Discovery of Water Deep Below Earth’s Surface May Confirm Biblical Accounts

Ocean waveScientists who have long been puzzled by the origins of Earth’s water are beginning to believe it originated deep inside of the planet—just like the Bible describes.

Where did our planet’s water come from? This question remains a hotly-debated issue among geologists and astronomers, who concede that it is still largely a mystery. Evolutionists who believe the Earth was originally a hot molten sphere abounding with toxic gases have struggled to make sense of the abundance of water currently on our planet.

“Water is so vital to our survival, but strangely enough, we don’t know the first thing about it—literally the first,” wrote Brian Greene in a “Smithsonian Magazine” article. “Where does water, a giver and taker of life on planet Earth, come from?”

Some scientists have postulated that Earth’s water must have come from external sources, like asteroids. Perhaps they collided with Earth billions of years ago and thereby brought liquid water to the planet.

The Bible tells a different story. According to Genesis, God initially created Earth as a water-covered sphere (1:1-2), then separated the waters from the waters to create the sky or atmosphere (1:7). Later, during the Great Flood, the Bible describes “the fountains of the great deep” breaking open and inundating the globe with water (7:11).

New scientific findings seem to support the Bible’s account. A report published recently in the journal “Nature” proposes that water actually originated deep inside of the Earth. The report is based on research conducted by an international team of a dozen scientists.

“The ultimate origin of water in the Earth’s hydrosphere is in the deep Earth—the mantle,” the scientists wrote in their report.

  • Connect with Christian News

The scientists say a layer of the Earth’s mantle about 250 to 410 miles below the surface “could be a major repository for water” and “have a key role in terrestrial magmatism and plate tectonics.”

The researchers based their findings on diamonds discovered in Brazil that originated deep inside the mantle of the Earth. They found a water-rich mineral—ringwoodite—inside the diamonds, leading them to believe that copious amounts of water may exist deep below Earth’s surface.

“The presence of hydrous ringwoodite in a diamond from transition-zone depths supports the view that high fluid activity, notably that of water, has a key role in the genesis of ultradeep diamonds,” the scientists explained in their nine-page report.

Graham Pearson, a Canadian geochemist who led the diamond study, said their findings suggest underground water is abundant.

“It’s actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that’s trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth,” he said, according to “Live Science.” “It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s ocean.”

Scientists stress that these findings are not conclusive and the subject remains controversial. However, the new evidence of plentiful underground water appear to confirm the Bible’s records that “the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God” (2 Peter 3:5).


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Oliver

    God is trying to “Wake the Masses” up here in the states lately with this water. America is so perverted as a country. We Christians must continue giving out the Word, we are becoming extinct it seems. Now with Islam moving in to spread the dominance of there religion over us, and all of this backwards sexual preference and surgical sex change bull. Let’s keep living in the world, not BE of the world, and let’s pray for the unfortunate in these flooded states that they recover and stand strong for each other, and by Gods grace live for His glory through these disasters. Those of us that were not in those floods, should count our blessings.

  • alex32hnd

    Not so, the scientists are actually right about the earth and universe being billions of years old and also about the earth first being a molten sphere first! The fatal mistake we make is treating God as if He operates linearly in time, He is an eternal being and thus does not operate linearly nor does His word. You can find the beginning in the end and the end in the beginning.

    The gap theory: the missing time between Genesis 1:1 (creation of heaven and earth) and 1:2 (the earth covered in water) although we don’t know how much time exists between there (possibly billions of years), the bible tells us exactly what scientists contend today, let’s check it out.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    The universe was molten due to all of the energy, it was during this time that He created the angels.

    Hebrews 1:7 “In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”
    The term commonly used for “star” is “heavenly hosts,” the Lord is commonly called the “Lord of Host,” “Jehovah Sabaoth” which means “Lord of armies.” So the stars you see at night are actually the armies of God.

    So now let’s look at the creation of Lucifer:
    Ezekiel 28:13-14 “You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.”

    He was in “Eden” the same earthly garden Adam and Eve were in, and he walked among the “Fiery stones,” indicating a molten earth.

    So what happens? He fell and God sent the first great flood, many think this verse is talking about the flood of Noah but pay close attention to what it says…

    2 Peter 3:3-9 ”

    3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

    8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

    Now pay attention, he refers to the VERY beginning when the heavens were created. The earth was formed by water! Why? Because the earth was molten, and the earth was deluged by the fall of Satan! By that same word the fires of judgment were “reserved,” why? Because it is encapsulated by the earth’s crust, and yes even the hosts of heaven will be judged remember, during the end times the stars shall fall to the earth like “figs from a fig tree,” yes some of those stars are fallen. But this isn’t literal, remember the stars are “hosts,” they host the spirits of the fallen.

    And now we know why the earth was covered in water: Genesis 1:2″Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

    Now you also know why you must be reborn of “water and spirit.” We are made of dirt, earth, that arose from the water, to be reborn you must also reemerge from the water. John 3:1-5 “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

    • Brandon Pound

      That is one of the most contradictory, circular, and overall absurd arguments I’ve ever heard. I’m honestly not even sure you know what you’re arguing about. You are way off base in literally everything you are saying.

      • alex32hnd

        Explain how, don’t just post a bald assertion. You see that lucifer was created on the earth’s molten surface, that the angles are made of fire, that the earth was formed by water and that fires
        of judgement were reserved by that same word. How could the fire be reserved when Noah was on the earth, he couldn’t survive on a molten surface. Satan had to have fallen before the creation of man, please go into detail on how I’m incorrect.

        • Brandon Pound

          You are reading more into the biblical text than it seems to be saying. How can we know that Lucifer was created on the earth’s molten surface? You also seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that the Earth was formed from water, but then you say it was formed by fire. And you go back and forth. Which is it? And you’re saying that the flood in Genesis was caused by Satan’s fall, not mankind’s? And that the stars in the sky at night are literally angels?
          If there is anything in your original comment that you are right about, I would have no idea what that is, because you’re not explaining your assertion very clearly. It may be clear in your mind, but I don’t think anybody has a clue what you’re really trying to say. Try reading your comment from a layman’s perspective, and see if it doesn’t sound pretty confusing, honestly. What is the actual point you are arguing here?
          I also would like to apologize for the fact that I was kind of rude to you. Seriously, I need to work on my interweb manners. I wish you all the best in your studies and writing. I can appreciate anyone who is zealous for God’s Word and desires to show the world how true it really is.

          • alex32hnd

            No it’s all good man, nothing ever reads right! I wasn’t offered at all though the same thing happens to me but I never mean to be rude. Anyways, pay closer attention again to what I said. I stated that the earth was FIRST molten and then was cooled by water which formed the crust. So the “earth” as in the dirt, the land we walk on is formed by water. That was the FIRST great flood, Noah’s was the second and last. Now let me ask you a question… Read Genesis 1:2… It just a says the earth was covered in water, but how did it get there? 2 Peter 3:3-9 explains how. Second, I didn’t say that the stars WERE angels I said they HOSTED angels meaning they host angelic spirits. We don’t know how many angelic spirits are hosted by one star. Like us they have spirits and a physical body, their bodies are fire, ours are flesh. I know it’s confusing, I really had to pray on it but when God showed me this I was FLOORED!

      • alex32hnd

        How could it contradict His word? That is His word! Lol what did I add I used scripture to prove what I was saying. But please explain how this is contradictory.

        • softengine

          I think your theory is pretty interesting. Can’t comment beyond that right now. Nice dialectic btw….logical flow is well laid out.

          • alex32hnd

            Well thank you. I only present what is in scripture there is actually much more I could use to back my claim, but it’s much too long to post here. I’m a college researcher I’m actually in the process of submitting research that proves the bible to be 100% accurate for per review. 🙂

          • kodster

            Ever read George H. Pember’s work, “Earth’s Earliest Ages”, written in 1871? Pember was a pastor. I suggest you get a copy and read it, before you finish your paper. You’re leaving out key books that the Roman Catholic Church suppressed from its followers, and thusly, Protestants. Martin Luther was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, so he was working off a Bible that was tainted by the Roman Catholic Church, who is NOT Christian-based, but Ra-worship based… a religion that comes from Egyptian/Babylonian/Sumerian worship systems… a result of the antidulivean ages, and Fallen Angels.

          • alex32hnd

            The bible isn’t tainted I’ve studied it as well as the original Hebrew text, it is not wrong. I’ve even studied the book of Enoch as well as the testament of Solomon. Yes, the story of Jesus is found in all religions even ones predating it’s time, but that’s bc He existed even before he was physically manifest and He is the Truth. The Truth is eternal, it remains the same throughout the past, present and future. What you must keep in mind is that beings that have perpetuated all of the earth’s religions have all come from the same realm (the heavens) the liars are fallen angels, they knew who Jesus was and who God was as the Trinity before He became physically manifest. Therefore they could use time to their advantage in their efforts of deception. Time cannot be used as a discriminatory factor because the beings from which the claims orginated are from a realm with no time. Also, no historical documents were written in “real time,” some events were documented 100’s of years after they had occurred. As created beings, like us, they cannot fabricate from nothing. For example, take the fallacious creature a purple winged unicorn, purple exists, wings exists, horses exits, and horns exists… You see, it is made by mixing and matching portions of the truth to create a fallacy. Now, try and imagine a color you have never seen or have been exposed to… It’s an impossibility. The same is true for the religions all over the world. The trends found among them is the truth, and that truth is Jesus. Let’s try it:

            Ancient Egypt: Trinity: Osiris, Horus, ISIS
            Salvation: none
            Resurrection: Horus
            Heaven/hell: yes (no sure way to get to heaven)
            Serpent:yes

            Ancient Sumeria:
            Trinity: Anu
            Ressurection: no
            Salvation: no
            Heaven/Hell: just the underworld
            Serpent:yes

            Hinduism:
            Trinity: Kali, Vishnu,shiva
            Ressurection: no
            Salvation: no
            Heaven/hell: yes
            Serpent:yes

            Buddhism:
            Trinity: sometimes depicted
            Ressurection: kind of (reincarnation)
            Heaven/hell: no
            Salvation: no
            Serpent: yes

            Mayan:
            Trinity: no
            Ressurection: no
            Heaven/hell: underworld
            Salvation:no
            Serpent: yes

            The bible:
            Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
            Ressurection: Jesus, Saints
            Heaven/hell: yes
            Salvation:yes
            Serpent: yes

            You see how the trend as a whole is found in the bible? Now the question you should ask is “If Jesus isn’t the Truth, why is His story found in all other religions? Why couldn’t they get away from that trend?” You see, you cannot just say “oh wel there all right,” bc although you can look at all religions with the exception of Christianity and contend that they are all from the same place, the bible has a contingency. You must accept Christ, He is the salvation, which makes Christianity an exception. Also notice that the bible says there is no salvation without Him and yet no other religions even offer salvation. You can’t say they are all right bc some have heaven and hell while others have just hell or just haven. You see it doesn’t work. All have truth in them but only one is THE Truth. And no wonder, if God being the Truth is omnipresent then you will find Him everywhere.
            And what is the serpent?

            Revelation 12:9 ”
            The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

            You see, he is found all over the world as well BUT with different personality traits he can be good or he can be bad indicating he is a liar and has lied about his identity. Why can’t you say the same for Christ? Bc you can see that identy theft and blasphemy has taken place here the; Trinity has stayed God throughout the earth BUT the nature of Its identy changes (male or female etc.). How do we know there is theft, bc it is almost always accompanied with other “gods,” which is actually contradictory. A God is the point of origin from which all things come, so when there are other gods, it cheapens the definition of a God leading one to believe that there are many. The serpent is still the serpent and doesn’t change at all accept for its agenda or character. It can be a god or it can be an entity. You can also tell which is false by the idols, you see, most gods have animal faces, or multiple heads and arms, or both, with a human body. See, the God of the bible is not described this way and names such beings as demons or fallen angels. There are no idols or graven images of Him bc we are already in the image of God our bodies are His temple. For Him to be God this MUST be, why? Because he has created from Himself which means he sustains creation (free energy).

          • kodster

            I never said that the Bible is tainted. However, you stated that the earth was made, and THEN the angels. I beg to differ… the angels were made, first, and then the earth. It was Lucifer’s job to oversee the earth… and as such, he abused it for his own greed.

          • alex32hnd

            No I didn’t say that quite the contrary actually, they were made at the same time which is why Lucifer was made from its surface, the earth is a hosts as well. It hosted angels then, now it hosts humans.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, the Bible is 100% accurate, including the claim of Jesus

            “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
            Mark 10:6

            But you claim Jesus is wrong and that God created man in the last six thousand years after “billions of years” of creation, which is creating Adam and Eve at the end of creation.

            So if you’re writing such a paper, you need to dismiss the notion of “billions of years” after verse 1 before verse 2 or anywhere else in creation.

          • alex32hnd

            Not so, the “beginning,” is a reference to the beginning of time. Before the sun and moon was created, there was no time. So how can you say that the beginning including the creation of the universe was just 6,000 years? Also, as I’ve said before a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years to God, so who’s to say that the creation days were six literal days?

          • Reason2012

            So if the sun and moon were destroyed, there’s no more time?

            False. Time marches on whether there’s a sun/moon or not – the moment God created the heaven and earth, time started.

            God tells us two thing:

            (1) In the beginning God created the heaven and Earth.

            But keep in mind, you’ve now put your foot in your mouth and claimed “Before the sun and moon was created, there WAS no time”. Well apparently since there was no time, according to you, God didn’t create the heaven and Earth “in the beginning” either because there’s no time yet, which of course exposes how you’re just trying to twist logic and common sense to try getting God’s Word to conform to your doctrines.

            God also tells us

            (2) In the beginning, God created them male and female.

            So the first “in the beginning” is fine because you want that to happen before billions of years.

            But the second in the beginning is NOT fine for you, so you say “there IS no time yet since the sun and moon were not created yet”.

            What’s funny is the “in the beginning” you accept is the FIRST one (what suddenly time exists now?), the second “in the beginning” you reject is the SECOND one, and say “time hasn’t started yet until the sun and moon were created”.

            God said “In the beginning” he created the heaven and earth. And in this beginning he also created Adam and Eve.

            Your false doctrine is: In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, but time did not start yet (but hope no one notices that it would no longer be “in the beginning” either if “time didn’t start yet”). Then billions of years later (but keep in mind time did not start yet), God created the Sun and moon and time then started so now we call THAT “in the beginning” where he created Adam and Eve.

            Sorry but you’re only fooling yourself. You may be determined to pretend Jesus saying “In the beginning God created [Adam and Eve]” means “after billions of years”, but others will see how you’re simply contorting truth to twist God to fit the doctrines you’re more comfortable believing.

            // who’s to say that the creation days were six literal days //

            God makes it clear those are literal days – you’ve been shown this before:

            “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
            Exodus 31:15-17

            It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in billions of years and five or six days on top of that God made the heavens and the earth.”

            It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in six large chunks of millions or billions of years each God made the heavens and the earth”

            it’s God you’re going to have to convince and answer for teaching false doctrines to others to not trust God’s Word and instead twist it to fit what we’re more comfortable and less embarrassed to believe.

          • alex32hnd

            Calm down… That didn’t mean that there was literally no time, there was no CONCEPT OF TIME. So you can’t just say it was all included in 6,000 years it’s impossible to know. Time begins after he fall of man. Why? Because man is no longer immortal and therefore suffers a time contingency. When one is immortal, time is irrelevant. The concept of Time has been created by humans who have marked it by night and day. I never even “accepted” as you call it, the second “in the beginning.” I simply said you couldn’t even have a concept of time without the moon and sun which is an undeniable fact! And I NEVER said that it was billions of years I said the amount of time remains a mystery and could have possibly been billions of years. So get it right, before you persecute anyone for doing anything. 2 Peter 3:8 ”
            But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” WITH THAT VERSE YOU CANNOT BE SURE THAT THE EARTH/UNIVERSE IS 6,000 YEARS OLD!! Oh but wait lets go back further….

            2 Peter 3:3 ” 3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

            By that’s sane word the fire was reserved …. The earth was formed by water…. PROVE TO ME THATS THE FLOOD OF NOAH!

          • Reason2012

            I’m quite calm – you might be projecting. So now you admit time existed before God created the sun and moon, but now you change your story to some idea of “there was no concept of time” before God created the sun and moon..

            So there’s ” no concept” of time before God created the sun and moon, yet you claim “billions of years” passed and THEN there was a “concept of” time. You continue to contradict yourself with each new claim you make up.

            When God says “In the beginning” God created the heaven and the Earth, that “in the beginning” means “in the beginning”, according to you.

            When God says “in the beginning” God created them male and female, that doesn’t mean “in the beginning”, according to you.

            And now the concept of time doesn’t begin until the fall of man either? You obviously are going to keep changing your story every time the new one is refuted yet again and continue to contradict yourself. You’re going to need to change your story again as “the CONCEPT of time didn’t exist yet” fails as well.

            I hardly expected you to admit the truth – those who go around changing God’s Word to fit their own need to believe other than what God said rarely do. But others here will see you’re just being flat out disingenuous.

            Thank you for posting.

          • alex32hnd

            You keep putting words in my mouth! I said it was possible that it was billions of years, I never named a specific number bc we don’t know, that’s the point. And no before the sun and moon we had not concept of time so no, “time” as we have defined it (based off of night and day) did not exists before the creation of the moon and sun. Please don’t twist my words. And no time didn’t matter for eternal beings… Why would it it didn’t effect them. I’m not changing anything or making anything up not have a contracted myself even once, what is said make perfect sense. You cannot claim to know how old the universe or earth is by out standard of time when our standard of time did not exist.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Just a small interjection about the concept of time: “In the beginning” introduces the concept of time: when things began. They began in that there was a change: God spoke, and it was. The only way that you can tell that time has passed is that there is a change: from nothing to something. Without change, there is no time. If things were changing “before” the beginning, then it was not the beginning, but “a” beginning. Time must begin at the beginning, otherwise it is not real time, and the beginning is not the real beginning.

          • alex32hnd

            True and you know, I’m not say there was no time. I’m saying the concept of time “time” as we have defined it did not exist before the sun and moon because we have measured it based off of nights and days. Therefore, it is quite possible that the creation of the universe was billions of years ago.

          • alex32hnd

            Ezekiel 28:13-14 “You were in Eden,
            the garden of God;
            every precious stone adorned you:
            carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
            topaz, onyx and jasper,
            lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.b
            Your settings and mountingsc were made of gold;
            on the day you were created they were prepared.
            14You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
            for so I ordained you.
            You were on the holy mount of God;
            you walked among the fiery stones.”

            Walked among the firey stone, garden of Eden… Prove to me that he was made from the molten surface of the earth.

            There is a description or mention of how everything was created, EXCEPT for how the water got on earth (if you don’t consider 2 Peter 3:3-9 as that description) so how and why was the surface of the earth covered in water. Genesis 1:2 just says it was. Explain it… You can’t just have holes here.

          • Reason2012

            The only holes are the ones you create when you try to change God’s Word, Alex. and in every change you make to God’s Word to try to fill the last hole you created.

            “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
            Genesis 2:7-8

            God makes it clear He created man, THEN he planted the garden in Eden, THEN (according to you) what you cited “you were in Eden, the garden of God” where he “walked among fiery stones”. SO now you’re claiming after God created Adam and Eve the garden of Eden was “molten” lava.

            Let me correct your claim: the end of that verse was talking about “the holy MOUNT of God”, not “the garden of Eden”, and hence that is where “fiery stones” were. You tried to ignore the transition in that one verse alone and pretend those ‘fiery stones’ were in the Garden of Eden. Why are you being disingenuous, Alex?

            But even on your false doctrine of the Earth being entirely “molten”, the Earth being molten existed AFTER God created Adam and Eve now, since you’re trying to claim satan was in the garden of Eden, God didn’t plant the GARDEN of Eden until after He created Adam and Eve, and according to you there’s ‘molten lava’ there. So God planted a garden in molten lava, according to you? Another hole you’re going to need to fix by changing your story, Alex.

            And here’s yet another hole you created:
            “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
            Genesis 1:5

            God was pointing out each day that passed before the sun and moon were created by saying “evening and morning”.. All you need is any kind of light, and God created light on day one.

            And in the new Heaven and new Earth, Jesus will be “the light’ – we will not need the sun.

            “And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.”
            Revelation 22:5

            Not to mention the hole you continue to ignore:

            “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

            Exodus 31:15-17

            It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in billions of years and five or six days God made the heavens and the earth.”

            It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in six large chunks of millions or billions of years each God made the heavens and the earth”

            The only stumbling blocks people have are trying to teach others that God’s Word cannot be trusted because some might be too embarrassed or ashamed to believe God did what He said He did.

            You need to stop trying to change and contort God’s Word to conform to a doctrine you’re more comfortable believing, Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            When you understand this, you understand being reborn. God flooded the earth the first time when Satan fell. The molten earth was cooled and land come out of the water and from that land He made man, we are made of dirt. Well what does Jesus say about being reborn…
            John 3:5

            “5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.”

            Why from water? Water is what gives life, once the land came up from the water, God made life from the dirt. So to be reborn, the same process happens again, men of dirt rises out of the water a new creature.

          • Reason2012

            // God flooded the earth the first time when Satan fell. //

            Please cite the verse where God says He flooded the Earth when satan fell. There isn’t one.

            Still waiting for you to show the Scripture that says God created man at the end of creation. There isn’t one.

            Please show the Scripture that says the universe was molten.
            There isn’t one – only your attempt to IMPLY it.

            Your claim “everything I said was in scripture” is false, Alex.

            Thank you for posting.

          • alex32hnd

            I gave evidence for all of them you just don’t want to accept it and you have yet to refute it! 2Peter 3:3-9 describes God flooding the molten earth as it say the earth was form by water and by that same word the fire of judgement was reserved… You have yet to tell me what that means if not that He flooded a molten earth that was “deluged.” It also refers to that happening “in the beginning.” So please, I’ll be awaiting that answer. And all you have to do is read Genesis to see that Adam and Eve were made after the heavens and the earth were created, that’s just common sense. Don’t believe Lucifer was made from the molten surface of the earth?? Here you go: Job 28
            1There is a mine for silver
            and a place where gold is refined.
            2Iron is taken from the earth,
            and copper is smelted from ore.
            3Mortals put an end to the darkness;
            they search out the farthest recesses
            for ore in the blackest darkness.
            4Far from human dwellings they cut a shaft,
            in places untouched by human feet;
            far from other people they dangle and sway.
            5The earth, from which food comes,
            is transformed below as by fire;
            6lapis lazuli comes from its rocks,
            and its dust contains nuggets of gold.

            Ezekiel 28:13-14 “You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

            One scripture is literally talking about the molten core of the earth and lapis lazuli coming from it… The other talks about Lucifer walking on molten stones being adorned with gold, and precious stones, among them lapis lazuli and he’s in the garden of Eden… You do the math.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t ask you for reasons you believe it, Alex. You do what Harold Camping did: he gave reasons to believe his doctrine, and he also twisted verses to try backing up his claims. How did that work out for him? He was shown to be a deceiver.

            “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.”
            Ezekiel 28:13-14

            You ignore how God pointed out in 13 Satan had been in the Garden of Eden, but in verse 14 it was when he was in the holy Mountain of God that he walked up and down in the midsts of stones of fire, not in the Garden of Eden.

            And you also continue to ignore if molten was the possible billions of years before God created the sun and the moon, yet satan being in the garden is AFTER creating the sun and the moon: God created the garden of Eden AFTER he created Adam and Eve and the garden, which again shows you twisting this verse to “prove” there was possible “billions of years” of molten when that verse is AFTER God created the sun, moon, Adam and Eve and the garden.

            “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
            Genesis 2:8

            You’ve been shown this before and continue to ignore it. You’re being a deceiver, Alex. Just like Harold Camping was, except he had a radio station to promote his false teachings to countless gullible people. I would cease and desist as it’s God you’ll have to convince, not men.

          • alex32hnd

            I literally didn’t twist a single thing… you do know that God was on earth before Adam and Eve sinned right?

            Zachariah 8:3 ”
            This is what the LORD says: “I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the Faithful City, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain.”

            It’s also referred to as “Mount Zion” which is another term for Jerusalem… And “RETURN” means he was there before. The Mountain of God was on earth! And clearly the Garden of Eden was on earth before Adam and Eve if it was there when Lucifer was created as he fell before they were even created. And yes He “planted” the Garden this time bc the last time it was there the earth was molten, so obviously plants wouldn’t survive. And yes, the Garden of Eden was on the Holy Mount of God in those days.

            Isaiah 18:7 ”
            At that time gifts will be brought to the LORD Almighty from a people tall and smooth-skinned, from a people feared far and wide, an aggressive nation of strange speech, whose land is divided by rivers– the gifts will be brought to Mount Zion, the place of the Name of the LORD Almighty.”

            Genesis 2:10-14 ”
            10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of iHavilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the jTigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

            So we see the landscape of the area with four rivers, it’s clearly on earth and is called “Jeruselem,” the garden of Eden was on the mountain of God… So why do the earthly descriptions have rivers and while the one about Lucifer’s description have stones of fire? Adam and Eve did walk amongst the stones of fire… ???

          • Reason2012

            You said:
            // All you did was lie and say that Ezekiel 28:13-14 was a discription of Adam and Eve’s creation //

            I’m calling you on your lie, Alex. Please quote where I said it’s a description of Adam and Eve’s creation. Cut and paste me saying that.

            You can’t because it’s a lie. Others will see how you’re now resorting to flat out lies, and hence are just a deceiver and will run from one rebuke to another, twisting Scripture as you go.

            Take care, Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            I can’t copy and paste but I just called you out on your lie, you absolutely did say that so please go to the thread where I showed you your lies. And where did I twist a single scripture… I would really like to see that. I’ve even shown you the evidence that the garden of Eden was on the mount of God which was ON EARTH! I showed you were it was even molten in the description of the creation of lucifer and land in the creation of Adam and Eve… Where’s the refutation?

          • Reason2012

            // I can’t copy and paste but I just called you out on your lie, you absolutely did say that //

            So I supposedly said it on this thread, you can’t copy/paste me saying it anywhere, but instead continue to lie even more and claim I said it. Everyone take note so you realize Alex is just a deceiver and not to trust his twisting of God’s Word. I take my leave as you’re clearly just trolling and deceiving and now everyone else will see that truth quite plainly.

          • alex32hnd

            Oh, got it … Here’s your lie 12 hours ago
            “The only holes are the ones you create when you try to change God’s Word, Alex. and in every change you make to God’s Word to try to fill the last hole you created.
            “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
            Genesis 2:7-8
            God makes it clear He created man, THEN he planted the garden in Eden, THEN (according to you) what you cited “you were in Eden, the garden of God” where he “walked among fiery stones”. SO now you’re claiming after God created Adam and Eve the garden of Eden was “molten” lava.
            Let me correct your claim: the end of that verse was talking about “the holy MOUNT of God”, not “the garden of Eden”, and hence that is where “fiery stones” were. You tried to ignore the transition in that one verse alone and pretend those ‘fiery stones’ were in the Garden of Eden. Why are you being disingenuous, Alex?
            But even on your false doctrine of the Earth being entirely “molten”, the Earth being molten existed AFTER God created Adam and Eve now, since you’re trying to claim satan was in the garden of Eden, God didn’t plant the GARDEN of Eden until after He created Adam and Eve, and according to you there’s ‘molten lava’ there. So God planted a garden in molten lava, according to you? Another hole you’re going to need to fix by changing your story, Alex.”

            I never said that the earth was molten after Adam and Eve was created that was a flat out lie! And I gave you, like a said, evidence that the holy mountain of God was on earth and was molten in which you have yet to disprove.

          • Reason2012

            // All you did was lie and say that Ezekiel 28:13-14 was a discription of Adam and Eve’s creation //

            I’m calling you on your lie, Alex. Please quote where I said Ezekiel 28:13-14 is a description of Adam and Eve’s creation. Cut and paste me saying that.

            You can’t because it’s a lie.

            So now instead you paste where I’m talking about Genesis, not Ezekiel.

            The fact that you’re now reduced to telling one lie after another will let others will see how what you say is not to be trusted.

            Take care, Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”

            I’m sorry … Does that say “GENERATIONS” hmmm… Could that mean that the creation days weren’t literal days??

          • Reason2012

            Noted that you ignored all the refutations above. Again.
            Take care Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            No actually I did the exact opposite and gave you what you asked for which was scriptural evidence supporting my claim. It was you who ignored my request to you which was to prove that what I was saying was fallacious by giving the true meanin of the sited verses if mine was false. You have failed to do so. All you did was lie and say that Ezekiel 28:13-14 was a discription of Adam and Eve’s creation instead of Lucifer’s, and then you sited verses that were totally irrelevant to the argument, I.e. What happened during the creation days. I gave you the scriptural evidence backing my claim that they may not have been literal 24 hour days. I also provided evidence that lucifer was made from the molten surface, you have literally refuted nothing, all you’ve done was post bald asserations. Good day

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t ask you for reasons you believe in it, Alex. Harold Camping did the same thing. He could never back up citing where Scripture says what says it does, but would only give reasons to believe in it, twist scripture to do so, and then claim he gave “scriptural evidence supporting his claim”. That is all you’re doing as well.

            // All you did was lie and say that Ezekiel 28:13-14 was a discription of Adam and Eve’s creation //

            I’m calling you on your lie, Alex. Please quote where I said it’s a description of Adam and Eve’s creation. Cut and paste me saying that.

            You can’t because it’s a lie. Others will see how you’re now resorting to flat out lies, and hence not to be trusted.

            Take care, Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            You lied right here! Lol you said I claimed that the earth was molten after God created Adam and Even when I said no such thing in fact I said the opposite! That’s called a lie. You also said I claimed that God planted the garden in molten lava which is another lie, I said no such thing. I said that the garden of Eden predates Adam and Eve dating back to the molten era of the universe. It was NOT filled with plants and rivers, the book of Ezekiel says that there were stones of fire. Then I said, after lucifer fell, God sent a flood to cool the molten surface into a crust, from which he then PLANTED the Garden and made man.

          • Reason2012

            Read more closely – you’re the one saying the Earth was molten, and you used as proof Ezekiel that says “Satan was in Eden .. satan walking among fiery stones”. So I rebuke that claim to show you that God didn’t create the Garden until AFTER He created Adam and Eve, and hence if the Ezekiel verse “meant” the world was Molten, it would mean it was molten after He created Adam and Eve. That’s not me saying YOU said that.

            But still waiting for a response of your blatant lie. You said:
            // All you did was lie and say that Ezekiel 28:13-14 was a discription of Adam and Eve’s creation //

            I’m calling you on your lie, Alex. Please quote where I said it’s a description of Adam and Eve’s creation. Cut and paste me saying that.

            You can’t because it’s a lie. Others will see how you’re now resorting to flat out lies, and hence are just a deceiver.

            Take care, Alex.

          • alex32hnd

            That’s not true thought! Lol you’re completely ignoring the scriptural evidence I provided proving that A) the garden (although not in the form of vegetation) WAS on the earth before Adam and Eve, was on the Mountain of God, which is on earth, and was molten during the era of Lucifer’s creation… You are the one acting in deception, not me.

        • Mary Taylor

          In Job it says He calls the stars out at night and names them one by one. This is not referring to angels. The sun is a star, gaseous matter.

          • alex32hnd

            You are trying to give your own definition of an angel, angles are described in scripture to be made of fire and are beings of light.

          • alex32hnd

            Isaiah 43:12 “it is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host.”

            If they aren’t conscious beings, why would they need to be “ordained?”

    • kodster

      In reality, the angels were created before the earth. And the earth pre-existed mankind. How? Perhaps the myths of the Mayan Indians would give you a clue as to the proper timeline. How do you explain megalolithic structures that no human could have built, but the technology that the fallen angels had, is what built them. They are all over the world (Baalbek in Lebanon, Stonehenge in England, the pyramids in Egypt, Cusco, in Peru, just for some). The Fallen Angels came to earth, in antidiluvean ages (Mayan stories confirm that when their ‘gods’ were with them, they shared the history that we are now in the 5th age of the earth, and that previous ages ended catastrophically, to be reborn all over again, from anew). They are the ones that created these structures, and we see them all over the earth, under the oceans (Atlantis, for example). There is much evidence that technology that was heretofore unattributable to humans is being found (for example, batteries). The whole purpose of the Great Flood was to wipe out the remnants of these fallen angels’ descendants, the Nephilim of Genesis 6, and destroy their structures, so that mankind would not have to deal with them. However, they are still there, and we’re discovering them, because we, as humans, have an innate curiosity that will not be satisfied.

      • rcvj

        All easily erected by humans, except Atlantis which is a myth. All they needed was an idea, measuring tools such as knotted rope, muscle power, inclined planes, grease and some ropes. Our distant ancestors were not stupid, just without the vast body of knowledge built up over the millenia, especially the last 300 years.

        The angel stuff is just ridiculous.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        Sooooo, it wasn’t the aliens, but angels? Riiiiiight.

    • Reason2012

      // The gap theory: the missing time between Genesis 1:1 (creation of heaven and earth) and 1:2 (the earth covered in water) although we don’t know how much time exists between there (possibly billions of years), //

      Sure we do. Jesus told us quite plainly how much time passed:

      “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
      Mark 10:6

      There you have it – God created man at the beginning of creation itself – not at the end after “billions of years”.

      We need to stop being embarrassed and ashamed of what God/Jesus made plain to try to twist God’s truth to fit man’s anti-God beliefs to save face with others.

      “[Jesus said] For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.”
      Luke 9:26

      // Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. //
      // The universe was molten due to all of the energy, it was during this time that He created the angels. //

      Notice how you add your own word to God’s Word and claim “the universe was molten”. God said no such thing.

      It is not wise to add our own words to God’s and imply it’s God’s Word and cause others to believe this false claim that God never said.

      “My brethren, be not many masters [teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend [cause to sin] all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.”
      James 3:1-2

      • alex32hnd

        Excuse me, I didn’t add anything, I explained my premise and backed it with scripture as you plainly see that Angels were made from fire including Lucifer as you can see FROM scripture, on the molten surface of the earth. Also, that doesn’t mean anything, the beginning refers to the creation of the earth, universe, and man, but we don’t know the time in which each event took place. If you look in that same passage it says “one thousand years is like a day, a day is like one thousand years,” (paraphrased) to God, so we can even say for certain that the seven creation days were seven literal days. Every thing I said was in scripture.

        • Reason2012

          You did add to it: you said it’s possible a billion years passed after verse 1 to verse 2. I just showed you Jesus made it quite clear that’s not the case: Jesus said God created man at the beginning of creation, not at the end of creation after billions of years.

          Not to mention “evening and morning” was the first day.

          Not to mention

          “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
          Exodus 31:15-17

          It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in billions of years and five or six days God made the heavens and the earth.”
          It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in six large chunks of millions or billions of years each God made the heavens and the earth”

          Please show the Scripture that says God created man at the end of creation. There isn’t one.

          Please show the Scripture that says The universe was molten.
          There isn’t one – only your attempt to IMPLY it.

          So your claim “everything I said was in scripture” is false.

          it’s not exegesis to come up with a doctrine, then try find verses to support it – more so to ignore verses that contradict it, like the one I’ve just shown you. Many false doctrines are taught in this way. Proper exegesis is to read Scripture for what it says and compare scripture with scripture – not come up with a doctrine and find a few verses that make it sound like a doctrine “could” be accurate.

          God made it clear He created mankind at the beginning of creation – that He did it ALL in six days – six evening and mornings – which contradicts your claim that He created mankind at the end of creation after billions of years that you claim “is in Scripture”.

          The fact you do not care Jesus contradicts what you said and ignore it should give you pause.

          • Josey

            Amen…God’s word is the only word to trust just as it is, The word of God interprets itself as a whole from Genesis thru Revelation. Good word reason.

          • Reason2012

            It’s nothing new that people have tried to change God’s Word to fit what they’re more comfortable believing, all while claiming they believe God’s Word no less. Glad it was a blessing!

    • Reason2012

      // Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. //
      // The universe was molten due to all of the energy, it was during this time that He created the angels. //

      The Bible in no way says when God created the angels. You claim He created the Angels right after he created the heavens and the earth. You’re again making up claims and passing it off as God’s Word. I would think twice.

    • Casey Ferrill

      alex, there are several things going on here which in logic circles are know as “complex question.” That is say, you are taking several things out of context and then drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. First off, the Gap Theory is just that; a theory. It is not supported by a great body of Christians (myself included) and has no support from the Hebrew Masoretic text by which it is supposedly derived. (It is also known in logic as “an argument from silence,” which is never valid!). Secondly, because you’ve gotten ahold of the text in Hebrews 1:7 saying “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire, you therefore believe you have ontological warrant for saying that God created them out of the stuff! (When actually, being spirits, angels cannot be made out of any physical property – including fire – as that would contradict what they are by nature). The reference in this passage is used as one of contrast (even being the mighty “flames of fire” that they are) to God’s son as the following verse reads: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.'” (Hebrews 1:8). Also, while it is true that in the Old Testament, the term for “star” and the term for denoting God’s heavenly armies were used interchangeably, it was more to denote “starry hosts” in other words, heavenly beings whose abode is celestial and not terrestrial. (Think about it; if the stars were actual angels, then our own sun (a star) is also an angel! Be careful when handling scripture thus, alex. I believe you are sincere, but I also believe you need to use restraint; there are time when isogesis (reading meaning into the text) is warranted. But it usually takes years of studying the bible before a person can come to that point, and until they do, they should be in the habit of practicing “exegesis” (taking meaning FROM the text) so they will inculcate in themselves the discipline of discernment.

      • alex32hnd

        Ok wait, lol I didn’t take anything out of context. You didn’t actually dispute anything I’ve said proving that I’ve done such a thing, it is “called” the “Gap theory,” yes. But the “theory” is not surrounding the FACT that there is a gap but rather around the amount of time existing within the gap. As you can see from scripture, I took nothing out of context. We perceive time because of the sun, if the sun and moon were not yet formed in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there could be no measure of time, so in fact we have no idea how much time exists between those to verses especially when we consider how God operates in time as an eternal beings. Yes the creation days were six days but she a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to the Lord can we say that they were literal days? Second, I never said the stars WERE angels I said they Hosted the Angels, huge difference! Pay attention to the scripture, they are made of Spirit and fire, not just fire. They are spiritual beings, like you and I, but their physical bodies are of fire. One star may host many angelic spirits, we don’t know how many. Also, as indicated in scripture, Lucifer was formed from the molten surface of the earth, that’s a scriptural fact “garden of Eden, walked amongst the firey stones,” that’s a molten surface. So no, I didn’t take anything out of context.

  • kodster

    Oh, how ignorant people want to be, when the evidence is, LITERALLY, right under their noses. I live in the middle of the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota. One of the by-products of the drilling is bringing up saltwater with the oil. They have to dispose of it at saltwater disposal sites. Now, we’re just 100 miles west from the center of the North American continent… we’re as landlocked as you can get. Where are they getting saltwater from, except from subterranean oceans… the same oceans that burst forth during the Great Flood, when the planet had an axial polar shift.

    • Cady555

      Fracking.

      “Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.”

      Salt water is coming out of wells because humans pump it into wells at high pressure and great environmental cost.

      This is your proof? Wow.

      Google “bakken fracking”

      • kodster

        I live here in the Bakken, fool. I said that above. I know all about the technology of fracking. And guess what… you don’t see the number of water tankers that are REMOVING salt water from the well sites that I do, everyday. Where do they get salt water? They don’t use salt water to do fracking with, but FRESH water. You don’t see the number of salt water disposal sites that I see, everyday, being utilized by the industry to return the salt water. The amount of water they use in fracking doesn’t add up to what is coming out of the industry.

        • Cady555

          Chemical laden water goes in. Chemical laden water comes out, with extra minerals dissolved from the rock.

          OMG! It’s a muracle.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            The real miracle here is that incredible secret pipeline and series of pump stations with which they pump your salt water uphill from the sea to the middle of the continent, just so they don’t have to use the fresh water that rains from the sky. The miracle is that the pipeline must be there to make what you say true, but it is COMPLETELY INVISIBLE!

          • kodster

            Right, for someone who believes in the failed science of ‘evolution’, which has never been proven, you are the ‘expert’ in fracking. You’re a fool.

  • alex32hnd

    I just love when people say you’re wrong about something without any actual evidence to back their claim.

  • Kerry Hall

    Love all the discussion about this, but God being who and what He is could have done it any way He wanted and didn’t have to tell us anything about the time or lack of between the first two verses of Genesis. He could make everything look as old or as young as he wanted and then set all the laws of nature into motion or almost anyone here with a theory could be right or wrong. Much about the beginning of time and everything up to Revelation not given to us to know. Nice to see that science is beginning to get the idea.

    • Reason2012

      Yes God made Adam and Eve in mature form. Someone else would then proclaim “Adam is 20 years old – that means creation must be at least 20 years old” and he would be wrong. Their attempt to say “well then was God trying to deceive me into thinking the creation was over 20 years old?” which of course is not true – it’s as you say: “He could make everything look as old or as young as He wanted”.

      People seem to think God has to do things the way they demand He does and/or that everything He does must follow non-supernatural means.

      Thanks for the point!

  • Christian Geologist

    Its worth noting that the water which was found is actually bonded within rocks inside crystals (such as in the mica Muscovite which has the chemical formula (KF)2(Al2O3)3(SiO2)6(H2O)) and so isn’t actually in a liquid state. Its beyond doubt that the earth is still has a molten mantle (temperature gradiants vary but in the earths crust it can be between 10C-30C per km, which is confirmed by various mines along with external data) and that it has cooled over millions of years but kept warm due to its radioactive core. Its extremely damaging to the Christian message saying these things are wrong on principle given the evidence available as it just makes us look like idiots (to the same degree as if we were to say the earth was flat). I’ve studied these things to degree level (Geology BSc Honors) and there is a lot of evidence in support of the Bible but also indisputable evidence which no reputable scientists disagree about that the Earth is billions of years old. The interesting thing to note is that the Bible doesn’t disagree with this as the original Hebrew word used (Yom), usually translated as day in English has multiple meanings in Hebrew including an indefinite period of time such as an eon. The Jewish tradition (which Jesus did not correct and so says something) and virtually all branches of the Christian faith took it for granted that the Earth was ancient and that it didn’t mean day in a 24 hour sense, that interpretation only appeared around 300 years ago. Be very careful when you try to justify the Bible with pseudoscience as for most non-believers you are putting a huge stumbling block in the way of faith which in reality is not there.

    • Jane Jessee

      Read Genesis 8: It speaks of days, months and years in the telling of Noah and the Ark, which by the way, has been found in Turkey,embedded in ice. The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it. Yes,Christian Geologist, the Bible said in Genesis 8:13:”and it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month and the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removered the covering of the ark, and look, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry”…

      • Christian Geologist

        Read Genesis 5. Wasn’t Methuselah, Noah’s grandfather supposed to have been 969 years old prior to this point? Noah was also supposed to have been 500 years old when he had his own children prior to the flood. Reading your own quote its actually referring the the age of Noah at the time rather than the age of the earth (Genesis 8:13 “By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first
        year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the
        covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.” NLT).

        In regards to the Ark being found in Turkey, I’m afraid that was a hoax much as I would like to believe it. There is a lot of evidence that the flooding did occur around the Black Sea region when an ice dam broke flooding what would have been the entire world to those living in the area which many experts think may have been the flood referred to in the bible.

        • Brandon Pound

          That is no hoax. The remains of the ark are right there in the Ararat mountains. People have done scientific tests on it. The wood is petrified now but the dimensions are the exact same as the Bible says.

          • John N

            Brando, since the rest of the world is convinced the finding of the ark was an actual hoax, I suggest you show us some evidence for it.

            If there were scientific tests done on the wood, there must be some article written by a scientist to support your claims.

            In your research, please take into account that there are no such things as the Ararat mountains; there is only one, Mount Ararat, a volcano with two summits. Further, wood left in the open for 4000 years does not petrify; it desintegrates or, if casted in ice, it remains wood. And third, you should know the guy who started the story, George Jammal, admitted it was a hoax.

            But please don’t let reality come between you and your beliefs.

          • Brandon Pound

            Oh you again. For a minute I thought you were someone else and thus I was about to actually try and defend my claim. I realize, however, that it would be pointless with you, because you are not the least bit open to the truth.

          • John N

            So you are not able to defend your claims against someone who is lucid enough to criticise them?

            Well, if your source of information is Ron Wyatt, I can understand that. His fantasy stories are not taken seriously by anyone, not even other creationists.

          • Brandon Pound

            I am able, just not willing.

          • getstryker

            Your perception that explaining the ‘truth’ to John N. would be a waste of your time and effort is correct. I see that John N. is the epitome of the word: STUPID: Aptly defined as: ‘dumb on purpose!’

          • Bob Johnson

            There are others besides John who would be interested in your answer. Always remember this is an open conversation – many listen.

          • monge1st

            Then why didn’t God tell them to move.Over 270 flood stories world wide. the Chinese word or symbol for a ship 8 people in a boat.There is a lot of information out there old and new you have to shuffle through a lot of garbage sometimes but that is the problem no one wants to do research. they just want to spout off about something they heard once or twice here or there. No one bothers to read. It’s too hard. Granted there are two other spots that may be Noah’s ark but there is a ton of evidence for there having been a world wide flood. It either gets swept aside or ignored for we can’t show evidence against evolution or millions or billions of years now can we?!

          • John N

            Yes, local floods are known to occur regularly all over the world, and they sometimes have a large impact on people’s life, so there are a lot of stories about floods.

            The problem for creationists is, these stories are passed on by survivors, just like in the Chinese flood story. So unless Noah was Chinese…

            And contrary to the global flood myth, there is a lot of evidence for local floods to be found.

            So if you really got tons of evidence for a global flood, please show it to the world.

          • Brules

            A couple of things to consider. The stories were not passed on by survivors but were written down by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I know that that is enough to light the blue touchpaper but there it is.
            Of course there is a great deal of evidence for local floods. They are happening all the time. Have a look at the present disasters in Lancashire and Yorkshire just for starters. They have nothing to do with the Noahic flood apart from the water!
            You ask for evidence of the Flood. Well, you could start with the Grand Canyon with its multitude of rock layers, discontinuities, layer deformations, the irrefutable evidence that these layers were put down catastrophically. Many good questions there. The Blue Mountains of New South Wales raise similar questions. The existence of a huge, practically continuous, layer of sedimentary rock around the globe. The vast deposits of limestone, layers of which traverse continents and also form the Dolomite mountains.
            You could also think about the so-called Cambrian explosion, describing a rock layer in the hypothetical geologic column, which contains most of the world’s fossil remains. Surely evidence of an unimaginable catastrophe.
            How about the recent discovery in the bones of a partially fossilized T-Rex which contained still-flexible blood vessels and red blood cells? Don’t think that one died out 65 million years ago! More like 4,500.
            Then, of course, there is the Ice Age (only one). Noah’s Flood was unique in its capacity to create the necessary conditions for the ice age to begin and last for some 700 years during which time it advanced and receded a number of times.
            The evidence is there for all to see. It depends what sort of glasses you’re wearing.

          • John N

            >’ The stories were not passed on by survivors but were written down by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’

            Moses was a mythical figure. There is no evidence for his existence. And I did not know he spoke Chinese, but that’s a minor problem compared to the rest.

            >’Well, you could start with the Grand Canyon with its multitude of rock layers, discontinuities, layer deformations, the irrefutable evidence that these layers were put down catastrophically’

            Right, a multitude of rock layers, thousands of meters thick. Some of them formed in shallow seas, some in deep water, some on dry land, containing fossil land dunes, worm burrows and volcanic deposits. Known discontinuities of several hundred million years. And while the plateau started rising, the Colorado carved his way thousands of meters in this very hard stone. All evidence pointing to around 2 billion years of sediment deposit, and 70 million years of river erosion. Evidence of a one year flood? I didn’t think so.

            >’The existence of a huge, practically continuous, layer of sedimentary rock around the globe.’

            There is no such a layer to be found that is 4000 years old. Try again.

            >’The vast deposits of limestone, layers of which traverse continents and also form the Dolomite mountains’

            Limestone is formed by the remains of microscopic marine organisms in quiet, shallow water, not in a rough sea thousands of meters deep. It takes ages to create one meter of limestone. A one year flood? Nope.

            >’The so-called Cambrian explosion, describing a rock layer in the hypothetical geologic column, which contains most of the world’s fossil remains. Surely evidence of an unimaginable catastrophe.’

            The Cambrian explosion is a time period, not a rock layer. It took place 540 million years ago and lasted 20 to 25 million years. It does not contain most of the worlds fossil remains, that would probably be the Cretaceous. The Cambrium contains the +- first fossils with hard shells and shows organisms diversifying at a fast rate in that period. A catastrophe? No way.

            >’How about the recent discovery in the bones of a partially fossilized T-Rex which contained still-flexible blood vessels and red blood cells’

            The fossilized (!) bones contained remains of blood vessels and red blood cells. How do you explain these bones were fossilized in just 4500 years? And why don’t we find any dinosaurs in better condition? We found several 40.000 years old mammoths that were almost complete. But not one dinosaur? No, non-avian dinosaurs really went extinct 65 million years ago.

            >’Then, of course, there is the Ice Age (only one).’

            Incorrect. There is geological, chemical and paleontological evidence of certainly 5 ice age periods with each multiple glacial and interglacial periods, the last glacial period ending 11.000 years ago.

            >’Noah’s Flood was unique in its capacity to create the necessary conditions for the ice age to begin and last for some 700 years during which time it advanced and receded a number of times.’

            An ice age typically lasts millions of years, not hundreds. There is no reason to suspect a global flood to create the conditions for an ice age – with all that rain falling down, the earth’s temperature would have risen to the boiling point. And surprisingly, the Egyptians didn’t take even notice of your global flood and ice age while building their pyramids.

            >’The evidence is there for all to see. It depends what sort of glasses you’re wearing.’

            I guess you are wearing very dark glasses.

            And then you haven’t even started explaining were the water came from and went to, how a wooden boat that size could even survive the worst rainfall ever, how Noah collected his animals, stored them on his boat, fed and watered them with only eight persons, and later brought them back exactly where they came from, how Noah prevented the carnivores from eating all the other animals, how all plants and microbiotic life survived a one year flood, how all marine and fresh water organisms survived, why we don’t find any evidence for all those population bottlenecks, etcetc.

          • Brules

            A fascinating chat, John N, but so full of misconceptions, downright error and wishful thinking that it’s hard to know where to begin. You’ll be glad to know that I don’t intend to address everything but will just pick up on one or two things.
            Moses was a myth? Try telling that to the millions of Jews who venerate him. Why on earth would you expect him to speak Chinese? He was born and lived in Egypt for the first 40-50 years of his life and remained in what we now call the Middle East until his death.
            Grand Canyon issues. Huge rock layers laid down one upon another with no evidence between them of millions of years of deposition of vegetable matter etc or any sign of erosion which would have occurred had the layers been exposed for any length of time. Obviously these layers were put down in a very short time in a catastrophic event. This would also explain the undulating rock layers we see to-day. They were moved and shaped while still plastic during and soon after the catastrophe.
            If the Colorado river carved out the canyon, where is the sediment; why did the river cut through basalt layers instead of going round them; how did it manage, at one stage, to flow uphill which it would have to have done in one particular section? You could do well to read about the aftermath of the Mt St Helens explosion of 1980 and the canyon that was formed by a pyroclastic flow in about 2 hours. Not long afterwards a stream started to flow through it. By your reasoning, the stream carved the canyon.
            A much more convincing theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon concerns the effects of the Missoula floods.
            Have you ever wondered how sand dunes managed to become part of an ancient rock formation? As a child, I was very familiar with very large coastal sand dunes which didn’t last long once the sea got at them. Sand, by its very nature, is fluid and moves around a lot particularly under the influence of water and is not good at retaining any shape it may have been formed into.
            Limestone deposits only forming in shallow, warm water? Hmmmm! Limestone is supposed to consist of billions of microscopic sea creatures. Very much doubt that you’d find enough of them in shallow, warm water to form the deposits we know to-day. Deep seas – different matter.
            The Cambrian contains a great deal more than fossilized shells etc. Check it out. The one thing it doesn’t contain is any form of trans-special fossil.
            It would have been a little surprising if the Egyptians had bothered about the Ice Age since the ice didn’t get anywhere near them.
            Fossilization can be a very rapid process if the conditions are right. Certainly less than one hundred years in some known cases.
            So how old do you think the T-Rex was? There is significant evidence that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time and relatively recently. You could look up the brass carvings on Bishop Bell’s tomb in Carlisle Cathedral dating from about 1514AD. You could check on the extremely accurate carving of a stegosaurus on the doorway surround on a temple at Ankor Wat, Cambodia, dating from the c. 800 AD. You could check out the various cave representations of dinosaurs made by humans living at the time. What wiped out the dinosaurs? Well, probably man. Most dinos were little bigger than your average sheep with a great many a heck of a lot smaller. Well worth hunting for food.
            Lastly, I’d be fascinated to learn by what processes you believe the ice ages began and was sustained if it wasn’t by the consequences of Noah’s Flood.

          • John N

            A fascinating discussion? I’m soory to say I see very much of the classic creationist denial stuff, with one or two new arguments here.
            Don’t you have anything new to say after all these years of doing ‘creationist science’?

            >’Moses was a myth? Try telling that to the millions of Jews who venerate him’

            So because someone is venerated, he has to be real? Well, that’s sure evidence for more than 3000 gods to be real too.

            Do you have any – actual – evidence for his existence?

            >’Why on earth would you expect him to speak Chinese?’

            Because there is a chinese version of your flood story. Since you believe Moses was the only one who received the message, he must have written chinese.

            >’Huge rock layers laid down one upon another with no evidence between them of millions of years of deposition of vegetable matter etc or any sign of erosion which would have occurred had the layers been exposed for any length of time.’

            Discontinuities like the Great and the EarlyUnconformity are evidence of erosion between layers of the Grand Canyon. The Great Unconformity shows that 820 million years ago, erosion lasting 250 million years stripped much of the exposed sediments and the mountains away. The Early Unconformity even shows 450 million years of erosion. Obviously the layers of the canyon are not laid down in one year, as every geologist will acknowledge.

            >’This would also explain the undulating rock layers we see to-day. They were moved and shaped while still plastic during and soon after the catastrophe.’

            Synsedimentary folds can be easily distinguished from hard-rock folds. Grand Canyon’s folds are clearly not folded when soft but are a result of uplifting the plateau due to plate tectonics.

            >’If the Colorado river carved out the canyon, where is the sediment’

            The Colorado delta alone contains over 10,000 cubic miles of the Colorado River’s sediments from the last two to three million years. Do you need more?

            >’Why did the river cut through basalt layers instead of going round them; how did it manage, at one stage, to flow uphill which it would have to have done in one particular section?’

            Why don’t you read some geology book instead of asking silly questions on a website? Of course the water did not flow uphil. The river carved the canyon while the plateau rose. Once the river has found a way and the fater keeps flowing, it will continue to carve its way. Basic geology.

            >’You could do well to read about the aftermath of the Mt St Helens explosion of 1980 and the canyon that was formed by a pyroclastic flow in about 2 hours. Not long afterwards a stream started to flow through it. By your reasoning, the stream carved the canyon.’

            The canyon of the Toutle River was not formed by a pyroclastic flow, it was carved by the Toutle river. The lahar (a volcanic mud stream, not a pyroclastic flow) caused by the eruption followed the river bed, deposting tons of mud and volcanic ash, in which the river carved a new bed.

            Of course this was all on a small scale and in thin layers of soft, vulcanic ash. The Grand Canyon is around 100.00 times larger, 100 times deeper and in carved in hard, solid rock.

            >’Have you ever wondered how sand dunes managed to become part of an ancient rock formation?’

            Are you claiming sand dunes can not fossilize? Please tell the conservators of Arches National Park and Zion National Park, they’ll be glad to know.

            >’Limestone deposits only forming in shallow, warm water? Hmmmm! Limestone is supposed to consist of billions of microscopic sea creatures. Very much doubt that you’d find enough of them in shallow, warm water to form the deposits we know to-day. Deep seas – different matter.’

            Again denying the evidence? Limestone is not ‘supposed’ to exists of remains of organisms – it is. We did invent microscopes, you know. And those organisms mostly live in shallow, warm waters, and much less in deep seas. By the way, try to explain away the heat released by depositing all that limestone all over the world in just one year – I thought you needed an ice age?

            >’The Cambrian contains a great deal more than fossilized shells etc. Check it out. The one thing it doesn’t contain is any form of trans-special fossil.’

            I didn’t deny it contains more than fossilized shells – I only said it does not contain most of the worlds fossil remains, like you claimed as support for your global flood. Cambrain fossils are very rare compared to Creataceous fossils. Scientists identified at least 5 large scale extinctions in the earth’s history, all later than the Cambrium. So you should be claiming there were at least five global floods.

            And the Cambrian is known to contain transitional fossils like lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.

            >’It would have been a little surprising if the Egyptians had bothered about the Ice Age since the ice didn’t get anywhere near them.’

            And you conveniently skipped the ‘global flood’ part of my argument. What do you propose, they just postponed finishing the pyramids due to bad weather, and continued one year later? And they did not care to mention it anywhere?

            >’Fossilization can be a very rapid process if the conditions are right.’

            And most fossils did not form rapidly. So your point is?

            >’There is significant evidence that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time and relatively recently. You could look up the brass carvings on Bishop Bell’s tomb in Carlisle Cathedral dating from about 1514AD. You could check on the extremely accurate carving of a stegosaurus on the doorway surround on a temple at Ankor Wat, Cambodia, dating from the c. 800 AD. You could check out the various cave representations of dinosaurs made by humans living at the time.’

            So you propose dinosaurs roaming the countryside of England 500 years ago without leaving any remains or without anybody noticing it, is a better explanation than an artist depicting an unidentifiable animal in s strange way?

            By the way, the so-called ‘extremely accurate’ Angkor Wat-carving is actual evidence that the artist has never seen a stegosaur in real live. If you compare it with an actual stegosaur construction, you’ll see what I mean. The lack of tail spikes, the dimensions of the head, the strange ears, the proportions of the body vs. the legs … about everything is wrong. It does proof though that the artists has observed the local lizard fauna.

            And I still have to see one cave representation of a dinosaur that can not be more easily explained as an ordinary animal or a fantasy. Care to give it a try?

            >’What wiped out the dinosaurs? Well, probably man. Most dinos were little bigger than your average sheep with a great many a heck of a lot smaller. Well worth hunting for food.’

            We know what wiped out most of the dinosaurs. They were not doing well at the end of the Cretaceous, and a meteorite on top of was too much. All what remained is the group of dinosaurs best adapted to fit in a rapidly changing world – what we now called birds.

            But if you are right about man wiping out dinosaurs a few hundred years ago, be free to show the evidence. It shouldn’t be that difficult – after all, we found and identified remains of animals killed by man many thousand of years ago.

            >’Lastly, I’d be fascinated to learn by what processes you believe the ice ages began and was sustained if it wasn’t by the consequences of Noah’s Flood.’

            Wel, if you check out that geology book like I advised, you’ll find the explanation there. I can tell you It is a combination of factors, but -surprise! – an intervening deity is not one of them.

            But you owe me your explanation – you know, explaining how the heat release by the falling rain combined with the heat released by the limestone deposit – how the global flood caused an ice aged, only lasted 700 years, with several glacial and interglacial periods.

          • Bruce

            Ya and I have a surf board in Nevada for sale

      • BarkingDawg

        Noah’s Ark has not been found. The only thing to be found on Ararat are con men making a living off gullible Christians.

      • Bruce

        You must believe in the firmament too then…..right

    • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

      Well put.

      I have made the same argument here many times in regards to young-earth creationism (YEC). The goal is to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. YEC is not significant in the plan of salvation. Jesus never brought it up when people asked it how they could be saved, so if it wasn’t an issue for Him why make it an issue now? Many people believe that YEC must be true or otherwise the entire Bible is unreliable. I have no quarrel with that point of view even though I do not hold it myself. I don’t think that makes me unsaved.

      • Suzanne Miranda

        YEC?

        • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

          Young-earth Creationism. The belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

    • Nogods

      Do you agree then that the story of Adam and Eve is also not true?

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        You may see the logical flaw in Mr Geologist’s position, but that doesn’t mean he does. That he does not follow his incorrect position to its logical end (no Adam) is just as commendable as that you do not follow your incorrect position to its logical conclusion (no truth, no love).

        • Christian Geologist

          Indeed I agree with you, I do fail to see the logical flaw that you elude to, please enlighten me. I have posted above my response in regards to Adam and Eve and I look forward to your further comments.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Our atheist associate is delighted that you give him comfort in his belief that Adam and Eve are myth (and therefore that sin is a myth, and he can continue without consequence). If the opening words are not history, then what follows cannot be history either. He’s delighted and comforted, and you somehow think he should not be. Try to see your statements from his point of view: as far as he’s concerned, you’re just adding an incompatible feature into a complete model: confusing post-it notes that will blow away in the wind of scientific opinion. It doesn’t help that you’re both wrong, even if he is vastly more wrong.

        • Nogods

          Isn’t it interesting to think that there have been thousands of early questions about our universe that were once explained as “the work of god”. But as we became more educated and learned more about our world, those supernatural answers were replaced with real world answers. The interesting part of this however, is that during this time, NONE of those early questions were actually found to be the work of a god; “God” has NEVER turned out to actually be a correct answer to any question – EVER.

          Isn’t it also weird how today’s mythology was yesterday’s theology? So if mythology is not truth, than neither is theology.

          People that that love me have never threatened to throw me into a lake of fire – ever.

          • Christian Geologist

            One thing I do find interesting is that the current mainstream theory that the Universe originated from the Big Bang was written by the cosmologist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Many of the pioniers in western science were Christians who wished to further understand the wonder of God’s creation. Even though the Bible is a good guide it would be foolish to assume that God had put everything into it, afterall you don’t try to teach a 2 year old the complexities of quantum mechanics but rather start with the basics and move up from there. Likewise the Bible explains many important and fundemental things but is not meant to be a complete guide to the universe and how everything within it works. It would be boring if we had been told all the answers!

            Nowadays a lot of the explainations in physics of the Universe rely upon the anthropic cosmological principle or variations thereof which often turn circular but until we have a proper theory of quantum gravity in truth we have no idea how the Universe began (especially with the problems evident within inflation theory) even if we understand to minute detail how many of the laws of physics work.

            In regards to being thrown into a lake of fire, that’s not exactly how it works in Christianity (you’re thinking more of the Hellenic religions). The problem is that if we sin (which means create a boundary between ourselves and God) we are causing the divide. In rejecting him, who is love we are seperating ourselves from all love and relationship as a consequence. Rather than allowing this to happen God saved us through coming to earth as his Son Jesus and taking the entire punishment on himself. The offer is there for anyone to take but whether its taken is up to us as otherwise God would be forcing us to obey his will (something he does not do). Nobody lives a perfect life but no matter what we have done we are still forgiven by his grace. The only sin which is unforgivable is to reject God entirely as by doing so you are rejecting his forgiveness. Hell wasn’t created for humans, it was originally for those angels who disobeyed God but due to our own desires we are also subject to the Universal law. Its not a threat but more begging that you accept his forgiveness so that you aren’t subjected to it. It isn’t a lake of fire, although this is used figuratively in Revalations but instead eternal seperation from God and so eternity without love, joy, relationships or any of the gifts which come from him.

            I hope that’s given you a clearer picture, if you have anymore questions please do let me know.

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it interesting how all great scientists make discoveries by actually practicing science? Nothing has ever been discovered by praying or reading the bible.

            Isn’t it weird how some of the smartest scientists to have ever lived are working hard to figure out how the universe started. Yet, billions of uneducated people are certain they already know all the answers! What is even more amazing is that they didn’t have to go to school and get a real education, or do research, they read all about it in one book – in the first chapter no less! You are a perfect example of this. You claim to know all about human origins because you read about it in an ancient book. But really you obviously know nothing about it. You know that the Genesis story regarding the oceans is false because you apparently have some experience in that field. Do you think that if you had experience in biology you would also see that the Adam and Eve story was false?

            With your god, there is no choice. You either “choose” to worship him or you will be tortured for eternity. Where is the choice there? Not much choice when there is a gun at your head is there?

            Isn’t it a sin to work on the sabbath? And for this you deserve an eternity of torture? What?

            Jesus didn’t die for anyone’s sins. That is just a 1st century superstitious belief. From purely a logical point of view, you can’t hurt an all powerful god. And you certainly can’t kill one. So the whole death/resurrection was just an elaborate theatrical performance to entertain the delusional masses. Use some of those critical thinking skills I know you have.

          • Christian Geologist

            Actually we discovered the Hittite civilization from reading the Bible, it was largely thought to be a myth until it was rediscovered in the 1800’s. Besides that and a number of other historical links which have been discovered it really depends on how willing you are to learn from it. Science and religion aim towards different things and are not mutually exclusive. To think they are is quite bigoted.

            Isn’t it weird how many uneducated athiests think that they know all of the answers when we still don’t even have a clue what consciousness is or a number of other aspects science currently fails to explain. Just because we have increased in knowledge does not mean that we can exclude everything that cannot be proven with our own knowledge without actually understanding what it is that you are rejecting (which based on your answers I’m afraid to say you don’t). In regards to my background in biology, I do have a reasonable knowledge of genetics and evolution as I am currently in the process of a medical degree (slight switch) but I am always willing to learn more and refine my knowledge and frequently read research papers outside of my field. I don’t claim to be an expert in that field but as you do I ask again, could you please explain as to how biologically it is inconceivable that at one point in time we are all linked back to one pair (but also many others), especially given a study in 2003 in the American Journal of Human Genetics (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols) quotes that around 0.5% of the world is decended from Genghis Khan. Given he was only 1000 years ago is it not conceivable that there may be others deeper in history who even larger populations of the planet are decended from?

            In regards to working on the sabbath, I’m guessing you haven’t read the Bible much. Jesus actually got in a lot of trouble with the authorities at the time by going against this mentality. The important thing is that we have a day of rest within the week rather than one specific day. It was supposed to be for our benefit rather than as a requirement to shackle us. If you compare a lot of the Old Testiment rules (which is where that one is from) to those within other civilisations present at the time they were pretty revolutionary.

            When you break the law in your own country you make a similar choice. You either “choose” to obey it or you are punished accordingly.

            As I mentioned before God is spirit. When he came down to earth as Jesus he was both fully God and fully human. What this means is that rather than a human it was his own spirit within Jesus. He had the power to stop himself from being killed but by his own rules a price had to be paid for our sin and so he allowed it to happen. In regards to the resurrection, why would his disciples willingly risk their lives and ultimately die for him all to maintain a lie? That makes no sense, especially given many of them had the chance to deny Jesus as the Christ to avoid their deaths.

            You are of course entitled to your opinions but unless you have evidence which you can provide you need to remember that others can reach different conclusions.

          • Nogods

            “Actually we discovered the Hittite civilization from reading the Bible, it was largely thought to be a myth until it was rediscovered in the 1800’s. Besides that and a number of other historical links which have been discovered it really depends on how willing you are to learn from it.”

            Yes, some of the events in the bible are actually set in real places. This is equally true of all ancient writings.

            “Science and religion aim towards different things and are not mutually exclusive. To think they are is quite bigoted.”

            Religions make scientific claims. That is how this entire conversation started! You pointed out how science conflicted with biblical claims. Interestingly, YOU argued that science you win out. All I have done is point out another such conflict. So if your not a bigot for pointing out the first conflict, why would you suggest I am a bigot for pointing out a second conflict?

            “Isn’t it weird how many uneducated athiests think that they know all of the answers”

            I haven’t encountered any atheists that claim to have all the answers. But I sure have met a lot of Christians who do. I am sure you will agree, it is that type of close mindedness that is never a good thing.

            Isn’t it odd to think that there are an infinite variety of things the christian god could do that would immediately and unequivocally convince everyone of his existence. Yet, he chooses to not do any of them. Do you think it is because he is identical to all the other gods we now regard as mythology?

            So now let’s see how open your mind is. Tell me what I could show you that would convince you that your god is identical to all the other gods you could choose to worship, but are certain are not real? Just one thing? Because their are an infinite variety of things you could show me that would instantly and unequivocally convince me that your god is actually real. People with open minds can think up all kinds of things. People with closed minds can never think of anything.

            “when we still don’t even have a clue what consciousness is or a number of other aspects science currently fails to explain.”

            “In January 2014 Hameroff and Penrose announced that a discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan[23]confirms the hypothesis of Orch-OR theory.[24] A reviewed and updated version of the theory was published along with critical commentary and debate in the March 2014 issue of Physics of Life Reviews.[25]”

            “Just because we have increased in knowledge does not mean that we can exclude everything that cannot be proven with our own knowledge without actually understanding what it is that you are rejecting (which based on your answers I’m afraid to say you don’t)”

            Are you sure you aren’t the one who is mistaken?

            “In regards to my background in biology, I do have a reasonable knowledge of genetics and evolution as I am currently in the process of a medical degree (slight switch) but I am always willing to learn more and refine my knowledge and frequently read research papers outside of my field.”

            That is great that that you are pursuing science!

            “I don’t claim to be an expert in that field but as you do I ask again, could you please explain as to how biologically it is inconceivable that at one point in time we are all linked back to one pair (but also many others), especially given a study in 2003 in the American Journal of Human Genetics (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols) quotes that around 0.5% of the world is decended from Genghis Khan. Given he was only 1000 years ago is it not conceivable that there may be others deeper in history who even larger populations of the planet are decended from?”

            Look up “mitochondrial Eve” on wiki. There is a whole discussion that talks in detail about the research with citations to the journal articles.

            “In regards to working on the sabbath, I’m guessing you haven’t read the Bible much.”

            No, I’ve read it. Actually studied it in college.

            “Jesus actually got in a lot of trouble with the authorities at the time by going against this mentality. The important thing is that we have a day of rest within the week rather than one specific day. It was supposed to be for our benefit rather than as a requirement to shackle us. If you compare a lot of the Old Testiment rules (which is where that one is from) to those within other civilisations present at the time they were pretty revolutionary.”

            I thought that was also part of the Ten Commandments? Are those no longer part of Christianity?

            “When you break the law in your own country you make a similar choice. You either “choose” to obey it or you are punished accordingly.”

            Do we execute people for jay walking? Why not? Do we punish people eternally for working on the sabbath?

            “As I mentioned before God is spirit. When he came down to earth as Jesus he was both fully God and fully human. What this means is that rather than a human it was his own spirit within Jesus. He had the power to stop himself from being killed but by his own rules a price had to be paid for our sin and so he allowed it to happen.”

            That story is complete insanity. So let me get this straight, god creates people and sin, and then he decides that was a big mistake, so to free the people of the sin he created, he decides to commit suicide? How does someone actually come to believe that story is true?

            “In regards to the resurrection, why would his disciples willingly risk their lives and ultimately die for him all to maintain a lie? That makes no sense, especially given many of them had the chance to deny Jesus as the Christ to avoid their deaths.”

            You ask, why would the disciples of Jesus sacrificed their lives over a belief they knew was false. But that is simply the wrong question to ask. The disciples of Jesus believed Jesus rose from the dead. But their belief was just wrong. So the disciples of Jesus were willing to sacrifice their lives for a MISTAKEN BELIEF. This happens every day. Just ask ISIS members about that. They think they are fighting for a god that you know isn’t real. You also know that there will be no 72 virgins waiting for them. And just like the followers of Jesus, the members of ISIS are willing to die for a mistaken belief.

            “You are of course entitled to your opinions but unless you have evidence which you can provide you need to remember that others can reach different conclusions.”

            See above.

          • Christian Geologist

            “Religions make scientific claims.”
            Not really, individuals make scientific claims using religion as an excuse but that doesn’t mean that the religion itself is making those claims as I tried to state.

            “I haven’t encountered any atheists that claim to have all the answers.
            But I sure have met a lot of Christians who do. I am sure you will
            agree, it is that type of close mindedness that is never a good thing.”

            I would agree, but I have unfortunately met quite a number of athiests like that in my time as well. They exist within both groups as both groups unfortunately consist people who make claims without actually understanding what the reasons or background of they are claiming.

            “In January 2014 Hameroff and Penrose…”

            I am very familiar with their work and was actually in the middle of writing a report on how consciousness is affected by anaesthetics (as Hameroff is an anaesthetist) when that report came out. Unfortunately although Penrose is held is great esteem for his work in physics, their work on consciousness is widely criticised within the field. I would be delighted if it did prove to be correct as it is a very interesting concept but the science doesn’t seem fully sound. I am suprised that you’re quoting him though given that he then goes on to suggest that this may be the origin of the human soul (quantum entanglement of the conscious state remaining after the body). I think he has some interesting ideas but remain highly scheptical at this point and it clearly displays the point that consciousness is not yet understood. A lot more research will need to be undertaken, including confirming experiements in other labs (evidence is not solely based on a research group).

            “Look up “mitochondrial Eve” on wiki. There is a whole discussion that
            talks in detail about the research with citations to the journal
            articles. It will answer all your questions.”

            Not quite what I was meaning, I’m fairly familiar with the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, try reading what I wrote again (although I can clarify again if needed).

            “No, I’ve read it. Actually studied it in college. No, I’ve read it. Actually studied it in college.I thought that was also part of the Ten Commandments? Are those no longer part of Christianity?”

            Then you will be familiar with him getting into trouble for both healing on the Sabbath and for his disciples harvesting grain on the Sabbath I presume along with his responses. Jesus came to fulfil the old Law so we are no longer bound by a lot of what is written in the Old Testement laws. The Ten Commandments of course still stand but I’m sure you will agree besides the first 4 they make perfect sense in any moral society. The first 3 also make perfect sense if you believe that there is a God to worship (slight problem for yourself but I’m sure you can understand they are fairly straight forward to those who do) leaving the 4th. The 4th is meant to be a gift to us rather than a curse. It is basically saying “If God needed a rest after working straight for 6 days then so do you” rather than being a threat that if you do any work on this day you are sinning as was believed by the legalistic religious leaders of the time, it is for our own benefit. In Christianity having a personal relationship with God is an important part of the faith (I know this will sound foreign to you). As in any relationship effort needs to be given to maintain it. The Sabbath (which is actually Saturday rather than Sunday as is used by most Christians) is the perfect time to do this as you are tasked with resting from the worries and works of the world.

            “Do we execute people for jay walking? Why not? Do we punish people eternally for working on the sabbath?”

            In the past we did for many trivial things yes. Some countries today have laws which we might view as severe, for example in Singapore you could go to prison for trying to bring chewing gum into the country. Its a case of shifting moralities and cultures. As I mentioned before, most cultures at the time were much worse and so the laws were revolutionary. This changed over time as views on morality shifted to the point where the fulfilment of the law came. Think of it as giving rules to a toddler to help them grow and learn, they eventually reach a point where they no longer need them as they grow up.

            “So the disciples of Jesus were willing to sacrifice their lives for a MISTAKEN BELIEF”
            These are people who had been with Jesus every moment for the last few years. If anybody was going to recognise that it wasn’t him it would have been them, and if anybody was going to claim, as you do, that it was a trick it would have been them who did it (in which case why later throw away their lives for a lie when they had nothing to gain from it?).

            I hope that helps.

          • Nogods

            There is an interesting YouTube video you should watch entitled: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer.

            I would send you the link but it got blocked. Don’t ever fear information.

          • Christian Geologist

            I’ll see if I can find it, sounds interesting.

          • Nogods

            It really is interesting. I would be interested in hearing what you think.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            No, it’s not interesting. One person that loves you has threatened to throw you into a lake of fire. He’s serious.

          • Nogods

            What a silly superstitious belief.

            There are thousands of other gods you could worship but choose to reject. But your rejection of these other gods comes at a cost: all of these other gods intend to punish you when you are dead. So tell me how concerned you are about their impending wrath? Because that is the exact same level of concern I have about the impending wrath of your god. Pretty laughable isn’t it?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            I’m not in the least concerned about your prophets of doom: the climate change monster, the population catastrophe, the heat death of the universe. You can keep your silly superstitious beliefs.

          • Nogods

            Christanity and anti-science beliefs really do go hand in hand. When did Christianity become the religion of stupid?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            I think it was when God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it weird how gods never write books – men do. Why is it that the supposed all-powerful creator of everything, can’t write? Zeus never wrote any books either. They also never talk. They are all mutes. They need people just like you to talk on their behalf. I wonder why.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Without my help, the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. You must have heard yourself. These are not the works of no-god as claimed by Charles the infalible.

          • Nogods

            “Without my help”

            Well, not really. Because YOU are STILL here telling me what you think your god thinks. Gods don’t talk – just like I said.

            “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

            What “god” are you talking about? You need to be a little more specific. Here is a short list of gods you could choose to worship. Tell me what ones you think are real: Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Jesus, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama.

            “Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. You must have heard yourself. These are not the works of no-god as claimed by Charles the infalible.”

            Isn’t it odd to think that there are an infinite variety of things the christian god could do that would immediately and unequivocally convince everyone of his existence. Yet, he chooses to not do any of them. Do you think it is because he is identical to all the other gods we now regard as mythology?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Nope. You do reveal that you almost know who I’m talking about. Also, you reveal that you are not well read, and your google-fu could use some polish.

          • Nogods

            And your god is just as real as those he replaced.

      • Christian Geologist

        Yes I do believe that is is true, but that God used evoloution in order to achieve it. As is stated in John 4:24 “For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”. This is one of a number of verses which clearly state that God, as the creator of this Universe is not formed from the material within it (how could he be?), as such when Genesis 1:27 states ”
        So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” it is the spirit within us that God is referring to. The theory of evolution (its worth noting that in science something only gains the title of a theory if it has been able to withstand every conceivable attempt to disprove it) actually points towards there being an Adam and Eve, as logically all of humanity must have the same common ancestors. What makes us different is that rather than just being another animal God breathed a spirit in his image into our our bodies, with the first humans being Adam and Eve. This doesn’t mean that its less amazing, but more so since God lovingly designed and crafted us over billions of years rather than just snapping his fingers. The first western scientists were actually Christians aiming to further understand the majesty of Gods creation and the more that you learn about it the more in awe of God you are.

        • Nogods

          No evolutionary biologists think that the Adam and Eve of the bible were the first humans and there is no evidence to even suspect that they were ever even real people. The idea of first humans in that sense completely conflicts with all the evidence and the theory of evolution in general. While it does appear that modern humans evolved from a common female ancestor approximately 70 thousand years ago, this ancestor would only vaguely resemble a modern human. DNA evidence suggests that modern humans evolved from several thousand male ancestors about 200 thousand years ago. And again, they have no connection to the Adam and Eve of the bible. So if you are worried about Christianity embracing dumb ideas, claiming that Adam and Eve were real and were the first humans, is one of those ideas you should think about giving up.

          • Christian Geologist

            Not really, I just suspect you’re not fully understanding what I am meaning. I am very familiar with what you have said and do not disagree that there were other humans and hominoid species around (its well known that roughly 5% Eurasian DNA consists of genes taken from Neanderthals). What I am saying is that from a theological point of view this first female and male were the point when human consciousness arose in its full sense as a spirit was breathed into us by God. You will probably agree this is conjecture based on what is in the Bible and what seems logical to myself based on my understanding on evolution and that we are unable to prove either way, but of course my point is merely that the theory of evolution itself does not reject this possibility (but rather requires an additional step not based on evidence but rather a differing world view). Your statement that there are many male ancestors equally doesn’t hold ground as unless Adam and Eve’s children committed incest they would have to marry those humans who had not been given full consciousness.

            In regards to our ancestors 70 thousand years ago only vaguely resembling a modern human at least from my understanding of the literature this is no longer a wide-held view. Many people link the dramatic shift to the near extinction of the human species by the Toba supereruption roughly 74,000 years ago (also roughly the same time period as you are quoting for the common female ancestor, although of course they may be unrelated). If you could link me to some recent papers which discuss the changes you mention in humans 70,000 years ago to modern humans I would be grateful along with explaining any other mistakes I may have made with my reasoning.

          • Nogods

            You still keep coming back to the claim that Adam and Eve were real people, and now, the first humans with conscienceless. Neither idea has ANY scientific support and both contradict really all the evidence. You already regard the story of Noah as absurd. Yet, you are now defending an equally absurd story.

          • Christian Geologist

            And what is your reasoning? I am happy to review the situation if you provide it but stating that I am wrong purely because you say so is not an argument without providing the evidence. It is a hypothesis as to how it may have worked, it may also have been that they were instead the first humans who grew to know God.

            In regards to Noah, there is plenty of evidence that there was a great flood which covered the known world after the last ice age, both geologically and anthropology within all of the civilizations who emerged from the Black Sea area with such tales as Gilgamesh present in folklaw. For the people there at the time it really would have been their entire world which was destroyed by the flooding. While much of it is probably additional (such as every animal in the world, going into the ark) the key message and theme related is clearly presented.

            One key thing to remember when viewing Genesis, especially before Egypt, is that it much of what it contained originated prior to the invention of writing within a nomadic culture and so passed via oral tradition. Because of this much of it is meant to explain the larger picture of how God created the Universe and our place in it rather than providing a word for word accurate historical account of it. We naturally view it from our own culture but we need to also be sensitive to the original culture that it was written for.

          • Nogods

            It is easy to rationalize anything when it doesn’t have to be connected to reality.

            Let’s focus on just one of your comments. You claim that the story of Noah is true because their are written and oral stories of a great flood. One simple question – how could there be any written or oral stories regarding the flood when your god allegedly murdered everyone on earth but 8 people and destroyed everything, most certainly including anything that was written?

          • Christian Geologist

            Simple, read what I actually wrote. I didn’t claim that it was the entire world but merely a portion of it which to the people living in the area at the time would have been their world. There is ample scientific evidence of flooding in the Black Sea region, there was also a huge amount of flooding in the Gulf of Oman when the North American Ice Shelf collapsed at the end of the last ice age. Both of these events have been suggested as the floods mentioned and you can easily find a number of research papers about these floods using google scholars (the floods, not Noah). Given that there is a collective anthropological memory of a great flood both in European and Indian culture outside of that mentioned within the Abrahamic religions it is probable that a number of people were affected by these floods.

          • Nogods

            So you are saying then that the flood story described in the bible is false?

          • Christian Geologist

            I am saying that we need to understand the context that the books were written in since the Bible consists of many books written at different times by different people lead by God (but not word for word, that’s the Quran). As most of the beginning of Genesis until Egypt was passed down by oral tradition, it is presented in such a way. In many cultures oral tradition goes back to times deep in the past and has been shown to have a good amount of accuracy, but also needs to represent a way that is easier to memorise and pass on to the next generation. This does not mean that these stories are false but that they were told for the people at the time in order to convey both the history and the message within it to the future generations. If you were told that you had to teach somebody from that period about nuclear power in a minute in a way that they might remember and be able to pass on for generations can you think of a way to do it?

          • Nogods

            The question isn’t hard: based on our current understanding of science relevant to the issue, is the story true or false?

          • Michael C

            I hope you don’t mind me interjecting. I, like you, don’t have any religious beliefs but I think you’re not understanding CG’s position. CG seems to have beliefs that don’t require proof. Religious people call this “faith”. CG doesn’t appear to have blind faith. CG doesn’t appear to be the type of person to reject facts and reality. CG seems like a rational and intelligent person. You’re challenging CG’s beliefs without evidence to falsify them.

            As for the bible’s stories, I think there’s a difference between truth and fact. That’s just what art is.

          • Christian Geologist

            The story is true in its essance but needs to be taken in light of the society it was written for and history of it being passed on as I have stated. Regardless if what is thought it, along with a lot of Genesis aren’t really fundamental sections of the Bible in regards to faith.

          • Brules

            Well, evolutionary biologists would know, wouldn’t they? After all, they’ve been around for at least one hundred years!

        • Kevan Massey

          Then you are saying that death came before sin? That makes the entire Bible a lie, does it not? Also how does radioactivity, which has a shelf life of thousands of years, get measured after millions or billions of years?

    • Reason2012

      “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

      Exodus 31:15-17

      It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in billions of years and five or six days God made the heavens and the earth.”

      It doesn’t say “work in six days, for in six large chunks of millions or billions of years each God made the heavens and the earth”

      The only stumbling blocks are trying to teach others that God’s Word cannot be trusted because some might be too embarrassed to believe God did what He said He did.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      “not liquid … water … bonded … inside crystals”: well, yay. But how did this bond form, without water? Besides, water under extreme pressure is not liquid: it’s a supercritical fluid.

      “Radioactive core”: where can I get a sample?

      “No reputable scientists”: well, anyone who disagrees with evolutionary orthodoxy is not reputable by popular definition. What’s a Christian to do when the evidence stubbornly and vehemently disagrees with evolution?

      “Look like idiots”: Imagine if we looked like fools in the eyes of the world. How terrible that would be! Imagine if what we preached was foolishness in their eyes!

      “Day-age”: blah blah faulty blah, “stumbling block” blah blah faulty blah. The cross is the stumbling block, and supporting evolution makes the cross look like foolishness.

      • Christian Geologist

        Actually its a fairly well understood mechanism as to how water gets bonded within crystals. The basics of it come about in subduction zones such as the Hikurangi Trench. As the sediment is subducted under the continental crust water from the oceans is taken with it. Under pressure the chemistry of the rocks changes. You are correct in saying that under pressure it can become a supercritical fluid, but chemical changes depend on the temperature as well as just the pressure and is also highly dependant on the composition of the chemicals surrounding it (think adding salt to melt ice). It is also worth noting that water is not a fundamental state, it is just made from Hydrogen and Oxygen and can be broken with electricity quite easily. As the oceanic slab moves further underground it starts to undergo regional metamorphism, this allows the water to become included within the chemical formula of the crystals itself (note, it is not really water from this point onwards). Normally, the deeper the slab goes, the less water there is, this is because it acts as a volatile substance and lowers the melting point of rock. Depending on the temperature gradient this causes the water rich rock to melt, forming volcanos, often around 100-200 miles away from the original trench as occurs in the pacific ring of fire.

        In regards to the radioactive core, when the earth was still fully molten the heavier elements moved towards the center of the planet. This is why most heavy elements on the periodic table are rare on the surface, while other light elements such as silicon are very common. It is the natural decay of these radioactive elements that keeps the earth hot today.

        There’s a difference between the “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction!” as in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and looking foolish because you haven’t taken the time to actually check the facts. The science behind many of these things is as well defined as knowing that the earth itself is round (which was proven in 600BC) so for those who have examined the evidence for themselves it does seem stupid as the alternative is to believe that God has created the universe for the express purpose of tricking and lying to us (something that I do not believe he would do).

        I hope that helps, if you have any further questions please do post

    • John_33

      Actually, this is wonderful evidence for Noah’s Flood. Dr. Stephen Jacobsen, one of the scientists spearheading this study (BBC did a small video on him and this topic), stated that this water under the earth’s crust is possibly preventing the oceans from draining into the rocks. In other words, this is where Noah’s Flood could have gone. He also said that if all the water was on the surface, then it would cover everything but the mountain peaks (this is according to current estimates). There is good probability that this is Noah’s floodwater. Never again can atheists ask where the water is. We have enough. The stumbling block is not on the Creationist’s side. The stumbling block is incorrect science that contradicts the Bible. The world has always held to incorrect science and it always will. The question for Christians is, who will you believe? God or man?

      As for the Church Fathers, a number of them believed that the earth was less than 6,000s years old and that Creation was instantaneous. Basil of Caesarea in particular appears to have stated that the days of creation were 24 hours. The idea of an ancient earth couldn’t fit into that view. Don’t mistake my point: it doesn’t matter what the Church Fathers did or didn’t believe, but my point is that a belief in a young earth is not some new theory as you claimed. What really matters is what God wrote in the Bible. He made it clear enough that the world was created in six days, and people throughout history have taken God at His word. The question is whether we are willing to believe it or not.

    • Kevan Massey

      So, if you have degrees in Geology, tell us how granite was formed. Not in theory, but facts. Also, how do we trust radio carbon dating that tells us a living being is thousands of years old? Or that the same mammoth is 2,3 or 4 different ages? The problem with the “old earth theory” is that if death came before sin, then the Bible is wrong, is it not? And if that is untrue, then how can we trust anything else? Also, the “scientists” at the time said the earth was flat. Not the Christians….
      And just for my own information, how is it that radioactivity, which should not even be present in something “billions” of years old, is measured for age?

      • Christian Geologist

        First one is pretty easy, there are two types of granite though (well, technically 3 but the third I don’t want to complicate the picture too much). Those which had an igneous precurser are labled I-Type Granites, while those which had a sedimentary precurser are labled S-Type. They can be differentiated fairly easily by examining the chemistry of them. First of all I will note that granites are an acidic rock (high in silica) which is the reminants of the magma chambers associated with subduction zones with little input from continental crust (as this would make it more mafic such with Andesite). To be classed as a granite it also needs to be course grained (indicating that it cooled slowed slowly and had the chance for large crystals to form), if it had cooled quickly it would create Rhyolite. They also need to be predominantly made of Quartz, a type of mica and a type of Feldspar. Keeping it fairly basic, as rocks are subducted they are first metamorphosed, changing the crystal type and structure of the rocks as surface crystals are not stable at other pressure-temperature regimes. This is extremely well understood and we can easily tell how deep a rock was buried by which crystals are present within it (along with the relationships between the crystals using cross-polarized microscopy). As they are buried to deeper and deeper levels they eventually reach a point where due to the presence of volitile substances such as water (normally crustal rocks don’t melt as without the presence of volitile substances the melting point for their P-T is too high which is why we only have volcanos in specific places, hot spots like yellowstone being the exception as they have a high temperature gradient) the melting point is lowered and they begin to melt (migmatite). If the pressure-temperature regieme is correct then this melt will increase and start to rise, pooling as magma chamber, melting the host rock which them combines in the magma. If the level of silica is still high enough (such as if the protolith were a sandstone) then as the magma chamber cools it will start to form felsic minerals in order of fractional crystalation. This means that atoms within the mixture will start to clump together in groups to create certain minerals which are stable to form at those temperatures and within that chemical regieme. As these first crystals form they take atoms of the elements they need out of the melt, this of course changes the composition and so other crystals are preferentially formed instead (since concentrations of the required elements are now too low to form the original crystal). Sometimes this creates a see-saw effect with crystals stopping and starting growing as the make-up of the melt changes. This is further complicated as any new influx of magma from other connected chambes may change the composition of it completely and is why some volcanos produce different types of lava at different stages of their lifetime. Eventually the magma chamber will completely cool over millions of years (depending the size of it) cooling into a granite. If you are able to find the geological boundary between the granite and the rock it intruded into you will often find almost flame-like structures as it has intruded into it, along with finer crystals as those next to the edge cooled more quickly. Over millions of years these ancient magma chambers may reach the surface as the above rocks are eroded away creating the granite that you find today.

        The quick version is sandstone (or high silica igneous rock) gets subducted, gets metamorphosed, melts, forms magma chamber, magma chamber cools, magma chamber turns into granite.

        In regards to radio carbon dating, this is because of the extremely well defined rate of radioactive decay of the element C14. Radioactive decay is the most accurate measurement of time that we know. Because the rate of decay is constant we are able with other elements (the half-life of C14 is too short at 5,730±40 for long distances of time compared with Rb87 which has a half-life of decay into St of 4.92×1010 years. We have been able to confirm the accuracy of C14 exactly from measuring it against items of known age and to date is has been successful (unless the item has been contaminated by more recent sources of C14). I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with mammoths.

        I would disagree in regards to your problem with death. The bible states that death came into the world for all humans but we do not know if the rest of creation already experianced it. We also know that within the Garden of Eden was different from the rest of Creation so the mere act of them being expelled into the world already corrupted by satan. The Bible isn’t wrong in the respect of old earth, its just that some understanding of the interpretations is wrong. I would recommend that you read the Bible in the original text (Hebrew and Greek) in order to understand it to its fullest extent rather than relying upon translations which are known to make errors (e.g. the original King James Version got confused between Judas and Jesus at one point which is a pretty huge mistake to make!). Its not a case of all or nothing as the Bible was never meant to be taken exact word-for-word – that was the Quran!

        In regards to scientists saying the earth was flat, that hasn’t been the case since it was proven to be round in 300BC, although by this point it was largely assumed to be the case. Since western science only began roughly around the time of Pythagoras (who is often noted as the first person to claim the earth was round) its a great fallacy to state that scientists thought the earth was flat.

        I’ve already covered some of your last statement but basically its because of the varying half-lives of the elements. Some elements have a half-life over billions of years, some less than a second. In many cases these elements decay into isotopes of other elements which were not formed outside of radioactive decay. When a rock, or another object (such as charcoal) formed they took a snapshot of the ratios at the time of the rock was formed as it became a closed system. Deep within the earth the rocks without any surface interactions have higher concentrations and so as time passes there is a gradual release into the oceans from volcanos. Other aspects of atoms are so regular that the second itself is definined based upon the electron transitions within the caesium-133 atoms.

        If you have any questions on any of that please let me know.

        • Kevan Massey

          Magma crystallization

          Another idea that Clemens ‘turns on its head’ is that the large crystals in granite grow slowly over long periods of time. This has long been used as an argument against the reliability of the biblical timescale, but it has been refuted before.10 Clemens too notes that crystallization can be much faster than previously imagined possible:

          ‘Experimentally measured rates indicate that a 5 mm crystal of plagioclase could have grown in as short a time as 1 hour, but probably no more than 25 years.’11

          Pluton cooling is another geological process that has been said to take millions of years, but geological understanding of pluton geometry no longer supports this. Recent geological and geophysical observations have revealed that the world’s granitic plutons are mostly tabular in shape and typically only a few kilometres thick. This runs counter to the old idea of vertically extensive batholiths, but this is now accepted as an observational fact.8

          Photo by Mark Armitage

          Figure 2. A polonium halo.

          Given this tabular shape, it is a simple matter to model the cooling by conduction of a 3 km sheet of granitic magma.8 Based on conduction alone (i.e. ignoring the cooling effect of fluids) it would take only 30,000 years to completely solidify from the initially liquid magma. But we know that fluids play a controlling role in the cooling of granitic magma, and their behaviour would drastically reduce the time.12

          Rapid crystallization and cooling is also indicated by the presence of tiny spheres of radiation damage within biotite crystals in granite. Halos produced by polonium (figure 2) are abundant in granites, pointing to catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth.13,14Clemens did not mention this remarkable evidence, but it further confirms the general thrust of his paper.

          Pitcher agrees with Clemens’s conclusions about the shape of granitic plutons, quipping that ‘the single towering body was an offence to reason.’15 He also pointed out that a thin geometrical shape ‘is consistent with the remarkably low degree of contact metamorphism against bodies of considerable outcrop area.’16

          More and more consistent with the biblical timeframe

          John Clemens’s overview of the latest findings on the origin of granite demonstrates that the geological evidence is leading to models that are consistent with the biblical record.

          But there are still important unanswered questions. Why do granite rocks form in the first place? What initiates the melting of the source rocks? This is where the biblical model of the Genesis Flood provides a simple but elegant explanation. The enormous tectonic upheaval involved is sufficient cause—from beginning to end. Global scale catastrophe created continental scale crustal movements that initiated partial melting deep inside the earth, forcing the magma through the crust, and emplacing it in huge magma chambers—all quickly. We do not see granitic magma being produced and emplaced on these scales today.

          In spite of the revolution in thinking about granite discussed in the Geologists’ proceedings, and the recognition of granitic catastrophism, the authors nowhere suggest that the age of the earth should be questioned, even though they recognize the harmful psychological effects of the long-age paradigm. This problem was not recognized or explored. But, now that they have extended geologic catastrophism from sedimentary rocks to igneous (and, by association, metamorphic) ones, where do they propose inserting the billions of years of time?
          Death was a consequence of sin. Several times in the Bible it describes creation crying out because of it. The book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible, describes the earth as being an “orb”. It was man in his finite wisdom that declared it to be flat.
          We will just have to agree to disagree about taking the Bible literally. In Genesis it speaks of day and night in the creation texts of the days. Not too much to “interpret there. But I understand how you have been “educated” to believe otherwise. What a shame. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”…
          There is much about carbon dating that is unknown. Who is to say that the rate of decay has remained the same? Does a fire not burn brighter before it cools? I could give many more examples, but entropy happens and things slow down, do they not. And if that be so, then what was the rate of decay to start with? Why are there still soft tissue in “million” year old fossils? There comes a time to utilize common sense rather than man made wisdom… In
          Christ, K Massey

        • Kevan Massey

          I agree with Scott Huckaby when he says:

          “Society’s humanist world loving mindset has crept into the Church today causing many to be lukewarm toward Christ. Many in the Church now take a liberal view of Scripture, no longer seeing the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God but just the story of mankind’s search for God. Thus there is less desire to spend time personally studying God’s Word.

          Why waste time reading the Bible if it is just words of men that are subject to interpretation? Why bother to personally study the Bible if it has to be interpreted for you by scholarly theologians to tell us what God really meant by what He said? And why take any of this too seriously since we can’t really know if Bible interpreters are just making things up?

          If the Bible is not the inspired Word of God then people are free to pick and choose whatever doctrines of men they like. And these dogmas change with the mores of society, causing people to be carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14).

          The only way to avoid being blown about by society’s changing winds of doctrine is to be well-grounded in God’s Word. And it is not possible to be well-grounded in God’s Word unless you have a correct view of the Bible as being inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

          Another way followers of Christ have allowed love for the world to creep into the Church is to embrace the world’s concept of evolution which attempts to explain how the creation could come to be without a Creator. Darwinian evolution is only a theory with no proof but the world has elevated it to the level of scientific truth.

          If you don’t embrace Darwinian evolution as absolute “settled” truth you are considered by society to be an unscientific hayseed. Nobody wants to be rejected by their peers so this has given rise to followers of Christ figuring out how to fit evolution into Christian theology.

          The idea that God used an evolutionary process to bring about the creation is called Theistic Evolution and to believe it requires you to take a pretty liberal view of Scripture. And it joins with the world in rejecting all the scientific evidence that supports the literal Genesis account of creation.

          Theistic Evolution can be considered to be within the pale of orthodoxy because it technically has nothing to do with a person’s salvation. But theistic evolution does represent a gross compromise with the world that has contributed to the lukewarm attitude toward Christ that characterizes this Laodicean Age.

          The problem with being lukewarm toward Christ is that one has to wonder if such individuals are truly children of God or if they are just deceiving themselves. Cultural Christians can talk the talk and walk the walk but don’t necessarily have a personal relationship with the Savior. Jesus said He would spew lukewarm Christians out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16).

          He also said that many who did great things even in His name would find themselves banished from heaven because, I never knew you (Matthew 7:21-23). If you are truly seeking a personal relationship with the Savior, it is hard to be lukewarm toward Him.

          A key indicator of Christians loving the world is Amillennialism. The idea that the kingdom of God will only be a spiritual kingdom until the eternal state is ushered in requires the same spiritualized, liberal view of Scripture that is necessary to embrace Theistic Evolution. The two false doctrines go hand-in-hand and are characteristic of the lukewarm church of this Laodicean Age.

          It is hard for Christians who take a liberal view of Scripture to get excited about the return of Jesus. If it took millions of years for Jesus to come the first time, it will probably be millions of years before He returns.

          Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

          We are told in 1 John 2:17 why we shouldn’t love the world system men are building; this world along with even the passion for it—is passing away. Despite the prevailing humanist optimism, people inherently know there is something very broken with this world. No matter what we do, we still have poverty, despair and war in this world.

          While most still think we can fix these problems through even more collective effort, we have been trying this and things are getting worse rather than better. Those who put their hope in more and more powerful human governments will have their own crisis of faith because the Bible says these efforts will fail.

          We can already see the stage being set for a spectacular failure of the collective human effort. For example, we have been financing our prosperity by immorally building up debt. National and personal debt is a problem worldwide that has reached monumental proportions. Our collective conscience telling us that it is wrong to live beyond our means has been seared.

          Debt always leads to bondage (Proverbs 22:7). And there will be consequences whether it is individual or national debt. It is increasingly obvious that there is an economic crash coming that will be so bad the world will demand a global government to fix it.

          The only fix true for what ails this world is Jesus Christ; He will make a difference collectively to the world when He returns to establish His millennial kingdom. But He makes a difference to individuals in the here and now when we allow Him to be in our life as Savior and Lord.

          Pursuing that relationship enables us to overcome the sin of this Laodicean Age to be resurrected as part of the Bride of Christ when He comes for us prior to the Tribulation that will prepare the world for the millennial kingdom.

          The good news is that, he who does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:17). The will of God is to trust in Jesus Christ for your salvation (John 6:40). Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by allures of creation that would cause you to miss out on a personal relationship with the Creator.”

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            The “lukewarm”, liberal degradation of the Church has been well-planned by Satan, and is designed to draw the world into the embracing and worship of the upcoming Antichrist.

    • Brules

      I hate to disagree with another Christian, particularly one so highly qualified, but must take issue on two points. I hasten to add that my opinions are based on the work of many PhD YEC geologists whose work I have read as far as my understanding will allow.
      The first, the assertion that scientific evidence for a very old Earth is indisputable, is simply not correct. As far as I’m aware, there is no known scientific process which can establish the age of the Earth and give a result which could be regarded as factual. Every one of the processes used so far relies upon assumptions being made about the original state of the test specimen. This must, of necessity, preclude any chance of an accurate conclusion. Some years ago, Jonathan Safarti submitted samples from the same modern lava stream in New Zealand to a number of different laboratories to test and determine their ages. The results were dramatic in their variations which numbered millions of years. You could also refer to ‘Rocks aren’t Clocks’ by John K. Reed PhD.
      My second caveat concerns the interpretation of the word ‘yom’. It can either mean a 24-hour day or a period of time as in the expression ‘in may father’s day’. However, throughout the Bible, when ‘yom’ is used with a qualification such as a number or ‘then there was morning’ etc, it invariably means a 24-hour day. Thus Genesis talks about everything being created by God in six 24-hour days. I’m not aware of any serious contention in this issue. Augustine was reputed to have questioned this interpretation because he thought the 6 days too long!
      I must also mention that I do not suggest that you can’t be a Christian if you don’t accept the 6 literal days but it does create problems for believers who also believe that the Earth is billions of years old. They should also remember that the idea of long ages really arose in it’s present form to justify the period of time it was felt that evolution would need to happen. There is simply no biblical justification for an old-age Earth. Remember too that Jesus said ‘In the beginning He made them man and woman…’. Not eons after the first creation did He permit a primate to turn into a human.

      • John N

        The scientific processes by which the age of the earth has been calculated are very well understood, reliable, and most of them not dependent on the initial state of the specimen.

        The results of the so-called experiment done by Jonathan Sarfati been explained. When using radiometric dating techniques on recent lava the samples have to be collected with caution, otherwise they will contain fragments of older sediments. Geologists know this. Sarfati seems to ignore that knowledge.

        So i’ m afraid you have been lied to by your YEC ‘PHD’s

        • Christian Geologist

          Agreed, before I continue I thank you, I only continue because the evidence is so profoundly clear and solid that for those who have actually researched it the claims sound ludicrous.

          In regards to the lava there are a number of problems. Firstly, you use different radiodating techniques depending on what it is you are looking at. Some rocks don’t have sufficient quantities of the elements in them to date them, basalts in particular cause problems. Because of this geologists tend to use the cross-cutting relationships of sediements and other rocks or fracturing in order to define the dates. On top of this, as the dating method relies upon the half-life of the element in question to define the age, if the half-life itself is too great short it is usless for defining recent periods of time (it doesn’t have the resolution). Likewise, if its too short, as in C14 carbon (for geological time) too much of it has decayed to provide an accurate image (which is why radiocarbon dating has an upper limit of accuracy). If he requested that the wrong type of test was done with a poor time resolution then it would of course give a skewed result as he would have designed the experiment to fail. I can assure you that the science behind it is very solid.

          Now, while I cannot say I have heard of John Reed, I can say that if he disagrees with something as basic as I described he has in fact denied all knowledge of the field he claims to have a PhD in. I tried doing a search in the literature and I have been unable to find a single reference to him or any of his claims (besides on young earth creationist websites) which means that either he is making his claims without any peer reviewed scientific evidence to back it up (which basically means he’s making it up as any scientist publishes their work to be reviewed by experts in the field to make sure they haven’t made any mistakes in their methodology or misinterpreting their results). I also can’t seem to find any reference as to what his thesis was about, or even which University he gained it from. I will admit that I am concerned that he could be one of many who bought his PhD from fake Universities such as the American University of London but of course I may be wrong. What does seem to be the case however is that since graduating (if he did) he gave up his academic carrier in favour of making money off YEC which is a sad thing to see. I would highly recommend that you read the book “Bad Science” by (medical) Dr Ben Goldacre as it provides very good training at recognising pseudoscience from real science. There is a lot of it going on, particularly among nutritionists but also in other fields.

          In regards to the word Yom, I ask you, why then did the Jewish people view the earth as ancient beyond that time and not take it as meaning a 24 hour day. Why, when Jesus came did he not correct them? I would recommend that you read the wikipedia entry (not the best source but definitely the easiest to find) on the word Yom as it puts it in quite a clear way. I agree though that its hardly something that is fundemental to being a Christian though. I would have been well within God’s right to create the world 5 minutes ago, everything as it is including our memories but I don’t believe that he would trick us like that. Likewise, I don’t believe that he would create a world which points very clearly to things having happened one way just to fool people. He created the Universe, processes included. Understanding those processes doesn’t make them any less amazing and the precice nature of it (in many cases if things were only minutely different life, or even matter, would not be able to exist!) just makes it more so.

        • Brules

          JohN, it seems that you really don’t have any specific evidence against Safarti’s lava specimens, rather you seem to be supposing certain things in an effort to suggest that he was responsible for the extraordinary variation in result. As I understand it, he didn’t perform the tests himself but sent samples from the same basalt to three different laboratories that specialized in rock dating. The unavoidable fact is that these labs came back with results which varied, in some cases, by many millions of years. I suggest that this would mean that the tests used are unreliable. This is by no means the only instance of this sort of thing.
          Your opening paragraph is unhelpful. It is not enough simply to claim that tests are valid and their results reliable. It would help a great deal if you could be specific about which tests are reliable yet don’t require knowledge of original state. Scientific methodology, in its simplest definition, consists of repeated experiments to determine the validity of an hypothesis. This cannot be done with rocks because nothing is known of the original state of materials, i.e. how much argon did a rock contain when it was first formed. Though we know what decay rates are to-day, we really don’t know if they varied in the past. We cannot afford to assume, as the uniformitarianists would have us do, that these natural processes have always been constant.
          I was saddened by your final sentence. This is an ad hominum argument and an unworthy one. The names and academic records of a great many YEC PhDs are available to all who would look for them. A few I know personally and would defend their integrity to the end. They have no reason to lie. Such a declaration of belief has been enough, in many circumstances, to lose YEC scientists and academics their jobs and careers. Now I don’t know you at all, as far as I’m aware, and disagree with your opinions in these specific matters but I would never suggest that you are therefore a liar.
          Consensus is no guarantee of truth. May I suggest that you show YEC scientists enough courtesy and respect to properly consider what they are saying?

          • John N

            >’he didn’t perform the tests himself but sent samples from the same basalt to three different laboratories that specialized in rock dating. The unavoidable fact is that these labs came back with results which varied, in some cases, by many millions of years. I suggest that this would mean that the tests used are unreliable. This is by no means the only instance of this sort of thing.’

            And I explaned that using radiometric dating methods on recent lava flows will give unreliable results because of lava containing remains of older fragments, called xenoliths. That’s why real geologists don’t use these methods on recent lava, unless they very carefully select the specimens they want to test.

            Like any scientific tool, radiometric dating techniques can be misused. Snelling (I guess this is about him, not Sarfati) intentionally misused the method by taking samples uncautionally and not telling the labs what to check for. So he did receive the answers everybody expected, i.e. different results for each sample.

            Does these results invalidate the method? No, it just makes clear ever dating method has its limits, that real geologists knows and takes into accounts whan collecting samples and selection a dating method.

            >’Your opening paragraph is unhelpful. It is not enough simply to claim that tests are valid and their results reliable. It would help a great deal if you could be specific about which tests are reliable yet don’t require knowledge of original state. Scientific methodology, in its simplest definition, consists of repeated experiments to determine the validity of an hypothesis. This cannot be done with rocks because nothing is known of the original state of materials, i.e. how much argon did a rock contain when it was first formed. Though we know what decay rates are to-day, we really don’t know if they varied in the past. We cannot afford to assume, as the uniformitarianists would have us do, that these natural processes have always been constant.’

            So again the classic creatonist denial – we don’t know how much argon a rock initially contained, we don’t know if the decay reate varied in the past, etc.

            About the first – this is indeed a problem. Luckily scientists know this too. So they overcome this by either careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating. OK?

            For the second issue, well, if you want to use the scientific process, then do look for evidence the decay rate has been different in the past. Do try to explain that, to fit into your YEC-story, it had to be 100.000 to one million more fast in the recent past. Do explain how the extremely enhanced level of radioactivity resulting from that decay rate went completely unnoticed, did not kill all organisms alive and did not melt the earth away. Please do. And please also explain what made the decay rates suddenly change to what we see know, just before we started measuring it. And also explain why the dating method used today – with a range of different isotopes – could be so extremely consistent when the decay reates of all of these isotopes were variable in the past. Until you have done this, your issue is simply denial.

            >’I was saddened by your final sentence. This is an ad hominum argument and an unworthy one. The names and academic records of a great many YEC PhDs are available to all who would look for them.’

            Well, until these PhD’s are actually doing some scientific research and publish there results about ‘creationist science’ in mainstream scientific journals, their titles are worth the paper they are printed on.

            >’Such a declaration of belief has been enough, in many circumstances, to lose YEC scientists and academics their jobs and careers’

            Any declaration of belief that your specific religion trumps scientific evidence will make you unsuitable to have a career in science.

            >”May I suggest that you show YEC scientists enough courtesy and respect to properly consider what they are saying?’

            Just you using the term ‘YEC scientists’ tells enough. No real scientists would use the term ‘Darwinist scientist’ or ‘Big Bang scientist’. Either you are a scientist, which means you always follow the evidence, or you prefer to let your religion dictate what evidence is acceptable. Why would I listen to someone trying to sell his religion?

          • Brules

            Well, I still don’t understand what test you can do which will establish the genuine age of a rock without first knowing what the rock was like at its beginning.
            Actually I don’t think I originated the term YEC scientists in this discussion. It was applied earlier as a term of derogation by an atheist contributor. I simply used it to separate those scientists who believe the Bible and those who don’t.
            ‘Any declaration of belief that your specific religion trumps scientific
            evidence will make you unsuitable to have a career in science.’
            This is a strawman argument. I did not say or imply what you are saying and no YEC scientist would do so either.
            ‘Well, until these PhD’s are actually doing some scientific research and
            publish there results about ‘creationist science’ in mainstream
            scientific journals, their titles are worth the paper they are printed
            on.’
            The next time you have an MRI scan you may care to reflect that the machine was invented and developed by Raymond Damadian, a YEC scientist and engineer.
            Perhaps you’d like to tell Prof. Stuart Burgess or Prof. Andrew McIntosh that their PhDs are not worth the paper on which they’re written? Perhaps you could advise the universities where these men held their professorships that they, the universities, have been remiss in granting professorships to men with worthless PhDs? This argument of yours is a Dawkinsian one. It’s based on the principle – ‘if you can’t disprove, then denigrate.’

          • John N

            >’Well, I still don’t understand what test you can do which will establish the genuine age of a rock without first knowing what the rock was like at its beginning.’

            Yes, it is clear you don’t understand. Luckily there are people who do. To inform yourself, you could read ‘The Age of the Earth’ by Dalrymple.

            >You:’Such a declaration of belief has been enough, in many circumstances, to lose YEC scientists and academics their jobs and careers.
            Me:’Any declaration of belief that your specific religion trumps scientific evidence will make you unsuitable to have a career in science.”
            ‘You:This is a strawman argument. I did not say or imply what you are saying and no YEC scientist would do so either.’

            Then what did you mean by saying this?

            >’The next time you have an MRI scan …’

            Where did Damadian, Burgess or McIntosh work on evolutionary biology? If they did, any evidence they pushed their creationist beliefs above the scientific evidence in their work?

            I guess there are scientists who, in their private life, prefer to have beliefs not supported by scientific evidence. Why should I have a problem with that?

  • Jane Jessee

    The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.

    • rcvj

      Sarcasm?

      • Nogods

        I hope.

      • afchief

        Truth!!!

    • BarkingDawg

      So the description of the men in Ezikial 20:23 is accurate, then?

      • Law77

        Ezekiel 20:23 “Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries,”

        What do you mean by this verse?

        • BarkingDawg

          23:20.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Context, woof. Context. Get a bible commentary and read it. Or just read the surrounding verses. This is off topic.

    • Cady555

      You might want to read it all first.

    • DeltaGravity

      Always thought: The Bible says it, that settles it so therefore I believe it. Kind of keeps it from sounding relative this way. IMHO, of course.

      • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

        Also protects one from modernity and science.

        • Tony Robinson

          Odd, since many branches of science began from someone taking Scripture at its word. From Oceanography to the study of snow flakes, Bible believers paved the way inspired by their sacred text.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            You will have to be more specific with that argument, because it appears that you are painting a false equivalence. Science began with the curiosity of individuals (“The Church/Bible tells this, but I see that. Why? I think I’ll have a look”).

            Science has never advanced at the lead of the Church. The reason? Because once someone discovered the beauty of a snowflake, he didn’t say, “The Bible says that God made it, and it is so beautiful, it must be true. I needn’t look any deeper.”

            The church’s condemnation and suppression of the works of Copernicus and Galileo stand out as a major example. The Church did, indeed, allow individuals to humor themselves with science, but if the results went against Church/biblical teachings, they were suppressed.

            In genetics, for example, an Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel, discovered how traits are passed on from parent to offspring,

            The question of trait transmission had been the major objection to Darwinian Evolution–Darwin had not shown (and did not know) the mechanics of inheritance. He saw only the results and how nature acts on those traits (natural selection). It was Alfred Wallace that came to the same conclusion, except he injected intelligent design into the equation.

            Thus, this shadow on Darwinian evolution remained unresolved until Mendel’s discovery, not by applying the Bible, but by applying the scientific method (objective testing and subsequent independent verification without religious influence).

            But no one knew of his resolution of trait transmission, and even he didn’t relate it to Darwinian evolution (or he did but remained silent because of the Church). His records of those experiments and the results were thus ignored until discovered by a grad student around the turn of the century and the link to evolution subsequently affirmed by geneticists in the 1930s and 40s.

            Even today, fundamentalist religion continues to fight fang and claw against scientific progress where advances in evolutionary theory step on its theological toes.

            Basically, religion, as an institution, has never contributed to the betterment of humanity or scientific knowledge. Individuals, mostly religious and members of the/a Church, did, indeed, advance science, but strictly as a result of their own curiosity and experimentation, not by the lead of the Church or the Bible.

    • Roberta

      You believe the earth is flat?

      • Brules

        Sorry if it spoils things a bit, Roberta, but the Flat Earth Society was founded by atheists in the mid-1800s

        • Roberta

          I don’t know if the Flat Earth Society was founded by an atheist, he was just a nutjob. But the Flat Earth Newsletter was based on the bible.

          • Brules

            I’ve looked in their newsletter. Apart from feeling that I had moved into a parallel universe where reality as we know it was stood on its head, I couldn’t find the biblical justification for a flat earth. Perhaps you’d be kind enough to give me the chapter and verse reference so that I can think about it.

          • Roberta

            Why do I have to do your research? Find it yourself.

          • Brules

            Ok, I’ve done my research. There’s nothing there to support any idea of a flat Earth. Don’t know where it came from but it’s not from the Bible. If you still think it is then perhaps you’ll quote me chapter and verse.
            You seem to have a particular hatred for the Bible so I thought this quote from Philippians 4:8 might help;
            “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.” Paul’s teaching on how to be a Christian.

          • Roberta

            The idea of a flat earth in the bible comes from, among other things, references to “four corners” in more than one passage. That does not describe be a spherical shape. True, I can’t stand the Bible. It’s written by sex obsessed men and is absolutely disgusting.

          • Vic

            He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
            Revelation 7:1 ESV

            When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
            Psalm 19:4-6 ESV

            Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
            Job 26:10 ESV

            He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness. ( KJV BIBLE SAYS COMPASSED ) Circular water held in by the Antarctica
            ring with North pole at the centre.
            Job 22:14 ESV

            When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. Selah
            Psalm 22:27 ESV

            Who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;
            Job 1:7 ESV Tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
            Deuteronomy 33:17 ESV / 4 helpful votes (THE EARTH DOES NOT SPIN)

            The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
            Psalm 103:12 ESV ( IT IS THE SUN AND THE MOON THAT CIRCLES THE EARTH )

            Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the
            beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It
            is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are
            like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and
            spreads them like a tent to dwell in.

            Isaiah 11:12 ESV

        • Vic

          The earth was known as flat long before the mid 1800’s and many old world maps prove it. All ancient mariners were guided by flat earth charts.

    • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

      Placing ones mind in a lock-box tends to demonstrate one’s fear of critical thinking, thereby exposing the depth of one’s insecurity and complete lack of intellectual curiosity. I fail to understand how a thinking mind could have so little personal integrity. Perhaps you could help me out.

      • Brules

        This is verging on being slanderous, Max. You seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with your way of thinking is therefore lacking in both a facility for critical thinking and intellectual curiosity and that somehow this translates into a lack of personal integrity.
        Sir Isaac Newton, regarded by many to have been the greatest scientist of the modern age, wrote a great deal more on his Christian faith than he ever did on scientific matters. To-day he would have been labelled as a YEC Christian. Was he lacking in personal integrity and intellectual curiosity?

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

          Not at all. You are presenting a false equivalence to suggest that one’s religious beliefs (subjective knowledge most often one is taught to believe from tothood) is the same as objective knowledge. To say that “The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it,” is to completely lock out any logic or evidence to the contrary. Intellectual and critical thinking is essential to establishing objective knowledge. It is that element of our psyche that allows for the analysis of contrary propositions.

          To lock out those contrary propositions is to deny oneself the opportunity to grow. Were everyone to have that mindset, we would still be sleeping with the pigs and believing that disease is caused by demons.

          Newton, I’m sure you know, was alive during the age when science was only beginning to emerge from religion. There were so many questions about nature and the universe that would not be answered for many decades.

          I was never surprised that Newton was religious. Even Darwin was taught to believe particular religious propositions and was, early on, studying for a career in theology.

          Newton was working with the mechanics of the universe. Consider that even today, even with far more knowledge–especially about stellar evolution and the existence of interstellar building blocks of life (amino acids) and early Earth atmosphere and biological evolution, there are folks who believe that the universe had to be created by a thinking mind (a god) six to ten thousand years ago and point, in part, to Newton’s laws as proof because of its fine tuning and apparent, perfect symmetry.

          While one may still believe that sort of thing, I believe that intellectual honesty, integrity, curiosity would demand that one should be open to debate and new discoveries. To simply shut out all contrary opinions is to starve one’s intellect. To do that willingly, is tantamount to self-delusion.

          I never insist that anyone think as I in matters of science or theology, I only ask that one be open minded and honestly consider new ideas that may even be contrary to what one was taught to believe.

          Lastly, I raised to be a fundamentalist Christian. I didn’t reject that theology until I quite suddenly realized that I believed it simply because it was what I was taught to believe. That realization, that I was ignorant of other propositions contrary to my belief, was the impetus that drove me to enroll in college and study philosophy, world religions, and paleoanthropology.

          I did not run and hide myself behind the “rock of ages.” I opened my mind to science and logic.

          • Brules

            Well, the principles are highly commendable but they don’t seem to tally with a lot of what you have said. You have been very scathing and more than a bit rude about people who held contrary opinions to your own but you wouldn’t know it from what you’ve just said. I wasn’t brought up as a fundamentalist Christian. I became bored stiff by the Anglican religion in my mid-teens and really didn’t think too much more about it until Jesus spoke to me quite unexpectedly in my late 50s. What I hold to be true and gladly proclaim is a result of my personal experience of Jesus and what I have learnt from His word, the Bible. There are many like me. There are many He has rescued from the depths of despair and ignominy, the alcoholics, the drug addicts etc. Please don’t state or even imply that to be a Christian you must, of necessity, been indoctrinated as a child.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Yes, I am human after all. I place my ideals much higher that I can often reach. I do confess this in my personal expose, EMPATHY: Bringing Down the Walls, One Brick at a Time. Too, the expose lays out my basic social philosophy.

            While I do enjoy civil debate, it becomes frustrating to me that some folks simply will refuse to accept or use reason (clear, irrefutable logic).
            —————–
            Speaking of logic, I’m not quite what you mean by your argument that you left the beliefs that you had in Anglicanism and moved on to fundamentalism. Is Anglicanism not a Christian religion that teaches the basics of the Christianity? Did you not continue to believe the basics of Christianity, but just rejected their interpretation.
            —————–

            Also note that I have never suggested that one always believes what he was taught to belive from birth. I always qualify the word (believe) with “virtually all” or “most often.” If I make the statement without qualification, it is an error on my part.

            As for my “scathing” replies, I do become frustrated in some “debates” not because my interlocutors don’t agree with me, but that their defense is virtually always the Bible, which, as I found through reading and research (questioning beliefs I’d been taught to believe) to be replete with contradictions, errors in translations, and downright irrationality, not the least of which were the logical questions applicable to omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

            So, in debates, I am looking for challenges to my logic by logical answers and counter questions. I do understand that most folks have not had a course in basic, college level critical thinking, and therefore do not understand the logical fallacies (corporations and politicians often exploit that deficiency in education). But in debate, when those fallacies are pointed out in the simplest of civil terms, they ignore the logic and simply quote the Bible, not understanding at all that their interlocutor needs objective evidence that what is quoted is literally true. There is a major difference in the term, “truth.” There is subjective and objective truth.

            A recovering alcoholic, for example, might see snakes crawling about the floor, and scream out a warning. Folk around him look about and see no snakes. What the frightened recovering alcoholic saw was truth to him, but subjective truth. That there were, by consensus among the more sober, no snakes, was objective truth. As well, a religious experience is a subjective truth.

            Back to logic: When I point out that one cannot use what is written in the Bible to prove the Bible is true (a circular argument), the logic is rejected.

            At that rejection, I often point out why virtually all people of each faith in Earth believes their scriptures because they were taught to believe it from birth. Then they completely ignore the logic of the argument. A comment like, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is a perfect summation of the circular argument and that’s when I become frustrated–not with the person’s belief, but that they apply absolutely no logic to their belief.

            The circular argument goes like this:

            Believer: I believe the Bible is the Word of God.

            Skeptic: Why do you believe that?

            Believer: Because it is written in the Bible and I believe the Bible.

            Skeptic: That is the same argument a fundamentalist Muslim would use in reference to the Quran. So, what makes you right and the Muslim wrong?

            Believer: Because of what is written in the Bible. The words are different in the Quran.

            Skeptic: Repeats the last argument.

            Believer: Ignores the question, or equivocates and quotes the Bible.

            ———————–

            I did not reject the concept of a sentient creator for some time. After finding the Bible to be very inconsistent, I attempted to construct a theology that made sense to me. I studied world religions in college in order to determine which might be true.

            Well, I found that they all believers believe theirs to be true (duh!).Thus, I evolved through various Christian concepts (denominations) to a nondenominational church, to pantheism to agnosticism, and then to de facto atheism.

            I found no logical bases for any of their beliefs except for the common thread of plain old human psychology. I then looked for a reason all cultures (including isolated ones) tend to have such a similar psychological construct, and I came down to the most basic reason for all defense mechanisms in all species; insecurity (conscious or unconscious).

            I could go on, but those are the basics of my nature. I do appreciate your pointing out my failings in empathetic conversation, but then, sometimes one needs to be jolted by tough love. I know because it once happened to me.

          • Tony Robinson

            Any fundamentalist would state that God’s Word challenges people to test it. It isn’t the Bible’s fault that people are lazy.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            But the inconsistent, illogical, and contradictory nature of the Bible makes lazy believers into fundamentalists. They refuse to consider that they may be wrong, and when independently verified evidence contradicts their ancient belief, they are, indeed, wrong.

  • BarkingDawg

    This article is really reaching for it.

  • Nogods

    Why do the religious always search for and boldly endorse science that supports their presuppositional beliefs, while dogmaticly rejecting those that conflict? You either accept the scientific method and everything that entails, or you don’t get to take advantage of any of it. Cherry picking just reveals the dishonesty.

    • Casey Ferrill

      If the scientific method was infallible, Nogods, then you might have a point. However, science is every bit as much inundated by presuppositions as the religions you claim to be holding up as an example. If this were not so, then why are there major revisions to the claims made by virtually every field of science every decade or so? A scientific theory is nothing more than a set of suppositions which claims to have observable data to support it. When other data comes in which the scientists could not have reckoned upon, they either scrap the theory and come up with a new one, or else they modify their theory to fit the data. The theory of origins is neither inherently religious nor exclusively scientific; it is simply a theory explaining how all things began will always be attended by presuppositions of all kinds, both religious and scientific.

      • John N

        You are right that the scientific method is not infallible, and it is a good point that it is not. That is the strenght of the method, it adapts to reality.

        That does not mean however it is based on presuppositions; on the contrary, it is based on evidence. On all the evidence, not just the preferred evidence, contrary to creationism.

        A scientific theory is therefore not a set of suppositions which claims to have observable data to support it. It is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation (definition: Wikipedia).

        If it was not, every theory would indeed be fundamentally revised every decade or so, but that is not the case. If you think it is, please show us how the more than 25 known scientific theories have all been revised since 2005, in a way that the previous explanations were alle invalidated.

        If I’m not mistaken, there is not such a thing as a ‘theory of origins’. There is the Big Bang theory, a model of the earliest known periods of the current universe. It is pure physics; there are no religious presuppositions needed in this model.

        • Casey Ferrill

          John, allow me to share something with you. Several years ago, I read the book “Lucy” by Donald Johannsen and Maitland Edey. I am sure you must remember it; it was all about a fossil find that was supposed to be our earliest human ancestor. The thing that I found striking (even though I was not a Christian at the time), was that if you could get any two anthropologists (or any other scientist, say, geologist or biologist) to agree on any one thing it was extraordinary. They always seemed to be at odds over the implication of this rock or that fossil. (If you have not yet read the book, I would highly recommend it, it is very illuminating!). About the only time they would appear as a united front is when the press was present and the cameras were rolling. Were I am going with all of this of course, is, EVERY human being comes to every field with a set of presuppositions about what they expect to find, or if different, at least not wildly different. There are many scientists (I am glad to say) who will not fudge evidence when their little apple cart of assumptions is suddenly overturned; there are several throughout history who have. (Do the names Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska man – not to mention Haeckel’s numerous forgeries – all ring a bell?). Further we have ambiguous ramblings of the likes of Steven J. Gould (passing itself off as scholarly dissertation) to give us further pause about the “unblemished pursuit” of the non-suppositional effort of science: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
          “Evolution as Fact and Theory”, p. 260.

          • Cady555

            The thing about the scientific method is that it works. Piltdown man appeared genuine, but as more and more evidence came to light Piltdown was more and more out of sync and the forgery revealed. Thisbis a good thing.

            This is why a full body of evidence must be considered rather than individual data points. There is a reason why those attempting to discredit global warming will cite a decrease in global temperature between 2 years a decade ago while those more honest will display 50 years of data.

            Embryology fully supports evolution. Harping on a few imprecise drawings from 150 years ago in light of mountains of current evidence shows desperation. Haekel’s drawings simply don’t matter.

            Yes, scientists disagree on the validity of various hypotheses. A lot. A theory is what happens when the weight if accumulated evidence is so strong that nearly all scientists conclude that one hypothesis is correct.

            This happened with Wegener and his hypothesis of continental drift in the 1920s. He had evidence, but there were large gaps. Technology closed those gaps, and by the 1960s, Wegener’s crazy idea was nearly universally accepted as the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Because evidence. New evidence may be found that impacts our understanding of some of the details. But the overarching theory is fact.

          • John N

            >’Were I am going with all of this of course, is, EVERY human being comes to every field with a set of presuppositions about what they expect to find, or if different, at least not wildly different.’

            That ‘s why we have invented the scientific method, which will correct errors due to presuppositions. That’s why science works, and creates results, where religion is still stuck in bronze age myths.

            >’Do the names Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska man – not to mention Haeckel’s numerous forgeries – all ring a bell?).’

            Piltdown Man was a hoax, discovered by scientists. There is nothing wrong with Java Man. Nebraska man was a mistaken determination, corrected by scientists. Haeckel’s numerous forgeries? Haeckel exagerated designs to support his hypothesis; he was corrected by scientists.

            On the other side, errors, contradictions and stupidities in the bible are still there even after 2000 years of editing, reformulation and translating – do the talking snake, the four-legged insects, the bats-are-birds, the man living inside a whale, and the two different versions of the creation story ring a bell?

            >’Further we have ambiguous ramblings of the likes of Steven J. Gould’

            What ramblings? Where did Gould go wrong? Do you mean he shouldn’t have proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, just because creationist could abuse his ideas? That’s a strange logic.
            By the way, since Gould and even before, very nice examples of series of transitional forms between species have been found by example for horses, whales and ammonites.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Somewhere in your reading you did not read, or did not understand the significance of the scientific method. (And, yes, I did read Lucy) and much more every year since)

            The fact that I found controversy was expected. Lucy was a perfect transitional fossil (as all are). While she walked erect, indicating a surface existence, her hands were adapted for an arboreal life (As I recall, curved phalanges). There were other features about her as well that led to controversy.

            And then, of course, there is the old human proclivity to entrench oneself in his own hypotheses. They all get worked out over time, which overrides personal, intellectual entrenchments and adds to the reliability of the scientific method.

            Of course every scientist comes to the field with presuppositions and develops more or different suppositions as they do their research. Note that arguments among evolutionary scientists are about the mechanics of evolution, not evolution itself. The refutations of the scientific hypotheses you name were refuted by scientists in the ongoing march of good science.

            The key that makes the scientific method the most likely process for explaining the existence and the state of natural phenomena is that part of the scientific method that REQUIRES independent verification.

            It’s difficult to understand why you would choose (if you understood the scientific method) faith over independently verified evidence, especially with today’s technological advances that can probe very deep into most questions of science. (And the beauty is that with every scientific discovery that answers a question, the answer poses yet more questions to be explored. I do love science!).

            But, you chose to be non scientific. You chose the reverse of the scientific method.

            Creationists BEGIN with the conclusion that existence is the work of a sentient being (a god). At no time, and under no circumstances, will creationists doubt the conclusion. If evidence is found that might refute their conclusion, the evidence is tossed out in favor of the conclusion. That, Casey, is not science.

            The objective scientist, however, begins with a hypothesis (hunch/guess) that might explain something heretofore unexplained.

            He searches for evidence that might support his hypothesis. That evidence comes from research/testing. If no evidence is found to support his hypothesis, or if his testing finds evidence that refutes his hypothesis, then the hypothesis is tossed out in favor of another hypothesis that better fits the evidence.

            Once he has established a hypothesis (conclusion) that his testing cannot refute, then he publishes his hypothesis and the details of his experiments, and others in the same field develop their own tests to either verify or refute the hypothesis.

            ONLY after many years of testing and independent verification of a hypothesis does it become a valid scientific theory. This is the reason why those who say that evolution is “just” a theory, broadcast their ignorance of the scientific method.

            Scientist call it a “theory” because it is always open to OBJECTIVE evidence to the contrary. Creationism has never offered objective evidence to refute evolution and verify creationism.

            Here’s a question in logic for you. If a creation “scientist” rejected the heliocentricity of our solar system (which is contradicted by the Bible) and tries to fly a rocket to Mars, will he succeed?

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

          Spot on. And I think the key the trustworthiness of the scientific method is the INDEPENDENT verification (or falsification) of evidence.

          And, BTW, there have been very interesting models developing from theoretical physics that the String/Brane/multiverse hypotheses have merit and even provide an plausible answer for the fluctuations in the CMB. This, too, could completely destroy the ID hypothesis (hesitating to give it that much credit).

          An infinite number of universes (big bangs) would certainly arrive at the correct permutation for the basic atomic constructs necessary to bring about matter, planets, stars, and life, negating any argument for a god.

      • Nogods

        “If the scientific method was infallible, Nogods, then you might have a point. However, science is every bit as much inundated by presuppositions as the religions you claim to be holding up as an example. If this were not so, then why are there major revisions to the claims made by virtually every field of science every decade or so?”

        The conclusions science arrives at are always provisional and subject to revision as new evidence is discovered. This has nothing to do with presupposition. The evidence drives the conclusions – the conclusions don’t drive the evidence. This is completely unlike religion which this article unequivocally demonstrates. That is why there is the need to cherry pick the evidence to support the religious presupposition. This is just another form of deceit and dishonesty.

        “A scientific theory is nothing more than a set of suppositions which claims to have observable data to support it. When other data comes in which the scientists could not have reckoned upon, they either scrap the theory and come up with a new one, or else they modify their theory to fit the data.”

        And this is completely unlike religion.

        “The theory of origins is neither inherently religious nor exclusively scientific; it is simply a theory explaining how all things began will always be attended by presuppositions of all kinds, both religious and scientific.”

        What are the presuppositions of evolution? You failed to identify any of them.

        And religion doesn’t have a theory of anything. A theory has supporting evidence and makes predictions. The idea of creation has neither.

        • Casey Ferrill

          “What are the presuppositions of evolution?” I am sorry, Nogods, I do not mean to sound curt, but where were you all during your school years? The presuppositions of evolution have been plastered before your eyes nearly everyday since the time you were born! They are included in every high school and college biology course and are as follows: 1. Every organism that exists (and really, anything at all), are the end result of random chance mutations which have occured (and continue to occur) over long stretches of time. 2. These mutations are entirely uncontrolled, that is, there is no outside intelligence directing them along certain paths but are merely internal responses to external environments. 3. Although these mutations have the “appearance” of being extremely intricate and complex, that is only the result of human persons projecting what they wish to or believe they see into the matter.

          At least, that was the spiel I got fed when I was going to school, please tell me if they have changed it over the years. Also, you are wrong about a religion not having a theory of anything; religions, like science make observations and conclusions based on those observations. Although this should be obvious, I direct you to the various laws and codes that are inherent in all religions as just one example; you don’t make laws and commandments governing human beings unless you’ve first made observations and conclusions about human behavior. You also don’t make any sort of salient conclusions about the world, the cosmos, or anything unless you’ve first made a salient observation about your own reasoning. And you don’t make sound observations about your own reasoning unless you have concluded that it can be trusted. And the only way you come to that point is by directing your attention to another point which is not self-referential, i.e. something outside of yourself which is the source of your reason and is not your reasoning itself. That source is what many (like myself) choose to call “God.” I realize that there are many who do not believe in God who claim that they do this too; through science. They believe that they have the answer in the observable facts they see around them and draw conclusions from those facts. But remember, those facts can be trusted only if your reason can be trusted. And your reason can be trusted only if it has some non-referential thing outside of itself by which it can tell if it is near the mark or far from it. Trying to get a consensus from others whose reasoning is prone to the same sort of subjectivity is like trying to pull yourself up by your own coat collar; it fails because it is the source of it’s own strength.

          And so, science has to come to same bar of justice of reasoning that religion does; i.e. it has to provide the whys and wherefores of it’s pronouncements and not be self-referential about it. If it cannot do so, it has not business extrapolating anything about what it saw or recorded; it’s testimony is entirely tainted by those who have agendas of their own, and therefore whose testimony is rendered invalid.

          • Cady555

            In evolution, the variations are random. In every gemeration, some individuals will be faster or slower than average, taller or shorter, darker or lighter, more or less able to digest available food. Variations are random. Survival is not random. Any variations that aid survival or reproduction will be found more frequently in the next generation. Variations that reduce the chance of an individual producing offspring will naturally be less frequent in the next generation. Repeat through millions of generations.

          • Nogods

            Your claims regarding presuppositions of evolution are seriously flawed. Those are simply conclusions that have been drawn from observations of the evidence. They are ALWAYS subject to revision depending on the evidence. Again, COMPLETELY unlike religion which cherry picks the evidence.

            The rest of your comment simply restates the objective morality argument. But the idea of an objective moral code handed down by a god is a ridiculous idea and I have no idea why Christians continue to make it. Here is why:

            First, there are thousands of gods you could think were real, and all have competing ideas of morality. So what god should we designate as the model to establish the objective standard? As and example, your god thinks that it is morally just to murder disobedient children and people that work on the Sabbath. The gods of the Hindus find this idea sadistic. In fact, most of the 4.5 billion people that don’t think that your god is real, are opposed to most of your god’s ethics.

            ISIS also believes in a god and his objective morals. Should we follow these ethics? Because if you think that is a good idea, muslims have made it easy for us to follow their god’s ethics. They have already turned their god’s objective moral vision into written law – it is called sharia law.

            A christian version of sharia law would be no different than the muslim sharia law that exists currently. The muslim god thinks it is just wonderful to murder nonbelievers, which includes christians. But your god also believes the same thing. (Deuteronomy 13:6-9 “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.” Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.” 2 Chronicles 15:13 “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”)

            The only difference between you and ISIS however is that ISIS actually takes their religion seriously and follows that objective standard – unlike most Christians. Thankfully, most Christians moderate that objective standard with contemporary ethics. If they didn’t, Christians would be no different than Muslim extremists.

            Second, the text of the bible is inherently vague which precludes a universal interpretation and the establishment of an objective standard. The Bible is a collection of contradictory myths and folk tales, mixed in with a little history, originally written in an obscure and now dead language. Regardless, the text is regarded as the written manifestation of your gods ethics. Due to its hopeless ambiguity, it is and has been subject to endless debate regarding its interpretations. (Unfortunately, your god never speaks and thus, your god does nothing to clarify the ambiguity. Oddly that is a problem all gods suffer from. Zeus and Thor never speak either. They always need people to interpret their words and speak on their behalf, just like your god.) As a consequence, there has been an endless parade of interpretations of the Bible. This is why there are over a hundred different translations of the bible just in English, and over 40,000 different Christian denominations, each with their own unique interpretation of the Bible. The subjective determinations made as part of the translation and interpretation process obviously turn any objective standard into a subjective standard.

            Third, believing that a god is real and that he (or she) sets an objective standard of morality does nothing to help a believer distinguish right from wrong. As an example, most federal prisoners are Christian. Christians believe that their god is real and that he provides an objective moral standard (just as you argue). Yet, even under these misapprehensions, christians still commit the most crimes, with a crime rate that closely tracks their representation in the general population.

            Here are the Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:

            Response Number %
            —————————- ——–
            Catholic 29267 39.164%
            Protestant 26162 35.008%
            Muslim 5435 7.273%
            American Indian 2408 3.222%
            Nation 1734 2.320%
            Rasta 1485 1.987%
            Jewish 1325 1.773%
            Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
            Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
            Moorish 1066 1.426%
            Buddhist 882 1.180%
            Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
            Adventist 621 0.831%
            Orthodox 375 0.502%
            Mormon 298 0.399%
            Scientology 190 0.254%
            Atheist 156 0.209%

            Fourth, if you don’t know the difference between right and wrong before you pick up the bible, you are going to find nothing but endless celebrations of cruelty within the pages. The Christian god sanctions or commits the most sadistic crimes imaginable. These include the following: murdering everyone on earth but one family, by drowning them. Demanding the stoning to death of woman who are not virgins on their wedding night. Sanctioning genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing, and the occasional human sacrifice. Fortunately, most Christians now completely ignore most of the “moral” lessons set out in the old testament. But the new testament is not much better. If there is one thing we are certain of, it is that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, both the old and the new testaments strongly supports slavery; it is never rejected, not even by Jesus.

            Fifth, most Christians have never read the bible. Most of the world’s population has never read the bible. So our morality cannot come from a book that most people have never read.

            Sixth, your gods morality conflicts with our ideas of freedom and values protected by the Constitution. Only 2.5 of the 10 commandments are actually law in the US. The only place the other 7.5 are enforced are in Muslim countries that practice sharia law – like Iraq and Afghanistan. And to think, Christians proclaim the 10 commandments as model laws to live by. Let’s just hope that theocratic fascism never takes root in this country.

            Seventh, Christians have no sense of morality as they follow a sadistic dictator but lack the cognitive skills to recognize that. You can be the most upstanding citizen on the planet, donate all your time and money to helping the sick, hungry, poor; never lie, cheat, or steal; and harbor an honest belief that the Christian god is exactly like all the other gods we commonly refer to as mythology, and Christians believe their god will burn you in hell forever. Regardless of this insane and barbaric consequence for simply exercising rational thought, christians endorse and wholeheartedly support such a barbaric and disproportionate punishment for an honest and rational belief. Unfortunately, Christians are so immersed in their doomsday cult that they fail to see this. In many ways, jesus is no different than Hitler: Hitler murdered all those that didn’t believe in him. But he took good care of his friends. And just like Hitler, Christians believe that Jesus will murder all those that don’t believe in him. And they also believe he will take care of his friends. So if you are a sane and rational person who would never follow Hitler, why would you follow Jesus? Fortunately, the Christian god is just like all the other gods that we regard as mythology. Your god is identical to all those other gods you already know are not real. You just need to add one more to your list – yours.

          • Dean Johnson

            Wow, I can’t say I will be as intellectually boring, but if you ever read the bible to understand the one true God, Jesus Christ, you would realize we do NOT live in old testament times anymore. Christ died that you and I might have have and live life more abundantly. HE commissioned us with TWO commandments….. last time I read them (oh, that was today by the way) there wasn’t anything about kill this or murder that. And yes, I DO read my bible.

          • Nogods

            But the god of the Old Testament is really the same god of the New Testament – well, if you believe in the trinity that is. And the vast majority of Christians accept the trinity as absolute truth, just like you probably do. So the story goes like this: A god magically impregnated a virgin with himself, so he could give birth to himself, and then sacrifice himself, to himself, to negate the “original sin” of a couple we now know never existed in the first place.

            So according to the trinity, the father, the son, and a ghost are all part of an inseparable whole. So Jesus really isn’t any different then the barbaric sadist god of the Old Testament – though it is clear you wish they were. Christianity is a monotheistic religion – you worship just one god – but Christians treat it as polytheistic to separate themselves from the genocidal insanity of god the father documented in the Old Testament. But that can’t be done without being dishonest about your superstitious beliefs. Because I know you don’t worship multiple gods do you – you know, like the early Romans, the Greeks, or the Hindus.

          • Dean Johnson

            No, I do not believe there are three people up there floating around somewhere. I know who Jesus Christ is. I know what He has done for us all. You choose sharia law, I choose Jesus Chris.

          • Nogods

            Silly. So let me get this straight, god creates people and sin, and then he decides that was a big mistake, so to free the people of the sin he created, he pretends to commit suicide? How does someone actually come to believe that story is true?

          • Dean Johnson

            Yes, Jesus says, “Wide is the path”, oh wait a minute, no He didn’t! Not all who claim to be Christian understand what being a Christian is truly all about my friend. May God bless you.

          • Nogods

            Is it about discriminating against gay people and the LGBT community as a whole, and denying women their constitutional right to control their bodies? Is that what Christian sharia law looks like?

          • Dean Johnson

            Wow goods! Yes, I spelled it that way. I spent a lot of time in Iraq. How about you do that?? Then we continue this discussion? I don’t recall saying anything against the gay community. Such hatred you clinch to. Must be a heavy burden at times. Glad I got rid of mine. Again, spend some time ‘ in the zone’, then you can talk to me about some kind of your fantasy sharia belief.

          • Nogods

            I said something about the gay community. You just deflected.

            Your god is as real as Zeus. That is why he never does anything. Stop being a brainwashed cult member.

          • Meepestos

            “Your god is as real as Zeus.” No no no blasphemy. I’m going biking in the woods soon and won’t be able to do any animal sacrifices in order to save you let alone time for the sacrificial cakes. ; )

          • Nogods

            Enjoy the ride! We’ll make up for it later by throwing a few virgins into a volcano. 😉

          • HotTuna

            all of the matter in the universe would fit into about 1 billion cubic light years, or a cube that’s approximately 1,000 light years on each side. That means that only about0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter. The universe is a pretty empty place!

          • Nogods

            According to the inflationary model of modern cosmology, all the matter in the universe was contained in a sphere the size of a marble at 10-35th seconds after the universe begain to expand.

          • Dean Johnson

            Wow. Are you even here? Hello? Did you hate something again?

          • Nogods

            Did Jesus not save any aborted babies again today? Don’t worry, neither did Zeus.

          • Dean Johnson

            HUH?

          • Dean Johnson

            Oh, that hurt so bad. All you got? Get the behind me Satan! Hahahahaha!

          • Roberta

            You can stand to read the bible? The god in it is cruel, capricious, and vengeful. The book is filled with so many sexual references it’s disgusting.

          • Brules

            If you haven’t read it, how can you argue against those who have?

          • Roberta

            I have read the bible. It’s obviously been written by a group of sex obsessed, horny men. It’s disgusting.

          • Roberta

            Excellent post. You’re outdone yourself.

        • Cady555

          Yes. And the important thing to remember is that existing evidence doesn’t vanish when new evidence is found. The revised explanation must account for all of the evidence.

          The evidence supporting a 4.6 Billion year old earth is extensive. Knowledge about chemicals in the core and mantle, including H2O molecules, adds to this evidence but does not replace it.

    • afchief

      I’m still waiting for an atheist to explain to me how life started from non-life.

      • Cady555

        Will you change your beliefs when the explanation is found?

        • afchief

          Nope! Because I know there is NO evidence. Only theory.

          My faith in God will never waver!!!!

          • Cady555

            Then why do you say you are waiting for an explanation?

          • afchief

            From those atheists who believe in evolution. Explain to me how life started from non-life?

            I have yet to hear an explanation.

          • Roberta

            Try googling it. The explanation is on the internet.

          • afchief

            Just give me the down and dirty!!! I want to know how non-life went “puff” and there was life.

            LOL!

          • Roberta

            You’re laughing and you think a god just waved his hand and everything on earth was created? Where did he come from? Who created him? He must have just went “puff” and appeared. LOL

          • afchief

            Genesis 1 (NASB) The Creation

            1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

            6 Then God said, “Let there be [e]an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the [f]expanse, and separated the waters which were below the [g]expanse from the waters which were above the [h]expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the [i]expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

            9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

            14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

            20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

            24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

            26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

          • Roberta

            You don’t need to spam this discussion with bible quotes. Most of here have read it.

          • Meepestos

            “Where did he come from? Who created him?” From within the mind of the human – neurotransmitters; the physics of thought. I often wonder what Neanderthals thought.

          • Roberta

            The Neanderthals probably worshipped thunder, lightening, fire. LOl

          • Meepestos

            -and perhaps a form of animism.

          • Nogods

            That closed mindedness is a defining characteristic of brainwashed cult members. Could that possibly describe you?

          • afchief

            Yep, that’s me!!!! I believe in and live for Jesus Christ!!! There is NO other way. I walk by faith everyday!!! I talk to God everyday!!! And He talks back!!!

            Evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell to keep you blinded from seeing the truth!

          • Nogods

            Sad

          • afchief

            Revelation 3:20-21(NASB) Behold, I stand at the door (of your heart) and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

          • Nogods

            Interesting 1st century superstition

          • afchief

            What if there is a heaven and hell? Are you willing to take the chance that when your life is over, you will go to heaven? Are you willing to take the chance that you cease to exist after you leave this fleshly body?

          • Nogods

            Here is how the math actually works:

            Religious beliefs are overwhelmingly mutually exclusive. (I think there is only one religion that doesn’t make that assertion.) This means that if you believe in one god, you can’t believe in another. It logically follows that they all can’t be right. So there are only two possible outcomes: 1. at most, one is right, or 2. none are right. So let’s see how the math plays out.

            AT MOST ONE IS RIGHT:

            Now there are thousands of gods you could choose to worship. But to make the math easy, let’s just put a round number on it and say there are 1,000. Assuming that one religion is actually right, the chances that you are worshiping the right god is one in a thousand. So purely from a statistical point of view, everyone should expect to find themselves worshiping the wrong god and should expect to find themselves in hell.

            NONE ARE RIGHT:

            But if all the religions claim that they are right, and at most only one can be right, a reasonable person would suspect that they are all wrong unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, there has never been any evidence that any of them are right. That is why religion is a faith and not a science. So chances are, they are all wrong.

            There are thousands of gods you choose not to believe in. And all of these other gods have special magical places set aside for you. Why don’t you believe their claims when they are identical to your claims?

          • afchief

            Since we are sinners. Which God died for our sins?

          • Nogods

            So let me get this straight, god creates people and sin, and then he decides that was a big mistake, so to free the people of the sin he created, he decides to commit suicide? How does someone actually come to believe that story is true?

            Jesus didn’t die for anyone’s sins. That is just a 1st century superstitious belief. From purely a logical point of view, you can’t hurt an all powerful god. And you certainly can’t kill one. So the whole death/resurrection was just an elaborate theatrical performance to entertain the delusional masses. If you weren’t a brainwashed member of a doomsday cult, this would not be difficult to understand.

          • afchief

            One of God’s greatest gifts to us is our free will. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge but they disobeyed (sinned) God and ate the fruit. God’s plan from the beginning was to live and dwell among His creation. But once man sinned God came up with another plan by offering His Son Jesus to die for our sins and give us His Spirit to live with in us.

            We are ALL sinners. You sin everyday. It is what separates us from God. Jesus is what brings us back to God. You just have to accept Him into your life. It is that easy!!!

            John 3:16 (NASB) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

          • Nogods

            More coo coo bird talk. Think about what you just wrote:

            “God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge but they disobeyed (sinned) God and ate the fruit. God’s plan from the beginning was to live and dwell among His creation. But once man sinned God came up with another plan by offering His Son Jesus to die for our sins and give us His Spirit to live with in us.”

            That has got to be one of the most ridiculous stories ever created – yet, you believe it is true. Amazing. It is like the spam email you get from the Nigerian prince who has 50 million tied in a back account and needs your help to get it! It is SO ridiculous, it has to be true, right!?

            So the supposed all-knowing creator of everything created an imperfect population by mistake!? What? He made a mistake!? And he decided to correct his mistake by killing his son, which is really him!? What!? I have a really nice bridge I would like to sell you. I promise I will give you a really great deal on it!

          • afchief

            It was no mistake. Man has a free will and he used in the garden. You are using your free will right now choosing not to believe. It is the job of us Christians to warn you of the consequences of your choices. We will not force you to accept Jesus Christ like Muslims who force people to convert or die.

            You can continue to not believe and live in sin. That is your choice. But let me warn you. Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

            Once you leave this earth and you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, there are NO second chances. You will face eternity.

          • Nogods

            What a silly superstitious belief. How old were you when you became a brainwashed cult member?

          • John N

            >’ It is the job of us Christians to warn you of the consequences of your choices. ‘
            Well you’re doing a lousy job. So far you’ve convinced no one.

            You’re fired.

          • Nogods

            You say “One of God’s greatest gifts to us is our free will.”

            So if you exercise that free will to rationally conclude that the Christian god is no different than all the other gods that are fictional, he will torture you for eternity? Looks like “free will” isn’t so free after all now is it. Stated another way, “you are free to choose any gift you want, but if you don’t choose the one and only right one, I will kill you.” And THIS is the god you “love” and want to have a “relationship” with?

          • afchief

            God does not want to control us. He wants us to exercise our free will and choose life. I have done every sin under the sun and none of it compares to the peace and joy I have in Jesus Christ. I thought I would be miserable being a Christian. It is just the opposite.

            Jesus gave you a choice. Most people choose sin i.e. the wide road, few people choose life i.e. the narrow rode. The chose is yours!!!!

            Matthew 7:13-14 (NASB) “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Lol, chief, I’m sure you already realize this, but nogods is a longtime troll account whom I’ve come across before on sites like breitbart (close to a year and a half ago). He’s more or less the embodiment definition of an “Internet atheist”.

            20,000+ plus posts, spanning 3 years — all the same anti-God shtick.

            Anyway, hope you are well!

          • afchief

            Thanks Adam! I did not know that. Hope you have a blessed new year. I hope we see the return of Christ this year!!!!

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            It will be an eventful day, for sure! The pieces of the global “chessboard” are certainly coming much closer into place. And we’re seemingly seeing a more vivid account of the “days of Noah” with how further society is morally degrading.

            Anyhow, I’d like to share some discoveries that I’ve recently come across in God’s Word. Ever wondered about the origin of Jerusalem? Check out the brief lineage, below:

            Jebusi and Jerusalem are one in the same

            Joshua 18:28
            …(28)And Zelah, Eleph, and Jebusi, which Jerusalem, Gibeath, Kirjath; fourteen cities with their villages. This the inheritance of the children of Benjamin according to their families…

            Jebus, Jebusi, & Jerusalem all one in the same

            Judges 19:10
            …But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which Jerusalem; and with him two asses saddled, his concubine also with him…

            The Jebusite/Jebus/Jebusi/ & Jerusalem all one in the same

            Joshua 15:8
            …(8)And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom
            unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward…

            The Jebusites/Jebus/Jebusi/Jerusalem were a tribe of giants

            Numbers 13:25-33
            …(25)And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.

            (26)And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. (27)And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this the fruit of it. (28)Nevertheless the people strong that dwell in the land, and the cities walled, very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. (29)The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

            (30)And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. (31)But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. (32)And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.

            (33)And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight

            Canaan fathered Jebus/Jebusi/the Jebusite/Jerusalem

            Genesis 10:15-16
            …(15)And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, (16)And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite…

          • afchief

            Wow! Good info Adam. I never seen this before.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            God has been amazing in helping me uncover MANY of these similarities by associating together verses which state “(blank) is the same as…”, etc.

            Here’s a link to a Scripture study I’m currently working on, where I’m cataloging together all references to giants (will include all tribes, individual names, and locations). This has been the deepest research project I’ve done yet. God’s Word is a gold mine!

            biblewordstudyorg/giants.html

          • afchief

            Thanks Adam! I look into it.

          • Nogods

            “God does not want to control us.”

            Then why does he threaten you with hell?

            “He wants us to exercise our free will and choose life.”

            Yet, there is only ONE choice you are free to make. If you make ANY of the others, you are tortured for eternity. Use your brain. Don’t be the brainwashed cult member.

            “I have done every sin under the sun and none of it compares to the peace and joy I have in Jesus Christ.”

            Another loser that finally grew up and took some personal responsibility. Your invisible friend didn’t do that – you did it all on your own.

            “I thought I would be miserable being a Christian. It is just the opposite.”

            It may make you feel good, but it doesn’t make it true. Placebos cure all kinds of illnesses.

            “Jesus gave you a choice. Most people choose sin i.e. the wide road, few people choose life i.e. the narrow rode. The chose is yours!!!!”

            It’s not a choice when there is a gun to your head. Stop parroting the nonsensical mantra. Think for yourself.

          • afchief

            Bye! I’ll take Adam in Christ’s advice about you.

          • Nogods

            Don’t be the brainwashed cult member. Use your brain.

          • Bob Johnson

            You forgot that He flooded the earth first, but that didn’t work.

          • Nogods

            Most of the characteristics of Jesus are stolen from other ancient figures or not unique. Jesus isn’t all that special in terms of resurrection. At least 6 other gods died and were resurrected prior to Jesus:

            Horus c. 3000 BCE
            Osiris c. 3000 BCE
            Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE
            Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)
            Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE
            Dionysus c. 186 BCE

            Also, the Jews had already described someone dieing for three days and returning back to life in the stone tablet Gabriel’s Revelation.

            Being born of a virgin is not unique to Jesus and was a common claim in ancient times. Miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. Stories of miracle births often include miraculous conceptions and features such as intervention by a deity, supernatural elements, astronomical signs, hardship or in the case of some mythologies complex plots related to creation. Look up miraculous birth for further information.

          • afchief

            There is ONLY one God that died for our sins and His name is Jesus!!!

            John 1:1-4 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it odd that if are born in the US you are probably a Christian. But if you are born in a different country, there is a very good chance you worship a completely different god? But both groups of believers are equally certain that their god is the “right” god. So geography is the most important factor in determining religious certainties. That should make a reasonable person question their “beliefs” don’t you think? Maybe you shouldn’t be so certain of yours.

          • afchief

            Jesus is worshiped all over the world. But few find Him.

            Matthew 7:13-14 (NASB) “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

          • Nogods

            Christianity was confined almost exclusively to Europe for the first 1,500 years with only a few pockets primarily in North Africa. It then spread to north and South America. But it didn’t become a world religion until the 19th century. Up until that point, most of the world had no knowledge of it. So it took the all-powerful creator of the universe 1,900 years to become a world religion. Not that impressive. It took Mormonism less then 150 years. And it took Scientology only about 20 years.

          • Roberta

            You’re just babbling nonsense written by ignorant, goats head eating, desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat.

          • afchief

            Are you ready to leave this earth? Because there are NO second chances once you leave.

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • Roberta

            I’m no more worried about what this Religion du Jour claims as I would be about what the Norse or Greek mythology claims about what happens when you die.

          • Roberta

            When people think they are hearing voices, we put them in a mental institution.

          • afchief

            His Spirit lives within me!!!

            1 John 4:4 (NASB) You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

            Are you of the spirit of error i.e satan?

            1 John 4:6 (NASB) We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

          • Meepestos

            ” we put them in a mental institution” Lucky me as I only FEEL the presence of Hera and Aphrodite occasionally… and those Greek thyme honey yogurt cheesecakes I make, of course are not sacrificial cakes ; )

          • Bob Johnson

            I have beer recipes older than 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately they use onions.

          • Roberta

            Oh, I wouldn’t be too sure about your faith in god never wavering. My aunt said the same thing until two of her sons died horrible, untimely deaths.

          • afchief

            Nope, not my faith!! I’m a bladder and kidney cancer survivor. If I was to get it again and die, I would still love my God just as much.

          • Roberta

            I didn’t say if you were going to die. You may find that when you see horrendous things happen to people you love it’s hard to keep telling yourself there’s a god.

          • afchief

            Nope, it will never. Read the story of Job in the bible. The man lost everything’ his children, his wealth, his health, everything. This man never once wavered in his faith. Neither will I!!!!!!!

      • Nogods

        There is a fine line that separates chemistry from biology. Just give it time. Scientists are pretty smart.

        Isn’t it interesting to think that there have been thousands of early questions about our universe that were once explained as “the work of god”. But as we became more educated and learned more about our world, those supernatural answers were replaced with real world answers. The interesting part of this however, is that during this time, NONE of those early questions were actually found to be the work of a god; “God” has NEVER turned out to actually be a correct answer to any question – EVER.

        • afchief

          Psalm 14 (NASB)
          The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

          They are corrupt, they have committed abominable [a]deeds;

          There is no one who does good.

          2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men

          To see if there are any who [b]understand,

          Who seek after God.

          3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;

          There is no one who does good, not even one.

          4 Do all the workers of wickedness not know,

          Who eat up my people as they eat bread,

          And do not call upon the Lord?

          5 There they are in great dread,

          For God is with the righteous generation.

          6 You would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted,

          But the Lord is his refuge.

          • Nogods

            There are thousands of gods. They are all just fictional.

          • afchief

            Do you really think that complex body you live really evolved over billions of years? Really? That takes a lot more faith then believing there is a God who created us.

            John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

            John 3:3 (NASB) Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

          • Nogods

            It is clear you have never opened a science book in your life. That is unfortunate.

          • afchief

            Then explain to me how life started from non-life.

          • Roberta

            You need to learn to use google, scientists explain how life started. Nogods doesn’t have time to explain it to you.

          • afchief

            Just give it to me in one paragraph! I can explain my faith in God to you in one paragraph.

          • Roberta

            Without an education it won’t mean a thing to you, but you insist. I’m doing this so you can’t keep claiming “no atheist will explain it”. Your faith is easy to explain in one paragraph because there’s literally nothing to it. Everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet. Scientists found that using just those three basic ingredients they were able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules. Early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing hydrogen cyanide. By dissolving in water, it could have very easily come into contact with hydrogen sulfide, while being exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun. And that, they claim, would have been all that was needed to get life started.

          • afchief

            Wait! I want to know how hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet came into existence. All at the same time?

          • Roberta

            I want to know how your god came into existence. Did he just spring himself alive?

          • afchief

            There is no beginning to God. In the old testament He called Himself “I AM”. There is no beginning. In the New testament He is the “Alpha and Omega”.

            Revelation 22:13 (NASB) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

          • Roberta

            So God just went “puff” and appeared? That’s your answer? He can create himself, this complex being capable of magical powers, yet you don’t think a bunch of molecules could get together and form what we call “life”. Okaaay.

          • afchief

            Yep, God said it and I believe it!! It take more faith to believe that life started billions of years ago with NO evidence. All theory!!!

          • Roberta

            We have evidence, just because you’re too uneducated to understand it doesn’t change that.

          • afchief

            Well I’ll give you some!!!!!

            The Origin of Life

            What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?

            Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really what happened?

            One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`. Could a cell by chance come into being that “has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?” (National Geographic).

            Examples:

            1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

            2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

            3. Mendel’s laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

            4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

            5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver, et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

            6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

            7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

            8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal.

            9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

            10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee.

            11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

            12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun’s ultraviolet radiation.

            13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are:

            a) The beauty of the different forms of life.

            b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life.

            Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

            14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or the sun’s radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed.

            15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred — even if the universe were completely filled with proteins, as you will see.

            16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (ie, the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time.

            17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place the theory of evolution into jeopardy.

            18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

            (a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

            (b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert

            some additional letters.

            (c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

            (d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

            (e) If it is not, return to step (b).

            To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.

            19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other.

            20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as “right-handed” and half “left-handed” (a structural description — one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

            21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

            22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

            23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat- dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding.

            FOSSIL EVIDENCE

            “The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”

            — Science Digest

            1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig’s tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus), later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape- like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists’ depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are highly questionable.

            2. Many of the world’s fossils show, by the details of their soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay. This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this sedimentary material was deposited rapidly — not over hundreds of millions of years.

            3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even suppressed by evolutionists.

            4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order.

            5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.” Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column is found.

            6. If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities appear throughout.

            7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all fossils, were laid down though water.

            8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

            9. A `simple’ protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to `link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20 different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second – a total of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities. For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein), there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to 10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are 1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has 10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary for the support of life. We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules). Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`. A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89 tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless to say, an infinitely small number.

            Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

            `Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on

            EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least.

            And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average-

            sized protein has 500 amino acids!

            10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical

            equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world’s best

            designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples

            include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins,

            porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination

            system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the

            hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion

            chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant

            navigational systems of many birds and fish. Scientists have `proven`

            that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly. Yet it flies.

            The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in

            stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal.

            11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of

            `evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would

            have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different

            reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently

            evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A

            slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems

            useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the

            physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to

            be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive

            system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a

            mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female

            reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes

            occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to

            work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened —

            processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And

            finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it

            also reproduces with another sexually capable “brother or sister,” would

            have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.

            And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time,

            then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The

            odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of

            anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult

            enough to believe, without stretching them any further.

            Either this series of incredible events occurred by random

            processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction.

          • John N

            Afchief, copying arguments from creationist websites again?

            Do you actually think you are going to convince any unbeliever this way?

            And what does your god tells you about stealing?

          • afchief

            Oh my gosh I cut and pasted the truth from a website without citing the URL. Well here it is!!!

            http://www.lovethetruth. com/evolution/big_lie.htm

          • afchief

            How about some more evidence of the “lie of evolution”?

            WERE THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, THE EARTH, AND LIFE RECENTLY CREATED?

            Naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system and
            universe are unscientific and hopelessly inadequate.
            According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

            a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

            b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

            c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth’s moon, are highly inclined.

            d. The material of the earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium –similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the earth’s mass is hydrogen or helium.

            e. The sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than the planets; the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun.

            1. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have formed from
            interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust
            particles or by a direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would
            require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. The ONLY alternative is that stars must have been created.

            2. The sun’s tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or gas clouds
            lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never condense to form planets.

            3. Saturn’s rings could not have formed from the disintegration of a
            former satellite or from the capture of external material; its particles
            are too small and too evenly distributed throughout an orbit that is too
            circular.

            4. The moon was not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the
            same material as the earth since the relative abundance of its elements are too dissimilar from those of the earth. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the moon’s orbit; none are. The moon’s circular, highly inclined orbit is strong evidence that it was never captured by the earth. If the moon was not pulled from the earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one possibility remains. The moon must have been created in its present orbit.

            5. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space,
            or time. Since each is intimately related and defined in terms of the
            other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also
            explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have
            completely failed.

            6. One Postulation of The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of our universe is constant, or `conserved`. Countless
            experiments have shown that regardless of the energy conversion process, the total amount of energy (or its mass equivalent) remains constant. A corollary of the First Law is that no energy can be created. Since the universe obviously has energy, that energy must have been created in the past when The First Law was not operating. Since the energy of the universe could not have created itself, Something external must have created it.

            7. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimation the age of stars. These
            age estimates are then used to establish a framework for `stellar
            evolution`. This is CIRCULAR reasoning.

            8. There is NO evidence that galaxies `evolved`.

            IS THE EARTH REALLY AS OLD AS EVOLUTIONISTS SAY IT IS?

            1. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written records must
            necessarily assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These assumptions are not verifiable, and are not necessarily reliable.

            2. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques
            is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over
            the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 200,000,000 years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.

            3. The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and
            trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method). Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error — indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered question is, “How many other dating checks were not published because they too were in error?”

            4. Pleochroic halos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the
            radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various crystals,
            show that the earth’s crust was NEVER in a molten state. Furthermore, these halos suggest that the rate of radioactive decay was NOT constant, and in fact, varied by MANY orders of magnitude from that observed today.

            5. Geological formations are almost always dated by their fossil
            content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of extinct animals. The
            age of the fossil is derived from the ASSUMED evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is CIRCULAR! Furthermore, this procedure has produced many contradictory results.

            6. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

            7. Many different people have found at different times and places man-made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain, a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. Many other “out-of-place artifacts” such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man supposedly didn’t begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. This casts more doubt on the dating methods used.

            8. In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky,
            human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a major error in chronology.

            9. The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth’s
            sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have
            been deposited rapidly. (An “unconformity” is an erosional surface
            between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of
            unknown duration. “Conformities” imply a continuous and rapid
            deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.)

            10. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years.

          • afchief

            How about some more evidence on the “lie of evolution”?

            MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG

            1. Direct measurements of the earth’s magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
            pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
            electrical current inside the earth which produces the manetic field.
            If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
            would have been so vast that the earth’s structure could not have
            survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years.

            2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

            3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon,
            mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million years.

            4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least
            1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate
            that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

            5. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within
            relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or
            encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been
            trapped over 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today.

            7. There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of
            meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an
            average depth of 1 1/2 miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently.

            8. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
            Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that began 200 million years ago.

            9. Short period comets “boil off” some of their mass each time they
            pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.

            10. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy
            they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely
            that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational
            contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these
            planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

            11. The sun’s gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which
            sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeorites per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoroids should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

            12. Stars frequently travel in closely spaced clusters, moving in the
            same direction at nearly the same speed. This would not be the case if they had been traveling for billions of years, because even the
            slightest difference in their velocity would cause their dispersal after
            such great periods of time.

            13. If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are
            increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and
            Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they DEvolve.

          • Bob Johnson

            See you were right. “All at the same time?”

            Well, actually over a couple of billion years. And you are talking about some of the most common elements in the universe.

          • Brules

            No scientist has ever been able to explain how life began. Not one! But then how did scientists become elevated to a position of being omniscient? How have they become the final determinant of what is, and isn’t, true? We place far too much faith in scientists. They are just as human as the rest of us, just as fallible, just as uncertain, doubting creatures as we are. Just as prone to a lack of integrity, to dishonesty, to arrogance, to the inability to acknowledge their mistakes as we are. Keep them off the pedestal. Scientific ‘word’ has not replaced the word of God and never will.

          • Roberta

            Wrong. We do have scientists who have explained how life begin and have even experimented with starting it themselves in lab. They have been able to create DNA and RNA using basic elements. Just because you aren’t aware of this, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. The “word of God” was written by ignorant, goats head eating, desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat, and you place your faith in them.

          • Brules

            Interesting. So what did they create first, DNA or RNA?

          • Roberta

            Like I was there. Why don’t you ask them?

          • Bob Johnson

            “We place far too much faith in scientists. ”

            I would be long dead if not for the knives of two surgeons and the antibiotics of many a chemist.

          • Brules

            Really glad to hear that but it doesn’t mean that scientists are always right. In fact it has no bearing on it at all.

          • Nogods

            Are you prepared to give up your superstitious beliefs when science finally figures out how chemistry turns into biology? Is that the one thing that would convince you that your god is just as fictional as all those other gods that you already know are not real?

          • afchief

            Enlighten me!!! I enjoy good laughs!!!

          • Nogods

            You didn’t answer my question. Why not?

          • afchief

            I will NEVER give up my beliefs in Jesus Christ! NEVER! Because I know evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell.

          • Nogods

            That is what brainwashed cult members always say.

            Do you think that national geographic and the discovery Chanel are operated by the devil? Are all the science departments at the thousands of universities throughout the world doing the work of the devil? Are the tens-of-thousands of scientists evil people controlled by the devil?

          • afchief

            Unless you have the Spirit of Christ living in you, you cannot see the truth. You believe lies. That is satan’s goal….to keep you from seeing the truth.

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

          • Nogods

            That is coo coo. Millions of smart scientists are lying? That thought is nuts.

            Let’s stay focused for a moment and discuss one very particular aspect of your superstitious beliefs: the devil

            I would like for you to do two things for each question below: 1. answer the question. And 2. state the source of information you relied on to answer the question.

            1. Where does the devil live?
            2. What does he eat?
            3. How does he travel around?
            4. Why don’t scientists study devils and their habitat?
            5. Why aren’t devils discussed in any science books?
            6. Why are devils only mentioned in fiction and books about mythology?
            7. Who do you think would know more about devils: a witch doctor from the jungles of Malaysia who has had no contact with western civilization, or the entire science faculty from MIT?
            8. How do devils reproduce?
            9. What life form have devils evolved from?
            10. Do devils get sick?
            11. How long do they live for?
            12. Do they have brains like humans?
            13. What type of circulatory system do they have?
            14. Has anyone taken a photo or video of one?
            15. What language do they speak?
            16. How do they communicate with one another?
            17. What languages do they understand?
            18. How large is the devil population?
            19. What is the life expectancy of a devil?
            20. How long do Devils care for their young?

            Now go back and change the word “devil” to “leprechaun” and answer all the same questions again. See any difference?

          • afchief

            Satan is a spirit. He is on this earth and has blinded the minds of people like you to believe lies.

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

            1 Peter 5:8 (NASB) Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

            Devour = to fall into sin. Satan blinds you with the pleasures of sin. Which are only temporary. Then Judgement!!!! Every sin you commit is written in a book with your name on it. It will be revealed to you when you stand before God. Unless you give your life to Jesus. Then the book is torn apart.

            Revelation 20:11-15 (NASB) Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

          • Nogods

            Satan is like Santa clause. He only exists in your imagination.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            LOL!

          • Nogods

            Hummm

          • Nogods

            How do you know evolution is a lie if you know nothing about it?

            I know that many religious claims are lies because I know a lot about it.

            So my conclusions are based on knowledge; yours are based on ignorance. Who is more likely to be right?

          • afchief

            Because God’s Spirit lives within me and I know that His word is True!! Evolution is a lie to keep you from seeing God. Jesus said that He would give us His Spirit and He would guide us into ALL truth.

            John 16:13 (NASB) But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

          • Nogods

            That is crazy talk. So scientists that study evolution are more powerful than your god? Because your god obviously can’t do anything to stop them.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            And the head-chopping radical Muslim would say exactly the same as in your first paragraph and quote you from the Quran to “prove” it.

            The difference between the Judeo/Christian and the head-chopping radical Muslim is, of course, that the Muslim is far more faithful to the ancient Draconian laws of his angry warrior god (same god as the Judeo/Christian).

          • afchief

            Nope! The Christian God is about love. Islam is not!

            Here are some comparisions:

            God: Although Christians believe that there is only one God, God manifests himself in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Muslims consider this blasphemous. There is one God and only one manifestation. Given the differences in the ‘nature of god’ as propounded by Muslims vs Christians, suffice it to say that that the Muslim and Christian gods cannot be one and the same.

            Jesus: Jesus may be a prophet in Islam, but he was only a man. To Christians, Jesus was wholly God and wholly man and was crucified to atone for the sins of the world. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified at all, but rather that Judas was made to look like Jesus by God and was crucified instead. So the Jesus that Muslims ‘believe’ in is simply not the Jesus that Christians believe in.

            Atonement: Christians believe that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross turns away the wrath of God from our sin when the sinner accepts, by faith, Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross. There is no atonement in Islam other than a sinner’s confession and repentance.

            Bible: To Christians the inspired and inerrant Word of God. To Muslims the respected word of prophets, but corrupted over the years and only correct when in agreement with the Quran.

            Quran: To Christians simply a work of Muhammad or his followers. Neither inspired nor verifiable in its transcription from the original. To Muslims, the final revelation of God, given to Muhammed via the angel Gabriel without error.

            Original Sin: Christians believe man is sinful by nature, inherited from Adam. Muslims believe man is sinless by nature until they rebel from God.

            Salvation: Christians believe that salvation is a free gift from God, never to be earned by works but by faith alone. Muslims believe that salvation is earned by following the doctrines of Islam.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Nope! The Christian God is about love. Islam is not!

            Islam is, in fact, one of the three Abrahamic religions. All that precedes Abraham are myths believed by all three religions (same god), and all after are creative writings (interpretations and mostly fictional stories slanted to fit the cultures).

            I am well acquainted with Christianity since I was raised to be a fundamentalist Christian. Subsequently, however, in order to be intellectually honest with myself, I enrolled in college and studied world religions, philosophy, and paleoanthropology.

            Christianity, I now realize, is a neo-Zoroastrian religion (a melding of Judaism and Zoroastrianism).

            Here is the objective, historical evidence.

            When the Jews were captive in Babylon and Cyrus the Great (Persian) invaded and conquered the nation (actually they virtually walked in without a fight), the Jews were freed by Cyrus.

            Although Cyrus gave them the freedom to go back to Israel, many Jews remained with the friendly Persians (Zoroastrians) for roughly 200 years. During this time, they were thoroughly exposed to the Zoroastrian religious myths; e.g., virgin birth, End Times, return of a savior, war in Heaven, judgment day, angels with wings, Heaven and Hell, etc. (You can vet all of this in objective sources online–but not from sources with vested interest.)

            The word “Paradise,” by the way, was originally derived from the Greek “paradeisos,” which was the designation of an area of Persia used for hunting. In old Engish, the word became “paradis,” meaning “paradise, Garden of Eden.” In the NT, the word was translated to “Heaven.”

            The Jews who straightway went back to Israel, were not exposed (for the most part) to Zoroastrian beliefs. Such morphing of words from one meaning to the next is how Christianity was created (e.g., Daniel’s time prophesy of the birth of an “anointed one,” to be born in 70 weeks (converted to years), and Isaiah’s prophesy using the word “alma”, which meant “young woman” or “girl.” (elem, the masculine version of the word, by the way, means “young man,” not a male virgin.)

            When Isaiah’s prophesy was translated to Greek, it was changed to “parthenos,” which means “virgin.”

            However, ancient Hebrew scholars, such as Isaiah, were meticulous in specificity. If Isaiah had intended to prophesize the miracle of a virgin birth, then he would have used the word, “Bethulah,” which
            meant, “virgin.”

            Thus, the Jews who were influenced by Zoroastrianism were looking feverishly for the “anointed one” at the time of Jesus. I’ve little doubt that Jesus was a charismatic preacher of the time and was recruited to be the culmination of the modified Danielic prophesy.

            The virgin birth of Jesus, then, can be shown to be a mistranslation (on purpose, I believe), to fit the Zoroastrian narrative.

            ———————————————

            All that you have presenting as “evidence” to substantiate Christianity was derived from the Bible. It is a fallacious circular argument.

            Logically, you cannot point to a book to prove itself, especially if the stories are not authenticated. And beliefs do not prove truth. If all the world believed in the truth of a particular proposition, the sheer weight of all that belief, without objective evidence, would lend not a nanogram to its validity.

            Virtually every person of every religion believes his religion to be the sacred truth because he was taught to believe it, and then society further nurtured the belief.

            Had you been born to a Muslim family in a Muslim society, then you would most likely still believe Islam, and believe it with all the fervor you now believe Christianity.

          • Brules

            Wrong again, Max. Matthew 22:35-40.
            ‘One of them, an expert in the law, tested Him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
            Jesus replied; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it; “Love your neighbour as yourself”. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’
            There’s nothing in islam like this. There is nothing like sharia law in Christianity because of these commandments.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Brules, you are completely illogical. My main argument was that the Muslim believes in Islam for the same reason you believe in Christianity–you were taught to believe it–and the Muslim will, likewise, quite scripture to “prove” it. Where is the fallacy in this argument? How can you possibly say that this is not so? Had you been born to the same family as they, you would be a Muslim.

            As for Christians being exempt from the ancient, Draconian laws of the OT, recall that Jesus upheld the old laws:

            Matthew 5 –
            17 ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
            18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

            How is it then, that Christians are not bound by those laws? (I know there is an excuse that contradicts Matt 5).

          • Brules

            Essentially you seem to be saying that you are right and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is therefore wrong. That’s not a bad definition of arrogance and blind faith in one’s own abilities. Are you omniscient? If so, can I have your autograph? It will have to worth something one day. The only man who knew everything!
            By the way, argue as long as you like that there is no God but the time is inevitably coming when we will all find out who’s right and who’s wrong. If you’re right, then you don’t have a problem. If you’re wrong, then your problem becomes one of irreversibly catastrophic proportions.

          • Bob Johnson

            Pascal’s Wager. And what if it turns out to be Odin?

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            And, following up on Pascal’s Wager, here is a quote from my novel:

            The Graveyard of History is strewn with the bleached bones of dead gods, each and every one laid low by the Broadsword of Disbelief.

            And for whom shall the requiem play next? It shall play for thee, dear Yahweh, and for all of our gods du jour. For the forgotten gods of antiquity were once the living gods of today, and the living gods of today shall tomorrow be the forgotten gods of antiquity.

          • Brules

            Better hope that you’re right then, Max.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            The point is that the vast majority of believers of any religion believe it because it was what they were taught to believe. Had you been born to a Muslim family, or a Hindu family in their respective societies, you would believe what you were taught to believe just as fervently as you now believe Christianity.

            Which one is right? Why, the one YOU were taught, of course.

            All the ancient, forgotten gods were once believed just as fervently.

            This irrefutable piece of logic completely destroys Pascal’s Wager.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Got can’t type?

          • Nogods

            I am saying that evidence supports my position and not yours.

            Isn’t arrogance claiming that you can talk to a god; claiming that god talks to you; claiming you have a “relationship” with a god; claiming to know the will of a god; and claiming to be one of god’s children? Just curious.

            Here is how the math actually works:

            Religious beliefs are overwhelmingly mutually exclusive. (I think there is only one religion that doesn’t make that assertion.) This means that if you believe in one god, you can’t believe in another. It logically follows that they all can’t be right. So there are only two possible outcomes: 1. at most, one is right, or 2. none are right. So let’s see how the math plays out.

            AT MOST ONE IS RIGHT:

            Now there are thousands of gods you could choose to worship. But to make the math easy, let’s just put a round number on it and say there are 1,000. Assuming that one religion is actually right, the chances that you are worshiping the right god is one in a thousand. So purely from a statistical point of view, everyone should expect to find themselves worshiping the wrong god and should expect to find themselves in hell.

            NONE ARE RIGHT:

            But if all the religions claim that they are right, and at most only one can be right, a reasonable person would suspect that they are all wrong unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, there has never been any evidence that any of them are right. That is why religion is a faith and not a science. So chances are, they are all wrong.

            Isn’t it interesting to think that, over the past 2,000 years, BILLIONS of Christians have believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have gone to their graves COMPLETELY WRONG. And just as they have ALL been COMPLETELY WRONG, so will you. Jesus is STILL dead. And dead people don’t come back to life. Believing that they do is a superstitious belief that has ALWAYS been wrong. Keep pretending that your reality will somehow be different then the BILLIONS of Christians that have come before you. But know that you are just fooling yourself.

          • Brules

            I guess we’ll just have to disagree on whose opinion the evidence supports. I also disagree entirely with your definition of arrogance and prefer my own. I don’t understand how you can think that believing in the Bible displays arrogance. It would be arrogant of me to suggest that you are less worthy than I am because you don’t believe in the Bible but I don’t say that at all. No Christian has the right to claim superiority over a non-Christian.
            What I will claim is that the Bible is the word of God given to us so that we can know Him. It is supported by a huge amount of evidence. It is regarded as the primary archaeological reference for the early Middle East. Western society was almost exclusively built on its precepts and teachings. (see how well we’re doing now that we’re giving it up).
            It is obviously incorrect to suggest that, because all religions can’t simultaneously be right, that they are therefore all wrong. It’s a bit like saying that all wheels can’t be right because some are square. Obviously there is one wheel shape which is right. Christianity is unique. In no other religion/faith did God manifest Himself as a man and allow Himself to be sacrificed then resurrected so that our sins can be forgiven. The teachings of Christ have never been contradicted nor improved upon. That men have abused them in His name is undeniable but that is their sin not His.
            Jesus said that He is the way, the truth and the life. He wasn’t being arrogant but lovingly showing us the perfect pathway for our lives.

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it weird how gods never write books – men do. Your god didn’t write the bible – men did. Why is it that the supposed all-powerful creator of everything, can’t write? Zeus never wrote any books either. I wonder why not? Yet, you regard scripture as authoritative?

            Isn’t it odd that there is NOTHING written in the bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century? Why is that? Why is the bible filled with so much utter nonsense.

            The magical aspects of Christianity are obviously false. Here are simple facts you MUST ADMIT ARE TRUE:

            1. YOU MUST ADMITTED THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS MADE IN THE BIBLE ARE FALSE. This would include such things as the story of Adam and Eve (science is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and there is no evidence or reason to believe they ever existed. So the entire story of jesus is built upon this false premiss.) and noah (there is NO evidence of a world-wide flood let alone one of the proportion or duration as described in the bible.) If this is true, it places into question ALL supernatural claims. And the resurrection of Jesus is really the ONLY claim upon which his divinity is based.

            2. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION ARE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT. This again is evidence that the accounts are unreliable. As an example, did Jesus ascended into heaven the day of his claimed resurrection (Luke 24:51), or 40 days later? (Acts 1:3). When Jesus died, did an earthquake open all the graves unleashing a zombie apocalypse (as recounted in Matthew). Why is that fact completely ignored by the other gospels. Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three.) Three gospels give three different versions of the last words of Jesus. Matthew says that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. Acts claim that he was buried by Jewish strangers and their rulers. The four gospels conflict in their account of the number of women that came to the tomb Easter morning. Matthew and Mark claim that one woman was at the tomb. Luke and John claim there were two. Matthew claims that the tomb was not open when they got there. The other three say that the tomb was open. There are many more contradictions. And they all can’t be right. But they all can be wrong.

            3. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS REGULARLY DEIFIED MERE MORTALS. The early Romans were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that men could become gods and gods could become men long before the time of Jesus. Early roman gods included Julius Cesar, Caesar Augustus, and Romulus. Almost ALL roman emperors were ultimately declared gods. This supernatural claim was bestowed upon virtually ANYONE who showed some type of special skill or authority. Thus, bestowing this title upon Jesus would be NOTHING unusual.

            And as it turned out, the early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about all these other gods. But these were the EXACT SAME people that claimed that jesus rose from the dead and proclaimed him a god, just as they had proclaimed many others before and after him. And just as these early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence as to the existence of all the other roman gods, they were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence about your god and his resurrection.

            4. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED IN THE EXISTENCE OF MANY GODS. Romans were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Jupiter was a real god. They believed that for a thousand years, even in the face of uncontrovertibly evidence that their polytheistic beliefs were wrong. But as you must admit, the early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about all these other gods. But these were the EXACT SAME people that claimed that jesus rose from the dead and was a god. But this is the EXACT same claim they had made about many gods before him. And just as these early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence as to the existence of all the other roman gods, they were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence about your god and his resurrection.

            5. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS ATTRIBUTED SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATIONS TO OBVIOUSLY NON SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. At the time jesus arrived, the early Roman culture was awash in erroneous supernatural beliefs. The early Romans attributed supernatural causes to natural events. This was typical of virtually all pre-modern cultures. The cultural acceptance of these beliefs was further reinforced by the government and were just a simple part of every day life. Thus, attributing a supernatural explanation to almost any event was nothing unusual. This would include attributing supernatural explanations to stories related to Jesus.

            6. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE STORIES DOCUMENTING THE RESURRECTION WERE NOT MEMORIALIZED UNTIL 30 TO 90 YEARS AFTER THE CLAIMED EVENTS HAPPENED AND INVARIABLY DO NOT ACCURATELY DOCUMENT THE EVENTS. Without a doubt, the oral tradition that perpetuated the stories was embellished and modified as it was passed along. The inconsistencies in the gospels clearly demonstrates this.

            7. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT JESUS WAS NOT REGARDED AS A GOD DURING HIS LIFE TIME BUT WAS ONLY ELEVATED TO THAT STATUS DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH. It was not until the 4th century that the roman ruling class defined the supernatural nature of Jesus.

            8. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THERE ARE NO EXTRA BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION THOUGH THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HIS PERSONA AND THE PENULTIMATE EVENT THAT MADE HIM A GOD. While there are extra biblical accounts referencing Jesus, NONE of them reference ANY supernatural aspects of his life. Though one would suspect that if they were true, they would have been the focus of any extra biblical accounts.

            9. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT CRUCIFIXION WAS COMMON IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE AND THAT ONLY ONE BODY EVIDENCING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION HAS EVER BEEN FOUND. Detailed historical records document that during the early Roman Empire, THOUSANDS of people were crucified. And of those THOUSANDS that were crucified, only ONE body has EVER been discovered. If a missing body is evidence of resurrection, then THOUSANDS of other people have also rose from the dead.

            10. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE ONE OF THE MOST UNRELIABLE FORMS OF EVIDENCE. Empirical studies have consistently shown that eye witness accounts, while highly valued, are the most unreliable form of evidence. This is especially true when the claimed events occurred in the prescientific age and involve an uneducated and illiterate population easily swayed by claims of the supernatural. To this day, comparable indigenous populations are easily convinced of all kinds of comparably ridiculous claims. This fact is equally true of highly educated people living today.

            11. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY HARBORING MISTAKEN BELIEFS. In defense of the resurrection, Christians often ask, why would the disciples of Jesus sacrificed their lives over a belief they knew was false. But that is simply the wrong question to ask. The disciples of Jesus believed Jesus rose from the dead. But their belief was just wrong. So the disciples of Jesus were willing to sacrifice their lives for a MISTAKEN BELIEF. This happens every day. Just ask ISIS members about that. They think they are fighting for a god that you know isn’t real. You also know that there will be no 72 virgins waiting for them. And just like the followers of Jesus, the members of ISIS are willing to die for a mistaken belief.

            Most of the characteristics of Jesus are stolen from other ancient figures or not unique. Jesus isn’t all that special in terms of resurrection. At least 6 other gods died and were resurrected prior to Jesus:

            Horus c. 3000 BCE
            Osiris c. 3000 BCE
            Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE
            Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)
            Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE
            Dionysus c. 186 BCE

            Also, the Jews had already described someone dieing for three days and returning back to life in the stone tablet Gabriel’s Revelation.

            Being born of a virgin is not unique to Jesus and was a common claim in ancient times. Miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. Stories of miracle births often include miraculous conceptions and features such as intervention by a deity, supernatural elements, astronomical signs, hardship or in the case of some mythologies complex plots related to creation. Look up miraculous birth for further information.

            Isn’t it interesting how many Christians regard the Ten Commandments as god’s law which should be followed? But oddly, only 2.5 of the 10 commandments are actually law in the US. The other 7.5 would violate the constitution and the American ideals of freedom if they were memorialized as law. The only place the other 7.5 are enforced are in Muslim countries that practice sharia law – like Iraq and Afghanistan. And to think, Christians proclaim the 10 commandments as model laws to live by. Let’s just hope that the Christian Taliban is never successful in their effort to institute Christian sharia law in the U.S.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            Excellent post of facts and logical arguments. I doubt, however, that the most powerful canon balls of logic will even chip the paint on the walls of religious dogma.

          • Nogods

            Sad but true.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            I’ve often considered what it would take to break the cycle of delusion and the only conclusion I can find so far is somehow to teach critical thinking (informal logic) to students as early as possible, perhaps in their rebellious years, beginning, I think, in the fifth or sixth grade.

            Unfortunately, society in general would forbid it. Critical thinking is definitely not what religious parents want their children to learn.

          • Nogods

            Absolutely. You’ve got to prevent the brainwashing that occurs with children.

          • Brules

            ‘Your god didn’t write the bible – men did.’ Presumably you used your computer to write this article. So – did the computer write it or did you? God used men to write the Bible.
            ‘Isn’t it odd that there is NOTHING written in the bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century?’ This is a really strange and outrageous claim. How could you possibly know? Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote down the Pentateuch some 1,500 years BC. If you think that someone 1,500 years later, could have written it, where,or how, would they have got their information?

            ‘YOU MUST ADMIT ….’ Why? Just because you’ve said so? Don’t think that’s a very good reason and I’m certainly not going to admit anything just because you wrote it in capital letters. I’ll try to make point-by-point answers.

            1. There are no magical aspects to the BIble. Biblical teaching specifically proscribes magic in any shape or form.
            2. ‘science is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and there is no evidence or reason to believe they ever existed.’ There’s that mysterious creature ‘science’ again. Scientists have been absolutely certain about a great many things which were later proven to be wrong. They weren’t there. How could they know if they won’t accept the only eyewitness account?
            3. ‘YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION ARE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.’ Not at all. If you took 3 eyewitness accounts of the same catastrophe, you would get at least three different versions. Wait a couple of days and you’ll get many more. The Gospels are not inconsistent.
            4. ‘YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS REGULARLY DEIFIED MERE MORTALS.’ True, and they were never seen alive again after their deaths. Jesus, on the other hand, was seen by over 500 people after his resurrection. He spoke with them and ate with them. There were a great many witnesses to Christ’s appearances who never challenged the Gospel accounts of His resurrection even though they were in the perfect position to do so.
            5. ‘the early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about all these other gods. But these were the EXACT SAME people that claimed that jesus rose from the dead and was a god.’ This is totally wrong. The first Christians were all Jews. The Romans were not keen on the followers of the Way and quite early on made strenuous efforts to suppress them. The Bible mentions two exceptions, both centurions. Both became believers.
            6. ‘THE STORIES DOCUMENTING THE RESURRECTION WERE NOT MEMORIALIZED UNTIL 30 TO 90 YEARS AFTER THE CLAIMED EVENTS HAPPENED.’ Once again, quite untrue. For instance, the Apostle Paul was executed in 59AD. Of necessity, all his epistles were written before that time. i.e. within 30 years of Christ’s death and resurrection. The Gospels were already in circulation orally and were certainly written down before the end of the century.
            7. ‘YOU MUST ADMIT THAT JESUS WAS NOT REGARDED AS A GOD DURING HIS LIFE TIME’. Jesus said to Peter “But what about you. Who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:15-16.
            8. ‘NO EXTRA BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION’. Why would you expect there to be? Josephus mentioned it and he didn’t like Jesus or his followers.
            9. ‘ONLY ONE BODY EVIDENCING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION HAS EVER BEEN FOUND.’ This is such an odd argument. Jesus, as a victim of crucifixion, was unusual in that He was buried in a tomb. Normal practice was to throw the bodies into mass burial pits along with all those who died without the provision of a tomb. Try sorting that lot out.
            10. ‘YOU MUST ADMIT THAT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE ONE OF THE MOST UNRELIABLE FORMS OF EVIDENCE.’ It’s funny you should say this since I was recently upbraided by an evolutionist who felt that my opinions were worthless because I couldn’t produce any eyewitness accounts. Apparently he considered them essential to verify an account.
            11. ‘YOU MUST ADMIT THAT PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY HARBORING MISTAKEN BELIEFS.’ Absolutely but what you haven’t mentioned is that most of them are atheists who die in the mistaken belief that there is no God.
            It’s worth remembering that the disciples, following Christ’s crucifixion, were in hiding and in fear of their lives. They changed after Christ appeared to them. They were baptised in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and were faithful evangelists up to their martyr deaths (apart from John).
            12. ‘Most of the characteristics of Jesus are stolen from other ancient figures or not unique.’ Well I can see why this fallacy may appeal to you in your desperate desire to deny God but you’ve got a problem. Around 700 years BC, the prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of Christ, His virgin birth, where He would be born and His crucifixion, a method of execution unknown at the time of Isaiah. The prophecies of Isaiah are so accurate that, for many years, deny-ers claimed that they had been written after the event. This idea vanished when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered after WW2 and there, dating from about 170BC, was an nearly intact Book of Isaiah which was almost word for word the same as the biblical account.
            13. ‘Isn’t it interesting how many Christians regard the Ten Commandments as god’s law which should be followed? But oddly, only 2.5 of the 10 commandments are actually law in the US.’ I’m not sure what you think this proves. Billy Graham’s daughter said, after the Columbine shootings when asked why God allowed such a terrible thing, “God is a gentleman and you’ve told Him you don’t want Him in our schools, so He left.” He won’t stay where he’s not wanted. From what I read, schools, courts and other public institutions in the US are busy removing the 10 Commandments from their walls though many have been there for quite a long time.
            I’d be really interested to learn which of the 10 Commandments you think are wrong or perhaps offensive. Seems a pretty good guide to living to me. But it’s doubtless true that many, many people have turned away from them either deliberately or through ignorance. It certainly hasn’t improved our quality of life, has it? Most of these school shootings in the USA and elsewhere have involved Christians being singled out for slaughter. Something ISIS is particularly keen on. Jesus said that ‘the devil comes to steal, kill and destroy’ John 10:10, so who do you think is behind the mayhem we are presently witnessing in our society? More to the point, who do you think might be the answer to it?

            In the second part of the quote Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life and life to the full.
            To conflate Christians with the taliban is both cruel and idiotic and seriously weakens any argument you put forward.
            The mistake you all make is that you don’t understand that being a Christian means having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is an experiential faith and certainly not blind. It is a faith that teaches you to put others ahead of yourself, to care about the suffering , the poor, the bereaved etc and to try to help, not force or cajole, those who can’t or won’t see the truth and glory of life in Jesus Christ. What has Jesus Christ ever done to you that you should hate Him to point of such vehement denial? Remember the parable of the God Samaritan and you’ll get a good idea of what Christianity is really about.
            I also recommend that you no longer use the Zeitgeist website as the authority for your arguments. One of the translations of zeitgeist is ‘spirit of the age’ This is one of the descriptions of satan. Who will you choose to believe and to follow?

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            God can’t type?

          • lizk

            God spoke it into existence

          • John N

            How do you know? Were you there?

          • lizk

            no, I wasn’t there, but I trust God for His prophecies are true and what He said will come true, Jesus is coming soon. God said for those who are being lost cannot understand His words. You were not there either and it takes faith to believe in evolution, but God said He made the heavens, the earth and the seas and all that was in it. He spoke every thing into existance.

          • lizk

            Genesis 1 the whole chapter.

          • lizk

            I wasn’t there when God created everything, but I surprised that people would rather believe in evolution (a religion, as it requires people believing in that to, and it takes greater faith in that) God sent His Son into the world to walk among men. It makes more sense to me that God created and it was all intelligent design but scientist don’t want to believe that because then they would answer to God.

          • John N

            You are fully entitled to your belief. That does not turn it into reality, though.

            Oh, and no scientists I know ‘believes’ in evolution. ‘Believing’ is accepting something as true without evidence. Scientists accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life excatly because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

            I understand why you want evolution to be a religion, but that does not compute. A religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence (definition: Wikipedia). Evolution, being science, has no practices, ethics, and does not relate humanity to an order of existence.

            And a lot of scientists are also religious people. You really think they accept evolution so they do not have to answer to god?

          • Meepestos

            “And a lot of scientists are also religious people.” And those that introduced me to evolution were religious. It would be interesting to know how many scientists are fundamentalists.

          • John N

            None.

            The scientific method doesn’t go well with dogmatic thinking.

          • lizk

            even science agrees with the bible.

          • lizk

            There is only one God and He created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them. He send His one and only Son, Who laid down His life for us and if you accept what He has done for you, you will not perish but have ever lasting life.

        • Brules

          You’re absolutely sure about this, are you? Is this your omniscience at work again?

      • Roberta

        I’m still waiting for a religious person to explain to me how a god was created from non-life.

        • afchief

          It is ALL about Faith!!!

          Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

          • Roberta

            Faith isn’t a something to brag about. And you didn’t answer my question about where god came from.

          • afchief

            I love to brag about my faith in Jesus Christ!! Everyday!!! All the time!!! Where ever I go!!!

          • Roberta

            You keep believing that some invisible magical being loves you, if it helps. Just keep it to yourself, the rest of us don’t want to hear about it.

          • afchief

            Ohhhh the peace and joy that I have in Jesus Christ can never compare to what the world has to offer. NEVER!!!

          • Nogods

            Faith is a fancy word for wishful thinking. It is the absolute lowest standard of evidence as it requires NO evidence. There is just as much evidence supporting the existence of flying purple fairies that orbit the earth as there is supporting the existence of your god. So if it is irrational to believe that purple fairies are real, it is also irrational to think gods are real and to organize your life around them.

          • afchief

            The tension between evolution and creation is philosophical not scientific. Here are some points:

            Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points. Creation: In the beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance.

            Darwinian doctrine insists that the evolution of life is a random process—that we are here by a series of pure accidents (e.g., mutations, and molecules in motion, gene recombinations and duplications). This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of election—that life is not merely a series of accidents. According to the Bible, each believer is in some sense individually foreknown and chosen by God from before the foundations of the world. (1 Samuel 16:7-12; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 24:31, 25:34; Romans 8:29-30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 1:4-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9)

            The God of the Bible is more than Creator and Savior. He is also Sustainer. With evolution, life is a self-sustaining process ruled by fate, and God plays no role in the universe or in the ongoing lives of men. This contradicts the biblical doctrine of providence—that all things happen under the authority of God, and that God is still at work sustaining (though not re-creating) His creation. (Genesis 45:7-8, Nehemiah 9:6; Esther 4:14; Psalm 104:30, 145:16, 147:9; Proverbs 16:9,33, Isaiah 45:1,7, 46:10; Matthew 6:26, 10:29-31; John 5:17, 14:16-17, 15:26, 16:13-15; Acts 17:26, 18:9-11; Romans 8:9-11; Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)

            Still another aspect of the God of the Bible is that He is Judge. The Bible makes a major point of an afterlife in heaven or hell. Indeed, Jesus discusses this concept more than any other biblical figure. As part of the process of ultimate judgment by God, a new type of resurrection body will emerge to another life—to either be glorified in heaven or condemned to hell for eternity. Evolution is in great conflict with this view, including the fact that the physical cannot evolve into an afterlife. (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 23:33, 24:31; 1 Corinthians 15:42-53; 2 Peter 2:4-10)

            The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

            The Bible indicates that creation was a completed event in the past, and is not continuing as evolution suggests. (Genesis 2:1-3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Hebrews 4:3-11) As put by the Concordia Study Bible (annotations page 8), “His creative work was completed—and it was totally effective, absolutely perfect, ‘very good.’ It did not have to be repeated, repaired or revised, and the Creator rested to commemorate it.”

            Given the above, the creation by God of distinct “kinds” as described in Genesis 1 and 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least superfluous.

            The Bible indicates that there is clear physical evidence of creation. (Psalm 19:1-6; Acts 17:24-29) Evolution denies the evidence for creation. If Darwinism were a reasonable hypothesis, atheists would have a perfectly good excuse, in contradiction to Romans 1:20. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible.

            There is no hint of evolution in the Bible. While this is an argument from silence and thus does not necessarily preclude evolution, such an important concept as to origins would surely have been suggested in the Bible due to its theological implications. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. It is mentioned approximately 64 times in 18 books of the Bible.

            Evolution is a philosophy based on naturalism and materialism. Naturalism holds that nature is all there is and that the universe is self-sufficient without a supernatural cause or control of the world. Materialism regards matter as the original cause of all—that matter did its own creating. Materialism denies the existence of the soul. The philosophical assumption of evolution is therefore essentially atheistic or agnostic, thus clearly incompatible with special creation and the other miracles of the Bible. With evolution, if God exists, He is so distant as to be irrelevant.

            The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)

            Some 75 passages of Scripture including those by Jesus, refer to the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2, confirming it as actual history. (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 3:38, Revelation 2:7) See In the Beginning elsewhere on our site.

            There is an important reason to interpret from the Bible that Adam was a real person. Unless the concept of original sin through Adam is true, Jesus’ coming makes no sense. That is, Christians believe that Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins was necessary because of man’s sin nature inherited in some sense from Adam. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the “second Adam.” So if Adam was not real, thus did not bring sin into the world, Christ’s redemptive sacrifice was not necessary. (Genesis 3:15-19; Romans 4:22-25, 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,45-57; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

            The overarching theme of the Bible is Creation/Fall/Redemption. (God created the universe “very good.” Then man spoiled it by his rebellion—the “Fall”, necessitating God’s redemption of mankind through Christ.) This sequence is crucial to Christian theology. Did God really create things bad, not “very good” as the Bible says (Genesis 1:31)? If things were bad to start with, the Fall becomes a superfluous concept. (The Fall presupposes that there was something good from which to fall.) Thus, a major point of tension exists between the Bible and evolution at the heart of the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Note the following quote from G. R. Bozarth, The American Atheist magazine, September 1978, 30:

            “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

            Evolutionism, indeed, denies that man even has a sinful nature or else suggests that we should not be faulted for our human nature because “that is just our nature.” Thus evolution is inconsistent with the Christian belief that man is indeed fallen and in need of a savior.

            The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to the Bible, which has not changed over time.

            Morality in evolutionary thought is a function of natural selection, survival of the fittest, or situation ethics. The Bible teaches transcending moral truth, given by God. (Exodus 20:1-17; Isaiah 5:20-21)

            Evolution is closely associated with the philosophy of secular humanism, which accepts human beings as the ultimate source of meaning and value. The Bible, of course, places God as the ultimate source of meaning and value.

            The Bible teaches that man was created for a special purpose. Evolution denies that man has a divine purpose, or at least implies that man’s purpose in life is whatever one wants to make of it (secular humanism). (Isaiah 43:7; Jeremiah 29:11; Matthew 6:10; Romans 8:28, 14:12; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 2:10, 3:21; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:10)

            Since evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of objective moral values. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible. Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to have the Truth, which gives ultimate hope. (John 14:6; Colossians 1:27)

            The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.

          • Nogods

            Yes, evolution conflicts with the obviously false claims made in the bible. Isn’t it interesting to contrast the sources of information the nonreligious and the religious rely upon: The nonreligious choose to look for answers from the smartest, most educated segment of our population, who are performing the most cutting-edge research with the most sophisticated and technologically advanced tools humankind has ever created.

            The religious, on the other hand, choose to look for answers from a 1st century superstition written by bronze/Iron age nomadic sheep herders, who occupied a remote desert oasis, during the prescientific age, who spent an inordinate amount of time consumed with the measliness of sheep and goats, and who had no knowledge of such simple things as paper or the number zero.

            Isn’t it odd that there is NOTHING written in the bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century? Why is that? Why is the bible filled with so much utter nonsense.

    • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

      Picking and choosing what to believe also works for them quite well for the Bible itself. We are quite fortunate that these folks got a heavy dose of reason, albeit most was/is rejected) in the Enlightenment. At least they are no longer killing unbelievers and going on witch hunts. Thank reason for small advances.

      • Brules

        Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and proponents of the eugenics programme in the USA pre WW2 all though they were being reasonable. Human reason can be a dubious blessing and frequently a curse.

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

          Human misunderstanding of science has led to many atrocities, as has religious zealotry. I doubt that misunderstands of science, however, have led to any more bloodshed (and probably much less), than has religious conquest and brutality.

          Remember the Crusades, the witch hunts, the Inquisitions, the torture chambers and the auto da fes? Those are only a few of the BIG ones.

          Too, religion was used to justify the subjugation of Africans in the Antebellum South of the US (it was legal to beat and even kill them) and still a great many Christians consider blacks to be inferior to whites, even though it was/is white society that suppressed and still suppresses them.

          As for eugenics (real big in Virginia), I believe I can safely say that some, if not most of the folks in the US involved in eugenics, were Christians.

          • Brules

            It just seems, Max, that no matter what dreadful things atheists have done, how many deaths they have caused in pursuit of their beliefs, to you Christians will always be the bad guys. It seems now that the only eugenicists were, and are, Christian despite the fact that the movement was begun by Darwin’s cousin, Galton, neither of whom were Christian. So all the people who hate blacks in the Deep South are Christian, all Klu Klux Klan members are Christian? It is worth remembering that being a Christian is not just a matter of claiming to be one, you actually have to live as one in obedience to Jesus Christ. The Bible says that by their fruits you shall know them. Find out what the fruits of Christianity are then judge who’s Christian and who’s not.

          • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

            You seem to be condemning all atheists. Do you not think that a great many atheists are good people? I think that most Christians are good people. I don’t fear them as they fear me.

            As well, you are completely avoiding Nogods’ question directly pertinent to this blog, (i.e., Why do Christians accept science when it appears to support their belief, but reject science when it steps on their theological toes?).

            Too, you continue to avoid answering my question on the basic reason you believe (as virtually all religious people do) whatever religion you were taught from birth. It is clear that, as a means of deflecting from hard questions, you use the usual theist response of seizing on something else I said and arguing that point.

            Do you consider avoiding hard questions a matter of honor, or fear? Dodging hard questions certainly isn’t a sign of confidence or knowledge.

            And, BTW, you mentioned Hitler earlier. A great many Christians fought for Hitler who, himself, was arguably a Christian (google “Hitler Boasts He is Ruling by Divine Right. As well, he had written about being saved from death by a warning from a spirit (angel?).

            So there is no need to have our little tit for tat. Just answer Nogods question and mine.

    • lizk

      The bible is still the best source of reference to all your questions!! The only reason you might not understand it is because you do not wish to know. The bible even say it is foolish to those who are lost by their own choices.

      • Nogods

        How did you become a brainwashed cult member?

        • lizk

          read your bible and if you don’t believe then there is nothing more to say. You are the one who has to answer to God. You are accountable to Him

        • lizk

          you should read afchief he quotes Psalm 14, it says it all.

        • Brules

          This is uncalled for. Though you, in your malevolent bigotry, are obviously unaware, becoming a Christian is a matter of personal choice. No one can be forced to become a Christian. No one is a Christian though birth or any other way other than by personal, informed choice.

      • John N

        So where does the bible explain the Relativity theory? Germ theory of disease? Plate tectonics? Climate Change Theory?

        I could certainly use an update on these.

        • Brules

          Why should it have to? None of these things are held in total agreement anyway.

          • John N

            So you are a total science denier? Anything that is not in your bible doesn’t exist?

            I guess you’ll say the same about computers and the internet.

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          Isaiah 44:21 This is what the LORD says your redeemer who formed you in the womb I am the LORD, the maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself. This verse is just one of many that gives us a hint of the expansion of the universe, which has been proven scientifically. The spreading of the earth (if taken in the ancient Hebrew) seems to be indicating the movement of the ground/continents. Job 9 5:6 Which removeth mountains, and they know it not, which overturneth them in his anger. Which shaketh the earth out of its place and the pillars thereof tremble. Removing mountains without them knowing it would seem to hint at the notion that it takes a very long time (millions of years) to erode them away. Overturning them in his anger seems to indicate a judgment in which I believe was when Satan was cast out of Heaven, and could be referring to things like the Deccan traps formed around sixty-five million years ago, in which massive amounts of lava covered the area of the Indian peninsula. Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man cares for his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel, clearly shows that a man is to care for his animals and the environment around him. Isaiah 24 5-6 indicates the inhabitants disobeying God’s laws and destroying the earth which will result in many of them being scorched. (keep in mind that God uses judgments consistently) so this could apply to the global warming scenario we have today. In genesis God says, “let the earth bring forth,” which is granting it permission to bring forth after it’s kind, thus opening the door for the scriptural interpretation of evolution. I would recommend Reasons to Believe or Biologos in order to do farther research.

          • John N

            Hinting … seems to indicating … could be refering … could be applying …

            When I read it, I read the stories of ancient people trying to explain the world around them, ignorant of all of the theories we have discovered and described since then. There is no ‘hint’ whatsoever that the bible was not written by ordinary human of their time.

            I guess you can read the bible anyway you want, exactly because it is not a science book. But if I want to do research, I prefer Nature.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            I’m glad you said that because Psalm 19 states that we should look at nature and it will reveal itself to us.

          • John N

            What? The bible makes references to Nature?

            Now that changes the whole thing about the bible not being a science book.

            Does it also cite the volume to be looked at?

  • Enagic Kangen

    Scientist, men trying to figure God out.

    • Nogods

      Zeus is so mysterious.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

  • http://Christinesworld.com Christine Gavin

    This explains Isaiah 11:9 “For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. as the waters cover the sea.”

  • monge1st

    What is really funny with them coming out with this now is a number of years a go I saw a Navy researcher who had traveled the world taking measurements and sonar deep in the ocean and earth showing caverns all in the earth and showing storms down in the ocean. He said these findings made him believe the Bible. He wrote a book on all the findings guess it was pretty technical. Don’t remember his name or title of the book

  • Tony Robinson

    Actually, Scripture places water above Earth’s crust in the beginning (Gen 1:2), then God separated the waters (above and beneath the firmament, Gen 1:6). What you need to understand is that government school textbooks teach the opposite: they have water originating from volcanic activity, spouting upward from beneath the crust. Although Scripture validates this recent discovery of there being huge amounts of water deep under the crust, do not be fooled into thinking they are confirming the biblical account. They still place the origin of water as being from underground instead of it being originally above ground.

    After Noah’s flood, where water from extreme pressure did evacuate from the deep and increased the size of the oceans, the compression of rock melting afterward shrank the earth’s diameter over a 100 miles. Like an ice skater that increases her spinning by pulling her arms inward, condensing the crust after the flood increased the spin from a 360 day year to eventually a 365.25 day year. Science still has yet to catch up with divine revelation.

    • John N

      >’Science still has yet to catch up with divine revelation.’
      You must have a very special version of the bible ….

      Any evidence of this magic, of do we just have to trust you?

      • Tony Robinson

        Whenever I see replies like this that equates creation with magic, I am reminded of how biblically and philosophically illiterate the past few generations have become.

        Pagans and materialists believe in the eternalness of matter. For example,the flawed big bang theory initially received push-back for its implication that everything had a beginning. The mathematical formulas used, however, can only hope to work after the proposed big bang. The current version of a big bang beginning has all eternally existing matter squeezed into a singularity prior to erupting. This singularity has matter coming from a place where the laws of physics do not apply. Other versions that try to work around problems inherent to the Big Bang Model posit matter originating from alternate dimensions that do not obey the laws of physics

        Excuse me, but a belief in that which is beyond or above the laws of physics is an appeal to the supernatural. Yes, most adherents of the big bang are unwittingly anchoring their belief upon the supernatural (Some adherents acknowledge this belief outright). I’m not against the belief of the supernatural, but I prefer to have something about it subject to falsification.

        In contrast to paganism and the Big Bang Model, the very first verse in the Bible, literally, states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This one verse declares that the time-space continuum had a definite beginning, with matter being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) from the spoken Word of God. Other verses show that matter not only had a beginning, but that matter is not eternal, i.e. Psalm 102:26, which we now express via such things as the entropy law of thermodynamics. This temporal nature of matter runs contrary to a belief integral to both paganism and materialism, and it is falsifiable.

        Other versus go even further stating that God stretched out the earth above the waters (Psalm 136:6) as He did with the universe, stretching space outward away from where we are. Scripture also alludes to stress points in this stretching of space, in which God will one day use to fold space up like a garment, and that the elements will dissolve away in fervent heat (ie. 2 Peter 3:10-12). Furthermore, Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 predict that a new heaven and earth will be created that will not be subject to entropy.

        Faith does not have to be unreasonable. The strongest faith is based upon falsifiable precepts. Out of all the religions in the world today, including atheism, Christianity is the most falsifiable of them all in precepts. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, ie. the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as they are based upon public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions, including that of the atheist, cannot be historically tested and therefore, are beyond fasifiability.

        The believer in Islam has to trust in a private encounter of Muhammad, and this encounter has always been unable to be tested historically. We have no way to truly investigate the crucial claims of Joseph Smith. Buddhism and Hinduism are NOT historic faiths: they do not have central claims of events in time and space that believers can or even be asked to investigate: you either adopt their philosophy or you don’t. Such believe with a blind faith.

        The difference from all the above is that atheistic materialism supports itself via negative apologetics. This is why an atheist who believes in the laws of physics.cannot reconcile that belief with consistently via Big Bang cosmology The negative apologetic style is also behind such comments as, “You must have a very special version of the bible,” or referring to special creation as “magic” when their belief in the nature of the universe is no less based upon an event of supernatural origin.

        • John N

          >’Pagans and materialists believe in the eternalness of matter.’

          Do they? I’m not aware of such a believe. And I don’t see the relevance.

          >’For example,the flawed big bang theory initially received push-back for its implication that everything had a beginning …’

          I did not know the Big Bang-theory was flawed. Must have missed the last creationists’ update.

          >’Excuse me, but a belief in that which is beyond or above the laws of physics is an appeal to the supernatural.’

          How so?

          The laws of physics are based on our understanding of the universe. When that understanding grows, those laws changed accordingly. That happened several times in the past, like the theory of General Relativity replacing Nexton’s law of gravitation. But never in that process did scientists needed to make appeal to the supernatural.

          So, why would it now?

          >’Yes, most adherents of the big bang are unwittingly anchoring their belief upon the supernatural (Some adherents acknowledge this belief outright).’

          And what evidence do you have to support such strange claim? Do you do mind reading?

          I leave your trying to connect the bible with actual science to you. I do know some religious folks read in their bible anything they want to read, but that doesn’t make it truth. As far as rational people can say, the bible was written by people ignorant of cosmology. And it is very strange attacking me for the comparison of religion and magic, and then using claims like ‘matter being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) from the spoken Word of God’. Now that is Magic.

          >’The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, ie. the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as they are based upon public events that can be historically verified.’

          You do know what falsifiablity means, I hope? Because these claims are not falsifiable.

          Unless you mean that, until there is conclusive evidence of the death, burial and ressurection of Christs, Christiannity is exactly like al the other religions, i.e. false.

          >’The difference from all the above is that atheistic materialism supports itself via negative apologetics. This is why an atheist who believes in the laws of physics.cannot reconcile that belief with consistency via Big Bang cosmology.

          This is BS. Atheistic materialism? Negative apologetics? ‘Belief’ in the laws of physics? All in one sentence? What do you mean exactly?

          • Tony Robinson

            By your own admission, you do not seem to know much, whether it concerns a belief in the eternalness of matter or inherent problems with Big Bang Cosmology that even high level adherents admit. This is one reason by appeals to the supernatural are being heralded by their leading scientists in the form of alternate universes, singularities, multi-verse, et cetera. All beyond observation and the laws of physics.

            Your level of proof is also inconsistent and unrealistic. Courts of law understand not only physical evidence, but documentary, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence. On the one hand you easily accept by faith a supernatural beginning for the universe – something beyond observation or subjection to laws of physics, but on the other hand eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die to maintain the testimony of what they saw are summarily dismissed (for over a month and half, Jesus walked and talked with hundreds of his followers, over 500 at a time, after his resurrection – people may be willing to die for a lie that they think is true, but not so much for something they know to be a fabrication).

            “The difference from all the above is that atheistic materialism supports itself via negative apologetics,” describes another manifestation of principles outlined in 2 Peter 3:3-6. It is also a description of the types of posts you’ve made.

          • John N

            >’This is one reason by appeals to the supernatural are being heralded by their leading scientists in the form of alternate universes, singularities, multi-verse, et cetera. All beyond observation and the laws of physics.’

            Appeals to the supernatural? Because current laws of physics are not accurate enough to describe what came before current laws physics became applicable?

            I think you are confusing ‘unknown’ with ‘supernatural’. There is no reason to do so.

            >’Your level of proof is also inconsistent and unrealistic …On the one hand you easily accept by faith a supernatural beginning for the universe – something beyond observation or subjection to laws of physics’

            I don not accept a supernatural beginning. I accept the fact that we don’t know – yet – what came before the big bang. I accept the fact that we may never know. I do not accept pointing to a god to explain the origins of our universe, in the abscence of any evidence of such a god.

            >’… but on the other hand eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die to maintain the testimony of what they saw are summarily dismissed (for over a month and half, Jesus walked and talked with hundreds of his followers, over 500 at a time, after his resurrection – people may be willing to die for a lie that they think is true, but not so much for something they know to be a fabrication).’

            Eyewitness is about the most inaccurate form of evidence in science. The human eye is so easily deceived. But that is not the problem. Actually, there is no eyewitness that actually reported in a reliable way his contacts with Jesus. We do now people are able to do anything to promote their agenda. We do know people do not ressurect when dead. The most logical answer is, the authors of the bible lied.

            >’The difference from all the above is that atheistic materialism supports itself via negative apologetics’

            Repeating this does not give it more sense. Using bible verses as an argument is useless, unless you can show evidence your bible was written by more than mere human authors.

          • Tony Robinson

            You stated, “Because current laws of physics are not accurate enough to describe what came before current laws physics became applicable?” Laws of physics not accurate enough? You really do not understand the difficulty here. Materialism can never explain how the laws of physics could come from nothing or from something that does not obey the laws of physics. But you have indicated several times that your belief in their origin is immaterial to you.

            You stated, “I think you are confusing ‘unknown’ with ‘supernatural’.” Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Your faith in the unknown is commendable, and it is a strong but misplaced faith. No, supernatural is something or a process that is above and beyond natural laws of physics and therefore not constrained by them. All atheistic or material explanations of beginnings draw upon the explicit or implicit belief in something they do not know, cannot know, but can only imagine to be.

            You stated, “Eyewitness is about the most inaccurate form of evidence in science.” I understand your faith in the unknown is a strong one, but direct observation is a critical truth claim. No eyewitness that actually reported in a reliable way? They spent over a month and a half, not merely seeing, but touching and handling Jesus, doubting Thomas being among the first. Your understanding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is flawed and cannot survive jurisprudence. That many people have never been willing to die and face persecution to advance what they knew to be a bold-face lie. Their chief prosecutor, Saul of Tarsus, having legal authority to imprison and kill the followers of Christ (which he did to many of them) also claimed to have seen and spoke with the risen Christ – suffering stoning, and many perils over decades, yet he maintained his story. Paul also testified in court to a Roman governor regarding the resurrection: “and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive” (Acts 25:19).

            You stated, “We do know people do not resurrect when dead,” but failed to add the caveat, “because we refuse to believe every account to the contrary, regardless how solid the testimony and physical evidence once presented.” Jesus was not the first, nor the last, to be resurrected.

            You stated, “unless you can show evidence your bible was written by more than mere human authors.” Ah, that was what PUBLIC miracles and signs at the time were supposed to affirm before the scrutiny of the contemporary public.

            Although I can admire someone’s faith in the unknown, the known is what I want you to consider: such would require you to not summarily dismiss it with the poor excuses you’ve given thus far. You stated, “I don not accept a supernatural beginning” and yet you have no natural explanation for our existence but rather offer up things that are unknown to you though you believe in their existence, though the unknown cannot account for a beginning at all. This is the epitome of a negative apologetic. You negatively mock testimony that has been passed down by sincere eye-witnesses while making a plea to embrace ignorance as a means to intellectual salvation.

            Your faith in the unknown and unknowable will eventually lead to destruction. Scripture accurately described this phenomena in Romans 1:19-32.

          • John N

            >’Materialism can never explain how the laws of physics could come from nothing or from something that does not obey the laws of physics.’

            The laws of physics come from man. It is “a theoretical statement inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present” (definittion : Wikipedia). So consider it explained now.

            >’Your faith in the unknown is commendable, and it is a strong but misplaced faith.’

            Where did I say I have ‘faith’ in the unknown? I accept that maybe some things will remain unknown, but I think that would be a pity. I do not have ‘faith’ in the unknown.

            >’No, supernatural is something or a process that is above and beyond natural laws of physics and therefore not constrained by them. All atheistic or material explanations of beginnings draw upon the explicit or implicit belief in something they do not know, cannot know, but can only imagine to be.’

            Since there is no evidence nor need of the supernatural in anything science explained so far, there is no reason to consider it in things to be explained.

            >’I understand your faith in the unknown is a strong one, but direct observation is a critical truth claim.’

            It is indeed a claim. And in absence of testable evidence it remains just that – a claim. Confronted with the actual, empirical evidence that dead people do not rise from death, the claim can be easily dismissed.

            >’You stated, “We do know people do not resurrect when dead,” but failed to add the caveat, “because we refuse to believe every account to the contrary, regardless how solid the testimony and physical evidence once presented’

            No, we reject claims based on eye-witness if they are contrary to the empirical evidence, like science telling us dead people do not resurrect. Belief is not necessary.

            By the way, people have been willing to die for a lot of silly reasons, their belief in the supernatural being one of them. That does not mean the supernatural exists.

            >’You stated, “I don not accept a supernatural beginning” and yet you have no natural explanation for our existence but rather offer up things that are unknown to you though you believe in their existence, though the unknown cannot account for a beginning at all.’

            There are still a lot of things we don’t know about our origins. But we do know a lot more than the people who wrote the bible. We have a lot to thank the scientific method for that. And so far, all explanations science has given us, there was no need to include the supernatural. Every phenomenon previously addressed to the gods – lightning and thunder, floods and earthquakes, suns and planets, the diversity of life – all explained by natural causes and phenomenons.

            Religion has been in the world far longer than science, and far more people in the world are religious than there are scientists. Still so far no religion ever gave us any actual, testable evidence of the supernatural.

            Now what do you think will happen when we further investigate the orgins of life and of the universe?

            >’ … though the unknown cannot account for a beginning at all.’

            Nobody claimed that.

            >’This is the epitome of a negative apologetic. You negatively mock testimony that has been passed down by sincere eye-witnesses while making a plea to embrace ignorance as a means to intellectual salvation.’

            ‘Epitome of a negative apologetic… Intellectual salvation… that are some Deepities you use here!

            No, I do not mock testimony by eye-witness. I mock people who rather believe a book written two thousands years ago by authors which had a clear agenda – promote their new religion – known to contain multiple errors, contradictions and misconceptions, above the explanations given by the scientific method based on testable, empiral evidence.

            >’Your faith in the unknown and unknowable will eventually lead to destruction. Scripture accurately described this phenomena in Romans 1:19-32.’

            …and to conclude, we have the usual threats of eternal damnation and destruction if we do not believe exactly like you do. You really must be out of arguments. So be it.

          • Tony Robinson

            You stated, “The laws of physics come from man.”
            Oh, they did not exist before man or wickedpedia. Here I was thinking we discover laws, not create them. Sorry, my mistake. I’ll act out Proverbs 24:4 from here on then.

          • John N

            >’… Louis Pasteur (Among his many achievements, he disproved spontaneous generation of life).

            Which he did not. He disproved the idea that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. But I understand creationists never actually check their sources.

            >’How so many people would suffer and/or die for an agenda they knew to be a lie – not that they did so hoping it to be true, but knew rather to be a lie’

            Who said they knew? Self deception is a powerfull tool, as we still can see in religious people. But a better explanation is that is all made up. After all, I still did not see any evidence for your story to be more than a story – like some unbiased historical records writings from Jezus’ contemporaries …

            >’That people who do not want to be held accountable to a Creator have an even bigger motivation to further their agenda – one that is ultimately built upon faith in what they do not know’

            O, I forgot, Christians need to be held accountable … but only to their mythical ‘Creator’. Because that allows them to brutalize and discriminate their fellow humans, like people who tend to have a different sex orientation.

            >’To claim there is no God is a truth claim – supposing that God does not exist outside your sphere of experience)’

            So you accept that Odin exists? Baal? Zeus? Because if you claim they don’t, you are supposing … whatever.

            >’You stated, “The laws of physics come from man.” Oh, they did not exist before man or wickedpedia? Here I was thinking we discover laws, not create them’
            Of course they came from man. For most laws of physics, we actually know who originally described them.

            Why? Do you have any evidence they were not defined by humans? Does your bible now also serve as a law book?

  • Elie Challita

    Old news, honestly, and badly misrepresented:
    You keep assuming that water automatically means liquid water or chunks of ice, which is very different from what’s been found.
    What the researchers think they found is a layer of water-rich minerals. This is a way of saying that the diamonds they found, for example, had a higher content of H2O molecules bonded to them, to create ringwoodite for example. That’s actually very much in line with the theory of water-bearing asteroids (water bonded to the asteroids’ minerals might not have gotten released upon impact) or with how accretion led to the planet forming in successive layers, with the inner layers becoming more dense as more layers piled on them.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

    That the great basins of the earth were filled with water (origin of the oceans) from the action of plate tectonics has been a hypothesis for a very long time. Too, it is known that many comets and asteroids contain water-ice and/or abundant water molecules. From the early formation of the earth ~4.5 billion years ago, there was virtually a constant bombardment of comets and asteroids for 100s of millions of years–many of which were quite large. It is even likely that a small planet collided with the earth, the remains of which formed the moon.

    As usual, creationism seizes on scientific discoveries to spin into their world view (guess how many years it takes to form a diamond?), but then creationists reject any discoveries that tend to refute their view (plate tectonics, astronomy, physics, evolutionary science/paleoanthropology etc.).

    Propaganda lies as much in spinning/distorting true information as it does in exclusion of pertinent information. Fox “news” understands that very well.

  • Paul Placucci

    200 years ago If i were to say the earth in round and obits the sun I would be burnt at a stake. 200 years ago if i could communicate with people on the other side of the world like we can today with mobile phones it would be labeled the devils work or some kind of sorcery. Seems you guys want to believe in science only when it suits you.

  • Herb Planter

    I’ve always figured they be able to find the spots in the ocean and follow the cracks deep into earth and see where water spewed threw. Like the Meridian trench etc.