Religion

[Metal Biker]

Jesus never claimed to be God. And before he was crucified, he prayed asking for God's help. So God prayed to God? That doctrine in itself is flawed from all angles.

"Save me, Me!"

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Was Jesus Christ , Messiah crazy,? He believed the young earth creation and He had divine claims
For spiritually re-vivified Christians, Jesus is more than a good teacher, a prophet or even a created being. He is in actual fact the Creator of all things, who existed before the creation of the world (John 17). Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John 1:1 we read the same words, " in the beginning was the Word "(logos ie translated as logic) and that the Word was not only with God but was God. This Word is the one who spoke all things into being at creation (John 1:3).
He accepted worship from people , Thomas being one who said " my Lord and my God" .He performed miraculous signs - all of this pointing to His deity.
He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is an open claim to deity. This “I am” (Exodus 3:14 )statement was Jesus’ fullest example of saying “I am YHVH ,” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
( in Hebrew pronounced YHVH -the name of God- Hebrew has no vowels) He is literally the great I AM , the self existent God who created everything.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament ( Jewish bible also called the TaNaKh ) historically accurate and truthful.
in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. So no evolution.
Jesus understood that creatures were to reproduce "after their kinds" . So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze. But in reality crossing the "kinds'or 'family' barrier cannot happen naturally as the information isn't available.
Rather we have thousands of trees representing the genus family or kind as the information is already available in the first fully created order of families or kinds.

Jesus not only talks about Adam at the beginning of creation but his son Abel as well (Luke 11:49–51). In that passage Jesus talked about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,” the foundation being the initial 6 days +1 rest day of Creation Week. There were no murders before Adam's fall. Therefore a very good creation. No fossils underneath Eden as there was no death.
Jesus clearly understood that Abel lived at the foundation of the world. This means that the parents of Abel, Adam and Eve must also have been historical.
Over and over Jesus referenced people in the Jewish Bible in a historical way.
This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah and worldwide flood (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they be a warning for future judgement? This also shows Jesus’ interpretation of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign miracle, if the events of Jonah did not take place?
He believed in the account of creation becuse
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" 1Cor8. Therefore the supernatural creation of the Universe and of Adam as the first man is seen clearly and He leaves no room for the evolutionary cosmological myths and gradualistic origins of man where particles magically change into people over billions of years.
Many people in the thread don't accept the biblical (Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament ) account of origins. They therefore don't believe what Jesus says about origins. They can mock His Word all they like. Let them answer to Him.

There are a lot in the church who don't accept what Jesus says about origins . But it has an affect of denying that the Word is true. Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text. Dawkins knows this. He's an expert on this point. He knows if the theological colleges can accept the god of evolution then the gospel message of Christ taking the blame and punishment for the all the sins and wrongs that every human has ever done in Adam ,is undermined. Why would Christ suffer and die for the sin of Adam if it didn't really bring death and suffering into this world and if death and suffering were already here beforehand? The answer is that He wouldn't because a real Adam,man caused the death.

The body of Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews who believe and accept Christ has died for them do win the paradise anyway because creation is not a salvific issue. The body of Christ Messiah doesn't disown anyone but individuals and certain groups within the spiritual body can undermine what Christ teaches and this affects the view of salvation. That's an authority problem.

I do not believe Yeshua of Nazareth ever existed. Nor Moses, and many or most of the people spoken about in the Abrahamic religions.

Many (like Moses and Jesus) were just a leftover, adopted and adapted stories from the Egyptian religion after the Egyptian Empire receded from Arabia (where it had extended right up to the Hittite Empire of Anatolia at its greatest extent). With bits and bats adopted and adapted from other earlier religions’ stories. Sometimes with the storyline about how Egypt were the bad guys.

The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah are not biographical; they are fictitious.

The Jesus story was told in many religions many times before Christianity existed. And much like I’ve said how God, or the main god in multitheist religions, has its roots in the original sky god of very ancient religions who was just the deified personification of the sky; Jesus is simply the continuation of older Sun gods from more ancient religions, simply deified personification of the Sun.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Was Jesus Christ , Messiah crazy,? He believed the young earth creation and He had divine claims
For spiritually re-vivified Christians, Jesus is more than a good teacher, a prophet or even a created being. He is in actual fact the Creator of all things, who existed before the creation of the world (John 17). Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John 1:1 we read the same words, " in the beginning was the Word "(logos ie translated as logic) and that the Word was not only with God but was God. This Word is the one who spoke all things into being at creation (John 1:3).
He accepted worship from people , Thomas being one who said " my Lord and my God" .He performed miraculous signs - all of this pointing to His deity.
He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is an open claim to deity. This “I am” (Exodus 3:14 )statement was Jesus’ fullest example of saying “I am YHVH ,” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
( in Hebrew pronounced YHVH -the name of God- Hebrew has no vowels) He is literally the great I AM , the self existent God who created everything.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament ( Jewish bible also called the TaNaKh ) historically accurate and truthful.
in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. So no evolution.
Jesus understood that creatures were to reproduce "after their kinds" . So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze. But in reality crossing the "kinds'or 'family' barrier cannot happen naturally as the information isn't available.
Rather we have thousands of trees representing the genus family or kind as the information is already available in the first fully created order of families or kinds.

Jesus not only talks about Adam at the beginning of creation but his son Abel as well (Luke 11:49–51). In that passage Jesus talked about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,” the foundation being the initial 6 days +1 rest day of Creation Week. There were no murders before Adam's fall. Therefore a very good creation. No fossils underneath Eden as there was no death.
Jesus clearly understood that Abel lived at the foundation of the world. This means that the parents of Abel, Adam and Eve must also have been historical.
Over and over Jesus referenced people in the Jewish Bible in a historical way.
This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah and worldwide flood (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they be a warning for future judgement? This also shows Jesus’ interpretation of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign miracle, if the events of Jonah did not take place?
He believed in the account of creation becuse
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" 1Cor8. Therefore the supernatural creation of the Universe and of Adam as the first man is seen clearly and He leaves no room for the evolutionary cosmological myths and gradualistic origins of man where particles magically change into people over billions of years.
Many people in the thread don't accept the biblical (Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament ) account of origins. They therefore don't believe what Jesus says about origins. They can mock His Word all they like. Let them answer to Him.

There are a lot in the church who don't accept what Jesus says about origins . But it has an affect of denying that the Word is true. Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text. Dawkins knows this. He's an expert on this point. He knows if the theological colleges can accept the god of evolution then the gospel message of Christ taking the blame and punishment for the all the sins and wrongs that every human has ever done in Adam ,is undermined. Why would Christ suffer and die for the sin of Adam if it didn't really bring death and suffering into this world and if death and suffering were already here beforehand? The answer is that He wouldn't because a real Adam,man caused the death.

The body of Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews who believe and accept Christ has died for them do win the paradise anyway because creation is not a salvific issue. The body of Christ Messiah doesn't disown anyone but individuals and certain groups within the spiritual body can undermine what Christ teaches and this affects the view of salvation. That's an authority problem.

Nobody has the first f*cking clue what some guy called Jesus may have thought, said or claimed about anything because a) It wasn't documented at the time, and b) It was totally made up.

 

[west didsblue]

I do not believe Yeshua of Nazareth ever existed. Nor did Moses, and many or most of the people spoken about in the Abrahamic religions.

Many (like Moses and Jesus) were just a leftover, adopted and adapted stories from the Egyptian religion after the Egyptian Empire receded from Arabia (where it had extended right up to the Hittite Empire of Anatolia at its greatest extent). With bits and bats adopted and adapted from other earlier religions’ stories. Sometimes with the storyline about how Egypt were the bad guys.

The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah are not biographical; they are fictitious.

The Jesus story was told in many religions many times before Christianity existed. And much like I’ve said how God, or the main god in multitheist religions, has its roots in the original sky god of very ancient religions who was just the deified personification of the sky; Jesus is simply the continuation of older Sun gods from more ancient religions, simply deified personification of the Sun.

I too have no idea whether Jesus or Moses existed but I can guarantee that Moses, if he existed, didn’t know anything about Jesus as he died 1300 years before Jesus was born (if he was real in the first place).

If they did exist my opinion is that the biblical stories about them were largely a figment of various people’s imagination especially all the bits involving God.

 

[Metal Biker]

I do not believe Yeshua of Nazareth ever existed. Nor did Moses, and many or most of the people spoken about in the Abrahamic religions.

Many (like Moses and Jesus) were just a leftover, adopted and adapted stories from the Egyptian religion after the Egyptian Empire receded from Arabia (where it had extended right up to the Hittite Empire of Anatolia at its greatest extent). With bits and bats adopted and adapted from other earlier religions’ stories. Sometimes with the storyline about how Egypt were the bad guys.

The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah are not biographical; they are fictitious.

The Jesus story was told in many religions many times before Christianity existed. And much like I’ve said how God, or the main god in multitheist religions, has its roots in the original sky god of very ancient religions who was just the deified personification of the sky; Jesus is simply the continuation of older Sun gods from more ancient religions, simply deified personification of the Sun.

Just look at Baldur; many striking similarities

 

[Marklr]

I do not believe Yeshua of Nazareth ever existed. Nor did Moses, and many or most of the people spoken about in the Abrahamic religions.

Many (like Moses and Jesus) were just a leftover, adopted and adapted stories from the Egyptian religion after the Egyptian Empire receded from Arabia (where it had extended right up to the Hittite Empire of Anatolia at its greatest extent). With bits and bats adopted and adapted from other earlier religions’ stories. Sometimes with the storyline about how Egypt were the bad guys.

The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah are not biographical; they are fictitious.

The Jesus story was told in many religions many times before Christianity existed. And much like I’ve said how God, or the main god in multitheist religions, has its roots in the original sky god of very ancient religions who was just the deified personification of the sky; Jesus is simply the continuation of older Sun gods from more ancient religions, simply deified personification of the Sun.

Well explained...but he'll ignore it.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

I do not believe Yeshua of Nazareth ever existed. Nor did Moses, and many or most of the people spoken about in the Abrahamic religions.

One of the most acrimonious online spats I ever came across was between Maurice Casey - a historian without a religious axe to grind who insists that Jesus definitely existed - and several others who regard Jesus as mythical like yourself. Here’s your starter for 10:

Maurice Casey - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Haven’t looked properly but the nastier exchanges are likely to still be out there somewhere.

Casey eventually published a book in 2014 about it that is mentioned in the Wiki entry. He has an engaging though strident prose style. Must get around to the book myself at some point.

What you say about the Old Testament characters is pretty much echoed in the OUP very short introduction by Michael Coogan.

As for the Qur’an, I think some of the content can be tied to events described elsewhere, like the Battle of Badr. Certainly, Cook and Crone’s controversial Hagarism thesis has been discredited.

There’s some excellent writing on early Islam these days, though for my money, when it comes to Muhammad, the French Marxist historian Maxime Rodinson’s older study is the best thing I have read. It’s available for free here:

http://www.barvennon.com/ozdiary/%5BMaxime_Rodinson%5D_Muhammad%28z-lib.org%29.pdf

Do a search in the document on the word ‘fucked’ and you should be directed to an excellent poem.

There’s one last thing: as someone who posts under the name ‘Psychedelic Casual’ I am a bit disappointed that you aren’t more of a Timothy Leary type character advocating putting LSD in the water supply so that we all get to glimpse cosmic consciousness.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Just look at Baldur; many striking similarities

From what we’ve found out over the years about history and archeology of that era, very little of the Abrahamic religions hold water in their historicity, never mind their believability.

The Moses story is seen in a number of older or contemporary religions than/as Judaism.

In the older ancient Egyptian religion, the story of a baby in a basket down the Nile and the story of their law giver (who also received ten commendments) were two different stories of different people that appear to have been brought together for the Abrahamic Moses story.

In Ancient Greece’s religion, Minos was given his laws from Zeus on Mount Ida.

Also at the time Moses is said to have lead the Hebrews back to the promised land (sometime between 1,200-1,400 BCE between the reigns of Thutmose III and Ramesses II), Egypt empire’s territory actually covered the “promised land” so they’d have simply been going from one part of the Egyptian Empire to another.




There is also no evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves to Egypt. Certainly not in Egypt. Where the Hebrews were from, came under Egypt Empire’s territory, and I’m sure there may have been some Hebrew slaves to Egypt, but nothing like the mass scale that is described in the Moses story.

And when it comes to Jesus, there are so many(!) of the same older stories from older religions that it’s almost funny to think people have thought his is original and even that he was real.

All of the Jesus story, either in part or almost fully, can be seen in the stories of:
Horus, Tammuz, Mithra, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and a number of others.

All of them are simply personification of the Sun and the changing of the seasons… including Jesus.

 

[paulsimpson]

So much wrong with this, I don't know where to start. The first mistake is that you think that science, like religion, concerns itself with what should be rather than what is. The description of how evolution works is just that: a description. It makes no moral judgment and doesn't tell you how to live. You then seem to misunderstand what would confer an evolutionary advantage in a social species such as humans and other apes. You portray evolutionary survival as an entirely individual thing, yet no human in history has lived and survived without the support of others. Social species don't survive by casting out members of the group the second they are operating at anything less than 100%. Older people have valuable experience to contribute to the survival of the group as a whole.

As for your claim that "neither creationists or evolutionists saw the origin of the universe," that's also not exactly true.

That's a picture from the first moment of the universe that light was able to pass through it. Not the exact origin, but in cosmological terms, pretty damn close. Of course we could debate whether the big bang was truly the beginning of the universe, but it's very difficult to take seriously anyone who claims it didn't happen when you can actually see it with a telescope.

What youre saying is that evolutionary science is objective and unbiased, while religion (and by extension, creationism) is biased and dogmatic. True science is not about ideology when it really is. The condescension is noticeable.
Theres a gigantic power of worldviews to control and guide scientists’ interpretations—especially when dealing with the unobservable past. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must always be interpreted in light of an a priori worldview.
Thetexwas a time when most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians. For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science?
Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in such a way that we can study it by observation and experimentation.

However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific.
1.No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2.No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

The chief ‘proof’, for the big bang theory is the unevennesses (of 1 part per 100,000) in the cosmic background radiation of the universe, as in this so-called 2013 Planck ‘map’ above. But this involves circularity. The evidence is interpreted assuming the big bang theory to be true, and then it is used to support the theory.
The big bang is one of the most non-scientific narratives ever postulated. It has evolved considerably over the last 30 years or so, not so much because of new evidence in support of it, but because more and more problems have arisen to seriously undermine it.

Energy can be converted into matter according to Einstein’s equation E=mc², but when this happens exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter are formed. So the 200 billion galaxies of antimatter that had to form to balance the 200 billion galaxies of stars are missing
The big bang is supposed to have begun by means of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum fluctuation is not nothing. So where did it come from? And this could not have happened prior to any time or space for anything to quantum-fluctuate in.
The big bang depends on early inflation of the universe that lasted from 10-³⁶ to between 10‐³³ and 10‐³²seconds, at many times the speed of light, with no known mechanism either to cause this, or to stop it once it began.
The big bang has a light-travel time problem, from the fact that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has the same temperature over the entire sky, namely 2.726 ± 0.001 K (i.e. above absolute zero). However, there hasn’t been enough time for radiation to travel between widely separated regions of space at the speed of light, to produce the uniform CMB temperature over the whole sky. This is technically known as the big bang ‘horizon problem

Big bang theory only produces an expanding cloud of gas. Expanding clouds of gas do not spontaneously reverse their expansion and condense into the objects ( stars) we see in the real universe around us

The list goes on

 

[Metal Biker]

What youre saying is that evolutionary science is objective and unbiased, while religion (and by extension, creationism) is biased and dogmatic. True science is not about ideology when it really is. The condescension is noticeable.
Theres a gigantic power of worldviews to control and guide scientists’ interpretations—especially when dealing with the unobservable past. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must always be interpreted in light of an a priori worldview.
Thetexwas a time when most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians. For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science?
Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in such a way that we can study it by observation and experimentation.

However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific.
1.No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2.No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

The chief ‘proof’, for the big bang theory is the unevennesses (of 1 part per 100,000) in the cosmic background radiation of the universe, as in this so-called 2013 Planck ‘map’ above. But this involves circularity. The evidence is interpreted assuming the big bang theory to be true, and then it is used to support the theory.
The big bang is one of the most non-scientific narratives ever postulated. It has evolved considerably over the last 30 years or so, not so much because of new evidence in support of it, but because more and more problems have arisen to seriously undermine it.

Energy can be converted into matter according to Einstein’s equation E=mc², but when this happens exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter are formed. So the 200 billion galaxies of antimatter that had to form to balance the 200 billion galaxies of stars are missing
The big bang is supposed to have begun by means of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum fluctuation is not nothing. So where did it come from? And this could not have happened prior to any time or space for anything to quantum-fluctuate in.
The big bang depends on early inflation of the universe that lasted from 10-³⁶ to between 10‐³³ and 10‐³²seconds, at many times the speed of light, with no known mechanism either to cause this, or to stop it once it began.
The big bang has a light-travel time problem, from the fact that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has the same temperature over the entire sky, namely 2.726 ± 0.001 K (i.e. above absolute zero). However, there hasn’t been enough time for radiation to travel between widely separated regions of space at the speed of light, to produce the uniform CMB temperature over the whole sky. This is technically known as the big bang ‘horizon problem

Big bang theory only produces an expanding cloud of gas. Expanding clouds of gas do not spontaneously reverse their expansion and condense into the objects ( stars) we see in the real universe around us

The list goes on

Yet in your view... it is much more logical to suggest that it was a big man in the sky who said a few words and *poof* instant universe?

I'm convinced now, this is a troll account, good show.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

“But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

What is the religious explanation for people born intersex?

A process of creation in the womb by a perfect divine creator should be perfect itself, surely?

Why are people born with abnormal chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia?

However, Evolution is perfectly compatible with biochemical processes "going wrong".

Why do hybrid animals exist if God designed everything individually....?

The animals marched two by two.... what about the species of animal that produce asexually?

 

[andyhinch]

I didn’t read anything past the first sentence. I genuinely think you’re poorly and hope you get the help you so obviously need.

It’s not the thoughts on a rational mind, hope he’s ok.

 

[JASR]

another 2 tranches of bible quoting waffle, from the troll liar - ‘I’m too busy to answer your simple questions’

the only proof/validation presented of a particular god, seems to involve invoking the singular book that describes the zealots beliefs.
Ie I believe in X because it says it in X.
That’s it. Nothing more. Zilch. Nada. Laughable

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Just spent the last couple of hours putting pathstones back in position in my wife’s church grounds following a group of Scrooge’s jacking them up to nick later on tonight.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

What youre saying is that evolutionary science is objective and unbiased, while religion (and by extension, creationism) is biased and dogmatic. True science is not about ideology when it really is. The condescension is noticeable.
Theres a gigantic power of worldviews to control and guide scientists’ interpretations—especially when dealing with the unobservable past. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must always be interpreted in light of an a priori worldview.
Thetexwas a time when most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians. For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science?
Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in such a way that we can study it by observation and experimentation.

However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific.
1.No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2.No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

The chief ‘proof’, for the big bang theory is the unevennesses (of 1 part per 100,000) in the cosmic background radiation of the universe, as in this so-called 2013 Planck ‘map’ above. But this involves circularity. The evidence is interpreted assuming the big bang theory to be true, and then it is used to support the theory.
The big bang is one of the most non-scientific narratives ever postulated. It has evolved considerably over the last 30 years or so, not so much because of new evidence in support of it, but because more and more problems have arisen to seriously undermine it.

Energy can be converted into matter according to Einstein’s equation E=mc², but when this happens exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter are formed. So the 200 billion galaxies of antimatter that had to form to balance the 200 billion galaxies of stars are missing
The big bang is supposed to have begun by means of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum fluctuation is not nothing. So where did it come from? And this could not have happened prior to any time or space for anything to quantum-fluctuate in.
The big bang depends on early inflation of the universe that lasted from 10-³⁶ to between 10‐³³ and 10‐³²seconds, at many times the speed of light, with no known mechanism either to cause this, or to stop it once it began.
The big bang has a light-travel time problem, from the fact that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has the same temperature over the entire sky, namely 2.726 ± 0.001 K (i.e. above absolute zero). However, there hasn’t been enough time for radiation to travel between widely separated regions of space at the speed of light, to produce the uniform CMB temperature over the whole sky. This is technically known as the big bang ‘horizon problem

Big bang theory only produces an expanding cloud of gas. Expanding clouds of gas do not spontaneously reverse their expansion and condense into the objects ( stars) we see in the real universe around us

The list goes on

Some religious people have done good science? Check.
There are some things that current science can't explain, therefore God? Check.

Your objections are not scientific ones, they are objections you've read on religious websites where someone has compiled arguments against anything that might cause a problem for your religious dogma. It's exactly the same as the opponents of Galileo, who you ironically now claim as one of your own when no doubt had you been around in 1633, you would have been gladly cheering on the inquisition against him as you cite "biblical evidence" for why he's wrong. Imagine how much more he could have achieved had it not been for the threat of religious institutions. Even more recently, we would have had the theory of natural selection about 20 years earlier if Charles Darwin had been a non-religious scientist or lived in a non-religious society.

And yes, science as a system and process is as unbiased as we have come up with so far. Individual scientists or journals may not be, but that's why the process exists. Whereas religion is entirely biased all of the time without fail. There's not a single scientific advance or discovery in any of the fields that we've talked about that hasn't been routinely and baselessly opposed by religious institutions and vast swathes of the religious population long after the evidence is overwhelming.

And yes, plenty of current religious people do great science or philosophy, but William Lane Craig has spent his entire career at explicitly religious institutions whose entire ethos is the spreading of a particular religious worldview. If I wanted to do a degree at his university, I would have to do 80 credits of religious studies throughout my degree, regardless of whether it's relevant to the subject I'm studying. To teach at the university, I would have to go through a test to make sure that I follow an evangelical Christian ethos.

Literally all you've done is cite things you don't know (what caused the big bang?) and things you choose not to know (the multiple separate fields of evidence for evolution, for example) and then shoved God into those gaps.

Some of the objections are laughable. No-one has been able to observe or repeat something that takes billions of years? I wonder why that is. You must have really struggled with history class in school if that's your reasoning. If you dug up a bunch of artifacts in a field, would you just say "oh well, I didn't see where these came from so that's the end of the story." No of course you wouldn't. You'd take existing evidence from various fields to create a picture of what happened. And evolution is supported by so many fields of evidence that your tiny objections to one of the fields (on the apparent basis that you don't know about the latest discoveries into self-replicating molecules, and just flat out ignore the entire DNA record) are a drop in the ocean.

But yeah, basically God of the gaps and nothing more. No positive evidence whatsoever for God, just "The universe appears ordered. I can't explain that order. Therefore God." And coincidently, therefore your God. Not Brahma or Phanes or Odin or any of the other thousands of options.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The animals marched two by two.... what about the species of animal that produce asexually?

To be fair, some of them marched in sevens. Must have been a big fucking boat. The thing I love about creationists is that they spend so much time trashing science when it contradicts something in their holy book, but the second there's some proper scientific evidence that even hints that part of it might be true, they're all over it. For example, there's a certain amount of geological evidence for a large flooding event in the Middle East that could have explained the Noah myth. Creationists are all over this. But when the same field present evidence for the age of the earth or the survival of fossils, they don't want to hear it.

 

[Bill Walker]

Just know that you and your deluded brethren are holding the world back. Hope that keeps you warm and fuzzy when you're in bed praying to your fairytale in the sky at night.
You should ve sectioned.

I'm not religious but I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever God or science they want without ridicule. Or being told they're insane.

 

[paulsimpson]

Some religious people have done good science? Check.
There are some things that current science can't explain, therefore God? Check.

Your objections are not scientific ones, they are objections you've read on religious websites where someone has compiled arguments against anything that might cause a problem for your religious dogma. It's exactly the same as the opponents of Galileo, who you ironically now claim as one of your own when no doubt had you been around in 1633, you would have been gladly cheering on the inquisition against him as you cite "biblical evidence" for why he's wrong. Imagine how much more he could have achieved had it not been for the threat of religious institutions. Even more recently, we would have had the theory of natural selection about 20 years earlier if Charles Darwin had been a non-religious scientist or lived in a non-religious society.

And yes, science as a system and process is as unbiased as we have come up with so far. Individual scientists or journals may not be, but that's why the process exists. Whereas religion is entirely biased all of the time without fail. There's not a single scientific advance or discovery in any of the fields that we've talked about that hasn't been routinely and baselessly opposed by religious institutions and vast swathes of the religious population long after the evidence is overwhelming.

And yes, plenty of current religious people do great science or philosophy, but William Lane Craig has spent his entire career at explicitly religious institutions whose entire ethos is the spreading of a particular religious worldview. If I wanted to do a degree at his university, I would have to do 80 credits of religious studies throughout my degree, regardless of whether it's relevant to the subject I'm studying. To teach at the university, I would have to go through a test to make sure that I follow an evangelical Christian ethos.

Literally all you've done is cite things you don't know (what caused the big bang?) and things you choose not to know (the multiple separate fields of evidence for evolution, for example) and then shoved God into those gaps.

Some of the objections are laughable. No-one has been able to observe or repeat something that takes billions of years? I wonder why that is. You must have really struggled with history class in school if that's your reasoning. If you dug up a bunch of artifacts in a field, would you just say "oh well, I didn't see where these came from so that's the end of the story." No of course you wouldn't. You'd take existing evidence from various fields to create a picture of what happened. And evolution is supported by so many fields of evidence that your tiny objections to one of the fields (on the apparent basis that you don't know about the latest discoveries into self-replicating molecules, and just flat out ignore the entire DNA record) are a drop in the ocean.

But yeah, basically God of the gaps and nothing more. No positive evidence whatsoever for God, just "The universe appears ordered. I can't explain that order. Therefore God." And coincidently, therefore your God. Not Brahma or Phanes or Odin or any of the other thousands of options.

 

[SWP's back]

No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

You know this is all bollocks don’t you?

 

[SWP's back]

I'm not religious but I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever God or science they want without ridicule. Or being told they're insane.

There are plenty of religious people who I don’t believe are insane. The troll poster who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old isn’t one of them.

As for “no one should be ridiculed for this belief”, fuck that. That’s absolute horse shit. Why? Why should one person’s irrational belief be sacrosanct?