Infidel, take your blasphemies to where they are wanted, along with your fairy tales. This information is not shared to give you EVIDENCE of your arrogant, self-absorbed little deity. This is an atlas and a history.

I don't see any sign of a big golden firey wheel, so your dog must have gone shopping, or came by to watch how funny you are.

I don't bring my faith to this site, I don't need to. My gods speak every day

Oh, Ed... you silly sod.

Your Yahweh (wow... I TYPED IT!... and I'm still alive!...) botched Genesis to such a degree that only the most naive or deluded individual could read it and say, "Yep... that's how it went down!" A planet of water... before HYDROGEN? Let's just start there and see if you can explain that (and we're just at 1:2). After you say, "God did it and he can do anything", which is your only defense, I'll point out the fallacy of circular reasoning, and ask you to explain how this magic water was kept from freezing in a vacuum minus radiation/heat/energy.

Oh, right: "God can do anything."

Well, "I" have a book, also from an unknown, non-autographical author, that says "Zoomia" created everything from a spit wad. And, of course, this is factually accurate because Zoomia can do anything.

Same reasoning, down to the core.

But hey... enjoy your fantasy. You have that right, and I for one would fight for your rights. They are equally important to us both. Just don't use it to impede we scientists from actually moving the world out of the bronze age...or impair our children's education...or bring harm to society. Fair?

That's what is great about America -- you have the freedom to be a complete idiot and write it off on your tax return, just as long as you don't hurt others.

AH, but religion 'has' and 'continues' to hurt others... and that's another conversation.

I don't see any sign of a big golden firey wheel...

I don't bring my faith to this site, I don't need to. My gods speak every day

Hey BikerLimey, looks like you just contradicted yourself, LOL!

Jon

Thank you for being so concerned with me, as to write such a long message. All our answers to Creation are waiting when we see God face to face.The scripture says "We now see through a glass dimly, but then face to face"

I have asked the Lord to help you, experience His wonderful peace.

Perhaps you are uninformed and the truth lies in the middle. We must all remember, the Bible was never written as a scientific document, it would make no sense at all to address an audience 3000 years ago with what would be to them absolute meaningless! Besides, no one was there and all of science points to a universe so bizarre and intricate that even Stephen Hawking
As far as a few scientists and intelligent people who do believe in God:
* Albert Einstein – “"I want to know how God created this world; I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
* Max Planck- In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols."
* Dr. Francis Collins – Previous atheist, Head of the Human Genome Project
* Alan Shepherd – Astronaut, first American in space.
Furthermore, the Bible is the only ancient book that accurately describes the order of creation and speaks of certain phenomena not described in literature until modern physics:
Creation
1. Heaven and earth created, earth is” formless (probably molten) and empty (duh, it’s really hot!)”
2. “…darkness was over the surface of the deep…” Primordial earth would have been covered in hot clouds of gas and water vapor so thick that sunlight could not penetrate.
3. “Let there be light…” As the earth cools atmospheric conditions change allowing and sunlight to finally reach the surface of the earth. Remember this is not the creation of the sun, that was earlier in point 1.
4. Separation of waters – water cycles appear from further atmospheric cooling which promotes evaporation and condensation.
5. Dry land appears – tectonic activity and geological forces create mountains and land masses
6. “Let the earth sprout vegetation…”- plants appear on the scene. The word for this process in Hebrew is different from that of Point 1. It refers to a natural process rather than the created used in Point 1 which literally means “out of nothing,” hint: think Singularity.
7. "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night…” Individual clouds appear allowing stars, the sun, and moon to be visualized from the surface of the earth.
8. "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures…” First sea life, then more advanced life begins to appear. Again, the Hebrew word used points to a natural process.
9. "Let the earth bring forth living creatures…” Do you notice God states, “Let the earth bring forth…”?
10. Man appears on the scene. Mapping of the human genome points to a singular woman>
The Bible and Sciences: Biblical References
* Time had a beginning
* The universe had a beginning
* The universe was created from the invisible
* The dimensions of the universe were created
* The universe is expanding
* Creation of matter and energy in the universe has ended
* The universe will end and someday collapse
* Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound objects
* Light is in motion
* The earth is controlled by the heavens
* Earth is a sphere
* Earth is suspended in space
* Air has weight
* Earth began as a water world. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described
* More dimensions exist in the universe than we can perceive

All the above statements are consistent with today’s beliefs and some we did not understand until Einstein.

We all need to keep an open mind lest we blind ourselves to the magnificent universe in which deign is evident everywhere.
It is not my faith that led me to believe in God but my continuous search of understanding the laws of science that propel me towards that belief in God.

"We wonder in awe, of how great his Love for us is. John 3:16"

A little more humility might be in order. Even if it was created as you believe, I seriously doubt it was done just to impress humanity...

Helio, just as long as you are aware that Hawking and Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Beyond that there is a lot of room for both literal and metaphorical gods as manifestations of driving forces.

@Edward:

I type fast. And yes, I very much do care about the pursuit of truth verses the instilling of myth -- myth that has led to countless wars and bloodshed.

@ Heliochrysanthus

Since you've made so many assertions that deserve a response, I'll give you one. I just hope you're as curious about truth as you appear to be.

We shall see...

Perhaps you are uninformed and the truth lies in the middle. We must all remember, the Bible was never written as a scientific document, it would make no sense at all to address an audience 3000 years ago with what would be to them absolute meaningless!

SO many logical fallacies here. For starters, you suggest that the Bible is or is not 'something' -- in this case, a 'scientific document'. You're basically denying the antecedent, among other things (conjecture, etc.)

You have no basis to make the claim that the Bible should NOT be scientifically accurate when describing matters of science. None whatsoever. The bible claims divine inspiration; most Christians purport it to be the literal Word of God.

Scientific jargon need not have been used AT ALL in the book of Genesis. The truth of creation could have easily been laid out in a sequence that was proper, and in a way even goat herders would understand.

You are also suggesting that God purposefully distorted the truth, which of course impedes your claim as to his perfection. Then again, throughout scripture, God distorts the truth without having to break scientific laws in order to do so. For example, God did NOT want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but nonetheless told him otherwise as a "test" any omniscient being would have know he'd pass.

Finally, you defeat your own supposition that this deity has mankind's best interest in mind by suggesting he only communicated with the 'whole' of mankind in a way that bronze age Jews would best understand. Never mind the future -- even lands apart from the Middle East would have no clue as to his bizarre dictates.

So far, this is an epic fail. Let's continue...

Besides, no one was there and all of science points to a universe so bizarre and intricate that even Stephen Hawking

This is a classic straw man: Assuming that, in order for facts NOT to be blatant lies and misstatements, one must have a genius around to elucidate them. Nonsense.

The argument here is simple: Did your god HAVE to communicate the creation of the universe in the WRONG ORDER?

No.

In fact, there's a video on YouTube where a guy rewrites Genesis 1 in the language of 'their' day, and does so (a) without violating basic science; and (b) in a way that would reveal to ANYONE in the future that this document was inspired by knowledge that was impossible for a goat herder to possess.

Your document does neither.

Have a look:

http://youtu.be/3iaJo7cxybc

As far as a few scientists and intelligent people who do believe in God:

Look up "argument from authority." It's a logical fallacy.

I will not bother to show you the research polls today: Polls that state over 80% of 'all' scientists or either atheists, agonistic, or simply don't care one way or the other. Even that would be an appeal to authority.

It does absolutely NOTHING to address my argument.

However, you can still feel free to try. No, really. Do try, won't you?

Now, let me correct the common theistic assumptions found below...

* Albert Einstein – “"I want to know how God created this world; I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein believed in an ordered universe, which is why quantum mechanics bothered him so much. Had he been alive today, perhaps he would have chosen his words more carefully. I do not know. However, I DO know what Einstein thought of 'your' god (his was a Spinozian god):

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism

So please: Stop evoking Albert in your defense of the Abrahamic deity.

* Max Planck- In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols."

Planck is an interesting case. He was a proponent of a theory that we now know to be false; and that theory propelled his connection between his god and the material world:

Planck's assertion was that there is no material in the universe, nothing really substantial. He was well before the time of modern physics and our elegant calculations of material energy. This was the only way Planck could rationalize the ex nihilo issue with Genesis. He also was painfully unaware of the connection between "time" and matter/energy in the issue that creation involved time, i.e. that a deity that created 'anything' would have also had to create space/time prior to moving in a direction that time itself demands.

Again, none of these examples matter. They do not, nor cannot address my argument. And, as we're about to see, even brilliant men believe stupid things...

* Dr. Francis Collins – Previous atheist, Head of the Human Genome Project

I know Francis, and he was 'never' an atheist. He was lumped into the "I haven't really thought about it" category of agnostic, if anything at all. Francis came to believe when hiking one day and seeing a waterfall frozen in three segments. Yep... that was it.

Obviously, a sign of the trinity.

No, Francis had an experience, and 'experiences' are had in every single religion on earth. They are utterly meaningless as a means of supporting evidence. Francis is a good man; very smart (obviously), but in no way a qualified apologist. His knowledge of the scriptures is woefully inadequate, and his arguments always resort to that experiential motif.

* Alan Shepherd – Astronaut, first American in space.

And?...

If you're going to use this fallacious argument (appeal to authority), as least pick a true authority! He was essentially a test pilot.

Furthermore, the Bible is the only ancient book that accurately describes the order of creation and speaks of certain phenomena not described in literature until modern physics:

Here's where you're about to step in a steaming heap of bulls**t...

Creation
1. Heaven and earth created, earth is” formless (probably molten) and empty (duh, it’s really hot!)”
2. “…darkness was over the surface of the deep…” Primordial earth would have been covered in hot clouds of gas and water vapor so thick that sunlight could not penetrate.

Let's stop right there.

First, this is wrong... flat-out wrong.

Genesis claims that the EARTH was created formless, and that it was covered with water.

Look, just explain HOW that is possible -- water before STARS. Your science is pathetic here. Hydrogen exists ONLY due to the death of stars. There were no stars created as of yet in Gen. 1:1-1:2. Therefore, no hydrogen.

There was no "sunlight" to penetrate ANYTHING, as true to the fairy tale opining, El doesn't bother to make the freakin' sun until several verses later.

At least get your biblical facts right before you start maligning the scientific ones.

3. “Let there be light…” As the earth cools atmospheric conditions change allowing and sunlight to finally reach the surface of the earth. Remember this is not the creation of the sun, that was earlier in point 1.

1. There would be no atmosphere without hydrogen, sport. There are about a dozen other laws of physics mangled in that statement as well, but you've yet to even address the hydrogen argument.

2. No, you're wrong 'again' biblically. The sun was CLEARLY created all the way DOWN the list in verse 14-16, where El botches again and makes stars after the sun, which is a relatively YOUNG star:

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

It should be disturbing to you that you cannot even get your biblical facts correct in order to address the scientific facts. No, really -- that should completely bother you, if you are a person of integrity.

4. Separation of waters – water cycles appear from further atmospheric cooling which promotes evaporation and condensation.

I hate to break it to you sport, but the earth was never a ball of water. There's a long-ass equation that supports this fact, as well as every geologist alive today that's not working for the Creation Institute (i.e. 'every actual' geologist.) Evaporation and condensation could be loosely considered "separating" waters, but that's clearly not what the verse is stating, as you're about to claim yourself:

5. Dry land appears – tectonic activity and geological forces create mountains and land masses

The verses claim that El "parted" (the Hebrew term used) waters to reveal the dry land -- and this fit with already established Babylonian cosmology myths. In fact, your statement that the Bible is the 'only' book to describe creation in this fashion is false; the Babylonians beat them to it. Nonetheless, while tectonic forces do evoke uplift and the formation of mountains and islands, this is clearly NOT what was implied. Again, what was implied is that the waters 'covered' the lands, were 'parted' (like you'd open curtains) and revealed the dry lands underneath. This is just patently false.

(I do love how you started off your 'argument' by stating how the Bible is not a book of science, only to attempt to support it by claiming the opposite. Confused much?)

6. “Let the earth sprout vegetation…”- plants appear on the scene. The word for this process in Hebrew is different from that of Point 1. It refers to a natural process rather than the created used in Point 1 which literally means “out of nothing,” hint: think Singularity.

Yes, this is true... then again, for someone to claim this happens BEFORE SUNLIGHT (i.e. before photosynthesis) is just spouting nonsense...

Do you not understand the basics here?

7. "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night…” Individual clouds appear allowing stars, the sun, and moon to be visualized from the surface of the earth.

Er... NO.

This does not even remotely claim that. What it states, in plain Hebrew, is that the sun and stars were 'created'... not that they were "allowed to be seen"... utter bollocks. This is the lengths you must go to in order to make your fairy tale comport with reality, and it's a sad, pathetic show.

8. "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures…” First sea life, then more advanced life begins to appear. Again, the Hebrew word used points to a natural process.

No, the Hebrew word does not point to a "natural" process. Such dishonesty! Unreal.

Oh, would 'now' be a good time to mention that I'm a former pastor? That I studied these texts in their native languages for 18 years of my life, and that only THROUGH these texts, along with my involvement in science, did I become an atheist?

It's true... so you'll pardon me if I call you out on your bulls**t.

What 'is' correct here is that life evolved from the sea... but Genesis does not remotely claim evolution. It claims life was created ex nihilo in "a day" -- and if you give me the nonsensical argument of "a thousand years is to the lord a one day", I'll hold you to your fallacious claim and insist you then assert the scriptures claim it happened in a thousand years. Either/or -- false.

9. "Let the earth bring forth living creatures…” Do you notice God states, “Let the earth bring forth…”?

Yep, I noticed that... and guess what? Babylonian myth stated the same thing. However, it's not as 'elegant' as you're reading, and if it WERE, Darwin's breakthrough would not have even BEEN a surprise to the world. It still is, as the ignorant masses in the GOP believe evolution to be a myth, as did the Catholic church until recently.

The word "earth"means "LAND" in Hebrew. Let the LAND bring forth. Sorry, but that's not how it happened, and again, it did not happen ex nihilo in a day.

ALSO: Read Genesis CHAPTER 2. It contradicts Chapter 1 in aspect to the order of creation you are spouting off. Here, I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

10. Man appears on the scene. Mapping of the human genome points to a singular woman>

Ah... your science is painful to read.

You're referring to "Mitochondrial Eve" -- do you even know what this is? This is the point to where our human evolution branched off from a matrilineal perspective. It is NOT the "first woman ever made." Far, far from it. There were females in a variety of pre-humanoid species for eons prior.

Please: Just stop using science to support something if you clearly do not understand the science itself. You're just looking foolish at this point. If anything, M.E. (and yes, I wish science would stop using myth in naming things... it would prevent such whacky connections) shoots Genesis so full of holes it resembles Swiss cheese.

The Bible and Sciences: Biblical References
* Time had a beginning
* The universe had a beginning

Neither of these are purported as fact in science. Read Krauss' latest book, "A Universe From Nothing", as an example. The universe had a SINGULARITY EVENT, but we have no idea what happened a millisecond prior. Mathematically, Krauss (and many others, including Hawking) make a case for a zero sum energy universe. If this is true, and all evidence points to the fact it is, the universe has a total sum energy of ZERO, requiring "no" beginning at all.

* The universe was created from the invisible

* The dimensions of the universe were created

1. The Bible states that the universe was created by GOD, not "the invisible". God may in fact be invisible, but he's also apparently visible (see Adam, Moses, etc.)

2. Dimensions? Where? Nothing is stated in Genesis to support this dream of yours.

* The universe is expanding

Again, WHERE does your holy book state that the universe is expanding? And, if so, why was the discovery by Hubble et al such a shock to the church? Do you know how much flack he received when making that assertion?

* Creation of matter and energy in the universe has ended

Patently false... google "virtual particles" and have a fun time with it.

* The universe will end and someday collapse

Ah, you mean "the end of the world"...

That's a LONG conversation. Look up "preterism" --that's the fastest way to start the debate.

Nonetheless, Revelation describes a very physical "new earth", so I don't think Yahweh and Jesus and pals had the destruction of the 'universe' in mind.

* Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound objects
* Light is in motion
* The earth is controlled by the heavens
* Earth is a sphere
* Earth is suspended in space
* Air has weight
* Earth began as a water world. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described
* More dimensions exist in the universe than we can perceive

1. The bible mentions nothing about gravity.

2. Exactly 'where' is "light is in motion" found in the Bible?

3. Isaiah says that the earth "cannot be moved." This was the basis for 1500 years of bloody theology -- theology that your god didn't bother to correct, and theology that led to 1,000 years of anti-science and torture. Had the church not been in charge of the modern world at the time, we'd be walking on Mars right now, and poverty/hunger may be a footnote in history.

4. Nonsense -- the bible is completely flat-earth-based. From the "firmament" in genesis 1 (a sky that was flattened out like a hammer on metal, and a dome that separated the lower waters from the 'upper' waters -- i.e. Babylonian cosmology, and completely and utterly false) to the "pillars" upon which the earth is supported, to the 'corners' of the world... I could go on, but you are no doubt clinging to the "earth is a circle" scriptural mention. It's not a circle, it's a sphere. And, the word used for 'circle' is the same word used for 'plate' -- i.e. a FLAT CIRCLE, which fits the Babylonian cosmology they were educated under perfectly.

5. Again, this is not accurate. The earth is said to be "held" by God, and "unmovable". Just deal with the facts rather than post facto fact-checking.

6. Air has 'weight'? Where?

7. Ha! Well, the earth did not begin as a 'water world', but feel free to write a peer-reviewed case for it. Let's see how far it gets.

8. Nothing about dimensions (save the 'spiritual realm') is mentioned in the bible, at least from the perspective of scientific dimensions. Even if it WERE, extra dimensions were documented centuries prior to any of the bible being written via the Greeks.

All the above statements are consistent with today’s beliefs and some we did not understand until Einstein.

We all need to keep an open mind lest we blind ourselves to the magnificent universe in which deign is evident everywhere.

Here is some "design" for you:

1. Universes colliding into one another.

2. 99.96% of all life on earth is extinct.

3. Life preys on itself for sustenance.

4. Vestigial organs -- nifty design feature there.

5. An infinite cosmos of (as of now) lifelessness, and a planet to where only a fraction of its surface supports human life. I suppose this waste of space was "designed"?

6. Ebola virus, small pox, tsunamis, plagues... such eloquent design. Go ahead -- tell me why your god decided to create ebola. I'll wait...

7. Blind spots in the human eye, the human knee (highly dysfunctional), evolving prefrontal cortex that doesn't connect well at all to the amygdala (nifty... nothing like giving mankind primal judgment OVER rational judgement to help warmongering and fear along)...

I could go on and on... and on.

It is not my faith that led me to believe in God but my continuous search of understanding the laws of science that propel me towards that belief in God.

AS a scientist, I can flat-out tell you that your understanding of even the rudimentary aspects of cosmology, biology, evolutionary theory, physics, and astronomy would fit into a thimble.

I highly suggest you make a different case for your god.

And, after you do manage to come up with something remotely "scientific" to support it, you'll then have the daunting task of proving that this is the God of Abraham, and not Jefferson's deistic god, Spinoza's god, or Vishnu.

Care to try again?

All I can say is wow! Jon-2730330 performed the biggest slam-dunk in your face. I your wouldn't want to face him in a debate contest. Good job Jon.

"your" should have been sure. I need to do a better job of reading my posts before posting them.

Greg-2438150

All I can say is wow! Jon-2730330 performed the biggest slam-dunk in your face. I your wouldn't want to face him in a debate contest. Good job Jon.

Thanks Greg... : )

I think I'm taking my downtime from minor surgery a bit too seriously... heh.

I was a collegiate debater, and a former apologist, so these are pretty old arguments. To a Christian who isn't trained in science 'and' theology, a lot of this appears to be an "oh, wow!" moment, but it's a lot of smoke and mirrors, mixed with an abundance of scientific error and conjecture.

The theological reworking, however, is really without excuse.

After re-reading that novel I wrote, I wish I would have been more cordial to Edward. I'm in physical pain, but that's not meant as an excuse... just a fact. (Fortunately, this was relatively minor elective surgery to repair a bad shoulder. Too many years on the football field. Still hurts like a beeatch!)

So, Edward, my apologies for the occasional bashing. I do get some stiff hairs when I hear science distorted to support religious claims, and while I stand by my "thimble" comment, I mean no personal disrespect.

I hope you'll accept the apology and focus on the initial argument presented:

Explain how water formed prior to hydrogen.

After that, how that water wasn't frozen solid sans any radiation/heat from the sun, which was not created until several days later.

Until you get past Genesis 1:2, you're stuck. There's simply no way an all-powerful, all-knowing god would have dictated such blatant falsehood to his disciple. All he would have had to do is reorder the sequence: No 'elaborate' physics or scientific explanation would be required. That's not asking much, especially from a book that claims (a) this is the ONLY "one true God", and (b) if you don't believe in him, you're toasted... literally.

Is it SO much to ask that he get is intro correct? I think not.

Yes Jock you are correct and Hawking, like many scientists, tries to steer far clear of the implications of The Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang has always troubled Hawking.

I also want to point out, not to you personally Jock, that in no way would I ever believe that writing these posts would change anyone's belief system. That would be ludicrous and foolish! This is friendly dialogue, and even debate that intelligent (intelligent meaning open-minded people who can agree to disagree but keep their composure without throwing derogatory or belittling comments towards the other camp) humans should be able to participate in.

None of us were there (at the beginning when that creative event propelled forth from the Singularity) and very few understand the purpose of why Genesis was written the way it was or the context of the language at that time. Our English version is as much a corruption of the original Bible as any language translated to another; you will always lose some information unless you understand the original language in its original context (if you don't believe me, research jokes and riddles only a few hundred years old, they are very difficult to understand). Furthermore, any person who tries to use the Bible as a scientific document is as much mistaken as using Dr. Seuss to represent modern literature. I am not implying the Bible is fictitious, but that we are way out of context when we compare the creation in the Bible to what science tells us. I fully believe both accounts are true; the Bible just states it in a poetic way that would make more sense to that audience of the time. What would quantum physics mean to Moses!? The scientific community did not even believe in a beginning of the universe until the last 75 years, yet the Bible clearly stated that 3000 years ago and in the correct sequence! We won't get into the seven days, that's a whole other conversation, or debate, even in the God-believing camp!

What both sides of the debate seem to forget or ignore is that when evidence tends to point to something other than what we so passionately and in many cases childishly believe, we blind ourselves to truth. I see both sides doing that, and from that real progress towards truth and understanding is stifled.

Whether one believes the Bible is divinely inspired or not, it is hard to refute that it does, in fact, contain some unusual insight into science through its poetic verses where no other ancient book speaks of the phenomena noted in my last post.

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
² Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
³ They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them. "

Any credible scientist will admit, even if sheepishly, that the universe has this unnerving signature of purposeful design.

As I have said before, the Bible should NOT be referenced as a scientific document even though it does have some uncanny insights into science that we did not realize as a scientific community until the last 75 years.

I believe, God gave us the ability to comprehend mathematics and science which should place us all in a state of awe at how incredible and intelligent this being is that could design everything in existence from a Singularity so unimaginably small! I believe mathematics is one of the creationary languages of God. Who can deny math is the most beautiful and universal language that extends throughout the universe? Its laws are the same here as they are 15 billion light years away and only break down at the moment of the Singularity.

And for those of you who still think people who believe in God are stupid, I will give you a run for your money when we start to discuss early reducing atmospheres, Pre-Cambrian Explosion, time outside our four perceivable dimensions, fine tuning of the universe...you get the picture.

As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

Heliochrysanthus I take note of your belief but it has no business here. Look at how it has taken away from the topic. Huge posts. I would have rather read something from Jon-2730330 or a scientist like him that sparked the post. Instead he has to spend time pointing out stupidity. You think this is the place to discuss such things? You think this is right?

@ Jon, You sure spend a lot of time at your keyboard in order to post idiotic nonsensical ramblings.

The scientific community did not even believe in a beginning of the universe until the last 75 years, yet the Bible clearly stated that 3000 years ago and in the correct sequence! We won't get into the seven days, that's a whole other conversation, or debate, even in the God-believing camp!

How many times must we, as scientists, point out that the BB was a singularity, NOT a beginning? Perhaps until theists stop using is as a talking point, I presume.

Also, 'many' ancient theologies state the same thing. The Vedic texts are much older, and state the same premise (i.e. "Before creation of nature, only Brahma existed. He realized he is the ruler of the universe. And because of Brahma world was created.")

And, you really should take four days out of your life (ha) and read my long-winded reply to Edward. The "sequence" is ANYTHING but correct... and it's incorrect from the second verse on. Not only that, but Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 clearly contradict each other in that sequential argument.

So, please... stop it.

Stop conflating the issue into something it's not. This is not A=B. This is "Either A, or B, or C."

Either Genesis is correct, and El/Elohim/Yahweh (god evolved... nifty) is GOD (who was once plural; see "let US make man... long story there...) or he is NOT. There is no "iffy" middle ground where both are true.

There may indeed be a higher power, but it/they/he/she is almost certainly not Yahweh, and we have 'zero' evidence beyond mere assertion, blind faith, and superstition to support it.

@ Jon, You sure spend a lot of time at your keyboard in order to post idiotic nonsensical ramblings.

Here's an idea for you:

Feel free to actually post a counter argument instead of ad hominem. Perhaps then I'll actually give a s**t about what you say.

Or, do you not have the ability to do that? It really should be simple, as according to you, my facts are "idiotic nonsensical ramblings."

As I'm stuck in bed recovering from surgery, I eagerly await your eloquent rebuttal... although something tells me you won't post a thing.

Gee... I wonder why...

LMAO... Stop it Jon. I have a chest cold and the laughter is turning to cough and I can't quit.

Greg, hope you feel better man.

I took the liberty of checking out some other posts by this clown with such an appropriate moniker. They are all essentially the same: Ad hominem, "nuh-UH" replies, and variations on the themes of "how stupid liberals are", "only fools believe in evolution", and so-on... ALL without a single shred of rebuttal that your average 4 year old couldn't manage in a hissy fit.

I truly hope this moron decides to remove his fingers from his sphincter and place them upon his keyboard long enough to form a cogent rebuttal. I deem this about as likely as his deity healing an amputee.

Jon, the more you post, the dumber you appear. Only a fool would deny there is an all powerful God.

@barnyfife:

Jon, the more you post, the dumber you appear. Only a fool would deny there is an all powerful God.

Ah, argumentum ad populum/appeal to ridicule ... that fallacious rebuttal style you're so famous for.

Classic.

Since you are utterly incapable of a rational response, just answer this one question. It was the original question posited that has, so far, not received one cogent response:

----- > How did water exist before hydrogen? (Genesis 1:2)

Again, since I'm "dumber", this should be an absolute cinch for you to refute and/or address. We can start there and work our way down to the point where you say, "God did it," evoking the fallacy of circular reasoning.

You sure chose your moniker well. You and Fife have about the same level debate skills, although I'd pit either one of you against Gomer.

Yeah, I figured as much BarnyFife... a coward without a clue, or a response.

Crickets. What a shocker.

Who is the "idiot" again?

Jon, your nonsensical ramblings are, again, apparent to everyone on this forum. Instead of expounding your foolish drivel, maybe you should sit back and attempt to post a coherent response to a different point of view, without being a closed-minded self indulged know-it-all.

@ barnyfife

Jon, your nonsensical ramblings are, again, apparent to everyone on this forum. Instead of expounding your foolish drivel, maybe you should sit back and attempt to post a coherent response to a different point of view, without being a closed-minded self indulged know-it-all.

"Apparent to everyone" ... yes, this is why my comments have received 'zero' negative feedback from anyone except for you.

I'm still waiting for your response to a question that should be so utterly simple for you to answer, you shouldn't have to fire off a neuron to do so. So do it, or shut the f*ck up and admit you cannot. I seriously doubt you have the sack to admit you cannot, which is typical of blowhards like yourself.

However, you make me laugh—your tireless name-calling without so much as a whisk of a rebuttal just reveals your feeble desperation.

LOL too funny! barnyfife - "Here father Edward let me take him on"... moments later he is TKO'ed by Jon.

wow mark, words with nothing to back them up how profound - this article is fact based science - and of course the nutjobs quote the bible - delusional is the first word that comes to my mind

Yes... yes... yes Edward! God is Love and Eternal. Amen!

Its the fact your making an attempt to force your religion....

The problem people have with religion constantly being injected into scientific conversation is religions' stance is that everything that is not readily apparent is beyond mans understanding, and the act of even searching for knowledge and understanding is taboo. All scientific research is criticized by religion, yet they use all scientific knowledge gained to give more credit to a god whose complex creation could never be understood any further. You're like the Borg, assimilating all new knowledge into your religious collective.

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

If there is a creator, he's probably some alien super-geek and our universe is the product of a cosmic-scale super collider experiment.

Good point, BrainCandy. It is interesting that Edward's first reaction to an article about science was to recite a catechism, as if warding off some kind of evil.

Only beyond the couple of myth nut nuts in here posting.

Edward, if in the past (up to 600 years ago) somebody would be claiming just basics of what the modern astronomy discovered, he would've been condemned and executed (maybe burned alive) because it contradicts your favorite book. You (perhaps) don't question now that the Earth goes around the Sun, and the Sun is just a tiny little star in our vast Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way galaxy is just one little galaxy in the vast Universe.

Was their faith (at 600 years ago) false or true? After all, the book was the same. Do you accept the possibility their interpretation of the book was wrong? Then do you accept the possibility your interpretation of the book is wrong?

God is not found in a book, he dwells within the heart of all who believe. Some one asked Jesus "Where is the Kingdom of God?"He said "Within you".

You can collapse all my writing, that's OK It only makes me want to write more.

As for Scripture, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You must allow God to help you with it.

@ Edward:

God is not found in a book, he dwells within the heart of all who believe. Some one asked Jesus "Where is the Kingdom of God?"He said "Within you".

Oh, I hope no one collapses you, Ed. I for one enjoy your ravings.

Unfortunately, Jesus "also" said this:

"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped." -- Luke 16:17

And:

"Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:19-20, emphasis mine

This should give you grief, as Jesus contradicts what you think he is saying about the kingdom being "within you" by suggesting that the Torah (Levitical and Mosaic laws) must be obeyed to enter into this kingdom.

Exactly why would you need to enter 'into' a kingdom that is already "inside you"?

I love Bible Contradiction Triva…

LOL

Edward-1730176 you're NUTS. Keep your religions and pseudo-sciences to yourselves. I didn't ask and I don't want you to tell me anything off topic. Which all of this is.

Get a life...

If you must comment please keep it to the topic of dark matter or energy.