Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Antlerman]

With respect to TexasFreethinker's post in the Lion's Den, I'm starting a part 2 version of his question which spawned probably the most read thread on this site with over 41,150 views, and 1,576 responses on 79 pages. It was finally closed due to sheer size, but it seems a question that obviously continued to spark many discussions from many responders. Therefore I'm reposting his original question here in the Colosseum to re-open the question for continued responses and discussions.

 

TexasFreethinker's original question:

 

In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

[jenna]

With respect to TexasFreethinker's post in the Lion's Den, I'm starting a part 2 version of his question which spawned probably the most read thread on this site with over 41,150 views, and 1,576 responses on 79 pages. It was finally closed due to sheer size, but it seems a question that obviously continued to spark many discussions from many responders. Therefore I'm reposting his original question here in the Colosseum to re-open the question for continued responses and discussions.

 

TexasFreethinker's original question:

 

In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

[Ouroboros]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

It isn't as perfect as you think. For instance, the moon isn't in a perfect path, but follows an elliptic track. It's closest to Earth at its perigee of 364,000 km, and farthest at the apogee of 407,000 km. That means the Moon at perigee is 10% closer to Earth than at its apogee.

 

The same argument goes for Earth and the Sun. The path of Earth follows an elliptic track too. Also large differences in apogee and perigee. And the average distance of the Moon to Earth, and the Earth to the Sun is changing too. If I remember correctly, the Moon is slowly getting further away from us, but I could be wrong, maybe it was the other way around, that it's slowly getting closer. Also, the hour (24 hr about) is based on Earths spin around the Sun, and it's changing slowly too. And there's evidence that in the past these distances and spins and time to rotate around Earth or the Sun has changed over just the last few thousand years.

 

So, no, it's not "perfect" or "exact" at all.

 

You don't believe we come from tiny cells? So, have you heard about the egg, sperm and the first cell that grows into a fetus? You never studied biology? 6,000,000,000 people, alive today, came from one cell. Everyone.

 

Regarding the apes, there's evidence in the DNA to show that we come from the apes, or the alternative answer is that God intentionally created faulty identical genes that only we and apes share, and no other animals.

 

Supernova 1987A is a mathematical proof that the existence of the Universe is at least 150,000 years. It's of course much older than that, but the thing is that even if you don't believe in radioactive dating or any other method, the SN1987A is based on simple triangulation calculation. The world cannot be only 6,000 years old, because then our basic understanding of geometry and triangles would have to be completely wrong.

 

Another side to the argument of "perfect creation" is that, how come a "perfect" universe can only exist if a "perfect" creator created it? Doesn't that imply that the "perfect" creator must also be created? How else can he be "perfect" without being created, while the "perfect" universe cannot?

[jenna]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

It isn't as perfect as you think. For instance, the moon isn't in a perfect path, but follows an elliptic track. It's closest to Earth at its perigee of 364,000 km, and farthest at the apogee of 407,000 km. That means the Moon at perigee is 10% closer to Earth than at its apogee.

 

The same argument goes for Earth and the Sun. The path of Earth follows an elliptic track too. Also large differences in apogee and perigee. And the average distance of the Moon to Earth, and the Earth to the Sun is changing too. If I remember correctly, the Moon is slowly getting further away from us, but I could be wrong, maybe it was the other way around, that it's slowly getting closer. Also, the hour (24 hr about) is based on Earths spin around the Sun, and it's changing slowly too. And there's evidence that in the past these distances and spins and time to rotate around Earth or the Sun has changed over just the last few thousand years.

 

So, no, it's not "perfect" or "exact" at all.

 

You don't believe we come from tiny cells? So, have you heard about the egg, sperm and the first cell that grows into a fetus? You never studied biology? 6,000,000,000 people, alive today, came from one cell. Everyone.

 

Regarding the apes, there's evidence in the DNA to show that we come from the apes, or the alternative answer is that God intentionally created faulty identical genes that only we and apes share, and no other animals.

 

Supernova 1987A is a mathematical proof that the existence of the Universe is at least 150,000 years. It's of course much older than that, but the thing is that even if you don't believe in radioactive dating or any other method, the SN1987A is based on simple triangulation calculation. The world cannot be only 6,000 years old, because then our basic understanding of geometry and triangles would have to be completely wrong.

 

Another side to the argument of "perfect creation" is that, how come a "perfect" universe can only exist if a "perfect" creator created it? Doesn't that imply that the "perfect" creator must also be created? How else can he be "perfect" without being created, while the "perfect" universe cannot?

 

These are all good points and questions, which I will admit I don't have answers for. As far as tiny cells, I was actually speaking about the tiny cells in mud or water, that we supposedly evolved from. And apes and monkeys do share DNA with us, but so do snakes, chickens, and even the butterbean. Does this possibly mean we evolved from them? And I agree the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

[Neon Genesis]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this.

Even if we presume that the universe is created, why must it have been your god who created the universe? What if it was Allah, or Vishnu, or maybe an impersonal deist-type God? Why must it be specifically Yahweh? What evidence do you have that Yahweh did it? And no, you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true.

[jenna]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this.

Even if we presume that the universe is created, why must it have been your god who created the universe? What if it was Allah, or Vishnu, or maybe an impersonal deist-type God? Why must it be specifically Yahweh? What evidence do you have that Yahweh did it? And no, you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true.

 

Wasn't going to use the bible! These are excellent questions. To be honest I have no evidence or proof of the BibleGod being the creator.

[Antlerman]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

I respect your honest answer, and in the past I would have agreed strongly with you, as nature and the cosmos are a source of great wonder and awe to me. In fact it’s that which initially lead me to wonder if God did exist. I am still inspired by it the same way today, and in fact I’ve found that without the confusion about some deity that got layered on top of that response of mystery following my conversion into a religious/theological context, I once again find myself as inspired by the mystery as I was prior to that.

 

A few thoughts I’d like to share with you from my perspective today, what I’ve found is that it’s not really correct to call this “evidence”, as it really doesn’t qualify as evidence in any sort of empirical way. What you can say however is that it gives you the “impression” of a Creator, or at best some overall “sense” of a possible ‘bigger picture’, which some could put the name or face of “God” on.

 

I see no need to repeat what Hans posted above to show that it’s not so perfect a creation if a perfect God created it. His points are all valid ones, and are good responses to the line of reasoning that sees this as a perfect system = proof of God. It’s not “perfect.” However, I’m going to share my thoughts from the ‘impression’ perspective.

 

Even allowing for a shift in theological thought about a God who created this ‘balanced’ system out of these not so perfect variables (or the mythological stories that it was perfect and became corrupted or fallen at some point), it really is a matter a perspective in how we wish to look at it. Let me explain. Realistically, if we are to consider the very fact that it’s working as evidence itself, then we need to look at all the trillions of places that it’s not working as well. In fact, not just spatially as in our planet in this solar system, but in time as well.

 

The likelihood of life in the universe elsewhere is high, as the seeds of life are being found to be strewn throughout our solar system, and likely as well outside it since we live in a physical universe following it’s laws (what we see here, we see elsewhere as well). Our existence here is the result of things being, not “just right”, but more “right enough” for it to evolve into what it is today (I will accept the science behind this as its veracity has been proven in the world of science across the board beyond any reasonable doubt by the vast majority of scientists in nearly every single discipline). At a different time, it wasn’t right and we didn’t exist, nor did any life at an early point in the history of this planet. There are incalculable places in the universe where life didn’t evolve, as well as places where it did, or is likely to have.

 

To put this another way, you are looking at the end result through your eyes and concluding through nothing more than an impression or sense regarding the fact of your own existence, and concluding it was ‘meant to be’. There is nothing to support this as hard evidence. It’s like me throwing four dice and it comes up with a sequence of 1, 3, 4, 1. I could easily say “Wow what are the odds of that!” The answer is it’s exactly the same odds of it coming up 2, 2, 2, 2. But you would look at all 2’s as significant, whereas you would not the previous example. In reality, our life form is more a series of odd combinations that when you stand back far enough from it, we, as the object we are looking at, appear to our perspective or “impression” to be something significant. Where as the reality of it is, looking at odds – after the fact - is really pointless. It’s a game we play on ourselves to artificially put ‘significance’ on something. It’s like Bob in Illinois thanking God for winning a lottery draw, saying “the odds were too great”. God had nothing to do with that, and frankly what we see in the universe in the form of life we are, doesn’t necessitate this ‘supernatural’ explanation either.

 

I could go on and on explaining this further, but let’s get back to the real heart behind this. “Impression”. I’ve come to see ‘God’ in this context of mystery and awe as a face we put on this look up into the heavens we do, where we see ourselves a part of this grand, expansive, awe-inspiring mystery. Is there something there? Something grander than us? It depends on you, really. It depends how you want to see it. I do see something there, but it goes beyond anything some book of ancient people try to put a face on, of some watchful sky god. The face of God is our own, looking back at us as we look up at “him”, but it’s more than just a reflection, it brings with it the deeper more expanse nature of our being with it in that reflection, it brings back the universe that exists beyond us looking out from behind the confines of this little skin-sack we live inside of, worried about it’s concerns about money, shelter, and the mundane focus of survival.

 

I personally see the image of God, to be a face we put on what is in us in order to begin to relate to this “presence”, or sense of something greater than ourselves, if you will. I see all religious efforts as attempts or means to bring this experience of the world, of "God", if you like to call it that, into our lives for the benefit it brings to our being. "Take no thought to yourselves, but consider the lilies of the field..." These are all means of focus to bring us to this place of perspective. It can be in the form of religious icons, myths, poetry, art, dance, song, community, etc... all moving us beyond the inward focus to recognize life beyond it. There is something greater than us, and we are part of it and it of us. "The kingdom of God is within you," etc, etc. It's not the system, not the language used, not how you get there, but the end. "By their fruits you shall know them." It's all languages of this.

 

As I said, it’s all perspective, and it’s going to depend on your personality (whether analytical/poetic/both), the context of your culture in what it considers important, the framework of language to talk about this aspect of our being in the mythological system of your society, etc. But the bottom line is, what you’re talking about isn’t really evidence of God, but rather an expression of something inside of you. Does it invalidate the experience? Not to me it doesn’t.

 

Your thoughts to this?

[Ouroboros]

These are all good points and questions, which I will admit I don't have answers for. As far as tiny cells, I was actually speaking about the tiny cells in mud or water, that we supposedly evolved from. And apes and monkeys do share DNA with us, but so do snakes, chickens, and even the butterbean. Does this possibly mean we evolved from them? And I agree the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

There are tiny cells in mud and water, so we know they exists. We also know that plants and animals evolved, since some of it actually have been observed. We all have DNA. Animals, plants, humans, and all the DNA and cells works pretty much the same across the board. We share different amounts of genes. We can find a lot of exact duplicates of gene codes in rats and humans, not 100% all of them, but plenty of them are structured and identical. Some of the genes are codes that are destroyed by some distance viral infection. The only way we can share these defective genes with apes is through heritage (parent-to-child). It can't be transfered through random chance or any other means. And we didn't evolve from snakes, chickens or butterflies. They are branches on a tree, just like we are branches on a tree. We come from the same original ancestors; we share heritage; we're long distant cousins, not that humans evolved from one of these animals. It starts with small cells, that replicate, mutate, die, some survive better, new offspring that is mutated, some survive some don't, and have offspring etc... and the genetic code slowly grow and become more and more complicated, in baby steps, after millions of generations of cells, the million-level-down-grandchild cell is then more complex and advanced than it's grand-grand-...-pa'.

 

They have seen bacteria mutate and evolve more complex DNA codes. It's a microscopic change, but it's enough to know that DNA can expand and become more advanced. And you only need to do that a trillion times and you have something that's much-much-more advanced than the original.

 

This has also been tested with computer simulations that is built on a process with "genetic" code. The program evolves, have offspring and mutates, according the exact same principles, and it's so successful that it has been used in solving several hard-core problems in technology since the 1980's. So we know that the principles in theory (by simulation) and practicality (observed microscopic changes according to the very same principles) works. I know it's hard to accept, but it's the truth. Evolution is written in nature.

 

If you'd accept a God that used Evolution to create life, animals and humans, then I have no problem. But evolution is very strongly supported, and you'd see that the more you study it.

 

One more thing, in Genesis the Bible says that God commanded the oceans to bring forth life. He didn't create the fish with direct means. He didn't put his hands down and formed fish, plants and such, the Bible clearly say "bring forth", which is that he told the planet to evolve life. It's a matter of literal interpretation of the words. The whole idea of God *poofing* life into existence is actually non-literal and false. If you want to be a true Christian, evolution fits into the Bible better than *poof*ology. The same goes with Big Bang. It's interesting that Big Bang actually was totally pitch black, until some 150,000 years or so after the actually event. The stars didn't turn on until then, and it must have been like a "let there be light" event. A sudden explosion of light. So the Bible supports Big Bang much better than *poof* *crackle* *pop* magic, from nothingness.

 

Next thing to consider, God created man from dirt. He didn't create man from magical potions or supernatural flares or pixies. He created man from dust, dirt, rocks, matter of this planet. And he "built" the man from it. How did he do it? With a pot or a kettle? With a magical-gizmo machine? Or did he really just use his hands? It doesn't say. So maybe he used evolution! *gasp* to form man from the dirt. So why do you resist to believe the possibility that God is so great that he used such a method? You basically say "God can only create this or that way, but not in this other way." That is pride, and that is you telling God how to do things. It just keeps on surprising me how small the Christian God is to most Christians. They refuse to believe that God could have used any kind of method, and they stick to only one belief based on tradition. You know, the whole idea that God *poof* everything into existence, is just an interpretation of the text, and it's based on a traditional view. Someone decided, "this is how we should interpret it", and now everyone thinks that's the only way (except a few brave Christians and Jews out there). Be brave, and start to look at God larger than traditions and old mans ideas. Start reading it to fit what science have found to be true, instead of trying to fit science into old mans false interpretations of the old text.

[Ouroboros]

Wasn't going to use the bible! These are excellent questions. To be honest I have no evidence or proof of the BibleGod being the creator.

And why is God a man? And does he have nipples like we guys do? Are we in his likeness, literally, or just figuratively?

[jenna]

Wasn't going to use the bible! These are excellent questions. To be honest I have no evidence or proof of the BibleGod being the creator.

And why is God a man? And does he have nipples like we guys do? Are we in his likeness, literally, or just figuratively?

 

Wow. Ok, with your response, and antlerman's, my tiny brain is overloaded with info. Let me fully read these and I will respond to them. But to respond to your short question, is God a man? Unknown, although it does state He is. (Answering with the bible this time) As far as His likeness, why could it not be literally? It does say in bible that He has feet, hands, toes, and a backside.

[Ouroboros]

Wow. Ok, with your response, and antlerman's, my tiny brain is overloaded with info. Let me fully read these and I will respond to them. But to respond to your short question, is God a man? Unknown, although it does state He is. (Answering with the bible this time) As far as His likeness, why could it not be literally? It does say in bible that He has feet, hands, toes, and a backside.

Those texts were written by man. Do you trust other man you've never met?

 

If God has nipples. For what purpose? You know guys have milk glands too. Does God have that too? Does God get cancer, sick, etc, to the likeness of man? Why only some things alike but not others? I think it's all speculations by some old farts 2500 years ago who wanted to impress everyone how special they were and that God "only spoke to them." Basically, you don't have a personal belief in God. You have taken on someone else's traditional view of God. Someone said "God is such and such", and you bought into it. You fell for it. Instead of just accepting other peoples ideas of God, start reason and research your own view, and then you'll have a personal idea of God.

 

You say you believe in BibleGod. The BibleGod killed millions of people, many of them innocent. I think that's an evil and immoral God. Do you like that idea?

[jenna]

Wow. Ok, with your response, and antlerman's, my tiny brain is overloaded with info. Let me fully read these and I will respond to them. But to respond to your short question, is God a man? Unknown, although it does state He is. (Answering with the bible this time) As far as His likeness, why could it not be literally? It does say in bible that He has feet, hands, toes, and a backside.

Those texts were written by man. Do you trust other man you've never met?

 

If God has nipples. For what purpose? You know guys have milk glands too. Does God have that too? Does God get cancer, sick, etc, to the likeness of man? Why only some things alike but not others? I think it's all speculations by some old farts 2500 years ago who wanted to impress everyone how special they were and that God "only spoke to them." Basically, you don't have a personal belief in God. You have taken on someone else's traditional view of God. Someone said "God is such and such", and you bought into it. You fell for it. Instead of just accepting other peoples ideas of God, start reason and research your own view, and then you'll have a personal idea of God.

 

You say you believe in BibleGod. The BibleGod killed millions of people, many of them innocent. I think that's an evil and immoral God. Do you like that idea?

Wow, this is a first for me. Never had someone say I didn't have a personal belief in God. Maybe you are right, and I have fallen too hard, too long. And to answer your other question, no, I don't like the idea of a bloodthirsty God at all. That is one point I have tried to express all along, that I don't like what He did, nor do I understand why He did it. About to go over the edge here. Should I ask you to keep pushing?

[Ouroboros]

Wow, this is a first for me. Never had someone say I didn't have a personal belief in God. Maybe you are right, and I have fallen too hard, too long. And to answer your other question, no, I don't like the idea of a bloodthirsty God at all. That is one point I have tried to express all along, that I don't like what He did, nor do I understand why He did it. About to go over the edge here. Should I ask you to keep pushing?

It's up to you. This website is rather famous for being pushy. We don't stop asking questions or challenge old ideas. You know, there are more questions than answers in life.

 

There must be a reason why you feel attracted to this website, since you came here of your own volition. I don't think you're here to preach or anything like that, but you're looking for some discussions and learn more, new, things, isn't that right? So does that mean that we should stop pushing the issue and you never get your ideas challenged, or are you brave enough to start the journey were your own inner beliefs are viewed under the microscope and you might discover that you weren't that sure after all?

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes.

We don't come from apes. We share a common ancestor with the apes, the most recent of which lived about 18 million years ago. The creationist literature you've been reading does not describe the actual theories surrounding the fact of evolution. If you read some scientific literature on the subject instead of the looney mischaracterizations of it that creationists come up with, your own common sense might help everything fall into place.

 

And apes and monkeys do share DNA with us, but so do snakes, chickens, and even the butterbean. Does this possibly mean we evolved from them?

No. It means they and we all share a common ancestor.

 

Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

I read a perfect analogy for this just the other day. Suppose you discover an oddly-shaped hole in your back yard, with a lot of twists and turns in it. The next day, you go out there and discover that a block of ice fitting perfectly inside the hole, as though the hole were created specifically for this oddly-shaped block of ice. It's a miracle! Or so it seems, if you look at it from the "universe was created for humans" point of view.

 

In reality, of course, the block of ice was merely shaped by the hole itself, caused by rainwater filling it up and then freezing; it conformed to its environment. This is how evolution via natural selection works. Our environment suits us for the most part, because our ancestors that best adapted to their environment were able to reproduce and pass along their genes to the various species (including humans) which descended from them.

 

Also, the hour (24 hr about) is based on Earths spin around the Sun, and it's changing slowly too.

True. A few billion years ago, if I remember correctly, one earth day used to be about 13 hours long.

 

Edit: I just re-read that quote, lol. The day is based on the earth's spin on its own axis, and earth's rotation is slowing down gradually. This is why we have leap year. Revolutions around the sun is what give us our years. But I think (I hope) Han simply misspoke.

[par4dcourse]

QUOTE (jenna)

Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

 

I read a perfect analogy for this just the other day. Suppose you discover an oddly-shaped hole in your back yard, with a lot of twists and turns in it. The next day, you go out there and discover that a block of ice fitting perfectly inside the hole, as though the hole were created specifically for this oddly-shaped block of ice. It's a miracle! Or so it seems, if you look at it from the "universe was created for humans" point of view.

 

In reality, of course, the block of ice was merely shaped by the hole itself, caused by rainwater filling it up and then freezing; it conformed to its environment. This is how evolution via natural selection works. Our environment suits us for the most part, because our ancestors that best adapted to their environment were able to reproduce and pass along their genes to the various species (including humans) which descended from them.

I was going to jump in on that point but you covered all of them well.

Great analogy. I'm going to use that.

[Taphophilia]

That was a wonderful post ET!

 

I would also like to point out that evolution does not explain the origins of life, the universe, or the earth. Believers, who are not aware of what evolution is or the facts behind it, tend to lump them all into evolution, only to shout deny, deny, deny.

 

It is also a very strong indicator that evolution denying is religion based, as I have yet to find a believer deny, question and present as truth, mischaracterizations of any other scientific fact.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Thanks, guys. For anyone who's interested, I got that analogy from David Mills' Atheist Universe and basically summarized it. The details concerning evolution came from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

[Ouroboros]

Also, the hour (24 hr about) is based on Earths spin around the Sun, and it's changing slowly too.

True. A few billion years ago, if I remember correctly, one earth day used to be about 13 hours long.

 

Edit: I just re-read that quote, lol. The day is based on the earth's spin on its own axis, and earth's rotation is slowing down gradually. This is why we have leap year. Revolutions around the sun is what give us our years. But I think (I hope) Han simply misspoke.

Yes. I can see the light now. ... I misspoke. The Earth's spin is changing, so the day is changing. And also, I think the rotation around the Sun is also changing slowly, so the year is as well not constant. Oh, and then we have the magnetic poles, they're not constant either. I think they change all the time, slowly moving, because the magnetic field is caused by some free-floating iron core at the center of the planet. Like a giant gyro, or something.

[jenna]

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Yes. I can see the light now. ... I misspoke. The Earth's spin is changing, so the day is changing. And also, I think the rotation around the Sun is also changing slowly, so the year is as well not constant. Oh, and then we have the magnetic poles, they're not constant either. I think they change all the time, slowly moving, because the magnetic field is caused by some free-floating iron core at the center of the planet. Like a giant gyro, or something.

 

Yep, the length of our year varies as well, which is why I didn't catch the mixup right away. You're also right about the poles changing, and they have completely reversed multiple times in the past.

 

 

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers.

 

The universe didn't appear out of nothing. The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here in one form or another. Matter can change into energy and energy into matter, but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

[Taphophilia]

Jenna,

 

You have a computer, if you really want to know, than why don't you just google it? Space.com and talkorigins.org are a good starting point for the accepted theories. If you have questions about what you have read, than you should ask. Seriously, by asking these questions, you seem like someone who either wants others do to their homework for them or you are making some attempt to manipulate us into saying that we don't know. I would like to point out, we don't like games or the lazy intellect.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers.

A magical creature spoke into air that didn't exist yet, and things came into existence from nowhere. From the Nothing, where this magical creature lived, came Everything. The Creature was the master of Nothingness, and was the embodiment of Nothing but Nothing. So everything that is is actually something out of nothing, and nothing exists outside of something that is everything. Simple. And this creature did this by doing something inside that Nothing. Amazing.

 

No seriously. Does Genesis make any more sense? God spoke. He spoke? How? Into air? What air? Air didn't exist yet. He spoke in vacuum? First of all you can't speak in vacuum, and not even vacuum existed, since the universe didn't exist. And where did he create it from? From the "Nothing"? How can that be? If he created it from "Nothing", then this "Nothing" must have been something, and hence not being nothing. It's the Bible story that is confusing and contradictory, not science. Science at least try its best to modify and adjust when it discover new things in nature and space. The Bible story doesn't change, even when nature contradicts the Bible.

[Whindian]

I'd like to play devil's advocate here (and put out there some of the issues I've been struggling with).

 

 

Firstly Antlerman made the point that the impression (great distinction between 'impression' and 'evidence' BTW) of God derived from the perfection/near-perfection of the universe, i.e. the argument from design, is akin to "Bob in Illinois thanking God for winning a lottery draw, saying “the odds were too greatâ€. However I feel this is somewhat an over-simplification (though I acknowledge it was meant to only be an analogy). I think that a better analogy would be Bob from Illinois winning lotto 1000 times in a row. In fact I believe the odds of us evolving from a single cell to homo sapiens has been calculated to be equal to that of blind men lined up from Earth to the Sun solving a Rubik's cube at the same time. If I was looking at Bob's situation, I would immediately think of two possibilities:

 

1. Bob did legitimately win that Lotto draw 1000x in a row; there was a statistical chance, however miniscule, that this was the case
   
2. Bob had somehow 'rigged the draw'
   

On those facts, I would probably lean towards the latter scenario. On the very least, I think the evidence, prima facie, would call for a seroius investigation by the authorities into any possibly improprietary. In a similar way, I think some of us look at the world around us and think 'that draw was rigged'. Evolution is a combination of mutations on the genome and natural selection. We know from modern day science that mutations which either have a neutral effect or rob the genome of information are infinitely greater than that of any mutation that results in a net gain of information. In fact when I was doing an ANHB unit at university, the closest example we had to a 'positive mutation', as it were, was homozygous sickle cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis. I believe that homozygous sickle cell anaemia reduces the oxygen-capacity of haemoglobin without fatal consequences; thus when people in Sub-Sahara Africa contract it, it reduces their risk of contracting malaria and thus they have a greater average life-span. On those facts, it doesn't seem a big step to accept that God was somehow required as a guiding force.

 

 

Are we in his likeness, literally, or just figuratively?

The orthodox theological understanding on this point is that it isn't literal (The Bible makes a song and dance about Jesus taking on the human form. If he already looked like a human when he was part of the Trinity, then this would be a moot point). I did a quick search and heres what I came up with (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/image.asp):

1. It was not a physical likeness, but ...
   
2. It was a mental likeness.
   
3. It was a moral likeness
   
4. It was a social likeness.
   

If anyone wants to read more on it (its too long to quote), I've included the website above. Scroll down about half-way.

 

 

I read a perfect analogy for this just the other day. Suppose you discover an oddly-shaped hole in your back yard, with a lot of twists and turns in it. The next day, you go out there and discover that a block of ice fitting perfectly inside the hole, as though the hole were created specifically for this oddly-shaped block of ice. It's a miracle! Or so it seems, if you look at it from the "universe was created for humans" point of view.

 

In reality, of course, the block of ice was merely shaped by the hole itself, caused by rainwater filling it up and then freezing; it conformed to its environment. This is how evolution via natural selection works. Our environment suits us for the most part, because our ancestors that best adapted to their environment were able to reproduce and pass along their genes to the various species (including humans) which descended from them.

 

I think this is a great analogy. However I see one major problem with it. Evolution goes against, not with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. things move from greater to lesser complexity; to higher entropy). Thus it works in spite of nature, not because of it. I asked this question numerous times at university, the standard answer being:

1. The second law of thermodynamics works on a grand scale, but within that range, you can have some simplicity --> complexity happening on the Earth in the form of evolution, which is offset in other parts of the Universe. Thus it maintains this law. To be honest, I think that lacks proof and I would often reply back 'well do we have any proof that this happens in other areas of science'. Usually they would retort 'evolution'! So evolution could occur because of this theory, which was proved because it happened in evolution? Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
   
2. If I did PhD chemistry, there is evidence that this rule doesn't always apply. They never really explained why, and I've never seen a journal article which says anything of the like. It sounded like a cop-out to me.
   

 

Ultimately this has been one of the points that I have struggled with in de-converting. I guess it doesn't have to be that way, I could just become a Deist like Albert Einstein or Thomas Jefferson (I think they believed in a creator; just that he takes no active part in human relations).

[jenna]

Jenna,

 

You have a computer, if you really want to know, than why don't you just google it? Space.com and talkorigins.org are a good starting point for the accepted theories. If you have questions about what you have read, than you should ask. Seriously, by asking these questions, you seem like someone who either wants others do to their homework for them or you are making some attempt to manipulate us into saying that we don't know. I would like to point out, we don't like games or the lazy intellect.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to manipulate anyone, or get my "homework" done for me. If I am questioned, and I don't know, I will openly state that. And googling really only gives me one perspective at a time. Here I can get lots of answers all at once, and different viewpoints. Is this really considered lazy, to get others' POV? I'm not trying to play games, I'm really confused as to why you would think that.

[Antlerman]

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers.

I was trying to find a post I made sometime ago that put all the science into Bible-like language, but I can't seem to find it. Oh well, extremely briefly:

 

Big bang expands rapidly and as it cools hydrogen and helium atoms are created. Gravity pulls these together into gas clouds, until they form stars. As the energy is consumed internally in these nuclear furnaces, other elements are created through this process, which in turn are consumed and converted, and more elements are created, which are then consumed and converted into other elements, and so on until they are converted all the way down to iron, at which they can be converted no further and internal reaction stops and the stars crushes in on itself in a massive implosion, and then explodes in a hyper-nova, whose force is so great that it creates all the rest of the elements on the periodic table.

 

Now all these elements are seeded throughout the early universe as these early mega stars explode, hurtling their 'star dust' of all these created elements everywhere, which gravity brings them together into larger and larger chunks of rock, the larger ones attract smaller ones much like dust collects smaller dust particles created big dust balls. As these form, planets become formed. All this fusing and pressure creates a molten center which cooks all these elements, the heavy elements sinking to the core, and the lighter elements floating to the surface. One of these lighter elements is carbon - the stuff we are made of.

 

So there's the cooking pot that allowed life as one of it's by products. We literally are made of star dust.

 

I really wish I could find that other post. If I can, I post it here later.