Real Truths About Religion and God

People have responded to many of my posts about religion by asking me where my proofs come from. I suspect these people are just religious believers who want to convert me, and others, who write about non-belief.

There is information on any subject you can imagine on the Internet (as I’m sure you all know), including original research papers on subjects relating to Biblical truth. The popular science-type magazines all have a web presence. And contrary to some Christians beliefs, they are not part of an evil cabal out to satanize all who view them.

I have a blogroll type list of websites I use to gather information from, on the right side of my site…if you’re reading this…you will see it as you scroll down. These are legit sites and they have reliable, mainstream, real world information. If Christians were to ever actually seriously research their Biblical beliefs they would soon see how much they have been misinformed, and how wrong the Bible is.

I am a realist however, and I just put the stuff out there with the hope that it will strike a chord with someone who is searching for the truth, and maybe cause them to go to real world proofs, instead of Hebrew myths, that are a waste of precious time and energy.

The famous site listed below has all the answers to flood myth lined up and they are checkable. Other parts of the site have some of the best general information about scientific origins of the earth, universe, humans, etc. They have been around since the early nineties. If you take time to explore it thoroughly you will find links to original research and real world explanations of our earth, and all who live on, and in it. The people who write there are experts-who happen to not have a Doctorate of Divinity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

If the Noachian Flood can be disproven (and it has been), then other parts of the Bible are also suspect of being wrong. And there are many other disproven Biblical assertions. Many Christians just don’t accept the truth. They cling very hard to a 2800 year old Hebrew myth, a view of a childish God, that people of the time didn’t have enough knowledge, or intellectual sense of the world, to question.

That the Christian faith has survived this long is not an indicator of its being true. To the contrary, it is an indicator of how easily the church adjusts its theology to conform as much as possible to currant social conventions (think slavery, polygamy, prostitution, kings killing on a whim, etc.). The church is known to burn papers (and people) that disagree with currant theological thought.

Think about the currant ‘state of the religion.’ Now, about 2008 years since the birth of Jesus (?) Roughly 1700 years since Christianity got the official ‘okey-dokey’ from secular rulers, and its still in a state of disrepair. There are maybe thousands of sects and they all differ. Muslims believe in the same God…so they say, and they are out to kill us…for heresy. Catholics believe Protestants practice heresy, and vice-versa. Mormons…who knows what they believe. There is either one that is right…or none is right. There is not two of them who are right…or three, or four…

Through manipulation of human thought and incorrect reasoning, physical threats, actual physical harm, and burning at the stake, or as little as social/societal ostracism, Christians have spread their evil plot to take over the world and control humans…every actions and thought…for more than two thousand years. Think about it for a while; think about the whole long history of Jews and Christians and what they have always wanted from us.

What has been, and is, their ultimate goal? It’s to take over control of all humanity and tell us how to think and act…they actually have that kind of control of a significant portion of the US population…think Bible belt and the Deep South. Churches are the social center and source of information, on how to conform…of many hundreds of thousands or millions of Evangelical Fundamentalist type people. I think those people are afraid that if they don’t belong to a church, they’ll automatically go out and start sinning in the worst possible way.

There is some evolving news about change in the Catholic position on humanity. They are actually starting to accept that humans have a looong history. Go to the site below and check it out. Notice in the upper right hand corner where the paper comes from. That old fossil…the Catholic Church…might have some life and intellect left after all. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_251adamandeve.html

Below is a quote from the article mentioned above.

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that “one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old (Catechesis, Creation and Evolution, Zenit News, Dec. 19, 2005).” My emphasis.

The Catholics are leading the pack in the changing of theological thought to match what is known to be true nowadays, although their present thought is a little dopey. I look forward to following this change. I also look forward to how the Evangelical Fundamentalists will continue to deny In-Your-Face truth.

Some suggested Google search terms that I have followed: Religion, God, Jesus, El, Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, biblical tribes, Scripture, Noah’s flood, Ur of the Chaldeans, city of Dan, city of Laish, sea people, Babylon, age of earth, Hebrews, Christian myth, Sumerians, Akkadians, Mesopotamia, Jericho, Chaldea or Chaldeans, Assyria, Indus valley civilization, ancient Egypt, Hammurabi, Gilgamesh, flood stories, flood myths, Myths, ancient native Americans, Solutrian, Clovis points, cave paintings, Adam and Eve, African civilization(s), Bronze age, iron age, ancient Briton, ancient Europe, Neanderthal, Hebron, Abraham, Lot, biology, Midrash, Torah, Jewish myths, ancient languages, archaeological dating, carbon dating, dating methods, Dendrocronology, stratigraphy, oil geology, Permian, Paleontology, DNA, rNA, genetics, human history, human pre-history, ancient India, ancient Iran, Stonehenge, henges, pyramids, stelas, Rosetta stone, cuneiform writing, hieroglyphs, Euphrates river, Tigris river, Geology, life sciences, and on and on….

The above terms represent maybe one twentieth of the search terms (sorry they aren’t alphabetized) I have used in following the paths of Christian religion. I have been doing this for about two years now, in my spare time. If the site is religious sect sponsored, they will often try to deny real world science by any means they can, including, but not limited to, lying and misdirection. There are a few exceptions that are starting to tackle the problem head on though, and the Catholic Church, as mentioned above, is one of them.

There is not one or two sites that can disprove all things religious untrue, though talkorigins.com comes close. I find you have to visit and really absorb many, many different viewpoints and disciplines and slowly let them simmer in your head. Good hunting.

For latest post go: Here

Add to Technorati Favorites

Answers to Life Redux

Hi Phil, Hope you don’t mind that I am using the main column to answer you instead of leave-a-reply area.

Last things first.
Phil: Also, forgive my ignorance, but you have me confused on your last statement. I couldn’t figure out what naturalists questioning the flood in the 1700’s has to do with Christians giving evidence for said flood in present time. Any objection on any topic is directly or indirectly related one to another, right? Only the evidence (or lack there of in an objection) matters in validating said objection or debunking the original claim.

I only mentioned the Naturalists in the 1700’s because they were the scientists of the day. From what I can gather in histories, they were mostly religious, and yet they were coming across evidence that did not support a Biblical, pre-historic, worldwide flood.

At the time I don’t believe they thought much of it, but as more and more of their brethren naturalists noticed some of the same things, or supporting evidence of same, the word spread. I am not saying that this proves the matter…just that real doubt was happening early on, in the scientific fields.

I believe that Darwin himself was schooled in a religious college (University of Cambridge), but when he got out in the real world and started to practice his trade, he too started to see the incongruity of his beliefs vs. reality, in the physical world.

Phil: You said “Whitcomb and Morris wrote the book nearly 50 years ago, did they not?” It is rather unreasonable to render a document or piece of work invalid based on age. For example, the Constitution is still valid (when actually applied…). Also, saying Darwin’s Theory is wrong because it is old would hardly be accepted (there are enough errors to take care of that for me though).

The constitution is not a relevant comparison because it is not a scientific document that is subject to experimentation, or peer review. It is a political statement. (Yes, Bush does have a lot of trouble with honoring or upholding the constitution). I haven’t read the book yet….thank you for your kind offer, but I will decline…however we have a great used bookstore and library system here, and I will be on the lookout for it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that because the book was published in 1961 or so, the science has greatly improved since then, and that is has been discredited because it’s wrong. Following is a quote from talk origins that is related to the book in question:

*Strata in the geological column are sometimes out of order. The mechanisms geophysicists use to account for them are problematic. Thrust faulting would have produced great amounts of debris, which geologists do not see; folding would require great forces for which geophysicists have trouble accounting.
*Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 180-211.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 120.

Response

  1. Folds account for out-of-order strata with sequences such as A-B-C-B-A. Faults create sequences such as B-C-A-B-C. The evidence is so overwhelming that these conclusions should be obvious. In many cases, the folds and faults can easily be seen in cross-sections of the strata. In other cases, further geological mapping verifies the presence of the fold or fault. Features such as ripple marks and mud cracks show that the strata were originally horizontal.
  2. Great forces are not a problem in geophysics. First, great forces exist. Earthquakes can move many miles of crust by several feet at a time. Second, the forces act over a long period of time. Rocks, which would fracture, if bent suddenly will deform gradually under hundreds of millions of years of heat and constant pressure. Faults do, in fact, produce a layer of debris along the fault line. Sometimes this layer is fairly thin. There is no reason to expect great amounts of debris along all faults.
  3. The geologic column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed.

Sources
1. Numbers, Ronald L., 1992.
The Creationists. New York: Knopf.

2. Ross, C. P. and Richard Rezak, 1959. The rocks and fossils of Glacier National Park: The story of their origin and history. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 294-K.

3. Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

4. Weber, C. G., 1980. Common creationist attacks on geology. Creation/Evolution 2: 10-25.

5. Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co..

6. Wise, K. P., 1986. The way geologists date! In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, C. L. Brooks and R. S. Crowell (eds.), Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1: 135-138.

Now I know that the above will not change your mind one iota, but my ramblings thru these minefields of science and religion have shown me enough evidence that some of your brethren, Creation Research Institute and answersingenesis, come immediately to mind, though they are not the only ones, bend the truth, just a little. I can almost sympathize with them, because they truly are losing the argument, as far as the science goes. But I really expected more from religious leaders.

As far as the reference to Mr. Darwin’s theory goes, it only gets stronger as the years go on. The body of evidence has only grown to support him, not detract. Practically every true scientific organization in the world has issued statements concerning Science, Religion, Darwin, and they all support evolution. They support it because the preponderance of evidence is there. Their statements are also available on the Internet if you should choose to inquire.

Phil: In all seriousness, you mentioned advances in radiocarbon to the advantage of an old earth. However, there are many problems with this dating method (amidst the other methods you spoke of) and typically very generous assumptions of a very old earth are made before testing even begins.

I suspect you are a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) by your doubting the old ages found in the earth record. So I know from the get go where you stand on the radiocarbon dating issue, so I will be short on the answer for my position. Like Darwin’s theory; the evidence for the reliability and rightness..?..of radiocarbon dating, stratigraphy, dendrochronology, and other scientific methods of dating grow stronger every year. Creationist, of course, deny it even more…What to do?

Oh, almost forgot to mention. The University town that I live in houses one of the premier radiocarbon dating laboratories and Dendrocronology labs in the country. Have connections.

I suppose the argument will go on…and on…..and on:)

Seriously, I hope all goes well with you in your new position, and arguments aside…Peace to you, and thank you for your reply.

Add to Technorati Favorites

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself (or herself) in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.” A. Einstein