Friday, June 20, 2008

Welcome to Reality

This is a response to Karla's post titled Unpacking Truth Claims.

She states that she is a Christian because it lines up with reality. I have heard this line from other Christians and I have yet to see how Christianity fits reality.

I will start with the Bible. There are plenty of sections in the Bible that don't fit with reality. The Bible shows very clear signs that it was written by some very primitive people. These people were writing based on what they thought to be true. They obviously didn't have some of the great minds that we have today, nor did they have all the technology that we have today to make all the discoveries that we have made.

First, the Bible starts off with this story of how the Earth was created. Basically, the story says that God said it, and it happened. The theory of evolution has showed time and time again that this isn't how the Earth was created. I know that there are some Christians out there who say that God put Evolution in motion. Cut out the crap; if that is what God did, then that would have been recorded.

Second, I would like to point out the story of Noah and the Ark. I did a post on this a few weeks ago, so for a more complete justification of why this story doesn't line up with reality, read it and follow the links that I provided. For those that are reading this post, all I have to say is there is no way that a little over 4,000 years ago there were only 8 people and a few of each kind of animal. There would be all kinds of inbreeding problems and repopulation issues.

Finally, and probably most importantly, there isn't a shred of evidence for the Christian God or any other god. It is actually quite the opposite; there is plenty of evidence that all of the major monotheistic religions have conceptions of god that are incompatible with reality.

For a "fisk" of Karla's post titled Moral Framework see my husband Kevin's blog post. I hope that there are other readers out there that are enjoying this discussion.


Karla said...

I'm not sure it would do any good for me to argue for the validity of the Bible when you don't believe in the existence of God. Former atheist Josh McDowell set out twenty years ago to disprove the Bible. He journeyed overseas, studied manuscripts and historical information all over the world. He found that the accusations against it did not stand up to the truth and that it was indeed valid. His study is published in a voluminous book entitled "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Lee Strobel, a notable reporter for the Chicago Tribune undertook a similar journey as an atheist purposing to disprove Christianity interviewing scholars and researching out the claims of the Bible for years and he too came to the conclusion of its validity. There is a great deal of scholarly information regarding the Bible and it's claims. However, I typically will not appeal to the Bible when speaking to an atheist for I don't see the point of doing so when we could never get back the first sentence of the Bible "In the beginning God."

Non Sicuro Pensatore said...

"I hope that there are other readers out there that are enjoying this discussion."

Count me as one. This is an important type of discussion, because while evidence is not at all in favor of Christianity, the presuppositional model of apologetics can give the false appearance of legitimacy unless it is thoughtfully exposed for being empty.

Benjamin said...

"The theory of evolution has showed time and time again that this isn't how the Earth was created."

Just a's a cannot be proven, thus, based on the rules of theories, hypothesses, and such, a theory cannot PROVE anything.

For a refresher, a theory IS:

"A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

"A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

"Contemplation or speculation."

"A guess or conjecture."

A theory is NOT fact by any stretch of the imagination. Had you said the "well-established proposition of evolution" I woudn't have a problem.

As much as I wanted to avoid this, I will engage in some theological talk here. Just a small bit, so please bear with me and contemplate this carefully before you make any form of response. I pose just two questions...

1. Seeing as atheism is based on fact, logic, and other things that can be scientifically PROVEN: How do you know for a FACT that God did not use evolution (Darwinian) as a tool of creation? Time is human creation and God is not subject to this creation. Therefore who are we to define for God the duration of one day, week, month, year, etc? Not to mention, a day is subject to the observation of the inhabitants of a planet.Granted there are no inhabitants on Saturn, but that's not the point. According to researchers from JPL, Imperial College London and UCLA, report that the average day on Saturn is 10 hours 47 minutes. ( Venus takes 224.65 days to complete each orbit. (

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." - 2 Peter 3:8

2. How is it that most leading athiests, such as Richard Dawkins, admit that they do not know how the world began? In fact The Big Bang theory is stil highly debated and not completely supported by fact.

Kevin DeGraaf said...


Like most creationists, you severely misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) the way the word "theory" is used in scientific contexts.

Please go educate yourself:

Evolution is just a theory! (Or is it?) - Ebon Musings

Theory - Wikipedia

Evolution is a fact and a theory - Talk.Origins FAQ

Evolution as fact and theory - Stephen Jay Gould

1. Science is not about *proving* anything. It's about finding explanations that fit the observed facts of nature.

We accept the modern Theory of Evolution because it is solidly supported by evidence.

We don't know for a fact that the proposition "God used evolution to create the universe" is false. That's not the way science works. We reject that assertion because there is no evidence to support it.

2. We "admit that [we] do not know how the [universe] began" because we honestly don't know, and there's no shame in saying so!

Unlike theism, which offers facile "answers" to deep questions, science's position on unanswered problems is "we don't know -- but we're working on it". Are you seriously suggesting that the scientific worldview is somehow deficient because of this?

If you want to know more about why the Big Bang model is virtually universally accepted, go do some basic research.

None of this is very surprising, of course. Creationists are keen to wrap up all the science that conflicts with their bullshit fairy tale (naturalistic origin of the universe, big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, heliocentrism, etc.) into a neat little package and deny it vigorously using willful ignorance and blatantly incorrect definitions. You are an excellent example.

DB said...

1. Benjamin, you present a completely flawed view on theory. As Kevin pointed out, there is a difference between theory and scientific theory. Scientific theories are not just guesses.

2. It would make sense for Dawkins to claim he can't prove how the world began as he is a biologists. Biologists are concerned with biology (evolution) which has nothing to do with how the world began.

That is it as Kevin made better points than I could hope to.

Karla said...

I have heard other scientist say they have no idea how the world began. Evolution only explains the changes in species, not how they got here.