Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Christians never stole the OLD TESTAMENT. It was given away... And archaeology is a scientific study ---- in case you were unaware. And there have been not a few discoveries that have substantiated many things of the Old and New Testament.Science has not confirmed the Hebrew bible.
Did you know the Hebrew text is the Torah? That's the text christians call the Old Testament which Christianity co-opted (stole).
Absolutely! The Word of GOD leaves nothing important up to your imagination. You would know nothing concerning JESUS if all you did was stare at sunrises and sunsets. They can be pretty, but they hardly get you to heaven.Wisely so.
Do you really think the mythopoeic yammerings of pre-literate culture tell us more about god than god's works directly?
When I seek divine inspiration, I'm more likely to find it in a sunrise than in a pew.
Let us please not conflate god with religion.
Darwinism is anti-scientific.
Moreover it took almost 2,000 years for *science* to confirm the first sentence in the Hebrew Bible. 2,000 years.
Now as to archaic Darwinism and science, which is embraced by every Christian and Jew, many of whom are Nobel Laureates.
If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.
“One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20
“The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22
One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.
In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 *
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *
Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49
Bibliography
1. How Did Life Begin?
1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (Princeton University pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.
a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (The official website of the Nobel Prize - NobelPrize.org nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.
8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
10. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, p. 32.
11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.
12. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.
13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.
15. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.
16. Brain Matters—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.
17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (Please see http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.
18. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.
19. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.
20. Scientific American, “Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.
21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.
22. Genome—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.
23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.
24. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.
25. No Ordinary Genius—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.
a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.
26. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.
27. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.
28. Intelligent Life in the Universe, Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.
29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.
30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.
31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.
32. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
36. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.
37. The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.
(Box) What About Human Evolution?
38. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.
39. Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.
a. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.
b. Anthropologie, XLII/1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.
c. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.
40. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.
41. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.
42. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.
43. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.
44. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.
45. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.
46. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.
47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.
48. The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.
49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.
50. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.
51. Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.
a. Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books...stions/is-it-reasonable-to-believe-the-bible/
I know you (Ben Thompson) like to pretend you're smarter than all the Christians on that large list, but you're not.
what I wonder is why you havent ever commented since 2009 and now choose to start commenting??why do some people believe religion instead of science
www.pewforum.org
lifestyle.inquirer.net
A lack of basic understanding, they canwhy do some people believe religion instead of science
Nope. This shows your very poor grasp of logic. This is a non sequitur. Basically, you inventing low hanging fruit for yourself to argue against.So, you are saying Jesus the Christ didn't exist?
And that's fine. But they put those ideas aside when performing science. There is no overlap. They can believe in the Spaghetti Monster or whatever, but those beliefs are either totally absent in the science, or it is bad science and they are bad scientists.A fair percentage of scientists are religious and science is often what caused them to become religious
Sure you do.I have proof God exists.
At sometime in the far future science and religion may overlap.And that's fine. But they put those ideas aside when performing science. There is no overlap. They can believe in the Spaghetti Monster or whatever, but those beliefs are either totally absent in the science, or it is bad science and they are bad scientists.
Perhaps you would be wiser to stop attacking people and show some REAL evidence. Philosophy is based on logic. Science is based on testable observable facts.Nope. This shows your very poor grasp of logic. This is a non sequitur. Basically, you inventing low hanging fruit for yourself to argue against.
As they already have on a shallow level, the many times we pursued religious belief with scientific method and ended up having to set aside the false religious belief. But really, we can view "Does God exist?" as a scientific question.At sometime in the far future science and religion may overlap.
Of what? Be specific. Pick one claim you would like evidenced.Perhaps you would be wiser to stop attacking people and show some REAL evidence.
Yep. In the first case, the truth of claims is objectively tested. In the second, any claim can be made, and there is no way to tell what is true and what is not. The definition of meaningless, objectively.Science relates to the physical realm; religion to the spiritual.
Sure, because admitting all of that really shrinks the space where the gods reside. If gods cant perform magic, then they are affecting nothing in the workings of s deterministic universe governed by laws. So their gods become clockwork gods. These are theists who believe in personal gods that interact with humanity. They cannot and will not accept the idea of clockwork gods.A lack of basic understanding, they can
accept that god is perfect but they don't give him the credit to know that a physical universe requires natural ( scientific ) laws to govern it and all the life-forms that reside in it.
The Hebrew Torah was not ''given away''. Lets just pretend you accept archaeology as a 'science' when you believe it confirms biblical fables.Christians never stole the OLD TESTAMENT. It was given away... And archaeology is a scientific study ---- in case you were unaware. And there have been not a few discoveries that have substantiated many things of the Old and New Testament.
What contradictions to 'atheist lies'? Yet another of your frantic, meaningless rants.The number of Jews and Christians who are Nobel Laureates is considerably larger than the number of atheist Nobel Laureates.
Carl Sagan stated that religious faith and science compliment one another. He was agnostic, and yet his memorial service was held in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.
The list of contradictions to atheist lies is hundreds of pages long.
Oxford University's Motto is "The Lord is Our Light."
America's Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Name for me one American university with an atheist charter. One hospital. One soup kitchen. One orphanage.
