God Did Not Create Man
February 1, 2007 at 6:29 am | Posted in Atheism, Beliefs, Miscellaneous, Religion | 78 CommentsGod did not create man, man created god. God is the invention of primitive people as a way of explaining the un-explained. You’d think we would have outgrown that kind of primitive thinking by now wouldn’t you? Think of all the things we know now that were completely unknown to us a couple hundred years ago. Just because we don’t understand something, does it automatically follow that there must be a god? I don’t really have a good understanding of how my car works so I guess god must make it run, same for my washer and dryer, and how about those airplanes, god again? Of course when you talk about the universe and the big bang theory there is always a believer who says, “There has to be a god because it all had to start somewhere”. True enough, it all certainly did have to start somewhere, but someone please tell me why then should that start automatically be attributed to a god? After a fairly bad car accident that could have been a lot worse, an acquaintance said to me, “god must’ve been watching over me”, to which I responded, “Which way, then, do you suppose god was looking when that car ran the red light and hit you?” I never did get an answer to that one, but I suspect I might get one now. Come on you know there are those of you who want to ‘enlighten’ me as well as ‘save’ my sorry ass.
78 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Throw in your two cents
Feed Burner
Honjii\’s Harangues
You’re welcome to follow, but I’m not really going anywhere.
Board Certified Blogger
One Lovely Blog Award
Bragging Rights
More Stuff
Atheist Blogroll
Poulet-Sir Prize Award
This much coveted award is for bloggers who have a sense of humor, are smarter than a and not too chicken to say what they think. Feel free to award this to any blogger you feel is deserving of such a prestigious award.
Rules:
1. Proudly display the award on your blog with a link back to Honjii and a link back to the blogger, along with his/her name, who chose to award your blog.
2. Bestow this award, along with the rules, on a minimum of three blogs.
3. Contact the bloggers you've chosen and let them know of their incredibly life-altering good news.
4. Swear on your first born, or whatever you hold dear, never to mention these blogging awards are created by other self-serving bloggers trying to get more traffic altruistic bloggers who wish nothing more than acknowledging a blog well done.-
Mad as Hell Doctors
HEALTH CARE FOR PEOPLE - NOT PROFIT!
Out Campaign
Americans for Separation of Church & State
Richard Dawkins
Zimbio
Add This
Feul My Blog
Reddit
Blog Surfer
-
Honjii's Harangues 
“God is the invention of primitive people as a way of explaining the un-explained.”
Not everyone has the God of the gaps perspective. You’re painting a strawman picture of theists.
“Of course when you talk about the universe and the big bang theory there is always a believer who says, “There has to be a god because it all had to start somewhere”. True enough, it all certainly did have to start somewhere, but someone please tell me why then should that start automatically be attributed to a god?”
The reason God gets so closely connected to Big Bang Theory is the problem of infinity. For something to exist without having been caused by some prior thing it needs to be infinite in itself. We know (as well as is humanly possible) that the universe exists. So either the universe if infinite and didn’t need to be caused by anything, or it is caused by something “beyond” it. The Big Bang theory shows that the universe is finite in age and size, so it can’t be self-existing. It had to be created by something beyond the universe. Something literally “metaphysical.”
Say it was a god. But most conceptions of gods are very powerful, immortal beings… but they’re not infinite. So, if they exist they would still have to have some cause. It’s obvious that a god is not the answer to existence.
However, what we do need to explain the universe is something that is both infinite and metaphysical. Beyond the universe which has been shown to need a cause, and infinite in order to be free of a need for a cause itself. So, the Creator, whatever It/He/She is, must be at least an infinite metaphysical being. What do you picture when you hear the term “infinite metaphysical being?” Sounds alot like God doesn’t it. Not a god in the classical Greek or Roman or Hindu sense, but a God in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim sense.
There is a God.
Comment by abyssalleviathin— February 1, 2007 #
If God can exist without someone creating Him, then so can the universe.
Comment by Simen— February 2, 2007 #
No it can’t because it’s finite, and thus rooted in causality. Only the infinite is free from that chain, and when science proved a finite universe, all hope for materialism died.
Comment by abyssalleviathin— February 4, 2007 #
Hm… that’s a pretty knowing statement.
IF there really is that all knowing all powerful God out there, He’d make himself known through appearances and a “holy book” of some kind.
The thing about a washer/dryer/airplane/car/etc is there are people who know. People created those things. All you have to do is hop on the internet or pick up a phone and you’ll get the answer.
Similarly (I believe), we can know how the universe works etc by picking up the Bible and reading what it says. But that’s just my opinion.
Comment by Brian Purkiss— February 6, 2007 #
Whether it is finite or not has nothing to do with what caused it. You’re just side-stepping the problem. Besides, science has never “proven” a finite universe.
Comment by Simen— February 12, 2007 #
Let’s say you have a baby growing inside you. You know how to get it in and you know how to get it out, but I bet you don’t know how to connect everything together or why it needs the legs before the lungs or any of that.
The people at the dishwasher factory know how to build a dishwasher. They know what to put in and in what order and hold the parts together. They don’t need to know how to make it grow and change after it leaves their truck. And they don’t need to know how to make it think and feel and love and hate.
The baby in your uterus needs all that and you don’t know how to make that happen. God is the one who helps it grow and puts the parts in the right place and gives it the ability to think and feel and even to know about God. God gives the baby a soul.
Comment by frecklescassie— February 13, 2007 #
frecklescassie, ummm I think some basic biology and good parenting skills will take care of all that…the baby that is, not the dishwasher which I suppose we can leave for god and the maytag man to work out.
Comment by honjii— February 13, 2007 #
Do I really need to check on the internet or phone someone to figure out that someone made my washing machine? Even if I’d never heard of modern technology and saw one in the middle of the jungle I’d still conclude that *someone* made it.
Wouldn’t you?
The same is true of nature we have things more amazing than anything we ourselves have ever made, things that are not only beautiful and functional but are able to replicate and adapt to environments they have been put in.
I, for one have to conclude that*someone* made the world and what is in it.
Don’t You?
Comment by fredericthewise— February 13, 2007 #
fredericthewise,
NO
Comment by honjii— February 13, 2007 #
Why, honjii, why?
Comment by fredericthewise— February 13, 2007 #
Because I THINK. Because I reason, because I am not a sheep that blindly follows the shepherd. Because I have an IQ that admitted me to Mensa (http://www.mensa.org/), an IQ that is shared by only 2% of anyone who has ever submitted to an IQ test. That’s why.
Comment by honjii— February 13, 2007 #
honjii, you still haven’t given me any reasons, just because you got a good IQ doesn’t show me why you believe as you do.
To me this appears to be unreasonable bias.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 13, 2007 #
fredericthewise,
I believe the answer to your question is in my original post above.
I don’t believe there is a god any more than i believe there is a tooth fairy, an Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause. Just because our understanding of how the universe began may be incomplete, doesn’t mean that one should automatically assume it must be god. There are many things that remain mysteries to us. Just because the answers are as yet undiscovered does not mean that god is the answer.
Let me throw this back at you, why do you conclude that somebody (god) must have made the world and what is in it? Tell me how you’ve drawn this conclusion? Were you taught about god as a child and blindly accepted this without question? Tell me what hard evidence you base this on, not just faith, not just belief, and not from that work of fiction called the bible, but tell me how you can logically derive that a god or somebody must have made the world and everthing in it from your comments below.
Comment by honjii— February 13, 2007 #
I just accidentally closed the browser halfway through a post, grr.
First off don’t call the bible fiction. Its not and saying that does not do your IQ justice. You may not believe the things about God and spirituality in it but if you study history and/or archeology, you will find that it is incredibly accurate. More accurate, in fact than any other book of its age.
That historical accuracy does, in fact give strong credibility to the non historically/archaeologically verifiable aspects of the bible, such as the miraculous.
Second, the universe and its contents are too obviously designed for it to have occurred via random processes. Please explain rationally how even the simplest cell could have appeared from a primordial soup. If you can do that then head over to http://www.lifeorigin.org/ and collect your million dollars.
Now assuming you have passed that hurdle explain how it could possibly have then evolved into all the organisms in existence today. This is impossible since no scientist has ever documented a rise in genetic information arising from mutations.
It is hard to justify the bible by science when I don’t know how much of the bible you know (I can’t just assume anything) but it is defensible, I can challenge you to find something you think isn’t and I’ll try to explain it to you, I just don’t know how much you know (lots of people who claim the bible is fiction have never read it!).
I think the most convincing ‘proof’ for the Bible’s authenticity (and therefore the existence of a creator) is that it accurately addresses the human psyche. Why do you feel bad if you do something ‘wrong’? How do we know it is wrong? If I took atheism literally and had no conscience what would I be but a very intelligent animal? Could you blame me if I raped your Mother? Why should I be ashamed of that if there is no God and I evolved? So what is it in me that even when I am doing something wrong, I know that it is wrong? And why can’t I live up to the level my conscience sets? How come I keep doing the things I know are ‘wrong’?
It seems to me that this could only mean that we were once better than we are now, purer not only in spirit, but in body. Many of the flaws evident in many creatures now are the results of genetic copying mistakes (mutations) and these flaws have only increased over the years scientists have been studying them, this leads to the conclusion that there was originally a vast amount of genetic information created which has, rather than increasing (as evolution requires) both decreased and been corrupted.
One more thing which is a common misconception of atheists and evolutionists:
Natural selection is not Evolution. Natural Selection merely sorts *existing* genetic material. It does not increase genetic material. (Darwin thought that it might because he had no knowledge of genetics – understandable for then but why believe it now, its outdated science).
I’ll leave it at that for now.
If I’ve missed something big I’m sure you’ll pick it up and post again.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 13, 2007 #
That the bible accurately addresses the human psyche doesn’t prove it to be other than a work of fiction. Many great classic and contemporary works of fiction contain factual information to enhance the story being told. Having a belief in god does not give you a monopoly on having a conscience. Many studies have been done on the subject of conscience, and individuals who lack it, the sociopaths (also known as psychopaths, or anti-social disorder). This is found in approximately 25% of all people, christians, jews, athiests, etc. One good book on the topic is “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout, ph.d. Contrary to what you believe or what the bible might tell you, athiests can and do have conscience, and there are believers who don’t. Conscience is a feature built into our psyches to benefit the group, thus insuring survival of our species.
Comment by honjii— February 13, 2007 #
honjii, there is no other religious book that backs up what it is saying historically as the bible does. none. The bible is indeed more accurate than the non-religious history books of its time (there are no books that go as far back as some bits of the bible go so we can’t compare those bits).
Also, The bible is the *only* book to fully and accurately address the human psyche.
“Having a belief in god does not give you a monopoly on having a conscience.”
Of course it doesn’t, I never said that! You have a conscience too, only your belief system is not very compatible with the idea that a conscience should exist. You may say that our consciences benefit the group, they do! but why then do we feel ‘bad’ when the benefit for our particular group goes against our consciences, or, put it another way why are our consciences only ‘built’ to a rigid set of rules that appear to be mainly about the protection of others over ourselves, including our enemies!
The existence of sociopaths appears to support my position. You give this away by showing it to be an anti-social *disorder* you admit that it is not normal and that it is ‘bad’.
I was advocating that people in general have fallen from the level at which we were created, therefore it is logical that the consciences of a large proportion of mankind would be adversely affected. ie they would not work properly. thus the sociopath. (this is not a full explanation, just an initial reaction seeings I know very little about anti-social disorders)
Comment by fredericthewise— February 13, 2007 #
fredericthewise,
The above paragraph pretty much contradicts itself. Indeed, there are no books that go as far back so we cannot compare…this doesn’t indicate truth or accuracy, it only indicates that you are very well indoctirinated.
This statement is presumptuous at best, and insulting at worst. You have no way of knowing what my belief system is and how it works. This is yet another indication of how easily you believe based on little or no information.
I don’t even want to take the time to debate your other mis-informed statements, however this could be corrected, and you might find the answers to some of your other questions in reading material other than the bible.
Comment by honjii— February 14, 2007 #
honjii, Do you have to resort to being rude and insulting instead of addressing my points?
“Indeed, there are no books that go as far back so we cannot compare…this doesn’t indicate truth or accuracy, it only indicates that you are very well indoctirinated.”
That is simply not true, I was not saying that because part of the bible goes back further than any other history it is necessarily true, I was only saying that seeings the verifiable parts of the bible stand up well to all examinations it gives me reason to trust the very oldest bits that have no comparable historical evidence to support it.
I think though, we could both argue black and blue about this and never agree that one of us is right, however listen to his for a second:
If I told you that there was no gold in China then to disprove that, you would only have to find one gold filling in one Chinese mans mouth. You would have proven me wrong. If I say that there is gold in China then I only have to find that one piece of Gold to prove it.
For your atheism to be legitimate and not based on your own bias, you would need to discover everything there is to know about the whole universe to prove there is not a God anywhere.
A Christian, however has to have only one convincing piece of evidence, an argument, an experience, a spiritual encounter…
I personally need more evidence than some because I don’t believe anything someone tells me very easily, but I fully believe that Christ came, he suffered, died for us. Have you ever lied, stolen, or not lived up to the call of your conscience at any time? Then you have hell to look forward to. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Check it out; your IQ would not do you much good on judgment day.
Lastly, you insult my intelligence by indicating I read nothing but the bible. It is true that I use the bible as my basis for life – this is because it has told me the truth and now I trust that. But I am also about the most widely read person I know, especially with science issues, and I still struggle to understand how people can rationally believe that this word was not created by an intelligent being.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 14, 2007 #
I’m sorry but I have not read all of the diologue, however I did get this for reasoning why you don’t believe in God.
There are many people who do think and have high IQ and have put thought into this have have come to the opposite conclusion you have. So simply stating that you think does not clarify that there is no supernatural being.
C.S. Lewis was an Athiest. He tried to disprove the Bible. He became a Christian.
Josh McDowel was a Christian. He tried to disprove the Bible. He became a Christian.
There are other ‘big name’ examples like that but they are escaping me at the moment…
For a while all the ‘great thinkers’ and ‘smart scientist’ thought that the universe revolved around the earth. They were wrong. That doesn’t mean they weren’t smart. They were the smartest men of that time! Just because you’re considered smart (which I’m not saying that you aren’t Honjii, you sound very smart) doesn’t mean what you’re saying is true.
I personally have put a lot of effort into knowing what I believe. I have read the Bible. I have read book about the Bible that examine it from all angles. I have read The Origin of Species. I am planning on reading the God Delusion (as soon as I can get my hands on it – I’m having trouble doing so). I have attended many conferances about ‘faith,’ Christianity, and thinking critically. I have examined the existance of a supernatural in great detail.
At this point I have concluded that there is a God and it is the God of the Bible.
But if you can prove me wrong. If you can prove to me that there is no God or that I’m following the ‘wrong God,’ PLEASE DO SO. I really want to know. I honestly want to know about the world outside of my vision – is it there and what is it if it’s there.
But like I said, at this point I have concluded that there is a God and He is the God of the Bible.
Comment by Brian Purkiss— February 17, 2007 #
just do acid man your whole life will change.
Comment by travis— August 3, 2010 #
I’m sorry you’re having trouble finding the book.
It is available here (and a google search will turn up many other options) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618680004/bookstorenow600-20
Comment by honjii— February 17, 2007 #
fredericthewise says:
No, it’s not. This is misguided. The burden of proof is you. You must prove that God exists, and you haven’t. By your logic, you must discover all there is to know about the whole universe to prove there is no easter bunny or flying spaghetti monster there.
Your other arguments are bad, too. The old maker analogy: I see a watch, ther emust be a watchmaker, hence when I see a human, there must be a human-maker, i.e. God. That’s a bad argument because we know of one kind of machine that is extremely complex and versatile, namely the human body, that is not the result of a designer but of evolution by natural selection.
You say the Bible is the only book to fully address the human psyche. Try telling that to a psychologist or neuroscientist. They’ll laugh you straight in the face. The Bible is far from the only book that deals with the human condition. It is far from the only religious book to do so. It is far from the best book to do so.
There were almost certainly sociopaths at the time of Jesus, too.
Your scare tactics are childish and prove nothing. Submit to Jesus Christ or go to Hell. Well, what if you’re wrong and end up with the wrong God? Your belief in Jesus Christ isn’t gonna help you if God turns out to be Allah or Odin or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Your assertions about natural selection not being evolution is misguided. Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has been proven. It was never meant to explain the origin of life.
Comment by Simen— February 19, 2007 #
The fact that there is a God doesn’t mean that there ALSO has to be a Jesus, or even a Bible.
Comment by frecklescassie— February 20, 2007 #
fredericthewise says:
“For your atheism to be legitimate and not based on your own bias, you would need to discover everything there is to know about the whole universe to prove there is not a God anywhere.”
Simen says:
“No, it’s not. This is misguided. The burden of proof is you. You must prove that God exists, and you haven’t.”
Simen that makes no sense. To prove there is no God – I’m not talking about one specific God but any God – then you must know all there is to know. For Me to believe in Christ and be a Christian I need only know the small amount I need to know to know that he exists.
And “the old watch maker analogy”? It makes perfect sense, where evolution via natural selection makes absolutely no sense (as I think I have shown).
You do have one semi-decent point, however. This is that I cannot prove that the bible perfectly addresses the human psyche. It has for me, though. And works well in our legal system which is based on laws from the bible.
I’m not saying there were not sociopaths, but simply that the problems we have in general with humanity increase rather than decrease over time – harmful mutations, for example increase entropy (disorder). This is proven. Evolution purports that there was a decrease in entropy (i.e. increase of ordered complexity) This makes no sense.
You are obviously one of those “sheep that follow the shepherd” that honjii speaks of, you must listen to too much of Richard Dawkins nonsense, the theory of evolution is drawing more and more criticism by scientists daily.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 21, 2007 #
Sorry if that sounded nasty or arrogant, I had just come back from a hard days work, and wasn’t feeling so great.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 21, 2007 #
I have no need to disprove God. You haven’t proved God. For me, God and the Tooth Fairy are equally unlikely to exist. There’s no proof for either of them.
If you think evolution makes no sense, you must be scientifically illiterate. Nobody has found any scientific objections to it.
You’ve failed to understand evolution, is all.
You can disagree with me, but you can not call me a sheep. I hadn’t even heard about Richard Dawkins until long after I decided that there is no evidence for God and that I hence could not believe it. The theory of evolution is only drawing criticism from creationists, and creationists are not scientists, but religious pseudoscientists of the worst sort.
Comment by Simen— February 21, 2007 #
Simen, you show you are blinded. You have never told me why evolution makes so much sense only that it does.
The following list of scientists was taken from the answers in genesis website and is, I believe, predominantly scientists who have registered themselves on this list as young earth creationists. This is of course not all creationists that exist, but give a fair sample.
Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Comment by fredericthewise— February 22, 2007 #
Just because someone has earned a doctorate (or any advanced degree), doesn’t mean they are automatically intelligent, informed, or even right. A prime example is that guy presently residing in the oval office. I’ve run across legitimate scientists (with doctorate degrees) who have some pretty ‘out there’ ideas, lilke healing disease by pasting little gemstones on patients navels, believing that we can communicate with the aliens among us. Just because someone holds a doctorate doesn’t mean they cannot also be a whack job.
I’m sure your list is, in size, only a teeny tiny fraction of the list of scientists who understand evolution. Were I to post such a list here, I’m sure the amount of bandwidth needed would cause this site to crash. You will notice I purposely did not say ‘believe’ or ‘accept’ evolution; that would be like saying I believe in the sun or the moon.
Simen is correct in that you simply don’t understand evolution and its complexities. Based on what you write, which gives insight into how you think, it’s doubtful that you ever will. I say this because I think you are getting all the information you DO have about evolution only from other creationists. Evolution is not something to be digested in an afternoon of reading. It encompasses genetics, mutations (there are good and bad mutations), natural selection and much much more. It isn’t my job to educate you here. It took me several years of education to have a good understanding of the evolutionary process.
There is tangible physical evidence to support evolution. I haven’t seen any tangible evidence to support creationism.
Also, in answer to your challenge to prove there is no god…do you not understand that a negative cannot be proved?
Comment by honjii— February 22, 2007 #
honjii, I realise, agree, and appreciate most of what you said in your last post.
Physical evidence is the most important aspect of this discussion, however Simen seemed to be being influenced by something that wasn’t physical evidence, and he mentioned that no real scientists believe creation. I was trying to give him something that would work with his thinking. Maybe I was wrong. I probably was.
I know what evolution is having studied it for years having an interest especially in biology.
I have also concluded, from my research that evolution is utterly false. Mutations have never increased genetic potential one iota.
I understand how evolution is supposed to work, I also understand that it doesn’t.
And also, of course a negative cannot be proved – thats what I’ve been saying the whole time. You cannot prove there is no God.
I cannot absolutely prove my God to you, especially if you don’t want to listen, but you cannot sneer at me, deriding my beliefs when you have less evidence to support your own than I have for mine.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 22, 2007 #
That’s interesting, please provide the details that led to this conclusion and back it up. What research did you do? What scientific methods did you use? Where was the research done? At a university, a private lab, your kitchen table?
I’m not sneering at you or deriding your beliefs, only challenging them, and asking you to back up your statements. Simply saying you’ve done research and have concluded that evolution is utterly false has no meaning. Please provide the details.
Comment by honjii— February 23, 2007 #
With all due respects, I’d expect this to go both ways, you expect me to prove my beliefs but give no evidence for yours – really weird.
Scientists have been trying for years to create a truly constructive mutation but have not found anything. Look at fruit flies; have any of the mutations that have occurred there increased genetic potential? Not one. They have produced offspring with more wings (duplication of existing genetic information – and they can’t fly) bigger wings, smaller wings (corrupted genetic material for growth control) and a number of other things.
None of these offspring were better off in any situation and none had increased genetic potential.
The end product is a simpler, less viable offspring.
Some mutations have produced traits that are useful in a given situation, but they never make the organism more complex.
So there are some positive mutations but they have no value to future evolutionary potential.
This is different to the selection of a different allele for a particular gene locus. Say the classic example of peppered moths, there already existed the genetic potential for dark moths, but when the conditions were favorable, this variety outbred the light coloured moths. This is natural selection, but not evolution because there is no long term gain – there is no gain at all because the dark moths already existed, but in smaller numbers.
So what we have (this is all simplified, of course) is two things that are often claimed to be evolution. One is a favourable mutation, of which there are very few and none recorded that have increased evolutionary potential (even if useful in a specific environment. The second is simply the selection of existing genetic information via natural selection.
None of these appear to support evolution as a valid scientific theory.
So please, give me your valid scientific reasoning seeings i’ve given you a taste of mine (there is limited space)
Comment by fredericthewise— February 23, 2007 #
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Comment by Simen— February 23, 2007 #
Bah, my comment was probably caught in the spam filter. ANyway, I was going to link to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Now, please, disprove all of those before you start saying that evolution is wrong.
Comment by Simen— February 23, 2007 #
How am, I meant to do a post that big here?
Comment by fredericthewise— February 24, 2007 #
OK, then just give me a summary of several major conclusions and the scientific method used to arrive at them.
Comment by honjii— February 26, 2007 #
I will, if you give me time to read it. I’ll post later.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 26, 2007 #
“In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.”
This is from the introduction to “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” How can someone base a theory on something totally disproved (spontaneous generation with billions of years tacked on) and just pretend that it just doesn’t matter. I know this is “evidences for macroevolution” but surely you have to have something legitimate to base it on.
I will continue reading your 29 evidences (in which I have already found several signs of anti-science religious prejudice) with as much patience as I can muster…
Comment by fredericthewise— February 26, 2007 #
While I’m reading reading your link, you guys may as well check these out.
http://4dw.net/hwy9/evidences.html
best regards, frederic.
Comment by fredericthewise— February 26, 2007 #
Hey there,
I quit reading the comments after the first one. I know I’m not well knowledged in this debate, but I am agnostic as I am willing to believe and disbelieve.
I don’t know if there’s a God. I believe in spirits of those whom are departed from my life. Whether this is a created belief by this (wo)man or not, that’s up for someone else to decide upon. I understand my beliefs nor do I disregard the possibility for being wrong and the system created by other’s is correct.
As for organizing (completely unrelated to your post), I think I’m getting there. I started my kitchen with rearranging the table and where the kids (cats) eat… Spring cleaning came early yesterday. I want to believe the snow will be gone soon and the flowers will arrive 🙂
Take care,
Adrienne
Comment by adkeiths— February 26, 2007 #
o “my god” – people really have too much time on their hands, right?
of course “god” is a human construct, everybody with common sense can see that.
“He” is a cheap excuse for people not to take responsibility. like all those monotheistic religions.
be kind to yourself and others, don’t judge, make your own choices and take responsibilities for them – who needs a god then?
it’s when you are weak, and fuck up, and want to save your ass, then you cry “god help me”.
sick.
Comment by rachel— February 27, 2007 #
rachel, have you read any of my posts?
Keep your mind open, the evidence may surprise you…
Comment by fredericthewise— February 27, 2007 #
hey guys I made some points a while back before simen mentioned “29 evidences for macroevolution”
You never answered them.
If you don’t give any answer to that, will I have to conclude that your position is, in fact, a faith position?
I understand that I haven’t answered Douglas Theobald’s “29 evidences for macroevolution”.
It is a pretty big work and if you have a cursory glance around the net you might find several critiques of it already. If you have any specific questions regarding portions of the article, you should mention them here and I will do my best to answer them. Fairs fair, you haven’t even answered any of the points i have made so far satisfactorily on here.
So have fun, post some stuff.
p.s.
this is a pretty good response to the whole talk.origins website in general (i didn’t know it exited till I just found it in google)
http://www.trueorigin.org/
Comment by fredericthewise— February 27, 2007 #
fredericthewise
It sounds like Rachel DOES have an open mind.
“If you don’t give any answer to that, will I have to conclude that your position is, in fact, a faith position”
Perhaps the conclusion you should (correctly) draw is that we have lives to live. You might have the luxury of spending all your time reading materials that, in your mind, prove your points. The fact is I (and most folks) don’t have that luxury. We have real world lives and commitments outside of the cyber-world of blogging. So it might be that the reason we haven’t given an answer is that we have better things to do with our time.
The way you have arrived, incorrectly, at your above “conclusion” just might be indicitive of the manner in which you have arrived at the other conclusions you have posted here.
Comment by honjii— February 28, 2007 #
Sorry, honjii. I realise that you don’t have the time to keep posting.
However asking me to critique a monstrous essay such as that Douglas Theobald’s is more than I ever asked you!
fredericthewise says:
“If you don’t give any answer to that, will I have to conclude that your position is, in fact, a faith position”
“The way you have arrived, incorrectly, at your above “conclusion” just might be indicitive of the manner in which you have arrived at the other conclusions you have posted here.”
The fact is, you had time to post because you did post, however you never gave any evidence to support your belief, it seems that if you had some real argument to post you would have done so.
Now if you had any real, logical evidence; you would have blasted mine away but all you seem to do is keep repeating things like “gods are human constructs for weak minded people” and such like. But you don’t substantiate that.
I thought an intelligent person with a high IQ might give me a good, reasonable discussion that would give me new ideas and perspectives to think about. I was wrong.
And no, you needn’t post any longer if you don’t have the time. Have fun
Comment by fredericthewise— March 1, 2007 #
Honjii, correct me if I’m wrong, you do not believe in God and you believe that ‘reason’ is where you determine all that you know.
Well, I believe in God, and I believe that God is where I determine all that I know.
So if I can’t use God to determine or prove anything (because of ‘Circular Reasoning’), then you can’t use reason.
Meaning, if I believe something because God says so, then what’s wrong with that? You believe something because ‘reason’ tells you so, what’s the differance? We both believe that a ‘higher power” (God and Reason) determines what we know. Let’s both use that.
Oh, by the way, just because you’re smart, doesn’t mean you’re always right.
Comment by Brian Purkiss— March 30, 2007 #
[…] is actually from March 30, and as far as I can see it’s actually genuine. In a comment on a blog post, Brian Purkiss writes: So if I can’t use God to determine or prove anything (because of […]
Pingback by Reason Is a Higher Power « import Mind.Reason— April 1, 2007 #
With respect to the list of scientists that don’t believe in evolution posted by ‘fredericthewise’ (a grand total of 186 scientists), I offer up Project Steve which, at the time of posting this, currently lists 795 scientists that agree with evolution, that are just called ‘Steve’ (or variations thereon: Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, etc.)
And to this:
I will just laugh. Been reading too much Ann Coulter?
Comment by nullifidian— April 1, 2007 #
[…] Melvoin—One—The Plastic Cow goes MOOOOG Wally George—America, Why I Love Her Brian Purkiss, Blog –Circular Reasoning, TM Don Powell/Ennio Morricone—Cannibal I Cannibali Marjoe Gortner Age […]
Pingback by Episode 49: Fundies are Funny « Mondo Diablo— April 5, 2007 #
Your logic is faulty. It may be true that some primitive people conceived of a god or gods existing, and who had supernatural powers; however, that does not say anything conclusive about whether a real god exists. The first may be true and there may also be an actual god or possibly many gods. Of course, it may also be true that no god exist.
Comment by Nathan Prophet— July 1, 2007 #
You are jumping ranks in your logic. I do not understand alot about my car (not that i have one) but i do know for a fact that someone made it. attributing the insane logic that my car somehow “pulled itself together” is madness, and then from a mathematical viewpoint. Now go one rank higher and complete the puzzle. Did your body “pull itself together”?
Comment by itchy8me— August 9, 2007 #
True believers in God view that everything happens for “reasons” or because God intended it to be that way. This would then mean that believers in God would always forgive others because God had them do things that were wrong-which actually contradicts their belief because God is the righteous path, good and forthright.. For this is only 1 reason why I do not see any evidence, realistically, rationally, educationally or scientifically that an almighty creator could possible have existed.
The bible is a great story about what I do believe per readings that a person of great statute was created in mind, to tell fiction, to give purpose to those so long ago. It is a great, long, and justifiable “good nature” to follow: be kind to others and yourself. Isn’t that what its about anyways?
Stating that God is what makes us want to do good or make choices or love and that it is because of “He” that we exist or have a soul is nonsense. We are scientifically mammals with born “sense, reason, and ability to know our existence”. For that, wouldn’t common sense to evaluate why we are so intelligent naturally exist with intelligence?
Still, I would not harp on someone who believes in God, for that is their own choice & will to have something to blame for their bad choices and praise for when they make a right decision (or wait, then it’s just explained per their own right choice because they were smart). I just pity their wasted time & money to go towards an old faithful story that has someone managed to carry through centuries.
Comment by Annabelle— September 8, 2007 #
I never have understood where that idiotic idea comes from that people that believe that God exists believe it to escape. What an idiotic conclusion! escapism from what!? How so that someone that believes in God blames God for there bad decisions. They’re my decisions fool! and who’s praising who? If you knew what you where talking about, you’d know that the biblical God(i’ll assume thats the one you are reffering to) accuses all mankind of being rotten and unworthy of his love, so praise has little to do with anything here. FOOL!!!
Comment by itchy8me— March 17, 2008 #
Who’s the FOOL here, Itchy8me? First off, it’s hard to understand what the f__k you’re talking about. Your spelling, grammar, and syntax are so abysmal (that means really BAD) that I can only assume you are one of those in possession of that primitive brain, of which Honjii speaks, and are incapable of any sort of independent or critical thinking skills. Therefore I must conclude you are taking the position that the ridiculous invisible man in the sky story is true.
Comment by jonnyBbad— March 17, 2008 #
I agree with most things that Honjii has to say, but in my opinion their has to be something greater than man, i feel as a man god gave us common sense, nothing else.
Comment by fc— March 30, 2008 #
You can all belive in what ever god you pick all you want, what ever makes you feel comfortable, god was made up for that reason, for all those many weak people in the world who cant face the truth. As many other people have said in coments above, gods just the way humans explain the unthinkable, and once we are able to graspe the unthinkable, gods will no longer be necessary. Some people have mention that a god had to have made the universe for “x” reasons, but once humans discover how the universe was realy made, those “x” reasons wont be valid anymore, if that time comes while we are still alive, the curent belivers will either stop beliving, denie the explanation, or make up some other rediculouse theory that will someday be explained anyways. In some time there wont be any believers in god, it will just be something you tell your kids in order to explain sensitive maters like death or child birth, and when they grow up they will stop beliving the same way they did with Santa and the touth fairy. I dont wana be a jerk about it, all im saying is that belivers are wrong, just like how a catholic will tell a jewish that they are wrong in their beliefs.
Comment by KazeShinri— August 9, 2008 #
I agree 100%, man created God(s). Out of his own need to explain the unexplainable at the time. As I was reading there was a claim that scientists believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, yes many scientists did, but the main proponent of the idea was the Church. Have you heard of a man named Galileo? He thought the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Church threatened him with death and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Know of a man named Archimedes? He was well on his way to calculating the Earth revolved around the Sun, however, as he found the answer while being escorted by armed guards, he was slain on the spot for trying to finish his equation. The Church ordered his slaying. I am in no ways an atheist, in fact I used to be a devoutly religious Hindu. I am now a Pastafarian, but that is irrelevant. There was a claim saying that bowing before Jesus Christ is the only way to save yourself from damnation. Now tell me, what sort of God requires the 4 billion or something people in the world to loose their right to free thinking, for absolute control, now does something here remind anyone else of an autocracy? Also, what sort of God condones the massacre of thousands of innocents and “heretics” in His so called holy name? Did you know the word “heretic” comes from a Greek root meaning “free thinker” is that it? All free thinkers either submit to God or damn in hellfire for all eternity? There’s a story I’d like you to read about what happens when people loose their right to be free, to think as they wish, to be who they wish, it’s called Harrison Bergeron and it’s by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. There’s one particular thing in here that made me roll on the floor in laughter. “The Bible is not fiction” The Bible is probably the most popular fiction book today! You can claim it is the holy word of “God” because his “holy” disciples wrote it and they were taught be Jesus who was the son/incarnation of “God” but you claim it is the ONLY CORRECT RELIGIOUS TEXT. I don’t see your reasoning, if we assume that The Bible is “correct” because disciples of “God” created it, than why can’t we accept the Qur’an, Baghvad Gita, Popol Vuh and numerous others as being true? Oh that’s right, cause God said so.
Comment by KritikThought— April 24, 2009 #
wow, i have been reading and i have had my laugh… talking about religion is wasting time. Fanatics will never accept anyone else’s point of view. I dont believe in god, or the big bang. i dont know how the universe was created. i dont know the how, the why, the when. I dont know our purpose in life or the universe. i guess all i have is ignorance. what makes me different from fanatics of any group is that i dont use religion or a hypothesis to answer those questions.
My point is that i dont know. My point is that i am still ignorant when it comes to what is being discussed. But so is everyone else. Accept that you dont know, accept that there is no proof. Accept that all you have is a man made book written over 2000 years ago, or a guess by a scientist that hasn’t been able to prove anything.
To back up any point being made, you need definitive proof, and that ladies and gent does not exist, yet.
Comment by Caine— April 21, 2010 #
Laughing is one of my favorite things, so I’m glad to have contributed to yours. I couldn’t agree more that fanatics will never be able to see any point of view but their own. However, on the big bang, and evolution…these theories have been developed over time from hard evidence, such as fossil records, astronomy, etc. ..years of study. Is this proof positive? Of course not, but god and creationism doesn’t have any evidence other than the bible, and their circular reasoning that says it is written in the bible so it must be true. For some reason they are unable to apply this kind of thinking to other publications, like science books or other more current educational publications.
Comment by honjii— April 22, 2010 #
belief is not same with reasons.
Comment by mart— June 23, 2010 #
I agree with honjii. For some time fredericthewise has been saying the bible is not fiction. the bible holds truth. Truth is determined by proof. I wonder how you could say you believe the things in the Bible are true, because it says so. The Bible goes further back than any book, so it must be truthful when it explains about events so far back right? NO. there is NO proof anything Jesus did was true. Sure history books have included the date when Jesus was born, but there is no proof of his deeds. No proof AT ALL that he could perform these “supernatural things”. Its all bite and no fact.
Think about this as well- the original bible is long gone. What now exists as the Bible are human translations over 2000 years. HUMAN translations, NOT machine translations. Machines can be programmed to directly copy, humans cannot. You can trust a human who is translating the Bible from the Hebrew text, who is probably a
Christian himself, to put his own bias in there, his own enhancement to Jesus’s image. The modern Bible is just a book that has been modified countless times over history. Constantine, he rewrote the book for his empire. Who says he couldnt put bias to make Jesus look so good? There is absolutely no proof in the Bible to prove anything about God.
There is however lots of proof to prove scientific theories such as Evolution.
Now i do not agree with honjii’s IQ judgment. However, common sense dictates that man created God.
Any Christians, answer this. and ANSWER IT. dont divert to another point. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
If everyone stops believing in God, If everyone stops attributing things to God, If everyone stops worshipping God. Does God exist?
My answer: No, if no one believes in a God, the God doesnt exist, because then everyone would not believe that god existed.
Comment by Brandon— July 7, 2010 #
Thanks, Brandon, for your very insightful and interesting perspective.
Comment by honjii— July 7, 2010 #
I clap for you brother for the points you put forth are words from my own mouth that are unspoken for i could never find the words
Comment by demon— March 1, 2011 #
Please answer my question in relation to Adam and Eve.
God created the first two human beings, they themselves would have procreated and had children, and those children would have also procreated, therefore my conclusion is that our whole nation is derived from incest?
God did not create man, man created God.
Comment by Pianoman1379— July 30, 2010 #
I love your line of thought, and if any of this were true then, yes, we (the world, not the nation) would all be the inbred products of incest.
Comment by honjii— July 30, 2010 #
Can both of u conceive or imagine a “golden mountain’? Of course u can because u have seen gold and u have seen a mountain… but u will never see a golden mountain. Now.. can u imagine a beautiful flower? No..u can’t because all u can imagine is just the flower. For u to know the beauty of the flower is to comprehend an idea that is beyond ur high IQ or the bible. So u will never see a beautiful flower. But if u believe in beauty then u must believe in something above what is material.
High IQ… ur rhetoric does not change the flower because all u see each time u look at flower is a weed.
Comment by fred— September 5, 2010 #
First of all, Fred, I don’t know the ‘both of you’ to whom you are referring, unless you think I have an imaginary friend – much like your imaginary friend, god, helping write this blog.
How very typically christian of you to assume you know what is in my heart and mind. I live in an area of the U.S. that is probably much like Australia’s outback. I chose to make my home there because I love nature and appreciate the natural beauty. I can find immense pleasure at watching an ant lion or even ants carrying their treasures back to the nest. Birds, flowers, animals, insects, and reptiles along with the beautiful mountains and incredible sunsets are all a wonder to me that I enjoy and appreciate every single day.
So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, but here’s a flash for you: One mans’ weed is another man’s flower and vise verse. Some weeds are actually quite beautiful and are simply weeds because they are unwanted in a given area. For example, on blogs written by sane intelligent people you would stand out as a weed.
And speaking of weed, how much were you smoking when you wrote this incoherent comment?
Comment by honjii— September 6, 2010 #
Fred . Consider revising your posts before you send them; I can hardly understand what your point is. Beauty is in the same level of some imaginary god? So are you saying the girl I danced with last night, who was very beautiful, is somehow an angel of God?
Christians seem to assume they know what goes on in a “non-religious” person’s mind. What makes them so “all-knowing”? Oh, is it their faith in God? He gave you the knowledge? Cool. Solve our current scientific questions of today please :).
Comment by Brandon— September 23, 2010 #
Truly actually very good web site article which has got me considering. I never looked at this from your point of view.
Comment by 網路攝影機— December 7, 2010 #
Mind-blowing article bro. This kind of is just a enormously nicely structured piece of writing, just the awesome info I was looking regarding. I praise you
Comment by 泳鏡— December 9, 2010 #
this is my theory, we are the cells of the god. we reproduce, react, and live. just like the cells in our bodies. now, maybe the infinite space is the body of a god. there are more than one god like us indivduals, us human are the god of our cells, we created our cells. now the god created us. we are his cells. the planets are organs. yes space is huge, god is huge. we are humans we act as cells, we are small. compare one blood cell size to a human body, now in different terms same meaning, compare human to god. makes sense, ive been think this over and over about how we were made, i made up a theory.
Comment by 3eyes2hearts1soul— February 23, 2011 #
You cannot reason someone out of somthing they never reasoned them selves into to begin with something made existance i however do not believe that one being did it and any number of reasons exist but until this so called god presents himself to me and the world. I will hold true to waiting and wondering. Not one of you actually know what is going on dont sit there and try and figure it out take life day by day live for your family and yourself.
Comment by demon— March 1, 2011 #
; )!!!
Comment by Scott Zelnick— March 28, 2011 #
Proof the existence of god or shut up, discussion closed.
Move along people, move along..
Comment by Lastig— September 4, 2011 #
[…] years ago I wrote a short post, that caused a long stir called God did Not Create Man, the premise being the reverse. It would seem I am not alone. From the Los Angeles Times: […]
Pingback by Your god is a psychopath with a twisted sense of humor « Honjii's Harangues— September 16, 2011 #
Having read this I thought it was really enlightening.
I appreciate you spending some time and effort to put this article
together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting.
Comment by Katrin— May 7, 2013 #
Marvelous, what a blog it is! This weblog gives useful information to us, keep it up.
Comment by Pet Supplies— May 19, 2013 #
excellent post, very informative. I wonder why the other experts of this sector do not notice this. You must continue your writing. I’m sure, you have a great readers’ base already!
Comment by More Info— January 30, 2021 #
Appreciating the hard work you put into your blog and detailed information you present. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed information. Great read! I’ve saved your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Comment by Alexander Green Florida— April 24, 2023 #