The lies roll off the man's lips like music off Yo-Yo Ma's cello. Both are virtuosos - one a cellist, the other a liar.
A partial list.
Bush had nothing to do ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney doesn't even support same-sex car pools." –David Letterman
"The head of ...
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman at a Saturday afternoon fundraiser in Colorado.
I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I ...
Rand Paul:
Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer.
We won't call Rand cynical. Ignorant, bigoted asshole is more fitting. An adult using ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has ...
I've never understood Log Cabin Republicans - gay conservatives who give their support to a homophobic political party that derides their sexuality and refuses to grant them equal rights under ...
Finally.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own ...
Election roundup:
Indiana.
As polls forecast, the Tea Party's efforts to cleanse the GOP of any impure conservatives has Dick Lugar out and teabagger Richard Mourdock in. Mourdock is the new Republican ...
There are lies...and then there are lies.
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what ...
From the papers captured last year at Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout comes this.
Like any public figures, bin Laden and his advisers were mindful of the media. Adam Gadahn, one ...
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor. Happy Friday.
"Today Mitt Romney visited a firehouse here in New York City. Of course, he was disappointed ...
It happened to Kerry. Can it happen to Obama? Nope says Margaret Carlson.
Obama’s belief system -- in that hopey-changey business and the post-partisanship thing -- has been altered by reality. ...
Sullivan:
What do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
A faggot.
Exactly right, but then could one expect anything different from a political party that ...
And they claim that atheists are immoral?
The ugly side of religion shows its face once again. The words below were spoken at a Sunday sermon by Sean Harris, a pastor ...
It's been fun watching conservatives and Romney twist themselves into pretzels trying to undo Mitt's past words on GM and bin Laden.
Romney, April 2007:
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth ...
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, a couple of scholars from liberal and conservative think tanks, discuss the state of American politics.
We have been studying Washington politics and ...
Romney's VP-in-waiting, Marco Rubio, is perfecting the conservative sleaze play.
He has proposed his version of the Dream Act in which people who entered the country illegally as children will be ...
Beyond the rhetoric, the political BS, the lies - that is, the concerted effort by the right-wing noise machine to distort and misinform at every opportunity - is the very ...
It was never a matter of 'if'...only of 'when'.
Two constituencies that President Obama is holding onto about as strongly now as he did four years ago are voters under 30 ...
New rule: if you believe that only God knows the age of the earth, then you have no right to be the governor of anything.
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, Sarah Palin’s successor, appeared stumped by a question about the age of the earth Thursday, choosing not to answer a multiple choice question regarding the matter during a gubernatorial debate.
“Only God knows,” Parnell responded, when asked if the earth was more accurately described as “6,000″ or “six billion” years old.
Democratic candidate Ethan Berkowitz wasted no time, telling the moderator, “I’ll go with six billion.”
Parnell’s answer did not go over without some skepticism, however. One person in the recording can be heard laughing, and another asks, “you really don’t wanna answer that?”
“I really don’t know,” Parnell then said. “For either one of us to do it is quite speculative.”
No you moron, the age of the earth is not speculative. It has been scientifically determined to be 4.54 billion years…and it’s not negotiable no matter what you think the Bible claims. This is not a matter of science versus religion. It’s a matter of informed versus stupid.
The anti-science party strikes again.
___
Help spread the word by becoming a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s Facebook page. Click on ‘Like’ here
The earth is only 6,000 years old and fossils are God’s little jokes he made to tempt us into being unbelievers so he can show his love for us by burning us in hell forever and ever. I remember well the Bible lessons I learned in childhood.
the writer of this article seems to have a bit of a bitter heart. Many people agree with the statement “don’t judge a book by its cover” but they do just that with the Bible, simply based on what our messed up society tells them.
It’s not simply based on what society tells them, don’t be a fool, it’s because of it’s warped and twisted “morals” and how easy it is to use it as a tool to suppress people and brainwash them into thinking ridiculous shit like that protecting your freedom means going into another country to kill innocents.
It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong here, what matter is how we enjoy or struggle in our daily existence and as long as we live in our planet…. just Love yourself and your enemy. After all everybody departs with good or bad memory.
Thank God it’s finally been settled that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Those scientists obviously know what they’re doing. Can you please tell me whether it’s butter or margarine this year?
Michael, if I went by society I’d think the Bible contained the answer to all of life’s questions. But I don’t. Having read it, in all likelihood, more than the vast majority of Christians, I know it to be just another work of fiction that a billion delusional grown up children happen to believe in.
Religion vs Science is like sending out Napoleon Dynamite to fight Mike Tyson. George W Bush vs Stephen Hawking. The average conservative vs a chimp. Ok, maybe that’s unfair to the chimp…
Michael,
The author of this post is not judging the bible anymore than he’s judging lord of the rings. He is judging a member of the government who is basing statements relating to science, on a work of fiction. Would you trust someone who based their statements on harry potter’s fictional world? what about Twilight? the only thing separating the bible from these works is some hundreds of years of time.
No Michael, people judge the bible by what is in it. Genocide in the name of god, rape, child murder, incest, hatred, a god that at one minute says he loves his creation, but is all too willing to kill or torture it on a whim. All of that is in the bible. God is not great. If he exists, he is aberrant at best, diabolical at worst. Most “Christians” gloss over the bad in the bible to focus on the “good” namely, the new testament. Unfortunately, there is plenty of bad to be found there. Like Jesus telling people they need to abandon their families, cut off their hands and poke out their eyes if they can’t avoid “sin.”
If atheists and agnostics seem bitter or angry with god, it’s because many of them believed for a long time in the invisible man in the sky who occasionally granted wishes. Then, one day they discover that this thing they believed in was all just a lie invented to control people and line the pockets of the powerful.
There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that god and the bible is a fabrication, and very little evidence to support that the bible is little more than a collection of fairy tales.
The cowardice of Atheism is quick to be brave when given the miracle of eternal preservation .I promise you mario there will come a day you will scoff at your own words .
Can any of the commentors or the person who originally wrote this article assert through their own means how you’ve come to the conclusion that the Earth is this old?
Everyone seems to have a lot of faith in carbon dating. How many of you actually know what it is and have been in the lab and done it? I can sort this out really quick and make everyone who is interested think twice about exactly how old the Earth is.
We’ve got a lot of clues, but we actually don’t know for sure.
“but they do just that with the Bible, simply based on what our messed up society tells them.”
Except he is not doing that at all. He is stating that anyone that claims the Earth is 6,000 years old is wrong; which is something the bible states. Therefore, the bible is wrong. He is judging the book by its contents. Don’t be an idiot.
To begin, with regard to C-14 dating: The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere — that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced. However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old…
Please cite any published, peer-review study in an accredited Scientific Journal that asserts or even suggests that carbon decays at a ratio of 1:1.
Answer: You can’t, because it hasn’t been observed.
RE: Wil, don’t blame genocide on religion. Genocide is as much about science, eugenics and depopulation. Horrible people want to hurt other people and they are horrible because they want to hurt a human being, not because they believe in a higher being.
“It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong here, what matter is how we enjoy or struggle in our daily existence and as long as we live in our planet…. just Love yourself and your enemy. After all everybody departs with good or bad memory.”
Well, some people enjoy their time on Earth by gaining knowledge and extending it to others. It is what drives them; and not only that, it many fields it has gone on the better our lives and allow us to live them better.
Then idiots come along and hold back advancements because their innaccurate book with no evidence to support it tells them to.
Don’t get me wrong; by view of Christians is not so warped that I believe them to all to be so abrasive about others accepting their religion. I do not know anything about the individual this article is referring to in question, he may not be doing any direct harm, but the ignorance he represents can be very infuriating.
I once read a napkin that told me that the napkin was the only true word of God because the napkin told me so. Why can’t you see through your ignorance and accept the TRUTH!
The bible does say that to the Lord that a thousand years is but the blink of an eye. So does that mean the world’s only been around for 6 blinks or has this big hunk of rock been spinning for several billion years? I’ll let you all contemplate that…
I think the Bible’s a great book. That guy Jesus had some clever things to say about some things. For example, he said to ignore the pompous blowhards that preach on and on about how great their faith is. Good advice, and it’s never steered me wrong. Thanks, Jesus! You’ve helped keep your dumbass followers away from me!
Idiots do in fact always speak louder… the empty can rattles the most.
NO scientist will EVER 100% surely affirm anything in science, even when you WOULD LIKE to BELIEVE that science has Definitely and Finally PROVEN exactly how many seconds old the earth is, this will never be the case; that’s NOT how science works, there will always be new research, new theories, new data that will change our estimates.Thus, as the governor said “For either one of us to do it is quite speculative” is exactly true in scientific terms.
If the age of the Earth “…has been scientifically determined to be 4.54 billion years…”, and Berkowitz said, “I’ll go with six billion.”, by ‘The Price is Right’ rules, he loses.
Oh, wise-and-wonderful Mario, would you please enlighten us and explain the many disciplines (and the various techniques used and their rates of accuracy) that collaborated to produce the final 4.5B estimate, without having to ask the internet?
Or, are you taking the 4.5B estimate (yes, it is an estimate) on faith?
That last paragraph is just awesome! I like the fact that it does not matter what you believe it is what Scientists have figured out.
charliesommers: Dude, that is a joke, right?
Ramon: Yes and no. People like to be aligned with other people. I do not hang out with people that kill. Why would I vote for someone that refuses to answer a question and cannot even try to smooth things over. Is that not what politicians do?
Mike: And God is always right? Is it right to ‘take’ people away because they have an illness or that someone killed them in war? What a great God!
Shane: I would rather refer to my first comment as sarcasm rather than a joke. I was raised in a fundamentalist family but as I grew older I was no longer able to allow faith to overrule my common sense. After all Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing what you know isn’t true.”
How many of you “scientists” has actually been in an earth year existence counting Seminar weekend ? How many of you know earth years counters as personal friends or demigods you fawn over as all knowing planetary counters ? i am certain none of you have .. None not one I am even sure most of you have the barest inkling of a credible science degree that gives you the knowledge to even understand the age of a common fly … talk less of a planet … If faith is believing what you know isnt true then a redefinition of truth ought to be carried out .i love twain’s writing but in my opinion he is not in a position as a writer to offer any sort of truth or dare advice beyond his excellent southern humour and episodes .like any writer he likes to play God once in a while
Wow this author is pretty bitter. How does anyone really know the age of the earth? No one alive was there when it was created. I definitely will not trust a bunch of “scientists” that are trying to tell me global warming will cause the end of the earth unless we allow the government to tax us more. Scams! Nobody knows I agree with the Alaskan guy!
The age of the earth is speculative. Scientist only have a vague idea as to the age of the earth. While we have been taking baby steps to understand the age of the earth, We really don’t have the exact age.
and will probably never have the age exactly. Speculation is not exact,but this is all we have. so the truism that only God knows has a lot of truth in the statement.
HC: You obviously didn’t read my post or at least comprehend what I was saying. God committed genocide in the bible. Not men creating genocide. God. Or was the great flood, killing all the first born in israel, Conquest of Canaan all just misunderstanding? There are hundreds of examples, all in the name of god, in the bible. Oh, but I get it, it must not be genocide when it’s done in God’s name, right?
Secondly, HC, Carbon 14 data is fairly accurate. However, it’s not used often anymore because there are over a dozen ways to determine the age of organic and inorganic material that are even more accurate. How about you stop reading your stupid “Answers in Genesis” pamphlets and creationist propaganda websites and actually investigate for yourself how scientists came to the conclusions that they did? Or is asking you to think for yourself, too much to ask?
Abi John, first of all what?
Second of all I find it quite interesting that you ‘believers’ are always ctriticizing science for it s flaws or ADMITTED mistakes, and never defending your own point of view. And do you know why this is? It’s because science is transparent, it is willing to admit that it is wrong sometimes, when new evidence is found. Key word here being EVIDENCE, meaning that science at least bases it’s conclusions or thoughts about the world on evidence. While religion has no evidence whatsoever, and don’t give me some bs about the wonders of the universe being evidence. In conclusion science at least provides some evidence while religion provides a book of fairytales and the misguided delusions of preachers, who are really just remnants of an organization who used the bible as a source for power.
Why is it that people who advocate a separation of church and state are willing to allow themselves to judge politicians based on their religious beliefs?
Also, Wil: Genocide was a word coined in 1944, I don’t know if that applies to something God has allegedly done or not. Biblically in the instances of Sodom and Gomorrah also littered throughout the Books of Genesis and Job among others we find that these groups of people had a choice. The consequences of their action while allegedly attribued to God were causal, not forced by the hand of a cruel higher power.
Evil by our standards is what you might call part of the system. It was designed to test you. It was not designed for you to test God.
Wil: Further, asking me to think for myself is sound advice. Take your own and post a link in the comments at your convenience with a Flikr showing your MS or Anthropology accreditation. There are not reliable methods of dating radiocarbons and there are not reliable methods of dating inorganics past a very small period of time in our alleged history.
Please also explain to me the intricacies of helium deposits, mud buildup on the ocean floor, etc. While you’re at it.
You came into this world just like everyone else posting on this website, probably through the same means and were educated. At your discretion you chose which worldview, or schema, to adopt, just like everyone else. So save your “I’m an individual” crap for someone else. If you’re willing to accept the premise of some of your scientific beliefs on the basis of faith (i.e., you weren’t in the lab with the gloves on next to the beakers) and decide to criticize someone for their faith (which is partly supplemented by fact), you do so only at the risk of everyone else’s laughter who gives pause to read your comment out of the dozens above and below it.
jimbob, Science is still the pursuit of truth. In any field of endeavor there are those who give the whole field a bad name by not searching for truth with as much vigor as they can muster. I see scientific theories revisited and updated much more often than I see religious dogmas given the same treatment.
The civil war had been over for more than 100 years before the Southern Baptist Convention admitted that their defense of slavery had been wrong. The Mormons waited until 1975 to finally admit that blacks were humans and actually possessed souls.
If the Bible is such clear cut proof of anything, why are there over 3,000 different religions that proudly proclaim they are Christian? If the Bible was not composed mostly of lies and ambiguities it seems there would need to be only one religion.
It’s all very simple. There is no god or gods, just like the fact that there are no witches, or elves.
The world is so so simple. We are born we live and we die. When we die those who remain live on and what was
our individual consciousness is gone. So what matters most
is what we do while we are here, so dont waste the short time you have.
HC: You still don’t get it. Mass murder is genocide, no matter what word you may want to use to describe it. Just because God did it, how does that make it right? Because it’s god? Second, ask yourself if this makes any sense. Of course, it probably will because you’ve obviously put up blinders to logic: God makes man. He makes man, knowing that he will sin and knowing that he will have to punish and kill his creation. Why? Free will? That explains nothing. Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.
Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command. God specifically killed his creation. It screams of sadism, not a just and loving god.
I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am not taking science on faith. I have actually bothered to read what science says and the evidence scientists use to reach their conclusions. What evidence have you supplied that god is real and exists? You’re the one making outrageous claims, yet you provide no evidence to support them. Where is your evidence, from a credible scientific source to support your beliefs?
I don’t have to have faith in science for it to be true. Science has evidence enough to support what it does whether or not I accept it or reject it. By the way, how weak is your faith in god that you have to have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs? Seriously, shouldn’t you simply believe in god without the need to find “evidence” to debunk science?
HC, provide your proof that science is wrong and I can guarantee it has already been debunked by credible scientific sources.
For all those out there that don’t understand carbon dating (which isn’t used to date the Earth’s age anyway…) here is some information. Other radioactive isotopes are used but carbon dating is for previously living organisms. Thanks for trying. Pump the break on being so retarded.
The author is spot on, but of course, there are those that no amount of evidence will convince.
For any who are sincere in learning just how scientists have come up with the 4.5 billion number, I highly recommend Dr. Christian Shorey’s podcast series from the Colorado School of Mines. (If memory serves, it is lecture 9 that deals with the absolute age of the earth, but the entire series is EXCELLENT for those interested in Earth Science.)
The ignorance demonstrated in about 40% of these comments is astounding. A physics lesson on the weak nuclear force should be required learning as part of the high school curriculum.
The bible supports true science in every way. It only records the beginning of life on the planet (i.e Genesis account of creation) The planet itself has been around for who knows how long.
You only reject it because belief in a Creator means you are responsible for your actions and will have to answer for them.
By the way, it isn’t a heaven/hell judgement destiny either, again, totally misinterpreted. It’s an ‘exist’ or ‘don’t exist’ scenario. Nobody burns forever or sings with the Angels.
Either you live by his logical, reasonable decrees or you mercifully ‘erased’. The line has to be drawn. It cannot continue, kind of like what Stewart and Colbert were trying to say this weekend.
We are not able to govern over each other, the proof is in our history for the past 6,000 years. Stop lying to yourself and wake up! Intervention by God is the only real solution to mankind’s problems, for our kids sake anyways!
There’s so much we don’t know. Intelligent design points to an Intelligence, no matter what Darwin or Dawkins say. Science is like Air Conditioning, it makes things comfortable, everyone debating and analyzing every issue, but it is still hot outside! Pray the grid doesn’t black out!
Nothing ever changes! Because it can’t it’s rotten, corrupt. If you’ve never prayed, say one for progeny’s sake, Subject: God, I hope you’re there and in control because we aren’t!
The Bible does NOT say the Earth (universe) is 6,000 years old. Obsessives who count the generations (all the JoJo begat JoJa stuff) make the claim of 6,000 years.
Am I the only one who thinks the person who answered “only god knows” sounds smarter than the one who answered “6 billion years”? Because 6 billion is wrong. It’s a lot less than that – about 4.5 billion years. However, an omnipotent god would know the answer more accurately than any scientist ever will until time travel is possible.
The only people that do not understand The Big Bang and Evolution do not understand math and science and they never will. They never sat down and actually TRIED to understand it. Most people that think the world is 6000 years old think that a THEORY does hold merit simply because it’s a THEORY; theories are derived from scientific experiments where true DATA is collected.
I have news for those that think theories hold no merit! If you think you are made of atoms, then you are wrong according to your own beliefs. It’s called Atomic Theory not Atomic Law. So, if you do not believe in Evolution as a theory, then you cannot accept that you are made of atoms either. There’s more… you can’t believe in gravity either. Why? The so-called scientists haven’t found what truly causes it yet – maybe it’s that theoretical thing called the graviton… or maybe it’s God’s hand pushing us down and holding us on Earth (not – LOL). By your own logic, you don’t exist according the fundamental LAWS and constants of the Universe. Yet you sit there reading this in your chair. You and your chair are being pulled toward Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 and not fade away into nothing because the atoms and molecules you are made of are holding you together thanks to an event that occurred 13.75 billion years ago and the mutations that occurred in your genes 200,000 years ago.
Something does not exist simply because you believe it to be true! This is why scientists use the Scientific Method. The same method that has determined all scientific theories and laws.
Earth is much older than 6000 years old. The age is never truly stated in the Bible. Lineage may be given of ancestors from folk lore but no true age is given.
Wil: I’m going to pick apart your response piece by piece, just for fun.
1. “Mass murder is genocide.”
I agree. However, ‘no thing is right or wrong but thinking makes it so.’ Are we also to agree then that aspartame (which is comprised of 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid and 10% methanol (wood alcohol). In the body methanol breaks down into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid) and has been demonstrated to share a relationship with incidence of brain tumors thus resulting in death is wrong also?
Does your advocacy of human rights extend to the food choices of your friends and family, or are their decisions to take actions that may irrevocably result in loss of life ultimately remain in their hands and is therefore “causal?”
2. “Just because God did it, how does that make it right? Because it’s god?”
Correct, if God does exist and He does do something then yes, it is right.
3. “Of course, it probably will because you’ve obviously put up blinders to logic:”
This reads like commentary so I’ll fan the fire with some of my own. You do not hold the gavel, nor the keys, not even the mop and trash bin of the universe kind sir. Your moral code about who should marry, if gay is okay, etc., ad nauseum, starts and ends with your blog and your voting ballot, not the rest of the galaxy.
4. “He makes man, knowing that he will sin and knowing that he will have to punish and kill his creation. Why? Free will? That explains nothing.”
Let me start by saying that’s not exactly how it all happened according to the Bible. Even if we were to assume for your benefit that it were, what does free will not address? Are you the Mesiach the twelve tribes have been waiting for that has returned with such boldness to question God? Afford me the opportunity to gently remind you that His ways are not your ways and His thoughts are not your thoughts.
5. “Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.”
According to the Bible, death was a consequence of sin which was a result of a choice made in disobedience to a set of rules God provided man with because He loved man.
6. “Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command.”
Are you implying that it would be more acceptable to you were it people killing under God’s command vs. God fulfilling his promise to keep His word (if you do X, I will do Y)?
7. “I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am not taking science on faith. I have actually bothered to read what science says and the evidence scientists use to reach their conclusions.”
“Science” doesn’t say anything, but people who study science do. Often what they say does not form a consensus. When it does, people who study science are typically very reluctant to assert anything more than that there is a relationship between X and Y or a correlation between A and B.
I, too, have been “bothered” to read what “Science” says about the world around us. I read one year that chocolate and carbs are great for my body and I read the opposite the very next. This pattern can be observed most easily in the health and diet circulations but also in the known universe and especially with regard to quantum physics. It seems “Science” is something we’re still learning.
8. “I don’t have to have faith in science for it to be true.”
If peer-reviewed publication asserts that there is a correlation between X and Y, or that their conclusion is A is likely caused by B or dated to be Z years old, it seems you may have to exercise faith by declaring something is absolutely true that even researchers have declined to commit that statement of certainty to.
If this is not the case, please submit your definition of “faith” contrary to the standard, Oxford-Webster variety so that we can all gain insight to your absolute truths here on Mario Piperni’s brilliant site.
9. “By the way, how weak is your faith in god that you have to have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs?”
God made everything, including science. Is it difficult for you to believe that in such a big place (e.g., our universe) that the two may co-exist? Is seizing an opportunity to preach the Good News to someone who may be lost indicative of a “weakness” in my faith? Are you also then qualified to determine the veracity of my faith? If so, how? Without having any faith in science, of course.
10. “Seriously, shouldn’t you simply believe in god without the need to find “evidence” to debunk science?”
If you are advocating that this is how someone believes, is it fair to assume the inverse is also true with regard to how you believe in science? Simply believing science, without the need to debunk? Rumor has it chocolate is in this year. ;)
Keep in mind, I never took a position on this thread as to how old the Earth actually is, not absolutely nor according to me. Wil here seems a little sore about religion in general (so does the author).
I will restate that we can not be absolutely sure and that we are still learning. Both positions require some degree of faith.
Anti-science, as the author describes it, is not the same as anti-certainty.
Wil Says, “Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.”
“Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command. God specifically killed his creation. It screams of sadism, not a just and loving god.”
Wil: First of all, God did not destroy (i.e. put an end to the existence of) His creation, simply because we are still here.
Secondly, you sort of answered your own question and also contradicted yourself. You asked why God would ‘destroy’ something that he professed love for? You also asserted that God killing His creation implies that He is not just. On the contrary, God is perfectly just, which is why He flooded the world, why He wiped out Sodom, and why Christ was crucified. If God is perfectly just, than He must administer perfect justice. If man was allowed to get away with whatever he wanted, then God would truly be unjust and wouldn’t even follow His own standards, making Him also a liar. If God must perfectly love, then He also must administer perfect justice, meaning those who rebel against Him will ultimately reap what they sow. You can’t accept one part of scripture without the other (i.e. love without justice), it doesn’t work that way. You were created, making you subject to the Creator, whether you choose to acknowledge Him or not.
As HC said, the people groups who were destroyed by God made a choice. Much like you and I both make a choice to accept or reject God, those people groups chose to reject Him, and God served Justice in its purest form.
Lastly, I can’t change your mind. You’re going to believe what you want to believe–the gift of free will. The only person who can change your mind is the Creator, and I pray that He does; not on the issue of the age of the earth, but on the issue of your heart.
HC: First off, if you believe aspartame is not dangerous and it would have been pulled off the shelves if it were.
You seem to miss the point entirely. If God exists then he has stacked the deck against his creation. For what purpose? To test us? Doesn’t he know our limits? He is supposed to be all-knowing, but if he isn’t then how can you say he is god?
That’s what you don’t seem to get. God knew what would happen yet still chose to punish his creation with death. If that’s how you see it then I will tell you this, God is an incompetent bastard and I would worship the sun before I would worship him.
I don’t think killing is acceptable at all, and that is why I find the concept of god unacceptable.
What you fail to understand about science is that it corrects itself when found to be in error. Religious dogma does not.
Here’s a thought HC, do you take gravity on faith? Or to you think god just holds your feet down? Gravity is observable. God is not. He has yet to show himself in a demonstrative way. He has yet to provide any evidence of is existence. Ancient tomes do not count because god has yet to make an appearance in modern times, even though the bible clearly says he or at least that Jesus can.
As for your argument about peer review literature: If a scientist has proved a hypothesis, it is a fact. It’s not something we take on faith. He has provided actual, physical evidence that it is correct given the information that was collected. Real evidence. Not a book of fairy tales. Not warm fuzzy feelings from prayer. Not excited utterances.
As for me being sore about religion? Not at all. I am at peace that there is no god and perfectly happy. As for your point of Number 3….Try turning that on yourself you self-righteous moron. You do not either. You are not above anyone else on this planet so get off of your high horse.
Science is not a matter of belief. No matter how many times you try to say it, it doesn’t make it so. You may chose not to believe in it, but it still exists. However, I can comfortably say your god does not exist because there is no evidence to support the claim.
Richard: You don’t get it. God created man. He created us, knowing we would sin. He made it a part of us and he punishes us for how he created us? That makes no sense.
Kyle: We’re still learning, that’s what I know. There is such a thing as certainty, but it hasn’t been decided in many subjects.
Wil: God knew sin was an option if we chose not to follow the rules, that’s different than damning us. God did not make us sin. In the end we are the ones who chose and who will continue to choose.
According to the Book of Genesis, man was not born with sin inherently. Sin was a consequence, a result. Our generation is among those that were born into that, in the same way we were born into paying taxes based on debt from wars fought before we were born.
You’re operating under the assumption that life is fair here.
Knowing what someone will choose does not deprive them of choice.
HC: I can see you lack the ability to see beyond your beliefs and come to any other understanding than what you decided to believe years ago.
I was once like you. I believed, I studied the bible. I read apologists so that I could have a clever counter for any atheist who I may cross paths with. But the more I studied, the more and more holes I found until finally I discovered that god is a delusion. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but a delusion none the less.
Wil: Does a robot hold the capacity to love? God did create man. God did know we would sin, which is why redemption has been planned for eternity through Christ. God created us with the freedom of choice so that if we did love Him, it would be genuine. Would you rather we lived in a world where we could make no choices? I don’t believe that would be much of an existence at all. It is difficult for us to grasp the concept of God creating us simply for His glory–that is, that we would love and glorify Him. It is difficult because we are self-centered due to our sinful nature. God did not create us with sin, we chose to be sinful(He created us with the ability to make that choice). That sin has caused us to put ourselves first, as if God exists to cater to our needs. It has caused us to put God in a box that sits in our hand; a box that we open when we need Him. Then, we get frustrated when God doesn’t act outside of that box that we’ve restrained Him in. Only in putting aside our ego and dying to sin do we begin to experience and understand the both immanent and transcendent God.
Wil: “First off, if you believe aspartame is not dangerous and it would have been pulled off the shelves if it were.”
I would suggest not placing such a blind faith in everything science does. not so long ago lead was perfectly good to use in children’s toys? I know we have come far, but questioning is important.
HC:”I, too, have been “bothered” to read what “Science” says about the world around us. I read one year that chocolate and carbs are great for my body and I read the opposite the very next. This pattern can be observed most easily in the health and diet circulations but also in the known universe and especially with regard to quantum physics. It seems “Science” is something we’re still learning.”
I suggest you read some solid science, look into electricity and magnetism, check out maxwell’s equations, see the real beauty in science. You cannot look at “popular” science in health and diet circulations and claim science is fraud. Also quantum physics is a beautiful theory and spending a little time learning it you too would see the beauty. That being said it is a theory and “real” scientists (vs popular scientists like dawkins) acknowledge that it is a theory.
I am not trying to convince you of science nor change your religious beliefs. I myself am teleological, and I waver between a theistic and deistic view, but as a physicist I do find myself believing in a “higher” power. That being said, it is time to abandon the science vs religion dichotomy. There is actually room for the two to coexist, not as opposing views, but complementary. You need to acknowledge that “science” has validity. Don’t forget the amazing machine you are using to read this, comes from our scientific knowledge, that same scientific procedure used to estimate the age of the Earth. By denying our “science” you are rejecting one of the absolute greatest gifts from “God”.
As far as the bible I believe it contains fantastic ideas, some very true history, and many great stories. But absolutely not in the least bit at all, and I believe this with every single atom in my body, the bible is NOT a book of science. Do not look for the answers there, because you will not find them. Manipulate the text, interpret how you will but they are not there. That was not the purpose of the bible. To quote Galileo in his letters to Christina “The scripture “speaks incidentall of the earth, water, sun or other created thing … sciences discussed in scripture to a very minor extent and with disconnected statements; … so little of which is contained therein that one does not find there even the names of the planets, except the sun, moon and… the morning star.” ” …Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning has been grasped”
I apologize for lack of brevity and any errors.
Looking forward to your reply.
Having faith in geologists doesn’t make somebody a good politician. Personally I think the I don’t know and I don’t care response is a lot more intelligent response than putting faith in some theory generated in the 1950′s of what the age of the earth is.
I hope that we are not picking our politicians based on their ability to reproduce random trivia on theories of how old the earth is whether they think it is 4.5 billion or 6000 years. The authors geeky clasification of what makes a good politician is a bit concerning.
Remember all the preachers, popes and tv evangelists that predicted the end of the world and it never came? I’ll take science any day. I’d rather fly a plane build by science versus one built on faith.
Why does it seem that all atheists are such angry people? It’s almost as if they feel they have some right to be closed-minded and judgmental. I already know what most of the responses to this will be. “All Christians are closed-minded and judgmental.” As a Christian, I have to agree with you on that. Most are, but not all. Some of us strive to be as open-minded and nonjudgmental as is possible to be. It just seems hypocritical to me that so many atheists complain about the behavior of the majority of Christians, but then they turn right around and do the same thing.
Just answer me this. As a Christian who harbors no bad thoughts of non-Christians, who believes in God with all my heart but would never wish to shove my beliefs down anyone throat, who will gladly listen to the beliefs of others without feeling the need to argue and fight, who strives to love EVERYONE as my God commanded, who do I hurt? How do my beliefs upset you so?
Kyle: I wasn’t proposing that Science is a fraud. I was simply remarking that a lot of science is speculative and subject to change. We’re still learning.
I think I said something about science and religion being able to co-exist above.
“HC: I can see you lack the ability to see beyond your beliefs and come to any other understanding than what you decided to believe years ago.
I was once like you. I believed, I studied the bible. I read apologists so that I could have a clever counter for any atheist who I may cross paths with. But the more I studied, the more and more holes I found until finally I discovered that god is a delusion. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but a delusion none the less.”
There’s a self-righteous tone in there that being behind a computer shouldn’t grant you automatically. It helps to be humble and for what it’s worth I will pray that you look past the internet and your life as a means of winning or losing. A lot can be gleaned from some of your verbage above.
This is not about attacking or countering. I’m disappointed you would misunderstand this dialogue as such. It is a fantastic idea to consider that not believing in something personally makes it a delusion for everybody.
I regret to inform you that you do not have that ability. Whether you are wrong or right, you’re right. As long as you don’t confuse that with absolute truths remaining absolute despite your persistence to refute without reproof, you may be able to avoid looking like a textbook description of something found in the DSM-V.
“Are you talking about the fossils of all those dinosaurs the Bible mentions? Oh, Wait…”
Dave: Argument from silence is fallacious. Secondly, the Bible doesn’t say anything about penguins or polar bears either. The lack of mention of Dinosaurs in Scripture doesn’t make it any less valid.
@ Mary. To answer your question…no one. If all people of religion looked at it as you do there wouldn’t be a problem… but…you categorizing all Atheist as angry is just a bad as categorizing all religious people as stupid. I think most of the anger you see is a direct result that some of us see religion as something holding society back from moving forward. Hate of other religious, denial of scientific evidence, civil rights of those who are different…etc. I have no problem with religion, but I do have a hard time picking and choosing what science to believe in order “fit it” with those religious beliefs. I grew up in a baptist family, and made my own choices based on what was the most logical. It always made me upset as a child when it seemed all morals were tied to the church and being “Christian”. “Can you be moral without being Christian? What about my friends who are from other religious backgrounds?” “What about my friends who don’t go to church or believe in god…they cant also be moral?” These questions drove me away from the church because I could never get a straight answer as a child as to what makes one religion right over the others?
I’ve never had these problems with science. There is either evidence or there isn’t, and good science is based purely on testing and logic. And I am ok with not knowing every answer in the universe and didn’t need a fail-safe answer for all of life’s unanswered questions. I don’t pretend science has all of the answers, but the answers it does provide are used in almost every single aspect of your life…including that computer you are sitting at. You can thank science for that.
@Adub: Your arguments do not follow in any coherent way. Science does not disprove religion or the existence of a God.
Your friends who don’t go to church or believe in God can be great people. By that I mean they can be upstanding citizens, contribute to their community and society and also be moral. John 3:16 does not imply that people who do not believe in Jesus do not have the capacity to be good people. What it does specify is that if you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God who died on the cross for your sins, you will never know God the father or enter the kingdom of heaven.
People who have sneered at those who put their faith in God concern me because it requires an equal or greater exercise of faith to be certain about subjects with conclusions inferred by science where science itself can not claim absolute certainty.
Why does everyone alive today seem to think we hold the keys to the universe and we have it all figured out? We [supposedly] don’t even know how the general public will react to a prescription medication until after 10 years. We haven’t cloned a baby, resolved Pi, completed the periodic table or confirmed the Big Bang theory.
Even if we had, science has done nothing to disprove the existence of a higher intelligence. If you believe in science you should also believe in other academic institutions such as mathematics.
For example:
So, what is probability? Probability, also known as “odds”, is a branch of mathmematics that measures the likelihood that a given event will occur. To begin, let’s look at some interesting “odds”:
* Being struck by lightning in a year = 7 x 105 or 1 in 700,000
* Being killed by lightning in a year = 2 x 106 or 1 in 2,000,000
* Becoming president = 1 x 107 or 1 in 10,000,000
* A meteorite landing on your house = 1.8 x 1014 or 1 in 180,000,000,000,000
* You will eventually die = 1 in 1
1. The Jews would have a hardened heart against the Messiah.
2. The Messiah would speak in parables.
3. The Messiah would be a descendant of David.
4. The Messiah would be born of a virgin.
5. The Messiah would be Immanuel, “God with us.”
6. The Messiah would be God.
7. The Messiah would be a “stumbling stone” for the Jews.
8. The Messiah would minister in Galilee.
9. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
10. The birth of the Messiah.
11. The Messiah would be the Son of God.
12. The Messiah would be the “Wonderful Counselor.”
13.The Messiah would be both God and man (the “Mighty God”).
14. The Messiah would be from everlasting (the “Everlasting Father”).
15. The Messiah would be the “Prince of Peace.”
16. The Messiah would be a descendant of David.
17. The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse.
18. The Messiah would grow up in a poor family.
19. The Messiah would have the full Spirit of God upon him.
20. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Wisdom.
21. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Understanding.
22. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Counsel.
23. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Might.
24. The Messiah would have the Spirit of the Knowledge of God.
25. The Messiah would have the Spirit of the Fear of God.
26. The Messiah would have a quick understanding in the fear of the Lord.
27. The Messiah would not judge on the basis of external representations.
28. The Messiah would judge the poor with righteousness.
29. The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse.
30. The Messiah would come for all people.
31. The Messiah would have the key of David.
32. The Messiah would defeat death.
33. Others would rise to life at the resurrection of the Messiah.
34. The Messiah would be the cornerstone.
35. The Messiah would heal the blind.
36. The Messiah would heal the deaf.
37. The Messiah would heal the lame.
38. The Messiah would heal the dumb.
39. The forerunner of the Messiah would live in the wilderness.
40. The forerunner would prepare people for the coming of the Messiah.
41. The Messiah would be God.
42. The Messiah would be as a shepherd.
43. The Messiah would be God’s sevant.
44. The Messiah would have the Spirit of God upon him.
45. The Messiah would please God.
46. The Messiah would provide “justice” to the Gentiles.
47. The Messiah would not draw attention to himself.
48. The Messiah would have compassion for the poor and needy.
49. The Messiah would receive guidance from God.
50. The Messiah would be ministered to by God.
51. The Messiah would be the new covenant.
52. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
53. The Messiah would heal the blind.
54. The Messiah would be from everlasting.
55. The Messiah would be sent from God.
56. The Messiah would come for all people.
57. The Messiah would be called to God’s service from the womb.
58. The Messiah would be called by his name before he was born.
59. The Messiahís words would be as a sharp sword.
60. The Messiah would be protected by God.
61. The Messiah would be responsible for the judgement of mankind.
62. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
63. The Messiah’s work would glorify God.
64. The Messiah would be distressed over the Jews unbelief.
65. The Messiah would be rejected by the Jews.
66. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
67. The Messiah would come to bring Israel back to God.
68. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
69. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
70. The Messiah would be despised.
71. The Messiah would speak with knowledge given to him from God.
72. The Messiah would not be rebellious to God’s will.
73. The Messiah’s back would be whipped.
74. The Messiah’s face would be beaten and spit upon.
75. The Messiah would steadfastly set his face toward his mission.
76. The Messiah would be justified by his righteouness.
77. The Messiah would place his trust in God.
78. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
79. The Messiah would be highly exalted.
80. The Messiah’s face would be disfigured from severe beatings.
81. The Messiahˆs blood would be shed to make atonement for all.
82. The Messiah’s own people would not believe he was the Christ.
83. The Messiah would grow up in a poor family.
84. The Messiah would have the appearance of an ordinary man.
85. The Messiah would be despised.
86. The Messiah would be rejected.
87. The Messiah would have great sorrow and grief.
88. Men would hide from being associated with the Messiah.
89. The Messiah would have a healing ministry.
90. The Messiah would bear and carry upon himself the sins of the world. 4
91. The Messiah would be thought to be cursed by God.
92. The Messiah would bear the penalty for mankind’s transgressions.
93. The Messiah’s sacrifice would provide peace between man and God.
94. The Messiah’s back would be whipped.
95. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
96. It was God’s will that the Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
97. The Messiah would be oppressed and afflicted.
99. The Messiah would be silent before his accusers.
100. The Messiah would be as a sacrificial lamb.
101. The Messiah would be confined and persecuted.
102. The Messiah would be judged.
103. The Messiah would be killed.
104. The Messiah would die for the sins of the world.
105. The Messiah would be buried in a rich man’s grave.
106. The Messiah would be innocent and had done no violence.
107. The Messiah would have no deceit in his mouth.
108. It was God’s will that the Messiah would die for all mankind.
109. The Messiah would be an offering for sin.
110. The Messiah would be resurrected and live forever.
111. The Messiah would prosper.
112. God would be fully satisfied with the suffering of the Messiah.
113. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
114. The Messiah would justify man before God.
115. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
116. Because of his sacrifice, the Messiah would be greatly exalted by God.
117. The Messiah would give up his life to save mankind.
118. The Messiah would be grouped with criminals.
119. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
120. The Messiah would intercede to God in behalf of mankind.
121. The Messiah would be resurrected by God.
122. The Messiah would be a witness.
123. The Messiah would come to provide salvation.
124. The Messiah would be the intercessor between man and God.
125. The Messiah would come to Zion as their Redeemer.
126. The Messiah would have the Spirit of God upon him.
127. The Messiah would preach the good news.
128. The Messiah would provide freedom from the bondage of sin and death.
129. The Messiah would proclaim a period of grace.
It has been calculated that for one person to fulfill even forty of the above prophecies by pure chance, the odds are 1 in 10-followed-by-157-zeroes.
(To give you a scale of how imporobable those odds are, there are estimated to be only up to 6 x 10-followed-by-79-zeroes atoms in the entire universe.)
That Jesus manipulated all the events of His life to purposely fit known prophecy is frankly impossible: He could not have chosen who He was born to and where, the events of his baby years and childhood, and the manner in which He died.
Even if you were to rightfully question the method used to generate such odds, if we are to assume that Jesus had a 50/50 chance of fulfilling each individual prophecy, also expressed as 1/2 chance you arrive at a number of 1.4e42 approximately.
Where did I say Science disproves religion? I didn’t. I simply detailed why “I” personally decided not to choose a single religion to think as correct. I was simply trying to answer Mary’s question why Atheists seem to be so angry. And by saying “I think” means “in my opinion”. It seems it is you who is judging me, no?
And your comment…”Why does everyone alive today seem to think we hold the keys to the universe and we have it all figured out?” You apparently didn’t read the end of my comment where I specifically say the opposite. “And I am ok with not knowing every answer in the universe and didn’t need a fail-safe answer for all of life’s unanswered questions. I don’t pretend science has all of the answers”
And then this… “it requires an equal or greater exercise of faith to be certain about subjects with conclusions inferred by science where science itself can not claim absolute certainty.”
And i’m guessing you can, and do, reverse that argument? That’s the beauty of Science….it does not pretend to claim absolute certainty…where as a large number of religious people seem just as “certain” if not more so in their conclusions with far less actual evidence.
I don’t at all try to disprove a higher power exists…but just as you have the right to your “faith”, I have a right to question mine.
I wasn’t willfully engaging in a dialogue with regard to your rights as an individual. I was asserting that it is not plausible to be certain about science when science itself is not certain without exercising some degree of faith.
You know, a lot of atheists will cry about how many people claim Christianity, but few have ever read the bible and blindly believe whatever they think it says.
Well, I’d wager a guess that most atheists haven’t studied (or perhaps even given a glance to) the scientific theory, experiments, research, etc. behind carbon dating. Most seem quite content to believe that the world is 3B years old one year and 5 the next, and now 4.5, without understanding just WHY the earth has been estimated at that age by certain god-like scientists.
I have more respect for a man who says, “I don’t know” or “I believe in God, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only HE knows how old the earth is,” than one who says basically, “I believe blindly that the earth is 6B years old because some man in a labcoat said so.”
@Unbelievable. You have us figured out. We believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old because of a “man in a labcoat”. I wish I knew the man’s name. I’d like to send him a thank you card.
Seriously, if your perception of science comes down to a “man in a labcoat” then you are remarkably ignorant.
And I do agree with that statement. I would argue though….that one of the two requires far more “blind faith” than the other. If you are asking me which is more plausible, and I’m not asserting that you are, the question is quite obvious to me. Which is why I choose to believe what I see as the most plausible. Not that the contrary isn’t plausible, just far less in my opinion.
To get back to my original point I will end by quoting one of my favorite authors, which by chance perfectly describes how I feel about Religions overall impact on modern society…. “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” ~ Isaac Asimov
@Unbelievable…. that could be one of the most ignorant things I have read in a LONG time. On the one hand you say you have more respect for someone who says “I believe in God, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only HE knows how old the earth is,”
Well how about this? “I believe in Science, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only science knows how old the earth is,”
Whats the difference?
I can tell you one thing…there is a hell of a lot more evidence pointing to 4.5 billion years vs. 6000 years old. So now who is blindly believing what? I can’t recall any college science classes teaching Theology…but we sure did spend a ton of time on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14, and the mathematics behind it.
@Really?: The lack of Theology in science classes does not make it any less credible. Likewise, the teaching of “old earth” over “young earth” does not make the “young earth” idea any less credible. Again, argument from silence is fallacious. It would be of similar principle to argue that the emphasis of modern philosophy in a philosophy class is indicative that classical philosophy is wrong.
“Again, argument from silence is fallacious.” This statement alone means we will have to agree to disagree. There is hard scientific data that supports a 4.5 billion year old earth. If you choose to ignore that evidence and/or dismiss it based on your religious “faith”, when a vast majority of the current, modern day scientific community is in basic agreement and has been for decades, your argument, or lack there of, holds little weight with me.
I’m going to say that evidence for an ancient universe is all around us, because scientific testing shows us that these stars are far away and their light takes a long time to reach us. Therefore, if we’re seeing light from those stars, and they’re a billion light years away, then those stars must have existed for at least a billion years. If you come back and say this is some kind of “Trick” or “illusion” from God, then what else is a trick or illusion? And if it is a trick to test faith…then the God you believe in is far more deceptive then any God I would choose to worship.
I have made my choice dear sir. My choice is to not “pick” a random religion because of scare tactics that have me burning in some made up pit of fire. If there is a god, I would think he would look at how I lived as a human being, how I helped others and/or lived a moral life. If he makes his choice any other way….then so be it, he isn’t a god I would wan’t anything to do with anyway.
It’s funny when you quote scripture to an Atheist like it proves some sort of point…Did you know that it is also written: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, that makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass — far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.” Stephen Hawking
Let me ask you a question…. Do Buddhists get into heaven? What about Native Americans? Hindus? Or do they have to believe in your specific version of God? How do you know you are right and they are wrong?
The earth is only 6,000 years old and fossils are God’s little jokes he made to tempt us into being unbelievers so he can show his love for us by burning us in hell forever and ever. I remember well the Bible lessons I learned in childhood.
the writer of this article seems to have a bit of a bitter heart. Many people agree with the statement “don’t judge a book by its cover” but they do just that with the Bible, simply based on what our messed up society tells them.
It’s not simply based on what society tells them, don’t be a fool, it’s because of it’s warped and twisted “morals” and how easy it is to use it as a tool to suppress people and brainwash them into thinking ridiculous shit like that protecting your freedom means going into another country to kill innocents.
Its beyond doubt that earth is older than 6000 years. Why hasn’t evolution gotten rid of stupid people.
It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong here, what matter is how we enjoy or struggle in our daily existence and as long as we live in our planet…. just Love yourself and your enemy. After all everybody departs with good or bad memory.
Thank God it’s finally been settled that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Those scientists obviously know what they’re doing. Can you please tell me whether it’s butter or margarine this year?
Because science is always right, isn’t it?
(Note sarcasm)
Parnell is a dumbass
Michael, if I went by society I’d think the Bible contained the answer to all of life’s questions. But I don’t. Having read it, in all likelihood, more than the vast majority of Christians, I know it to be just another work of fiction that a billion delusional grown up children happen to believe in.
Religion vs Science is like sending out Napoleon Dynamite to fight Mike Tyson. George W Bush vs Stephen Hawking. The average conservative vs a chimp. Ok, maybe that’s unfair to the chimp…
Michael,
The author of this post is not judging the bible anymore than he’s judging lord of the rings. He is judging a member of the government who is basing statements relating to science, on a work of fiction. Would you trust someone who based their statements on harry potter’s fictional world? what about Twilight? the only thing separating the bible from these works is some hundreds of years of time.
So Michael… is the Earth 6000 years old?
No. Right just because I read the Bible, and because I understood it, I know, that Bible can not be The Word of God.
No Michael, people judge the bible by what is in it. Genocide in the name of god, rape, child murder, incest, hatred, a god that at one minute says he loves his creation, but is all too willing to kill or torture it on a whim. All of that is in the bible. God is not great. If he exists, he is aberrant at best, diabolical at worst. Most “Christians” gloss over the bad in the bible to focus on the “good” namely, the new testament. Unfortunately, there is plenty of bad to be found there. Like Jesus telling people they need to abandon their families, cut off their hands and poke out their eyes if they can’t avoid “sin.”
If atheists and agnostics seem bitter or angry with god, it’s because many of them believed for a long time in the invisible man in the sky who occasionally granted wishes. Then, one day they discover that this thing they believed in was all just a lie invented to control people and line the pockets of the powerful.
There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that god and the bible is a fabrication, and very little evidence to support that the bible is little more than a collection of fairy tales.
“Because science is always right, isn’t it?
(Note sarcasm)”
I’m not sure you know how science works.
I’d be bitter too if the world was run by ignorant savages who still believe in Santa Claus.
The cowardice of Atheism is quick to be brave when given the miracle of eternal preservation .I promise you mario there will come a day you will scoff at your own words .
Can any of the commentors or the person who originally wrote this article assert through their own means how you’ve come to the conclusion that the Earth is this old?
Everyone seems to have a lot of faith in carbon dating. How many of you actually know what it is and have been in the lab and done it? I can sort this out really quick and make everyone who is interested think twice about exactly how old the Earth is.
We’ve got a lot of clues, but we actually don’t know for sure.
“but they do just that with the Bible, simply based on what our messed up society tells them.”
Except he is not doing that at all. He is stating that anyone that claims the Earth is 6,000 years old is wrong; which is something the bible states. Therefore, the bible is wrong. He is judging the book by its contents. Don’t be an idiot.
To begin, with regard to C-14 dating: The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere — that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced. However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old…
Please cite any published, peer-review study in an accredited Scientific Journal that asserts or even suggests that carbon decays at a ratio of 1:1.
Answer: You can’t, because it hasn’t been observed.
RE: Wil, don’t blame genocide on religion. Genocide is as much about science, eugenics and depopulation. Horrible people want to hurt other people and they are horrible because they want to hurt a human being, not because they believe in a higher being.
Get real.
“It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong here, what matter is how we enjoy or struggle in our daily existence and as long as we live in our planet…. just Love yourself and your enemy. After all everybody departs with good or bad memory.”
Well, some people enjoy their time on Earth by gaining knowledge and extending it to others. It is what drives them; and not only that, it many fields it has gone on the better our lives and allow us to live them better.
Then idiots come along and hold back advancements because their innaccurate book with no evidence to support it tells them to.
Don’t get me wrong; by view of Christians is not so warped that I believe them to all to be so abrasive about others accepting their religion. I do not know anything about the individual this article is referring to in question, he may not be doing any direct harm, but the ignorance he represents can be very infuriating.
I once read a napkin that told me that the napkin was the only true word of God because the napkin told me so. Why can’t you see through your ignorance and accept the TRUTH!
The bible does say that to the Lord that a thousand years is but the blink of an eye. So does that mean the world’s only been around for 6 blinks or has this big hunk of rock been spinning for several billion years? I’ll let you all contemplate that…
I think the Bible’s a great book. That guy Jesus had some clever things to say about some things. For example, he said to ignore the pompous blowhards that preach on and on about how great their faith is. Good advice, and it’s never steered me wrong. Thanks, Jesus! You’ve helped keep your dumbass followers away from me!
““Because science is always right, isn’t it?
(Note sarcasm)”
I’m not sure you know how science works.”
I’m not sure you know how sarcasm works.
How is this question relevant and
Scientists come up with a new number every now and then.
Idiots do in fact always speak louder… the empty can rattles the most.
NO scientist will EVER 100% surely affirm anything in science, even when you WOULD LIKE to BELIEVE that science has Definitely and Finally PROVEN exactly how many seconds old the earth is, this will never be the case; that’s NOT how science works, there will always be new research, new theories, new data that will change our estimates.Thus, as the governor said “For either one of us to do it is quite speculative” is exactly true in scientific terms.
If the age of the Earth “…has been scientifically determined to be 4.54 billion years…”, and Berkowitz said, “I’ll go with six billion.”, by ‘The Price is Right’ rules, he loses.
Oh, wise-and-wonderful Mario, would you please enlighten us and explain the many disciplines (and the various techniques used and their rates of accuracy) that collaborated to produce the final 4.5B estimate, without having to ask the internet?
Or, are you taking the 4.5B estimate (yes, it is an estimate) on faith?
That last paragraph is just awesome! I like the fact that it does not matter what you believe it is what Scientists have figured out.
charliesommers: Dude, that is a joke, right?
Ramon: Yes and no. People like to be aligned with other people. I do not hang out with people that kill. Why would I vote for someone that refuses to answer a question and cannot even try to smooth things over. Is that not what politicians do?
Mike: And God is always right? Is it right to ‘take’ people away because they have an illness or that someone killed them in war? What a great God!
David: Love your comment!
Shane: I would rather refer to my first comment as sarcasm rather than a joke. I was raised in a fundamentalist family but as I grew older I was no longer able to allow faith to overrule my common sense. After all Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing what you know isn’t true.”
How many of you “scientists” has actually been in an earth year existence counting Seminar weekend ? How many of you know earth years counters as personal friends or demigods you fawn over as all knowing planetary counters ? i am certain none of you have .. None not one I am even sure most of you have the barest inkling of a credible science degree that gives you the knowledge to even understand the age of a common fly … talk less of a planet … If faith is believing what you know isnt true then a redefinition of truth ought to be carried out .i love twain’s writing but in my opinion he is not in a position as a writer to offer any sort of truth or dare advice beyond his excellent southern humour and episodes .like any writer he likes to play God once in a while
Wow this author is pretty bitter. How does anyone really know the age of the earth? No one alive was there when it was created. I definitely will not trust a bunch of “scientists” that are trying to tell me global warming will cause the end of the earth unless we allow the government to tax us more. Scams! Nobody knows I agree with the Alaskan guy!
The age of the earth is speculative. Scientist only have a vague idea as to the age of the earth. While we have been taking baby steps to understand the age of the earth, We really don’t have the exact age.
and will probably never have the age exactly. Speculation is not exact,but this is all we have. so the truism that only God knows has a lot of truth in the statement.
HC: You obviously didn’t read my post or at least comprehend what I was saying. God committed genocide in the bible. Not men creating genocide. God. Or was the great flood, killing all the first born in israel, Conquest of Canaan all just misunderstanding? There are hundreds of examples, all in the name of god, in the bible. Oh, but I get it, it must not be genocide when it’s done in God’s name, right?
Secondly, HC, Carbon 14 data is fairly accurate. However, it’s not used often anymore because there are over a dozen ways to determine the age of organic and inorganic material that are even more accurate. How about you stop reading your stupid “Answers in Genesis” pamphlets and creationist propaganda websites and actually investigate for yourself how scientists came to the conclusions that they did? Or is asking you to think for yourself, too much to ask?
Abi John, first of all what?
Second of all I find it quite interesting that you ‘believers’ are always ctriticizing science for it s flaws or ADMITTED mistakes, and never defending your own point of view. And do you know why this is? It’s because science is transparent, it is willing to admit that it is wrong sometimes, when new evidence is found. Key word here being EVIDENCE, meaning that science at least bases it’s conclusions or thoughts about the world on evidence. While religion has no evidence whatsoever, and don’t give me some bs about the wonders of the universe being evidence. In conclusion science at least provides some evidence while religion provides a book of fairytales and the misguided delusions of preachers, who are really just remnants of an organization who used the bible as a source for power.
Why is it that people who advocate a separation of church and state are willing to allow themselves to judge politicians based on their religious beliefs?
Also, Wil: Genocide was a word coined in 1944, I don’t know if that applies to something God has allegedly done or not. Biblically in the instances of Sodom and Gomorrah also littered throughout the Books of Genesis and Job among others we find that these groups of people had a choice. The consequences of their action while allegedly attribued to God were causal, not forced by the hand of a cruel higher power.
Evil by our standards is what you might call part of the system. It was designed to test you. It was not designed for you to test God.
Wil: Further, asking me to think for myself is sound advice. Take your own and post a link in the comments at your convenience with a Flikr showing your MS or Anthropology accreditation. There are not reliable methods of dating radiocarbons and there are not reliable methods of dating inorganics past a very small period of time in our alleged history.
Please also explain to me the intricacies of helium deposits, mud buildup on the ocean floor, etc. While you’re at it.
You came into this world just like everyone else posting on this website, probably through the same means and were educated. At your discretion you chose which worldview, or schema, to adopt, just like everyone else. So save your “I’m an individual” crap for someone else. If you’re willing to accept the premise of some of your scientific beliefs on the basis of faith (i.e., you weren’t in the lab with the gloves on next to the beakers) and decide to criticize someone for their faith (which is partly supplemented by fact), you do so only at the risk of everyone else’s laughter who gives pause to read your comment out of the dozens above and below it.
Science is suppose to be the pursuit of the truth, but secular ideologies have changed all that.
jimbob, Science is still the pursuit of truth. In any field of endeavor there are those who give the whole field a bad name by not searching for truth with as much vigor as they can muster. I see scientific theories revisited and updated much more often than I see religious dogmas given the same treatment.
The civil war had been over for more than 100 years before the Southern Baptist Convention admitted that their defense of slavery had been wrong. The Mormons waited until 1975 to finally admit that blacks were humans and actually possessed souls.
If the Bible is such clear cut proof of anything, why are there over 3,000 different religions that proudly proclaim they are Christian? If the Bible was not composed mostly of lies and ambiguities it seems there would need to be only one religion.
It’s all very simple. There is no god or gods, just like the fact that there are no witches, or elves.
The world is so so simple. We are born we live and we die. When we die those who remain live on and what was
our individual consciousness is gone. So what matters most
is what we do while we are here, so dont waste the short time you have.
HC:
” If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old…”
Are you talking about the fossils of all those dinosaurs the Bible mentions? Oh, Wait…
HC: You still don’t get it. Mass murder is genocide, no matter what word you may want to use to describe it. Just because God did it, how does that make it right? Because it’s god? Second, ask yourself if this makes any sense. Of course, it probably will because you’ve obviously put up blinders to logic: God makes man. He makes man, knowing that he will sin and knowing that he will have to punish and kill his creation. Why? Free will? That explains nothing. Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.
Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command. God specifically killed his creation. It screams of sadism, not a just and loving god.
I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am not taking science on faith. I have actually bothered to read what science says and the evidence scientists use to reach their conclusions. What evidence have you supplied that god is real and exists? You’re the one making outrageous claims, yet you provide no evidence to support them. Where is your evidence, from a credible scientific source to support your beliefs?
I don’t have to have faith in science for it to be true. Science has evidence enough to support what it does whether or not I accept it or reject it. By the way, how weak is your faith in god that you have to have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs? Seriously, shouldn’t you simply believe in god without the need to find “evidence” to debunk science?
HC, provide your proof that science is wrong and I can guarantee it has already been debunked by credible scientific sources.
For all those out there that don’t understand carbon dating (which isn’t used to date the Earth’s age anyway…) here is some information. Other radioactive isotopes are used but carbon dating is for previously living organisms. Thanks for trying. Pump the break on being so retarded.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
@rubadub – Your simplistic theory of the universe appears to violate The Law of Conservation of Energy… Try again…
The author is spot on, but of course, there are those that no amount of evidence will convince.
For any who are sincere in learning just how scientists have come up with the 4.5 billion number, I highly recommend Dr. Christian Shorey’s podcast series from the Colorado School of Mines. (If memory serves, it is lecture 9 that deals with the absolute age of the earth, but the entire series is EXCELLENT for those interested in Earth Science.)
http://inside.mines.edu/~cshorey/pages/sygn.html
The ignorance demonstrated in about 40% of these comments is astounding. A physics lesson on the weak nuclear force should be required learning as part of the high school curriculum.
The bible supports true science in every way. It only records the beginning of life on the planet (i.e Genesis account of creation) The planet itself has been around for who knows how long.
You only reject it because belief in a Creator means you are responsible for your actions and will have to answer for them.
By the way, it isn’t a heaven/hell judgement destiny either, again, totally misinterpreted. It’s an ‘exist’ or ‘don’t exist’ scenario. Nobody burns forever or sings with the Angels.
Either you live by his logical, reasonable decrees or you mercifully ‘erased’. The line has to be drawn. It cannot continue, kind of like what Stewart and Colbert were trying to say this weekend.
We are not able to govern over each other, the proof is in our history for the past 6,000 years. Stop lying to yourself and wake up! Intervention by God is the only real solution to mankind’s problems, for our kids sake anyways!
There’s so much we don’t know. Intelligent design points to an Intelligence, no matter what Darwin or Dawkins say. Science is like Air Conditioning, it makes things comfortable, everyone debating and analyzing every issue, but it is still hot outside! Pray the grid doesn’t black out!
Nothing ever changes! Because it can’t it’s rotten, corrupt. If you’ve never prayed, say one for progeny’s sake, Subject: God, I hope you’re there and in control because we aren’t!
The Bible does NOT say the Earth (universe) is 6,000 years old. Obsessives who count the generations (all the JoJo begat JoJa stuff) make the claim of 6,000 years.
Am I the only one who thinks the person who answered “only god knows” sounds smarter than the one who answered “6 billion years”? Because 6 billion is wrong. It’s a lot less than that – about 4.5 billion years. However, an omnipotent god would know the answer more accurately than any scientist ever will until time travel is possible.
The only people that do not understand The Big Bang and Evolution do not understand math and science and they never will. They never sat down and actually TRIED to understand it. Most people that think the world is 6000 years old think that a THEORY does hold merit simply because it’s a THEORY; theories are derived from scientific experiments where true DATA is collected.
I have news for those that think theories hold no merit! If you think you are made of atoms, then you are wrong according to your own beliefs. It’s called Atomic Theory not Atomic Law. So, if you do not believe in Evolution as a theory, then you cannot accept that you are made of atoms either. There’s more… you can’t believe in gravity either. Why? The so-called scientists haven’t found what truly causes it yet – maybe it’s that theoretical thing called the graviton… or maybe it’s God’s hand pushing us down and holding us on Earth (not – LOL). By your own logic, you don’t exist according the fundamental LAWS and constants of the Universe. Yet you sit there reading this in your chair. You and your chair are being pulled toward Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 and not fade away into nothing because the atoms and molecules you are made of are holding you together thanks to an event that occurred 13.75 billion years ago and the mutations that occurred in your genes 200,000 years ago.
Something does not exist simply because you believe it to be true! This is why scientists use the Scientific Method. The same method that has determined all scientific theories and laws.
Earth is much older than 6000 years old. The age is never truly stated in the Bible. Lineage may be given of ancestors from folk lore but no true age is given.
Wil: I’m going to pick apart your response piece by piece, just for fun.
1. “Mass murder is genocide.”
I agree. However, ‘no thing is right or wrong but thinking makes it so.’ Are we also to agree then that aspartame (which is comprised of 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid and 10% methanol (wood alcohol). In the body methanol breaks down into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid) and has been demonstrated to share a relationship with incidence of brain tumors thus resulting in death is wrong also?
Does your advocacy of human rights extend to the food choices of your friends and family, or are their decisions to take actions that may irrevocably result in loss of life ultimately remain in their hands and is therefore “causal?”
2. “Just because God did it, how does that make it right? Because it’s god?”
Correct, if God does exist and He does do something then yes, it is right.
3. “Of course, it probably will because you’ve obviously put up blinders to logic:”
This reads like commentary so I’ll fan the fire with some of my own. You do not hold the gavel, nor the keys, not even the mop and trash bin of the universe kind sir. Your moral code about who should marry, if gay is okay, etc., ad nauseum, starts and ends with your blog and your voting ballot, not the rest of the galaxy.
4. “He makes man, knowing that he will sin and knowing that he will have to punish and kill his creation. Why? Free will? That explains nothing.”
Let me start by saying that’s not exactly how it all happened according to the Bible. Even if we were to assume for your benefit that it were, what does free will not address? Are you the Mesiach the twelve tribes have been waiting for that has returned with such boldness to question God? Afford me the opportunity to gently remind you that His ways are not your ways and His thoughts are not your thoughts.
5. “Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.”
According to the Bible, death was a consequence of sin which was a result of a choice made in disobedience to a set of rules God provided man with because He loved man.
6. “Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command.”
Are you implying that it would be more acceptable to you were it people killing under God’s command vs. God fulfilling his promise to keep His word (if you do X, I will do Y)?
7. “I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am not taking science on faith. I have actually bothered to read what science says and the evidence scientists use to reach their conclusions.”
“Science” doesn’t say anything, but people who study science do. Often what they say does not form a consensus. When it does, people who study science are typically very reluctant to assert anything more than that there is a relationship between X and Y or a correlation between A and B.
I, too, have been “bothered” to read what “Science” says about the world around us. I read one year that chocolate and carbs are great for my body and I read the opposite the very next. This pattern can be observed most easily in the health and diet circulations but also in the known universe and especially with regard to quantum physics. It seems “Science” is something we’re still learning.
8. “I don’t have to have faith in science for it to be true.”
If peer-reviewed publication asserts that there is a correlation between X and Y, or that their conclusion is A is likely caused by B or dated to be Z years old, it seems you may have to exercise faith by declaring something is absolutely true that even researchers have declined to commit that statement of certainty to.
If this is not the case, please submit your definition of “faith” contrary to the standard, Oxford-Webster variety so that we can all gain insight to your absolute truths here on Mario Piperni’s brilliant site.
9. “By the way, how weak is your faith in god that you have to have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs?”
God made everything, including science. Is it difficult for you to believe that in such a big place (e.g., our universe) that the two may co-exist? Is seizing an opportunity to preach the Good News to someone who may be lost indicative of a “weakness” in my faith? Are you also then qualified to determine the veracity of my faith? If so, how? Without having any faith in science, of course.
10. “Seriously, shouldn’t you simply believe in god without the need to find “evidence” to debunk science?”
If you are advocating that this is how someone believes, is it fair to assume the inverse is also true with regard to how you believe in science? Simply believing science, without the need to debunk? Rumor has it chocolate is in this year. ;)
Best Wishes,
HC
Keep in mind, I never took a position on this thread as to how old the Earth actually is, not absolutely nor according to me. Wil here seems a little sore about religion in general (so does the author).
I will restate that we can not be absolutely sure and that we are still learning. Both positions require some degree of faith.
Anti-science, as the author describes it, is not the same as anti-certainty.
Pick your battles, boys.
Wil Says, “Why create something you’re going to destroy, especially when you profess your love for that creation? If you loved it, you would not destroy it.”
“Secondly, you miss the point yet again: GOD killed people. Not people killing under god’s command. God specifically killed his creation. It screams of sadism, not a just and loving god.”
Wil: First of all, God did not destroy (i.e. put an end to the existence of) His creation, simply because we are still here.
Secondly, you sort of answered your own question and also contradicted yourself. You asked why God would ‘destroy’ something that he professed love for? You also asserted that God killing His creation implies that He is not just. On the contrary, God is perfectly just, which is why He flooded the world, why He wiped out Sodom, and why Christ was crucified. If God is perfectly just, than He must administer perfect justice. If man was allowed to get away with whatever he wanted, then God would truly be unjust and wouldn’t even follow His own standards, making Him also a liar. If God must perfectly love, then He also must administer perfect justice, meaning those who rebel against Him will ultimately reap what they sow. You can’t accept one part of scripture without the other (i.e. love without justice), it doesn’t work that way. You were created, making you subject to the Creator, whether you choose to acknowledge Him or not.
As HC said, the people groups who were destroyed by God made a choice. Much like you and I both make a choice to accept or reject God, those people groups chose to reject Him, and God served Justice in its purest form.
Lastly, I can’t change your mind. You’re going to believe what you want to believe–the gift of free will. The only person who can change your mind is the Creator, and I pray that He does; not on the issue of the age of the earth, but on the issue of your heart.
HC: is it just young earth or are you anti-evolutionist too?
HC: First off, if you believe aspartame is not dangerous and it would have been pulled off the shelves if it were.
You seem to miss the point entirely. If God exists then he has stacked the deck against his creation. For what purpose? To test us? Doesn’t he know our limits? He is supposed to be all-knowing, but if he isn’t then how can you say he is god?
That’s what you don’t seem to get. God knew what would happen yet still chose to punish his creation with death. If that’s how you see it then I will tell you this, God is an incompetent bastard and I would worship the sun before I would worship him.
I don’t think killing is acceptable at all, and that is why I find the concept of god unacceptable.
What you fail to understand about science is that it corrects itself when found to be in error. Religious dogma does not.
Here’s a thought HC, do you take gravity on faith? Or to you think god just holds your feet down? Gravity is observable. God is not. He has yet to show himself in a demonstrative way. He has yet to provide any evidence of is existence. Ancient tomes do not count because god has yet to make an appearance in modern times, even though the bible clearly says he or at least that Jesus can.
As for your argument about peer review literature: If a scientist has proved a hypothesis, it is a fact. It’s not something we take on faith. He has provided actual, physical evidence that it is correct given the information that was collected. Real evidence. Not a book of fairy tales. Not warm fuzzy feelings from prayer. Not excited utterances.
As for me being sore about religion? Not at all. I am at peace that there is no god and perfectly happy. As for your point of Number 3….Try turning that on yourself you self-righteous moron. You do not either. You are not above anyone else on this planet so get off of your high horse.
Science is not a matter of belief. No matter how many times you try to say it, it doesn’t make it so. You may chose not to believe in it, but it still exists. However, I can comfortably say your god does not exist because there is no evidence to support the claim.
HC: also there are many other methods to approximate the age of the earth, have a look at plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift.
Richard: You don’t get it. God created man. He created us, knowing we would sin. He made it a part of us and he punishes us for how he created us? That makes no sense.
Kyle: We’re still learning, that’s what I know. There is such a thing as certainty, but it hasn’t been decided in many subjects.
Wil: God knew sin was an option if we chose not to follow the rules, that’s different than damning us. God did not make us sin. In the end we are the ones who chose and who will continue to choose.
According to the Book of Genesis, man was not born with sin inherently. Sin was a consequence, a result. Our generation is among those that were born into that, in the same way we were born into paying taxes based on debt from wars fought before we were born.
You’re operating under the assumption that life is fair here.
Knowing what someone will choose does not deprive them of choice.
HC: I can see you lack the ability to see beyond your beliefs and come to any other understanding than what you decided to believe years ago.
I was once like you. I believed, I studied the bible. I read apologists so that I could have a clever counter for any atheist who I may cross paths with. But the more I studied, the more and more holes I found until finally I discovered that god is a delusion. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but a delusion none the less.
Wil: Does a robot hold the capacity to love? God did create man. God did know we would sin, which is why redemption has been planned for eternity through Christ. God created us with the freedom of choice so that if we did love Him, it would be genuine. Would you rather we lived in a world where we could make no choices? I don’t believe that would be much of an existence at all. It is difficult for us to grasp the concept of God creating us simply for His glory–that is, that we would love and glorify Him. It is difficult because we are self-centered due to our sinful nature. God did not create us with sin, we chose to be sinful(He created us with the ability to make that choice). That sin has caused us to put ourselves first, as if God exists to cater to our needs. It has caused us to put God in a box that sits in our hand; a box that we open when we need Him. Then, we get frustrated when God doesn’t act outside of that box that we’ve restrained Him in. Only in putting aside our ego and dying to sin do we begin to experience and understand the both immanent and transcendent God.
Wil: “First off, if you believe aspartame is not dangerous and it would have been pulled off the shelves if it were.”
I would suggest not placing such a blind faith in everything science does. not so long ago lead was perfectly good to use in children’s toys? I know we have come far, but questioning is important.
HC:”I, too, have been “bothered” to read what “Science” says about the world around us. I read one year that chocolate and carbs are great for my body and I read the opposite the very next. This pattern can be observed most easily in the health and diet circulations but also in the known universe and especially with regard to quantum physics. It seems “Science” is something we’re still learning.”
I suggest you read some solid science, look into electricity and magnetism, check out maxwell’s equations, see the real beauty in science. You cannot look at “popular” science in health and diet circulations and claim science is fraud. Also quantum physics is a beautiful theory and spending a little time learning it you too would see the beauty. That being said it is a theory and “real” scientists (vs popular scientists like dawkins) acknowledge that it is a theory.
I am not trying to convince you of science nor change your religious beliefs. I myself am teleological, and I waver between a theistic and deistic view, but as a physicist I do find myself believing in a “higher” power. That being said, it is time to abandon the science vs religion dichotomy. There is actually room for the two to coexist, not as opposing views, but complementary. You need to acknowledge that “science” has validity. Don’t forget the amazing machine you are using to read this, comes from our scientific knowledge, that same scientific procedure used to estimate the age of the Earth. By denying our “science” you are rejecting one of the absolute greatest gifts from “God”.
As far as the bible I believe it contains fantastic ideas, some very true history, and many great stories. But absolutely not in the least bit at all, and I believe this with every single atom in my body, the bible is NOT a book of science. Do not look for the answers there, because you will not find them. Manipulate the text, interpret how you will but they are not there. That was not the purpose of the bible. To quote Galileo in his letters to Christina “The scripture “speaks incidentall of the earth, water, sun or other created thing … sciences discussed in scripture to a very minor extent and with disconnected statements; … so little of which is contained therein that one does not find there even the names of the planets, except the sun, moon and… the morning star.” ” …Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning has been grasped”
I apologize for lack of brevity and any errors.
Looking forward to your reply.
Having faith in geologists doesn’t make somebody a good politician. Personally I think the I don’t know and I don’t care response is a lot more intelligent response than putting faith in some theory generated in the 1950′s of what the age of the earth is.
I hope that we are not picking our politicians based on their ability to reproduce random trivia on theories of how old the earth is whether they think it is 4.5 billion or 6000 years. The authors geeky clasification of what makes a good politician is a bit concerning.
Wil:
technically mass murder isn’t genocide…
gen·o·cide? ?
[jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Just saying.
Remember all the preachers, popes and tv evangelists that predicted the end of the world and it never came? I’ll take science any day. I’d rather fly a plane build by science versus one built on faith.
All Hail the Holy Napkin!
Yea – it truly knoweth the way to mop up spills
Why does it seem that all atheists are such angry people? It’s almost as if they feel they have some right to be closed-minded and judgmental. I already know what most of the responses to this will be. “All Christians are closed-minded and judgmental.” As a Christian, I have to agree with you on that. Most are, but not all. Some of us strive to be as open-minded and nonjudgmental as is possible to be. It just seems hypocritical to me that so many atheists complain about the behavior of the majority of Christians, but then they turn right around and do the same thing.
Just answer me this. As a Christian who harbors no bad thoughts of non-Christians, who believes in God with all my heart but would never wish to shove my beliefs down anyone throat, who will gladly listen to the beliefs of others without feeling the need to argue and fight, who strives to love EVERYONE as my God commanded, who do I hurt? How do my beliefs upset you so?
Kyle: I wasn’t proposing that Science is a fraud. I was simply remarking that a lot of science is speculative and subject to change. We’re still learning.
I think I said something about science and religion being able to co-exist above.
In response to the rest: well said.
“HC: I can see you lack the ability to see beyond your beliefs and come to any other understanding than what you decided to believe years ago.
I was once like you. I believed, I studied the bible. I read apologists so that I could have a clever counter for any atheist who I may cross paths with. But the more I studied, the more and more holes I found until finally I discovered that god is a delusion. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but a delusion none the less.”
There’s a self-righteous tone in there that being behind a computer shouldn’t grant you automatically. It helps to be humble and for what it’s worth I will pray that you look past the internet and your life as a means of winning or losing. A lot can be gleaned from some of your verbage above.
This is not about attacking or countering. I’m disappointed you would misunderstand this dialogue as such. It is a fantastic idea to consider that not believing in something personally makes it a delusion for everybody.
I regret to inform you that you do not have that ability. Whether you are wrong or right, you’re right. As long as you don’t confuse that with absolute truths remaining absolute despite your persistence to refute without reproof, you may be able to avoid looking like a textbook description of something found in the DSM-V.
“Are you talking about the fossils of all those dinosaurs the Bible mentions? Oh, Wait…”
Dave: Argument from silence is fallacious. Secondly, the Bible doesn’t say anything about penguins or polar bears either. The lack of mention of Dinosaurs in Scripture doesn’t make it any less valid.
@ Mary. To answer your question…no one. If all people of religion looked at it as you do there wouldn’t be a problem… but…you categorizing all Atheist as angry is just a bad as categorizing all religious people as stupid. I think most of the anger you see is a direct result that some of us see religion as something holding society back from moving forward. Hate of other religious, denial of scientific evidence, civil rights of those who are different…etc. I have no problem with religion, but I do have a hard time picking and choosing what science to believe in order “fit it” with those religious beliefs. I grew up in a baptist family, and made my own choices based on what was the most logical. It always made me upset as a child when it seemed all morals were tied to the church and being “Christian”. “Can you be moral without being Christian? What about my friends who are from other religious backgrounds?” “What about my friends who don’t go to church or believe in god…they cant also be moral?” These questions drove me away from the church because I could never get a straight answer as a child as to what makes one religion right over the others?
I’ve never had these problems with science. There is either evidence or there isn’t, and good science is based purely on testing and logic. And I am ok with not knowing every answer in the universe and didn’t need a fail-safe answer for all of life’s unanswered questions. I don’t pretend science has all of the answers, but the answers it does provide are used in almost every single aspect of your life…including that computer you are sitting at. You can thank science for that.
@Adub: Your arguments do not follow in any coherent way. Science does not disprove religion or the existence of a God.
Your friends who don’t go to church or believe in God can be great people. By that I mean they can be upstanding citizens, contribute to their community and society and also be moral. John 3:16 does not imply that people who do not believe in Jesus do not have the capacity to be good people. What it does specify is that if you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God who died on the cross for your sins, you will never know God the father or enter the kingdom of heaven.
People who have sneered at those who put their faith in God concern me because it requires an equal or greater exercise of faith to be certain about subjects with conclusions inferred by science where science itself can not claim absolute certainty.
Why does everyone alive today seem to think we hold the keys to the universe and we have it all figured out? We [supposedly] don’t even know how the general public will react to a prescription medication until after 10 years. We haven’t cloned a baby, resolved Pi, completed the periodic table or confirmed the Big Bang theory.
Even if we had, science has done nothing to disprove the existence of a higher intelligence. If you believe in science you should also believe in other academic institutions such as mathematics.
For example:
So, what is probability? Probability, also known as “odds”, is a branch of mathmematics that measures the likelihood that a given event will occur. To begin, let’s look at some interesting “odds”:
* Being struck by lightning in a year = 7 x 105 or 1 in 700,000
* Being killed by lightning in a year = 2 x 106 or 1 in 2,000,000
* Becoming president = 1 x 107 or 1 in 10,000,000
* A meteorite landing on your house = 1.8 x 1014 or 1 in 180,000,000,000,000
* You will eventually die = 1 in 1
1. The Jews would have a hardened heart against the Messiah.
2. The Messiah would speak in parables.
3. The Messiah would be a descendant of David.
4. The Messiah would be born of a virgin.
5. The Messiah would be Immanuel, “God with us.”
6. The Messiah would be God.
7. The Messiah would be a “stumbling stone” for the Jews.
8. The Messiah would minister in Galilee.
9. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
10. The birth of the Messiah.
11. The Messiah would be the Son of God.
12. The Messiah would be the “Wonderful Counselor.”
13.The Messiah would be both God and man (the “Mighty God”).
14. The Messiah would be from everlasting (the “Everlasting Father”).
15. The Messiah would be the “Prince of Peace.”
16. The Messiah would be a descendant of David.
17. The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse.
18. The Messiah would grow up in a poor family.
19. The Messiah would have the full Spirit of God upon him.
20. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Wisdom.
21. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Understanding.
22. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Counsel.
23. The Messiah would have the Spirit of Might.
24. The Messiah would have the Spirit of the Knowledge of God.
25. The Messiah would have the Spirit of the Fear of God.
26. The Messiah would have a quick understanding in the fear of the Lord.
27. The Messiah would not judge on the basis of external representations.
28. The Messiah would judge the poor with righteousness.
29. The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse.
30. The Messiah would come for all people.
31. The Messiah would have the key of David.
32. The Messiah would defeat death.
33. Others would rise to life at the resurrection of the Messiah.
34. The Messiah would be the cornerstone.
35. The Messiah would heal the blind.
36. The Messiah would heal the deaf.
37. The Messiah would heal the lame.
38. The Messiah would heal the dumb.
39. The forerunner of the Messiah would live in the wilderness.
40. The forerunner would prepare people for the coming of the Messiah.
41. The Messiah would be God.
42. The Messiah would be as a shepherd.
43. The Messiah would be God’s sevant.
44. The Messiah would have the Spirit of God upon him.
45. The Messiah would please God.
46. The Messiah would provide “justice” to the Gentiles.
47. The Messiah would not draw attention to himself.
48. The Messiah would have compassion for the poor and needy.
49. The Messiah would receive guidance from God.
50. The Messiah would be ministered to by God.
51. The Messiah would be the new covenant.
52. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
53. The Messiah would heal the blind.
54. The Messiah would be from everlasting.
55. The Messiah would be sent from God.
56. The Messiah would come for all people.
57. The Messiah would be called to God’s service from the womb.
58. The Messiah would be called by his name before he was born.
59. The Messiahís words would be as a sharp sword.
60. The Messiah would be protected by God.
61. The Messiah would be responsible for the judgement of mankind.
62. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
63. The Messiah’s work would glorify God.
64. The Messiah would be distressed over the Jews unbelief.
65. The Messiah would be rejected by the Jews.
66. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
67. The Messiah would come to bring Israel back to God.
68. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
69. The Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.
70. The Messiah would be despised.
71. The Messiah would speak with knowledge given to him from God.
72. The Messiah would not be rebellious to God’s will.
73. The Messiah’s back would be whipped.
74. The Messiah’s face would be beaten and spit upon.
75. The Messiah would steadfastly set his face toward his mission.
76. The Messiah would be justified by his righteouness.
77. The Messiah would place his trust in God.
78. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
79. The Messiah would be highly exalted.
80. The Messiah’s face would be disfigured from severe beatings.
81. The Messiahˆs blood would be shed to make atonement for all.
82. The Messiah’s own people would not believe he was the Christ.
83. The Messiah would grow up in a poor family.
84. The Messiah would have the appearance of an ordinary man.
85. The Messiah would be despised.
86. The Messiah would be rejected.
87. The Messiah would have great sorrow and grief.
88. Men would hide from being associated with the Messiah.
89. The Messiah would have a healing ministry.
90. The Messiah would bear and carry upon himself the sins of the world. 4
91. The Messiah would be thought to be cursed by God.
92. The Messiah would bear the penalty for mankind’s transgressions.
93. The Messiah’s sacrifice would provide peace between man and God.
94. The Messiah’s back would be whipped.
95. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
96. It was God’s will that the Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
97. The Messiah would be oppressed and afflicted.
99. The Messiah would be silent before his accusers.
100. The Messiah would be as a sacrificial lamb.
101. The Messiah would be confined and persecuted.
102. The Messiah would be judged.
103. The Messiah would be killed.
104. The Messiah would die for the sins of the world.
105. The Messiah would be buried in a rich man’s grave.
106. The Messiah would be innocent and had done no violence.
107. The Messiah would have no deceit in his mouth.
108. It was God’s will that the Messiah would die for all mankind.
109. The Messiah would be an offering for sin.
110. The Messiah would be resurrected and live forever.
111. The Messiah would prosper.
112. God would be fully satisfied with the suffering of the Messiah.
113. The Messiah would be God’s servant.
114. The Messiah would justify man before God.
115. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
116. Because of his sacrifice, the Messiah would be greatly exalted by God.
117. The Messiah would give up his life to save mankind.
118. The Messiah would be grouped with criminals.
119. The Messiah would be the sin-bearer for all mankind.
120. The Messiah would intercede to God in behalf of mankind.
121. The Messiah would be resurrected by God.
122. The Messiah would be a witness.
123. The Messiah would come to provide salvation.
124. The Messiah would be the intercessor between man and God.
125. The Messiah would come to Zion as their Redeemer.
126. The Messiah would have the Spirit of God upon him.
127. The Messiah would preach the good news.
128. The Messiah would provide freedom from the bondage of sin and death.
129. The Messiah would proclaim a period of grace.
It has been calculated that for one person to fulfill even forty of the above prophecies by pure chance, the odds are 1 in 10-followed-by-157-zeroes.
(To give you a scale of how imporobable those odds are, there are estimated to be only up to 6 x 10-followed-by-79-zeroes atoms in the entire universe.)
That Jesus manipulated all the events of His life to purposely fit known prophecy is frankly impossible: He could not have chosen who He was born to and where, the events of his baby years and childhood, and the manner in which He died.
You can find a source for these prophecies and their fulfillment here: http://www.messiahrevealed.org/isaiah.html
Even if you were to rightfully question the method used to generate such odds, if we are to assume that Jesus had a 50/50 chance of fulfilling each individual prophecy, also expressed as 1/2 chance you arrive at a number of 1.4e42 approximately.
0.5^139 = 1.43492963 × 10-42
Source: http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,26637,26871,27284,27357&xhr=t&q=0.5+^139&cp=8&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=0.5+^139&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=1&cad=b
This can also be expressed as 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000014 in 1 chance.
Food for thought.
Where did I say Science disproves religion? I didn’t. I simply detailed why “I” personally decided not to choose a single religion to think as correct. I was simply trying to answer Mary’s question why Atheists seem to be so angry. And by saying “I think” means “in my opinion”. It seems it is you who is judging me, no?
And your comment…”Why does everyone alive today seem to think we hold the keys to the universe and we have it all figured out?” You apparently didn’t read the end of my comment where I specifically say the opposite. “And I am ok with not knowing every answer in the universe and didn’t need a fail-safe answer for all of life’s unanswered questions. I don’t pretend science has all of the answers”
And then this… “it requires an equal or greater exercise of faith to be certain about subjects with conclusions inferred by science where science itself can not claim absolute certainty.”
And i’m guessing you can, and do, reverse that argument? That’s the beauty of Science….it does not pretend to claim absolute certainty…where as a large number of religious people seem just as “certain” if not more so in their conclusions with far less actual evidence.
I don’t at all try to disprove a higher power exists…but just as you have the right to your “faith”, I have a right to question mine.
I wasn’t willfully engaging in a dialogue with regard to your rights as an individual. I was asserting that it is not plausible to be certain about science when science itself is not certain without exercising some degree of faith.
You know, a lot of atheists will cry about how many people claim Christianity, but few have ever read the bible and blindly believe whatever they think it says.
Well, I’d wager a guess that most atheists haven’t studied (or perhaps even given a glance to) the scientific theory, experiments, research, etc. behind carbon dating. Most seem quite content to believe that the world is 3B years old one year and 5 the next, and now 4.5, without understanding just WHY the earth has been estimated at that age by certain god-like scientists.
I have more respect for a man who says, “I don’t know” or “I believe in God, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only HE knows how old the earth is,” than one who says basically, “I believe blindly that the earth is 6B years old because some man in a labcoat said so.”
@Unbelievable. You have us figured out. We believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old because of a “man in a labcoat”. I wish I knew the man’s name. I’d like to send him a thank you card.
Seriously, if your perception of science comes down to a “man in a labcoat” then you are remarkably ignorant.
And I do agree with that statement. I would argue though….that one of the two requires far more “blind faith” than the other. If you are asking me which is more plausible, and I’m not asserting that you are, the question is quite obvious to me. Which is why I choose to believe what I see as the most plausible. Not that the contrary isn’t plausible, just far less in my opinion.
To get back to my original point I will end by quoting one of my favorite authors, which by chance perfectly describes how I feel about Religions overall impact on modern society…. “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” ~ Isaac Asimov
@Unbelievable…. that could be one of the most ignorant things I have read in a LONG time. On the one hand you say you have more respect for someone who says “I believe in God, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only HE knows how old the earth is,”
Well how about this? “I believe in Science, as is my right in this country of freedom, and only science knows how old the earth is,”
Whats the difference?
I can tell you one thing…there is a hell of a lot more evidence pointing to 4.5 billion years vs. 6000 years old. So now who is blindly believing what? I can’t recall any college science classes teaching Theology…but we sure did spend a ton of time on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14, and the mathematics behind it.
@Really?: The lack of Theology in science classes does not make it any less credible. Likewise, the teaching of “old earth” over “young earth” does not make the “young earth” idea any less credible. Again, argument from silence is fallacious. It would be of similar principle to argue that the emphasis of modern philosophy in a philosophy class is indicative that classical philosophy is wrong.
“Again, argument from silence is fallacious.” This statement alone means we will have to agree to disagree. There is hard scientific data that supports a 4.5 billion year old earth. If you choose to ignore that evidence and/or dismiss it based on your religious “faith”, when a vast majority of the current, modern day scientific community is in basic agreement and has been for decades, your argument, or lack there of, holds little weight with me.
I’m going to say that evidence for an ancient universe is all around us, because scientific testing shows us that these stars are far away and their light takes a long time to reach us. Therefore, if we’re seeing light from those stars, and they’re a billion light years away, then those stars must have existed for at least a billion years. If you come back and say this is some kind of “Trick” or “illusion” from God, then what else is a trick or illusion? And if it is a trick to test faith…then the God you believe in is far more deceptive then any God I would choose to worship.
It would be better to make a choice while you have one. :) With regard to your eventual death, it is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
Romans 14:11
I have made my choice dear sir. My choice is to not “pick” a random religion because of scare tactics that have me burning in some made up pit of fire. If there is a god, I would think he would look at how I lived as a human being, how I helped others and/or lived a moral life. If he makes his choice any other way….then so be it, he isn’t a god I would wan’t anything to do with anyway.
It’s funny when you quote scripture to an Atheist like it proves some sort of point…Did you know that it is also written: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, that makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass — far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.” Stephen Hawking
Let me ask you a question…. Do Buddhists get into heaven? What about Native Americans? Hindus? Or do they have to believe in your specific version of God? How do you know you are right and they are wrong?