wrote:
read some material from the museum... these aren't idiots, they are PHD's who can scientifically prove all the Bible except of course the beginning which evolution can't prove either because no one was there... both sides require just as much faith as the other... where are the missing links of evolution?
Your priest would be ashamed of your article as you have attacked the foundations of the Christian faith. If you give a little bit on believing the Bible is true you are proceeding down a slippery slope.
Your priest would be ashamed of your article as you have attacked the foundations of the Christian faith. If you give a little bit on believing the Bible is true you are proceeding down a slippery slope.
10 June 2007 20:05:31
Susan wrote:
Nate said, "... these aren't idiots, they are PHD's who can scientifically prove all the Bible except of course the beginning which evolution can't prove either because no one was there."
Umm...since this is a "Creation Museum" and you admit the 'only' thing the scientists CAN'T prove IS creation, then you must agree with Lucente that they are wrong and lying to claim that this version of the "creation" is "scientific fact." Right?
I happen to believe the Biblical version of "creation" myself, and I will admit there were parts of this column that deeply cut and even offended me. But, I do see the most important point he makes, which is that we do not and should not be blind to and ignore actual science just out of fear that something we've been raised to believe in our churches might turn out to be not quite accurate.
I think there are too many people that think it is all black and white. You either believe in "Evolution" OR you believe in "Creation". The God I believe in is one I believe to be so awesome that he created the entire universe and everything in it. So, why couldn't he have created this world to "evolve"? Why couldn't the whole idea of evolution, the big bang, whatever anyone wants to believe, be the process God chose to use in forming this world?
I believe science and Christianity CAN coincide,and there is much scientific evidence to support many Christian beliefs, but the title of this column is correct, "Creationism is NOT science".
I agree with Nate about the priest though. I bet Tom is going to get a boatload of "interesting" emails from priests far and wide over this one.
Umm...since this is a "Creation Museum" and you admit the 'only' thing the scientists CAN'T prove IS creation, then you must agree with Lucente that they are wrong and lying to claim that this version of the "creation" is "scientific fact." Right?
I happen to believe the Biblical version of "creation" myself, and I will admit there were parts of this column that deeply cut and even offended me. But, I do see the most important point he makes, which is that we do not and should not be blind to and ignore actual science just out of fear that something we've been raised to believe in our churches might turn out to be not quite accurate.
I think there are too many people that think it is all black and white. You either believe in "Evolution" OR you believe in "Creation". The God I believe in is one I believe to be so awesome that he created the entire universe and everything in it. So, why couldn't he have created this world to "evolve"? Why couldn't the whole idea of evolution, the big bang, whatever anyone wants to believe, be the process God chose to use in forming this world?
I believe science and Christianity CAN coincide,and there is much scientific evidence to support many Christian beliefs, but the title of this column is correct, "Creationism is NOT science".
I agree with Nate about the priest though. I bet Tom is going to get a boatload of "interesting" emails from priests far and wide over this one.
10 June 2007 22:06:01
sullivang34 wrote:
Oh, this is some truly cerebral stuff. The man of science takes on creationists armed not with the facts and science that is purportedly on his side but with name-calling. Rather than a point by point refutation of creationists' "poppycock" arguments he simply dismisses them out of hand.
This creationist "bunk" has been researched and supported by PhD.s from M.I.T. and Harvard. An Ivy League title does not lend one immunity from skeptics but it certainly undermines the author's thinly veilled view of Christians as redneck, backwater, Bible-thumping, boobs.
Having deeply researched both creationism and the standard big-bang theory I can tell you, after the facts are laid out, it takes no more faith to believe in a God who spoke the world into existence (perhaps with towering mountains and beautiful canyons already existant) than in a random cosmic train wreck that transformed lifeless matter into the dynamic and intricate world we have now.
A true scientist would approach another's hypothesis with an inquisitive, if skeptical, mindset with the aim of discovering truth. You have to wonder if someone with a mind that is so closed on this subject may actually just be afraid of learning that the "other side" could be right after all.
This creationist "bunk" has been researched and supported by PhD.s from M.I.T. and Harvard. An Ivy League title does not lend one immunity from skeptics but it certainly undermines the author's thinly veilled view of Christians as redneck, backwater, Bible-thumping, boobs.
Having deeply researched both creationism and the standard big-bang theory I can tell you, after the facts are laid out, it takes no more faith to believe in a God who spoke the world into existence (perhaps with towering mountains and beautiful canyons already existant) than in a random cosmic train wreck that transformed lifeless matter into the dynamic and intricate world we have now.
A true scientist would approach another's hypothesis with an inquisitive, if skeptical, mindset with the aim of discovering truth. You have to wonder if someone with a mind that is so closed on this subject may actually just be afraid of learning that the "other side" could be right after all.
10 June 2007 22:40:51
sullivang34 wrote:
In response to both T.J. Lucente and commentator Susan: :Creationism is NOT science." Are we defining science as proposing a hypothesis and then testing via the scientific method? If so how are we testing whether the Big Bang is correct? For that matter how are we testing evolution? Other than generational changes within species--i.e. survival of the fittest--there has not been any evidence whatsoever of evolution--that is of one species actually transforming into another, more highly evolved, and significantly different animal.
10 June 2007 22:47:07
Susan wrote:
sullivang34, all those PhDs do not have scientific proof of either creationism OR evolution. Therefore, if it is scientific proof one must have to support either belief, we're all out of luck. I choose to believe the Bible's version of creation, although, not the literal "one day = 24 hours" interpretaion. But even though I believe in creationism, I do not support any "creation museum" that claims it is a "scientific fact" when they cannot and have not proven that.
10 June 2007 23:21:55
wrote:
I think you need to visit their site and see what they are stating is a scientific fact, they are saying the world we see now is easily proved scientifically to line up with the Bible... no one can make the claim to scientifically prove the origin, because no one was there... the founders of the creation museum are trying to question why evolutionists believe their faith is "scientific". It takes a extreme faith to believe in evolution, more so than creation but evolutionists won't admit that their beliefs are a veiled religion.
http://www.answersingenesis.com
http://www.answersingenesis.com
11 June 2007 12:59:52
wrote:
Susan, think about what you are saying... if you crumble the foundation of your faith, the rest of it will come down with it. Genesis is literal because in the Bible whenever alliteration is used it had to have something it was referring to, how can you have alliteration in the beginning there was nothing before the start... this isn't a fairy tale, The Bible is the living Word of God, if you read in the New Testament, Jesus even alluded to Genesis and 6 day creation as being a fact... are you saying even Jesus didn't know what He was talking about?
11 June 2007 13:33:19
wrote:
we will all find out some day...until then why not just enjoy creation for what it is...no one can prove how we got here for sure...maybe we could make this a far better place if we used our energy to better mankind rather than argue a point that only god can answer...just a thought
11 June 2007 13:51:08
Susan wrote:
Nate, why does it scare you so much that maybe "6 days" didn't literally mean 6 24 hour days? Think about the number of translations the Bible has gone through over the past 3,000 years. If it were originally written in English, it would be different, but we're talking about ancient languages translated from one to another to another to another by hundreds of people over hundreds (1,000's) of years. Have you ever played "telephone" with a group of friends? Line up ten or twelve kids. Whisper a secret in one ear, let each one whisper it to the next and on down the line and eventually, the secret that the last child hears is not the same secret that the first one told. I am not claiming Genesis is wrong. I would also NEVER call it a "fable" as lucente has, I found that offensive. But, I can see that taking it too literally according to OUR literal meaning of english words in this century cannot be expected to reflect 100% accurately what the original writers wrote the first time. (I hope that makes sense, I'm in a bit of a hurry.)
Don't worry though, basically, you and I are on the same page, it appears we both believe God created the universe and everything in it.
Don't worry though, basically, you and I are on the same page, it appears we both believe God created the universe and everything in it.
11 June 2007 14:22:53
Susan wrote:
Yay sun_tzu!!!!!!
And I plan to do just that, go out and "enjoy creation" right now... gorgeous day huh?
And I plan to do just that, go out and "enjoy creation" right now... gorgeous day huh?
11 June 2007 14:23:45
wrote:
no Susan, we are far from on the same page... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/doctrine.asp
your foundation of your faith is being attacked and is crumbling while you stand on the top floor looking out and appeasing the "scientists" who claim to be enlightened...
your foundation of your faith is being attacked and is crumbling while you stand on the top floor looking out and appeasing the "scientists" who claim to be enlightened...
11 June 2007 22:04:22
wrote:
"Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"
When I first read that, I thought Lucente was giving away the process he goes through to write an editorial.
Nate, what slippery slope are you proceeding down if you question the accuracy of the Bible? If your belief is correct, won't the Bible hold up to scrutiny? Or do you really think God does not want us to question the world around us? You know, you can believe in evolution and believe in God. God said let there be light, and the Big Bang occured. Or you can believe in evolution and not believe in God. The theory remains constant regardless of faith. But you can't believe in creationism and not believe in God.
Creationists often point to supposed holes in the theory of evolution as being "proof" the theory is wrong. You know, gravity is a theory too. And there are pieces of that theory we do not understand. Should we take that as a sign that the theory of gravity is wrong, and jump out a window to show how flawed the theory is?
Nate, how do you know Jesus knew what he was talking about? Oh, that's right. He's the Living God and is all knowing. But let's imagine, just for a minute, that Jesus was not God. He was a wise man, he was a smart man, he was a prophet. But let's pretend he wasn't God. Come on, the Jews do it every day and they're good people. Heck, the Bible even says they're the chosen people. So if Jesus the man says the creation myth was a fact, that holds no more weight or scientific proof than if Bozo the Clown said the creation myth was a fact. Sorry if I offended any Christians or Bozians.
Lucente, as much as this pains me to admit, I agree with you. Christians, feel free to sin. Hell just froze over. The museum is poppycock. But it was built entirely from private donations and not a penny of yours or my tax dollars go to support it. If close-minded people want to blow there money on it, then that's there choice.
When I first read that, I thought Lucente was giving away the process he goes through to write an editorial.
Nate, what slippery slope are you proceeding down if you question the accuracy of the Bible? If your belief is correct, won't the Bible hold up to scrutiny? Or do you really think God does not want us to question the world around us? You know, you can believe in evolution and believe in God. God said let there be light, and the Big Bang occured. Or you can believe in evolution and not believe in God. The theory remains constant regardless of faith. But you can't believe in creationism and not believe in God.
Creationists often point to supposed holes in the theory of evolution as being "proof" the theory is wrong. You know, gravity is a theory too. And there are pieces of that theory we do not understand. Should we take that as a sign that the theory of gravity is wrong, and jump out a window to show how flawed the theory is?
Nate, how do you know Jesus knew what he was talking about? Oh, that's right. He's the Living God and is all knowing. But let's imagine, just for a minute, that Jesus was not God. He was a wise man, he was a smart man, he was a prophet. But let's pretend he wasn't God. Come on, the Jews do it every day and they're good people. Heck, the Bible even says they're the chosen people. So if Jesus the man says the creation myth was a fact, that holds no more weight or scientific proof than if Bozo the Clown said the creation myth was a fact. Sorry if I offended any Christians or Bozians.
Lucente, as much as this pains me to admit, I agree with you. Christians, feel free to sin. Hell just froze over. The museum is poppycock. But it was built entirely from private donations and not a penny of yours or my tax dollars go to support it. If close-minded people want to blow there money on it, then that's there choice.
11 June 2007 22:41:04
Susan wrote:
Look, Nate/brutus, when I said we are on the same page, I certainly didn't mean on everything. I ONLY meant we are on the same page in our belief that God created the universe and all things in it. Now, if you don't believe that, then I guess you're right, we are not on the same page at all.
Earlier, you yourself said that the creation is the only thing scientists canNOT prove. Yet, here is a museum dedicated to what THEY are claiming is "scientific PROOF" that the Biblical story of the creation is true. How do you answer for that? I believe in the Biblical story of creation out of FAITH, NOT science because I KNOW that science cannot PROVE the creation happened the way the Bible says it did. I'm all for a museum that teaches "creationism" as opposed to "evolution" but they just make themselves seem less credible when they claim this as "scientific fact" when they and everyone else knows that it isn't. (Just as "evolution" is not a scientifically proven fact either.) Oh yea, and putting a saddle on a dinosaur and claiming they were on the ark is pretty far fetched as well. I want more museums to support the creation side, but I hate to see them turn it into something hokey and ridiculously like a circus act.
Earlier, you yourself said that the creation is the only thing scientists canNOT prove. Yet, here is a museum dedicated to what THEY are claiming is "scientific PROOF" that the Biblical story of the creation is true. How do you answer for that? I believe in the Biblical story of creation out of FAITH, NOT science because I KNOW that science cannot PROVE the creation happened the way the Bible says it did. I'm all for a museum that teaches "creationism" as opposed to "evolution" but they just make themselves seem less credible when they claim this as "scientific fact" when they and everyone else knows that it isn't. (Just as "evolution" is not a scientifically proven fact either.) Oh yea, and putting a saddle on a dinosaur and claiming they were on the ark is pretty far fetched as well. I want more museums to support the creation side, but I hate to see them turn it into something hokey and ridiculously like a circus act.
12 June 2007 00:34:16
Susan wrote:
Here's another thought for you, nate, if you're really worried about the dangers of thinking for yourself and questioning the Bible, I would suggest that you not think too hard about the logistics of Noah's ark from a literalist perspective...
12 June 2007 00:58:17
wrote:
It seems this country has abandoned reason and truth for FAITH.
At least faith is easy to understand. Maybe we should test on that and standardized test scores would go up.
At least faith is easy to understand. Maybe we should test on that and standardized test scores would go up.
12 June 2007 12:34:16
wrote:
I arrived at my faith through reason and truth. It is simpler for believers to accept science, than it is for evolutionists to accept Christ.
12 June 2007 18:29:39
wrote:
it is amazing to see how far Christians have fallen in their views... you have a Catholic speaking against everything he was taught in church growing up... when you question any the supernatural events of the Bible you open yourself to questioning all of them.... just like Susan has done with Noah's ark... what about the immaculate conception... Jesus creating fish out of thin air, raising the dead, healing the sick.. open your mind a little bit to the translation of the original Hebrew transcripts and a little less on appeasing the evolutionists... visit the museum with an open mind and at least check out what their PHD scientists argue on how science does line up with the Bible through and through...
12 June 2007 23:05:02
Susan wrote:
Since you brought it up, nate... what is the "immaculate conception"? Or, rather, what do YOU think the "Immaculate Conception" was? (I''ll give you a hint, it isn't in the Bible)
13 June 2007 01:40:51
Susan wrote:
Another thing, Nate. I find it ironic that you don't want Christians to question anything the Bible says, or at least whatever your interpretation of the Bible is. You want all people to blindly accept purely on faith EVERY thing in the Bible without thinking about it, without reasoning, without questioning. But then you turn around and want everyone to "visit the museum with and open mind."
Apparently, people are only supposed to be open-minded when it serves to convince them that you are "right", but not when there's a possibility of finding evidence that what you have always believed might be wrong.
By the way, I was serious about Noah's ark... I am interested in how the museum can come up with the logistics of one man possibly with the help of only his three sons could build a ship by themselves, out of wood, that is bigger than any wooden ship ever built since then, that could have held pairs of EVERY single animal on the face of the Earth, as well as his family, and enough food for ALL of those animals and people for nearly an entire year, plus be able to feed and care for all those animals every day. Remember, since you don't believe in evolution, EVERY species of animal that is alive today would have had to have been alive then, PLUS all the species that we know to have died out and become extinct since then. So we're not just looking at the usual line of circus style animals marching two by two up the plank like we see in all the cute little Sunday School pictures. We're talking about animals numbering into the hundreds of thousands and even into the millions (including insects that cannot live under water). How did this one man and his three sons and their wives gather all these animals? Surely all the animals of the arctic climates such as polar bears and penguins did not exist anywhere near where Noah lived. He would have had to somehow have gathered animals from all over the entire globe from all the different climates, PLUS enough food and the right TYPES of food for each different type of animal. How could he have controlled the temperature in the ship for the various different animals when some need a tropical climate and others need arctic temperatures? You've got a million animals on a wooden ship...who is keeping them from attacking and eating each other. Who was cleaning up what must have been a massive sewage problem and how? And since the Earth was under water for more than 250 days (if you take the Bible literally)that would have killed off all the plant life as well. And since "evolution" does not exist, he would have had to have brought plants/trees/seeds of every species around the world with him as well and tended to them.
So, with an "open mind", think about that, do you REALLY think everything in the Bible should be taken literally? And if so, do you REALLY think evolution does not exist?
Having "faith" does not mean that you should cover your ears, scrunch your eyes shut and yell "I can't hear you!!!" over and over when someone questions long standing beliefs. If it did, we'd still think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Apparently, people are only supposed to be open-minded when it serves to convince them that you are "right", but not when there's a possibility of finding evidence that what you have always believed might be wrong.
By the way, I was serious about Noah's ark... I am interested in how the museum can come up with the logistics of one man possibly with the help of only his three sons could build a ship by themselves, out of wood, that is bigger than any wooden ship ever built since then, that could have held pairs of EVERY single animal on the face of the Earth, as well as his family, and enough food for ALL of those animals and people for nearly an entire year, plus be able to feed and care for all those animals every day. Remember, since you don't believe in evolution, EVERY species of animal that is alive today would have had to have been alive then, PLUS all the species that we know to have died out and become extinct since then. So we're not just looking at the usual line of circus style animals marching two by two up the plank like we see in all the cute little Sunday School pictures. We're talking about animals numbering into the hundreds of thousands and even into the millions (including insects that cannot live under water). How did this one man and his three sons and their wives gather all these animals? Surely all the animals of the arctic climates such as polar bears and penguins did not exist anywhere near where Noah lived. He would have had to somehow have gathered animals from all over the entire globe from all the different climates, PLUS enough food and the right TYPES of food for each different type of animal. How could he have controlled the temperature in the ship for the various different animals when some need a tropical climate and others need arctic temperatures? You've got a million animals on a wooden ship...who is keeping them from attacking and eating each other. Who was cleaning up what must have been a massive sewage problem and how? And since the Earth was under water for more than 250 days (if you take the Bible literally)that would have killed off all the plant life as well. And since "evolution" does not exist, he would have had to have brought plants/trees/seeds of every species around the world with him as well and tended to them.
So, with an "open mind", think about that, do you REALLY think everything in the Bible should be taken literally? And if so, do you REALLY think evolution does not exist?
Having "faith" does not mean that you should cover your ears, scrunch your eyes shut and yell "I can't hear you!!!" over and over when someone questions long standing beliefs. If it did, we'd still think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth.
13 June 2007 02:18:46
wrote:
your last post confirmed everything I have previously said... you are close minded because you don't want to trust in the Bible... I can't comprehend Jesus dieing on the cross and rising again scientifically, does that make it false... no it was a supernatural event... I am no scientist so visit the museum or the website http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and read what PHD scientists reason that the account of Noah's ark was feasible. You won't read it or visit the museum though because you don't want to believe it even if they present a valid argument. You are close minded because that is what you were taught, probably at a young age and in college and it is very sad.
13 June 2007 12:01:17
wrote:
the DEVIL is in the details friends...many of the questions we seek answers to we will not understand until god himself reveals the answer to us...opinions over what he meant by this or that lead to divisions in HIS church which in turn leads to many little kingdoms instead of the desired outcome which is HIS kingdom all that matters in my humble opinion is that we know jesus and carry out his commandment of love...love conquers all...think how much better this world would be if we just acted on that principal alone...all the energy we waste arguing over things that dont really matter much in the grand scheme of things is dpressing and causes nothing but devision...just a thought...peace
13 June 2007 12:10:01
Susan wrote:
Nate, I am not saying ANYTHING in the Bible is "false". I believe in Creation, I believe in the death and resurrection, I believe in all the miracles. What I have a problem with is a museum or anything else proclaiming the creation or any other unproven miracle of the Bible to be "SCIENTIFIC FACT". It is NOT proven, it should NOT be taught as though it has been. There is nothing closed minded about that. Refusing to even THINK about things like Noah's Ark or anything else simply because you're afraid it will cause you to question your faith IS "closed minded". If you are truly strong in your faith, you should have nothing to fear.
13 June 2007 13:30:07
Susan wrote:
Sun_tzu, I believe you are right. The Bible says there are things we will not understand in our time here on Earth. I believe the Creation is one of them.
13 June 2007 13:31:48
wrote:
they declare only that science points to Bible and vice versa... they nowhere claim they can prove creation... they just think science points more to creation than it does evolution and they also believe that mixing creation and evolution on the orgin of man and the universe is just a compromise that can lead to rejection of faith in God all together... notice I said "can lead"... the double standard bothers me that evolution is so much better proved and developed by science and creationism and the Bible aren't... ken ham and friends would like to dispute that and their museum does it very well and professionally...
13 June 2007 15:39:36
wrote:
Nate states that science can't prove or disprove the resurrection because it is a supernatural event.
I do not want my life run in any way, or decisions made by government officials in any way that may effect my life, based upon beliefs in the supernatural.
I wouldn't want decisions made that effect me based upon reading tea leaves, reading chicken entrails, or any kind of faith.
Decisions must be made on facts and reason, not that which can not be proven. Individuals can have their personal faith but to impose on others because of one's own belief in the 'supernatural' is unfair to those that do not share the belief in the 'supernatural'.
I do not want my life run in any way, or decisions made by government officials in any way that may effect my life, based upon beliefs in the supernatural.
I wouldn't want decisions made that effect me based upon reading tea leaves, reading chicken entrails, or any kind of faith.
Decisions must be made on facts and reason, not that which can not be proven. Individuals can have their personal faith but to impose on others because of one's own belief in the 'supernatural' is unfair to those that do not share the belief in the 'supernatural'.
14 June 2007 08:40:45
wrote:
All religions are pure fantisy. A logical mind would have to accept that there is no Tooth Fary, no Santa Claus, and no God of any sort. Men in general are aware of the fact that they will not live forever, thus they invent God and some sort of afterlife to give themselfs something to look forward to. Too bad they will kill you to save your soul and bring your spirit into the fold. I say a pox on all religons. The true opiate of the people. Proably the only thing that Marx ever got right.
14 June 2007 10:45:03
wrote:
many men are aware of the fact that they will live for ever...just up to you to decide where...your "logical mind" offered no imperical evidence to the contrary...only speculation...
15 June 2007 09:30:04
wrote:
what a shallow life to lead that leads to death and nothing more... the product of the humanistic worldview of no absolutes and morals... whatever feels good do it, as there will be no consequences for your actions
15 June 2007 12:09:54
wrote:
Take a look at the fundimentlist fanatics that are terrorising the world today, are they any worse that the Crusaders that terrorised the world in the middle ages. What about the Spanish Inquisition? All of those "Christians" that did not give a second thought to killing thousands can be directly compared to the Muslems of today who are also on a "Great Crusade" My greatest fear is that any religious group would get control of the government. Sincere fanatics like those who support "Creationisim" are the ones who need to be watched. Remember, if it feels good, they most likely will not want you to do it. I do not want my life to be controlled by guilt ridden bible thumping control freaks. Teach what you want in your churches, but stay out of the schools with your fairy tales.
16 June 2007 08:31:09
wrote:
No one knows what happens after death. Rationality says we die, period.
Faith says we live in a magical Heaven, are reincarnated, or whatever the hell Scientologists believe.
It is all unproveable, and would be laughable if fanatical religious whackjobs did not insist on trying to kill one another.
Faith says we live in a magical Heaven, are reincarnated, or whatever the hell Scientologists believe.
It is all unproveable, and would be laughable if fanatical religious whackjobs did not insist on trying to kill one another.
17 June 2007 09:44:40
wrote:
No one knows what happens after death. Rationality says we die, period.
Faith says we live in a magical Heaven, are reincarnated, or whatever the hell Scientologists believe.
It is all unproveable, and would be laughable if fanatical religious whackjobs did not insist on trying to kill one another.
Faith says we live in a magical Heaven, are reincarnated, or whatever the hell Scientologists believe.
It is all unproveable, and would be laughable if fanatical religious whackjobs did not insist on trying to kill one another.
17 June 2007 09:45:19
wrote:
I do not care if the fanatical religious whackjobs kill each other, in fact that most likely is a good thing. I worry about them killing me. There is no such thing as freedom of speach when religion is involved, it is agree with those "who know the Way" or burn in the hell they will gladly send you to. If you think I am wrong, just study History. And remember, history has a way of repeting it'self.
18 June 2007 08:08:43
wrote:
it wasnt "religious whack jobs" who brought an end to the roman empire...it was the if it feels good do it and everything is ok crowd that today passes for secular humanism...mr history repeats its self...
18 June 2007 08:47:21
CBrown519 wrote:
Susan wrote: 'I choose to believe the Bible's version of creation, although, not the literal "one day = 24 hours" interpretaion.'
A man was sitting on a mountain one day and decided to speak with God:
"God, is it true that to You, a million years is the same as a minute?"
God replied, "Yes, my child, it is true."
The man then asked: "God, is it also true that to You a million dollars is the same as a penny?"
God replied, "Yes, my child, that is also true."
Then the man asked: "God, can I have a penny?"
And God replied, "In a minute."
A man was sitting on a mountain one day and decided to speak with God:
"God, is it true that to You, a million years is the same as a minute?"
God replied, "Yes, my child, it is true."
The man then asked: "God, is it also true that to You a million dollars is the same as a penny?"
God replied, "Yes, my child, that is also true."
Then the man asked: "God, can I have a penny?"
And God replied, "In a minute."
18 June 2007 17:13:55
CBrown519 wrote:
I'm a believer of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Because I am, to me, what God created matters completely. How He created it matters not at all. In the grand scheme of things, it really is of inconsequential importance.
18 June 2007 17:26:47
wrote:
CBrown519, that is nice that you want to believe it is of inconsequential importance, but where do you draw the line? Some religions believe Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God... well if Genesis isn't true then I guess that leads to the rest of the Bible being a big fairy tale as well... all you appeasists need to realize how much damage you are doing to the foundations of your beliefs. It is sad that many years of evolution brainwashing that the Christians are changing the Bible to believe evolution instead of sticking to literal translation of the origins of Earth.
19 June 2007 08:47:48
wrote:
i dont think cbrown was being an appeasist...he said HOW god created it matters not at all...and the truth is NO ONE will know the complete details of creation until god himself reveals it to us in heaven...he never said genesis wasnt true...that is your straw man argument...maybe lcm you should spend a little more time reading what one says...what he did say is that he is a believer in god,christ and the holy spirit...wouldent that be the most important of all beliefs for one who claims to be christian?
19 June 2007 09:50:03
Susan wrote:
LCM, are you saying you take every single thing in the Bible literally?
19 June 2007 13:46:17
wrote:
I take everything in the dictionary literally.
Webster has never mis-defined a word.
Webster has never mis-defined a word.
20 June 2007 12:45:01
wrote:
how can you all say that the foundations of your faith don't matter... the Bible is very clear what is literal and what is alliteration or a parable. You can't have non-literal text unless you have something literal that it is referring to. The humanistic translation of the Bible is a dangerous thing and eventually you have a generation that doesn't believe in anything in the Bible. You chip away piece by piece starting with the foundation and eventually they have no rational reason to believe in right or wrong or in God. It really amazes me how blinded Christians can be on this subject. It is a modern day trojan horse that has a goal of deceiving your kids and turning them from the faith.
21 June 2007 21:28:16
Susan wrote:
Nate, who said "the foundations of your faith don't matter"? The Bible may be clear on what is literal and what isn't, but that isn't the problem. The problem is the translation. Who are you to say that you KNOW 1 day in the creation story equals our modern 1 24 hour day? The Bible was not written in English by modern day writers. You're dealing with multiple translations over various languages back in a time when there were many words with different meanings than we think of them today. There is nothing threatening the "foundations" of our faith just in a belief that maybe God's "6 days" in the beginning were not what we call "6 days" now. How could it possibly matter to my salvation whether I believe God made it all in 144 hours or a few thousand years?
Lucente's column is a perfect example of how different people translate the same piece of writing in different ways. We all read and understand English, he wrote it in English and still, we have multiple differing ideas on what he literally meant.
Lucente's column is a perfect example of how different people translate the same piece of writing in different ways. We all read and understand English, he wrote it in English and still, we have multiple differing ideas on what he literally meant.
22 June 2007 13:26:45
wrote:
That is why the dictionary is so great to be taken literally.
The definitions are only subject to one interpretation.
All Hail Webster!
The definitions are only subject to one interpretation.
All Hail Webster!
22 June 2007 22:11:31
wrote:
susan, are you saying thousands or millions of years because there is a tremendous difference. The Old Testament has been amazingly preserved over the years in 1 language that the Jews still are taught today. Go to any barmitsza (spelling?)and let me know what language they do it in. If you look at everywhere they use the same word for day it is referring to 24 hour days. I don't understand how people can take one verse that talks about a day in heaven being like 1000 years and apply it to one spot in the Bible and not all of them. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy, does that mean 1 24 hour day or 1000 years, and how do we keep 1000 years holy when we only live 75-100 years? That arguement has nothing to do with translation and everything to do with appeasing scientists who say the supernatural events of creation spoken of in the Bible just don't line up with "scientific fact" of evolution that the earth is millions of years old and that we all came from monkeys.
22 June 2007 22:56:45
Susan wrote:
First of all, Nate. I do not believe we came from monkeys.
Secondly, if you are taking the one day to mean a literal 24 hours, then what does it matter whether I am "saying thousands or millions of years"? Both are far longer than what you believe so, in your opinion, a thousand years might as well be a million.
Thirdly, since we are to take that literally. You must believe that the entire Bible should be taken literally. Correct?
Secondly, if you are taking the one day to mean a literal 24 hours, then what does it matter whether I am "saying thousands or millions of years"? Both are far longer than what you believe so, in your opinion, a thousand years might as well be a million.
Thirdly, since we are to take that literally. You must believe that the entire Bible should be taken literally. Correct?
23 June 2007 11:35:59
wrote:
susan,
it is obvious you haven't fallen off the path... you still believe but don't understand why compromising at the beginning leads to compromising everything... I believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is the book our country used to write our laws and helped in founding the greatest country in the history of mankind. We are becoming much like every other God fearing country in the history of the world, we are systematically booting God out of every aspect of our lives and discounting His ability to do what His Word said He did. Read your Bible what happened to nations when they did what we are on to the path to doing?
it is obvious you haven't fallen off the path... you still believe but don't understand why compromising at the beginning leads to compromising everything... I believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is the book our country used to write our laws and helped in founding the greatest country in the history of mankind. We are becoming much like every other God fearing country in the history of the world, we are systematically booting God out of every aspect of our lives and discounting His ability to do what His Word said He did. Read your Bible what happened to nations when they did what we are on to the path to doing?
25 June 2007 11:38:52
wrote:
We evolved from something.
Look around and it appears that we evolved from primates.
And by the intelligence of the vast majority of people we are devolving back into a lower life form.
I guess some would say that just doesn't make sense. But then it just doesn't seem to make sense that an invisible cloud being made everything in 6 days.
Tomato-Tomatoe. Potato-Potatoe.
Different strokes for different folks.
Look around and it appears that we evolved from primates.
And by the intelligence of the vast majority of people we are devolving back into a lower life form.
I guess some would say that just doesn't make sense. But then it just doesn't seem to make sense that an invisible cloud being made everything in 6 days.
Tomato-Tomatoe. Potato-Potatoe.
Different strokes for different folks.
25 June 2007 12:49:28
CBrown519 wrote:
Ok...So God created the heavens and the earth literally in six days...six of our currently recognized 24-hour days. If you truly believe He can do ANYTHING, then it probably happened that way...so be it. Why does it matter?
Science is just another of God's gifts to us. Science CANNOT prove His existence just as science CANNOT disprove His existence. Why does it matter?
The only thing that matters, that should matter to any of us, is that Jesus died for our sins upon His cross; that we may have everlasting salvation.
When we die and go on to ... when we meet God, he'll look every one of us square in the eye and say "You were so wrong all along ... but it really doesn't matter."
I do want to know one thing, though: If we evolved from primates, why are there still primates? There are literally thousands of examples of species evolving from other species to the complete extinction of the original species.
Science is just another of God's gifts to us. Science CANNOT prove His existence just as science CANNOT disprove His existence. Why does it matter?
The only thing that matters, that should matter to any of us, is that Jesus died for our sins upon His cross; that we may have everlasting salvation.
When we die and go on to ... when we meet God, he'll look every one of us square in the eye and say "You were so wrong all along ... but it really doesn't matter."
I do want to know one thing, though: If we evolved from primates, why are there still primates? There are literally thousands of examples of species evolving from other species to the complete extinction of the original species.
26 June 2007 21:18:52
wrote:
I should become a Christian minister.
These idiots will swallow any line of BS you throw at them.
So incredibly stupid and willing to follow anything that gives them answers.
It is a money train.
These idiots will swallow any line of BS you throw at them.
So incredibly stupid and willing to follow anything that gives them answers.
It is a money train.
28 June 2007 12:29:33
wrote:
sun, I have saw in your response to Mr. Harris. You mentioned Secular Humanism. Isn't Socilizm and Secular Humanism the same? In there way of thanking about things. If it feels good do it?
01 July 2007 18:09:06
wrote:
Sorry for the Grammer. I should have said, I saw in you response. Sorry, sun
01 July 2007 18:11:03
wrote:
wildcat...secular humanism is a form of religion based on if it feels good do it...socialism is a form of government loosely based on the govt controlling most areas of your existance...
02 July 2007 20:45:25
wrote:
sun..
that is a rather over simplified version of secular humanism...
wildcat, If you are really interested in some of the nuances take a quick read in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
The "if it feels good do it" synopsis is most often put forth trying to sway a discussion with emotion rather than rational thought. It is also often used as or intended as insulting, or at the least a derogatory term by some denominations
Some people can't imagine themselves behaving in an honest, ethical and rational manner with care and regard for their fellow man....WITHOUT some supernatural threat.
go figure...
anyhow...hope the link is a help. It's a good starting point to learn about the term.
Tom,
Welcome back home.
that is a rather over simplified version of secular humanism...
wildcat, If you are really interested in some of the nuances take a quick read in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
The "if it feels good do it" synopsis is most often put forth trying to sway a discussion with emotion rather than rational thought. It is also often used as or intended as insulting, or at the least a derogatory term by some denominations
Some people can't imagine themselves behaving in an honest, ethical and rational manner with care and regard for their fellow man....WITHOUT some supernatural threat.
go figure...
anyhow...hope the link is a help. It's a good starting point to learn about the term.
Tom,
Welcome back home.
11 July 2007 03:38:19




![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png)

[COLUMN] Creationism is not science
According to Plato, it was Empedocles (circa 490-430 B.C.) who first enumerated what would later become the Four Elements. The list, what Empedocles called the Four Roots, consisted of Fire, Air, Earth and Water. It was generally believed that everything in the universe consisted of these Four Elements.
These elements, with some modifications depending on when and where you lived, dominated philosophical, religious and scientific thought for more than 1,000 years. It wasn't until the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution that the Four Elements was finally replaced by a more accurate periodic table of elements.
Of course, Enlightenment scientists had access to resources of which Empedocles could not even imagine. Still, Empedocles reasonably used the resources he had available to theorize about the universe. Later scientists, using more modern techniques, were able to create better theories and laws about the nature of the universe, a turn of events that Empedocles, as a man of reason, would have welcomed.
That is how science works. Every discovery strengthens an existing theory, changes an existing theory, or debunks an existing theory.
Comparatively, evangelical Christians take an ancient creation and flood story penned by an unknown Middle Eastern Jewish priest some 3,000 years ago and accept that fable as history, science, and the unerring word of God all wrapped into one. Such thinking defies reason and ignores 3,000 years of editing and translating. As an editor, I can tell you that 3,000 years worth of rewrites can seriously alter a story.
That is fine. People can believe what they want.
Where faith crosses the line, however, is when it masquerades as science and history and attempts to corrupt the knowledge and mental acuity of our youth. That is what is happening at a so-called museum in Petersburg, Ky., that opened last month. The Answers in Genesis Creation Museum claims the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago.
What bunk.
For $19.95 ($24.95 if you wish to visit the planetarium), you can wander through this Museum of Lies where organizers claim dinosaurs lived among humans a mere 6,000 years ago. There is even a saddled triceratops among the 160 interactive exhibits. The museum also makes the incredible claim that a great flood created the Grand Canyon in a matter of days, rather than the millions of years it took the Colorado River to carve it. Another exhibit has dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
What happened to "Thou shalt not lie"?
The museum is clearly targeting children with its interactive exhibits, which include a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breeze and rumbling seats. Yet, have a cartoon camel hawking cigarettes and the government sues you for billions of dollars.
Unlike other creation museums across the nation, which unashamedly reject science, this one actually makes the patently false claim that it is based on science.
For the record, creationism, especially young-Earth creationism, is not science. It has no basis in reality. It is pure poppycock.
In fact, it is not even good religion. Such a literal interpretation of Genesis does more harm than good to Christianity.
Many early Christian leaders recognized the foolishness of taking Genesis literally. While St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest of the early Christian theologians, claimed a literal reading of Genesis, he was certainly no young-Earth creationist.
Augustine tells us that the six days of Genesis were simply stages, not temporal days. Additionally, to him, the terms "light," "day," and "morning" carried a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning.
More importantly for this discussion, Augustine warned Christians against dogmatically interpreting Scripture when such an interpretation can be easily proved false on the basis of physical science: "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
Young-Earth creationists could learn a thing or two from Augustine. However, they have shown that reason and intellect (gifts from God?) have no room in their blind faith in a clearly allegorical tale written by a Middle Eastern Jewish priest some 3,000 years ago.
God help us.
category | Column
author | Lucente