On Creationism

So the web site claims, anyway. This is based on twelve events in the creation narrative being in the right order. 1. Light separated from darkness 2. Creation of the earth covered in water 3. The separation of the dry land from the seas 4 – 6. The creation of plants in a particular order – grasses, plants with seeds and fruit bearing trees 7. The placing of the heavenly bodies in relationship to the earth. This is often explained as the clearing of the atmosphere (from one composed mostly of water vapor and carbon dioxide to one with more oxygen due to plant photsynthesis) enough to see these creations. 8-11 The creation of animal life in a particular order – fish, birds, modern land animals, live stock 12. The creation of man It is amazing what contortions some people will go through to convince themselves they are right. Right here we see: Missing bits out The author conveniently skips day two altogether. Genesis 1:6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the ...

Just to be clear, this is about what was there before the Big Bang, not Elizabethan literature! What is nothing? If I have an empty box, what is inside it? Nothing! Well, that is the simplistic answer, but in fact the box is full of air. Let us suppose inside we have a glass vessel that we can pump all the air of, is there now nothing inside it? Is a vacuum something? I am going to assume not, but light can travel through the vessel, so it does contain photons. So have an opaque, evacuated vessel. What does it contain now? A gravity field for one thing. Electromagnetic fields will be slight, but there will be present. Looks like we have to move our thought experiment to intergalactic space, and to suppose that not only is nothing here, but there is also nothing for an extremely long distance, and electromagnet and gravity fields are essentially zero. This surely is nothing... Still no. Quantum fluctuation leads to spontaneous production (and subsequent destruction) of virtual particl...

This is a reply to a set of web pages by Rich Deem. They start here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html Arguments for God He starts by saying: Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. This is curious. Why must I rely completely upon physical evidence, when he freely admits theists do not? Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. ... To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur. There is belief and there is belief . When I say "I believe that.." I could mean that it is my opinion, but I may well be wrong, or I could mean that I am certain, I have conviction in the belief. Sure, I believe that all phenomena have naturalistic ca...

This post is a rehash of a post I made during my brief sojourn at "EvolutionFairytale.com", and the full discussion can be seen there . A lot of the Christians' defense of the messianic prophecies involving claiming that other prophecies were convincing, which is perhaps telling. I was prompted to discuss this issue in the first place because of this web page , by a guy called Fred Williams, who, I believe, runs the "EvolutionFairytale.com" forum. He says: Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details. A strong claim indeed! That page discusses various types of prophecies, of which the messianic prophecies are but one. Specifically with regards to them, Williams says: When Dr. Kennedy finished reading these scriptures to the Jewish man, he asked him to whom these verses were referring to.  The man responded that "Obviously...

The claim is often made that Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Tyre is especially accurate, with the implication that it must have come from God. Is that really the case? Geographical Background The city of Tyre was built on a rocky island about half a mile from the mainland (in fact, the original city was a little way inland). It had a port on the north side and another on the south. A city also grew on the adjacent mainland, and according to three preserved letters this was called Ushu. A Pheonician city, Tyre became very wealthy by trading throughout the Mediterranean. The variety of goods traded is actually recounted by Ezekiel in the Bible. Its island location allowed it to withstand several sieges. A couple of centuries after Ezekiel's time it was eventually breached by Alexander the Great (in 332 BC), who built a causeway from the mainland to the island, and it was later captured by both the Saracens and the Crusaders. There is still a city there today (the fourth large...

I have just been banned after 2 weeks and 69 posts at the Evolution Fairytale Forum, posting under the name " BeesKnees ". The reason appears to be because I misrepresented people (I got warning saying that anyway). I did, I admit, but only because I misunderstood, never deliberately. Here is a good example: Me : The implication of the rainbow myth is that prior to the flood there were no rainbows. Why would that be? Clearly there was rain - enough to cause a flood. Was light not refracted prior to the flood? If not, then how did eyes work? Uppsala : If you are going to make assertions about what the Bible says concerning whether or not there was rain before the flood then I suggest you use the Bible itself to support your claim. There is NO mention of rain before the flood. Instead we read:    "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to wo...