Saturday, August 15, 2009

Creationists on evolution.

The best place to start when discussing creationism is probably discussing why people hold these beliefs. Creationists don't believe that god created the universe out of nothing, or that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old for any reason founded in science. The reasons behind their belief are purely religious. Many creationists the have the gall to suggest that evolution is a religion.

Lets start with some basic definitions.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Evolution doesn't follow these definitions, and the only conclusion that can logically follow that is that evolution is NOT a religion.

Besides definitions, the core difference between creationism and evolution is evidence.
Evolution is an evidence based science. We have fossils that show common descent, we have genetics that show common descent, and this evidence is very substantial, it is not merely a few pieces here and there.
Creationism on the other hand is founded on principles from the bible. This does not constitute evidence in any way. A book written mostly in the bronze age, by men who knew absolutely nothing about science. A book that has been shown to be wholly unreliable on historical and scientific matters, and riddled with contradictions. 90% of the 'evidence' that creationists postulate has either already been refuted or is not in fact evidence at all. What I mean by not being evidence at all is that it is rather an absence of evidence, Creationists look for holes in current scientific understanding (evolution in particular) and then claim, "You can't explain this, therefore god exists" (might I add, it should be "we can't explain this yet"). This is known as the 'god of the gaps' theory.
The proponents of the 'god of the gaps' idealogy are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. There is nothing scientific about glorifying ignorance and abandoning reason and then claim that it is more scientific that its very well established arch-nemesis evolution.
There is no reason to believe in biblical creationism. There is no scientific evidence that supports it, and the bible itself is nothing to be relied on, except by blind faith.

To be continued...


  1. Yo KJ, it's Ryan :) I COME IN PEACE :D I thought I might ask you 2 questions and hear what you think.

    In the year 4000 A.D. or C.E. Whatever.

    My 1st question: ...Do you consider that people living then will maybe look at evidence, science, etc. of the Post-Modern Age as some do now towards the men of the Bronze Age? They might say stuff like
    "These guys knew absolutely nothing about science."
    "Their evidence has been shown to be wholly unreliable on historical and scientific matters, and riddled with contradictions."

    My 2nd question: ...What are your thoughts on where the Bible will be at at this time?

    If you are interested in my thoughts on these two questions I will happily share but I want to hear yours first :)

    - Ryan

    P.S. Know that I am no creationist, I consider the Torah or Pentateuch to be something far greater than a literal depiction of how it all went down.

  2. Hey Ryan, good to see someone willing to put their name next to their comment.

    The thing with scientific understanding is that it's not afraid of change. When new evidence arises, it is vigorously tested, and if it holds up, a new hypothesis is postulated. What we have noticed over the last 200 years of modern science, is that we have developed on the theories of people like darwin and newton and galileo. That weren't 'wrong' per se, but they didn't have the same data availiable to them as we do today. So my my answer to you is both yes and no for the first question.
    Yes, that scientific knowledge will have increased gargantualy since today, and no that I don't think we have anything 'wrong', but there are definately more details yet to be discovered, and that is the beauty of science, it is progressive, not regressive.

    To the second question. Honestly, the bible is a relic of bronze age tribal morality, and our modern sense of morality (which isn't based in faith), is much more evolved than that of the bronze age Jews. Our modern values are much more altruistic than theirs.

    To be fair, I believe that Jesus was a moral teacher who was ahead of his time in terms of morality, but that he has been 'deified' by zealots decades or centuries after his death.

  3. Yeah bro, my name will always go next to what I say :) Matthew 12 verse something:
    "The words you say will be used to judge you. Some will prove you right, some will prove you guilty." - one of Jesus' moral teachings ;D

    - Ryan

  4. Hi KJ,

    Firstly I would like to say I am undecided on the matter of evolution.

    BUT, would just like to say to all the die hard creationists who will be reading this - DO NOT argue against evolution or any other scientific theory if you don't know anything about it - please. It is very sad (hypothetical situation), when a 13 year old (or 30 year old for that matter), laughs confidently along with the preacher at the 'obviously' incorrect theory of evolution - an idea which their parents/fellow church goers have strongly discouraged, because it 'must' be incorrect.

    Why do Christians close their minds to such an idea, and just laugh it off? Is it a fear that it's truth will invalidate faith? If you close your mind, and brush away such an important idea as evolution, are you really searching for truth? No, it is likely you have closed your mind in fear.

    For me, I neither believe, or disbelieve evolution at this stage. To be honest, I don't know enough about it. There are many concepts in biology that DO point towards evolution (and I mean MANY), such as vestigial organs (e.g. remnants of 'legs' in the whale), atavistic traits (the expression of recessive genes which have not been 'turned on' in millions of years, yet for some reason are expressed - e.g. hind limbs on dolphins) and many more. However on the other hand, it is very hard to explain how selection for an advantageous trait can occur before an organism exists? i.e. selection for traits occurs at a phenotypic level, not at a genotypic level - therefore, when only chemicals, or proteins existed, what traits were there to select against? And also - chemicals/proteins do not have offspring to pass these traits on to?

    I was hoping to get an answer from my evolution lecturer, however he didn't reply =(

    Just some thoughts =)


  5. Hi KJ its Chai.

    Seeing as everyone is putting down their opinions i thought id add my 10cents. Even though you no longer believe in God, you can still develop yourself spiritually. You should read some of Carl Jung's work on the unconscious, if you already haven't. 'The undiscovered self' is a great place to start.

    I dont believe in "God" anymore, but i have had some pretty intense experiences that have lead me to believe that there is more to life than we can consciously perceive. Im pretty confident that there is no celestial being, rather a collective consciousness and our job in life is to expand that knowledge.

    Im not qualified to talk about this in the slightest haha but if you want to expand on a new way to see spirituality, then check out Terence McKenna :)


  6. Very good comment William. Things like genetic similarity throughout the animal kingdom, junk DNA, the many transitional fossils, geographic distribution and other things also point straight at evolution.

    Interesting view Chai.
    I'm personally inclined to believe that theres nothing more than the physical world. My reason for this is that I've never experienced something that can't be explained naturally, and also because neurological science is a very new field in science and we have a lot left to learn, and I believe in years to come that we will be able to confirm that everything from our emotions (including love) and religious experiences through to our personality are just reactions in the brain.

  7. Chai here again,
    Have you ever thought that we havent evolved our senses to the level that we can perceive beyond our conscious existence? Its called the 'Fart Theory' lol. For instance if we hadnt evolved the sense of smell or hearing, we would not know when someone has farted. Lame example, i know, but just to get you thinking..
    I seriously recommend Jung's readings, his approach to the unconscious is an objective scientific approach. Humans understanding of the universe is so limited. If there was a percentage of universal knowledge, we would know jack :)

  8. Just a tip for all you people posting "____ here": Choose the name/URL option instead of Anonymous. You can just leave URL blank.

  9. i have definatly experienced something un-natural/super-natural. I am 19 years old and was born with my left eye blind. On July the 8th 2009 I was in a Christian meeting and a bunch of people prayed to God for my vision and it happened. I can now see out of both eyes. I cant explain it which is why that day I decided to follow Jesus.

  10. wow thats awesome! I have a story too! This year we were at Get Smart in Christchurch and we were getting so passionate about God and we were praying so hard for God to do something in our city and at that moment an earthquake shook our city and it was in the papers all over the country.

  11. Oh yeah? Well I have a story too!

    One day I was praying out of desperacy, despite my lack of belief, and I realised that there really IS a God. In fact, I AM that God! How did I realise this? Because I was talking to myself!

  12. Judging by the time the previous 2 comments were posted, (13 minutes apart) and the terrible spelling and grammar in both of them, I'm assuming they were made by the same person.
    Now, why would someone feel the need to make up not one, but two fantastical stories about miracles?

    Can you explain to me then, why every super-natural oriented religion on earth claims similar miracles? Are their religions also true or is there another reason behind it?

    I believe there are two reasons behind these supposed miracles.

    The first reason is that most claimed miracles are just plain false, or mis-reported, or coincidental. For example, the anonymous troll said they were praying, and god caused an earthquake to happen while they were praying. Nevermind the fact that earthquakes DO happen, or that they weren't praying for an earthquake, or that no one wanted the earth quake anyway, this 'miracle' definitely falls into this first category. Misreported, misrepresented, misunderstood, untrue, or coincidence.

    The second category is psychosomatic.

    1. of or pertaining to a physical disorder that is caused by or notably influenced by emotional factors.
    2. pertaining to or involving both the mind and the body.

    Psycho-somatic illnesses can be cured by placebo effects. However, things like severed limbs, brain damage, or other such permanent condtions will never be cured by faith-healings or placebo effects. Theres a reason god doesn't heal amputees. Depending on the causes of this supposed 'blind at birth' miracle that the anonymous troll mentioned, it could be cured by psychosomatic means. If the eye, and all its functioning parts were all present, but the brain was ignoring its presence (think of a light switch being turned on) if the person was able to get their brain to communicate with this functioning but switched off eye, sight could be regained.

  13. I dont believe in god either but I think god is just something that helps people get through their lives. Its more of an abstract concept rather than the presence of a celestial being.

    I wouldnt take any of the stories in the bible literally, but instead use your own interpretation of them to guide you in troubled times and so forth.

    Thats my take on god, and if all christians used that approach I think the bible would be a less laughable thing by people who are pro-evo or just anti christian. I realise that people don't use this view however, and thats why we end up with so many religious fanatics and whatnot.

    In saying that, If it makes people happy, then let them do it. Lots of people are cured by god. Maybe not physically, but mentally, and spiritually, people can turn to the bible and it helps them

    Again I dont believe in it but from their point of view that is what I would see.

    My thoughts aside, I think Chai is right, and maybe our sense of conciousness just will not percieve things that seem supernatural to us at the moment. Some turn to a supernatural explanation, and some turn to an unproven scientific explantaion.

    You should listen to Tool more. All about opening your third eye and the pineal gland and planes of existence. Its crazy shit. Or take some acid.

  14. I think anyone who reads the bible honestly, would have a tough time using it to get them through 'tough times'. It would be no more help than any other book from bronze age mythology. Stories of god wrestling with men, and losing, ridiculous laws, boring (and contradictory) genealogies, stories of grotesque murder, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice and occasionally a good paragraph or two (or less).

    People are free to believe whatever nonsense they want to, but it's when they go around trying to convert people, or indoctrinating children, and being bigoted in general is where I see the problem.

    I don't assume supernatural explanations because there is no reason to infer one. All evidence of everything else so far in the universe has pointed to a natural explanation, so I take the view that eventually even the things which may be unexplained for now, will eventually be found to be naturalistic.

  15. So KJ, you believe there are things on earth that are yet to be explained. Is your mind fully open to God being in the "not YET" catagory?

    Also, what about MOST of the New Testament where Jesus performed miracles, blind being able to see, lepars and outcast made whole and well. Where the prositutes and tax collectors were welcomed to have a meal with Jesus although contextually this was abosultely unheard of not good of him to do.

    Most of the New Testament is actually about really GREAT and noble things.
    And infact ALOT of the Old Testament is also.
    I know your argument that God is a murderer and blah blah...but lets call a spade a spade.. if He didnt do what he did - which was kill of the people who were committing horrendous crimes such as child sacrifices etc, then they would have taken over the world and the world will be a million times differerent than it is today in a worse and more corrupt way.

    If you were to kill 1 to save 1000 what you do KJ?

  16. actually - i was the person writing the blind eye story, and i didnt write the 2nd story. Surely I would have tried to disguise it by choosing 2 seperate names or something if i was to do that.

    I assure you - Theres no way that my eye just "switched on" like a light bulb as you so proclaimed in your attempt at denying the supernatural.

    I have been to see numerous optomitrists and specialists about my eye and previous to being able to see out of it, their conclusion was that i would NEVER see out it because all the "parts" werent there.

    I assure you, i didnt THINK harder, or try harder.. i just stood there with my eyes closed as I listened to the prayers - not being a believer at the time. When I opened my eyes I literlly freaked out because I saw clearly for the first time from both eyes.

    There is no other explanation for this, try as you will though im sure..

  17. Incorrect. KJ's theory is perfectly plausible. And you yourself claim science to be imperfect at this stage (as we all realise), yet you say the opticians and so were perfectly correct about things being missing? Self-contradiction there.

  18. To the Anonymous who was blind in one eye:

    I can assure you that there have been some pretty conclusive studies on psychosomatic illnesses (including blindness) over the past 70 years. Psychosomatic illnesses and cures are a scientific fact, whether you choose to believe them or not (the same with evolution). I have no obligation to believe in miracles from this story. If your story is true, I am happy for you that you now have sight in your left eye.

    To the other anonymous above:

    Please read your own bible, and when you read anything about god or about the actions of god or the jews, think twice about it and think to yourself "Is this a moral thing to do?".
    I beg you to not just assume it's moral because "god did it", please take a step back and look at it objectively.
    If you read the bible, whilst looking at the morality of it objectively, and still come to the conclusion that the thousands massacred by the hand of god in the OT was moral, then I'm afraid you are a deeply troubled person with an abhorrent sense of morality.

    With respect to what you said about the new testament. The four gospels only equate to around a third of the new testament, so there goes your theory of "most of the new testament". Some of the teachings of Jesus ARE really noble, I'm glad we can agree on something. As per the miracles, the fact that the gospels were written at minimum an entire generation later, there was likely no one left living that had actually seen or met Jesus, the stories would have been told like chinese whispers and slowly became 'mythified'. Miracles written in a 1900 year old text don't make them true by default, so I'm disinclined to believe them. As per your claim that the NT and OT contain mostly noble things, I'd encourage you to ACTUALLY read your bible, because you'll find that your statement is just plain false.

  19. mmmmmmm... theres no doubting that you are smart, and you are competant in your field..

    but for me, there is an underlying truth that GOD, seperate from the bible, is in himself REAL & TRUE. I KNOW this, not because of science but because of a revelation deep inside of me. a JOY He gives me which transcends circumstance. a sence of purpose, meaning. A comfort of Love which nothing else on earth can compare to.

    We miss a whole dynamic of what it means to be HUMAN when we are only intellectual. I give it up for intellectuals - i would love to be one. But there is more to life than having all the answers and knowing 'stuff' in your head.

    Besides - on another note - iv seen way to much spiritual stuff to not believe..
    Went to this intense retreat where there was a room full of people praying..
    We were praying for demon deliverance and i saw with my own eyes people projective vomiting, screaming their heads off.. I saw one lady bend all the way back far enough that her head was almost at her ankles.. her back should have broke.. it wasnt her doing it.. but some 'power' or 'force' inside of her that was somehow in control..

    theres some crazy stuff in the 'spiritual realm' that you dont even have to be a believer in Christ to know it happens..

    mmm thats all for now.

  20. "there is an underlying truth that GOD, seperate from the bible, is in himself REAL & TRUE. I KNOW this"

    There lies the fundamental difference in our views. My belief is that there is no underlying truth, but that truth[s] should be able to be discovered. I am fairly certain that there is no god, but I would never claim to "know" that there is no god. The possibility is always there, I just think that it is a very small possibility.

    So I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

  21. KJ, we both know very well there /is/ a God, known as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Stop trying to deny the truth about everything, for the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true creator of all. (Except, presumably, himself. And whatever created him.)

  22. So you are I are on the same level.. neither of us reallllly "KNOW", its just I believe and you dont (anymore) based on things like the many biblical contradictions you have found.

    Do you agree that in LIFE you need an element of faith that has nothing to do with religion?

  23. Most christians will claim to 'know' that god exists, and that they 'know' him personally. I have yet to find one christian who can explain how though. Based on the evidence (or lack of) I believe that there is no god.

    It has been said that something that can be asserted without evidence (such as "god exists and I know it") can be dismissed without evidence.

    Why do christians try so hard to try and prove that atheism is a religion and that atheists have 'faith' in something?

    I think it's appropriate to quote one of my favourite songs.

    Rush - Faithless

    "I don't have faith in faith
    I don't believe in belief
    You can call me faithless
    I still cling to hope
    And I believe in love
    And that's faith enough for me"

  24. all you have to do is define faith and you'll see yourself that you have faith in something.
    read this article, its really interesting- and dont worry, not religious :)
    let me know your thoughts.

  25. Ok....

    Why argue semantics?
    Why do christians try so hard to try and prove that "ZOMGZ ATHEIESITSTS HAVE FAIIIITHHHHH ZOMGZZZ OMG AIIEETHIESTS!"


    By the way that article was interesting, but nothing I hadn't read before and it was also completely irrelevant.

    The point still stands that I don't believe in god for good reason, and you believe in god for no reason.

  26. I find it a question of more relevance to ask you, surely, does it not take more faith to believe in something without any real scientific proof like evolution; than to believe that there must be a supernatural being out there?
    looking at the incredible complexities of the world and nature and our human bodies; will show anyone that there is NO way any of this can be created by mutation or chance... i find it shocking that someone as intelligent (?)as you can even buy this theory KJ! wow.
    but then again, whatever the heart has decided it wants, the mind will find 'reason' to excuse it.
    Be careful that in your pursuit for 'higher education/thoughts/learning' that you do not restrict yourself by stubbornly holding on to a world view frame that may be entirely self-supported.
    Anthony Flew, one of the worlds previous leading atheists and a hardcore darwinist, has finally had the honesty with himself in recent years to admit that there is more evidence that evolution is not a scientific theory that stand up, than evidence that there is! Please ensure that you look at both sides of the coin... anybody in search of truth and reality must look at the evidence both for and against the case he supports, or the case will be lopsided, biased, and will fall.
    all the best in your pursuit of truth :-) never settle for anything less!

  27. hi in regard to your comment kj about a christian 'knowing' God well just speaking for myself even before i knew of the scientific evidence for proof evolution is a false theory etc, the thing that proved me God was real was this incredible change that happened inside myself when i called out to God to help me with my life, when things were so bad i just wanted to take my life and was a very angry and violent person. i hardly believed in God but was so desperate i just was guna try anything at all. and i read some of the NTestatment and asked God to help me change and to take away my violent anger and sadness and fears etc. and i kid you not, the way i changed so fast into the oppposite of what i was - to me that is how i know God exists and know him as a personal friend who i can chat to and who replies to me by doing things for me and with me. there can be nothing other than a supernatural being of love out there, who is personally interested in me and hears my cry - or there is no way i couldve changed my personality so drastically from my addicted and destructive behavious. but i know how you feel cos i still wrestle with the fact that i cannot put God in a box and understand him fully, that i cannot see him or touch him physically. but he is like the wind over still water on a lake; i cannot see him but i know where he has been because of the ripples created by his unseen force. this is how i know my God, but no butterly net or scientist will ever catch him.

  28. To anonymous,

    I entirely understand that view point, but when you say evolution is "something without any real scientific proof", that is just wrong. There is obviously scientific proof as stated previously - fossil records, atavistic traits, geographic distribution, genetic similarity, and the fact we observe mutations in our lifetime. For example, organisms (if you can call it that) such as HIV, which reproduce millions of times in a short space of time (relative to human generations)mutates extensively - the sole reason it cannot be treated - even though we know it's structure down to ATOMIC detail. Therefore if the time period is extended long enough, will it not be so different from the original that it can now be classified as a different species?

    However, your comment "looking at the incredible complexities of the world and nature and our human bodies; will show anyone that there is NO way any of this can be created by mutation or chance" may still well be true. It is very hard to conclude that all of these processes gradually came to function so perfectly - BUT there it is still possible to occur by chance whether you believe it or not.

    Once again, I am open to what is true, whether that be evolution or no evolution - not enough evidence exists for me (yet) to definitively sway me either way.


  29. Thanks for the comment William =)

    I'm afraid the two anonymous people have absolutely no idea how evolution works..

    To you anonymous christian people. I want you to know that your dogmatic rejection of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with any scientific evidence, it is purely religious. All of the 'controversy' that creationists preach has been refuted many times over by real scientists. That was the whole point of this particular blog post in fact.

    Christians, and creationists in particular are trying to ridicule and criticise a scientific field that they have no knowledge of, and quite possibly havn't even attempted to learn more about it besides reading the occasional creationist propaganda pamphlet or a video.

    Please, do not insult my intelligence by saying something so stupid as "i find it shocking that someone as intelligent (?)as you can even buy this theory KJ! " when you yourself have no understanding of science.

  30. Here's my ten cents. Only because five cents is obsolete and I'm a tightass.

    I believe in a Creator God and I embrace the concept of Evolution.

    Ooooo, did I just say that? Am I permitted to have that stance?


    Because in my opinion, and that's all I have, after having read and learnt things about both God AND Evolution, I have realized that one does not rule the other out! It's purely a pathetic human quarrel (that's been cranking for centuries now) between the Christians who have something personal against Evolution and the Evolutionists who have something personal against Christ!

    All involved need to wise up and exercise some bloody maturity. We need to stop bickering with each other and start looking out for each other in this life.

    I finish with this idea:

    Science gives us a deeper understanding about the world we live in.

    God shows us the best way to go about living out our lives in this world.

  31. I agree with a few of the things you said.

    "We need to stop bickering with each other and start looking out for each other in this life."
    "Science gives us a deeper understanding about the world we live in."

    Calling people evolutionists is a bit silly though. That term was invented by anti-evolution evangelical zealots. You shouldn't call a scientist an evolutionist any more than you'd call them a gravitationalist or an earth-revolves-around-the-sun-alist.

    Not many scientists would have something personal against 'christ', perhaps against christianity or religion in general.

    Heres the thing. Every time science discovers something that contradicts the bible or christian theology, there is a huge controversy that lasts a while, and eventually christian doctrine changes to fit science or christians re-interpret the bible as I mentioned in the other thread. A few centuries ago, if you discovered something that contradicted christianity you would have been killed. This period was known as the dark ages, christianity retarded human progress for 1500 years. And these evangelicals are trying to take us back to the dark ages. So while I am grateful for yours and other intelligent christians acceptance of the fact of evolution, I still think it's ridiculous that you can change doctrine and re-interpret the bible so much that a lot of the religion is barely recognisable anymore.

  32. I'm hearing ya :) I really enjoyed the comment regarding "Evolutionists", it is so true :D

    If scientists can embrace Christ, then what is their issue? Christianity is after all: the following of Christ, not the following of Christians who are just people. This could be sore on your ears but Atheism is more of a following of people ;D

    I do definitely agree with you that some of the big cheeses of historical Christianity have made some silly, stubborn decisions over the ages. They're only human :) I think it was a serious LACK of faith on their part that feared scientific discoveries might contradict scripture. I say this because I believe that science can go in your right hand and the Bible in your left, without starting a fist fight with yourself.

    I personally haven't been changing doctrine or RE-interpreting scripture for my OWN purposes or reasons. Everything I BELIEVE in I have put to the test in my life at some time and found it to be of the utmost awesomeness :D Because as I said above, the Bible = how we should live in the world... science = how we understand the world in which we live :)

    Science doesn't tell us how we should live.

  33. Science DOES prove the bible wrong. They are completely at odds with each other. Any attempt to reconcile bronze age scribblings with modern science is retarded. The men who wrote the bible had no concept of anything vaguely scientific.
    To try and say that The bible AND science are both true is a paradox of epic proportions.

    Science doesn't tell us how to live you're correct.
    Religion tries to but it does a horrific job of it. I've tried to explain to you how disgusting and immoral the bible is, but you just answered with something like "gods ways are higher than ours". This is a cop out like no other. The god of the old testament demonstrates the worst of human emotions, and yet "gods ways are higher than ours"? I can tell you, that most people on this earth have higher moral standards than the god of the old testament.

  34. KJ, my friend, this is going to be a loonnnggg post. In fact it is going to be two posts :D

    Firstly, I would like to assure that I never said anything like "Gods ways are higher than ours". I too find that to be a big time cop out, similar to "He works in mysterious ways", even though both statements are true :D It sounds like a comment you could affiliate with one of your many 'Anonymous' responses ;D

    Secondly, I believe you are seriously misinformed on a few things...

    -Science does NOT prove the Bible wrong.
    -Science and the Bible are NOT at odds with each other.
    -There is nothing in the Bible that needs reconciling with science.
    -There IS NO paradox...


    The Bible was never intended to win some "science facts battle" whilst being held up next to modern science or even Bronze Age science.
    They should never be compared in the first place!
    The Bible is NOT a scientific text!! Nor does it claim to be. The Bible is a message of hope and love from God to mankind, His favourite creation. It's purpose is completely different to the purpose of science. Please, understand this.

    With regards to your comment: "The men who wrote the Bible had no concept of anything vaguely scientific." They needed no knowledge of anything scientific! God did not require the men who scribed His Word to first present Him with their university qualifications (just look at the chaps Jesus chose to be his followers)! They needed only humility to carry out His will.

    Not to say that God has no respect for science. I think God enjoys the science of the universe. He designed it! It functions and does what it's purposed to do: Glorify Him. His INTEREST, I would suggest lies elsewhere...

    He is interested in PEOPLE. I implore you, to please look at the big picture of the Bible in context, KJ. God and the Bible are not disgusting and immoral. It is in fact WE who are disgusting and immoral:

    Human beings that He created in his image giving them a choice to either obey Him and live forever or disobey Him and die. We disobeyed and thus became filth, unpleasant in His sight. Understandably so! We spat in his face! The One who gave us life! It was a fair call to kick us out of Paradise and strip us of immortality. We should consider our every breath of air a blessing from Him!

    So for a long time God required mankind to sacrifice to Him some of their most prized, worldly possessions in order for His grace and mercy to be poured out on them temporarily. Those who refused? The 'Smite' for them! Would I be correct in saying that these animal sacrifices and human deaths make up some of the occurrences of the Old Testament you would classify as "abhorrent"? Yet another fair call on God's part I would say! We deserve nothing better!

  35. Until... *this is a long sentence by the way with lots of brackets :D*...approximately 2000 years ago, He fulfills many Old Testament promises and prophecies (the first of which He stated Himself when punishing Adam and Eve for their initial sin in Genesis 3) by turning up on Earth in the Middle East (where His current followers resided, why go anywhere else) as a fragile, male Homo sapien infant (who knows, maybe He was secretly a Homo erectus ;D that's my favourite species *Age of Empires 1, yeyahh*).

    He then humbly accepts and grows up in a low socio-economic status in the community. He then spends His adult life teaching about His kingdom and how He rolls, inviting others along who think they can handle it.

    But we don't like this. Not one bit. We murder Him. Namely crucify him. The most humiliating death of the time, which would probably still be the most humiliating now, not to mention illegal I'd guess. United Nations at least would probably be pretty pissed off resulting in a letter being sent to Israel stating how pissed off they were. Nevertheless, it was the death of a criminal, of which he was the extreme opposite.

    Three days later he conquers even over death proving he alone is God! He raised others from the dead in his ministry, and then brings himself back to life! WHO THE FRICK CARES WHO HE APPEARED TO FIRST!!

    Picture this, three of your mates go to a rock concert without you and come home ecstatic telling you about how the lead guitarist leapt into the air and did a front-flip landing in the bipedal position on the sea of raised hands that was the mosh pit! All whilst still playing!!
    "Hmm, what chords was he playing?" you ask.
    Friend 1 says "Ummm...I think there was an A Major in there somewhere?"
    Friend 2 "Nah mate, I'm pretty sure I heard a D Major"
    Friend 3 "Dude, I saw his hands, he definitely played an F minor!"
    All three look at you and say "But who gives a crap, right? He did a cracker front flip!"
    You say back to them "I'm sorry, I don't believe you guys. You all quoted different chords. Catch ya."

    Now there will never be an analogy that will fully illustrate accurately and appropriately this great wonder that Jesus accomplished. But it's all I could conjure up from my imagination. I think I've heard some of it from someone else before anyway. You get the point though aye? You're a smart chap :)

    Anyway, Jesus rises from the dead and tells His disciples to share with everyone what they have seen and heard. Basically, that He is God and the only way to acquire everlasting life is through Him. He then cruises back to heaven promising to return to us one day to unite the faithful few with Him for eternity in Paradise.

    The church then gets started. You’ve read the whole book, you know the whole story. We just seem to disagree on interpretation.

    I conclude (finally) by saying I consider the Bible to not be a library of sickening, horrific stories which also try and say "screw you" to science.

    I instead consider it one big message of hope and love for all humanity, should we accept it.

  36. Science does not prove the bible wrong, it just proves that many of the things said in the bible are wrong.

    I havn't seen any attempt by you as to explain why there are so many errors and contradictions in the bible with respect to god authorship/inspiration.
    did god author errors? or did god inspire people to be wrong?

    It is a deeply flawed book, even my own mother now acknowledges this. What I've been trying to get across is what reason could there possibly be to believe that such a flawed book could have been authored or inspired by god?

    I realise that you like the bible a lot, and that is all fine and dandy, but you can't accept the flaws of the bible and also claim divine authorship. That is called "having the cake AND eating it", if you know what I mean.

    I don't know how I can put this any simpler. The bible is inherently flawed, I could go to great lengths to explain some of the flaws (as I already have) but I have a feeling that no matter how many errors and contradictions I point out, you will simply ignore them and say that they don't matter, and that it is still true. This is what frustrates me, you see the problem and disregard it as if it never existed.

    I understand that you want to believe it. I WANTED to believe it for so long, but the mess that is the bible turned me away from itself.

    In fact the more I think about the concept of god, or the inspiration of the bible, the more ridiculous the whole thing seems.

  37. KJ, I can't attempt to explain away the minor... I repeat


    ...errors and contradictions in the Bible. They are indeed a MINORITY when overshadowed by the 'big picture' or the MAJORITY that I discussed in my two posts. I would have you read them again if you don't mind/can make the time.

    I was born in 1987. Anything before that, I can only nod my head and say to the person who lived before me
    "I trust what you tell me" or
    "Sorry that sounds ridiculous"
    Both of us having read the Bible, the first statement is obviously my response to it, the second, obviously yours :) And this is perfectly fine.

    P.S. I'd hate to see what your response to me might have been had I even had the gall to try and explain away these errors and contradictions :D

  38. Ryan, I dare you to read 'The Age of Reason' by Thomas Paine. It's availiable online for free.

    Written from 1793-1794 Thomas Paine puts forward his reasons for being a Deist, and his arguments against scriptural revelation and scriptural religions.

    But don't worry, it won't hurt your belief in god at all, as Thomas Paine believes in god.

  39. Oooo, a dare :) Is that how you convert your followers? JUST KIDDING. Atheism isn't a religion therefore converting doesn't apply ;)

    Mehh, KJ, to be honest I'm not much of a reader... If I'm gonna read something, I've gotta have a really really good 'Reason' ya know? ;D

    You got any videos/movies? I've seen one of Dawkins docos. That was...relatively interesting.

  40. Heres a good 'reason'.

    The book is called 'The Age of Reason'!

  41. Becoming an atheist has been called de-conversion. It's basically the complete opposite of religion.

  42. Hence my use of the capital 'R', KJ :D

    I repeat, got any vids? They're my preferred medium.

  43. All the vids I've watched have been on youtube so not really no.

  44. Hmmm, well I guess one day when I've got broadband access I'll saturate myself in YouTube and de-convert myself :)

  45. Well it wasn't youtube videos that de-converted me but I guess they might help a bit..

  46. Because I need help aye ;)

  47. You're free to believe whatever you want. We live in a free country.
    It just makes me sad to think people devote their lives to something that we'll never know exists and even sadder when people do atrocious things in the name of this sky-daddy.

    And then you have people believing that some book was written or inspired by god, when in reality it is just a collection of ancient mythologies.