OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Why Easter?

Entry 509, on 2007-04-07 at 22:17:21 (Rating 4, Comments)

What is the point of Easter? Well, it gives us all a much needed holiday before winter really starts (in the Southern hemisphere) and some people attach additional, religious meaning to it, apparently. A poll in the New Zealand Herald showed just over 40% of people found that Easter had some religious significance for them. That means almost 60% don't see any religious meaning to the second most significant Christian event. If they don't think Easter is significant, they presumably don't think the crucifixion happened as the Bible claims, and presumably they reject the truth of the whole story of Jesus. So maybe my belief that the story of Christ is totally, or almost totally, fabricated is gaining popularity.

A pastor in England wants to show scenes from the rather graphic movie, Passion of the Christ, during services to remind people of Christ's suffering. Another prominent church leader has been saying something to the effect of what was God doing letting his son suffer like that - he obviously isn't a very caring god to allow that to happen. So their is a great deal of disagreement in the church.

Christians will spew out some nonsensical story about Jesus being sacrificed to save us humans from sin. But has that worked? Aren't we just as sinful now as we were then? And how can allowing Jesus to die horribly help the rest of us? Its a childishly stupid myth which you would really have to be pretty naive to believe. It seems that even Christian leaders are starting to question it now - maybe they're finally using the enquiring mind that they believe their god gave them!

So, like Christmas which I treat as a mid winter/summer festival, I treat Easter as a Spring festival, celebrating new life and re-birth in the non-religious sense. Of course, its the wrong season here in the Southern hemisphere, but we don't have a lot of choice except to go along with the majority, and we do have the advantage of celebrating Christmas in the middle of summer.

Comment 1 (609) by Anonymous on 2007-04-17 at 08:31:04: (view recent only)

The 60% of people that don't believe in the Easter Story might not believe in it for many other reasons than just the opinion that it didn't happen. We were actually having an in-depth conversation about that yesterday. People might not believe because they want to have control over their lives, they might not think that they could make such a huge a powerful commitment, or they might think that it won't make a difference in their lives.

Yeah, I know how weird and nonsensical the story of Jesus' resurrection is but it is something that we have proven to be true. We are just as sinful as we were then, but God sent His only Son to die for us on the cross. Jesus took the punishment that God would give us for our sins, and because Jesus is Lord, He has the ability to do that.

One more question... Why not?

Comment 2 (610) by OJB on 2007-04-17 at 10:49:34:

I suspect you would find that there are two main reasons people reject the religious aspects of Easter: first, they don't care; and second, they think its nonsense. Either way it shows no real commitment to the Christian story. Surely if people really thought it was true it would be in their own best interest to make a commitment to Christianity.

You have proven the resurrection story to be true? I'd love to see your evidence, because no one else I have ever discussed this with has even been able to show reasonable evidence that Jesus even existed! God sent his only son... blah blah blah. What a load of crap! (sorry that was a bit disrespectful,but when people preach that sort of nonsense I get like that)

Not sure what your final question (Why not?) is in reference to. Please clarify.

Comment 3 (611) by Anonymous on 2007-04-17 at 14:53:11:

Okay, when people tell me about me coming from a monkey, I get a little like that too, sorry.

Anyway, when I asked why not, I meant really, why not? Why not believe in Jesus. If I am wrong, then when you die, you would end up the same way you believe you would now. If I am right, like I believe I am, then you will go to heaven. So, why not? It isn't that hard, it's free!

Comment 4 (612) by OJB on 2007-04-17 at 16:04:28:

No one should tell you that you came from a monkey because that's not what science says (unless you are a monkey). Humans and the great apes came from a common ancestor. Monkeys branched off the line a long time before that. If you are going to debate evolution please get it right!

I don't believe in Jesus because there is no good evidence that he existed. If I was going to believe in stuff just because someone else did I would believe in all sorts of weird things, like UFOs, several different gods, ESP, astrology, etc, etc. I'm more interested in what's true.

So you invoke Pascal's wager as a good reason to believe in God/Jesus. Are you saying I should just pretend to believe so that I will get to heaven? Don't you think God would see through that sort of trick?

Comment 5 (615) by Anonymous on 2007-04-18 at 08:40:39:

Oops, "my bad." Apes, monkey's, sorry.

Anyway, (this is random information but the Bible is never in vain...) I do think that Pascal's wager is somewhat correct but I am just saying why not believe in something that can really comfort you. Now don't take that the wrong way, I know someone said that the only reason I was doing it was for the comfort. That isn't true. It is more to me than comfort. It is eternal life, salvation, a just and loving God, and most of all, I get to stop being selfish and worship this glorious God that created the earth and that deserves all of this glory.

Something that I have noticed over all the years I have been in debate with atheists was we both think we are right. We are all right in someway, but then again, we are both wrong in someway. I am pretty sure, if I believed in evolution, I would be looking for facts too, but the thing is, facts isn't all that it takes. Yeah there are facts for Christianity, everybody knows that. But, what everybody doesn't know is that God moves in you when you are a Christian. I hate it that people try to prove it wrong when they truly can't tell. Jesus, and God, and just Christianity is so much more than facts. I really wish you would realize that. I know God is there. My prayers get answered, not out of luck, and when I worship him, I get chills and God is in work in me, He loves me and He is fixing my heart. I don't think you can prove that wrong.

Comment 6 (620) by Anonymous on 2007-04-20 at 12:03:59:

Did you understand my last comment?

Comment 7 (621) by OJB on 2007-04-20 at 18:47:35:

What's to understand? You've fooled yourself into believing some superstitious nonsense. If that's what you want, fine. But can you show me a single objective fact to show your beliefs are actually true?

Comment 8 (622) by Anonymous on 2007-04-21 at 08:07:17:

Are you scared of being wrong?

Comment 9 (623) by OJB on 2007-04-21 at 11:00:58:

I'm never scared of being wrong. Any big change in our understanding of the Universe is a great thing. If there was proof of a supernatural/spiritual world it would be very exciting! BTW, got that single fact supporting your beliefs yet?

Comment 10 (676) by Student on 2007-06-25 at 07:46:03:

Hey, I am a student and I would like to ask you a question about the images of evolution. I have been doing some research and have you ever heard of the Miller Experiment? Has it influenced your beliefs to be an evolutionist?

Comment 11 (677) by OJB on 2007-06-25 at 23:07:31:

Yes, of course I've heard of it - it was a classic experiment. Note that some of the initial assumptions about the early atmosphere have since been changed but other experiments have been done since which also show that it is remarkably easy to make the molecules which are the precursors to life. Note also that the experiment deals with abiogenesis which isn't strictly part of evolution. Even if we couldn't find a way to create the first life evolution would still be valid because it deals with changes to existing life forms, not the origin of the first life.

Comment 12 (678) by Student on 2007-06-26 at 07:55:46:

Yes, I agree. I recently learned that Miller did not use the correct atmosphere and if we did use the correct early atmosphere, it would have produced toxins which would not have supported life.

Comment 13 (679) by OJB on 2007-06-26 at 18:05:20:

So you agree that the later experiments corrected this problem? And you agree this has little relevance to evolution anyway? And you agree that the general mechanism the experiment demonstrated is still valid?

Comment 14 (681) by Student on 2007-06-27 at 07:04:38:

I agree that we have corrected the problem, but I also agree that when we corrected the problem, we had to realize that the early atmosphere could not produce life. I agree that it does not have relevance to evolution anymore. Because it in itself proves that nature cannot produce life on its own. But, I do agree that we still have alot of work to do.

Comment 15 (682) by OJB on 2007-06-27 at 09:47:54:

There is no reason to believe the early atmosphere couldn't produce life, the debate is over the exact composition of the early atmosphere and the exact mechanism through which that life arose. You are right that further research is required. After all, studying an event which happened around 4 billion years ago is always going to be challenging.

Comment 16 (683) by Student on 2007-06-28 at 12:01:16:

Well, if the early atmosphere produced two chemicals that mixed to be toxins, there is a problem. But, like we agreed with earlier, we can't know that for sure. Ha, that might take us a while.

Comment 17 (684) by Student on 2007-07-01 at 04:53:43:

What about Darwin's Tree? What do you think about that?

Comment 18 (685) by OJB on 2007-07-01 at 16:15:01:

Are you talking about the deliberate misrepresentations of phylogenetic trees used by creationists to try to discredit evolution? Darwin never really used the idea, so calling it Darwin's Tree is misleading. Of course, creationists like to talk about Darwinism and Darwin's theory, etc even though no modern scientists do (except in a historical context).

To answer your question: I think the modern representation of common descent through morphological and molecular phylogenies is practically 100% proven.

Comment 19 (686) by Student on 2007-07-02 at 10:50:57:

Well, my point was to show that though the descent worked for awhile, it jumped to a completely different ancestor later on. Otherwise you could say it works. But, I agree that we shouldn't use Darwin's theory because he changed to Christianity anyway and science from years ago is very dated.

Comment 20 (687) by OJB on 2007-07-02 at 15:16:00:

Huh? I don't quite follow what you are trying to say about "descent jumping to a different ancestor". Please clarify. Also, where did you get the impression that Darwin "changed to Christianity"? Surely you don't still believe the old deathbed conversion myth!

Comment 21 (688) by Student on 2007-07-03 at 00:41:56:

Well, I guess I do. It is between him and God, but, by many accounts, he did.

The tree shows usual branching to show the common ancestors through time, right? Well, that doesn't work. At first, you could say that organisms came from a common ancestor, but later on, after the Cambrian explosian, a whole new set of organisms came about that are completely different from the others.

Also, you mentioned how molecular phylogenies is 100% proven. A scientist, Wells, has said, "You can't get molecular evidence from the fossils themselves; all of it comes from living organisms." You have to get RNA and compare it to others. If it looks the same, that means that it is proven that they are ancestors, right? No, that just means one RNA strand looks the same. Another good example that Wells gives us is that if you give one molecule to two different scientists, they will come up with two completely different trees. "Based on all this, I think it's reasonable for me, as a scientist, to say that maybe we should question our assumption that this common ancestor exists," said Wells during an interview talking about this topic.

Comment 22 (689) by OJB on 2007-07-03 at 11:54:06:

Well those accounts of Darwin are wrong, and even most creationists accept that now. You keep quoting "scientists" who have strong religious beliefs as if they represent the mainstream of science. Intelligent Design is not science. Wells is talking rubbish. You need to get some perspective on this by reading what real scientists think about evolution instead of just listening to those who support the side you want to believe.

Comment 23 (694) by Student on 2007-07-05 at 10:26:23:

Just because a scientist is a Christian doesn't mean they aren't a scientist. You have to keep that in mind. This Wells guy is a real scientist and he knows a lot of stuff. You don't have to be an evolutionist in order to be a scientist.

Right now I am reading a book about a journalist who was a strong atheist talking about what he believes and he is interviewing other scientists to prove what he believes. I am not a one-sided person. That wouldn't be fair. You need to know both sides before you start a debate, otherwise you end up being ignorant. That is not what I am trying to be.

Comment 24 (695) by OJB on 2007-07-05 at 13:15:40:

I agree that there are Christians who are genuine scientists, but from Well's bio: "Wells has said that he was a developmental biology researcher as a post-doctorate candidate at UC Berkeley. His post-doctorate at Berkeley was an unpaid title arranged by former UC Berkeley law professor and father of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson. Shortly after receiving his doctorate Wells joined Johnson at the Discovery Institute". He doesn't exactly sound unbiased, does he?

You're reading a book by a journalist who *was* a strong atheist? So what is he now? He's a journalist interviewing other scientists. Who is this person and who are the scientists? Sounds like more one-sided religious propaganda to me! You claim to have studied both sides but I'm afraid it sounds like you're off in cuckoo land with all the other superstitious believers to me. Prove me wrong if you can.

Comment 25 (696) by Student on 2007-07-05 at 15:23:15:

I believe that you are not listening to any of the information I have given you about why the basic elements of evolution are wrong! You have just raised up different questions and not answering to my facts.

You say you will change your belief if someone gives you facts against evolution, but apparently not. I believe you are being a little ignorant. I have given you a lot of facts and they explain a lot. Just listen to me.

Comment 26 (697) by OJB on 2007-07-05 at 18:35:48:

I don't see that you have given me any facts at all. Let's make this really simple. Just give me your best fact that disproves evolution and, if you are right, I'll be an instant convert. Just one really good fact will do. Here's a hint: please try to avoid quoting creationists and ID advocates who have been totally discredited in numerous places.

Comment 27 (698) by Student on 2007-07-06 at 00:20:48:

To be honest, my goal with debating with you was not to make you become an instant convert. To be honest again, it was to give you what I have been learning and hopefully that you would listen and not be so defensive.

Both God and evolution cannot be disproved with only one fact. That is how science works. I mean, really, can you give me only one fact that disproves God? I don't think so.

Comment 28 (699) by OJB on 2007-07-06 at 10:05:26:

It sounds like you are avoiding the question. I didn't ask for a total refutation of evolution, I just wanted a good starting point by looking at your best fact. Maybe you don't have one. You think asking for a fact is defensive? Seems to me I'm open to considering whatever evidence you might have.

As far as facts which disprove god are concerned, I'm prepared to give that a try but there are three points to clear up: first, its hard to disprove anything because its really up to the supporter to prove the phenomenon; second, nothing outside of formal logic and math can ever be proved or disproved 100%; and third, which god are you talking about and which particular interpretation of that god?

Give me some details on what you actually believe and I'll disprove it (or maybe agree with you depending on what it is you actually believe).

Comment 29 (700) by Student on 2007-07-06 at 10:21:19:

Well, first off, I am not avoiding the question. I am admitting that I cannot disprove evolution right off. Nobody can. And like I said before, nobody can disprove God 100% either. It is just the way it is.

About the God I believe. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. What I do not believe is that you can sin when you know you are going to and just think it is going to be okay if you ask for forgiveness. Some people believe that, but it is NOT true. I also believe that God created the earth fully and gave us brains in order to read the Bible that He gave us.

Comment 30 (701) by OJB on 2007-07-06 at 11:10:34:

I keep saying that I don't want you to disprove anything. I just want your best fact against evolution. There must be something there if you don't believe evolution. Yes, we can't prove anything 100% - we just have to accept the theory which has the best evidence even if it isn't 100%. I would say evolution is around 95% proven.

You believe Jesus died and all that mythology huh? Then why is there there no (that's right zero) reliable historical evidence he even existed? I can prove the Bible is wrong in multiple places. Why do you read something which is full of lies?

Comment 31 (702) by OJB on 2007-07-06 at 21:04:31:

And another thing, I've never quite understood this idea that "Jesus died on the cross for your sins". The alleged event occurred 2000 years before you, and your sins, existed. Also, what did it actually achieve? Humanity is exactly the same before and after the alleged crucifixion. What was the point? Its all just a silly myth when you really think about it. Of course, thinking isn't really high on the list of activities for most Christians!

Comment 32 (703) by Student on 2007-07-07 at 06:48:32:

Yes, I believe in all of that Jesus stuff, because it is not mythology. Lets not call it a myth because it is not proven as so. Anyway, to answer you question, Jesus died on the cross for our sins. What that means is that Jesus, the Son of God, was sent by God to earth so that He might die. He did this because we cannot save ourselves from our own sin. We don't have the ability. Jesus is perfect and we are not.

In other words, early Jews had to send sacrifices in order to be forgiven by God and to abolish that sin. Later on, God sent Jesus to abolish everybodies sin by dying on the cross. So now, when we ask for forgiveness, we don't have to sacrifice an animal because Jesus was sent as the greatest sacrifice and we are now forgiven.

Without Jesus, we would be completely lost. So, its achievement was saving us from hell. And yes, humanity is the same. Christians are different from the world so we are not a part of humanity as you would say we are. But, it is changing humanity as time goes on because people are realizing that Christ is God and that we are in need of a Savior. We aren't good at all, deeds can't save us.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be so mean and ignorant about it either. It is not a silly myth either. The Bible is so perfect and there are no errors, that doesn't sound like a myth to me. (And by the way, some random person making comments about certain sections to make it look false doesn't count).

Comment 33 (704) by OJB on 2007-07-07 at 10:30:09:

It has been a few days now and I still haven't heard anything about that one fact which questions evolution. Changing the subject is a common trick of creationists. Do you have a single fact or not? If you don't, just say so and we'll move on.

Thanks for the theology lesson on Jesus but apart from a few primitive rites performed differently by Jews and Christians I can't see that anything has really changed. We still have sin, we still have war, we still have evil, disease, death, suffering. What was the point?

The whole story is a silly myth in my opinion. Should I pretend I don't think so just to avoid offending Christians? And the Bible is full of errors. I have listed the numerous errors in the creation myth on my web site. Have a look here

Comment 34 (705) by Student on 2007-07-08 at 04:57:23:

One of the facts that I gave you the first time still stands. How can life be formed on its own if the early atmoshpere created toxins? That means that something (someOne) had to create it. You're welcome, just wanted to answer the question that you gave me.

As I told you before, of course we still have sin and evil because that is the way we are! Not one of us is perfect! The point of Jesus dying on the cross was to save us from those sins. That is what I was trying to explain to you. If we ask for forgiveness, and truly mean it, God will forgive us because of Jesus. That is the point.

I have looked at your list of "errors" many times. Where and who are your independent sources?

You shouldn't pretend anything, but there are many ways you can say things that won't offend people. You really don't have to be as rude and harsh. Also, I am pretty sure that there are many different groups of people that switch subjects other than Christians, some atheists aren't well informed either.

So, going back to the fact thing, I have mentioned some valid points earlier and reply to those instead of switching to something else please.

Comment 35 (706) by OJB on 2007-07-08 at 10:55:51:

I'm not sure what your source is on the early atmosphere but I suspect it is creationist propaganda which tends to pull a couple of facts out and quote them out of context. For a simple, unbiased summary of the subject look up the Miller-Urey experiment at Wikipedia.

The fact is, we really don't have enough information yet to know how life arose, but there is good evidence to indicate that several viable pathways exist. There is no reason at all to conclude for certain that the early atmosphere created toxins, and even if it did, there are several possible ways they might have been neutralised.

Let's get this sorted, then I'll prove the Bible is wrong. Forget about the "Jesus dying for our sins" thing. That's mindless nonsense to me and always will be . Let's just stick to the real world. As far as my "robust" style is concerned: this is a blog, not a Sunday school picnic! Anyway, do you accept the early atmosphere argument isn't particularly strong?

Comment 36 (708) by Student on 2007-07-09 at 13:02:10:

Not everything that Christians tell you is some sort of propaganda. I also know this is not a school picnic. I care about you and I enjoy using this blog. Anyway, I am still leaning towards the information I gave you. Also, do you believe in the big bang theory?

Comment 37 (709) by OJB on 2007-07-09 at 15:34:54:

No, not everything Christians say is propaganda. I just thought that particular point sounded like propaganda from a particular creationist source I know. And given the more neutral discussion in Wikipedia, and other sources, it does sound highly suspect. You may choose to continue believing it but that's probably because it suits what you want to believe.

The Big Bang theory is a very widely accepted theory of the origin of the Universe. There is no doubt it is essentially correct. I almost dread to ask, but where are you going with that question?

Comment 38 (710) by Student on 2007-07-10 at 08:25:09:

I wanted to ask you where you thought that mass came from that made the universe.

Comment 39 (711) by OJB on 2007-07-10 at 10:30:23:

Where did the mass that made the Universe come from? Well that's a hard one, but here are a few possibilities...

Its possible the Universe always existed and the Big Bang was just a cycle of expansion in that permanent material.
Its possible the Universe always existed and the Big Bang is a local Universe in a bigger multiverse.
Its possible the material came from nowhere: this is a well accepted phenomenon if the total energy is small, and in the Universe's energy it is close to zero because the gravitational energy balances the other forms very closely.

Those are all reasonable possibilities but we probably won't be able to tell for sure until we finally have a theory which encompasses relativity and quantum mechanics. I'll tell you one theory we don't need to take too seriously. That is that god made it, because then we have to go one step back and ask where did god come from?

Comment 40 (712) by Student on 2007-07-11 at 00:21:03:

Well, God being there is something you understand when you accept Christ. People say that the mass was perfect. If it was, how did it explode?

Comment 41 (713) by OJB on 2007-07-11 at 08:46:20:

You understand god when you accept Christ. Isn't that just another way of saying that you get sucked into one form of mindless nonsense when you pretend another myth is true? Anyway, comments like that mean nothing to me (except to show how easily people can be made to regurgitate church dogma) so let's move on to reality.

I have never heard anyone say the mass was perfect and I don't know what that would even mean in this context. Also, the mass didn't explode in the normal sense. Space, time, matter and energy all originated at that one point. That's not an explosion.

Why don't you tell me the details of your alternative cosmology (what happened, when it happened, what caused it, etc) and we'll compare the evidence for it to the evidence we have for the Big Bang?

Comment 42 (714) by Student on 2007-07-11 at 09:31:42:

That is not what I meant to say, sorry. I should have said that differently.

Comment 43 (715) by OJB on 2007-07-11 at 11:02:31:

OK, so what did you mean to say? Also, it sounds like you don't accept the Big Bang theory. Do you have an alternative or not? In science we accept the best theory we have. If you have found problems with the BB (and there are problems) do you have anything better?

Comment 44 (716) by Student on 2007-07-13 at 04:27:46:

No, I really do not accept the Big Bang theory. Some Christians accept both evolution and Creationism but I don't do that. I think we could both agree that wouldn't work well.

Comment 45 (717) by OJB on 2007-07-13 at 09:27:49:

OK, so in some ways I accept that, and in some ways it perplexes me.

I think people who believe both are really just fooling themselves, because as science advances more and more of the Bible will be shown to be wrong and they'll need to accept more and more science and less religion. If they are going to be a Christian what's the point?

On the other hand there is overwhelming evidence for both the Big Bang and evolution (I know there are gaps and problems, but on balance they are sound) so what's the point of denying the facts? The only reasonable action is to reject Christianity and become an atheist or maybe have a symbolic and philosophical notion of god instead.

Comment 46 (718) by OJB on 2007-07-13 at 23:12:26:

By the way, can you tell me why you reject the Big Bang, and what it is you do believe, and why you think your alternative is better. Does it explain the observed facts: cosmic microwave background, expansion, age of the Universe, abundance of elements, etc?

Comment 47 (733) by OJB on 2007-07-22 at 13:15:58:

Funny the way this often happens. When it comes down to the facts the Christians have nothing to say and just tend to disappear instead of answering my question.

Comment 48 (734) by Student on 2007-07-26 at 09:24:14:

Well, hey there. I just got back from my mission trip and I just started school back up again. Sorry I made you feel like I left. I don't think Christians should do that. It misrepresents us.

Comment 49 (735) by OJB on 2007-07-26 at 16:10:10:

Nice to see you're back! Have you had any "revelations" on the questions I posed in comment 46? That is: can you tell me why you reject the Big Bang, and what it is you do believe, and why you think your alternative is better. Does it explain the observed facts: cosmic microwave background, expansion, age of the Universe, abundance of elements, etc?

Comment 50 (736) by Student on 2007-07-27 at 10:16:27:

I will say it this way: The reason I reject the Big Bang, is of course, because I believe in God and you cannot mix the two. But, also because it just doesn't make sense to me. It is kind of how you are with Christianity. I can't understand how this "thing" created every single thing in the universe. One piece of material. I doesn't make sense. How would that create the different fingerprints and how every single person's is different? How does that explain why people have brains and can understand things? How does that explain the reason everybody knows the difference between right and wrong? I just don't think that "thing" could have such perfect design. That is why I believe in God.

So, really, I believe we are in the same page when we are talking about each other's beliefs. What do you think?

Comment 51 (737) by OJB on 2007-07-27 at 15:54:54:

No, I'm sorry. I don't think our beliefs are "in the same page" at all. You have just conceded that your belief in God prevents you from accepting a theory which has substantial supporting evidence. Obviously your philosophy involves faith. Mine doesn't. I have no emotional attachment to any theory, and would abandon the Big Bang if the evidence made that necessary.

Then you say that it doesn't make sense. But really, it just doesn't make sense *to you*. That's called an argument from personal incredulity and its a common logical fallacy.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, that's nothing to do with the Big Bang really. Can we stick to the topic under discussion? I can answer those problems later, if required.

So does your "god" theory explain the phenomena I listed above, or not?

Comment 52 (738) by Student on 2007-07-30 at 08:26:13:

How does it not connect to the Big Bang theory? The big bang says that this piece of matter created everything. So, I think it does have a connection.

Comment 53 (739) by OJB on 2007-07-30 at 16:01:54:

The Big Bang says that all the space, time, material and energy was created from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago. What happened to the material after that isn't really anything to do with the Big Bang. Are you trying to avoid the question? Could you tell me how your theory explains the phenomena I listed above?

Comment 54 (740) by Student on 2007-08-02 at 13:00:57:

No, I am not avoiding the question. I am still gathering my information to give you and I am trying. Sorry.

Comment 55 (741) by OJB on 2007-08-02 at 17:07:06:

OK, that's fine. Can I suggest we get this question out of the way before continuing? I have found in the past that a common way some people try to debate this topic is to steer the discussion in a new direction when things get awkward for them.

Comment 56 (813) by OJB on 2007-08-23 at 21:42:40:

My friend "Student" must be still researching his answer because I don't see a response yet. Or maybe he's realised an important fact when it comes to pseudoscientific and religious myths: they have no explanatory power.

The reason science works is that it makes specific predictions about they way the world should work. Religion invokes magic so anything is possible. For example, if we see an expanding Universe, contracting, stable, whatever... they all work if we invoke god (because he can do anything). Scientific theories make specific predictions and succeed or fail based on those.

Comment 57 (814) by Student on 2007-08-30 at 14:42:20:

You can think of it that way, but it is not true. You are right that some religions do invoke magic, but not Christianity. It is called faith, not magic. Sure science makes predictions about how the world should work, but what about how it actually does?

Also, you never really answered my question from earlier. How can you say that one piece of material created everything, for example, the fingerprints on your hand and how they are all different from everybody else's. Or how people dream different dreams all of their lives. How does the Big Bang explain that?

Another thing, I want you to tell me why my facts from the earliest of our discussion were wrong. You already told me that I was being "ignorant" and just using Christian "dogma," but that is all that you really said.

Comment 58 (816) by OJB on 2007-08-30 at 20:49:46:

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the phenomena we were originally discussing. You're not trying to change the subject are you? :) But in answer to your questions...

Some dude walked on water and came back to life after he was dead, some other character parted the Red Sea, and all that other totally unproven stuff with no detailed explanation at all. Sounds like magic to me!

As long as there is an available energy source evolutionary processes are a natural consequence of the laws of physics. Once a molecule becomes self-replicating and is susceptible to random change its hard to imagine how complex life can't evolve. So complex systems, including fingerprints, dreams, whatever, aren't a real mystery. This doesn't mean that the life isn't wonderful to an atheist, its just wonderful without the need for supernatural intervention.

When you said "God being there is something you understand when you accept Christ" I detected a meaningless line many Christians use but can never really explain. Maybe I'm wrong, you might have made a genuine comment in your own words which just sounded identical to what everyone else says.

Anyway, to get back to the original issue. Do you agree that the Big Bang explains the cosmic microwave background and other phenomena perfectly, but other theories (including religion) don't at all?

Comment 59 (828) by Student on 2007-09-06 at 11:44:35:

Sure, I agree that cosmic microwave backround helps to prove the big bang, and not religions. But, what I have seen with many people is that they look only for something that proves their belief (faith) right and the other wrong. You would probably disagree, but it is true. When do ever search longingly for something that will prove your theory wrong?

Comment 60 (829) by OJB on 2007-09-06 at 13:54:47:

You are right about one thing: I do disagree with you! There is a difference between scientific, logical ways of establishing the truth, and faith. Religious people often resort to the accusation that science is just another faith when all else fails, but it just isn't true.

Science is based on clearly defined ways of examining the world: formal logic, empiricism, etc. Faith is a personal belief that something is true, irrespective of the objective facts. Most faith based beliefs have a highly emotional aspect to them. Its hard to see how anyone could have an emotional attachment to evolution or the big bang.

The lack of emotion means we aren't scared to disprove any theory. And I do closely examine any new evidence or information which might contradict an established theory. Honestly, a real alternative to the big bang or evolution would be one of the most exciting things I can imagine.

Comment 61 (836) by Student on 2007-09-09 at 11:36:40:

What about the cow. Do you know its ancestor?

Comment 62 (837) by OJB on 2007-09-09 at 14:18:28:

The ancestor of the cow? Where did that question come from? I seem to remember reading somewhere there was a common ancestor even before aquatic mammals branched off but I can't remember the source. How far back do you want to go? Also, is this a rhetorical question, i.e. do you know the answer?

Getting back to the original debate: I have shown you several pieces of solid, objective evidence supporting the Big Bang. Can you give me any real evidence at all supporting an alternative theory?

Comment 63 (839) by Student on 2007-09-10 at 07:42:02:

The way I think of it is that we Christians believe in the Bible and believe that it is true, yes we have evidence outside the Bible, but the Bible is our foundation.
But, evolution will always have that missing link. It will never fully be complete. That is why it is still a theory.

Comment 64 (840) by OJB on 2007-09-10 at 10:23:49:

Well there's no logic in your statement at all. There is far more evidence against the Bible than there is supporting it. Most of it is simple myth. In fact, let's not mix words here, its garbage. if you base your belief on garbage then you will believe garbage. If that's what you want then good luck to you.

As far as theories are concerned. If I had a dollar for every time I heard this junk I would be rich. OK, calling all Christians, listen carefully: a theory in science is not what people would call a theory in everyday life. Its a carefully considered and well supported explanation of a phenomenon. Something which is an idea yet to be tested is called a hypothesis.

And yes, you are right, evolution isn't 100% proven. But nothing ever is. There is always room for doubt no matter how certain something seems. In science we accept the best theory while conceding that new evidence might show it to be untrue. Evolution is constantly being reinforced with new evidence. Not only is it the best theory, it is (practically speaking) the *only* theory.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.