Churches Counter Darwin Birthday Events With ‘Creation Sunday,’ ‘Stop Darwin Day’

darwin pdHundreds of congregations are honoring Charles Darwin’s birthday today by observing “Evolution Weekend,” but a number of other churches instead are celebrating “Creation Sunday” and “Stop Darwin Day” to honor and acknowledge God as the author of life and all creation.

As previously reported, numerous assemblies celebrate Darwin’s February 12th birthday with “Evolution Weekend” or “Evolution Sunday.” The more than 300 congregations paying homage to the notorious father of evolution this year hail from many different denominations, including Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Unitarian, Episcopal, and Presbyterian.

Since 2009, Tony Breeden, founder of, has led an effort to counter the evolution celebrations with the God-honoring Creation Sunday. In an interview with Christian News Network, Breeden described Creation Sunday as a “grassroots effort” that has seen surprising results.

“Creation Sundays is essentially a grassroots movement and I’ve been pleasantly surprised over the years at the churches who’ve made a point to make this an annual event for their congregations,” he stated. “I’ve also been thrilled at the cooperation between Creation Sunday and complementary initiatives like Question Evolution Day.”

Churches who will observe Creation Weekend in 2016 include congregations in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Canada. Several are scheduled to host speakers from various Creation and apologetic ministries, including Living Waters, Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

While some believers argue that a staunch commitment to a literal interpretation of the biblical creation account is divisive, Breeden disagrees.

“People sometimes look at biblical young earth creationism as a divisive thing, but the Church is only divided when some of them start veering away from the faith once delivered,” he said. “If you want your church to be truly unified, it needs to line up with its Sourcebook.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Not only is evolution incompatible with the Bible, Breeden argues, but it leads many people to walk away from the Christian faith.

“There is always a crisis point when one considers the claims of millions of years and/or microbes-to-man evolution because these concepts stand at direct odds with the plain meaning of Scripture, which reveals a young earth created in six calendar days about 6,000 years ago and that organisms were created according to their respective kinds,” he said.

“People leave the faith because they assume that the blind, inconsistent assumption of naturalism is infallible when only God can make that claim,” he added. “Naturalism is a useful tool for the investigation of God’s world, but its conclusions need to be tempered against the infallible revelation of God’s word.”

Breeden hopes to disseminate this message each year with Creation Sunday as churches celebrate God and His word instead of Darwin and evolution.

“We’re working together for God and His glory, and I think that’s just awesome!” Breeden said.

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
  • Josey

    Genesis 1:3-5 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Day and night is for our benefit, we also keep time by our days so when God calls one day and one night that’s exactly what He means, He created the earth in six days period. I know some say since to God a day is like a thousand years and vice versa and this is true for in God’s Heavenly realm there is no time, only eternity but God created day and night for mankind’s benefit and I believe what He says about the Creation of earth literally. And also time is for mankind in the prophetic realm of this or that coming to pass.

    • John N

      And this has to do with Darwin or the Theory of Evolution how exactly?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        It doesn’t.

      • Guest

        That went *whoosh!* right over your head.

    • FoJC_Forever

      God didn’t create the universe in 6 days. He reformed it from its devastated condition after the war between Lucifer (and his angelic followers) and Michael (and the remaining angels who didn’t rebel with Lucifer).

      • gizmo23

        Where is that in the Bible?

        • FoJC_Forever

          If you cared about what the Scriptures reveal, you would be following Jesus and reading it every day. Then you would know. As it is, you’re just another lazy mind who wants someone else to do the work for you.

          • gizmo23

            Do tell, where is

          • gizmo23

            Do tell. Where is this creation story in the Bible.
            Thanks for the wonderful Christian insult. What a great example you are

      • Josey

        Not sure what Bible you got all that from, in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. vs31 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 2:1-3 vs1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

        • FoJC_Forever

          What I wrote is not refuted by the Scriptures you quote. What I wrote does not refute Genesis. I believe completely in the Genesis account, I’m just not jaded by those who mix natural knowledge with spiritual knowledge. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the Scriptures, not science.

          There is more to the universe than the Beginning of mankind. It predates our existence. There was no time, nor natural measure of time when God created the universe. When He began the intricate work of laying out the, then, heavens and earth, He did it in six days, but the universe existed before those events. You should expand your search for knowledge about this issue beyond Genesis. But, I suspect you’ve been caught up in the erroneous mix of science and Faith from those who simply like to argue with atheists and evolutionists.

          All will see just how little we actually know about the universe and God’s eternal existence when we stand before Him and “know as we are known”.

          The answers are in Jesus, the Eternal Word of God, not Genesis.

          Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • acontraryview

    Wow. Eight churches in the US and Canada. Quite the strong showing. if he finds that number “pleasantly surprising” he must have had pretty low expectations.

  • This style ten and six

    You can believe a 2000 to 3000 year old book, written by members of a small, nomadic tribe in the middle east to explain the world around them or you can believe the conclusions of tens of thousands of modern scientists working with the latest knowledge and instruments. Seems a no-brainer to me.

    • The Last Trump

      I know right?
      All the way.

    • Guest

      There are plenty of modern scientists who don’t fall for Darwinism. 🙂 You should try to get out more.

      • This style ten and six

        The ToE is accepted by 94% of scientists, 99% of biologists. It is a fact. Get that into your head.

        • Guest

          First of all, your numbers are off, but let’s pretend they’re correct. Do you really believe numbers = accuracy? That must mean that you believe Islam is the supreme religion, since there are so many Muslims, right? 🙂 How about the guy who discovered H. pylori? He was laughed at, scorned, mocked, and disbelieved by just about everyone until they finally awoke and realized he was right. So numbers don’t equal accuracy.

          • This style ten and six

            If you wish to continue wallowing in ignorance I can’t help you.

          • Guest

            You got nothing, huh? 🙂

          • John N

            How about the guy (sic) who discovered H. pylory?

            The work of Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who discovered Helicobacter pylori in1982, was quickly recognized as a breakthrough in stomach disease research and already five years later a treatment was found based on their findings.

            Creationism, on the other hand, has been in the running for hundreds of years and we still are waiting for a usefull hypothesis.

            The difference between the two? Evidence.

            Creationism has no theory, no research program, and no evidence, and is therefore rejected by 99% of all biologists.

          • Guest

            It wasn’t quickly recongized as breakthrough science. it was mocked. Read his bio.

            Creationism has been around for 6,000 years and all the greats – Damadian, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Pupin, etc., were all Creationists. I’ll give you time to look them up. 🙂

          • John N

            Right, Marshall and Warren were ‘mocked’ for their findings. That is probably why it took only 3 years before it was used in practice, and a few more years (1987) before their hypothesis was widely accepted.

            … and all the greats where creationists. So what? The theory of Evolution dates from 1859. What did you expect?

            More important is that almost all biologists that came after that time are all ‘Darwinists’. And those that do not accept the Theory of Evolution, do so not because of the lack of evidence, but because they prefer the dogma of religion.

          • Guest

            Okay, my post has been removed and now marked “pending”. Let’s try it this way:

            You clearly don’t know how science works, John. Regarding the H. plyori find:

            amasci DOT com SLASH weird SLASH vindac DOT html

            As far as great finds being made by Creationists go, Faraday was a
            contemporary of Darwin, and he disaparaged Darwin’s theory. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI, is alive and well right now. There goes your theory of there being no living Creationists. 🙂

            Then there’s this list of Dissent from Darwin scientists:

            dissentfromdarwin DOT org

            They’re not all religious, John, so there goes that theory of yours – *poof!*, too.

            How about biologist Dr. Colin Patterson, who was NOT religious yet still doubted evolution.

            So – you got nothing, John. Evolution is believed by those who are stupid, because there is nothing about evolution that is a.) scientific, and b.) that has ever been proven.

      • Cady555

        Point me to their published work.

        In what year did they win the Nobel Prize for coming up with a theory to replace evolution that addresses all the evidence while having no evidence against it? That, of course, is the requirement for a scientific theory.

        • Guest

          You mean like this published work?

          “Evolution’s Avhilles’ Heels”

          It’s written by 9 Ph.d scientists, all of whom teach science at secular, respected universities.

          By the way, no one’s won a Nobel Prize for “proving” evolution either, because it’s never been proven, and never will be. 🙂

          • Cady555

            I wasn’t specific enough. I meant peer reviewed scientific studies, not pulp nonsense.

            A marine biologist wrote about genetics. An engineer wrote about geology. A PhD in chemistry wrote about the origin of life even though the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life.

            Try again.

          • Guest

            Actually, if you’d bothered to check out the source, you’d see they ARE all published in peer reviewed secular journals. 🙂 Clearly you don’t know much about science, or you would know that there are SECULAR scientists who are published in PEER REVIEWED journals, who question evolution.

          • Cady555

            There are more scientists 1. with PhDs in relevant fields and 2. named Steve who accept evolution than there are PhDs regardless of name or specialty who reject evolution. (Google Project Steve).

          • Guest

            How many user names do you have? You tried this stuff before on another site. 🙂

            Majority doesn’t always equal right. Look how many Muslims there are. 🙂

    • Reason2012

      The Bible wasn’t meant to be a science textbook, but nevertheless there are scientific facts in the Bible that scientists could not figure out until thousands of years later.

      1 Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

      2 Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

      At a time when it was believed that the earth sat? on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

      3 Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

      4 The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

      5 Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”

      6 Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

      7 “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

      8 At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

      9 The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world

      10 God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

      There’s many more than this. We will be without excuse when we face God – forgiveness is available now, but will not be when it’s too late.

      • This style ten and six

        I have seen this list over and over. Of course it is possible to use biblical verses to appear to predate modern science. Some of them are o vious, any primitive man could see that if an animal bleeds enough it will die. As for hygiene there is no evidence that biblical life spans were longer than in the nineteenth century, it would have been less than 40. The lightning thing; a vague statement nowhere near Maxwell’s equations. The air currents; yes they noticed that the wind blew. And so on and so forth.

        Meanwhile, a bat is bird, rabbits chew the cud, the sun stands still for 24 hours, a guy lived inside a fish for 3 days, a virgin gave birth. And so on.

        • Reason2012

          Scientists did not discover these things until thousands of years later and ignoring this fact doesn’t change it.

          // Meanwhile, a bat is bird, //

          Show where the Bible calls a bat a bird. And keep in mind the Bible is originally in Greek/Hebrew, not English

          // rabbits chew the cud, //

          // the sun stands still for 24 hours, //

          If you start with the assumption that God is real, God that can create the heavens and the Earth, it’s trivial for Him to stop the Earth from spinning for 24 hours if He wishes. So pointing out the Earth not rotating for 24 hours doesn’t in any way refute Him. Not sure why you think it does?

          // a guy lived inside a fish for 3 days, //

          “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.”
          Jonah 1:17

          God prepared that great fish specifically for this task – supernatural creation of a unique great fish. If you assume God exists, then it’s clear He CAN do something like this.

          // a virgin gave birth. //

          We can do this as well: In vitro fertilization – for a woman who has never had sex either.

          It’s interesting that in your attempt to defend what’s supposed to be science (fish to mankind evolutionism) you can only instead resort to attacking the Bible and belief in God. Your own behavior shows even you know fish to men evolutionism is anti-science as science needs no such thing to defend things that are actually science yet that’s all you have to offer.

          Here’s how actual science deals with such things:
          Someone doubts objects fall to the ground? Show them.
          Someone doubts diseases spread? Show them.
          Someone doubts matter affects matter? Show them.

          Someone doubts fish to mankind evolutionism? Attack the Bible and belief in God.
          Someone doubts your religion? Attack the Bible and belief in God.

          Live forever!

          • This style ten and six

            You do realise that if the earth stopped spinning the released energy would destroy it. That you can justify this nonsense shows you are beyond hope.

          • Reason2012

            Please back up your claim that if the Earth stopped spinning for 24 hours the energy would destroy it.

            Secondly if we start with the assumption the supernatural exists, namely God, then God can do anything.

            Someone doubts fish to mankind evolutionism? Attack the Bible and belief in God.
            Someone doubts your religion? Attack the Bible and belief in God.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Hey, just gonna jump in on the earth thing, real quick.

            So the Earth is spinning super duper fast around the sun, right? Thousands of miles per hour. Think about yourself driving in a car at a measly 70mph. Pretty fast right? And if you came to an immediate stop you’d be in some pain; all that forward traveling mass suddenly stopping, even without an obstruction like a wall, is going to royally hurt because you’re essentially accelerating from 70mph to 0mph in an instant. We’re talking bleeding from orifices, misplaced organs, whiplash, it may just kill you.

            But you’re small, and 70mph is slow. The Earth is HUGE and going way faster. If it were to suddenly stop, it’s mass would probably break up from the sudden (de-)acceleration, inhabitants would be thrown every which way and that’d pretty much be it for the Earth, as a celestial body.

            It’s like they say; it’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the end.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The spin of the earth is measured in hours- 24. The rotation of the earth around the sun is measured by the Seasons.

            God didn’t stop the earth from rotating around the sun, but the stopped the earth’s spin. And, being God, He compensated for the sudden change of ‘natural law’.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, the earth is spinning and if that spin stops the just like when the car stops and you keep moving, the earth will stop spinning and you will be moving at about 500 miles per hour. Until you hit something.

          • FoJC_Forever

            *see my response to Lexical Cannibal.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Hey man, you come up with whatever justification you like, I just wanted to help answer a cool science question. Fair point on spin vs. revolution though. A sudden stop (even a gradual one over the course of the preceeding 24 hours, probably) would still tear the earth to bits and fling everything not nailed down all kinds of this way and that, but then again most physics models don’t account for cosmic beings giving inertia the middle finger, so there’s that.

          • FoJC_Forever

            God has all power over creation. He stopped the earth from spinning, and certainly wouldn’t allow for “inertia” to interrupt the intent of His stopping it.

            God is not subject to the universe and all the “laws” which govern its existence and operation. It is subject to Him. Your lack of Faith is expressed in your lack of understanding of God. If you knew God, you would know that nothing we can fathom and perceive is above Him, beyond Him, or over Him.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

          • Reason2012

            // Think about yourself driving in a car at a measly 70mph. Pretty fast right? And if you came to an immediate stop //

            Hello. What if you came to a stop over 15 seconds from 70mph? And what if the Earth’s spinning came to a stop over 5 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? It doesn’t say it was an instantaneous stop.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            In fairness to you, I’m not a physicist and don’t have the math on hand, but everything I know about that kind of mass and inertia says it wouldn’t be likely without some serious rammifications. A car is about 2,000lbs give or take, but the earth is approximately 13,166,006,300,000,000,000,000,000lbs, also give or take, and all that mass is spinning at about 1,000mph. Think about how long it takes a 2 tonne car to slow from 70mph to a dead stop. Maybe like 3-5 seconds? Remember though, cars are tiny.

            Now we also don’t have things like external impact or air resistence to worry about, but that’s just about a metric butt-ton of inertia, and it would take considerably longer than an hour to come to a complete stop without anyone noticing it, likely in the order of years, and in all that time, people would still notice the differences, since days would start to take significantly longer, seasons would get kinda messed up, circadian rythyms (sleep cycles) would get all kinds of messed up, and then there’s the matter of the earth’s core.

            You ever slide a full jug of milk across the counter? It like, slides a bit, then stops, and slides a bit more. It does that because the milk inside is liquid and so moves independently of the solid plastic container. Since the milk makes up a significant portion of the mass, its inertia has big effects on the movement. The Earth, meanwhile, has a super dense liquid metal core. This is actually what adds a lot of time to that slowing down because if the earth were to just stop over the course of an hour, the core would continue rotating inside the earth, but either faster or slower, depending on its direction relative to the Earth’s spin and that could be kind of devastating. First there’s all the extra friction from if it were going faster that would mess with the mantle and tectonic plates, likely causing all kinds of random earthquakes and volcanoes, not to mention resulting in a net energy loss for the core, since it’s expending all that energy in friction without the extra help of the earth. Then there’s the magnetic field that the core is at least partially responsible, a faster spin would make it stronger and absolutely mess up every animal that uses that for guidance and have who knows what effect on our atmosphere. A slower spin would weaken that magnetic field and expose us to a bunch more cosmic radiation, possibly killing everyone. All of this, of course, is still setting aside the fact that if the Earth’s rotation were to come to a sudden stop, even over the course of an hour or days, it would still almost certainly shatter into a million pieces from having to disperse all of that kinetic energy so quickly.

            Short version; stopping the rotation of the Earth over an hour would be absolutely catastrophic. The Earth is HUGE and moving REALLY REALLY FAST, and there’s pretty much no way to do it in such a way that humans would notice the change but not also die horribly. That said, you guys basically operate on 1950’s Superman rules and as FoJC_Forever pointed out, your god could allegedly ‘compensate for the sudden change of natural law.’

            Personally though, that smacks of a schoolyard “Nuh uh!” but whatever. I’m just here to talk about cool science stuff.

          • Reason2012

            Two problems: Using a carton of milk stopping via friction example is weak at best and again ignores what I pointed out how something can be slowed down at a rate that does not cause such disruptions – the better analogy would be the carton of milk moving through space and it being slowed down at a rate where the milk slows down along with it. More schoolyard “nuh uh!”, as it were. Or if you prefer, the derivative of acceleration being quite small.
            Secondly, we’re talking supernatural anyway: If God via superantural means is able to temporarily slow them stop the rotating if the Earth, He is able to also supernaturally deal with any possible consequences you seem to think there are if any.

            You might want to attack Jesus rising back to life after being dead and decaying for three days, as this does clearly contradict observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact. But pointing out natural means as to why that’s also “impossible” doesn’t mean God could not do that either again via supernatural means.

          • This style ten and six

            So god creates the laws of physics and at a whim, breaks them. Some god!

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Hey man, you asked for some kind of back up on whether or not the Earth just out and out stopping would destroy it. I delivered. You asked about what would change if it were done over time and I delivered again. If you want to say “Yeah, but god” then okay, that’s not what I’m here for. I’m not interested in debating the validity of your scripture, because you’re just going to “yeah, but god” all over it. I just wanted to talk about a cool science hypothetical.

            Secondly, the milk illustration was mostly to talk about how a thing within a container will, itself, act upon that container, and noticeably so if it has more mass than the container. To come to your stipulation about it slowing down at the same rate as the milk inside of it, that’s very possible and safe if you’re talking milk jugs but I return again to the fact that the Earth is huge, moving very fast, and has way, way more inertia. Slowing it down at the same rate as the core would slow down would…well, we’d still be spinning, actually, since the core is still spinning independently to this day. Assuming that god slowed it down too though, it would also have to slow down over a long time (still bunches of inertia don’tchaknow) and leave the Earth to be bombarded with unsafe levels of cosmic radiation for however long it took to safely slow it down and speed it back up again (again, we’re probably talking years).

            Looking back, I actually didn’t ignore what you pointed out, I specifically addressed it, saying that the rate of velocity change to keep everyone safe and sound would be way, way longer than an hour, since the Earth is so massive and going so fast, and I quote

            but [the Earth has] just about a metric butt-ton of inertia, and it would take considerably longer than an hour to come to a complete stop without anyone noticing it, likely in the order of years,

            Interpret it as “Oh wow my god is so awesome he did it anyway” if you want to, that’s cool. There’s no need to get snippy over it because it wasn’t the answer you wanted though.

          • This style ten and six

            I would say it would take millennia. This Joshua’s long day really gets biblical literalist’s knickers in a twist.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Maybe it was a prophecy and the Earth is actually still slowing down in preparation for that day!


          • This style ten and six

            The earth is slowing down. Fortunately neither nor any of our descendants for generations will notice it.

          • Reason2012

            Giving an opinion in the form of “likely” without backing it up in the least is not answering the question so you gave no answer to begin with.

            At least you now admit it’s possible to slow down the Earth’s rotation without causing issues. That’s a start.

            The only issue is your hypothetical made up claim that it would “take years” to do, without proving your claim in the least.

            It wouldn’t take years. As long as acceleration (deceleration in this case) remains small, people will not notice.

            Here are facts that refute your claim that it would take years and show it came be done in less than an hour:

            Say you are in a car going 60 mi/hour. Let off the gas and if the car slows down 1 mi/hour every second, it will come to a stop after about 60 seconds: Deceleration: 1 mile/hour per second. A large bin of water would barely react to such a thing.

            The circumference of the Earth is estimated to be about 25,000 miles. Which means just looking at rotation, on the surface of the Earth we’re moving at roughly:

            25,000 mi / 24 hour = 1041.7 mi/hour.

            Using the previous same deceleration: 1042 seconds to likewise slow down at the rate of 1 mile/hour per second.

            That’s 1042 seconds to slow to a stop at the same slow rate / 60 sec/min = 17 minutes. Which rebukes your unsubstantiated claim that it would “take years”.

            Secondly, you do realize God rose from being dead and decaying for three days do you not?

            You do realize this contradicts observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact, do you not?

            Do you have a problem with God “did it anyway”?

            If God told us He did something, end of story: no need for us to dismiss it just because we may not like that He did it.

            Hope this helps.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            No, I admit that it’s possible to slow down the Earth without shattering it into a million pieces. That’s fundamentally different than “not causing issues.”

            But okay, let’s talk about this.

            One thing I’ve said over and over now is that in addition to going really fast, the Earth is MASSIVE. Lots of mass plus lots of speed equals lots of inertia or kinetic energy and that’s really what you’re fighting against. A sedan may only take 60 seconds to go from 60 to 0 with no application of the breaks, but a Mack truck will take significantly longer, especially if it’s fully loaded. It has more mass and that mass needs more energy applied to it to both speed up AND slow down.

            Your hypothetical car, let’s say it’s a two tonne sedan, would have about 326KJ (Kilojoules)of kinetic energy to it when it starts to slow down and, over that sixty seconds, it would hypothetically come to a complete stop, losing most or all of that energy. Except, it wouldn’t, it would probably take much longer unless it crashed into something. 326KJ or 326,333J if you want to be more precise, distributed over 60 seconds, is a loss of about 5438 Joules per second being enacted not only upon the car, but all of its occupants. For reference, an average punch rates about 150 joules, and a bullet at about 855 Joules. Your proposed rate of deceleraton is not, in fact, a smoothe and gentle glide to a total stop. It probably won’t kill anyone because the energy would be better distributed than a punch or a bullet and we’re surprisingly sturdy, but a blindfolded person would notice the difference immediately.

            And then there’s the Earth. Oh goodness, the Earth. The Earth has a mass of about 13,166,006,300,000,000,000,000,000lbs as stated before, and that plus the speed it’s traveling at gives it a kinetic energy of about 647,915,020,000,000,000,000,000,000,000J, or 6.4791502*10^29J because that other number is obnoxious and long. Dissipating that over 1042 seconds would mean a force of about 6.2179944*19^29J every single second of that seventeen minutes. The Tsar Bomba, largest bomb ever devised by mankind at 50 Megatons TNT only had a Kinetic energy of 1.6736e+17J, a fraction of what it would take to slow down the Earth to a stop in a mere 17 minutes. Slowing the spin of the Earth to a stop would be like detonating 450,664,230,000,000,000,000 Tsar Bombas distributed over every inch of the Earth every second for seventeen minutes. That’s more than 450 Quintillion Tsar Bombas acting for seventeen minutes over every inch of the entire surface of the Earth. And then a similar force acting on the core to slow it’s own independent spin. And it would have to act on the core as well, because as I remind you, the core is still spinning independently, stopping the earth would not effectively stop the core in a similar time frame.

            But that force is distributed, right? Force distribution can get tricky because it’s based on things like density, but for the sake of conversation, we’ll assume that the Earth is uniformly dense. 6.2179944*19^29 Joules of energy per second over the 196,000,000mi^2 of the Earth would mean 5.9012997e+19 or 59,012,997,000,000,000,000J per square inch of the Earth’s surface. You would die instantly, the Earth would shatter, and the battle would have to be declared a tie.

            But hey, okay, how long would it take to actually slow down the Earth safely without destroying it? Not even like nobody noticing it, just not destroying the sphere. I don’t have good data offhand, so I’ll err on the side of “you’re right” and let’s say that in addition to being uniformly dense, the Earth is also made of solid grey iron. Pretty sturdy material, right? The compressive strength of grey iron is 187,000psi or about 36,509,465.713J. So let’s exert just under that on our hypothetical Iron Earth until it slows to a stop after only…652,737,640,000,000 years. Under better circumstances than we could hope for in real life.

            Finally, let’s talk about your religion. I’ve said numerous times that I’m not here to debate the validity of your scripture. I’m not doing that specifically because if I were to, you would hand wave it with “But god could do it” and we’d both just leave grumpy at the other’s belligerence. I’d rather we just be friendly, so if you want to believe that your god found a way, then by all means believe it! Believe the heck out of it! I am not here to debate whether or not god *could* do such a thing, but rather to explain why such a thing happening would be very hard without breaking the laws of physics. If you want to interpret that as your god being above those laws, then gravy. Do that. Tops to you. That’s not what I’m here to talk about. I’m not attacking your religion, I’m roughly explaining how kinetic energy works because you raised an interesting question. Crìstes hana, mann.

          • Reason2012

            a Mack truck will take significantly longer, especially if it’s fully loaded. It has more mass and that mass needs more energy applied to it to both speed up AND slow down.

            It doesn’t matter how much “energy” (let alone where this energy comes from) to slow the mack truck down. The fact is even if an aircraft carrier was going 70 mi/hr and 1-4 seconds later it was going 69 mi/hr and so on, the effects on the carrier itself and its occupants is negligible, especially if it’s slowing down of its own accord.

            You’re instead focusing on the energy required to slow it down, which is a different topic and makes your point moot. God provided the energy needed to slow it down at such a negligible rate – it’s why it’s another “miracle”. Or perhaps He just stopped providing the energy that KEEPS it turning as fast as it does. Who knows? But the issue was raised that slowing down would be a problem and you’re instead focused on how much energy it would supposedly take – a different and irrelevant topic.

            I’m not doing that specifically because if I were to, you would hand wave it with “But god could do it” and we’d both just leave grumpy at the other’s belligerence.

            More logical than saying “nothing did it” which is all those who reject God can offer instead.

            I’d rather we just be friendly, so if you want to believe that your god found a way, then by all means believe it!

            And if some want to believe that “nothing” found a way to create a universe, create matter, energy and predictable laws of nature, then later create life, information in DNA to be decoded and acted upon to build organic machines, then by all means they can believe it as well! But interestingly they keep showing up where people believe otherwise are posting and attack said beliefs – you should consider why that is – why they go out of their way to find such people, find such beliefs, and then argue against them. it’s the best evidence they could ask for that their conscience knows the truth.

            I am not here to debate whether or not god *could* do such a thing, but rather to explain why such a thing happening would be very hard without breaking the laws of physics.

            Yet what about the belief “nothing did it”, which “breaks the laws of physics” or “something existed for an eternity and never needed to be created, had no cause” which also “breaks the laws of physics”. Such a stance to be concerned for breaking the laws of physics while then breaking them is hypocritical and doesn’t hold up.

            And where do you think these mathematically precise laws of nature came from to begin with? Natural chance? If so how can we ever rely on them since they should be unpredictable, not stable and predictable?

            If you want to interpret that as your god being above those laws, then gravy. Do that.

            If we start with the assumption of a supernatural being who created those laws, why would He then supposedly not be “able” to “break” those laws? That’s what a miracle is.

            You do realize people believe Jesus Christ rose from being dead and decaying for three days, do you not?

            You do realize this violates the laws of nature? Do you have a problem with that, too? Or is it only specific miracles you are instead trying to undermine in the Bible?

            What I’ve noticed is people don’t directly attack belief in God so they never address being raised from the dead – they instead seem more content with getting others to doubt God on the seemingly “less significant” things. Ever notice that? Why do you think that is? Isn’t it easier to attack Christians as out of their minds for believing someone died and was decaying for three days and came back to the life? That’s the core of the belief as if far more “ludicrous” than a spinning body merely slowing down that you seem determined to address instead.

            Anyway, food for thought. Thanks for posting.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            *inhales* Okay, here we go.

            Short version; A “Negligible” amount of energy applied would take trillions of years, an amount of energy sufficient to slow the Earth down in an hour would destroy it. Nothing is sustaining the Earth’s spin, the energy is conserved from whatever set it spinning in the first place.

            Your assertion that “Energy lost” and “Energy applied” are two different things is…actually completely 100% wrong and a first year physics student could tell you that. I can tell you that and I study linguistics. Any object with Kinetic energy will keep that kinetic energy until acted upon by another force. In the case of the Mack truck, without its engine it slows down over time due to friction from its wheels on the road, friction from its axle against the rest of it, and friction from the wind resistance. Force is being applied to that Mack truck, and that force will eventually stop it, after it whittles away whatever Joules of Kinetic energy the truck had going at 60MPH.

            In the vacuum of space though, we don’t get that. There are very few significant forces acting on the kinetic energy of the Earth’s rotation which is why it keeps going. Something a long time ago hit it in such a way to make it spin at that speed and because there’s no wind resistance and friction is essentially negligible that energy has more or less maintained itself. Regardless, even if there was enough wind in space, something would *have* to act on the Earth to slow its spin, even if it was just that mystical space wind. It just so happens that whatever it was would have to apply 450 quintillion Tsar Bombas of force to slow it down in your time frame.

            Your argument about the truck and the plane accelerating up or down one MPH is flawed for a few reasons as well. One, it seems like you’re making up your numbers of what would be an imperceptible rate of shift, come back when you can actually tell me how long and how much energy it actually takes to shift those vehicles up or down one MPH. Two, we’re dealing in a really small scale compared to the Earth and you, a Boeing 747 and a Mack Truck are actually bodies of pretty comparable size to each other in comparison. That also means that the vehicles are traveling really, really slow in comparison, so the shift is relatively small; small mass and small speed equals small energy. It may not seem small from your perspective, but when compared to the kinetic energy that spins the Earth it’s infinitesimal. Mass and velocity affect energy pretty much exponentially so a small body making a small shift in speed is going to result in much less energy applied to slow it down while a large body going even the same speed and changing the exact same amount in velocity is going to require way more energy and be way more noticeable.

            What doesn’t really go up though is the strength of material. You can slow a Mack truck from 60 to 0 in under sixty seconds and not go over the limit of strain that the matter the truck is made of can take. This number though is largely fixed, you can’t really change the tolerances of a given material without making it into another material and this means that large bodies like the Earth have a fixed amount of velocity change they can take before they start deforming and breaking up. I imagined an Earth that was actually sturdier than our current Earth and it still took trillions of years to slow it down at a safe enough rate so it wouldn’t start breaking.

            But look, here’s the thing. It’s clear that you’re not actually interested in any of this. All you’re interested in is trying to prove me wrong, so you can put one more tally on your side of the scoreboard. I’ve said time and time again that I’m not here for that, I’m here for cool science stuff. Maybe your god did do it. Maybe one of my gods did it. Maybe it never happened at all. I don’t know, I can’t tell you either way, and that is not the topic I jumped on for. All I can tell you is that doing so would break our current understanding of physics. That’s my answer, I feel like it completely fulfills the question any any followup you’ve had. I’ve gone out of my way to establish myself as religiously neutral on this question and instead stick strictly to the facts about what would have to happen according to our understanding of physics, while also allowing for the possibility of some god breaking those rules. That’s not enough for you though; you demand to be offended and so you are. Have a good day and as we say where I’m from; þín héafodpytt ic hope béo ácrammaþ mid þæm béoum. I’m out.

          • Reason2012

            Short version; A “Negligible” amount of energy applied

            I never said a “negligible” amount of energy applied. I said

            the effects on the carrier itself and its occupants is negligible


            God provided the energy needed to slow it down at such a negligible rate

            I was talking about the negligable effect it would have on its occupants and the negligible rate at which it’s slowed. You instead pretend I said “negligible amount of energy applied”, then go on to write paragraphs to refute what I never said, which makes your entire post moot.

            Take care.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Alright, one more to put this to bed because I guess I have a pathological need to correct wrong things. A negligible effect on a body and its non-attached peripherals and a negligible rate of acceleration implies a fairly negligible amount of energy applied; enough to slow it, but not noticibly. It’s possible I mispoke on that point, so I’ll grant you that, but the point itself stands. Counteracting that much kinetic energy so quickly means you’re applying a massive amount of energy at once; it’s not gentle. Dispersing that energy in a gentle way takes an incredibly long amount of time. This negligible rate you’re talking about is literally in the order of hundreds of trillions of years or more (remember, I only calculated slow enough to not destroy the Earth, not to avoid jostling its inhabitants). You cannot drain an ocean of energy with a spigot and expect even your grandchildren to see the results without some serious funny business going on.

            So, to repeat one more time; to slow the spin of the Earth down, you need to apply a lot of energy. To apply that energy in a non-catastrophic way, it would take an incredibly long time without some kind of problem solving cosmic being. None of these facts are controversial, they’re based on the Newtonian principles you were taught in high school. This is actually all the information I came here to communicate.

            Alright, I’m done. Hope you enjoyed the physics lesson!

          • Reason2012

            A negligible effect on a body and its non-attached peripherals and a negligible rate of acceleration implies a fairly negligible amount of energy applied;

            Completely false. The amount of force needed to slow an aircraft carrier down 1 mi/hr every second is a lot – but the affect on those on it would be negligible. A lot of energy required, unnoticeable to those on it.

          • ajpoll

            There was a rumour going around about 20 years ago that NASA computers had discovered a missing day around this period in history. Today’s astronomical software (Starry Nights and NASA algorithms for example) can pinpoint where planets and constellations were at any point in time past. There are no “missing days” so something other than the earth stopping its rotation might be in play here.
            Regardless, there are so many other remarkable signs and patterns in the sky that map out the gospel (including the star of Bethlehem) that we should not doubt that God did indeed “place” the stars and the moon and the sun in the heavens for our benefit.

          • Reason2012

            Amen! Good points!

          • Cady555

            The stars are distant stars all at different distances. The pattern is random.

          • Cady555

            You are playing chess with a pigeon. This is the point, now that he has knocked over the pieces and dropped a load on the board, that he flies off to tell his buddies he won.

          • Steven Thompson

            Why don’t you just invoke a miracle, since you’re invoking a miracle anyway? If God can create matter and energy from nothing, presumably He can annihilate them (cause them to be nothing). He could snap His fingers and just remove the Earth’s angular momentum from the universe; the Earth would stop rotating and no one’s dishes would so much as rattle. Then, after the Israelites had finished slaughtering their enemies, He could wiggle His nose or blink His eyes and the angular momentum would reappear, from nothing, and the Earth would resume rotating with no fuss and no muss.

            Of course, to the original authors and readers of the story, it was much simpler: the sun and moon were just lights attached to the sky over the flat Earth; God could presumably freeze them in place just as we could stop a Ferris wheel in mid-cycle, and then restart them the same way.

          • Reason2012

            It IS a miracle that God made the Earth’s rotation to come to a stop even over the span of an hour.

            But perhaps no other miracle is needed besides slowing rotation down to nothing over 20 minutes.

            For example, say you are in a car going 60 mi/hour. Gently let off the gas and if the car slows down 1 mi/hour every second, it will come to a stop after about 60 seconds: Deceleration: 1 mile/hour per second. A large bin of water would barely react to such a long slowdown from going a constant speed.

            The circumference of the Earth is estimated to be about 25,000 miles. Which means just looking at rotation, on the surface of the Earth we’re moving at roughly:

            25,000 mi / 24 hour = 1041.7 mi/hour.

            Using the previous same deceleration: 1042 seconds to likewise slow down at the rate of 1 mile/hour per second.

            That’s 1042 seconds to slow to a stop at the same slow rate / 60 sec/min = 17 minutes. Which rebukes your unsubstantiated claim that it would “take years”.

            You can even slow down 4 times as slow : losing 1 mi/hour every 4 seconds instead of every second, and it would still only take an hour!

          • This style ten and six

            Right on.

          • gizmo23

            Science deals only with natural events

          • Reason2012

            Yes, science deals only with natural events, which is why fish to mankind evolutionism is anti-science: a made up mythological belief that has never happened in the entire existence of the human race.

            The bottom line is: the topics of:
            – origin of the universe
            – origin of life
            – origin of all biological diversity of life

            are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table, with only reasons why they believe in it.

          • This style ten and six

            You are quite right; fish to mankind has never happened in the entire history of the human race. Fish started coming out of the water millions, billions of years ago. By the way they are still doing it. There are fish which can drag themselves from one pool of water to another. They may be on the way to becoming land animals. Evolution takes deep, deep time, millions,billions of years. That is what you cannot grasp.

          • This style ten and six

            The energy in the spinning globe would be turned to heat, which would incinerate the earth. Get in your car, accelerate to 100 k/h, make a panic stop and then get out and put your finger on a brake disk. Grade school physics. Find a safe spot to do this experiment.

          • Reason2012

            “Panic stop” – is where you err. If the car slows down at a slower rate, it’s fine – more grade school physics. Not to mention derivative of acceleration.

          • This style ten and six

            What on earth are you talking about? Just stop the thing however you want. The result will be the same.

          • gogo0

            “If you start with the assumption that God is real…”
            the perfect excuse to rationalize anything you want

          • Reason2012

            No, simply pointing out that “xyz proves God is false” is you using the assumption God does NOT exist to prove that God does not exist.

            If God DOES exist, He can trivially do what He said He did.

            The only issue is you do not believe.


            But to pretend “this act of God’s is physically impossible, hence God does not exist” is illogical.

          • gogo0

            I would never state that anything proves god is false or doesn’t exist, because that is not provable.

      • gizmo23

        Most people knew the Earth was round. The Greeks figured it out way before Columbus.

        • Reason2012

          It was already pointed out in the Bible. As one writer puts it

          “In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

          A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”

          Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.””

          • gizmo23

            The Greeks knew it before the Bible was put together, that is my point. No learned person thought the Earth was flat during Columbus’s time

          • Steven Thompson

            Again, we know, from the book of Enoch and the writings of Flavius Josephus, that the Jews of the first centuries BC and AD did not know the Earth was a sphere. They thought (both writers make it quite clear) that it was a flat disk with a dome over it. Josephus even explains that the sun moves from east to west across the inside of the sky by day, and west to east across the outside by night. The Jewish people did not know what you claim they knew, because the Bible does not say what you claim it says. Note that Isaiah 40:22 also speaks of the sky being set up like a tent: you erect a tent on flat ground, not over a sphere. One does not “steal” scientific knowledge, but the Jews seem to have been fairly late to the game in learning what Aristotle said before 300 BC.

          • Reason2012

            There is no book of Enoch in the Bible.

            Secondly, there are Christians and Jews even today who do not know some of the things that are in the Bible. The FACT you’re ignoring is it’s IN the Bible that it’s a sphere, and even that it’s day and night at the same time on Earth.

      • Steven Thompson

        [1] The Greek philosopher Democritus conjectured that all matter was made of invisibly tiny particles he called atomoi in the fourth century BC. By the first century AD, this was part of the widespread philosophy known as Epicureanism (you may recall that Paul spoke with some Epicureans on Mars Hill). So if Paul had wished to speak of “atoms,” he would have already had the word, and it would have been nothing very remarkable (except that it might have seemed strange to insist that Christians knew by faith what the practically atheistic Epicureans believed through reason and conjecture).

        [2] Humans vary in their biological cycles. For that matter, babies vary in exactly how many days after conception they are born. It would be an utterly astonishing thing if blood-clotting actually peaked at eight days after birth for everyone. I do not actually believe this claim.

        [?] Job also speaks (9:6) of the Earth resting on pillars, or foundations. Both Genesis and Malachi speak of the windows in the sky that God opens to let “the waters above the sky” fall as rain. Note that most ancient near eastern cosmologies said nothing about the Earth resting on some giant beast; it floated in a vast universe of water, with water beneath and water above the sky, just as Genesis says. Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the sky spread out like a tent (or dome) over the circle (flat disk) of the Earth. We know, from surviving Jewish writings of the first century BC and AD, that ancient Jews did not interpret their own scriptures as teaching a spherical Earth, or an Earth that floated unsupported in space.

        [3] Based on its vocabulary (numerous Persian but no Greek loanwords), Ecclesiastes was probably written sometime between the end of the Babylonian Captivity and the conquests of Alexander the Great (i.e. way too late to be by Solomon). I do not think it takes preternatural scientific insight to notice that the wind blows in various directions.

        [4] I’m pretty sure that stone age people noticed that if you lost too much blood, you died. Bleeding (which was practiced by people who’d been reading the Bible for centuries, yet somehow never learned from it that this practice was bad medicine) was based on removing limited amounts of blood, on the assumption that the body could replace it faster than in fact it can.

        [5] Again, the Bible’s rules are all phrased in terms of ritual purity, not hygiene. The Bible nowhere mentions germs or their connection to disease. And, again, it’s very odd that a culture steeped in the Bible, where Bibles were commonly available and commonly read, failed to notice the things you claim it teaches for so many centuries. How does the Bible teach what no one learns from it?

        [6] You mean, of course, a spherical Earth, not a revolving one. From ca. the fourth century onward, nearly all educated Christians accepted that the Earth was a sphere (albeit that the sun orbited the Earth rather than the other way around). But there was a lot of controversy over whether there could be inhabited lands in the western hemisphere (since they could think of no way for Adam’s descendants, or Christian missionaries, to get there), so they did not interpret this verse to indicate that both hemispheres of the sphere were inhabited. And earlier Christians, like Theophilus of Antioch, flatly stated that the Earth was flat; the Bible did not teach them otherwise, and the verse you cite merely taught them that Jesus might return at any time, day or night.

        [7] Apologists for the Koran claim it contains many scientific facts that were unknown in the seventh century, with arguments just as good (and no better) than yours. Again, people in the middle ages did segregate lepers, but found no command in the Bible to isolate plague patients (although with some forms of the plague people all by themselves decided to abandon sick relatives in hopes of avoiding the disease).

        [8] Nahum 1:3 states that God walks on the (presumably hard) sky, and that the clouds are the dust of His feet. Job 38:22-23 speaks of the warehouses where God keeps the snow and hail, presumably to rain it down through the hatchways in the sky. The Bible says a lot of things, not entirely consistent with one another, on cosmology.

        [9] Aristotle, in the fourth century BC, set down the reasons why ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was a globe (though the actual discovery of this is credited to Pythagoras a century or so earlier). By the time of Christ, pagan scholars not only knew that the Earth was a globe, they knew it was ca. 25,000 miles in circumference (as noted above, most Christians had caught on to this by ca. 300 AD). That was why Columbus’ plan met resistance: everyone knew that the Earth was a globe, but they also knew that China was a lot further west from Spain than Columbus’ plan required it to be. But as noted above, we know from the writings of Flavius Josephus a generation or two after Christ that Jews generally believed that the Earth was flat (as did many early Christians); Isaiah did not teach them otherwise, but taught what skeptics say it teaches.

        [10] The idea of lightning bolts talking is no sillier than the idea of snow and hail siting around in some celestial armory, waiting for God to need them. It’s the same imagery, in fact: the elements of weather as God’s soldiers or weapons. But what is your point here? God is depicted as telling Job that Job doesn’t know enough to do God’s job. Since we know what radio is, since we have in fact walked in the depths of the ocean and put footprints on the moon, does this imply that by now, we are ready to take over God’s job and don’t need Him anymore?

        • Reason2012

          [1] False. He did not posit that everything was made up of invisible atoms. “He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.” You have far more than an atom when we as humans at the time can no longer “break it in half”. And that idea remained untouched until the 1800s. But meanwhile God makes it quite clear that “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”, not “things (which could be visible or not visible) which can no longer be broken in half”.

          • Steven Thompson

            That’s pointless nit-picking. This is not: we know in point of fact that generations of Christians did not know that matter was made out of atoms. Atomism, with its connections to Epicurean materialism, was rejected by most early Christians in favor of Aristotle’s infinitely divisible four elements. If Hebrews speaks of Christians knowing by faith that atoms exist, then it clearly speaks falsely.

          • Reason2012

            There are generations of Christians that don’t know God’s Word – doesn’t change the FACT of the scientific facts that were always IN there that men could not have known and that scientists could not figure out until thousands of years later. It leaves us without excuse trying to pretend “well how was I supposed to know?”
            Live forever, Steven!

        • Reason2012

          [2] On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.

        • Reason2012

          [?] Saying “that’s not what he meant” doesn’t refute it.

          [3] It’s not “the wind blows in different directions” – it’s that the wind follows air currents, which again were not discovered by scientists until thousands of years later.

        • Reason2012

          [4] And yet the fact remains that doctors in the late 1800s “bled” sick people in an attempt to “cure” them and many died because of the practice. Ignoring this factual behavior of “doctors” doesn’t make it false.

          [5] Calling it “ritual purity” doesn’t make it so and is actually disingenuous from a plain reading of the chapter: They were dealing with diseases and what to do about it to make sure it did not spread. The people who read the scriptures didn’t fail to notice it – they did what God commanded and probably did not know why.

          [6] Pointing to what some Christians believe is irrelevant to the FACT you’re ignoring: that God makes it clear in the Bible the Earth is a sphere, where you have day and night at the same time.

          [7] Except the Koran came well after the Bible. What matters is where it showed up first, and how they had no clue about such things before it was written. You cannot refute this but instead claim it’s in the Koran as well (which came thousands of years after the OT), when at this point it’s easy to just copy things out of other books, incuding the Bible.

          [8] Nahum is not in the Bible. And again: you simply ignore the FACT that God points out something mankind could not know: that the Earth is just free-floating in space.

          [9] Isaih was written far earlier than Aristotle or Pythgoras, which makes your argument moot. Isaiah: 700 B.C., Pythagoras: 500 B.C.

          [10] He wasn’t talking about lightning BOLTS in this verse. When speaking of lightning bolts, God uses the Hebrew word chăzı̂yz – but here He used the Hebrew Word baw-rawk’. Secondly we DO now send “light” that “talks” all over the world in a couple of seconds that does in fact then manifest themselves in speech. Coincidence? In your mind it’s a complete coincidence.

          While none of these will convince others to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, it does leave us without excuse when we face Him as it’s willful ignorance to ignore yet more proof of God and hence our accountability to Him we refused to be forgiven for.

    • FoJC_Forever

      The Scriptures weren’t written by a small nomadic tribe in the middle east.

      if you’re going to try to refute the Bible, at least know more about it.

      • This style ten and six

        OK, do tell. Who wrote them?

        • kagl982

          The only nomads in the Bible are the patriarchs in Genesis – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s twelve sons. None of them is credited with writing any part of the Bible. Among the reputed authors of the books of the Bible, there are no nomads.

          You need to stop relying on atheist blogs, they are full of misinformation. Atheists pretend to be scientific, but they spread a lot of blatant lies.

          • This style ten and six

            I asked a straight forward question. I have yet to receive an answer.

    • Tom Hanig

      You’ll get the real “proof” you want when you die. If you die unsaved, you’ll find you’re going to be judged by the One you ridiculed in life, the Lord Jesus Christ. If you die saved, you won’t need any proof of how the earth was created, because you’ll know and trust the Creator. Repent.

      • This style ten and six

        When I die I will be dead and the same goes for you. It is a pity that you will never know how wrong you are because when consciousness ceases you can’t know.

    • Becky

      All of their “latest knowledge and instruments” do not change the fact that their so-called “conclusions” are based on nothing more than a mere theory.

    • Stogiebear

      None of the New Testament was written by nomads, so you’re blathering on about a religion of which you know nothing.

      • This style ten and six

        Point taken but I’ll still go with the science.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    Interesting. Anyhow there is absolutely nothing stating that the days in creation days were twenty-four hours. The dividing of light and darkness is simply the sun breaking through the primordial atmosphere, or coming through after a major asteroid impact.

    • Guest

      Actually, God does define the Creation period as being 6 literal days.

    • Reason2012

      // Anyhow there is absolutely nothing stating that the days in creation days were twenty-four hours //

      Sure there is:

      “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
      Exodus 20:9-11

      It doesn’t say “In six days do all your work for in six epochs of billions of years each the LORD made heaven and earth..”

      God also pointed out He created human beings at the beginning of creation, not in the past ten thousand years at the end after billions of years of creation.

      “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,..”
      Matthew 19:4

      It’s God we’ll need to convince, not men. We have to ask ourselves why we’re ashamed to believe God did what He said He did.

      “[Jesus said] For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
      Mark 8:36-38

      • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

        These verses do not indicate twenty-four hours, they are representing the day of the LORD. This verse does not tell us anything more about the Genesis timeline than the Eighth day feast of tabernacles tells us about the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. It is symbolic of what God, not an exact mirror of the days in Genesis. Also, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a long time span, indicating that the seven days were a restoration of the earth, whereas the deliverance of the Isrealites are being restored to the land that God promised them.

        • Reason2012

          It doesn’t say “In six days do all your work for in six epochs of billions of years each the LORD made heaven and earth..”

          God also pointed out He created human beings at the beginning of creation, not in the past ten thousand years at the end after billions of years of creation.

          These facts contradict your opinion.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Sorry buddy, but no it doesn’t. The words thou wa bohu are found in the second verse of Genesis. God makes it very clear that he did not create the earth in thou, Isaiah 45:18. Scripture also makes it clear that the earth abides forever, yet the LORD says that he will make all things new. Psalm 104 29 and 30 refer to the long ages of Earth’s past, thus nullifying the notion that the Bible teaches a 6000 year old Earth. The word yom is used in Hebrew to describe a twelve hour day, a twenty-four hour day, and a long, but finite period of time. The ancient Hebrews used the word yom/day to describe these periods. The language evolved over the next few centuries as the vocabulary expanded which is why one may find references to other terms used for long periods of time, but the original wording used day to describe long but finite periods of time.

          • Reason2012

            Sorry buddy, but no it doesn’t. The words thou wa bohu are found in the second verse of Genesis.

            I think you’re confused.

            “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
            Genesis 1:2

            What does that have to do with what I said?

            God makes it very clear that he did not create the earth in thou, Isaiah 45:18.

            “O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:”
            Isaiah 48:18

            And what does this have to do with God creating, let alone not in six days?

            Scripture also makes it clear that the earth abides forever, yet the LORD says that he will make all things new. Psalm 104 29 and 30 refer to the long ages of Earth’s past, thus nullifying the notion that the Bible teaches a 6000 year old Earth.

            “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.”
            Psalms 104:29-30

            What does that have to do with how long it took God to create or how old the Earth is?

            “Six days (Hebrew: yom) shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days (Hebrew: yom) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
            Exodus 20:9-11

            If you want to believe God said “In six days do all your work for in six long periods of time of billions of years each the LORD made heaven and earth..”

            Meanwhile Genesis also pointed out evening and morning went by six times – that’s a day.

            God also pointed out He created human beings at the beginning of creation, not in the past ten thousand years at the end after billions of years of creation. If what you say is true, then Jesus should have said “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the end made them male and female,..”, but He didn’t.

            It’s not me you have to convince, it’s God. I’ll go with what God actually said rather than what you needed Him it to say to have your other beliefs you need to hold on to.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            That’s what I said Genesis 1:2 tohu wa bahu mentions the earth being in a chaotic state at the beginning. Isaiah 45:18 states God does not create in this way. Psalm 104: 29-30 does not indicate the earth, it does however indicate that God creates then destroys then renews the face of the earth.
            Genesis 1:2 destroys the notion that man was here at the beginning of the earth. Genesis 2:4 states, “These are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD made the earth and the heavens.” notice the reverse of heavens and earth in that statement? Also, one does not get “generations” in six twenty-four hour days. There is no closure on the seventh day. Hebrews 4:4-10 hints at the notion that the seventh day is an ongoing event.

          • Reason2012

            None of that says the Earth is billions of years old, or even more than 10,000 years old. You’re only claiming it implies that because you said so. Meanwhile the verses above that literally point out God created in six days are quite plain.
            Thank you for posting.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Well, it does indicate that the earth is billions of years old, “which it is,” and fits the scientific model beautifully. It is not being implied because I said so, but because I have done years of research on the topic and there are a whole list of Hebrew scholars who say the same thing. The fact that the Hebrew scholars are just as divided on the issue and that the earth has been proven to be billions of years old should cause any Christian to question what they are listening to and examine it carefully.

  • Reason2012

    Science is about things the human race observes happen at least once and hence can repeat, no belief required:
    – objects fall the ground
    – diseases spread
    – matter affects matter
    – no matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians and so on.

    Fish to mankind evolutionism is anti-science and ignores the observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact that what they believe in does not happen. Actual science would seek to find out why there are such barriers – not ignore them, pretend there are none, make up mythological beliefs contrary to it, and give reasons to believe in it.

    • This style ten and six


    • John N

      ‘Science is about things the human race observes happen at least once and hence can repeat . .’

      Reason, you have got a very strange idea about science. Where did you get your scientific education? Or let me rephrase this question: did you actually get a scientific education?

      Using this definition, most of biology, geology, cosmology, archaeology, historical science and even forensic science can be thrown in the garbage can.

      But what the heck, any real scientist only needs the bible, doesn’t he?

      • Coach

        No, any real Christian needs the Bible. You could be a brain surgeon, lawyer, etc. and be thrown into the lake of fire on judgement day. This is a serious matter, you could wish God away as you worship the sin you love, but it will do no good.
        Jesus Christ, the second person of the God-Head, all things were made through Him, was born of a virgin, lived a perfect, sinless life. He performed miracles of healing, feeding multitudes, turning water into wine, casting out demons, raising the dead,etc. Despite all of this He was mocked and rejected by the world.
        His ultimate purpose on earth was carried out at the hands of sinners who beat, mocked, and spat on the Lord of all. Even while dying on a Roman cross, He cried out “Father forgive them”. On the third day, He rose from the grave, conquering sin and death. He stands in victory, saving all whom God the Father draws to Him. All who truly believe in Him are born of the Holy Spirit, who empowers us to walk no more in sin, but in the commands of God. When we do sin, we have an advocate in Jesus Christ. There is appointed a Day in-which Jesus will judge the entire world. Those who’ve been regenerated by the Spirit of God unto eternal life, those who have not will be cast into an eternal lake of fire and have an eternity of regret, torment, and conscious punishment, with no relief.

        Repent and believe in Jesus Christ

        • John N

          Do I understand correctly you are threatening people with eternal regret, torment and punishment when they use their intelligence to translate observed facts into a working scientific theory, if the result happens to contradict a 2000 year old book?

          I’m shocked. Shocked, I say.

          • Coach

            No, without Jesus Christ, eternal punishment is a promise. God will cast all unconverted sinners into the lake of fire, you don’t have to believe that, but God’s Word speaks for itself and doesn’t need the approval of man to be true.

            As for your observable facts? You gamble your eternity on what you believe are observable facts, but the truly observable facts, you ignore, the power of God all around, the reality that all have sinned, the devastation of man’s depravity in the world.

            Answer me this, how did man get here and how do you know?

          • John N

            How did man get here? Just like any other living organism got here. From a previous ancestor.

            Why? Do you have any evidence he did not?

          • Oboehner

            “From a previous ancestor.” Post proof of that.

            “Do you have any evidence he did not?” Now what was that about proving a negative?

          • John N

            Well, I know I came from my parents. Is that enough?

            Of course, if you could prove I was specially created by your Christian god, that would be evidence of the negative, is it not?

          • Oboehner

            Still desperately trying to prove your religious beliefs by attacking another’s.

          • John N

            Attacking another’s belief? I wouldn’t dare.

            Mocking another’s belief is something else, certainly if that belief is based on fairytales.

          • Oboehner

            “based on fairytales” That is a statement, prove it.

          • John N

            So how do you call a book that states the sky is a solid dome and the earth a circle with four corners? That a man can live in a whale for three days? That a virgin can give birth to a man?

            We do know now these are myths, made up stories which had religious significance for those who tell it and those who listen to it, but are not based on reality.

          • Oboehner

            “So how do you call a book that states the sky is a solid dome and the earth a circle with four corners?” I know of no such book, but when I see a book that says everything came from an exploding dot, I laugh hysterically. As well as life popping out of ooze, random chance “creating” all of the complexities of life, these are myths, made up stories which had religious significance for those who tell it and those who listen to it, but are not based on reality.

          • John N

            So you mean that the story about your god creating a firmanent to divide the waters above and below is actually just that, a story?

            And the one about the large tree at the centre of the earth, visible from the earths farthest bounds, as well?

            Now what a disappointment. If you can’t even thrust the bible …

          • Coach

            Yes, I do.
            Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

            Because, you love sin and hate God, you refuse to believe Him and seek another way to explain reality. God made everything, but you say, “no, that’s a cop out and can’t be proven by repeated processes”, so you look at 2 rocks and since one is bigger than the other, you say that one’s millions of years older than the other. Why? well so and so said so and he’s a scientist, therefore he knows best, plus in school they said the earth is 5 billion years old, but it got younger and now it’s 4.5 billion years old. How do you know? “Umm, just look at the rock layers and carbon dating” How do you know that’s true? you say “scientists have done research and I trust them, but you only believe in God because you were told too”.
            To which myself and many others would attest of being indoctrinated with years of hearing evolutionary lies, peers affirming the lies, hours of television mocking God, politicians professing faith in God only to gain a position to mock God from, living in a world where truth is whatever you want it to be and by the grace of God saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone, denying worldly lusts, believing the truth of God’s unchanging Word, not being tossed back and forth with every clever scheme of Satan.

            To God alone be the glory for how great a salvation He has provided by the power of the cross. Jesus Christ was crucified for the ungodly, rose again on the third day victorious. Whomever turns from sin to God by faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. All who do not will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, meaning insulted God’s glory, the punishment of eternal torment is fitting for a life of opposing God in every way, while enjoying His blessings, breathing the air He gives, and using the mouth He gave to speak against Him. Using the feet He gave you to run to evil, the hands He gave to work evil.
            If you don’t repent, the last thing you will hear before entering into the lake of fire is the hosts of heaven applauding God’s just wrath being poured out on John.

            John, quit mocking God and repent, He is sovereign and doesn’t have to save you, but my prayer for you is that he does. I love you, because Jesus Christ has loved and forgiven me, I can’t help but love you as I consider the love of God shown in Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross that He didn’t deserve.

            Today, if you should hear His voice, harden not your heart John. Repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ

          • John N

            When I asked for evidence, I ment scientific evidence.

            As far as I know the bible is not accepted as scientific evidence. It is written by unknown authors, never peer-reviewed, filled with contradictions and factual errors. Clearly a human work which shows us the worldview of ancient people.

            Try again.

            By the way, trying to convince people into your cult by threats of eternal torture by a sadistic deity doesn’t work. It actually makes people run away as far as possible. But please keep on doing that.

          • Coach

            Actually, people run from the truth because by nature, they are God hating and sin loving. John, fact is that describes you.
            Fact is, I’m presenting the truth and you hate it. You speak from a foundation of what’s falsely called knowledge and bank your eternity on the concept that you’re accountable to nobody because you are a product of meaningless processes, so I could make since of pointing you to the a Word of God by the fact that I’m commanded by God to proclaim truth. By your own philosophy of life, your arguing is pointless and you’re wasting time that you could spend on getting the most pleasure out of your pointless existence.
            Fact is nobody can come to faith in Jesus Christ unless the Father draws them. Nobody goes to Him on their own, because by nature, we run from God.
            God is all powerful, He doesn’t need the approval of man to validate His Word, He spoke the universe into existence, is all powerful, all knowing, and will judge everything you’ve ever thought or done, including the blasphemy you’ve typed.
            You love the idea of the majority of scientists claiming evolution explains everything because it gives you a false hope that you can enjoy your sins and not be accountable. It’s not that you genuinely believe that we’re all a product of random processes, you simply work to suppress the truth that is obvious to you and worship so-called science.

            Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

          • John N

            Coach, you almost got me there! For a moment I thought you were going to discuss with me the evidence of creationism vs. Science, which is the topic of this article.

            But now I see you are just here to preach.

            And I’ m sorry to say you are not really good at it either. The standard psychobabble, the manipulative language, the obligated bible quotes …. been there, done that.

            So I guess you are not really going to show me the evidence you were asked for, would you?

          • Coach

            Already did, you reject the truth. Please don’t accuse me of manipulation, I simply present the truth. If I told someone they’d get arrested for robbing a bank, I suppose that would be manipulative too.
            I’m not a creationist, I’m a Christian thereby, acknowledging faith in God, the Creator and Sustainer of all life.
            You claim people came from some precious animal, to which you blindly accept, yet can’t show me a single case of a dog and cat getting together and having puptens.

            You hide behind atheism, so you don’t have to face reality.
            Romans 3:23
            For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

          • John N

            If you would tell someone they would be arrested if they rob a bank, you would be correct. There is conclusive evidence that banks exist, and that there are laws against stealing other peoples’ money.

            But when you tell people they certainly will be tortured forever in hell by your god for thought crimes, you’ve got some reality issues. Until you have conclusive evidence your god, your hell and your thought crimes really exist, you are just the boy who cried wolf. You can fool some people sometimes, but then they wake up and throw you out of town.

            As for the science topic, if you can point me to the rule in the theory of evolution that says a dog and a cat should come together and have puptens, you are welcome.

            How comes creationist always look so ignorant when trying to explain science? Maybe because they still think the bible is a trustable science book?

          • Coach

            John, where did life come from? Which evolved first? The apple tree or the chicken? How is right and wrong determined?
            You’ve purposes in your heart that there is no God, because you like the idea of ruling over yourself.

            Calling God a fairytale is like stopping your ears and screaming. John, there’s plenty of people on your side, even professing Christians, but I’m merely warning you of the judgement to come.

            Now there’s a few people who believe in Jesus Christ and you want to silence us, so you don’t have to think about eternity. You wine and say “Christianity’s a cult, fairytale, etc.” simply to make yourself feel better and to praise your father, the devil, though you’d deny that fact, but who’s to believe you when you’re a perpetual liar?
            Consider the following and disprove it, with real evidence, not simply you saying God isn’t real, which simply confirms your hatred for God.

            18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

            24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

            28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them

          • John N

            Where did life come from? All evidence points to non-life, organic molecules. After all, even today we still are made of them.

            What evolved first? Non-sensical question. All extant organism evolved together from a single ancestor 3.5 billion year ago.

            How is right and wrong determined? Behavioural traits like empathy evolved in social animals. Empathy leads to implicit moral values. When societies expand, these values become more and more explicit.

            If you want, I can point you to the scientific evidence fir al my claims.

            Now it is your turn. Please explain me how, according to you, life came into existence, what was creared first, and how you determine right and wrong. Do that without referencing your bible, because that is certainly not evidence. Thanks.

          • Coach

            First the heavens and the earth were created as it is written in Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

            I refer to the Bible because it is the only authoritative truth. I believe God, while you call Him a liar because the truth is not in you.

            Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true bu every man a liar. As it is written:
            “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

            The question you’re going to ask is why I would use scripture when you asked me not to, to which my answer is simple.

            I have no other defense for what I believe other than my personal testimony and if you won’t believe Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, you wouldn’t believe if Charles Darwin walked out of hell to warn you.

            The Bible is the flawless authoritative Word of God and has stood the test of time, though many have tried to destroy it and while even textbooks are constantly changed in an attempt to correct errors.

            How do you know, without consulting some supposed scientific claim, that everything came from a single ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?

            You’re asking me to give evidence outside of God’s Word, just because you reject it, though it tells the truth about you.

            I suppose since you reject the Bible, you’ve never lusted, lied, stolen, and those are just a few of the reasons the Bible is true in rightfully saying that you’re a sinner.

            Is this true?

            What defense would you have if God were to judge you for what you’ve done?

          • John N

            Why would I call your god a liar? Why would I call the Great Purple Unicorn in the Sky a liar?

            The Bible is the flawless authoritative Word of God and has stood the test of time? So how comes it is filled with factual errors, starting with chapter 1? How comes it is filled with internal contradictions, starting with chapter 2? How comes it only contains the knowledge, ideas and morals of a bronze age desert people and first-century cultists, and not those of an all-knowing deity?

            How I know, without consulting some supposed scientific claim, that everything came from a single ancestor 3.5 billion years ago? Because a single ancestor is the best possible explanation for the diversity and resemblance found in all living organisms. And we have a theory that explains it, based on facts observed in real life and in experiments.

            I guess you are not verry happy with reality, but you’re not liking it ain’t going to change that.

          • Coach

            You win John, you’re right and can’t be proven wrong, because…

            Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
            There is more hope for a fool than for him.

            Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks

            Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart,
            “There is no God.”
            They are corrupt,
            They have done abominable works,
            There is none who does good.

            Have you ever read the Bible? I’d be happy to address your specific concerns, but you seem to be throwing out the common argument of it’s not true because you said so. By the power God I was converted to Christ Jesus as it is written no one can come to Jesus Christ unless it is granted by God the Father.

          • John N

            Did I ever read the bible? Yes, I did. I was raised as a catholic. Like for many ex-christians, reading the bible was how I became an atheist.

            Not only did I found out the bible is mostly a book of myths, but also that a lot of moral values it defends are considered today indefensible.

          • Coach

            You’re not an ex-Christian, you’re an ex-catholic, meaning you once thought of the pope and Mary as representatives of deity. You decided you hated God and determined you wouldn’t believe in Him, but you know nothing of the Bible nor science.
            Still awaiting an actual argument, not just empty statements of how you hate the Bible.

            Proverbs 12:1 Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge,
            But he who hates correction is stupid.
            2 A good man obtains favor from the Lord,
            But a man of wicked intentions He will condemn.
            3 A man is not established by wickedness,
            But the root of the righteous cannot be moved.

          • John N

            Again, I do not hate any mythical figure, and I do not hate a book presenting these myths.

            What I find annoying is people telling me what I think.

            Oh yeah, and also Christians preaching, throwing bible quotes and threatening me with eternal damnation on every occasion, instead of actually discussing the topic at hand. And telling me I know nothing of my field of education.

            As for arguments, I made a few. It is about time you show any argument why I should believe your god exists and actually wrote the bible, or to shut up.

          • Coach

            I’ve told you plainly, but you don’t have ears to hear.

          • John N

            Maybe my ears are not so good any more.

            But at least I haven’t shut down my brain.

          • Coach

            14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

          • John N

            So you got to really really have faith – blind trust – in order to understand.

            And a book filled with quotes, one for every occasion.

            Thanks for illustrating my point.

          • Oboehner

            “intelligence” No, religious belief.

          • John N

            Oboehner, I was talking about scientists here, not religious fundies.

            You know, the kind of people who are proud that their religious belief does not involve any intelligence.

          • Oboehner

            Real scientists can observe and repeat their science, can you?

          • John N

            Wrong. Real scientists can observe, repeat their observations, and let their peers check their observations.

            Can you?

          • Oboehner

            “let their peers check their observations.” Like a fellow KKK members agreeing they are a master race, very scientific.

          • John N

            So to support you argument, you are prepared to compare scientists with KKK members.

            Another expression of true Christian Love, I guess

          • Oboehner

            I see the simple allegory is above your intelligence level.

          • John N

            Well, if you think comparing anybody with a band of christian white supremacist criminals is fine if you call it an allegory, your level of intelligence is far below zero.

          • Oboehner

            I rest my case.

          • John N

            Well, that’s the wisest thing I ever heard from you. Thanks.

      • Oboehner

        So you’re back to that, never any information, just appeal to authority drivel.

        • John N

          Tell that to afchief. He is the one that claims to have the authority to redefine what science actually is.

          Of course, consulting any encyclopedia would prove him wrong, but that would be an ‘appeal to authority’ I presume.

          • Oboehner

            Science is actually observable and repeatable, not speculation and assumption based on a worldview.

          • John N

            Again, tell that to your friend afchief. Although he might be surpised you admit creationism is not science.

          • Oboehner

            Creation is my belief, I am man enough to admit it – how about you, are you man enough to admit evolutionism is your religious belief?

          • John N

            Fine for you. Nobody wants to take away your belief, however crazy it may be.

            As for ‘evolutionism’, I don’t belief in made up words either. Why do fundies always try to define words, while actually a word like ‘science’ already covers the Theory of Evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Why do religious evolutionists make up stories they can’t prove and call it science?

            “I don’t belief in[sic]” simple English either.

  • FoJC_Forever

    If Darwin didn’t know Jesus (the) Christ, he is in Hell. If you could hear him now, he would be telling you to quit listening to the temporary observations of a very finite existence and to follow Jesus (the) Christ so that you won’t be Eternally Damned.

    • John N

      If Darwin didn’t know Jesus, he would be physically dead now.

      If he knew Jesus, he would still be dead now.

      All other scenarios are speculation.

      And no silly threats about eternal damnation is going to change that.

      The reason Charles Darwin is still alive, besides his genes, is the simple but marvelous idea he left us, evolution through natural selection. The idea was already in the air, but he succeeded in presenting it in such a way scientists quickly assimilated and accepted it.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You’re trying to explain Light while sitting in Darkness.

        • John N

          Deep. Verrrrrrry deep.

          Anything usefull to add in this discussion?

    • This style ten and six

      Why do you always but that (the) in Jesus Christ?

      • Steven Thompson

        I think it’s to remind himself and us that “Christ” is a title (“annointed one,” equivalent to the Hebrew “Messiah”), not a surname. He was “Jesus the anointed one,” not “Jesus Christ, son of Joseph and Mary Christ of the Nazareth Christ family.”

        • This style ten and six


  • Becky

    Evolution. Based on nothing more than a mere theory.

    • John N

      Thanks for the compliment, Becky.

      Of course you do realize that what you call a ‘mere theory’ is in fact the highest level of scientific accuracy we know?

      • Becky

        Rubbish. Here’s a fact for ya…after all of the years and so-called research, the evolution “theory” is still nothing more than a man-made notion with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

        • John N

          A ‘fact’ for me? Oh well. Let me see.

          ‘A scientific theory is a man made notion.’

          Well, what did you expect it be? A divine revelation? We sure know that doesn’t work. Any scientific theory is a man made notion, based on our observation of the real world.

          ‘With absolutely nothing to substantiate it’

          You couldn’t be more wrong. As I told you, scientific theories are based on facts, they give us the best possible explanation for these facts. Now it would be rather silly to go through all the trouble of defining a scientific theory if there were no facts at all, wouldn’t it?

          As has been stated here before, the theory of evolution is based on a massive amount of facts from multiple scientific disciplines, and it explains all these facts in the best way we can think of.

          And that is the reason creationism fails time and time again. It does not explain anything.

          • Becky

            More rubbish.

            A theory is an interpretation of facts. The theory of evolution is not “based on a massive amount of facts”, else it would no longer just be a theory. It would be a scientific fact. Which, it is not, nor will it ever be. It’s still nothing but a man-made notion. It hasn’t progressed from that position really.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Actually, the Italian wall lizard is a great example of evolution in progress, and is observable science.

          • Cady555

            Likewise the European Blackcap

          • John N

            Wrong again. A scientific theory remains a scientific theory forever, or until replaced by a better one.

            Evolution is a fact. The theory explains it.

            Where did you get your scientific education?

    • This style ten and six

      It is based on Charles Darwin’s and others’ observations and backed up by 150 years of research.