Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, is one year away from opening up what is to be the world’s only premiere Creation Museum. The museum is a $25 million, 50,000 sq ft facility that will serve as a tool to teach the "true" story of creation–that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago. Full story here.
Ham contends that this museum will provide Christians the necessary tools to prove that, "the Bible is true and that the Christian faith can be logically defended." Furthermore, the museum will explain the "real" history of dinosaurs. This will be a place where, "parents, their children, and youth groups can get solid answers to counter the anti-Christian attacks of our day." "Visitors will leave knowing how to use the Bible to build their thinking in all areas."
If you think this is just another crazy project that won’t take off, think again. They have already raised $21 million and construction is well underway. The museum itself is $14 million, and the rest will be spent on acquiring exhibits from all over the world.
This really disturbs me because they are positioning this museum as a weapon against evolution. Evolution is science and is based on countless years of research, physical evidence, and methodical testing. The story of Genesis is not science and is best described by Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were.
This is borderline insanity. Check out what John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, had to say on this matter… "The museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life."
"Americans just aren’t gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish."
Well John, I think you overestimate Americans because they certainly were ignorant enough to donate $21 million dollars to what amounts to nothing more than a Fairy Tale museum.
Feel free to chime in on this one.
Related posts:
- Creation Science Cartoon
- The Evolution Of Summer Camp
- Lord Spanky Speaketh Of Creation And Evolution
- Apocalypse Now!
- RE: There Is No God
July 31st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
“If we must play the theological game, let us never forget that it is a game. Religion, it seems to me, can survive only as a consciously accepted system of make-believe. . . .
“You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. . . . Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat’s meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.”
– Aldous Huxley, Texts and Pretexts,1932
July 31st, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I believe this museum will give much needed balance to the often one sided argument about evolution. This argument is not one sided on the strength of the evidence, but on the theology that evolution provides. Evolution is the platform for chance existence and therefore relative morality. If we have no creator, then we cannot be held eternally accountable for our choices. This is a convenient theology for those that want to profit, personally or monetarily, from drugs, sex and other vices. I was taught, and excepted, evolution as a student in the public school system. I was never shown the flaws in evolutionary theory. As an adult, I have taken it upon myself to investigate the strength of this theory and have found it to be lacking. The strongest argument to me has been the evidence, both physical (DNA) and recorded (Bible). I often see people cite that “most respected scientists believes in evolution.” This is a flawed argument that relies on plurality for truth. I would encourage everyone to evaluate the evidence for yourself. Isn’t our eternal fate worth it?
August 1st, 2006 at 12:04 am
Perhaps the museum can explain why god only cared about saving his Jewish “lambs” until Jesus (the guy who was supposedly to save the Jewish people) came about. Then suddenly he was set on a quest to convert the whole world that he is the one true god.
And why till this very day does this ex-jew god only have the hearts of less then a 3rd of the world in his cult? After all, if he is the one true god, you’d think he’d at least have a better approval rating then bush.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:47 am
In response to Jason’s comments:
“Evolution is the platform for chance existence and therefore relative morality. If we have no creator, then we cannot be held eternally accountable for our choices. This is a convenient theology for those that want to profit, personally or monetarily, from drugs, sex and other vices.”
-Evolution is a science, regardless of the moral applipations, or social consequences. Not that it is of any importance, but just because someone doesnt believe a god will punish them doesnt mean they will find (some of) these acts acceptable. Bottom line, Think for yourself.
“I was never shown the flaws in evolutionary theory. ”
-What flaws?
“The strongest argument to me has been the evidence, both physical (DNA) and recorded (Bible).”
-The bible is not recorded evidence, it is an interpretation from people who didnt (and couldnt have) know better.
“I often see people cite that “most respected scientists believes in evolution.†This is a flawed argument that relies on plurality for truth.”
-This isnt an argument (you just called it that), it’s just a fact.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:54 am
@Jason
Yes, evaluating evidence for yourself is ideal. But impractical for all situations. I haven’t been through enough scientific training and read enough studies to know that quarks/leptons/etc exist. I realize it’s possible that they don’t, and there’s some conspiracy within the scientific community about them. And I do acknowledge that science doesn’t hold all the answers; some years ago Newtonian physics was thought to describe the universe, and then relativity came along, then quantum theory. So should I go major in physics so I can run experiments myself to verify all of this? Or should I somehow learn to evaluate the methods and reasoning used by certain people and then put a certain level of trust in what they say? The latter is practical, the formal is not. Let’s face it, we can’t all be experts at everything.
You claim evolution is different because it clashes with a certain belief system that would greatly change my views on life. But I see the products of science all around me, the computer I’m using, the car I drive, etc. I have some trust in science and what the ’scientific community’ says because it fits with what my senses tell me. The only way I see the influence of religion is in the structure it has imposed on my society. So tell me, since I have limited amounts of time and effort to spend, why should I bother investigating a claim of people who have not shown me any evidence, and whose claims clash with what I sense? Obviously not based on religion’s popularity, as you just said that plurality is not a good argument for truth. Based on the fact that the reward/punishment is great and eternal? Well, there’s hundreds of different religions out there, many of which propose an eternal reward/punishment. Should I investigate them all? If not, then why? Plurality?
I have applied a small amount of my time to considering and discarding religious beliefs. If you want me to spend more, you’ll need a better argument than plurality or the threat of eternal reward/damnation. “Isn’t our eternal fate worth it?” rests on the assumption of an eternal fate, and using it to prove that we should evaluate religion is flawed.
As for the ‘then we cannot be held eternally accountable for our choices’… You say this as a factual very horrible thing. I for one hope I won’t be held eternally acountable for my choices, I like the idea of being able to change myself and even the idea of forgiveness. Which strangely, seem to be tenants of some of the big religions. Many Christians preach that all actions will be forgiven if at the moment of death you believe that Jesus is your savior. How does that jive with eternal accountability? And if we are not eternally acountable, are you saying that mankind will have no moral structure? That it’s only in our best interests to be kind to each other if it’s going to come back to haunt us in the afterlife? You sir, are an amazing cynic. And consider for a moment, that (as I believe) if we rationally do what is best for us on this earth we might have a great moral code right there. You don’t need ‘thou shalt not kill’ if you realize that killing is not acceptable in a functional society. By virtue of the fact that you want to have rights like life, liberty, and even the pursuit of happiness, you will accept a code that guarantees that for society. Not to be an anarchist, just to say that religion is not the only reason for morals.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:08 am
Oh praise be to biblegod! 25 million dollars doing the true work of the lord! Forget the poor and hungry. To hell with the sick and suffering. We need a Bible Museum! All praise be to he on high!
Or should it be all praise to those that are high? I don’t know anymore. I’m a little bitter at all this so called christian charity. So much more work could be done if they ever decided to use this money wisely instead of building effigies to nonsense.
Having the misfortune of living next to Atlanta (only a misfortune at this time of year, Atlanta’s probably the best place an educated Georgian can live) I’ve just had to watch MegaFest roll through. MegaFest! A 4.5 Million dollar (at the least) celebration of god and his glory! All paid for by lower class black families from all over Georgia and surrounding states. 4.5M, all of which disapears after that week, never to be seen again. You have made my father’s house a den of theives! That ring a bell? Do not be like the hypocrites who shout their praise in the streets! Familiar at all? No? Don’t recognize these? Jesus anyone? Idealogue and centerpiece of the religion? Eh, probably not that important. I mean, we aren’t supposed to take everything in the bible literally right?
August 1st, 2006 at 1:31 am
I’m intested to see how long “the Bible is true and that the Christian faith can be logically defended” stands in a scientific debate until the preacing starts.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:38 am
“the Bible is true and that the Christian faith can be logically defended.”
I do find this claim so peculiar. Christians say Bible is true but which part of it? Many of them recite verses from the old testament which depicts the history of Jews but would not the new testament be the only part acceptable to Christians? That bit has always bothered me.
And in my opinion the new testament has merely one sentence which people should read.
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
That is something to live by and seems to sum up what Christianity and all religions should be about.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:36 am
Yes Confucious had a similar rule.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:17 am
Perhaps a Pastafarianists’ museum would be good. With crystallised rat’s intestine and noodle, and some sort of story tying it all together into a highly convincing but ultimately bullshitty theory of creation.
It’s not that dissimilar to what these freaks are proposing.
August 1st, 2006 at 8:14 am
If we have no creator, then we cannot be held eternally accountable for our choices.
A logical fallacy if ever I’ve seen one. I could have been created completely independently of the force that will dish out my rewards or punishments after I die (I believe this is the Buddhist perspective?).
Alternatively, accountability could easily be derived from the ‘golden rule’ of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’: Obviously I would’ve preferred to’ve been brought into a world that was better, so I should work towards bringing future generations into a world that is better. In that regard, I am accountable to future generations; after all, I am only borrowing the world off ’em for an all-too-short time. (IIUC, this is the humanistic perspective?)
Furthermore, being held æternally accountable is only one form of motivator to do good or not to do bad; being held accountable for the time I’m here is another motivator. For instance, I could be jailed or ostracised if I engage in the drug- or sex-trades.
Of course, the absence of æternal accountability might make some evil: But people have been evil even when Christianity dominated Western theology and learning.
(An interesting cite you keep here. I’ll not disclose my religious affilitiation, and ask you to conclude nothing based on my above post, but will continue poking around for a while…)
August 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
As stated by a very clever chap - “without religion you would have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things - it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.”
August 1st, 2006 at 10:37 am
I couldn’t help laughing when I read this. People are morons. You can’t debate with a believer, you have to be open-minded to actually consider someone elses point of view. If they accept that they COULD be wrong then the whole fairy tale falls apart. Ask a believer why giants and angels sleeping with human women got retconned out of the bible and see how quickly things go south. And that’s just one thing that’s changed in my less than forty years living, imagine one-thousand years or more.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
I know exactly what you mean by saying that you can’t argue with a believer. I used to debate all the time on this one fundie forum site (I likned to this site form it) until I realized that. Having said that, I think that the evoluton/ID debate is a matter of respect. With ID, you must look back in awe at the omnipotence that created you. evolution is all about great things comng from not-so-great prototypes. As a Darwinist, I can proudly say that on average, my generation will be greater than the previous one. Also, with evolution, sex is an advantage. With creation (at least the chirstian version) sex is a sin.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Alexander,
“A logical fallacy if ever I’ve seen one. I could have been created completely independently of the force that will dish out my rewards or punishments after I die (I believe this is the Buddhist perspective?).”
No, in Buddhism, nothing is independent. All is connected and the law of karma is all that is needed to dish out “rewards and pushiments.” Although those words are a bit of a misnomer because “rewards and pushishment” implies some kind of behavioral modification system where the law of karma is little more than cause and effect. It amounts to “what goes around comes around.”
-matthew
August 1st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
What truly is a pity is how so many can come together and pass judgements on something they know so little on. While you all seem open to take in any scientist viewpoints against Creation, be it through the theory of Evolution or by way of carbon dating you state many points which could all be answered by actually looking at the other side. Which is hard, seeing as I have found many people who claim to be Christians as un-knowledgeable as those they speak to. I have seen various posts and even people I have come in contact with outright tell me that sex in the bible and as a Christian is a sin or wrong. This is both correct and incorrect…It is said to be a sin to fornicate with someone out of wedlock. However having sexual relations with your spouse is not a sin or wrong at all. It is merely when you step out of the boundries of marriage that it becomes a sin. This, along with many other points I have heard come from merely no investigation in the debate between the side they refute and often times the side they support. Which only makes it more difficult to answer any misconceptions that probably stem from another believer’s mistake. Moral of the story, yes you are entitled to your own belief whether that be atheism, evolution or another religion but I encourage you to seek answers to anything you don’t see as matching up within the bible by reading it yourself. Foolish of me to sugguest it as I will likely be laughed at but whatever, just don’t take any information another person spoon feeds you whether it’s from a man/woman of science or a Christian without learning more yourself.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I have an idea, let’s burn it to the ground because it violates our beleif’s of the self. Anyone, any takers? Violent protest? Come on, we could even wait until it’s full of beleivers?
(See Gasmondo, no cursing and I’m making a point)
Isn’t anyone even slightly angry that they’re allowed to pass off beleif as science in public? I mean surely we’ve ALL seen the benefits of Science right? I won’t even go into it, but how does this even get past the people that REGULATE and CLASSIFY sciencentific progress? I mean surely the people behind the “Creationalism” idea could be sued for defamation of character or something?
Freedom of Religion should be changed to include freedom FROM relgion. I am SOOOO glad I don’t live in the US, you people are gonna get nuked.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
If god existed this wouldn’t be question. Step down from on high and viola! Of course with the ultimate comeback “god moves in mysterious ways” who can argue? Some caveman talking to a burning bush rates, but someone who capable of abstract reasoning doesn’t? What a joke.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Hello Elliot,
Well Christians would say that God did directly reveal him/her/its-self. They would probably point to the Old Testament as evidence. I don’t buy that argument, but I thought I’d make you aware of one of their possible responses.
Also, there are other plausible explanations for why God doesn’t directly reveal his/her/its own existence. Note that most of these explanations would be rejected by Christians.
1. God doesn’t exist
2. God no longer exists
3. God doesn’t have the power to reveal his/her/its-self
4. God doesn’t know that there are people doubting God’s existence
5. God doesn’t care if humans believe in him/her/it
These are only the ones that I can think of.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Hello sidfaiwu,
For myself I could take each of those arguments and debate the merits of each, but I’m atheist. A believer, a christian, can accept none of them, to them god is eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful and REQUIRES worship. When I get tired of arguing with believers I tell them the moment I, personally, get irrefutable proof of god’s existence I’ll believe. I’m still waiting.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
in response to shaze:
“Freedom of Religion should be changed to include freedom FROM relgion. I am SOOOO glad I don’t live in the US, you people are gonna get nuked.”
I’m not saying I disagree with you, but freedom of religion is the best anyone has done. It keeps the zealots from attaining too much power (their power has spiked in the US recently is will no doubt decline soon… people are sick of Bush). Whereever you live is probably run by religious morons too, just with less power. Atheists are a minority pretty much everywhere you go.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Hello Elliott,
I don’t make any claims about the relative validity of any of those five possibilities. Nor am I trying to convert you from your atheism. I’m just pointing out that there are multiple explanations. It was also a kind of challenge for others to come up with other explanations.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
BTW, to anyone that hasnt seen it.
http://www.venganza.org/
This site points out the stupidity of creationism like no other.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Hello sidfaiwu,
I didn’t think you were, I was just commenting as well. Sorry if it sounded like an attack.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Man, this site is a Sausage-Fest-of-athiests…
Show of hands if you beleive in something other than Science or yourself.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
As Stephen Colbert said: I believe in America. I believe it exists.
Or Shaze, were you trying to say ask for a show of hands of those who have a religious belief system?
And come up with something better than sausage-fest-of-atheists. Godless-heathen-fest, or even just plain old atheist-fest. See, it’d be humorous if it were something like Polish people and you went for the sausage fest. But atheists don’t really have any native meats, including those inside intestines.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Aaron
Good point, I was kind of out taking a metaphorical crap when I came up with sausage-fest-of-atheists. What I really meant was uhhh Fulfilled-Moron-Free-Group-Sex-Enthusiests, or something.
But yeah, I have yet to see one frusterated or pissed off religious person looking to convert us all. At least, I think that was my point.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
All I would have to say to the people undertaking this great big conversion project is that, according to their Holy Bible, Jesus won believers by doing great things for humanity, not by building museums.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:32 pm
i love the bible, such a great place to find mythos and demons
you see the book of genesis was taken a bit too seriously and some people had to fill in the gaps. they combined two takes and created a new one. You heard of Lilith?
she was Adam’s first wife, kicked out because she felt mistreated (how exactly is up for debate, either she wanted more dominance during sex or equality) and curse god out using his real name (he has one?) and left eden
succubus and incubus sprang forth as she had sex with demons and angels
saay speaking of angels having sex, know the book of Enoch? its mentioned in the bible, but you don’t find it in there. it’s nuts.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
I thought I would reply since I was lambasted but a few individuals that took my comments out of context. My comment on plurality was simple, so I am surprised it was missed. The point was that what science accepts today will change tomorrow. The fact the “most agree with evolution” is of little consequence to me since it will likely change. I evaluated this “evidence” independently and find the creation account to be a better fit with both the evidence and my faith. A majority of scientists once believed the world was flat, now we know otherwise. How can this be?! It was univerally accepted by science! Take a que from the Bible which tell us “to test all things,” including the Bible. God knows his word can stand up to scrutiny. For instance, mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA confirm that humans derived from 2 individuals (aka Adam and Eve). This same DNA also shows that the male ancestor goes back fewer generations than the female ancestor, lending itself conveniently to Noah after the flood. Be careful of confusing scientific understanding for truth, for one changes and the other does not.
Robert Jastrow (1978):
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
August 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Hello Jason, Where the hell are you getting your \’facts\’ from? There was no such thing as science when most people thought the world was flat. As a matter of fact, in the western world, Christianity had a monopoly on truth when this false belief was held. How does mitochondria and DNA suggest that humans came from two people? That\’s just absurd! And how does an older male ancestry line support the myth of Noah? Seriously, where did you learn these things?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Of course, what Jason doesn’t mention (and probably overlooked in his “research”) is that this “Mitochondrial Eve” is calculated to have lived 200,000 years ago… and “Adam” another 10,000 years before that. And remember, this is just common ancestry, not origins of the human species. Just because you can trace a lineage back to a common person doesn’t mean that person is the sole proginator of the species. In other words, “Adam and Eve” probably never even met.
More info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
So, really, the only way this has ANYTHING to do with the Biblical account of Creation is the fact that some cheeky scientist decided to call his (or her!) theoretical common ancestors Adam and Eve. I guess maybe it wasn’t such a wise decision to give the ignorant Creationists that kind of ammo… no matter how impotent it is.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Jason, as a university-bred student scientist I can assure you that many of the things you are arguing are being interpreted incorrectly.
The scientific method never, ever, EVER purports anything as truth. Everything is in a state of being able to be disproved, improved upon and disproved again. A never-ending cycle of self-improvement. Therefore, something that scientists hold as acceptable today may well indeed be challenged tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong. The beauty is that science allows for human mistakes, allows us to pick ourselves up and get back on the bike, getting perhaps one step closer to the philisophical ideal of truth.
Secondly, scientists did not believe the world was flat in times of old. As mentioned above, scientists are a new breed, dating back to the 1700’s if I’m not mistaken, with the birth of the word “science” and the scientific method. What is interesting and what you should also consider is the many countless hoards of people persecuted by religion for exploring the natural phenomena around them.
Also, you state the recent scientific evidence of the mitochondrial eve in support of the Bible. It certainly does not CONFIRM (i.e. prove) that humans derived from two ancestors! Any scientist with half an understanding of the scientific method would be aghast at this conclusion, as it throws the method out the window to indulge in a little blind-faith. Please do show me your sources for such a grandiose claim, and please also consider that you’ve forgotten a piece of information in this story… they are not considered to be the first humans, only the most recently tracable lineage of them. Many, many incompatibilities exist with this use of scientific evidence and I would encourage you to read more about the subject.
It would seem that you are merely evaluating scientific evidence in support of your belief system. If this be the case, you should work up the courage to consider that the Bible may be a work of fiction, parable and mythos. As a scientist I have the ability to always question the world around me, no matter what science says. We live in a dynamic world.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Sorry for not including a citation. “Who was Adam?” by Dr. Hugh Ross is an excellent source on this topic. As many of you will be unwilling to seek out this resource, I have included the link below. The site is under construction, but gives a very brief overview of this data. The site does not appear to be affiliated with Dr. Ross. It is merely something I managed to gather from Google. By the way, I didn’t have to earn a doctorate to figure out how to use a search engine. Dr. Ross’ book is much more in depth and provides a great deal of clarity.
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondriaEveModel.htm
You will notice that the previous post made no mention of any actual evidence. Calling it adsurd does not invalidate it. You must bring something “scientific” to the table if that is what you are going to hang your hat on. Had you read my post carefully, I said the male line goes back FEWER generations than the female. This indicates that females have an older ancestor than males. By the way, Eve is older than Noah.
Where did I get these facts from? I investigated for myself instead of trusting those that have the most to lose if the Bible is true.
Again, I caution against trusting this data any more than evolutionary data. The truth never changes, but our capability for perceiving it does.
Even animals trust in the things they can see and hear. I don’t see that as an admirable trait. I would like to think we are all destined for more. Do not be confused, science is a theology. You can choose to place your faith in the things of this world, or the things of eternity. Science is man’s attempt to explain the things around him because he is too stubborn to trust his creator.
If your heart is truly hardened you will not hear this message, but dismiss it in much the same way I am excused of shutting the door on science. I humbly request that you seek answers on your own, and pray that you find the truth.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” Matthew 7:7 NKJV
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 am
The timeline for the DNA evidence is in dispute, but in both directions. The biblical account is within the margin of error for those calculations. Reagrdless of the timeline, the story can still be accurate. Check out these two sites for a comparison of YEC vs OEC.
YEC http://www.anwersingenisis.org
OEC http://www.reasons.org
I have examined the Bible with a great deal of scrutiny and would be willing to share that examination with anyone on a personal level. In fact, it is this examination that completely changed me and my fate. I did not except Jesus Christ as my savior until I was 25. This is after I received teaching at a fine university, and was well on my way to making money off of science. By the way, my degree is of little consequence to me since everyone carries one these days. If you are truly interested in what I can offer for study, please leave me an email address on this blog, and I will contact you. For my own convenience, I have chosen not to leave my address here.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
I do not intend to monopolize this blog, so I do apologize. I would like to respond to Agnostic’s comment that I am only evaluating evidence in favor of my beliefs. I find it rather presumptuous that you judge my personal study after 3 blog entries. I didn’t feel it was necessary to bring forth scientific evidence against my faith for 2 reasons:
1. It already gets plenty of press on this site.
2. It is my intention to bring people closer to God. He will show them the truth, not I.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 am
Jason, I believe you meant this url..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Please contact me through the contact page and leave me your email. I’d like to discuss a few things with you :)
Thanks,
gasmonso
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:30 am
Thank you. I obviously need to pray for better typing ability. :)
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:33 am
If I send my information to you, I trust it will not be posted on your site. As you can probably tell from the response I have received, my message is not always received warmly. I would much rather send you my url instead of my email, but that does not appear to be an option through the contact page.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:38 am
By the way, your site is very nicely designed. My only question is: Waht is the graphic at the top of this blog? I can only assume that is Adam and Eve, but what it is that supposed to be on the table?
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 am
Creationists, masters of obfuscation. How you managed to write to much and say so little I will never know.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 am
Fucking hell, I hate Ken Ham. I saw his Answers in Genesis website about a year ago and listened to his radio .mp3s and constantly swung between laughter and anger at this ‘creation scientist’ (an oxymoron), who believes everything LITERALLY in the Bible, he even goes to state that Abortion, Homosexuality, Drug Use, Racism and Murder are all caused by evolutionary teaching in schools.
He even believes there was a global flood, but can’t explain where all that water came from and doesn’t address that point (because even if all the water vapour and glaciers on the planet condensed or melted into the ocean, we’d still have plenty of dry land). He points to a obscure species with highly specialized senses and says ‘that’s too complex to happen randomly!’.
He looks at diamonds which takes millions of years to form naturally and says ‘we’ve formed those in days in a lab!’ disregarding the fact nature does not have a controlled environment with chemical vapour distilleries and nanometer accurate pressure chambers. Yes, he even believes the age of the world is only 6,000 years, disregarding evidence of civilizations existing long before this such as Australian Aborigines (over 50,000years BC), the first settlers of the Nile (around 10,000years BC). What an ignorant prick he is to say that cultures which there is evidence of, ‘existed sooner than we think’.
He’s arguing against over the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (we’re talking in the ninety-nine percent range) and can’t accept basic science like radio and carbon dating simply because he picks ONE case out of THOUSANDS which gave an inaccurate date due to poor sampling/testing, not because of an inherent flaw in dating methods.
In summation; Ken Ham is one of the most despisable people on the planet, he is not only destroying mankind’s pursuit of knowledge and rational discussion by lieing and starting with a Hypothesis: EVERY WORD OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE and pick-and-choosing data to support it, not taking into account the vast ammount of evidence to contrary. He is an insult to people of intelligence everywhere and should be ostracized from any discussion as he as perverted the scientific method into a masturbation session over his beliefs onto complacent, docile, needy, insecure religious masses.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:32 am
If the world were leved down to a perfect sphere. There would be enough water to cover the earth with water 2 miles deep. For an explaination of this event see Walt Brown’s “In the Beginnning” and his hydro plate theory.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:41 am
After reading the previous post, I have decided that this is not a forum where I can be heard, and I will only frustrate myself be persisting. I had hoped that by being polite and providing resources, that I would find a warmer welcome. I have yet to see anyone refute my claims with something other than personal attacks and this always popular rebuttal:
“He’s arguing against … the overwhelming majority of the scientific community…” Thomas K.
By trusting your fate to the masses, at least you know you will have company. This “community” will be of no help in the next life. Again, I respectfully ask that you check it out for yourself in an honest and open fashion. I have faith that you will see the truth.
If you would like to have a civil discussion please leave me an email address and I would be happy to help.
God Bless,
Jason
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 am
Perhaps the Hydro Plate Theory people should talk to the Water Canopy Theory people. Maybe between them they can come up with something that is at least plausable.
From some basic debunking: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
It is all about obfuscation with you Creationists, isn’t it? You don’t have to come with anything plausable. All you need to do is come up with *something* to give the illusion that you even care about physical evidence so you can try to fool people who would otherwise trust their senses.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 am
Jason,
Why should we listen to you or read any of your resources? You already told us that none of it can be trusted.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 am
“If the world were leved down to a perfect sphere”
Jason, have you even responded to any of my other points… how can you possibly suggest that 5,000 years ago or that 4,000 years ago the world was perfectly flat? Do you have ANY knowledge of what GEOLOGY? How can you possibly say that? Do you know the speed of how fast tectonic plates and mineral deposits would have to arrange themselves to match your bizzare explanation of the past? If that was happening then, why does such an obviously dynamic geological process slow down for our present world? Why did the world in the time of Pericles or Augustus look so remarkably similiar to our own? By your logic, Hannibal would have no problem crossing the Alps, as he would have only had of climbed a sizeable hill.
I’m sorry, but you have just said the most idiotic statement I have ever read on my history of internet browsing, in fact by anyone in any discussion in any medium… more idiotic than instructions on curb-stomping or safety tips for injecting silicone into your genitals.
“…will be of no help in the next life.”
Actually it will, because if there is an afterlife, I will be secure in my knowledge that for the brief time I spent on the planet, I spent promoting the search of knowledge and aiding humanity’s inherent ability to question, interept and understand new concepts and ideas, to evolve new methods of thought and debate as information is accumulated so that my children’s and grandchildren’s world is better because of it.
I can’t believe ANY religion would tell me that God’s infinite love is somehow conditional and we have to follow some arbitrary rules to achieve ’salvation’, and that homosexuality or divorce or contraception is somehow more relevant to a binary situation in which only you and every conservative christian is right and that everyone else is wrong.
You are not only poisoning reasoned discussion, you are also an insult to the values preached by Jesus, who would spend more time focused social justice, pacificism, poverty, income equality, prejudice and not building a visible edifice to god (like the hypocrites, was his words) instead of condeming homosexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce, pornography (most of these things existed in Jesus’s time… what a co-incidence).
My e-mail is allious_neo@hotmail.com you can complain to there and I shall immediately (at my nearest convience) find peer-review papers, many of the words may be difficult but I suggest looking into your nearest dictionary.
Go with God… and then Fox News (sarcasm).
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:37 am
“Where did I get these facts from? I investigated for myself instead of trusting those that have the most to lose if the Bible is true.”
actually, you seem to have gotten these “facts” from pseudo scientists who seem to have picked them out of thin air….
“He’s arguing against … the overwhelming majority of the scientific community…†Thomas K.
nothing wrong with that. but it is wrong to say that everything we take for fact, or at least for strong theory, will be proven wrong in the future.
it is allready widely known that quantum theory is wrong, The theory of relativity is lacking, but it is sufficient. Some details about evolution might be wrong, but it has proven to be sufficiently correct.
The fact is that science is still learning, and will forever learn. Religion however has only been changing to accomodate the masses.
“Again, I respectfully ask that you check it out for yourself in an honest and open fashion. I have faith that you will see the truth.”
See, there’s the problem, I wasn’t around the sixthousand years ago when god created the world (ahum, ahum) or for long enough to see fish evolve into frogs. So i’ll have to rely on what nature has left us and extrapolate from there.
We can find fossil records of fish, something in between and frogs all stacked on top of each other. We know that new sediment settles on top of old sediment. We know that carbon 14 radioactivity decreases by a certain percentage evey years, and so we can figure out what came first, what came next and by looking at the remain we can sort of say “well, this looks a lot like that, but with feet.”
It’s not perfect, no science except mathematics is perfect, but it sure beat the hell out of a book that’s been mistranslated, sensured, added to, removed from, changed and copied from memory for thousands of years. A book that might even have been total fiction from the point it was first told, is lacking internal consitancy and bears little resemblance to the real word according to numerous contemporary, semi-contemporart and historical evidence.
Tell me, are you one of those people who pick and choose what to accept as thruth from the bible and live according to a few things? or do you accept it as the total word of god, the final truth and follow it to the letter?
and commenting on the “next life”, If heaven is full of christians, i’d rather not be there. I’ve always wondered what a christian would say to anyone of another religion. “Sorry, you’re wrong, you’re going to hell” Well, he think the exact same of you, so who’s right? Are you because the bible is the word of god? or is he, because his book says the exact same thing?
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:41 am
One more thing.
Do you Christians realise that explaining the creation of te world and what’s in it by the hand of god is exactly the same as explaining thunder with the hammer of Thor?
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:46 am
In regards as to why God does not show himself lies in that the old testament prophecy of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection has taken place. At the time of the old testament God “revealed” himself to gain the faith and string up those he chose. Now that the proficy has been fulfilled however and we have have the written word of god it is now placed upon faith. Oh and another thing, I would hardly consider Moses a caveman as they had developed a written language at that time and the projected time in which he was born was in the 13th to the 16th century.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 am
Wow, did I miss a lot when I was sleeping. I can see that I am not the only one upset about the anti-intellectual tendencies of fundamentalism. I looked at that Answers in Genesis site (it’s not worth directly linking) and read many of the articles. One thing I found was this quote from their FAQs about the Creation Museum:
“Our increasingly anti-Christian country must return to a belief in the authority of the Bible and be presented with the life-changing gospel message. Evolutionary indoctrination has undermined the Christian foundations in America.”
Christianity, especially their fundamentalist brand, has been growing in this country since the early ’80s. That does not coincide with an “increasingly anti-Christian country.” When they can’t get a simple fact like this straight, it puts doubt on the validity of the rest of the site.
One interesting section is an “Arguments creationists should NOT use.” In this area they list all the failed arguments creationists have used in the past. I have to give them credit for accepting defeat on these old arguments.
I also read some of their anti-evolution argument based on the second law of thermodynamics. I’m glad they understood the difference between open and closed thermodynamic systems. That is a step forward. Now they need to understand that the 2nd law is a statistical law, not an absolute law. In one article they actually seem to accept evolution. From the article:
“Many evolutionists say that this proves that all it takes is energy (the sun) flowing into an open system (the earth) to produce growth in complexity, and point to plant growth as an example. But this would only demonstrate the need for a programmed mechanism to harness and direct the random, undirected energy, which is what creationists have been saying all along.”
So creationists are willing to accept growth in complexity (i.e. evolution) as long as there is a “programmed mechanism to harness and direct the random, undirected energy” (i.e. God)? This is great news! Why then, are many creationists still denying the truth of evolution?
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Jason, just relax man. If you want the opportunity to publish an article stating your case, I will give you that. Just contact me and leave me you’re website and email. Just enter it in the text box. I won’t publish your email so relax.
Discussing religion is always difficult, just hang in there!
gasmonso
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:10 am
I thought I would humor all of you, especially the invidual calling me idiotic. I don’t remember saying the earth was flattened down to a complete sphere. I said:
“If the world were leveled down to a perfect sphere. There would be enough water to cover the earth with water 2 miles deep.”
The keyword is “if,” this is know as a conditional. I could hardly say that the water would be 2 miles deep if the world were not flattened. Would it not have variable depth? This was a simple illustration, as I’m sure you are aware. I find it interesting that this group continues to attack the illustrations rather than come to the point directly.
I used the “Earth is flat” illustration to show that science would changes its version of truth continually. Not one of you refuted that point, but went on and on about the flat Earth belief.
Then I bring up the perfect shere illustration to acheive a simple metric for measuring the depth of water. Again, nobody has yet attacked the the possibility itself. Did you actually read any of these sources. Note, I was insulted once again for even bringing up the possibility. Very scientific Thomas.
“I can’t believe ANY religion would tell me that God’s infinite love is somehow conditional…” Thomas K.
The Bible also shows that God is infinitely just, so some will be rewarded while others are punished. I love my children more than anything on this Earth, but I do punish them for misbehaving. It does not change my love for them and my desire for them to do the right thing.
“Why should we listen to you or read any of your resources? You already told us that none of it can be trusted.” Matthew
Matthew, this is exactly my point. Now direct that skepticism at the world around you and discover the truth yourself. Why do you trust Stephen Hawking more than any other individual? How many degrees does someone need to earn your trust?
Fish into frogs eh? I like how you cite that there is a fossil in between. Where would I find this documentation?
I apologize for not being able to respond to every post. As you can imagine, there are many. But one last point is about carbon dating, which I saw mentioned earlier. Carbon dating uses the half-life of carbon to determine the age of something. Now you do realize that this all hinges on 2 things:
1. KNOWING the exact chemical make-up of the thing you are trying to date.
2. That the half-life of carbon is a constant.
If you mess up that original assumption, the result is not valid. Garbage in equals garbage out. Why wouldn’t you question these assumptions?
I’m not asking you to give what I am saying, any more weight than what anyone else is saying. I am asking you to simply check it out.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 am
Hello Jason,
I know you’re getting a lot of flak for your posts, but I still appreciate them, even if I adamantly disagree. Thanks for the references you posted in response to my challenges; I’ll check them out when I have more time. Also I apologies for misreading your post about the relative age of the two lines.
I have a quick comment about your carbon-dating assumptions. We do not need to know is the ration of carbon-12 to carbon-14 present in the object. Doing so is easily determined by simple chemical techniques. Also, you do have a point about the half-life of carbon-14 not being a constant. It is a random variable with a known mean and standard deviation. Thus using standard statistical methods, we can determine the age of a formally living thing within a small error bound with a high level of confidence.
Here are a couple of sources:
basic overview
confidence interval info
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 am
sidfaiwu,
I appreciate the debate. These test can tell us the carbon 12 to 14 ratio of the object today, but the original ratios are a mystery. What if the object originally had a large carbon-12 makeup? It would appear much older. I will check your sources, so thank you for providing them.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:56 am
Jason,
You say:
“The Bible also shows that God is infinitely just, so some will be rewarded while others are punished. I love my children more than anything on this Earth, but I do punish them for misbehaving. It does not change my love for them and my desire for them to do the right thing.”
What I want to know is, would you punish your children *eternally* for misbehaving? If you could, that is. Hell isn’t just punishment. It is *eternal* punishment with no end. Now I ask you, would you ever, under any circumstances, either inflict this on your children or let it happen to them if you could stop it?
Or worse, would you punish your children simply because they didn’t believe something? Lets say you told your child that you had built (Created) the house you all live in, and your child didn’t believe you. Would you punish your child for not believing you?
What if you and your child were separated for a long time and your child didn’t believe you existed. Would you punish him or her for that?
Is it just me or is this system of punishments and rewards terribly unjust and arbitrary?
What is the point of punishing someone eternally if they will never have a chance to respond to the punishment and behave correctly?
Think about it.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
“I thought I would humor all of you, especially the invidual calling me idiotic. I don’t remember saying the earth was flattened down to a complete sphere. I said:
“If the world were leveled down to a perfect sphere. There would be enough water to cover the earth with water 2 miles deep.—
No, but it’s your only and vastly incorrect reply which details an event that could never of conceiveably occured within the last three billion years, and prior to that, I think molten rock would be a far more pressing issue than global flooding. Why are you even making such a rediculous statement and then backpedalling furiously on it?
It’s essentially like myself saying “While both Kennedys were shot by different gunmen, evidence pointing to a conspiracy connecting the two is largely circumstancial” and someone replying “If Oswald was cloned, there would be enough shooters for everybody” and then “You’re an idiot” and then that person retorting “I said IF” and then that person attempts to ameliorate their views saying “Well surely a persons appearance and even identity is variable?”.
But you don’t understand, even if the polar ice caps were melted by God… Look, this isn’t Waterworld; the water level would rise approximately 60meters (200feet). To give you some idea of what this means, Australia’s average elevation is over 300meters and it’s one of the flatest and lowest countries on Earth (caused by millions of years of erosion), so really, even if all the water molecules on the planet were condensed or melted into the oceans… we’re looking only at small percentage of landmass that would become flooded (namely costal areas).
Here is where your arugment is paradoxical… to have a global flood, you need a relatively very flat earth and millions of years for it to change into what we have now in which case the World is older than 6,000 years OR you need the World to change magically from very flat to what it is today in less than 6,000 years… which is impossible, even if that did occure somehow uniformly, there would be histrical records which back your assertion (cartographical records, much different historical accounts than what we have to day) of a far different planet than what we live on today.
Now of course I’m trying to defeat your argument on logic, because creationists, such as the fine Ken Ham won’t accept any PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS DETAILING PERCISE AND CORROBORATED OBSERVATION AND EMPERICAL EVIDENCE, simply because anything that impiles the bible is literally true must be discredited. Why is Ken Ham and other creationists so afraid to have their own ‘theories’ put to srutiny?
Look if you want creationism or it’s front of ‘intelligent design’ in the class room, why can you not go through the same process that evolution went through to become accepted? Ken Miller summarizes this process as;
Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Concensus > Classroom & Textbook.
What’s hard in doing that? If the Research is genuine, the scientific community is not biased, they took some crazy ideas such as Relativity and they applied the same methodology they use on all research. It seems that for some reason creationists want to do the following;
Intelligent Design “Theory” > Classroom & Textbook.
If you are so confident in your evidence and apparently as so many ‘creation scientists’ are, prove yourself in a community of debate and questions, not hide yourself into an agreeable, complacent mass who are insecure in their beliefs they need to be vindicated by illegitamite ’science’.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
“The Bible also shows that God is infinitely just, so some will be rewarded while others are punished.”
Numbers 31:1-18
There’s a lot of justice in that passage. Murdered children (male children only), women kidnapped for slaves. I’m sure god forgave those children for the sin of being born.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
What you all fail to realize is that God doesn’t need to prove to us His own existence. The ball is in our court; it is our free will to either accept or reject God.
Many of you have already made that decision. But please note that if you have rejected God, and later have second thoughts, God will still meet you with open arms. Just seek Him out.
Now for those of you who aren’t sure about whether or not God exists: make the decision now. Accept God, or reject God. You can’t ride the fence.
Now if that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you should look into the existence of God first.
I have accepted God into my heart, and He has shown Himself to me as a result. I still do not have physical evidence of God’s existence, but what God has shown me is sufficient.
I have faith in God. Many of you have faith in science. We all seem to have faith in common. Try putting a little faith in God and see what happens. It certainly can’t hurt you to check it out.
(p.s. I am well-educated on evolution and other sciences; I have seen the claims and find them irrelevant to what God has for every last one of us.)
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:51 am
If I’m free to make my on choice why am I to be damned for making it? I spend my entire life doing good for humanity harming no one but if I don’t give god credit then I’m scum. If god made me then it’s his fault the way I am. He’s all powerful is he not? All knowing? He knew what I was going to be BEFORE he put me here? And he did so anyway?
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Tom H,
While I appreciate that you’re trying to be civil, I don’t appreciate the argument that atheists have ‘faith in science’. I personally have some trust. My post way way further up this thread explains more, but in a nutshell: Science works, it makes things go, from computers to rockets. It fits with what my senses tell me. Science also admits when it’s wrong, though there is some stubborn inertia and prejudice even in the scientific community. So I trust science, as it so far has done a lot for me, does not require any blind leaps, fits with my senses, and can be changed if it’s wrong. But I do not have faith in it. Faith implies belief without proof or logical reason. You are misrepresenting people by saying they have faith in science.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
I can understand the need to believe in something, the world at large can be overwhelming, but I truly cannot understand the thought processes of people who believe in gods. I can easily accept that I can be wrong about anything and everything, but believers tend to act like admitting they can be wrong is a sin. They know. Everything required of our fellow man is thrown out the window when it comes to god.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Look at it this way. Why do people have relgion?
It’s because the alternative is so horrible that it is unthinkable to those brought up to believe otherwise. It is a horrible notion to think that when we die, we just cease to exist… that everything we ever do ultimately doesn’t matter. This is why people have faith. It is where they put this faith that is the problem.
Instead of frantically trying to convince themselves of illogical and unfounded beliefs, and going “lalala Im not listening” to the scientific community, why not have faith in mankind. Faith that, perhaps one day, if mankind does not destroy itself (big if… thank religion), in a time we couldnt even begin to imagine, when mankind or machines or some crazy combination truly masters this universe that an afterlife or equivalent would be a product of mankind.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
As much as I enjoy being lumped in with everyone else that believes in Gods, I will have to resist. I was not brought up in a religious house, and it wasn’t ever really a topic. I came to my faith at 25 years old. This is well after I was “educated” by our society. I did not come to my faith because the lack of an after life was too scary. I came to my faith because I never shut the door on God. As scientists, or believers in science, you should be well aware of the consequences that result from completely eliminating a possible result from your solution set. If you don’t admit the possibility of God from the outset, you will never see evidence of him. If however, you leave that possibility open, you may find that the evidence points in that direction.
In regard to damnation (red herring) you are blaming the wrong individual. It is not God’s fault, it is ours. Hell is being absent from God’s presence. If you decided that he cannot exist, then you can hardly realize it when you are in his presence. Now imagine an eternity without God…Sounds like hell to me.
If I told my children that the consequence of their decisions were eternal, I would have to follow through, or risk being unjust.
I fully admit the possibility that I could be wrong. That is what defines faith. Otherwise, it be called knowledge.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Jason, still waiting for you to contact me. My email is gasmonso[at]gmail[dot]com
Drop me a line please :)
gasmonso
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Will do. I did not realize it was a sincere request.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Aaron,
Faith is not belief without proof, or against proof. Faith is putting your beliefs into action without absolute knowledge of the outcome. Let me illustrate with this classic example. I do not know where it came from or if it is a true story (I once read it was).
A man was walking a tight rope across Niagra Falls. He made it to the other side and asked if anyone thought he could do it with a wheel barrow. They all said yes, and he did. He then asked if they believed he could do it with his manager in the wheel barrow. They said yes, and he did. He then asked if any of them would get into the wheel barrow.
Would you? You have evidence that it is possible, but you do not KNOW he will make it with you in there. This is faith, acting on the things you believe to be true, yet do not know.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Jason, as mentioned before please don’t get too put-off by people. This blog seems to be largely visited by anti-Christian/agnostic/athiest people, hence you’re treading on a lot of people’s toes ESPECIALLY on the touchy scientific subject of science integrity and evolution. Though I have responses to a few more of your allegations, I feel they ultimately aren’t nessiccary and would prefer to ask one thing:
“I fully admit the possibility that I could be wrong. That is what defines faith. Otherwise, it be called knowledge.”
Well, your definition of faith. As I am to understand it, faith being blind means that you never stop believing in something, no matter what happens or who says so. Faith in God surely does not allow for you to question whether he is there or not? That would defy the whole point, surely…
Thankyou for being such a good sport in such hard conditions. I have a feeling your way of thinking will become harder and harder to stick to in the face of so many adversaries, but everyone needs challenge to keep their ideas fresh and up-to-date.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 pm
And in your above example, how do you separate “faith” from “educated guess”, which the assumption could also be said to be. How do you separate “religious faith” from “educated guess”?
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
God encourages us to question him and his existence.
“As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.” Acts 17:10-12 NIV
You will notice that the Bereans are praised for being open minded and looking to see if the claims are true. This is also what I ask.
Another comment on hell. Much of the imagery we have of hell originates from the middle ages. This is not entirely biblical. Here is Jesus’ description for you:
“But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.” Luke 13:27-28 NKJV
Jesus is saying that you can not be with him in heaven because you lived your life apart from him. As you live your life, you will also live your eternity. Jesus is saying that we will greatly regret that decision. To pull a line from Gladiator: “What we do in life echos in eternity.”
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Agnostic,
Faith is actionable belief.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
“Hell is being absent from God’s presence. If you decided that he cannot exist, then you can hardly realize it when you are in his presence.”
Just another voodoo interpretation. How did you come to this conclusion? There’s a good reason no one can agree on what god/hell/souls/etc are. They have no bearing on reality (Note I didnt say they don’t exist, as there is no way of proving that). Some say they feel god’s presence in childrens smiles, some say they feel it in drugs, some feel it because they are being told they’re feeling it. The fact is that feelings are inherantly deceptive, which is yet another reason people blindly believe in such things.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
See post 70
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
“If I told my children that the consequence of their decisions were eternal, I would have to follow through, or risk being unjust.”
If you TELL your children such a thing, you will be doing them a horrible disservice, just like the majority of christians. If you really accept the possibility that you could be wrong, then you’d present both sides to your children and tell them that no one knows, nor will anyone ever know, and they should make up their own mind.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:15 pm
I intend to and have faith they will choose God
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
BY the way, that was taken out of context. It was a response as to how harsh the punishment of hell is.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Jason,
You said:
“If I told my children that the consequence of their decisions were eternal, I would have to follow through, or risk being unjust.”
You would abandon your children for the sake of being “just?” You call that love? I’d hate to see what you do to people you dislike!
Geez, the LEAST your god could do is give his children another chance at life (reincarnation?) so that they can eventually get to know him. Your god is omnipotent, isn’t he? I’m sure he could pull it off.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
He could, but he promised us one life. He follows through. He also does give us a second chance. We can be forgiven since he has paid the price for us all.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
How many times must he die for us before you will believe he loves us?
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Jason,
I believe in a God that does not abandon his children. Ever. It doesn’t really matter how many time you say he has “died for us.”
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
“He could, but he promised us one life. He follows through. He also does give us a second chance. We can be forgiven since he has paid the price for us all.”
“How many times must he die for us before you will believe he loves us?”
You’re just preaching, no logic, no reason, no arguements. Honestly I don’t understand why so many Speople choose to believe this myth above so many others. It’s no more valid or helpful than believing in Zues and greek mythology, or flying spaghetti monsterism.
Someone wanna get this guy a link to the documentary about Jesus mythology and how he probably didn’t actually exist, even as an ordinary man who the extraordinary legends would be based upon.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Read the “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel if you don’t believe he existed. Even your well respected science community doesn’t refute that. Here is the single best evidence in my mind. The Jews of Jesus’ time went out of there way to refute his claim to divinity. It is well documented through antiquity. If he didn’t exist, wouldn’t they simply say “Jesus Who?”
Why do I believe in Christ over all others. Because he can back it up. Before accepting Christ, I spent endless hours researching the archaeological record, written history, and even physical anatomy. I am convinced that Jesus lived, was crucified, and raised himself from the dead. You can dismiss me as a fanatic if you wish, but you would only fall prey to your own accusations of being closed-minded.
I pray that you will find solice in the Lord and will finally be delivered from the ills of this world.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
As this thread has completely diverted from the intended topic (Creation Museum), I will be departing. I do pray for you all, and hope to see you heaven.
Gasmonso, I have decided not to contact you, as my email address has my first, middle, and last names in it. Probably not the wisest choice for such a topic.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Ah, well Jason I don’t really want to argue semantics. I was just using a dictionary definition of faith, one of several. And one that applies to most Christians that I’ve met, namely that they believe in God regardless of evidence or logical conclusions. And since that’s the meaning I’m most familiar with, I dislike having it applied to my beliefs.
As far as actionable belief, I take your meaning. The metaphor of the tightrope is misleading though; it implies drawing conclusions from sensory inputs. Senses->rational thought->action. If God came to me and said, “Let me show you a miracle” and then did some crazy stuff, and then asked me to believe in him so I could go to heaven, I’d certainly consider it. But the Christian faith is not about that. A few people claim to have such experiences, but the majority of people are just taught to believe from birth, and then believe without evidence or logical reasoning. Again, why I take faith to have that meaning.
Anyway, to take the metaphor further, did you have an experience like seeing the tightrope walker? Something which means that your beliefs are based on your senses and logical reasoning? Or is that metaphor not applicable to your faith?
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Bad timing on my part. But yes, here’s to the end of interesting discussion that while may have seemed OT to some, to me is not. Because evolution stops becoming an issue when you stop having a need to debunk it. If evolution being true would shatter your faith and make God cease to exist, it’s a huge problem. But if evolution being false just means that you need to be more skeptical of the scientific establishment, it’s not.
PS, not saying that I think that evolution/creationism are on the same level; I think evolution is well proven and creationism requires a lot of blind faith.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:12 am
“How many times must he die for us before you will believe he loves us?”
Logically, he need not die at all. That is a very emo way of trying to get human attention! In my minds eye I have a rather amusing picture of God as this young teenage full of angst continually writing suicide notes, slitting his wrists and then realising that he is a God and cannot die! On this note, what kind of sacrifice is it if he sends a dupicate of himself in mortal form to die and make a big song and dance about it?
All he has to do is show himself and prove beyond my own doubt (the level of proof required he is intimately aware of, and has known since the day I was born, nay, since he created the first ball of matter) that he exists. I care not for the Bible, I only wish to know if there exists a being who could be rightly said to be a God.
So really, I feel he is doing me a great disservice by actively ignoring my personal dispositions. He knows whether I will or will not accept him and therefore how can I be held accountable if he is the omnipotent one?
It seems cruel to sit at the beginning of time laughing as you consider the fate of all the sentient humans you will create and have them wander blindly to the fate you have set for them. Not forgetting he is only going to give us one chance to muck it up and spend an eternity in punishment.
Now if that isn’t tough love I don’t know what is!
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:24 am
Faith may indeed be actionable belief when applied to certain contexts, but it differs when applied to religion. When you use the two meanings interchangably you are losing the subtlety which each conveys.
Hence why I asked to see if you could distinguish between religious faith and mere belief. Belief and therefore faith that something physical/nonetheral will happen, such as crossing tightropes, involves a completely different set of values and observations to say, belief that God’s will is truth and enlightenment. Physics, chemical memory, movement, spatial awareness and the balls to walk the tightrope are all things which the mind can calculate and comprehend.
The faith which requiers little more than simply saying “yes” to a story on-par with any fairytale or pagan creation story is obviously a little different ;)
Again, not having a go at you, just your premise!
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 am
[...] While I sort out the 10,000 comments from the Fairy Tale Museum post, have a look at this outstanding clip from the Daily Show. A while back they did a 4 part series on the battle of Evolution vs Creationism in the US. What I found facinating was their coverage of the John Scopes Monkey Trial, which I was not aware of. Do yourself a favor and read all about it because it really pertains to today. [...]
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
This post just doesn’t want to quite. Aaron, I appreciate your sincerity. God has shown the world his miracles before. Every time, the Israelites chose to return to their sinful ways. He also took human form and died as a pure sacrifice to save us all, only to resurrect himself. God is all powerful, but he gave us the power of free will. We choose to live apart from him, or with him. Because he is infinitely loving and just, he would never violate that free will and force us to choose him. The reason the tight-rope walker does fit this situation, is because you can sense the presence of God all around you. It would be like taking the audience from that story, having them all close their eyes, and then having someone else tell them what has happened. It would be very difficult to believe the man could make it across as long as you never opened your eyes. The difference is that we are closing our eyes intentionally by saying “there is no God.” But, the solution is obvious. Open your eyes and see for yourself. As soon as you allow God the POSSIBILITY of being in your life, then all you have to do is watch. If you are truly willing to accept what you see, I know you will see God.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:42 am
“Because he is infinitely loving and just, he would never violate that free will and force us to choose him.”
If he were infinitely loving he would not only never force us, but also not give up on us, ever. He would wait for eternity for each and every one of us to come to him on way or another. Unfortunately, your god (or at least your sad little view of God) will only wait so long and many people who have never even heard of your Christ will perish in hell. That is no Just or Loving God.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
“Gasmonso, I have decided not to contact you, as my email address has my first, middle, and last names in it. Probably not the wisest choice for such a topic.”
Nice cop out, Yahoo gives away anonymous emails in about two minutes.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 am
And so what if his real name is revealed (to gasmonso)? What could Jason possibly be afraid of? I mean, I know many Christians live in constant fear of the world, particularly atheists of the world, but come on…
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:42 am
Jason, I understand your concerns kinda. But I wanted you to contact me for a project I have going on. I have consulted other people on the site and I wanted your input… that’s all. I’m trying to get a group of Christians together so they can voice their beliefs on here and address them. My site is one-sided obviously and I want to offer people of other faiths a chance.
If you reconsider, please contact me. I believe you’re sincere in your faith and I want to explore that more.
gasmonso
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:22 am
G-
I’d be glad to participate in project.
Cheers,
Scott
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Political Link Dump…
Alright, work has been crazy this week so time for another link dump. This time it’s political. Enjoy! ANd remember - Drinking Liberally: Indianapolis is tonight. be there or be a rhombus. 7pm-whenever at Spencer’s Stadium Tavern (802 S. We…
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
This has probably been said, but I am lacking the patience to read all 95 comments right now.
“If we have no creator, then we cannot be held eternally accountable for our choices.”
I am SICK AND TIRED or some on the religious side of arguments saying that without God or a creator there can be no morality and no right and wrong. That is a total load of B.S.. I am an atheist, yet strangely I have an idea of right and wrong, of moral and immoral. How do you explain that?
It’s a complete logical fallacy to say No God = No Morals. Not only that, it’s INSULTING.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:08 pm
First, in response of Matthew in post 90:
I do not believe people will go to hell for not choosing to follow Jesus if they have never heard of him. You should really read the Bible if you intend to speak on its message. The Bible says that every man, regardless of hearing the gospel, has only to admit to himself that he and the world around him have a creator. This is a pretty easy requirement, that many tribal people and young children will easily fulfill.
Second, in response to Jason B in post 96:
I completely believe that you, as an atheist, do you have an internal sense of right and wrong. I would imagine that it is probably pretty strong. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God. People all over the world, generally have the same ideas of right and wrong. These ideas often conflict with natural tendencies, making them even stranger. Where do these come from? They originated somewhere. They couldn’t be a result of evolution since they often conflict with human advantage. If we were truly animals, theft, adultery, murder, pride, would all help me ensure the survival of my genetic material. Yet I have it encoded in me that those things are wrong.
I was not saying that if you don’t BELIEVE in God, you have no morals. I said WITHOUT a God, you would have no morals. Whether you believe in him or not, you have him to thank for that strange idea of right and wrong.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Why do you all care if I send Gasmonso my email address? Does that somehow invalidate my faith? You should consider my position. I have been civel and respectful, answering many of your questions in a thoughtful and honest way. In return I have been called idiotic, insecure, irrational, and I think someone even mentioned something about nuking Christians. Are you surprised that I am playing it close to the vest when it comes to my personal information? Rather than look for my personal flaws, of which I have many, why don’t you consider what I am saying?
A wise man once said:
He is a fool that does not give what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Jason, don’t worry about… I’ll just talk to Cap instead. While I understand where you’re coming from, you need to relax a little bit :)
Remember, I’M the one who gets death threats from religious fanatics…not the other way around :)
gasmonso
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I assure you, the sword cuts both ways.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Now YOU’RE starting to creep ME out.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Honestly, I tried to start a new email with yahoo, but it is just complaining about not accepting cookies. I changed the setting to accept all cookies and it still gives me the message.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Jason,
You said:
“I do not believe people will go to hell for not choosing to follow Jesus if they have never heard of him. You should really read the Bible if you intend to speak on its message. The Bible says that every man, regardless of hearing the gospel, has only to adm