Creationist: Science Begins with the Bible, Not the Facts March 31, 2012

Creationist: Science Begins with the Bible, Not the Facts

By Hemant Mehta
March 31, 2012

Over at Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham asked fellow Creationist Steve Golden to review a book promoting, among other things, the idea that evolution is real but God has a hand in the process.

Of course, this is all blasphemy to them because Christians who buy into theistic evolution are obviously the wrong kinds of Christians:

While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an authority issue. Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation (Genesis 1). Even the idea of “theistic evolution” is problematic, because evolutionary ideas were created to explain a world without God. If we approach Scripture from the standpoint that it teaches absolute truth, then every branch of science must be interpreted in light of biblical teaching — not the other way around.

Because that’s how science works to them: You start with what you’re trying to prove and then try to jam together every piece of evidence you can find to support it, discarding anything that doesn’t fit your hypothesis.

Facts? We don’t need your stinkin’ facts when we got the Bible.



Previous Post
According to Book Describing Members of the Vineyard Church, 'God Is Not Unlike a Stuffed Snoopy'
Next Post
Cristina Rad Speaks at the 2012 American Atheists Convention
"Mr Wallnau: are you willing to submit this prayer power to a double blind randomized ..."
Joe King
Preacher: I Just Cured Rush Limbaugh’s ..."
"I disagreed, from time to time, with Ed Brayton’s pretty rigid view on free speech ..."
Synfandel
Update: Street Preacher Who Broke a ..."
"yep, albeta is terrible. it's full of weapons grade evangelical christian morons and 'freeman on ..."
kyuss, cannabis farmer
“White, Eurocentric, Western”: Alberta Educators Skewer ..."
"The establishment of the United States was strongly based on biblical teachings and moral values. ..."
Atheist Militants Rising
“White, Eurocentric, Western”: Alberta Educators Skewer ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • Really, what can you say about something like this? How can you enter into a rational discussion with anybody so clearly irrational? It’s a problem… perhaps the fundamental problem of changing attitudes about religion.

    It reminds me again that atheism often follows from the personal development of rational thinking skills, and that this path leads to a kind of trap door (albeit a good one!) An irrational person can think anything, can be easily sold on anything. It can be a difficult road to rationality… but once you fall through that trap door, there’s no climbing back out. It may take years, but there is a steady trickle of irrational people into the camp of rationality. It is rare, indeed, to find traffic in the other direction.

    It is often difficult for a theist to evolve to atheism; it is almost vanishingly rare for the process to go the other way. The good news is that, while too many people aren’t rational enough, they are still rational enough to recognize the extremity of the position taken by most of these creationists. I’m optimistic that the creationist extremism we see here is helping push people (especially young people) away from fundamentalism… and that’s a start!

  • MariaO

    Thant is definitely not how the scientific method works today (300 years ago maybe, but the age of first collecting facts and then drawing conclusions is long gone). Today science starts by setting up a hypotheses – something that needs a lot of knowledge and creativity! – and then thinking out and doing experiments to collect facts to try to disprove the hypothesis. The more experiments it survives, the stronger the hypothesis.  Evolution has passed them all with flying colours. Gravitation is more iffy.

    The scientific box should read: “Here is the hypothesis. What facts can we find to disprove it?”

  • Arnold Facepalmer

    I have to agree with Ham on this one. Asshole that he is, he is smart enough to realize that TOE conflicts with the “literal truth” of the bible. If even one part of the supposedly inerrant truth of god’s word is blown out of the water, the string that unravels the whole ball of yarn is pulled. 

  •  That’s still not quite it. Science never started by collecting facts. From the beginning, and still, science is about collecting observations. From observations come hypotheses, from hypotheses come theories, and from experiments come either additional support for those theories, or arguments against them (if not outright disproof).

  • Amber McCullough

    On a related note, there is the corporatist method…

    Here is the company that is funding the study. What facts can we find to make them look good?

  • There’s a big difference between “my information is not wrong” and “my information cannot be wrong”.  That’s the difference between science and religion.  And in my growing opinion, the inability for people to accept that they can be wrong is the greatest threat facing humanity.

  • This word they keep using, “science” I do not think it means what they think it means…

  • Anonymous

    A hypothesis can’t just be based on made up shit either. It’s usually based upon facts, but not fully explained or necessarily understood

  • Anonymous

    Well, “scientific fact” usually means a repeatable, verifiable observation

  • While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an authority issue.

    How remarkably candid, and they don’t even realize how revealing that statement is. Yes, it is exactly that, an authority issue. But not the authority of “God’s word,” it’s about the authority of those like Ham who profit from their claim to be authorities on “God’s word.”

    This is exactly the same conflict as was between Galileo and the Catholic Church. Galileo, in his brilliance and his naivete thought that reason should persuade. That is a very good sentiment, but he just did not understand that he was up against powerful men who insisted that authority must dominate, regardless of what reason says.

  • Fentwin

    Bats are birds my friend . 😛

  • Erik Cameron

    My prof showed this to us in my first university evolution course. Actually played a small part in turning me over to the dark side.

  • Evolution undid Jesus for me.

  • FSq

    One of the most telling statements that is in itself a microcosm of this trend toward ignorance and “uneducation” surrounds the recent events in Dover, PA – well, a few years ago, but still recent history. When the Dover, PA school board tried to cram creationsim down the throats of children, and eventually it got shot down, Pastor Ray Mummert delivered this line, “We’ve been attacked … by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture”

    If that is not telling on so many levels, than nothing is.

  • FSq

    That is an interesting way to word it and present it Rich. I am not sure I agree 100 percent, but this is a nice way of wording it. I am going to mull this one over. There is something in the verbology yet that doesn’t seem to get there 100 percent, but it is a solid starting point.

  • cipher

    While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the
    origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an
    authority issue. Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means
    you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in
    Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation (Genesis 1).

    So isn’t it then, by definition, a “salvation” issue? If they “reject the authority of God’s Word” – don’t the angels weep for them?

  • Anonymous

     It’s also funny how Cretinists frequently say that Evolution is a “religion”. By doing so, they admit that their own beliefs are religious as well. The difference being that evolution is established as a fact and is a falsifiable theory, while Cretinism can’t even be called a failed hypothesis, since it was religious bullshit from day one.

  • You know what else rejects the authority of god’s word in Genesis 1?  Genesis 2.  It literally takes all of two chapters to reject a literal interpretation of the bible.  I enjoy watching the mental gymnastics literalists go through to get around this.

  • Anonymous

    Interestingly, the Catholic Church doesn’t oppose evolution. They fully accept it. Reading between the lines, it may be some kind of theistic evolution, but that’s infinitely superior to what American Protestants believe.

  • You’re right. Ignorance comes in two forms, passive, where someone simply does not know accurate information, and active, where someone is working hard to keep accurate information from getting into their heads, and even going out to attack the sources of accurate information. 

    The U.S. is in the throes of a wave of eduphobia, perpetrated by the religious right. Many political candidates flaunt their ignorance and lack of education as a plus, a virtue that assures their constituents that they’re backward bumpkins too, so they can be trusted. A well educated candidate has to apologize for his or her knowledge, reassuring people that they’re not “elitists,” whatever the hell that is.  It’s all upside down and backwards.

    When Americans get tired of seeing the U.S. steadily becoming a huge third world country that has fallen behind the rest of the world, when Americans get embarrassed at seeing Americans sneaking into foreign countries looking for menial jobs, maybe education and knowledge will become a virtue again.

    I’m afraid it’s going to have to get that bad before it gets better.

  • Anonymous-Sam

    Heh, at least he understands the main problem with using the Bible as one’s exclusive and final authority on the nature of life. That problem is that the Bible is incomplete. It presents an understanding of creation as written by people thousands of years ago and is completely incompatible with science as we know it. If Christianity’s advocates were intelligent, they would be working on a way to incorporate the scientific advances we’ve made in the last several thousand years into the structure of their religion. Instead, they stand their ground and argue that one or the other must be wrong, and it has to be science because… erm… because the book says so, so there.

    If the Pope were smart, he’d have written the next book in the Bible by now and would use his authority as the leader of a religion to force people to try and accept it, so that in a few generations, all these contradictions between “reality as a goat shepherd 3000 years ago saw it” and “reality as an astrophysicist sees it” could be reconciled. “God,” he would argue, “created and inspired knowledge, just as He created the universe, so that as our understanding of the cosmos increased, we would understand His design all the better.”

    Or he would admit the truth: That the Old Testament is a load of crap. He could still salvage it with a simple argument: “Yes, the historical and allegorical material is fancified, but it doesn’t really matter. Neither does it matter how the laws presented in the Bible have so little relevance to us today. The real purpose of the Bible is in its spiritual teachings. What worked for our ancestors doesn’t need to work for us, but the underlying message of love and peace that Jesus taught does and should.”

    But he isn’t, and religion doesn’t. The Pope puts his foot down and says “EVERY WORD IS TRUE BECAUSE I SAY IT IS AND IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE,” and every year that passes between the Old Testament and The Present Day serves to prove how absurd the story really is and how little meaning religion has for us today.

  • FSq

    Somehow right became left, black became white, and wrong became right. The average slob in the street has sold out their own interests for sound bites and religious quips. 

    Education used to be the most important thing a parent could do for their child. Now, it seems that keeping the ignorant ensconced in video games, new shiny iPhones (and yes, I have one so I should not be a hypocrite, but I also have a library in my home) and 167 channels of TV and away from real education and learning.

    There is even a major candidate who has come out and said that education leads to critical thinking which erodes faith, and he said it like that was a BAD thing!

    I am very frightened for the future of this country. So much so, I am considering becoming a permanent Ex-Pat. Things are not going to improve in the US. Example – Santorum/Bachmann/Palin et al have now created an environment where religiousity defines and dictates political success. The pandora’s box has been opened, or better put, the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going to go back in. Really, from this point forward, things are going to continue to get worse.

    I have posted this before, but a great point is:

    n 1960 conservati­ves were worried that the Catholic Democratic candidate would get his directives from the Pope; JFK had to reassure America that his religion is secondary to his oath of office. 

    In 2012, Republican­s and conservati­ves wish to let Catholic Bishops decide what is acceptable when it comes to employer based health insurance. We seem to be going backwards.Also, a list of questions (I fail to remember where this came from but it is a great list of questions) that MUST be asked of any religious candidate:1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

    2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

    3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?

    4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

    5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

    6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

    7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

    8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

    9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

  • MariaO

    You would be surpriced about how many scientific hypothesis are based on the vaguest, uninformed ideas that – for example – come to us after a few glasses of wine in the evening. I would say the majority. But they are very quickly disproved and thus are never seen in the outsdide world. This is the beauty of science – not that it is always right, but that is self-correcting. Usually by the same researcher that got the idea!

  • Equating religious doctrines with scientific theories is a good illustration of ignorance of the scientific process.

  • Catholics aren’t literalists, and the RCC endorses many scientific advancements, including evolution and, recently, man-made climate change.  I have my issues with Ratzinger, but you’re attributing to him positions he and his church don’t hold.  Honestly, the RCC would be almost completely harmless in their theism if it wasn’t for their abominable stances on anything relating to human sexuality (LGBT, women, pre-marital sex, child-raping priests…).

  • “If we approach Scripture from the standpoint that it teaches absolute truth…”

    Let’s start here. We can’t let them advance beyond unjustified premises like this.The creationist relies on a scattershot-style approach to arguments. They want everyone to blink while they make the premise above, so they can proceed to overwhelm us with the ensuing bullshit.

    If we want to show people what it means to practice academic rigor, sound theory, and safe inference, the easiest place in this debate to start is with the premise above.

  • Salvation-Authority? Time for semantic arguments!

    “Of course, Ken, Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation. But you don’t think a day in the eye of the lord is the same length of time as a mere human day, do you? How could you be so arrogant?”

  • For those of us unfamiliar with it, can you be more specific?

  • Quick-and-dirty…

    Genesis 1: God creates everything in six days, culminating with man at the end to manage it all.

    Genesis 2: God creates man first, then creates all the animals in an effort to find a companion for him.  There’s more nuanced differences, but that’s a pretty basic and direct contradiction that really can’t be explained away while holding to a literal interpretation.

  • No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

  • SteveS

    I know he believes the bible is inerrant.. Which of the 2 mutually-incompatible creation stories in Genesis should I take to be true? Is Eve made of mud or a rib? My parents didn’t stone me to death when I came out as an atheist at 10.. should I ask my Mother to do the deed now? Or, should I just go immolate myself now? So many questions… I am going to start losing sleep if My Ham doesn’t start providing better answers.

  • I’d be interesting in your mulling.  I’m working on a blog post on the issue.  Maybe part of that 100% is mathematics?  I am comfortable saying that 1 + 1 = 2 can’t be wrong.  That is, they do have laws in science, as distinguished from ‘only a theory’s.

  • Anonymous

    American Catholics don’t necessarily accept evolution either. Rick Santorium is Catholic doesn’t accept the RCC’s position on evolution.

  • MV

     The Catholic Church does not accept evolution.  Theistic evolution is another way of saying intelligent design. Sure, old earth creationism may be better than young earth creationism but neither is scientific.

  • MV

     No, the Catholic Church is literalist and does not endorse evolution.  Although endorse is a bit closer to the truth than accept.  It is more correct to say they endorse intelligent design or old earth creationism.  The last time I checked, I didn’t find souls, original sin, Adam and Eve, Noah, or God required or explained by the scientific theory of evolution.  And as a former Catholic, those were all things I was taught about in a quite literal sense.

  • Ndonnan

    All i hear is a lot of sheep Baaaahing,talk about blind followers,if its written by a person with Dr. before their name then its truth if it supports your stance and you asume its absolute and been tested. I give blood 4 times a year,why because sceientists carnt even make blood,the basis of our life form,yet they tell me how the earth was created.Stop being so arrogant and ignorant yourselves.If you really are freethinkers and seekers of truth educate yourselves. http://WWW.halos.com,WWW.OrionFdn.org,WWW.creation.com

  •  1 + 1 = 2 can be wrong. It depends on the axioms you define for the particular mathematical system you are working with. Mathematics is not science; science is not mathematics. Math is an artificial system for manipulating symbols; once you define your axioms, you can say with absolute certainty that something- within that system- is correct or incorrect.

    There are no scientific facts. Science provides a way of understanding nature, but we can know nothing with absolute certainty. No true scientist would suggest otherwise. All we ever have is evidence- sometimes LOTS of evidence- to support a theory. But ultimately, any theory can turn out to be wrong (although in practice, few are likely to be radically so).

    Of course, this is completely different from most religious ideas, where everything starts with the unquestioned assumption of absolute truth. When you approach things that way, there is no need or desire for any evidence at all.

  • Ndonnan

    Vanishingly Rare eh,not long ago i read in the paper about professor Antony Flew, titled”I Was Wrong,the worlds most notorious atheist called it quits”.Interesting artical indeed,says sceince and the study of DNA made him change his mind, hes written a book about it called”There is aGod”.Its like the pope becoming an atheist. Or the uni lecturer,Josh McDowell,he set out to disprove christianity,ended up “seeing the light”,wrote the book”,Evidence that demands a verdict”.Another artical in the paper titled ,Honest Atheist,subtitled,”As an atheist, i truly belive Africa needs God”,written by UK conservative MP Matthew Parris,he wrote in part,”it confounds my ideological beliefs,stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarresed my belife that there is no God”,when discussing christians working in Africa. So from my perspective it is quite a common occurence

  • Dubliner

    The RCC does fully accept the science of evolution. They just like to add in a sort of ‘guided by god’ caveat tokeep religion in there somewhere. I grew up in Catholic country and until the internet came along I had no idea that Americans still believed in biblical creationism. It’s just not something that raises its head in Ireland. Mind you the RCC has been very damaging to our country in many ways but when it comes to science it’s pretty ok.

  • Mona Hares

    “evolution is real but God has a hand in the process” I am convinced of that.”
    Science provides a way of understanding nature, but we can know nothing with absolute certainty. No true scientist would suggest otherwise. All we ever have is evidence- sometimes LOTS of evidence- to support a theory ”
    Hence, in my point of view, assuming that there is only one GOD, the best religion is that one where we can better understand nature… (I am muslim)

  • Anonymous

    They are really two different creation myths that are joined together by a sentence in the middle. The first one is far older

  • chicago dyke, venomous lesbian

    i like your attitude, but i have to ask: upon what evidence do you base your conclusions that there is, for one thing, and only, for another, “one god?”

    there isn’t really a lot of evidence for the (muslim) god, or for that matter, any of the thousands and thousands of others that various books and cults have claimed are real. all “real scientists” can agree on that. 

  • chicago dyke, venomous lesbian

    how many times did abraham and sarah go to egypt? was eve made from dirt or a bone? did god truly keep his promise with david or did he punish david’s descendants and take away their rule? when was the world created, before or after man? 

    just read the thing. it stops making sense inside the second chapter.

  • chicago dyke, venomous lesbian

    however, enumeration is an action that is the same for all of us, all the time. if there is one chicken in my barn, and i buy another one and put it there, then there are two chickens. that isn’t something an axiom can change. 

  • chicago dyke, venomous lesbian

    never heard of any of those people, and i read atheist blogs daily. 

  • Ndonnan

    Try google or getting out more

  • Mona Hares

    Logically, as there is only one mother, one father, etc.. there must be only ONE Creator (with different names I agree according to the religion..) The Religion is supposed to be One too as issued from the same God… The differences between the various Books were only invented by men.
    What do you mean by “real scientists”??  These “scientists” are poor ignorant men who are trying to understand the magnificence of the created nature

  • george.w

    Rich Wilson FTW! I’m totally stealing that.  I’ve said a lot less in a lot more words. 

  • Yes, vanishingly rare. Like “scientists” who deny global warming or evolution, they are so rare that the same handful are paraded out whenever deniers need to bolster their credibility (it doesn’t really work, though).

    When a person figures out how to think rationally, there’s a good chance they’ll become an atheist. But that’s a genie that’s really hard to put back in the bottle, which is why the flow from theist to atheist is largely one way.

  • (sorry if this ends up a dup, Patheos decided to moderate my comment, perhaps because I included a link to verse)

    The reason you can give blood, and it’s useful, is because science has figured out which blood can be given to whom without killing them.  You know, blood types.

    The reason we don’t treat leprosy with hyssop, cedar, red yarn, and a pair of doves (one of which is killed) is that science has given us alternatives.

    The reason antibiotics aren’t mentioned in the bible is that they were discovered later.  By science.  Well, ok, discovered by accident by a scientist and later refined and expanded and understood by science.

    Science doesn’t know everything.  That’s why it keeps going.  Religion may have ‘all the answers’ but science has the annoying habit of disproving religion’s ‘answers’.

  • That’s a poor argument from authority.  There are plenty (I would guess more) clergy who have become atheists.  The one thing I’ll give you is that the greatest number of converts is atheist->religions (although some number of those come back to atheist).

    You know, since people aren’t born believing in God.  They have to be taught which god to believe in.

  • I think your logic isn’t. If you want to compare humans to the Universe, and mothers and fathers to creators, you have to accept that neither mothers nor fathers by themselves are creators: it takes two. So by your logic, the Universe shouldn’t have one creator, but two parents.

    I look at modern science, and recognize the possibility that humans might learn how to create a universe (there have been a few good science fiction stories with that theme). Perhaps ours was similarly created in a lab one notch in the universal hierarchy above us. If so, the “creator” might just be a team of ordinary hyperuniverse researchers.

  • Bryan

     Flew “converted” to deism, not Christianity or any of the other big religions. Believing in a hands-off, “prime mover” style god is pretty different from believing in Yahweh or FSM or whoever else. Thomas Jefferson, author of the woo-free Jefferson Bible, was a deist, which, in my book, is just a shade more theistic than agnosticism.

    Not to say that being a deist is wholly logical either, but it’s closer to “I don’t know” than the “pope becoming an atheist,” as you suggest.

  • Somewhere in this debate 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04 Sam Harris mentions someone else’s hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation.  The argument goes that we can envision digitizing the human mind.  It’s just a big bunch of neurons.  Now, assuming it can be done, it’s logical that there will be more simulated people than real people, living in many simulated universes.  So, the likelihood is that we actually simulated not real.  We may in fact be simulations within simulations ad infinitum.

    The fact that ‘man’ was created in God’s image, and woman after that, I think is striking evidence that the story was written by men.

  • Anonymous

    It seems poor old Anthony Flew succumbed to senility in his old age.

    Josh McDowell is a noted liar — just like other apologists who claim to have been former atheists. It’s the latest fad among the would-be soul recruiters. They may have been apathetic to religion before they accepted it (or before they realized there’s money to be made in apologetics). I don’t think an educated, intelligent, mentally healthy atheist would ever fall into christian belief.

    As to MP Parris, I don’t know why he dismissed all the people of other religions or no religion who work to improve conditions in Africa. I don’t know why he doesn’t realize that christian missionaries are, for the most part, more concerned with “saving” souls than helping people in real and practical ways. I guess he’s just not too smart. (I do note that he is a Conservative ;-}

  • Anonymous

     What mental gymnastics? In most cases, they simply refuse to see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as two different, conflicting stories. Heck, it even had to be pointed out to me (at which point it became glaringly obvious) — and I was never a fundie. But if I had been a funditard, I’m sure I could rally my best defenses in order to remain blind and ignorant.

  • Right, I understand that.  Didn’t feel like launching into a dissertation on the subject. 😉

  • Anonymous-Sam

     And now I have this mental picture of an ape in a white robe with the holy sun aura behind his head…

  • Anonymous-Sam

    Yes, but both are supposed to be The Word of God, 100% true, infallible, etc. How can two completely different accounts of the same event both be true in every regard?

  • Out of curiosity, when were you taught by Catholics?  Because I was raised Catholic too, and my first introduction to source criticism came in a Catholic high school.  In twenty-three years of hanging around the RCC, I never once came across the concept that history or science must be wrong if it conflicts with the bible – I was always told we had to figure out how to interpret the passage.  Could be a geographical thing too, as I was raised in a more liberal area of the country.

  • Anonymous-Sam

    I should clarify that when I refer to “the Pope,” I refer to the authority of the position, rather than a specific pope we have today or have had in the recent past. They have interchangeable heads as far as I’m concerned, since I doubt we’re ever going to see any pope try to significantly change the church in any way. Status quo is the real god, after all.

  • Anonymous-Sam

     You’re trying to prove a negative with a negative. “Science can’t explain X, so clearly the only explain is Y” is not a valid argument. Allow me to demonstrate:

    What? You can’t flap your arms and fly? Then clearly the Spaghetti Monster is the only deity!

  • Since you think science knows absolutely nothing, you should refrain from all modernities until they figure it all out for your satisfaction. This would include computers, the internet, phones, keyboards (which you may find less than problematic, given your penchant for using them incorrectly), air travel, sanitized water, sanitized food preparation, medicine, cars, and pretty much everything else which surrounds you.

    After all, since science knows nothing, and you don’t trust scientists at all, shouldn’t you ask your god to provide all of these things for you instead of science?

    Come back to us when your god has provided you with the amenities to reply. Remember: no cheating and buying things. God should provide. Let us know when he does.

  • When you think of all the science happening in the ancient world during the centuries when the Bible was written-  from mechanics to cosmology to architecture- it’s stunning that the residents of the Holy Land managed to miss out on almost all of it.

  •  He’s a “cafeteria Catholic.”  He rejects the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, too, even though the Pope has stated that he is “gravely concerned” about it.

  •  “only one mother, one father”
    Is your god a biological entity?  Why would a supreme being be governed by the rules of the creatures he supposedly created?

    “The differences between the various Books were only invented by men.”   I suggest you read about the religions of Asian cultures (which have their own books,)  American Indians, and Africans.  The differences are vast, with no mythological consensus on there being a single creator.  

  •  I’ve had recent extended chats with kids attending a Catholic junior high, and they’re being taught that humans did evolve from other primates, but that at some point God popped in a soul.  I assume he zapped the whole pack of apes at once, otherwise, at least some of our ancestors committed bestiality.

  •  I would separate a modern deist from an Age of Enlightenment deist like Jefferson. Deism is essentially a philosophy that stems from ignorance. 250 years ago, there was no apparent natural explanation for the Universe as we see it, for the variation (or existence) of species, and other fundamental observations. So many rational men adopted a largely godless viewpoint, simply leaving “Nature” or “the Creator” as an explanation for first causes. I think any of these men would be atheists in today’s world (a point I make in this essay. A modern deist is deliberately ignoring (or fails to understand) some current knowledge, and is therefore guilty of a degree of intellectual dishonesty (or laziness) that wasn’t present in the Rationalist deists.

  • They can’t be… hence that sort of interpretation of the bible falling apart after reading Gen 1 and Gen 2.

  • Ndonnan

    Wishful thinking Mr.C

  • Ndonnan

    Yes thats true Rich,most do have to be shown how to recognise God. So how do you respond to people like the amazing artist Akiane. Born into a family with atheist pearants,from a 3yo telling her mum about the conversations with God,seeing Him and angels, or the 4yo Colton Burpo telling his pearants about meeting Jesus and angels when ih hospital.His dad Todd   has written a book called,Heaven is for real

  • Ndonnan

    Not according to his own book .In it he states”christianity is the one religion that most deserves to be honoured and respected”

  • What is very nearly universal to these kinds of stories is that the children describe their religious experience in terms of the dominant beliefs of their culture.  Which is exactly why I said “which god to believe in”.

    So how do you respond to all the people who have very similar stories of alien abduction?  Does Jesus have a very large head and two very large black eyes?

  • Ndonnan

    Try  looking up the links given,all written by sceintists,why would you say i think sceince knows nothing,i love sceince and my sceince teacher of a wife. i just look  into it myself and not just belive the rubbish you so gullably do. Now get behind the flock

  • Ndonnan

    Well said Mona,all true

  • Ndonnan

    Read Genesis,there clearly was two

  • Piet Puk

    Seeing the links you posted and your willfully ignorant conclusions, we can safely assume you have no idea what science is , or how to spell it.
    Your contributions are very amusing to read. Keep it up, it provides great psychological insight in the highly delusional mind.

  • Anonymous

     Although your steering awful close to the “no true atheist” line, I have to agree with you when it comes to Josh McDowell. Anytime I meet someone who claims they used to be an atheist, after talking for a while it becomes clear that what they meant was: I used to not think about religion at all. While technically that would be an atheist, it’s not the same thing as someone who studied all the various religions and philosophies and came to a well-thought out conclusion that they don’t hold a belief in any god or gods.

  • Ndonnan

    Akiane had no such influence,according to her mother she had been sheltered from religion,yet what she painted as a 3yo and the stories she told are the same as christian teaching.As for what Jesus looks like,smoke enough dope and he very well might look like an alian

  • Ndonnan

    Why thankyou Piet,im glad i bring you some joy ,i guess if your looking for delusional minds youve come to the right web site.For more fun and laughter,check out the evolution sites,ha talk about what passes for sceince its embarassing no matter how you spell it

  • Shouldbeworkin’

    Unless, of course, each chicken is abnormally large. In that case, one extremely large chicken plus one extremely large chicken can equal three chickens… for extremely large values of chicken.  😉

  • Rajiv

     very true…just like the repulicans….they dont care about anything but themselves.