Posts posted by jryan
What makes you think that there won't be horrible (civilian) casualties when the UN, US or Russia would invade to remove the government? I think an invasion would be to cure an itch with an amputation.
Besides, the people in those lands still remember the crusades (when the crusaders slaughtered entire cities). They aren't very fond of Western intervention. So, they might even oppose Western troops, instead of welcome them.
Would you like an intervention in your country by thousands of foreign troops, who don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and just generally don't have a clue? Or would you prefer to hope that the bloodshed will stop?
I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your town.1
That's fine. You can continue to believe in your imaginary friends if you want. It doesn't phase me.
Whoa, thanks. I was worried there for a minute.
The basic mistake that God-believers make is that they assume that the world is supposed to be a fair place but it is pretty clear that the world never was a very fair place and this will very probably never change for the better.
This is a misunderstanding of what "God-Believers" actually believe. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a "God-Believer" who believes that this world is a fair place.0
Gosh. I guess it's a good thing I wasn't trying to break new ground. Let's remind ourselves of the context here. A member made a post. I followed up, 'FYI - that's also known as the problem of evil. Go here to read more.'
And yet... The problem of evil I shared in a later post remains unaddressed.
I addressed it because you brought it up again. I didn't originally address it because I saw the two proofs you offered as essentially the same thing.I'd rather just stick to the other countless reasons why it's more appropriate not to accept the existence of god as a valid claim. The problem of evil is just one among many of those reasons.
So you offer a proof, it gets challenged and you simply move along without evaluating the counter argument? That doesn't bode well for the diligence with which you evaluated the "countless" other reasons.0
This doesn't make sense to me. Infinity is not a specific number to be added to or subtracted from, it's a concept. And I don't see how the omnipotence argument could be used in that situation.
But if God is omnipotent, can He make a rock so big He can't lift it? This is a pretty plain test of omnipotence. If you can do anything, you should be able to make any size rock AND lift any weight.
When you are talking about omnipotence you have to accept infinity as something more than a concept. If you don't assume that in the proof then your proof is simply assuming its conclusion is true before setting out to prove it.
But consider what you are asking while using infinite logic: An infinite being creates an infinite rock in an infinite universe, the resulting growth in the infinite universe is zero. You began with an infinite universe and you ended with an infinite universe. Now you ask the infinite being to move that infinite rock so they move it an infinite number of light years... but being that it is infinitely large the practical movement is zero as the boundaries of the rock never changed.
The omnipotent being is not phased by this proof as the proof's underlying assumptions were faulty.0
Except, that's not the argument being made. You are either intentionally misrepresenting it and arguing against that misrepresentation, or you don't understand it.
I understand it perfectly well. I have simply boiled it down to it's stated truth and the conclusion it attempts to draw from it. There is no need to rehash all the various steps in the proof when simply referencing it.
But if you think I misunderstand it then feel free to show how well you understand it by address my counterargument at some point detailing where I got the proof wrong. Cutting and pasting the link doesn't really show that you understand what the link includes.
One of God's defining characteristics, according to the Bible, is omnipotence.
The problem with this is that omnipotence can't exist.*
Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.
*It's the old problem of God setting Himself a goal He can't reach. If He can't set it He's not omnipotent, If He can't reach it He's not omnipotent.
Either way He fails at something.
This too is a false argument as it could be used to argue that infinity doesn't exist because you can't add one to it and get a bigger number.0
Yours is the positive assertion.
There's plenty of evidence of Christians who do believe that you must accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior to enter Heaven. I quite honestly find it absurd that you're claiming the contrary.
"Classical evangelical doctrine holds that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, and that those without such faith will be condemned to hell. A number of texts are typically cited in support of this position." http://www.bethinkin...o-to-heaven.htm
"Historically Rome taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; therefore Muslims, like other non-Catholics, could not be saved unless they convert to the Catholic religion." http://www.justforca...cs.org/a135.htm
"With all respect due, what a Muslim believes is insufficient to take them to Heaven. This is Bible truth." http://forums.ourchu...topic.php?p=740
"Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obeys him (Hebrews 5:8-9), but those folks do not obey him, hence they will not be saved in their present station. If, however, they should learn of Christ, believe and obey him then they too could be saved." http://www.firstcenturychristian.com/answers/answers_041.htm
"So it is those who believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior who join God in heaven." http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/other-religions/muslims-01.html
etc ad infinitum
I have just linked you to the Catholic Catechism view on Salvation so an argument of what that Church might have once believed is immaterial. If you wish to counter this then show where my quote is not from the Catholic Catechism or that it doesn't say what I have already stated. Showing me that some third party says that the Catholic church believes otherwise isn't compelling in the slightest as the authoritative word on the Roman Catholic faith in the Catholic Catechism, not some blogger at "Bigthinking.org".
Second, as I have already pointed out through scripture, unless spelled out otherwise the demand by some faiths that a belief in Jesus is mandatory to salvation is both right and is in semantic agreement with my statement and with the Catholic Catechism given the interchangeable aspect of "Jesus", "God's Law" and "individual conscience" due to the very scripture the rationale is drawn from.0
In your own words.
You claim most Christians believe something - evidence it.
Showing a supposed basis for a claim is not evidence of the claim.
So you can make the contrary claim without evidence and yet you demand that I provide evidence that your non-evidence statement is not true? I've provided you the scripture which puts your scriptural evidence in context.
Well, I will offer the Catholic Catechism on the subject first:
Lumen Gentium #16:
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
So there is the single largest denomination in the Christian faith saying what I have just told you. Given that it also represents just barely more than 50% of all Christians worldwide it would also qualify as "most".
Lumen Gentium #15, by the way, professes the same extension of salvation to other Christian denominations. In all cases the Catholic faiths teaches that an adherence to God's law and the rejection of evil influence binds you to the Church through the Holy Spirit and is the only truly essential requisite for salvation.
In fact, if you have another Christian denomination to offer that shows your point please provide it, but it is my finding over the years that any seeming difference between the Catholic stand and other Christian religious doctrine is predicated not on the practical nature of this teaching, but on differing beliefs in the existence of free will. When A Christian denomination doesn't believe in free will (Bible Churches, for example) you can say the very same thing the Catholic Church does while superficially appear to be saying the opposite.0
I was recently told in another thread that I was going to hell because I did not accept Jesus. Does 'The Church' have a ruling on this? Seems like it depends on who you ask.
Well, I can't speak for that person, but there are billions of Christians out there so one person doesn't quite breach the threshold for "most".
Also, it depends on the church. Not all religions spell it out explicitly as the scripture does, but the difference is really semantic. The Catholic Church is fairly explicit on the subject as stated.
So God is petulant? Isn’t a good life worth rewarding? What if I have dedicated my life to bringing happiness to as many as I can? Compared to the man that has sinned his entire life but accepts God into his heart on his death bed?
I'm not sure where you got the idea. In fact I am saying precisely the opposite of what you state. The man who lives a good life bringing good to others is saved as they have demonstrated a belief in God and God's law whereas the man who sinned his whole life but says he believes in God has demonstrated that he really doesn't believe in God at all through his contempt for God's law.0
I remain incredulous to the claim that most Christians believe that you can achieve heaven through a religion other than Christianity. It is the central claim that it can be only achieved through belief in the divinity of Jesus of every single evangelist and piece of evangelistic propaganda I've ever encountered. I'm happy to be proven wrong by evidence to the contrary.
Whether you are incredulous or not doesn't change things. I have already shown in Biblical scripture that the knowledge of good and the following of your good conscience is, by scripture, an intrinsic belief in God and God's Law. Jesus is God's word made flesh and God's word is written on everyone's heart as their conscience. As such you can interchange God, "Jesus", God's Word" and "Good Conscience" and never lose the meaning.
Most Christian religion isn't about establishing the goal or the rules, those have been literally set in stone since Moses, it's about how to follow the rules and achieve the goal of salvation successfully.0
How many different ways can the same question be asked? There are critical flaws in the reasoning that "Evil Exists, therefor God doesn't".
In fact, apart from my previously stated argument that such a proof is circular (you have to not believe in God for the proof to prove there is no God), there is the big leap in the formulation of the proof from the "Why doesn't God..." opener to "He should, and therefor..." closer. While the first question is valid (though unknowable), the final and crucial step doesn't flow from the first because it requires the assumption that we can know the infinite and how it should behave.
There is no contradiction.0
As an atheist I have a question, if I lead a “perfect” life according to the bible but refuse to believe in God would I go to heaven or hell?
Heaven. The reason, as I pointed out in another thread, is that built into your knowledge of what is good is the intrinsic belief in God's Word written on your heart. As such, God doesn't play semantics.0
Wait, you're suggesting, for example, that most Christians believe there is a righteous path to salvation without accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior (i.e. being of another religion such as Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, etc)? Although anecdotal, my experience with Christianity and Christians strongly suggests the exact opposite as does the bible:
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Yes, I am suggesting that. They all base this core belief on two repeated articles of faith in the Bible:
We all know God's word instinctively through our conscience. God's word is "written on our heart"
Romans 2:12-15 - 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Jesus is God's word made flesh.
John 1:10-14 -10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent,c nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So by this we all know God's word without needing to be told, and Jesus is God's word, so we know, by Biblical teachings, Jesus without ever being told of him.
As I said, the real difference in the various sects of Christianity is in each belief that they have the best way of adhering to God's word that you already have inside you. They all simply believe that it is far less likely that you will follow the righteous path without them.
It's tricky, I know, but you have to understand who Jesus was and what he stood for within the Bible to get the real picture that the scripture is painting. Jesus was the Son of God, but also his law personified. As such Jesus was always with mankind, but not as a human. Also, flowing from that same argument, Jesus is with us still in the form of God's Law which is, and has always been, written on all people's hearts in the form of their conscience and understanding of good.
Edit: This is also a bit confusing because many people (especially non-believers) who attempt to make sense of the Bible often mistake God's laws to mankind, the finite beings that we are, as some cosmic directive as well. But it's not. God's Law as known to us is simply the part God requires us to play in the bigger picture, whatever that is. As such, God is not bound by these same finite limitations; not because he is unjust, but because he is infinite.0
Most religions require that you worship a particular god to have any chance of an after life. The first thing you have to determine is "which god is real", also just believing there must be a higher power does not suggest that there is any life after death... God does not necessarily equal an after life..... If there is a god it might get quite a laugh at us thinking it is going to take care of us after we die... Then again maybe our souls are what god eats and the god who gets the most worship gets the most souls, possibly all gods are or were real but most died after they were starved because their believers stopped feeding them....
I think you would have to establish the "Most" claim with some actual evidence that demonstrates that you understand the tenets of any religion, let alone "most" religions. I would never claim to know the tenets of most religions, but even on my limited exposures to various religions your statement doesn't stand.
In fact, most religions I have studied believe we are all praying to the same God, and most even believe in the righteous path of other faiths. Only in the minority of religions (some Fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam) do they believe they are the only path to salvation.0
I encourage you to look at the actual argument instead of focusing your entire rebuttal merely on the VERY concise summary I chose to quote in my post.
I'm well aware of the argument, iNow, in both forms. You weren't breaking any new ground. I have offered my counter argument to both version that they each have the very same catastrophic logical flaw. Refute my argument or not, but don't try to claim that my response is incorrect on the grounds that your argument was incomplete. That line of argument doesn't flatter you.
Tell me which definition of god you are using, then we can debate this... The Abrahamic God, at least for Muslims and Christians, does indeed specify one punishment for all crimes, heaven or hell. no other choice is suggested....
No, I am not speaking of the God of Abraham specifically. I am not arguing as any particular type of theist here, but as a theist in general and the many versions of punishment in the after life. Since your view of all the variable versions of the afterlife is perfectly uniform there is no need for me to argue any one in particular.
And again, you can't make a compelling argument for the lack of justice in any version of punishment in the afterlife because you've had ample warning. It isn't justice if it is administered unevenly, but nobodies version of the afterlife claims that the punishment and rewards will be handed out arbitrarily.0
No, one punishment for all crimes is unjust, suggesting it isn't because of some unknown possibility is simply speculation with no supporting evidence what so ever...
As I said in my edit, if it's true then you sure couldn't argue that you didn't have fair warning.
And you can't know that all punishments would be the same either, so you are simply speculating yourself.0
The idea of eternal punishment pretty much shows god is, if nothing else, totally unjust.. the rest is window dressing, if god is unjust then he is not worthy of worship even if he does exist... How can you tell what an unjust god really wants, if he lies then how can you trust him, it's all silly horse feathers...
To understand the justice in such a plan requires you to understand the complexities of the infinite system they govern. Since you can't comprehend the infinite you are incapable of judging the purpose -- and therefore the justice -- of such plans.
Edit: Even on the finite scale your argument doesn't work. IF There is a God and IF he is Omniscient and Omnipresent and Morally Perfect and IF His teachings are in fact the path to eternal salvation then you would have a really hard time arguing that your weren't warned well in advance.0
And yet... The problem of evil I shared in a later post remains unaddressed.
You meant this one?one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Therefore, God doesn't exist.
It's the same basic argument with the same shortcoming. The argument presupposes the omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God, but then attempts to show this to be impossible using an apparent contradiction on Earth. The problem is that IF man's soul is eternal then while you could argue that in human history on Earth Evil is winning,it is finite. Evil's punishment and Good's reward,on the other hand, is infinite, and all the time on Earth is divided by the infinite which gives us a percentage where this contradiction applies as 0.00%.
So, for the argument to work you have to ignore the infinite reward and punishment that is part and parcel with an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect God that the proof opens with.0
If the negative energy is outside of the universe and the matter and positive energy is within the universe, it would suggest that there was at some point a transfer of this energy (big bang). For the universe to keep expanding it would need matter and energy from elsewhere to keep the 1+-1=0 equation balanced. Our universe expands whilst the outside of it shrinks.
If you suppose that the outside of our universe is finite.0
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)
All parents must let the children learn some lessons themselves. Be glad we don't have to make dirt.
In other words: "When I get to heaven I want to ask God why it is he allowed famine, starvation and war... but then I fear he would just ask me the same thing."
Also, to all atheists,.
Edit: Also, the quote is silly as an argument against God (The God of Abraham, anyway) because it presupposes the absence of an after life in it's very premise. So it is only a meaningful argument to those who already don't believe in God. It's atheistic preaching to the Choir.
Bonus irony: That quote is likely not by Epicurus at all and was mis-attributed to him by the early Christian scholar Lactantius. It is more likely to be a quote by Sextus Emipiricus. We have learned this error from, double irony, the huge amounts of other scholarly work done by early Christians in the dark ages.0
So murder, rape, genocide, slavery, death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers is ok with you then?
Uh, no? Where did I say that?So you are saying that the same people argue both at the same time, can you confirm this is true?
I call as my first witness.... MOONTANAMAN!! crowd: *murmur murmur murmur*
Mister Moontanaman, do you believe that the growing secularization of western civilization is a good thing?
Do you also believe that Western civilization is as dominant now as it has ever been? Do you believe this will remain so? Indeed, do you even believe it should?
Crowd: *murmur murmur murmur*0
This is one of many reasons the argument for god falls down.
How so? God is thought of as an infinite, not a finite, being. There was no "before God"1
I'd rather get on the plane with the skilled/experienced pilot than the virtuous newby
I feel the same way! That is why I take my instruction on how to live a fulfilling life from a set of instructions that has been seasoned over thousands of years rather than from modern alternatives.
It seems illogical when people argue that western civilization is declining while also arguing that our rulebook is getting better.0
There is no way to tell if this is true or not, it gives some anecdotal evidence and does not show the context it was in.
Well, given the general structure of an essay I would assume that you understand that this is the assertion on which the rest of the essay sets to demonstrate, not a stand alone statement that requires internal reference.Why does this bother you? Comparing science with folk lore to show how science is better at describing the natural world seems perfectly reasonable to me.
So you support replacing the first three pages of that textbook with a retelling of Genesis? Why not just start with the science given that it is a SCIENCE textbook?This is most certainly true, if "The Holy Bible" was asserted as just a folk lore or a primitive attempt to explain thing the uproar would be immense.
This is already happening. But in either case it's not the role of science education to do this. Her point was that this particular textbook allowed this bizarre tangent in the textbook because it was politically acceptable, and that it's inclusion was worthless to the subject being taught.
Incredibly petty, and I see no reason why the discoveries of minorities, long ignored in text books, shouldn't be accentuated.
No, it's not petty. The choice of boob-tube celebrities as examples of great scientists is just plain stupid. Certainly you can come up with a list of black scientists worth mentioning BEFORE Al Roker, right? Likewise, downplaying Edison's contribution to the light bulb because his skin color didn't meet the narrative is simply teaching ignorance.
What they do in this case is subordinate the discovery to the novelty and turn science into a social lesson. Save social lessons for social studies. It's like trying to teach multiplication to third graders and spending as much time on the color of mathematicians skin as you do on multiplication tables. The object of the lesson suffers in the process. What are the chances that the multiplication tables would be addressed in social studies?The entire context of this would have to be shown before we could make a definitive reply but again i see no reason why minority contributions shouldn't be accentuated, everyone knows who Einstein is and unless the section was discussing the theory of relativity why should he be glorified, why not minority contributors?
The context is given right there. The context is "Fifth Grade Science Textbook" and the point is that Albert Einstein, among many other Jewish scientists, isn't mentioned in it. You can argue that "people already know who Einstein is" ... but I'd bet most fifth graders don't. It's kind of the point they go to school is to learn important stuff that they won't get from watching Pokemon.Why is this wrong, why is showing that science isn't a WASP dominated field a bad thing?
Because it's not science? But also because when the lesson plan sets out to teach the history of great milestones and bypasses the great milestones where the scientists were the wrong color for your narrative then you have failed not only to teach the science but to also teach a clear view of the history. Including minorities in the history lesson is great, but as an addition to, not a subtraction from the over all lesson... and even then you still aren't teaching science.Religion is myth and superstition, no wait only the non christian ones are, i forgot and again why shouldn't women and minorites be encouraged to study science?
Who says they can't be encouraged? Teach them the science and if the science interests them then you have encouraged them to study science. Telling them they could study science because other %minorities% studied science is not encouraging them to study science, it's encouraging them, and everyone else, to insert minority status into science when, at the end of the day, it's not the color of your skin that determines the rightness of correctness of your theory, it's the results.
It is quite true that racism and sexism most certainly led to a lot of brilliant minds being silenced in the past, and science suffered as a result. It is also true that making science a completely raceless/genderless pursuit of truth HELPS the progress of science. But this method on display in these textbooks isn't doing that. Excluding Albert Einstein from a science textbook is simply a redress of old wrongs that has the exact same effect on scientific progress as the exclusionary practices of previous times had.
But then that is more a problem with culture and politics.. all the more reason to keep it out of science study.Usually the content of these books is greatly influenced by the largest markets, like Texas who's school boards have been insisting on requiring Genesis be taught as science is a good example.
Well, they can put it right along side Algonquian Crow Gods. Problem solved, right? How best to teach the truth of science than to spend more time teaching non-science, right? Makes perfect sense.I would have to agree this is bad but I would have to see some documentation this is true.
Here is a Sciencemag article from 2001. Though I'm having trouble accessing their link (which may have changed since then). But The Wayback Machine is our friend and I was able to access the report from a cached copy in October 2001:
Here it is. Enjoy!Yes, and the censorship is highly influenced by religion, i live in NC, I listen to the debates all the time.
Do you have exampled of actual textbook edits that were done for religious reasons?Can you show how this is connected to false textbooks?
This is in the same category as the first statement. She is showing that the change in the way the textbooks are edited has lead to a decline in the quality of the textbooks. She puts this decline in the context of the Clinton initiative meant to have the exact opposite effect. I don't think you need to show Clinton red lining textbooks personally to show that the attempt to be culturally inclusive in teaching science has led to a lot of pointless social crap in science lessons and that a politically driven editorial structure is producing substandard textbooks.yes, well except those Christian myths.
I don't see where she argues in favor of replacing the Algonquian Crow God with Genesis in that article, just the removal of the Algonquian Crow God.
If you applied the same inclusionary trend in other public religious displays then the preface of that lesson on climate would overtake the actual science and begin to look more like a lesson in theology.
And here finally is the point, a right wing conservative Christian with an agenda to show science is attacking Religion purposefully. this entire article is for no other purpose than selling books to people who are also right wing Christians.
Well, no. Again, this is ad hominem, and you pointing it out is actually kind of ironic... because, at least from the title, what she discusses in this book is what you engage in readily openly and willingly.
In fact, it is quite possible to believe that political correctness is ruining textbooks and that people are using science to attack religion independently. Indeed, someone could disagree with her assertion of political correctness and still look at your example and still agree that people are using science to attack religion... because that is what you do.
This artle and the "news" rag it is contained is has apolitical agenda, insert Creationism into the classroom, the "Weekly Standard" is about as accurate and unbiased as Fox News, possibly even less so.
Man, then you really should have been more successful at showing it to be false. But alas...Here is a review of her book
Here is a review of her book by the "Discovery Institute" A right wing site that promotes the silliness of Intelligent Design and Creationism.
Notice the difference between the two? If you are a creationist fine, lets discuss it but don't try to sneak in the lies, misrepresentations and out right fabrications of fundamentalist religions apologetic crusades.
Another article by Pamela Winnicks
Care to support your assertions with evidence instead of Creation Science horse feathers and the disingenuous people who promote ID and Creationism?
And still you fell flat in attacking the actual article on its assertions. That must suck.
And as you may have gathered by now, I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in science class as it isn't science (see also: social studies). I would prefer to see science taught in science class.
But I also don't think that everything you need to know about the world comes from science class.0
Okay But also what I mean is that it doesn't have to be soil as I could use concrete to represent it as it won't get denser. I only simply mean that there is positive and negative.
I know. I'm just poking.
Also, on your initial question, I think it is apples and oranges, and your apples are wrong (at least as far as I understand the state of the scientific theory).
First, currently it is believed that there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter and it has existed since the big bang. In fact, the theory goes that if the balance was perfect at the moment of the big bang then the universe would have annihilated itself on creation. Visible matter exists for lack of corresponding anti-matter to annihilate it. We wouldn't add to zero, we would be zero.
Second, you make an assumption that a religious person would not -- that God is a piece of the universe rather than apart from it -- so your argument can only be self edifying but not compelling.0
Michael Moore’s $2M hypocrite house: film director lives like the 1% he condemns
He doesn't hire union labor, for starters. The house is an easy target, but it's really fleshed out by the fact that behind the scenes Moore is just as capitalist as the next guy, hiring cheaper labor and suing partners over royalties while living the good life.
I don't fault Moore for doing what he is doing, but he is a giant hypocrite that doesn't actually seem to believe what he says.