lack of discernment! That kind of blindness only comes from fear induced superstitions.
If were going to try and stick to the truth in this blog, let's start with the truth:
“The wrath of God is being .....” Romans 1: 18-20
Boris says: Give me the Bible verses that prove the earth moves. You remind me of Sissy Spacek’s Bible thumping mother in “Carrie.”
Isaiah 40:22, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and it's people are like grasshoppers." (hey, ironic about the grasshoppers, no?)
There’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet. In addition to this logical analysis of the verse, historians have long determined that a disc-shaped earth was a popular belief not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the time of Aristotle. We even have ancient maps of Babylon and Egypt containing illustrations of a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine this tangible evidence with other biblical comments regarding the shape of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is extremely remote. – Biblical Nonsense
Keep posting and I'll keep knocking over your arguments like bowling pins. ROFL! Guess what. Whoever told you the Bible was true was wrong.
Boris, oh my gosh, I really wanted to give you credit for being intelligent. I was about to applaud you for your beliefs and convictions, since they at least seem supported by patient combing of the internet. But two really embarrassing (for you) moments occurred on your posts. First, the evolution semantic gymnastics was fun to read but proved nothing. Let's make this CLEAR: Please, Mr. "Evolution is provable science and any other belief is moronic" I'll ask a SECOND TIME: Please provide the EVIDENCE that supports Darwinian evolution to be a journey of one cell through the survival of the fittest to the complexity of plant life, animal life and eventually humanity. Not sure what logical error you're trying to prove. Not sure what LOGIC you're trying to use at all.
Which leads me to my second embarrassing comparison. Hitler and Mussolini were devout Christians? Okay, and David Koresh said he was the second coming of Christ. But duh, guess what. He wasn't. I've NEVER heard of Hitler or Mussolini doing anything BUT railing against Christianity, but if you think you can produce documentation that says the opposite, (please don't waste your time) I will simply plead the David Koresh principle: Don't believe what asinine/cultic/megalomanic leaders say. Boris, PLEASE: how about look at the ACTIONS of Mussolini and Hitler and the words and actions of Jesus Christ and in the comparison dare to put them in the same philosophical camp.
That was a valiant attempt at an argument, but alas, "SWING and a MISS!"
Yikes, I hope I don't have to invoke the teaching of Proverbs 23:9, “Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.”
Or maybe it was, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” Proverbs 1: 7
Either way, not sure this discussion bares much merit on your end.
Boris, PLEASE: how about look at the ACTIONS of Mussolini and Hitler and the words and actions of Jesus Christ and in the comparison dare to put them in the same philosophical camp.
Boris says: Easy as pie. Hitler roasted people who disagreed with him just like Jesus supposedly does. Not just 6 million Jews but 5 million other non-Christians simply because they did not believe in Jesus. This makes Adolph Hitler more like Jesus Christ than any other human being who has ever lived.
I don't care WHERE you went to school. You obviously leaned NOTHING. No wonder your language was ancient Greek, your thinking is just as ancient. ROFL.
“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18
“The way of a fool seems right to him” Proverbs 12:15 "SEEMS madam, SEEMS."--Hamlet
“He who trusts in himself is a fool” Proverbs 28:26
Get the picture? This is fun! You up for some more? I can make you look even more stupid if you want to keep flapping your mouth. The pleasure is all mine.
Nice dodging of the REAL QUESTION by the way. (crying sounds of a baby Boris) "You have a lot of nerve using that argument." No, not nerve, just common sense my blathering evolutionist automaton. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE, then I'll be impressed.
Maybe you should stop talking. The hole you're in is getting deeper. ROFL.
Now I'm REALLY LAUGHING:
Boris says: Easy as pie. Hitler roasted people who disagreed with him just like Jesus supposedly does. Not just 6 million Jews but 5 million other non-Christians simply because they did not believe in Jesus. This makes Adolph Hitler more like Jesus Christ than any other human being who has ever lived.
So, Jesus SUPPOSEDLY roasted 5 million non Christians. Interesting he did this, since he was a JEWISH MAN. Something you read in THE ONION or a comic book? Your educational lineage is showing again. How about give me the Bible verses where Jesus SUPPOSEDLY "roasted 5 million non Christians."
Dude, this is better than playing darts. I never knew how much fun it is to hit an obvious target. Thanks for the entertainment.
Boris,
Next time I feel like wasting an hour of my life that I won't get back, I'll check in and see what else you have to whimper about. Until then, baby wipes and diapers are readily available at your local dollar general store.
Boris, oh my gosh, I really wanted to give you credit for being intelligent. I was about to applaud you for your beliefs and convictions, since they at least seem supported by patient combing of the internet.
Boris says: No, I had a class on evolutionary biology at a Christian college. That’s why I know so much about evolution and also why I can tell you get all your “science” information from creationist websites and have never cracked open a science book since school if you even did then.
Please provide the EVIDENCE that supports Darwinian evolution to be a journey of one cell through the survival of the fittest to the complexity of plant life, animal life and eventually humanity.
Boris says: Oh please. If you have any questions about evolutionary theory, march yourself down to any CHRISTIAN college or university of your choice with a science department. There you can ask the Christian biology professors why they teach evolution and common descent rather than creationism or ID magic. That is if you don’t mind when they laugh in your face. First I’m not a scientist and second the burden of proof is on you. You’re the person who thinks he has evidence to refute a standing scientific explanation. Refute away and then go pick up your Nobel Prize for science. ROFL! You people are so silly! No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. If someone could refute evolutionary theory they would become very rich and famous. But this hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to either.
I will simply plead the David Koresh principle: Don't believe what asinine/cultic/megalomanic leaders say.
Boris says: No you will repeat a logical fallacy known as the “No true Scotsman fallacy.” Anytime a Christian commits an atrocity we get “well no TRUE Christian would have done that!” No dice. Swing and a miss for you dude. Again.
How about give me the Bible verses where Jesus SUPPOSEDLY "roasted 5 million non Christians."
Answer: What is hell? You have to be slow not to see that question coming. Slow and unthinking.
I couldn't resist checking back: Hell? it's going to be a lot more than 5 million my friend. Here's the thing, those in hell will be responsible for sending themselves there. John 3:16, "For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Looks like EVERYONE in the world has the opportunity to embrace salvation. Those who don't are eternally separated from God, and that choice is theirs. You'll never lose your autonomy, Boris. You'll always get to have a choice. So, don't blame God for your eternal separation from Him, that choice is yours. Yikes, you have to be slow and unthinking not to see that answer coming, Mr. Ancient Greek Bible scholar. Hope you didn't PAY for that education.
Maybe you should stop talking. The hole you're in is getting deeper. ROFL.
Boris says: Uh, where is that scriptural evidence that the earth moves? Who should stop talking? Who is burying themselves? Answer the question. I'll just let you bury yourself with your own words.
Boris says: Oh please. If you have any questions about evolutionary theory, march yourself down to any CHRISTIAN college or university of your choice with a science department.
No, YOU'RE the one that went to the Christian school's science department--the burden of proof is on YOU. I guess, boring as it is, I'll ask for the THIRD time, why don't you produce the EVIDENCE about all these missing transitions and get your own Nobel prize. The reason you keep dodging this very clear question that your whole "evolutionary religion" rests upon is that YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. Unless it's to curl up your lip and pout and say, "you just wait another couple hundred billion years--YOU'LL SEE!"
Dude, I just struck out your side. Give up. Forfeit. Game over. I pitched a no hitter. Hit the gatorade and showers and try again next season.
You'll always get to have a choice. So, don't blame God for your eternal separation from Him, that choice is yours.
Boris says: I don’t believe in God. But if there really were a God who could read my mind he would understand completely why I find it impossible to believe in him. That God would know that he doesn’t have very good representation here on earth and I am unconvinced of its existence for very good reasons. Such a God would have to find me innocent of the supposed crime of unbelief. Of course only man-made religious dogma could make unbelief a crime in the eyes of a God. You fell for this dogma and I did not and will not.
One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn't there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren't, but you're either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you're claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:
A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.
The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you're looking for complete transitions. It's not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed. - Brian Dunning
Boris says: Uh, where is that scriptural evidence that the earth moves?
Well, I didn't want to embarrass you but how about any ending paragraph in Genesis 1, for example, "And there was evening and there was morning--the second day", the third day, etc.
Hmm, since the Bible already says that the earth is a circle/sphere, and since we already know that it's the revolution of the earth that makes the fixed sun appear to set and rise, giving us night and day, and SINCE the Bible in the VERY FIRST CHAPTER of Genesis mentions the movement of day and night, it seems pretty obvious that the Bible is acknowledging a revolving earth. How else COULD it happen?
Dude, I'm playing BASEBALL. Stop lobbing me these softballs that I keep crushing out of the park!
Wow, so your horse example is about one kind of horse to ANOTHER kind of horse huh? Some cheek teeth? Whoa!!! HUGE evolutionary differences, Boris. All you proved is that you can search the internet in a panic and cut and paste large sections of some neanderthal text. Like my pun? BORING. I guess I'll ask for the FOURTH time about your precious MAJOR transitional types that jump from KIND TO KIND.
And I guess I'll keep waiting for your "evidence" Did you check the cheek teeth of hippos or spiders? Dude, check it out, their evolution is SO RANDY!!
I always hear and read creationist propaganda that claims evolution has never been observed. Like everything else we hear from these people this lie was refuted a long time ago and keeps on being refuted as science marches on.
Biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the "missing evidence" that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.
Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.
There you have it. Proof of evolution. You can say it isn't but you've already demonstrated your willingness to lie to promote your sectarian dogma as well as an extremely shallow understanding of the subject matter. The fact that you are claiming victory in this debate after seeing all your claims demolished just proves you're desperate and likely insane.
No again. Where's your scriptural evidence that the earth moves? I just proved evolution was a fact. Your turn loser.
Boris says: I don’t believe in God. But if there really were a God who could read my mind he would understand completely why I find it impossible to believe in him. That God would know that he doesn’t have very good representation here on earth and I am unconvinced of its existence for very good reasons. Such a God would have to find me innocent of the supposed crime of unbelief. Of course only man-made religious dogma could make unbelief a crime in the eyes of a God. You fell for this dogma and I did not and will not.
“The god of this age (Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2Corinthians 4:4
Your argument will never be with God, it's with the enemy of truth. If you could humble yourself enough to seek the truth, you might circumvent the wiles of the enemy to your soul and see the love of God's light in your life.
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2Peter 3:9
See Boris, God actually loves you, and he will give you EVERY OPPORTUNITY and be very patient with you to reach out and accept the free gift of salvation. But if you refuse it, after all the evidences, testimonies, etc he gives you--you really will have only yourself to blame.
Hmm, but they were still songbirds, right? They were still salmon, right? So. . .when did the salmon become the songbird?
So, for the FIFTH time. . .oh, nevermind, I'm losing hope already.
any ending paragraph in Genesis 1, for example, "And there was evening and there was morning--the second day", the third day, etc.
Boris says: Right there was a day BEFORE the sun and moon even existed. And there was vegetation on the earth BEFORE the sun and moon existed too! A God who doesn't understand photosynthesis created the universe! That could only be believed by someone who doesn't understand it either.
We have plenty of information on star formation dude. We can see stars like our sun being born, in similar states as our sun and dying. We know our sun didn't just magically pop into existence. There is no reason to think it didn't come into existence like every other star in the universe did. Therefore Genesis is what it is. Nonsense believed by silly and very frightened unenlightened people.
Boris said, No again. Where's your scriptural evidence that the earth moves? I just proved evolution was a fact. Your turn loser.
Um, SCROLL UP and try to KEEP UP. I answered that while you were in a panic searching the internet to prove evolution, which you didn't with your birds staying birds and your fish staying fish.
Don't forget Boris, this is BASEBALL. NOT Softball. Not Little League. Not PEEWEE.
But you just keep taking those wittle bitty swings tiger.
Boris, dude, the Bible isn't in disagreement with the Big Bang, so what's your point?
Nice change of subject by the way. Still waiting for that evidence of major kind shifts, are you? Hate to disappoint but I think you'll be waiting for a REALLY LONG TIME.
Thanks for ignoring the 2Peter scripture too. But that's cool, you probably realized right then and there that the chance is totally there for you, and the choice is yours and you can't blame God. Probably best to not try and debate that one. You've been losing every battle tonight as it is. Might as well spare yourself SOME dignity.
But if you refuse it, after all the evidences, testimonies, etc he gives you--you really will have only yourself to blame.
Boris says: It never fails. When the Christer sees all their arguments refuted, mocked and ridiculed they invariably resort to the threat of unimaginable violence at the hands of their cruel and angry God for not buying into their sectarian dogma. That is after they blame Satan for the fact that they've lost another argument. ROFL! You clones are all alike.
"When the Christer?" Did we switch languages? Oh!! Is that ANCIENT GREEK!!??
Here's some more ancient greek for you, Boris:
“But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” 2Corinthians 3:14-17
I pray the veil is lifted from you someday, Boris. Sincerely.
I answered that while you were in a panic searching the internet to prove evolution, which you didn't with your birds staying birds and your fish staying fish.
Boris says: How come these species can no longer breed with the parent stock? Because they are now different species. Case closed.
I'm in no panic. I know evolution is fact and the Bible is fantasy. Where is your evidence for say the Passover event? How come the Egyptians didn't record a word about this event? A catastrophe of this magnitude would have left a ton of not only historical evidence but plenty of archaeological evidence too. But there isn't a shred of evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt. Now I'll retire for a while as you desperately search the Internet for some proof for an event that never happened and people who never even existed. By the way Jesus Christ never existed either. You've got a lot bigger problems than science. Jesusneverexisted.com. Read it and weep.
Boris, talking about Egypt, the Exodus, etc is just another rabbit hole that is way off topic. But just to bat this around for entertainment sake, here we go:
One of the most important discoveries that relate to the time of the Exodus is the Merneptah stele which dates to about 1210 BC. Merneptah, the king of Egypt, boasts that he has destroyed his enemies in Canaan. He states: Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; (ANET 1969, 378).The word "Israel" here is written in Egyptian with the determinative for people rather than land (ANET 1969, 378 note 18). This would have been around the time of Judges.
Secondly, have you ever read the research works of Dr. Gerald Aardsma? He does an excellent job of presenting Egyptian evidence for the Exodus; his most important assertion is making sure we have the chronology right. Lining up biblical chronology correctly with Egyptian chronology we get an almost perfect match on both sides as far as events, places and people. It's a good read, but here's the problem, you'll just go back and find academicians who will want to argue the opposite. We'll always arrive at a stalemate chasing down these rabbit holes. We were not there, these Dr's weren't there and everyone is trying to do their best to produce the best evidence and conclusions. However, to reiterate, you asked for evidence--so there you go.
Boris says: How come these species can no longer breed with the parent stock? Because they are now different species. Case closed.
Um, once again, NO. Case re-opened. All this shows is that these fish or birds have a mutation that makes breeding impossible, not that they have suddenly stopped being fish or birds. Okay, NOW, case closed.
Once again, here's another scripture germane to what we're really talking about:
“Leave these men alone! (said by an unbeliever) Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5:38-39. Hmm, at last count, starting 2000 years ago Christianity has only continued to gain momentum. If it were of human origin, it would have failed centuries ago. Whereas the blind and stubborn philosophy of atheism continues to diminish in numbers as more and more jump ship from an empty, anti-intellectual movement that doesn’t have the common sense nor the facts to support one item of their manifesto. Atheists are lonely, bitter people, who know deep in their spirit there is a God, but are too angry and prideful to let that admission out of the box. The Truth CAN set you free of this, Boris, but you're going to have to die to your atheistic point of view.
Boris said: By the way Jesus Christ never existed either. You've got a lot bigger problems than science.
Wow. Really? Now I fully understand the head-in-the-sand anti-intellectual branch of atheism you precariously choose to perch upon. Check out the writings of your own atheist brothers, Boris. Even the most anti-Christian atheists are at least level-headed enough to admit the historicity of Christ. This is the biggest slow ball you've offered up yet.
Ever here of the 4 gospels? Yeah, they mention Jesus quite a bit, as do Paul ( a convert from Judaism), and James, Jesus' brother. Paul was almost as vehemently against Christ as you are. But after a pivotal encounter with a post-resurrection appearance of Christ, he sent his life in a completely different direction. Gee, what did Paul "encounter"? Luke, one of the gospel writers and the author of Acts is considered by modern day historians (who are not themselves Christian) as one of the most accurate historical writers of antiquity. The names, places and testimonies in both the gospel of Luke and Acts are easily supported and verifiable. And these are the EYE-WITNESSES. What else do you want? Oh, you want more? Okay, ever hear of historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny the Younger? Dude--please. Jesus the person without question existed. That is no longer even up for debate. Like I said earlier, you don't have to believe in Christ's divinity: you can certainly argue from that stand-point if you so choose, but to begin the argument with Jesus never existed is just as egregious in this modern day of science to argue for a flat earth. It gets you laughed out of the debate before the debate can even begin.
Robert,
Whereas the blind and stubborn philosophy of atheism continues to diminish in numbers as more and more jump ship from an empty, anti-intellectual movement that doesn’t have the common sense nor the facts to support one item of their manifesto.
Boris says: First unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something has been proved. The existence of God hasn’t been proved to either one of us. So atheism is the natural position to take on the existence of God. Not only that whether there is a God doesn’t matter anyway because there are no verifiable consequences one way or the other despite you absurd threats about an afterlife.
Diminish in numbers? Sure. On this blog and on his show Hank has discussed the fact that at least three fourths of Christian college students reject their faith some time during their college years. When I was a kid atheists made up about 3 percent of the American population. Today that figure is somewhere between 14 and 22 percent and close to 50 percent in people between 21 and 30 years of age. Atheism is not a philosophy and it has no manifesto. Atheism simply describes people who don’t believe there are any Gods. You belong to the world’s most infamous cult of anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance and you have the nerve to call other people anti-intellectual. People who believe in magic and magical fairies and magical fairytales have no room to be calling other people anti-intellectual.
Atheists are lonely, bitter people, who know deep in their spirit there is a God, but are too angry and prideful to let that admission out of the box.
Boris says: I know a lot of atheists and they are not lonely and bitter people. You fundamentalists have to tell yourself that to make sense of your own miserable lives. And the proof of that is your claim that there is no sense living this life, if there isn’t a better one to come. You people have some serious life-avoidance and escapism issues. You’re pathetic. What really angers you though is that atheists decline to be the miserable people you Christians tell us we should be.
Atheists don’t know there is a God. That’s another lie you have to tell yourself. Your dirty little secret is that at least one time in your life you were angry and upset with God and didn’t want to believe. So you think that’s the case with everyone else. Well it isn’t. I have never believed in any God even as a child. It isn’t the idea of God that I find so unbelievable. It’s your God, the Christian God that I find to be preposterous. It’s all of the Christian God’s unbelievable baggage like all his invisible friends and enemies, like angels and demons, especially Satan, all the ridiculous untrue stories in the Bible and the stupid arguments people have to use to defend the Bible. I don’t believe in the supernatural or angels, demons, Satan, seraphs, none of it. I don’t believe that people came back to life, climbed out of their graves and appeared to other people in Jerusalem like it says in Matt 27. It’s all a bunch of nonsense. All the apologetics and excuses in the world will never get me to believe that anything in the Bible even might be true.
Oh, you want more? Okay, ever hear of historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny the Younger? Dude--please. Jesus the person without question existed. That is no longer even up for debate.
Boris says: I’ve had this debate many times before. You people always affect a yawn and make like all arguments against a historical Jesus were answered a long time ago. Then the Christian always trots out the big four, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. The first three historians wrote in the second century. Jesus was supposedly crucified in 30CE and these historians wrote their accounts about 82 years later. Accounts that were hearsay and more than second hand hearsay for they make no mention of any other written accounts. These historians did not live and write during the time Jesus supposedly lived. John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
As far as the “golden paragraph” in the works of Joesphus, every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is a short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians--a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time--so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus. – Marshall Gauvin
Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:
"Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97.
Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed (and there is no reference here to a 'Jesus.')
Nowhere in any of Suetonius's writings does he mention 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.
'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s. Yet even this report is questionable. The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":
"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.
There you have it. Nothing Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus wrote could be used as evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. The fact that Christians throw these spurious passages that are probably church forgeries anyway up as the best extra-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus proves just how weak their case really is. This is the best you can do? Second century historians writing almost a century after the supposed events they supposedly verify? That could convince only someone wanting very much to believe. Philo lived in and around Jerusalem during the first half of the first century and he never mentioned a word about Jesus Christ. No contemporary historian did. All your phony bluster just blew up in your face. You’ve got no case for a historical Jesus whatsoever. Who is laughing now?
As I said I’ve had this debate many times before. I know about how it will probably go and about how it will end. It never ends on a good note for the fundy. I think you’re starting to realize that.
One of the most important discoveries that relate to the time of the Exodus is the Merneptah stele which dates to about 1210 BC.
Boris says: Please don’t try to tell me about the ancient Near East or what is in ANET. You Christians always mention the Merneptah stele as if that proves Moses had a wonder working rod and every other story about the Exodus is true. The fact that you think this proves something shows how weak you case really is. What does this inscription prove exactly? It says the Israelites were annihilated the same way the Mesha inscription claims the Moabites completely annihilated the Israelites and plundered the temple of Yahweh and brought the booty before Chemosh. See previously Chemosh had caused the Israelites to oppress the Moabites because he was angry that they had turned to other gods. Both of these inscriptions refute any claims that the Bible makes about the Egyptians and the Moabites. Most importantly they reflect the kind of fictional claims these people made about their ancestor’s supposed conquests. The exact same fictional claims contained in the Bible. How did the Midianites and Ammorites get completely annihilated and then reappear just a generation later in the Bible so numerous they were like locusts on the land? How did King Jabin of Hazor get killed twice? You better go back and read some more of Tales of the Supernatural Testaments 1 & 2 and alittle more carefully and critically this time. Like we atheists do, not blinded by what other people say about its supposed magical redemptive boogy powers.
Secondly, have you ever read the research works of Dr. Gerald Aardsma?
Boris says: This is known as argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument based on authority. Cutting the debate short by exclaiming things like “you just need to read this book by So & So” isn’t a satisfactory debating procedure because two speakers citing books back and forth all day would accomplish nothing.
Um, once again, NO. Case re-opened. All this shows is that these fish or birds have a mutation that makes breeding impossible, not that they have suddenly stopped being fish or birds.
Boris says: Not so fast. Name the mechanism that could keep these species from eventually becoming fish or birds. I just proved microevolution, which most creationists have reluctantly accepted anyway. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over time. So now name the mechanism that could keep microevolution from being macroevolution over time, the exact naturalistic mechanism that could do this.
Hmm, at last count, starting 2000 years ago Christianity has only continued to gain momentum. If it were of human origin, it would have failed centuries ago.
Answer: Then why haven’t Buddhism and Hinduism, which are much older than Christianity failed centuries ago? Why is Islam spreading while Christianity continues to disappear like the snow in Greenland? Hmmm… that argument just doesn’t fly.
Ever here of the 4 gospels? Yeah, they mention Jesus quite a bit, as do Paul ( a convert from Judaism), and James, Jesus' brother. Paul was almost as vehemently against Christ as you are.
Boris says: Let’s see. Now you want to prove that what the Bible says about Jesus is true because it’s in the Bible. Sure.
Luke, one of the gospel writers and the author of Acts is considered by modern day historians (who are not themselves Christian) as one of the most accurate historical writers of antiquity. The names, places and testimonies in both the gospel of Luke and Acts are easily supported and verifiable. And these are the EYE-WITNESSES.
Boris says: First of all that’s absurd because no one knows who wrote any of the Gospels and there were no names attached to them until centuries after they were written. Second there are no honest scholars who say that eyewitnesses wrote any of the gospels. Third and most importantly because you creationists are so oblivious to this, almost all fiction mentions historical places and people and is set in some kind of historical setting. That the Bible does this as well as includes a ton of dialog with people speaking in complete sentences, which NO historical narrative EVER does, only proves that the gospels are fiction.
“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2Peter 1:16
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” Luke 1:1-2
“But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.” Jude 17-19
Here's the problem, Boris. Atheists and everyone who questions and doubts starts with the premise that the apostles and the early church were just part of some big conspiracy and that everyone's a liar. What can I say man? The Bible claims eyewitness accounts all over the place. Eyewitnesses in the Bible make sworn statements they are not lying. You don't believe them. I do. The Bible, for me, has enough predictive proven prophecy, enough reliable evidence for me to take that reasoned leap of faith. But it IS faith, Boris. I wish I could explain to you the REAL conversion having received Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. It IS real. It's not voodoo, or magic or whatever. It's real. But listen, you stated earlier in these mega-posts, that nothing will ever convince you. Okay. Cool. No worries. You know what? MAN can't convince you of anything; only the Holy Spirit can convict you, Boris; but you have to have a glimmer of light inside your spirit and a searchable heart. You've shut down. You've made your choice. You're un-approachable. You said so yourself. So we can stop berating each other and trying to chase each other down all these rabbit holes. It's a waste of time, because you've already admitted, there's nothing that will ever sway you. And you know what? I've already been swayed. Praise God. I have all sorts of answers and refutations for the 5 posts that you just made, but I realized tonight what a waste of time it is. I'm wasting my breath. You are unchangeable--despite what legitimacy ANY evidence could ever be presented to you--you've made your choice. So, live with that choice and good luck to you.
Here's the problem, Boris. Atheists and everyone who questions and doubts starts with the premise that the apostles and the early church were just part of some big conspiracy and that everyone's a liar. What can I say man?
Boris says: I don’t think the apostles ever existed including Paul. I think the Bible is mythology which was later literalized so it could be understood by the moronic masses. While most scholars hold to some kind of view that the Bible is history that later became mythologized I take the more logical, provable view that the Bible is mythology that later became historized.
The Bible claims eyewitness accounts all over the place. Eyewitnesses in the Bible make sworn statements they are not lying. You don't believe them. I do. The Bible, for me, has enough predictive proven prophecy, enough reliable evidence for me to take that reasoned leap of faith.
Boris says: I’ll use an analogy I saw on the Internet once that describes how people are fooled by the Bible prophecy hoaxers. A traveler sees an archer in the woods and notices five arrows in five trees each one right dead center in the middle of a white circle. The traveler approaches the archer and asks, “How did you ever become such a great shot? How did you get all those arrows so perfectly in the middle of those circles?” “Easy,” said the archer, ‘”First I shot the arrows and then I painted the circles around them.” Fictional events were written so as to conform to earlier prophecies. Matthew is always saying these things were done to fulfill such and such. What the author means is that he is writing these things to make it seem as though this ancient prophecy had now been fulfilled. What’s more likely that something supernatural occurred and Bible authors could see into the future or my explanation? Why accept a supernatural explanation for these prophecies when you have a much more logical and plausible one?
But it IS faith, Boris. I wish I could explain to you the REAL conversion having received Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. It IS real. It's not voodoo, or magic or whatever. It's real.
Boris says: I’ve heard, read and witnessed too many de-conversions from Christianity that were much more believable than yours or any conversion to Christianity. I’ve heard both sides of the story and since adults de-convert at a rate of about 5000 per day to every 1 conversion I naturally am going to give more weight to the ex-Christians.
But listen, you stated earlier in these mega-posts, that nothing will ever convince you. Okay. Cool. No worries. You know what? MAN can't convince you of anything; only the Holy Spirit can convict you, Boris; but you have to have a glimmer of light inside your spirit and a searchable heart. You've shut down. You've made your choice. You're un-approachable.
Boris says: Wrong, you just described yourself, not me.
You said so yourself. So we can stop berating each other and trying to chase each other down all these rabbit holes. It's a waste of time, because you've already admitted, there's nothing that will ever sway you. And you know what? I've already been swayed. Praise God. I have all sorts of answers and refutations for the 5 posts that you just made, but I realized tonight what a waste of time it is.
Boris says: That is a lie and we both know it. You just saw your best arguments completely refuted, your “historical” evidence for Jesus Christ proved to be nonsense and best of all you saw proof of evolution. Nothing will take away the information you were forced to digest because of me.
I'm wasting my breath. You are unchangeable--despite what legitimacy ANY evidence could ever be presented to you--you've made your choice. So, live with that choice and good luck to you.
Boris says: That’s just stupid. I base what I believe on evidence and you base what you believe on adherence to sectarian dogma. You have no evidence to support even one of your religious claims. All you have is arguments and arguments aren’t evidence. You got hammered in this debate, and you should be man enough to admit it. Especially after all that phony bluster.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like VICTORY.
The burden of proof is always on the one with the most to lose. I have nothing to prove to an atheist, for proof will do him no good, it is nothing other than faith in Christ that he needs.
No one has ever been argued into nor out of heaven. Therefore evolutionary 'debate' is all but useless. Those who have felt the sting of sin, will look for an answer to it, those who haven't, simply won't.
When man 'evolves' above sin, only then will the Bible have been rendered obsolete, but not until then. As history records, the prospects of this happening are zero.
Well, thanks to that Anonymous last post. That sums up the Christian position perfectly. Last thing I'll add is that it takes SO MUCH MORE EFFORT to fabricate myths with phenomenal effort and researchable details that span thousands of years than it would to simply tell the truth. To think some, what, NOVELIST in antiquity just started a fictional conspiracy certainly demands more faith than the simple truth. But, ultimately, we have to end with this last anonymous comment. That sums it up the best.
The burden of proof is always on the one with the most to lose.
Boris says: Apparently you’ve never been in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the one with the most to say, not the most to lose. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You could say I owed you money making me the one with the most to lose but you would have to produce the proof of this. Theists are the ones making claims about the supernatural. The burden of proof is definitely not on the person who doesn’t believe these ridiculous indefensible claims.
I have nothing to prove to an atheist, for proof will do him no good, it is nothing other than faith in Christ that he needs.
Boris says: There are just too many happy ex Christians out there for that to be true. No one needs to believe in someone who clearly never existed.
No one has ever been argued into nor out of heaven. Therefore evolutionary 'debate' is all but useless.
Boris says: That’s because there is no such thing as heaven. It’s nothing but a moronic superstition. There is no debate over the validity of evolutionary theory in the scientific community so you’re right any other debate about evolution by anyone else is most certainly useless. It’s like people debating the nuances of rocket science.
Those who have felt the sting of sin, will look for an answer to it, those who haven't, simply won't.
Boris says: The only sin is willful ignorance.
When man 'evolves' above sin, only then will the Bible have been rendered obsolete, but not until then. As history records, the prospects of this happening are zero.
Boris says: The Bible is already obsolete as is any person who believes it.
Robert,
You are simply misunderstanding what the gospels really are. Bible scholar Thomas Thompson explains:
"Understanding the figure of Jesus as historical, as the quest for the historical Jesus has encouraged, distorts our reading. In the imaginary world of speculation we find Jesus as a failed prophet. In the real historical world of texts and ancient literature, a prophet who speaks of a cosmic judgment that inaugurates God’s kingdom is neither mistaken nor failed, but is a figure in a literary world. The prophet remains a metaphor of myth and literature, where he has a meaningful place.
The anachronism of today’s quest for historicity---defining the Bible in terms not shared by its authors--- has made our texts homeless. To attribute mistaken expectations about the end of the world to the gospels attributes to them meaning they do not bear. The myth of the kingdom of God has its home in a long tradition of literature. Before asking whether episodes and scenes that structure the story of Jesus’ life are based on events, we need to look at the function of stories in antiquity. The stories of Jesus’ birth and baptism, of his teaching and miracle working, of his suffering and crucifixion—as well as the story of his resurrection—fulfill a clearly defined, coherent function. Together, they embody well-defined tradition of discussion that formed the Judaism to which the gospels belong. That they might create expectations among readers of the tradition does not define their intended function."
Boris
Prove you are an intelligent man.
Hank
The answer to the title in your post is NO! My question is, why do you refer to the men who do so as Christians? These men are not Christians, any more than the pope is.
Boris
Prove you are an intelligent man.
Boris says: Why because my response to your post proved you weren't? Prove I'm not.
Let me bowdlerize..I read the blog up to the point where it began to slander Darwin..I dont need to read anymore.Here is the problem: As time moves on, great inventors, philosophers,writers and the like are known by the publics reaction/use/application rather than the discovery, observation, etc. Never begrudge a slight miscalculation, oversight or misapplication. He already brought you a great discovery! The first sentence he ever wrote... read it..what does it say?..look what God has set into motion..that's the jist of it...other people interpret/apply/add to it from their persective. Darwin made his heart known in this basic statement
Boris
The burden of proof is on you, it's your claim to intelligence. I lose nothing whether you are intelligent or just a simple fool. It is you who loses all claim of intelligence by withholding the objective proof of it.
Without said objective proof of your intelligence, henceforth you will have to own the title of fool.
Can you provide such evidence?
Or are you a simple fool?
My posts prove how intelligent I am. The fact that none of you Christians can refute one thing I've said proves that you're all a bunch of ignorant fools. You believe in a book that repeatedly states the earth is flat, never moves, sits on a foundation supported by pillars and is orbited by the sun every day.
Your Christian religion is a cultural disaster and the worst human tragedy ever to come upon this planet. The fact that you bought into it anyway proves just how ignorant and truly insane you are.
The answer to the title in your post is NO! My question is, why do you refer to the men who do so as Christians? These men are not Christians, any more than the pope is.
Boris says: What’s so absolutely stupid and hypocritical about this claim is that it is a version of the “No true Scotsman fallacy.” Plus it’s coming from a person who will claim that Christianity is the biggest most popular religion and that there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world. Of course 1.4 billion or two-thirds of these people are professing Catholics. Many of the rest of them are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Episcopalians and people this fundamentalist would claim are not “true” Christians. In fact this fundy has redefined all Christians as people who are young-earth creationists. This brings the total population of Christians down to about 30 million people most of whom live in the trailer parks that dominate much of the landscape of the southern and mid western part of the United States known as the Bible belt. A section of the country that has abortion and divorce rates 50 percent higher than the national average and studies show that these are indeed professing evangelical Bible believing Christians who are getting these abortions and divorces and not their infidel unbelieving neighbors either. Of course Mr. Anonymous Blowhard would insist anyone who gets an abortion or divorce could not be a “true” Christian either. This reduces the number of Christians in the world to about 10 million. If I were to say that no “true” Christian would tell a lie that would eliminate all 2 billion Christians plus the 10 million Christians Mr. Anonymous Blowhard would insist are the only “true” Christians on the planet. What Anonymous is really saying is that only people who do their unthinking exactly like him can be considered Christians. Therefore Anonymous is the only Christian there is alive in the world today. Totally brain-dead but alive none the less.
When’s the next big scientific advance or product coming from the creation “scientists” or Intelligent Design magic proponents? How are these creation “scientists” coming along with their new antibiotics, medicines, better food crops, poisons to protect these crops from insects and all the other advances a real scientific enterprise would bring us? Since evolutionary biologists are dealing with a supposedly totally flawed theory of evolution shouldn’t the ID magic proponents be outperforming them in the laboratory and in the agricultural field and bringing us new and better products as the result of all their “scientific” research? Since modern cosmology is also supposedly flawed (as well as almost every other major scientific theory) when will the ID magic proponents launch a space exploration program based on all their Biblical Astronomy?
Real science produces real viable usable results. Creation “science” and Intelligent Design magic produce exactly nothing and they never will and we all know this. These things are not science they are Christian sectarian dogma. I’m having my intelligence questioned by people who have been easily duped into not recognizing the obvious fallacy of a totally unproductive pseudo-science masquerading itself as real science. Where’s the science exactly? Never stopped to think about that did you? That’s because independent thinking is not allowed in fundamentalist Christianity. As Abraham Lincoln once pointed out: “It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt top lead to infidelity.”
It is a fact that every CHRISTIAN college and university that teaches science teaches Evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and every other scientific theory creationists deny and fight against. And this is very important to note because it isn’t just biological evolution the creationists have a problem with. That is a smokescreen to hide from the general public that creationists are simply continuing the same war on ALL science and scientific progress Bible believers have been fighting for almost 2000 years. Along with biology the creationists also deny modern cosmology, geology, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, cell theory, quantum physics and few other major scientific theories as well.
And on what basis do they deny all this science? The creationists would like us all to believe it’s based on their version of science. But as I’ve clearly demonstrated above there isn’t any science behind creationism or ID magic. The claims of the creationists are based on the Bible and nothing else. How do they know the Bible is true? Because it says it is. That’s like proving Rudolph’s red nose by citing the eyewitness testimony of Dancer.
Boris says:
"My posts prove how intelligent I am."
That is subjective, we need objective scientific proof.
Anonymous prove you're not an idiot.
Boris
With all of your boasting of this intelligence you claim to have, and your requirement for objective scientific evidence to believe something exists, surely you have at least SOME objective scientific evidence of the existence of your intelligence.
Without this evidence it will only prove you to be an hypocritical fool. Surely you must have something to satisfy your own basis of judgment? Go ahead, share it with us.
Anonymous,
Where exactly on this blog did I boast of this intelligence as you claim I have? Quote me. I mentioned that I had a BA from a private Christian college and one of the classes I took there but that was in response to Robert’s claim that I had suggested that Christians haven't added a single thing to society and an answer as to where I learned so much about evolutionary biology. Having a BA is certainly not a claim or proof of intelligence or even education. It shows only that I’m disciplined and can be trained. Where is this claim you say I’ve made?
I mean it doesn't take a genius to see that Christianity is a hoax. 15 -20 minutes reading the Bible can prove that to just about anybody these days.
Boris said:
Anonymous,
Where exactly on this blog did I boast of this intelligence as you claim I have?"
I respond:
Boris, that sounds almost like you are waffling on this with an admission that you may not be intelligent. Which is it, are you intelligent or not intelligent?
Like the God you worship, you have the manners and morals of a small spoiled child. Anonymous it’s no wonder you wish to remain anonymous. What kind of #@*% thinks up a question like this? Your demand is not only asinine it reflects the kind of childish taunt one would here from a first grader on a playground. One thing we all know about you is that you are extremely immature. Why don’t you just grow up? Oh that’s right you have to maintain the mind of a child so you can maintain your childish superstitions.
Why don’t you attack what I wrote instead of me personally? Could it be that you are completely devastated by what you were forced to digest and have no arguments against my posts. Well admit it or not we both know that’s the truth of the matter. It doesn’t matter how intelligent I am in this conversation. As long as I’m smarter than a fifth grader I’m a lot smarter than you are. And I’m certainly not stupid enough to believe anything I read in the Buy Bull.
It's a pretty simple question Boris, I will ask it again.
Are you intelligent or not intelligent?
Provide objective scientific proof of either to make your case.
BTW:
You wrote
"it reflects the kind of childish taunt one would here from a first grader on a playground."
I realize it sounds the same as hear, but an intelligent person generally would not confuse the two words.
Is that a good enough analysis of what you have written?
I don't answer to punks or blowhards. I realize you're desperate, angry and frightened because of what I've posted on this blog but that's your problem not mine.
Nearly three-fourths of all studies since the 1920s that investigated a correlation between intelligence and religious affiliation have found that the proportion of atheists, agnostic individuals, and deists increases dramatically as you move up the scale in school grades, exam scores, and IQ tests. The remaining fourth of the studies show no correlation; zero reviews suggested that people in organized religions are more intelligent than those with secular beliefs. The apparent conclusion to draw from the data is that people who are more intelligent tend to disbelieve religious superstitions. - Dr. Jason Long
Boris
Now your instability is showing. First you say you won't answer and then you try to answer??? Come on man, at least be consistent.
FYI: Apparent conclusions are subjective. Do you not have any OBJECTIVE scientific proof?
Boris
At least if you were to admit you are a fool, there would be more hope for you than in your present state.
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him....For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.... For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty..."
Admitting he is a fool would be an upgrade in character for Boris...
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
Now your instability is showing. First you say you won't answer and then you try to answer??? Come on man, at least be consistent.
Boris says: I didn’t answer I gave you an answer from someone else. Instability? Look who is talking! You think you have telepathically communicated with the supposed creator of the universe to let him know that you believe in him so that when you die you can fly off somewhere and live in a magical happy land forever and ever. You did this because you actually believe a rib woman ate from a magical tree after a conversation with a friendly talking snake. You’re not just unstable you’re completely insane.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God
Boris says: The Bible has a lot of defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. Too bad you can’t see through them. Intelligent people can.
Correction. The wisdom of this world has made foolishness of belief in God. You people have to sit there and take criticism for you insane superstitions now days and can no longer retaliate with the violence and torture and burn unbelievers at the stake. Young people see what you people are like and want no part of your evil and so obviously false religion. This is the last generation for Protestant Christianity because there’s no one left to pass this set of dogmatic superstitions to.
Bible thumpers think someone is impressed when they quote their stupid flat immovable earth holy book. You remind me of Sissy Spacek's psycho Bible thumping mother in "Carrie." ROFL!
FYI: Apparent conclusions are subjective. Do you not have any OBJECTIVE scientific proof?
Boris says: You believe angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, seraphs, giants, impossibly old people and a lot of other nonsense. You’ve never see any objective proof for any of these things. Yet you believe them because other people convinced you to. Why?
FYI: Apparent conclusions are subjective. Do you not have any OBJECTIVE scientific proof?
Suppose the world witnesses the descent of a great entity from the sky. This being proclaims that its name is God and the time for the world to end has finally arrived. Needless to say, most people are going to want to see proof of its claims. Whatever miracles one requests of God, he is happy to oblige. He has the power to make mountains rise and fall at will. He can set the oceans ablaze at the snap of a finger. He can even return life to those who died thousands of years ago. God can do anything asked of him. Then, someone from the gathered crowd makes an inquiry as to which religion holds the absolute truth. God replies, “The religion of truth is Islam. The Qur’an is my one and only holy word. All other religious texts, including the Bible, are entirely blasphemous. All those who don’t acknowledge my word will undergo a lengthy punishment for not following my teachings. Now is your chance to repent.”
What choice does Anonymous and the Christian community make in this situation? This deity has already demonstrated that it possesses the omnipotence and omniscience of a supreme being. Do Christians readily switch over to the side of observable and testable evidence, or do they declare that this being is the Devil tempting their faith in God? Think about it for a minute because it’s an interesting predicament. I believe we all know that a good portion of Christians would denounce this new being in order to please “the one true God, Heavenly Father of Jesus.” As a result of their collective decision, the supernatural entity forces them to undergo unimaginable torment for a few weeks before offering them a final chance to repent. Do the Christians embrace the teachings of this creature after experiencing its capabilities firsthand, or do they still consider it the final test and refuse to denounce their faith in the Bible?
What exactly is the meaning of this example? No matter what level of sophisticated evidence contrary to their beliefs might be provided, some Christians will always find a way to set aside reasoned thought in favor of what they have always been thoroughly conditioned to believe. If Christians won’t accept the answers of such a powerful creature, how would they ever have the capacity to make informed and impartial choices based on evidence presented by their peers?
First I need you to tell me how you would react to the OBJECTIVE scientific proof described in detail above that all your religious beliefs were false and Allah was the God of the universe. I need to see how you would deal with objective scientific proof of something you did not believe. Otherwise your request is completely meaningless. Because you see, you have demonstrated that your view of objectivity comes from your own subjective point of view. Now prove it doesn’t other wise you’re just wasting time. Gotcha.
Boris says: You believe angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, seraphs, giants, impossibly old people and a lot of other nonsense... Why?
I believe subjective proof, IE beyond reasonable doubt, whereas you don't, except in cases where it suits your fancy.
Boris wrote:
"God replies, “The religion of truth is Islam. The Qur’an is my one and only holy word. All other religious texts, including the Bible, are entirely blasphemous."
If he were to have said that it would prove him an imposter. Why? Because the Quran validates and even commands belief in the Bible as the word of God. And on the other hand it goes out of its way to oppose many truths the Bible affirms. That is the reason it can easily be thrown out.
Light reading for you.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch18.htm
"Those that disagree with any of the Scriptures that the apostles have been given will have shackles put on their necks and be dragged through boiling water and thrown into fire on the Judgment Day (40:69-72). Other apostles were sent before Mohammed who could only do miracles by Allah’s permission. Some of their stories are recited in the Qur'an and some are not (40:78). True believers are those who believe in the Qur'an and the Bible (2:4). Muslims must say that they believe in Allah, the Qur'an and in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s descendants, Moses, Jesus and the other prophets (2:136)."
Sura 136. "Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/
Boris,
You see, you as an atheist refusing to provide any objective proof of your intelligence, because you understand that I would not believe anything you set forth, is an exact parallel to what God does with atheists. You simply won't believe anything whether subjective or objective, so He doesn't waste His time on you. Now I am done with you too....
Like Robert you scurry off with you badly damaged ego, enough doubt planted in your head to send you to hell and your tail between your legs. You completely avoided the question which was that if you were presented with objective proof Allah was God what would you do. Instead you tried to deflect the question by bringing up something unrelated. Another creationist wacko bites the dust. Next. Don't come back because I will surely destroy what is left of your faith.
is an exact parallel to what God does with atheists.
Boris says: Your God can't do anything. He's impotent. But what atheists are doing to your God is something that should have been done a long time ago.
Just wait, it will only be a little time.....
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boris your wack lol. They spanked you and you claim victory. Nice...
p.s. no one is being turned from their faith at all. your crazy bro. hahahaha
oh and one more, you stated earlier "the burden of proof lies on the one who has the most to say". Have you ever looked over your posts...you have an awful lot to say sir.
So serve up some proof.
It's funny how Bor[e]is says faith is believing in something that is not scientifically proven or tangible, but then he turns around and says he can "destroy" it. How do you logically destroy something that's based on something that doesn't exist?
One thing I find interesting is Bor[e]is's claim that the historocity of the Bible is complete fairy tale. Actually, very acclaimed archaeologists have spent many decades trying to disprove historical claims from the Bible to no avail. In fact, several times they have actually proven the accuracy of the historical account.
Does this prove everything in the Bible is historically accurate? No, but to the extent archaeologists have been able to determine, the Bible is accurate.
I have only one question for you Bor[e]is, have you ever really taken any critical thinking, logic, or reasoning classes? I ask only because you skip several steps in your analyses. I admire how you try to set up premises in a way that only you can be proven right (since this is what I try to do in the court room every day), but the problem with that is, you're on a website where no one is likely to buy into your premise at all. When a premise fails, the argument falls on deaf ears. Even as an atheist, you must wish to convince these people you are right, or why would you be on here? And you will never convince anyone or sway them from their beliefs without first achieving a premise they will buy into.
An example is when you posted earlier that people are converting away from Christianity at some ridiculously high made up rate. (5000 to 1 or something) Anyone reading that post immediately rejects your argument (whatever it was), because they know the numbers don't add up when the population density of Christians is expanding not retracting according to EVERY survey taken across the respondable world.
Another example is your misunderstanding the nature of many evolution deniers. Many only proposition that since the fossil evidence is miniscule at best for evolution, that other theories should be at least considered or that evolution shoudn't be taught as "near-fact." So, this statement: "No, I had a class on evolutionary biology at a Christian college. That’s why I know so much about evolution and also why I can tell you get all your “science” information from creationist websites and have never cracked open a science book since school if you even did then," is very telling. While you had a class, I got an actual degree in Biology before my law degree. I can't rule out evolution altogether (I want to see more of a fossil record and it has been hypothesized that we should know something pretty definite by 2020), but even if it is acurate, it wouldn't disprove God. If God exists the way we believe He does, then He could do much more amazing things than evolution.
What's really funny is, if Jesus were a 5th Century philospher, you would probably be a follower and avid reader of His work. Because the fact remains, His message of peace, hope, love, and fairness is something most people admire even if they choose not to believe Jesus was the Son of Man.
In fact, several times they have actually proven the accuracy of the historical account.
Boris says: Name it and claim it. What account exactly, proved when, how and by whom? I don’t accept vague unsubstantiated claims. You do and that’s why you are a Christian. Even if an account was accurate that doesn’t prove Yahweh smote the enemy or any of the other absurd supernatural claims in the Bible.
Does this prove everything in the Bible is historically accurate? No, but to the extent archaeologists have been able to determine, the Bible is accurate.
Boris says: Sure. “Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed.” – Biblical Archaeological Review 31, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 16-17.
I have only one question for you Bor[e]is, have you ever really taken any critical thinking, logic, or reasoning classes?
Boris says: Yes and there it was discovered that I had extraordinary abstract reasoning abilities which is why people like you lose debates with me and lose them badly too.
I ask only because you skip several steps in your analyses. I admire how you try to set up premises in a way that only you can be proven right (since this is what I try to do in the court room every day), but the problem with that is, you're on a website where no one is likely to buy into your premise at all.
Boris says: I’m not here with a premise. I’m here to get people to question theirs. I’m not promoting atheism. I’m showing the problems thinking people have with Christianity.
When a premise fails, the argument falls on deaf ears. Even as an atheist, you must wish to convince these people you are right, or why would you be on here?
Boris says: I’m here to annoy Hank Hanegraaf. Or people who admire this guy.
And you will never convince anyone or sway them from their beliefs without first achieving a premise they will buy into.
Boris: Just trying to get people to think for themselves.
because they know the numbers don't add up when the population density of Christians is expanding not retracting according to EVERY survey taken across the respondable world.
Boris says: Every survey? Name one. On this blog and others is currently being discussed the fact that young people are running from Christianity in droves. Plus I already pointed out that you said the pope isn’t Christian and that disqualifies 1.4 billion other Catholics from being Christians at the same time. You might be a lawyer because you talk out of both sides of your mouth but then so do all Christian apologists. When you want to tell one lie about how Christianity is growing rather than dying you will include all kinds of people who you otherwise claim are not Christians. Then when you want to include only people who hate and fear all science and scientific and social progress like you, people who have never been divorced had or paid for an abortion and everyone else you hate who calls themselves a Christian we are left with about 10 million Christians as I pointed out earlier. Make up your mind. Oh that’s right someone else has to do that for you.
Another example is your misunderstanding the nature of many evolution deniers. Many only proposition that since the fossil evidence is miniscule at best for evolution, that other theories should be at least considered or that evolution shoudn't be taught as "near-fact."
Boris says: That’s right, make a false claim and then build your bogus case on that. The theory of evolution was developed to explain the evidence from the fossil record. That evidence is overwhelming enough that scientists state common descent is a fact. Therefore any theory hoping to replace evolution would also have to explain the fact of common descent and the overwhelming evidence for it in the fossil record.
While you had a class, I got an actual degree in Biology before my law degree. I can't rule out evolution altogether (I want to see more of a fossil record and it has been hypothesized that we should know something pretty definite by 2020),
Boris says: Sure. We knew something pretty definite in 1920. Biology, law degree – sure. If you make more than minimum wage I’d like to know who is dumb enough to overpay you.
but even if it is acurate, it wouldn't disprove God. If God exists the way we believe He does, then He could do much more amazing things than evolution.
Boris says: Answer this. Why would God use a method of creation that makes it look like he doesn’t exist? So he can trick more people into thinking there is no God and send them to hell?
What's really funny is, if Jesus were a 5th Century philospher, you would probably be a follower and avid reader of His work.
Boris says: No, I vehemently disagree with some of the New Testament and I’ve done my research. There are no original sayings or ideas in the New Testament. I would think the same thing I do now about say Socrates who also is a fictional character many people think was a real person. These teaching figures are simply the lips other writers put their own ideas on.
Because the fact remains, His message of peace, hope, love, and fairness is something most people admire even if they choose not to believe Jesus was the Son of Man.
Boris says: People don’t choose not to believe in Jesus. Half of the people who have died in the last 2000 years never heard of Jesus Christ. Did they choose not to believe in Jesus? Then there are people like me who are skeptical about the existence of a person whose birth and death were supposedly announced by angels, a person of whom history knows not one single fact. Did I choose not to believe in Jesus? No, I CANNOT believe that such a person ever existed. Yet your theology dictates that people decide on their own volition to be separated from God and send themselves to hell. This is where your theology self-destructs. No one who believes in hell would risk spending eternity there. If hell were real everyone who wound up there would be people who never had a choice to follow God or not. Because you can’t follow or believe in something that you don’t think exists. This also points up the complete asininity of Paschal’s Wager.
Boris says: Yes and there it was discovered that I had extraordinary abstract reasoning abilities which is why people like you lose debates with me and lose them badly too.
haha thats a load. You have never won any debate here. Winning a debate is convincing someone to take your point of view. You clearly have not done that. Your archaelogical post is null as well. There are just as many discoveries proving the existance of David. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/true/david.html
just one i brought up real quick. Im sure ill get a nice long post from you about it Boris. Something about fundies, christians, or any of the other names you have called believers.
Case and point. If you were some remarkable debater you would understand how the human mind works. We will never even remotely take your side until you acknowledge that a small part of our arguments are true. Disagreeing with every word will get you nowhere fast. You should know this oh wise one...
Once again, no one is being sueded by your rants. Your fighting a losing battle comrade.
Stick to your guns comrade Boris. You said the burden of proof is on the one with the most to say. Please provide us with some concrete irrefutable proof of your VAST claims. Either that or sit down my friend, no one that reads this takes you seriously haha.
Here is a refute of you saying that Christianity is falling.
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.aspx
While he says percentages will not change, notice that he says there will be 3 Billion Christians by 2050. Looks like all those children arent running comrade. The christian way of life is flourishing just as strong, or stronger, than it ever has. There are too many mega ministries to argue that.
Comrade, you obviously know how to do some research. But you have bought the lie that evolutionary THEORY is fact. Its just that, a theory. And in my oppinion, a very bad one.
There are just as many discoveries proving the existance of David. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/true/david.html
Answer: First of all we both know that is all you’ve got and there are no other discoveries proving the existence of David as if this stupid inscription proves anything. I thought lawyers were supposed to be good liars. Oh yeah, six letters on a rock prove David killed a 9-foot tall giant and all the other absurd stories in the Bible about this figure. You claim to be a lawyer and you think that inscription which is now widely accepted to be a Christian fake anyway proves exactly what? Even if it were real what does it prove? Exactly nothing except just how desperate you believers really are. Then you turn around and claim there isn’t any real evidence for evolution! ROFL!
The difficulties with this inscription were obvious to many as soon as a good photograph of the text was published. Inconsistent descriptions appeared of how and where the text had been found whereas to some the dating of the archeological context seemed optimistically early; others suggested that the form of writing should be dated a century or more later than had been originally proposed. To read “k” as “mlk” = “king” was just guesswork, of course. Nothing in the inscription itself required that the word or name “bytdwd” be directly linked to Jerusalem and to Judah.
“byt” can be translated as “House” and reflects the patronate that rules the town. When joined with the name or epithet of a god or goddess it can be translated “temple.” “David” is not a name but a divine title translated “Beloved.” I could go one but the fact that this is your best evidence for the existence of King David proves there isn’t a shred of evidence for the existence this person. What kind of deep religious stupor does a person have to be in to accept things like this stupid inscription as evidence that something in the Bible even might be true?
Now go ahead and fly of claiming victory on this point as if I didn’t just refute it and mock you for being naïve enough to bring this whole subject up.
Case and point. If you were some remarkable debater you would understand how the human mind works. We will never even remotely take your side until you acknowledge that a small part of our arguments are true. Disagreeing with every word will get you nowhere fast. You should know this oh wise one...
Answer: I understand exactly how the human mind works when it has been thoroughly indoctrinated with the fear-induced religious superstitions of other people. I understand that you cannot accept anything I say because if you even let yourself consider that some of it might actually be true you believe you will certainly suffer the wrath of God in the flames of hell for all eternity. Your mind was slammed shut by fear-induced superstitions planted in your head by OTHER PEOPLE a long time ago.
Once again, no one is being sueded by your rants. Your fighting a losing battle comrade.
Answer: No I understand completely what my posts are doing to you. You were on the edge of sanity before you encountered me. Now after a little shove from the atheist you are certifiably insane, right off the edge of your flat immovable earth you go. Your posts drip with the kind of desperation we find in suicidal and homicidal maniacs. Once one encounters Boris the Atheist it’s either reject your insane cultic superstitions or be driven totally insane by them. How do I know this for sure? Because many people have gone through long painful de-conversions after debating me but were man or woman enough to come back and not only thank me profusely but some described the mental torment I put them through when they first encountered me. Stay away from sharp objects dude. Hahaha. I hope Robert hasn't slashed his wrists.
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.aspx
Answer: Oh yeah we all believe what religious spokesmen have to say. We couldn’t believe Christian apologists even if they told us they were lying to us. No one has less integrity than a Christian apologist or theologian or any other liar for Jesus including you.
Comrade, you obviously know how to do some research. But you have bought the lie that evolutionary THEORY is fact. Its just that, a theory. And in my oppinion, a very bad one.
Answer: You conveniently ignore my challenge to tell us all when your version of “science” is going to produce new antibiotics, medicines, food crops and the other products that evolutionary scientists produce. You don’t even know why science exists in the first place or the definition of the word “theory.” To creationist loonies like your self a theory is something someone came up with after being drunk all night. That’s how religions are formed, not scientific theories. A theory is an explanation of known facts, which is constantly being revised when new facts are discovered. So a theory would actually be higher than a fact because it explains the fact. Who cares about the opinion of some knucklehead that doesn’t even know that? The fact that you think you know more about science than all the real scientists in the world proves you are literally insane and willfully ignorant on top of it.
No one is being fooled by lunatic science denying Bible believers anymore. It isn’t just evolution you people are denying and fighting. Like all Bible believers right down through history have done you wackos are denying just about every major scientific discovery and theory ever made. You also won’t accept cosmology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, zoology, oceanography, astronomy, cell theory, quantum physics or a lot of other science also. Your cult leaders have purposely blurred the distinction between different scientific disciplines so that scientific ignoramuses like you would not understand the scope of all the science that clearly refutes the absurd pseudo-science in Tales of the Supernatural Testaments 1 & 2.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that creation “science” and Intelligent Design magic are not taught in any CHRISTIAN colleges and universities but evolutionary theory and common descent are taught in ALL of them. Except for tier four schools like Liberty of course.
Answer: No I understand completely what my posts are doing to you. You were on the edge of sanity before you encountered me. Now after a little shove from the atheist you are certifiably insane, right off the edge of your flat immovable earth you go. Your posts drip with the kind of desperation we find in suicidal and homicidal maniacs. Once one encounters Boris the Atheist it’s either reject your insane cultic superstitions or be driven totally insane by them. How do I know this for sure? Because many people have gone through long painful de-conversions after debating me but were man or woman enough to come back and not only thank me profusely but some described the mental torment I put them through when they first encountered me. Stay away from sharp objects dude. Hahaha. I hope Robert hasn't slashed his wrists.
hahahahaha dude your a trip. P.S. im not the lawyer from before. So that argument worked against you. The only indoctrinated looney is you my friend. Your mind is closed. Completely. If you really think anyone would even question their faith after a discussion with you your even dumber than you sound. Ill bet not a single person on these boards (besides me right now of course since im busy typing to you) even remembers you and your pathetic harassment. I dont agree with Hank on a lot of his teachings...but i sure as heck would listen to him over you any day. Mr. Jesus never existed. haha your insane. Prove that one, that he didnt exist.
As regard to Christian scientists...There is a huge community of scientists who completely disagree with evolution. Your claim that Creationists have had no significant discoveries is absurd. Does Einstein ring a bell? (can hardly wait for some insane rant of a refute)
As regard to Christian scientists...There is a huge community of scientists who completely disagree with evolution.
Boris says: Nonsense. Not one of them is a biologist or even qualified to speak on the subject of evolution by natural selection. - Behe is a biochemist completely out of his league and a discredited pathological liar. Every one of them is a Bible believing evangelical Christian lunatic. Who cares about your list of hydraulic and automotive engineers and anyway which mostly what your list consists of? ROFL! There’s a bigger community of scientists just named Steve who completely disagree with those creationist lunatics and liars.
Your claim that Creationists have had no significant discoveries is absurd.
Boris says: Nice try at trying to twist what I said liar. What discoveries have been made directly due to biblical creation “science” or Intelligent Design magic? Where are the antibiotics, medicines, better food crops and other products your “science” should be producing if it were real science? How come your list of scientists doesn’t include anyone getting results from Intelligent Design magic? What, can’t they make a woman from a rib yet? ROFL!
Does Einstein ring a bell? (can hardly wait for some insane rant of a refute)
Boris says: Einstein a creationist wacko? Sure! Oh the depths of dishonesty to which you Christards will stoop!
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
How does your foot taste loser?
Mr. Jesus never existed. haha your insane. Prove that one, that he didnt exist.
Boris says: Be careful what you ask for dude. Read it and weep:
We are expected to believe that Jesus was entirely ignored by all secular writers at the time that he supposedly lived even though:
Special star appears to signal his birth (Matt 2:2).
Massacre of infants in attempt to kill him (Matt 2:16).
Goes about 'healing every disease and every infirmity' (Matt 4:23).
Fame spreads throughout all Syria so 'all the sick' are brought to him - who are then healed by him (Matt 4:24).
Followed by 'crowds' (Matt 5:1).
'Great crowds' follow him (Matt 8:1).
Heals leper (Matt 8:3).
Heals paralysed servant (Matt 8:13).
Heals Peter's mother-in-law (Matt 8:15).
'Many' afflicted brought to him: he heals 'all who were sick' (Matt 8:16).
Great crowds follow him (Matt 8;18).
Heals demoniacs and kills some pigs (Matt 8:32).
Heals paralytic (Matt 9:7).
Crowds witness healing (Matt 9:8).
A ruler comes to him for help with daughter (Matt 9:18).
Heals woman with hemorrhage (Matt 9:22).
Heals ruler's daughter (Matt 9:25).
'Report of this went through all that district' (Matt 9:26).
Heals two blind men (Matt 9:30).
They 'spread his fame through all that district' (Matt 9:31).
Heals dumb demoniac (Matt 9:33).
Crowds marvel (Matt 9:33).
Heals 'every disease and every infirmity' as he travels about cities and villages (Matt 9:35).
Followed by crowds (Matt 9:36).
Preaches in cities (Matt 11:1).
Speaks to crowds (Matt 11:7).
Heals man with withered hand (Matt 12:13).
Many follow him and 'he heals them all' (Matt 12:15).
Heals blind and dumb demoniac (Matt 12:22).
'Great crowds gather' around him (Matt 13:2).
Speaks to the crowds (Matt 13:34).
Herod hears about Jesus' fame (Matt 14:1).
Crowds follow him, he heals the sick, and feeds 5000+ (Matt 14:13).
On entering Gennesaret, he is recognized and all the sick are brought to him and all those who touch him are healed (Matt 14:36).
Great crowds come to him with the sick and they are healed (Matt 15:30).
'The thong' see 'the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking and the blind seeing' (Matt 15:31). Feeds 4000+. Crowds are sent away (Matt 15:38).
Meets crowd and heals epileptic (Matt 17:14,18).
Large crowds follow him in Judea and he heals them (Matt 19:2).
Great crowd follows him on leaving Jericho (Matt 20:29).
Heals two blind men (Matt 20:34).
Ejects Temple traders (Matt 21:12).
Heals blind and lame (Matt 21:14).
People call for his execution (Matt 27:23).
All the people admit responsibility (Matt 27:25).
Darkness 'over all the land' (Matt 27:45).
Temple curtain torn and earthquake (Matt 27:51).
Saints came out of their tombs and appear in Jerusalem (Matt 27:52-53).
Resurrected from dead (Matt 28:1ff).
It is of course too absurd for words for any rational person to suggest that anyone who was involved in all of this (and the above is only from Matthew - John has further miracles), and in just three years (John) or one year (Synoptics), could go unnoticed by all the secular writers of the time, and indeed anyone capable of writing.
You can believe Jesus existed all you want but if you still do after considering the facts above you are the one who is provably and certifiably insane.
your refusal to accept the writings of tacitus, plarny, and Josephus (non secular i understand)is just in a word, retarded. You are at odds with some of the most atheistic history professors in America when you refuse to believe that Jesus existed. Your "proof" is no such thing. YOu quote the Bible about the SON OF GOD. He was GOD, he can do ANYTHING. SO your "proof" is just a big stupid rant like always. So let me ask you this, who started this Christian movement? Why was there all of a sudden a huge surge of Christianity? Oh yeah some guys just made up everything. Even most (rational unlike yourself) atheist believe he indeed was a person.
You got me on the Einstein part I can see that, i actually just took it off a list that also included Galileo etc. My bad moron. I picked the wrong one out of many.
You didnt have anything to say about making people think of suicide though. Can you refer me to some of those that you "helped". Until you present some evidence your more of a pathelogical liar than Obama haha.
Concrete evidence good sir, concrete. And this may seem off topic...but do you believe 9/11 was a government job?
and just for fun comrade
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
cont.
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
You can actually count on Mr. Boris to give you a ridiculous answer of spewed vitriol, even with your list of professors. Boris will do something asinine like quote "Dr. Jason Long, author of Biblical Nonsense." Then he will not be honest enough to admit that "Dr. Long" is a quack, having his Doctorate in Pharmacy. Boris is just another of many schmucks online that think they can lie, bluff, and slime their way into shaking people's faith. He even claims to know Hebrew and Greek, which I would love to see him prove. And by the way, which "Christian University" did you go to and what credentials do you really pack, Bor(e)is?
your refusal to accept the writings of tacitus, plarny, and Josephus (non secular i understand)is just in a word, retarded.
Boris says: This is why I don’t accept them. Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius wrote around 112 CE and Josephus in 90 CE. They are in no way contemporary with the supposed time of Jesus Christ and nowhere near Palestine. I posted what these historians wrote on this blog. It’s a joke. None of the first three even mention Jesus of Nazareth by name only the existence of Christians. What does that prove exactly? Only that Christian apologists are really desperate and intellectually dishonest. Eusebius forged the golden paragraph in the works of Josephus and even your conservative scholars say it’s a very stupid forgery. Your claim that these historians were contemporary with Jesus is what is retarded. 60 to 82 years after the events supposedly described in the gospels with no newspapers, TV, radio, magazines but just word of mouth for 6 to 8 decades. And that’s the closest you can come to when Jesus supposedly died. And you wonder why I won’t accept those historians as reliable sources for you absurd claims. I would wonder why you do but I already know how desperate you are to hang on to your stupid Jesus myth. Philo lived in and around Jerusalem in the first century. I believe what Philo wrote about Jesus is an accurate portrayal. Nothing. Not a word. Why didn’t Philo who lived during the time Jesus supposedly mention one word about him? That is very damaging for your case. In fact that demolishes it right there.
You are at odds with some of the most atheistic history professors in America when you refuse to believe that Jesus existed.
Boris says: That is a big fat Christian lie. No honest historians will write anything about Jesus Christ. History writers need evidence for what they write. There isn’t one reliable historical mention of Jesus Christ. What is a history writer going to write from the 24 sentences from those four non-contemporary historians Christian apologists claim prove Jesus existed? The shortest book in history! ROFL! I don’t refuse to believe things. I cannot believe in a person whose birth and death were supposedly announced by angels. I don’t believe in angels nor do I believe in an absurd being like Satan or that demons exist and cause diseases. The gospels are full of references to these absurd beings which proves they are fiction and were never meant to be interpreted literally. They’re mythology and that is what the writers intended for their readers to think.
Your "proof" is no such thing. YOu quote the Bible about the SON OF GOD. He was GOD, he can do ANYTHING. SO your "proof" is just a big stupid rant like always. So let me ask you this, who started this Christian movement?
Boris says: Astute historians and Egyptologists have known for centuries and probably all along that Christianity never existed in first century Palestine and actually evolved from Egyptian sun worshiping cults. "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.- Thomas Paine in "An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry" (1803-1805); found in manuscript form after Paine's death
There’s not a shred of historical evidence that there were any Christians in Palestine or that Christianity’s first adherents were Jewish. The Jewish historians know nothing of Jesus Christ, not a word. Christianity came from Egypt, not Palestine. Squint at the sun tomorrow. You’ll see where the Christian cross came from. How come we have Egyptian crucifixes from 1200 BCE? Jesus was Horus. That’s why.
Why was there all of a sudden a huge surge of Christianity? Oh yeah some guys just made up everything. Even most (rational unlike yourself) atheist believe he indeed was a person.
Boris says: Here’s a short list of scholars who have said that Jesus Christ never existed. I recommend the two books in parenthesis: Thomas Thompson (The Messiah Myth), Tom Harpur (The Pagan Christ) Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Robert M. Price, Timothy Freke, Harold Leidner, Earl Doherty, Acharya S., Kersey Graves, Bruno Bauer, James George Frazier, Harry Elmer Barnes, Albert Kaltoff, Arthur Drews, T.J. Thornburn, J.C. Stendal, Emil Felden, Jensen, Lublinski, Bolland, Van der berg, Charles Virolleaud, Ryner Couchoud, Gerald Massey, Emilio Bossi, Georg Brandes, John M. Robertson, G.R.S Mead, Whittaker, Edward Carpernter and W.B. Smith. Now while that isn’t as long as your list every one of these scholars is qualified to speak on this subject. Not one of yours was involved in the field he claims not to accept the findings of. Not even one. ROFL.
You got me on the Einstein part I can see that, i actually just took it off a list that also included Galileo etc. My bad moron. I picked the wrong one out of many.
Boris says: My favorite Christians always mention is Isaac Newton. Newton did not believe in Satan and a lot of the other Christian superstitions and would not be a Christian by fundamentalist standards.
You didnt have anything to say about making people think of suicide though. Can you refer me to some of those that you "helped".
Boris says: nosferatuwannabe@aol.com, rayjuglr@hotmail.com, celestial6958@yahoo.com, laoloagena@yahoo.com. If you contact these people they may or may not respond but they’ll likely tell me not to give their Email address out again, especially to nutcases. But they all owe me for relieving them of their Christian superstitions and fears.
Until you present some evidence your more of a pathelogical liar than Obama haha.
Answer: I never met a white fundamentalist Christian that wasn’t a redneck racist bigot. Can’t stand having a black man in the White House can you? There are only two organizations left in this nation that require all their members to be Bible believing evangelical Christians: The American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. Which one do you belong to? The president isn’t a liar. You are.
Concrete evidence good sir, concrete. And this may seem off topic...but do you believe 9/11 was a government job?
Answer: The people who attacked us were Saudi citizens who were fed up with our oil companies giving money to autocratic dictators who use that money to keep their population brainwashed by religion, poorly educated and in poverty. Conspiracy nuts who think our government could pull off some kind of secret operation like this or hide aliens and their spaceships or fake a moon landing watch too much television.
You are welcome to present some verifiable historical facts to support your superstitions about Jesus actually existing. But we both know that will not happen because there aren’t any. How come we have not one mention of anything Christ supposedly did by even one historian? Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus are hardly evidence for the “best attested event in history.” What they are evidence for is that you Jesus hoaxers have no evidence whatsoever for your imaginary boogyman. Who is laughing now? Hahaha. Poof bye bye Jesus. ROFL!
You can actually count on Mr. Boris to give you a ridiculous answer of spewed vitriol, even with your list of professors. Boris will do something asinine like quote "Dr. Jason Long, author of Biblical Nonsense." Then he will not be honest enough to admit that "Dr. Long" is a quack, having his Doctorate in Pharmacy.
Boris says: Who cares? It doesn’t take a Bible scholar to understand the Bible and in fact NO Christian Bible scholar has a clue about the Bible. People who believe in magic and magical fairies have no right to call themselves “scholars.” What you people ignore is that the Bible is a very small collection of literature compared to the amount of literature a scholar in ANY other field would have to be familiar with. There isn’t one word in any historical document anywhere that supports any of the myths being the least bit historical nor do any historical documents mention any of the major figures in the Bible. So there isn’t anything else for Bible scholars to get information about something in the Bible from. So Jason Long is just as qualified as anyone to speak on the Bible. The proof of that is that you attack him instead of something from his site. That’s because his site contains some devastating material about the Bible and your evil and false religion and you know it too. You can’t even read his stuff because it humiliates you so much. Tell the truth for once in your lying life.
Boris is just another of many schmucks online that think they can lie, bluff, and slime their way into shaking people's faith. He even claims to know Hebrew and Greek, which I would love to see him prove. And by the way, which "Christian University" did you go to and what credentials do you really pack, Bor(e)is?
Boris says: I’m a Jew but when did I claim to know Hebrew exactly? I’m in a group of people who have the Greek fonts downloaded onto their computer and Email each other back and forth in Koine Greek for practice. You are welcome to Email me any time and I’ll be glad to get you started on learning Koine Greek for free if you so desire. Anyone interested in the New Testament should learn to read it in Greek. Meanwhile you can ask me any question you want about it. I went to a private college not a university and I have only a BA not a Masters or a PHD or anything like that. I’m a history major.
I don't even have to attack "Dr. Long." I read part of his book, and JP Holding handed him his lunch over making claims like "worship of this deity (YHWH) had just about run out of steam by the 1st Century," without offering any proof of where he got it. Whatever. You make some of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. The only thing "damaging" from Jason Long, John Loftus, and others like them is that sometimes I read their work and start laughing to hard from their utter lack of scholarship. Hmm. Not unlike you, Bor(e)is. Are you writing for Loftus too, LOL?
I had a lot of fun tormenting Turkel a few years ago. He was on his prophecy hoaxing kick back then. When I explained on his blog how the New Testament writers simply fabricated stories to make it seem like early OT prophecies had come to pass Turkel blew his stack. Like most Christian ignoramuses that idea had never occurred to him. No, they need a boogy magic explanation for everything because logical plausible explanations are not allowed in Christian apologetics. After an insane response from Turkel I posted 100 biblical prophecies that had clearly failed and could no longer possibly be fulfilled. Naturally I was banned and received an absolutely insane Email from Turkel. If I still have it I’ll post it here. Meanwhile here are a few reviews of Turkel’s jibber-jabber and mumbo-jumbo:
Skeptical Reviews Regarding Robert Turkel's Tekton Apologetic Ministry (Off Site)
This site, devoted to critiques of Turkel's work, hosts or links to approximately three dozen articles of interest.
Holding Overruled! (2002) by Kyle Gerkin
Gerkin responds to Holding's critique, "Still Failing the Bar Exam."
The Not-So-Impossible Faith (2002) by Brian Holtz
Holtz dissects Christian apologist Robert Turkel's "The Impossible Faith: Or How Not to Start an Ancient Religion" wherein Turkel attempts to "explain why Christianity succeeded where it should have clearly failed or died out." Holtz concludes that Turkel's argument ultimately fails, that the ability of Christianity to overcome the "disadvantages" which Turkel lists is entirely consistent with Jesus being a merely human preacher, faith healer, and apocalyptic prophet whose followers transformed a belief in his spiritual resurrection into the myth of his physical resurrection.
Turkel and the Trilemma (2002) by Brian Holtz
This essay summarizes a long debate between Brian Holtz and Christian apologist Robert Turkel (aka J. P. Holding). Here, Holtz effectively rebuts the Trilemma argument ("Was Jesus Lord, liar, or lunatic?"). As Holtz puts it, Robert Turkel's latest response contains no less than 137 polemical blunders, each categorized and separately identified here.
You make some of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
Boris says: Name 'em and claim 'em. If I have made any ridiculous statements say what they are and show exactly why they are ridiculous. You know, like I do with yours. Until you do that you've said exactly nothing. I welcome the challenge. Come on with it.
I just want to throw one thing out there when talking about science, academia, and knowledge in general. People and especially people who limit their world view to a contrived source such as the Bible, suffer from a limited time horizon. Just because Christianity, mostly through the work of the Catholic Church, plays the moral superiority card now doesn't mean that it has always held the same values. You (meaning all of you, Boris aside) forget that for 1200 years Christianity systematically killed all apostates ("witches", scholars, and pagans), burned all heretical literature it could find (science, math, academics, opposition literature, etc.), wiped entire societies off the face of the Earth (Mayans, Aztecs, other ancient cultures), and was complicit in the burning of the Library at Alexandria. If it weren't for Christianity we might very well have cures for cancers, other incurable diseases, and be far more technologically advanced than we are now. I know you will just say that those people were abusing the Bible and didn't understand the true teachings of the scriptures and Jesus Christ but it doesn't excuse the fact that Christianity in its fanatical form has done far more harm than good. Just because it is good now has no bearing on how bad it was or the bad it was used for. Those people really believed in what they were doing just as you believe in it now.
Since someone brought it up: Germany in the late 1800 up until after World War II was a Protestant/Evangelical state, not Atheist. While the true religious beliefs of Hitler are subject to some debate, his views on Jews was not motivated by Atheistic beliefs. He often evoked the words of Martin Luther who hated the Jews and himself wanted them exterminated in his time. If you are going to place any blame for Nazi Germany you have to place it with Protestantism and its poster child, Martin Luther. For some good reading take a look at Luther's book On Jews and Their Lies.
Pragmatic, did you know that the Mongols killed all who opposed them as well. Your argument is null. Like you said, it was mainly the Catholics; however, the Muslims killed many more souls than the Christians with their wars, problem is, Muslims are still killing those who oppose them. You think one period of time defines a lifetime of people. You sir, are wrong.
Pragmatic, did you know that the Mongols killed all who opposed them as well. Your argument is null. Like you said, it was mainly the Catholics;
Boris says: Of course Catholic Christianity was really the only form of Christianity, once the early church violently stamped out competing cults and drove the others underground until famous anti-Semite Martin Luther founded Protestantism. Protestants always claim Catholics did all the atrocities and killing of science and scientists. But the Protestants have been just as violent and deadly and even MORE anti-science than the Catholics. No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus until 1835. Up until then all Protestant denominations held firmly to the flat immovable earth clearly described in the Bible.
however, the Muslims killed many more souls than the Christians with their wars, problem is, Muslims are still killing those who oppose them. You think one period of time defines a lifetime of people. You sir, are wrong.
Boris says: All religion breeds violence, wars, hate, cultural prejudice, intolerance, ignorance and insanity. The funny thing is that Christians are just wannabe Muslims. The faith of the Muslim is a mountain compared to the mustard seed faith of the Christian. Christianity is the shakiest belief system there is with over 5000 Christians rejecting their faith every day in the United States alone, most of them t young people. We don’t see Muslims rejecting their faith en masse like that anywhere in the world.
Boris your just plain sill haha. Prove that Christians are leaving the Faith. Prove it big man haha. What a whiner. Didnt have a refute for the Mongols eh. Your a joke. Prove to me that Christians are leaving and ill double prove you on your atheist friends.
Anonymous you can argue with your own Christian apologists and media maggots because they are trumpeting the fact that there will be no one left to pass Christian superstitions on to. Read Josh McDowell's last book. Here's the front page of Frank Turek's blog:
* 70-75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school (for survey data click here and here).
* Intellectual skepticism is one of the major reasons they walk away.
* Most Christian students are unequipped to resist rabidly anti-Christian college professors who are intent on converting their students to atheism.
* College professors are five times more likely to identify themselves as atheists than the general public.
* More than half of all college professors view evangelical Christian students unfavorably (click here).
* The “new atheists”—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens—are writing books and are growing in popularity.
Christian youth in America are not being taught to cross examine the skeptical and atheistic views they encounter when they leave home. The good news is that we can do something about it! Browse the CrossExamined site for more information about how we're helping young people understand and defend why the Christian faith is true and reasonable, and how you can help. — Dr. Frank Turek, Founder and President
Adults have been rejecting Christianity ever since its inception. The Bible even makes the excuse that many will fall away in the last days. We all know that we've been in the last days of Christianity ever since its first days.
I don't know what you intend to "double prove" but you really seem like a small spoiled child with that threat. How old are you? 9?
Boris while the other annonymous is representing in the wrong fashion.
Might I suggests that you explain the very long list of Scientists I provided that believe in the Bible based theory of creation? Thank you.
Anonymous I
Yes the other Anonymous isn’t giving a reason for the hope that lies within with gentleness and respect, that’s for sure. You could use a name but I can tell you apart.
Out of the millions of people with masters or greater in science, only about 150 believe in creationism enough to sign this list claiming they accept biblical creationism? That is kind of pathetic, isn't it? Creationists often bring out a small number of people with some scientific training who believe in biblical creation. The number of such people is very small and they have no credibility whatsoever in the broad professional scientific community. Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded.
So what you are really asking is how does one counter such a tactic? One way is to disregard the appeal to authority altogether and argue based entirely on the scientific evidence. For the most part, this is what people who debate creationists do, and would like to continue doing. The reason why evolution is considered the current best explanation for our origins is not because it got the most votes at the last origins theory caucus. The reason is because the theory of evolution can explain almost everything we've observed about our origins. It generates testable predictions which are continually being confirmed, and it can be falsified but hasn't.
In order to underscore the absurdity of this small group being given any credibility, the National Center for Science Education created Project Steve. They allowed scientists named Steve (or cognates such a Stephan, Stefan and Stephanie) to sign a statement in support of evolution. That statement begins:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen." It estimates that about one percent of the population of the United States has such a name. Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. Also it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
The list of Steves is far more prestigious than any list of living scientists the creationists have ever produced. It includes Nobel Prize winners, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and influential authors such as Stephen Hawking. It is telling that creationist lists tend to be lean on practicing research biologists. In contrast, about two-thirds of the scientists on NCSE's list are biologists, who are the most qualified to evaluate whether the evidence favors evolution. Another point is that the NCSE's list includes the information on where the Steves got their degrees and their current position. By not doing so, the creationist lists do not make it obvious how many of the people listed are not practicing scientists.
It should be noted that some of the signers on this list of scientists who accept biblical creation do accept that humans share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee so they don’t belong on this list. A number of names on the list do not have the credentials listed after their names. For example, Saami Shaibani does not have the credentials he claims; he in fact was charged with perjury for claiming so in a court of law. Harold Slusher only has a degree from a diploma mill. Thomas Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary. Henry (Satan put the caters on the moon) Morris was a hydraulic engineer, not a scientist.
There is a list of those who deny that the HIV virus causes AIDS. It lists Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, and Tom Bethel -- who are also evolution deniers -- as signers.
What we should do is start by establishing how many scientists believe in a personal god, because the number who literally believe in creation must be somewhat smaller than this.
In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham that appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. I doubt any of those scientists were creationists.
The most important thing to note here, besides the obvious fact that all these scientists happen to be Christians, is that none of these scientists who claim to accept the biblical account of creation are working with creation “science” or Intelligent Design magic. For example the creation “scientists” should have to demonstrate their (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result should be streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). Let’s see the creation “scientists” grow some plants that don’t need photosynthesis. Creationism is absurd.
Real science produces real results. We aren’t going to abandon evolutionary theory because it continues to produce results in several fields and has for over a century. Over a century ago a French scientist said that scientific theories don’t have to be true they have to be useful. By being useful though, they prove themselves to be true. If scientists want to accept the biblical account of creation that’s fine. But that belief is not going to add anything positive to the world of science and I think most of the scientists on your list know that. I think you do too.
I'm amazed that any Bible-believing Christian would bother to deny the obvious facts of evolutionary biology. The first reason I find this amazing is that the foundations of evolutionary biology were laid out in the first two chapters of Genesis long before Darwin -- it is only we limited humans who didn't understand it.
Second, what difference does it make if Darwin was racist, sexist, or any number of other evil things? He looked at evidence and found a truth. That truth has been substantiated by thousands of people in much more detail since then. Darwin is irrelevant -- if he hadn't noticed, someone else would have. And the facts, in the long run, do indeed show that there are no inferior races of humanity, because we all came out of a small tribe of primates in Africa.
Evolution is one of God's most stupendous and awesome miracles. Who else could have had the patience to do such a thing over so many billions of years? Why do people who claim to have faith in God continue to deny it?
Siarlys Jenkins
Theistic evolution is just as stupid as creationism. Why would God use a method of creation that makes it appear that he doesn't exist? I suggest you either stick with your flat immovable earth or accept science. Don't try to merge reality with superstition. It isn't going to work.
Boris, what is there about evolution which makes it appear that God does not exist? You are looking for a little folk hero sitting down in the mud to make little clay dolls, then waving a magic wand to bring them to life. Evolution shows the handiwork of a God much greater than that, one greater than 26 billion light years in circumference. If you want to play with silly questions, try this one: Who else but God would have the patience to spend 3 1/2 billion years creating humans, from the simplest building blocks to millions of generations of hominids, before finding a small number which could be isolated in a genetic bottleneck and used to form a hybrid capable of speech, artistic expression, and devising clever means to kill each other?
Mother Nature? Not just 3 and ½ billion years. What was God doing for the 9 or 10 billion years before our solar system even existed? I think the universe is much easier to understand without positing a bunch of unanswerable questions about something for which there isn’t any evidence.
Boris, you forget that the brilliant astronomer, Fred Hoyle, a convinced atheist, fought against what he called the "Big Bang" theory precisely because he could not accept that there was a beginning. He had proposed the "Steady State" theory of creation, in which every so often an atom of hydrogen magically popped into existence for no known reason. Now that required a leap of faith! The empirical evidence is overwhelming. There was a point where/when it all began, and time itself is one dimension of the material universe -- which means that a question about what God was doing for nine billion years or nine quadrillion quintillion years is irrational and meaningless. God exists outside of time, which is why Predestination is such a silly notion. Calvinists say that God can see into the future to see what is going to happen, but God is not bound by time. God sees it all at once, and to watch a man choose to do something is not the same as foreordaining that he will do it.
Now, as to the Battle of Lists, the "new atheists" are educated fools writing imaginative science fiction, and so are the Ph.D's who sign statements for creationism. It doesn't take much to get a Ph.D these days. I don't care how many Divinity degrees line up for Darwin, or how many Ph.D's line up for Creation Science, God did what God did. Deal with it.
Wrong. No God exists. Deal with THAT.
You want me to take that on faith Boris? Believe it because you are a prophet speaking with authority? What authority does an atheist speak with anyway? If plain truth, then you must substantiate your assertion. At the moment, you have demonstrated all the credibility of a spoiled child stamping its foot and demanding to have its own way. The universe, whether randomly generated or divinely created, doesn't work like that. If God doesn't love you, the morally indifferent world certainly doesn't.
If God doesn't love you, the morally indifferent world certainly doesn't.
Boris says: The world doesn't love anybody. People in the world do though. You're arguments are just about as silly as they can be.
Well Boris, you're not particularly lovable, at least if your posts here are the sole criteria.
But I wrote, in the spirit of your question on the post about polygamy, to provide (for those who claim there is no evidence of evolution) a citation to a book they should read before they make such a claim.
Fortney, Richard. LIFE: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Anybody may, of course, having read this book, question its factual validity, or conclude that the Bible is a priori true, therefore anything in conflict with it is wrong. However, nobody, after reading this book, could write off evolutionary biology as a theory lacking any evidence to substantiate it. That may be a comforting lie to those who profess "Creation Science," but a self-serving lie it is.
There is a great deal of physical evidence, carefully studied, which, when it is all put together, adds up to a very coherent body of proof. I would prefer to check it all out myself, but I cannot travel all over the world inspecting all the evidence, I cannot master every discipline necessary to study it. Therefore, just as I rely on electronic technicians for the reliability of my TV, I rely on the written work of people who have studied biology and paleontology, and then draw the best conclusions I can. I find no conflict in the Bible, so I have no problem accepting the evidence as a good approximation of what happened after God said "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the earth bring forth..." and then, much more specially, "Let us make man in our own image."
Boris~
I read through quite a few of your posts, but since I have two little ones running around, I couldn't read them all.
I'm sure that you could beat me in a war of the words any day...I'm not argumentative either, so that wouldn't help me. But I wanted to share the following...
When I was a young child, my neighbors told me that one day I would die and go to heaven, but that I would be put in prison. (Keep in mind we were 8 or 9 years old) They were witnessing to me about their Mormon religion. They explained to me that if I converted to Mormonism while in heaven that I wouldn't be sent to hell. Though my experience in heaven wouldn't be as great as theirs, since I didn't die a Mormon.
I was confused and my parents made arrangements for me to speak with my pastor about it.
I was young, so he kept our meeting short and simple. He just basically told me that living a Christian life was a good life and trusting in the Lord and always striving to turn from sin wasn't a bad life to lead. And after all, if Christianity is wrong, what's the worst that can happen...you can still go to heaven (even if it's 'not as good'), you might be reincarnated, or you might just die...nothingness. BUT, if Christianity is the only way and there is a heaven...ooops. Then the only option for non-believers will be hell. As a young child, I thought that made a lot of since. I still think it makes since. I follow God, help others, and try to love the unlovable...nothing harmful in that. If I'm wrong and there is no God, I will die one day and that's it. But if not...
Post a Comment