What Genesis Got Wrong

What Genesis Got WrongAn examination of the biblical creation story of Genesis in light of recent scientific discoveries. Also examined are attempts to reinterpret the Genesis creation account alongside these discoveries.

Is the creation story of Genesis compatible with modern science? Does a literal reading of the text show remarkable knowledge of future discoveries? Or, must the text be reinterpreted to align it with today's scientific discoveries?

The Bible mentions water as the one pre-existent element in the universe when God begins his creative week. Is that possible? Were the elements for water, hydrogen and oxygen, available in the early universe?

Dr. David Neiman explains that the "light" of creation matches perfectly the discoveries of science. And, also, can there have been "days" of creation before the existence of our sun?

God is said to have gathered the waters into seas, exposed the dry land and brought forth vegitation. How does this sequence of events line up with modern scientific discoveries?

Biblical creation story sees the formation of the sun, moon and stars, firmly placed into the dome of the sky. Has Genesis yet found itself able to parallel what has been discovered through modern science regarding the formation of these heavenly bodies?

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 2 hours)

163
8.70
12345678910
Ratings: 8.70/10 from 20 users.
  • Jack1952

    They should never have let Peter Gabriel leave. That's where Genesis went wrong.

  • Kateye70

    Peter? or Gabriel? ;-)

  • dewflirt

    Phil collins ;)
    Edit, terrible singer and not much of a narrator either. This would be so much more watchable if he would just speak more quickly!

  • Pysmythe

    God, no kidding!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Jacquard/1210162491 John Jacquard

    this doc is awesome!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Jacquard/1210162491 John Jacquard

    what IS the universe?

  • robertallen1

    Excellent documentary, except for the apologia at the end. Why should the maker of the documentary have to apologize to Religious fundamentalists and apologists? He's doing something positive; they aren't.

  • wald0

    While of course I agree with everything this guy has to say on an intellectual basis I am not sure trying to apply logic to the biblical creation story is a great way to prove it is a nonsense account written by man. It would seem to me that if someone already believes in an all-powerful omnipotent god that has the power to will whole universes into existernce pointing out small illogical details will do nothing to sway them. They believe God is above these natural restrictions, beyond our ability to even truly comprehend. It would of course follow that he and his will would trump natural laws and logical explanation. This is why when us atheists ask, "If God created the universe who or what created God?" the religious person always replies that God is supernatural and therefore not subject to the laws and restrictions of nature, in other words he doesn't require a beginning or an end as physical things in our world do. In the end this is why you can never pin down a believer because they will always fall back on the idea that because their god is supernatural and above the laws of physics he is also incomprehensible to us and above our need for logical explanation.
    In my opinion we humans have very litlle real control over what we turn out to be in the end. Free will is an illusion, our choices are predetermined in a way by the external experiences we are subjected to through out our life, the way we deal with those experiences will determine much of who and what we are in the end. The unique set of experiences that make up my past led me down the road of trusting logic and science, it taught me to trust only empirical data and observation backed by logical deduction and mathematics when considering the natural world and how it works. My twin brother however went through many of the same experiences and somehow ended up trusting gut feeling and intuition, he believes in the words of the Christian God when considering the natural world. Should I hate him for that? Should I assume he is st*pid when I know he is not? Of course not, that would be illogical. Neither of us made a single definable choice to be what we are, niether of us can be anything other than ourselves. All I can do is learn to live with him and he with me, both of trusting that in the end the other will "come around" to our way of thinking. Isn't life interesting though, its fascinating to me that two so different people could come from the same genetic as well as environmental background. Our house is a microcosmic mirror reflecting the struggle for one-world. Wish us luck!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    @wald0.."They believe God is above these natural restrictions, beyond our ability to even truly comprehend. It would of course follow that he and his will would trump natural laws and logical explanation"

    -this is exactly why I can't debate in these convserations. What you just stated makes everything in these conversations null and void. Personally I can follow and believe all the science, and I think its expected that we become smarter and learn the void, but we are still stuck in the void, and there will always be a dimension outside the void, we can't understand. Even when a paradigm shift in knowledge transcends us into a new dimension, another one will still exist. I'd rather people just say, "I don't know"

  • wald0

    I don't think he was apologizing in the sense you are taking it. I think he simply wanted to make sure to mention that the biblical account of creation is a wonderful work of literature written by men that were at least striving for some kind of understanding regarding the universe and how it worked. Often atheist call these guys ignnor@nt sheep herders and so forth, which just isn't fair and really miscatagorizes who and what they really were. We have to remember that no matter how much we dislike religion it was the begiinning of what evolved into legitimate science, politics, the arts, and philosophy. I agree with him that we should afford religion the credit it deserves for advancing civilization the way it did- I just think we should also now realize that it has become a detriment to the advancement of civilization and is no longer needed. The disclaimer at the end I didn't really take as an apology either, more as an explanation of his motivatiuon for making this documentary.

  • fonbindelhofas

    nice series for those who silently think "this god thing cant possibly be true:/"

  • robertallen1

    And just what other way is there to show how wrong the biblical creation story is than to apply logic and science? If after being presented with a fine documentary such as this, some wilfully ignorant religee still clings to his fairytales, superstition and faith, he is stu*id and that's all there is to it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4CVMFHJJVBT7KGL5QR6E7ZIHAU Northstream Communications

    science and religion have no business being together. Religion or more accurately spirituality is an individual's personal relationship with god and science is process that man uses to explain his physical surroundings (God's creation). The Bible should never be used to explain the physical universe or even morality for that matter.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4CVMFHJJVBT7KGL5QR6E7ZIHAU Northstream Communications

    Science and spirituality should not be categorized together.
    Spirituality is an individual's PERSONAL relationship with God, which comes from within ourselves.
    Science is the process that humans use to explain the physical surroundings, which IS God's creation.
    The Bible and religion in general is a tool to control the masses and should be avoided whenever possible.

  • robertallen1

    I can't think of one instance in which religion advanced civilization. It simply took advantage of it.

    It was the part that followed the one you cited.

  • robertallen1

    It's also good for those who enunciate it.

  • robertallen1

    You're right. The bible should never be used to explain the physical universe or morality--but what makes you think you that the universe is god's creation?

  • wald0

    My point exactly, logic can't be used to refute a "supernatural" claim because it by definition transends logic and the known laws of nature- that's why we call it "supernatural" in the first place. That's why I try to avoid these debates as well, because 1. they are pointless when the other side has such a perfect, preconcieved escape route 2. People take this subject so personally most debates deteriate fairly quickly into an insult contest anyway.

  • wald0

    Come now, religion never helped advance civilization? That is simply not true at all. I don't want to launch into a history lessen but you should really re-think that point of view. It is so obviouse that religion has done much to shape the current state of civilization, advancing it at some points hindering it at others, that to claim otherwise seems a little silly- in my opinion.

  • robertallen1

    If you think I'm wrong, you should have enumerated the areas in which you believe religion helped advance a civilization instead of saying absolutely nothing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    I seem to be leaning towards wald0 on this point but I for one cannot and probably never will be able to make up my mind if religion has had a net good or net bad effect on the world. When Hitchens writes “religion spoils everything” he seems to be saying religion has been a net loss for humanity. I'd really like to see that debated although my only contribution would be to repeating myself: I have no idea. In fact, I have no idea how or indeed if the question could be explored to give a definitive answer.

    May I pose this as a question to my learned fellow TDF viewers? I’d love your to hear your opinions, meanwhile my opinion is that it can’t be resolved one way or the other. Over to you...

  • robertallen1

    Go to the link on Vlatko's latest post. The sooner we get rid of religion, the better.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    thanx mate. I'm no fan of religion, in fact it makes me plain angry at times (scientology, JWs, you name 'em) but I can't put it into room 101. Hitchens would have, Dawkins wouldn't. I know one thing for sure, I'd start taxing them. I don't think you will get your wish r1, religion is here to stay for a good while yet it seems.

  • Wendy Domkoski

    What is forgotten here, including authors mentioned, is that creation happened in eternity before the fall. We are looking at what seems to be evidence within our fallen world to try to explain or understand the creation account of a world, before the fall, yet part of a totally different realm, with laws of physics that can't compare to our existence of time/space (a much more sluggish existence compared to eternity)

  • Achems_Razor

    "Creation happened in eternity before the fall"?? explain what you mean.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    Vlatco "I would also like to see what are the "advancements" and "achievements" of the religion. Probably there are few but please don't say art, literature, music, morals, social life, etc."

    Are you kidding, some of the great classical music and art has been advanced by religion

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    This is just some music influence..

    "Among the greatest composers of classical music of a liturgical nature are Johann Sebastian Bach ,George Frideric Handel , Mozart ,Haydn, Beethoven , Schubert and Anton Bruckner . In Medieval and Renaissance times , the great composers of these eras ,included Palestrina, Lassus, Machaut, Guilaume Dufay , Claudio Monteverdi , Josquin Desprez , Heinrich Schutz , William Byrd and others. These composers were respectively Italian, Belgian, Dutch or French , German ,and English . "

    music in itself is spiritual and religious

  • robertallen1

    How do you know this? Sounds mo*onic.

  • robertallen1

    Religious themes, not religious roots.

  • robertallen1

    Again, religious themes, not religious roots. And these are not achievements of religion, but rather, of music. These composers also wrote secular music in the same style. So you don't know what you're talking about.

  • Wendy Domkoski

    Earth a much different place when first created before Adam and Eve sinned

  • robertallen1

    "Before Adam and Eve sinned." Are you an adult?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    Many of the advancements in classical music were inspired by the church and God. wald0 said it best though."religion has done much to shape the current state of civilization, advancing it at some points hindering it at others"..but its stupid to say religion had No part in advancements in science, arts, music, etc..

    So you dont know what you are talking about, take your Librium.

  • Wendy Domkoski

    Conclusions that I come to are from a thorough study of the scriptures in their entirety, working through some of my own confusion and contemplation. Antiquity remembers a "Golden Age", I believe the state of things before the fall, the way God created and intended things to be. Antiquity also remembers a Heaven and earth that were once closer together. I think all of the universe fell. In all of the hostile environment that emerges, out of the fall; God, in His mercy and love, with His intent to provide mankind a Redeemer, protects the earth, making it a unique spot in all the surrounding hostility, even though fallen and far from what God originally created and intended, because of the free will that was given to man. I don't have a specific verse to give you, just a feel that I get from a thorough study of the Bible in its entirety.

  • robertallen1

    And just which "advancements" in classical music were inspired by religion? Did it ever occur to you that the only reason just about all of the composers you named wrote religious-themed music, the only reason artists created religious-themed paintings was because the church was one of the few avenues open to them? Did it ever occur to you that many of the composers you named also wrote considerable amounts of secular music which were as "inspired " as their religious worrks? Do you have any idea how silly you sound stating that these "advancements" in art (which you have yet to define) were inspired by god whose existence you can't even prove?

    And just which "advancements" in science are you talking about when for centuries religion did everything it could to squelch it.

    You have a bad habit of making assertions on topics you know nothing about in an attempt to portray your idiotic religion as being at the head of everything.

  • robertallen1

    You don't know anything more about god, the so-called fall, the so-called golden age, etc. than anybody else and all your statements simply paul-parrot what you have read in a series of books of which you have not the least understanding because you know nothing about their history and the times in which they were written.

    "I believe," "I think" are not proof of any of the empty assertions that you have following them.

  • KingGeorgeIV

    Im sure we have all heard the claim that the Bible seeks to explain the why in creation rather than the how. It was never meant to be a scientific thesis on the creation of earth or the universe. However many people still seem to desire to read science into the scriptures, and I can't blame them for wanting to add more credibility to the argument for truth. Science has brought us so many wonderful advances in our evolving species, so I can also see why one would want to use it as a lens to view the world through.

    I personally see them having possibilities to coexist until you reach the modern dominant theory of evolution which contradicts some of the Genesis accounts. In that case, it is important to distinguish between macro and micro evolution because one addresses the big picture and the other centers around natural selection. One is for the most part, proven, and the other remains a theory. The problem with accepting the whole of evolution (both macro and micro) and applying it to the Bible is that when you alter the beginning of this story of creation, you also alter the chief end. Evolution has no answer for the future. "The dominant theory of evolution doesnt just cause problems with Genesis 1-11, it eliminates, as an absolute necessity, that there is any direction or purpose in evolution, it eradicates the very possibility that there could be an original/historical human pair from whom all human beings have descended from. In other words, it doesnt just rub up against the gospel with friction, it comes from a very different intellectual starting point and therefore arrives at a very different ending."

    As for the creation account in Genesis 1, I think the scriptures are a bit too vague to draw any scientific conclusions. Once again, I believe the Bible's intention was not to provide a scientific explanation as to how the earth was created but why and by who. However, I have not studied the subject at great enough length to make a valid or accurate conclusion, this is just personal speculation and a few articles that I retained some information from in personal study.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KMSK2BISF36DZ2RHOLEUVAOSWA justin les

    it would be nice to read these comments and see if the documentary is religious biased nonsense but instead its another God battle...yeesh

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    I find this to be completely false although I admit, I have not researched into your claim, although I'm not sure it can be researched. I theorize that if I google what you claim I will get a few religious journals and essays to validate you based on personal assumption. My response however is still rooted in 13 years of researching music theory and producing material. So far I have yet to ever hear anyone claim that there were proven "advancements" in musical production due to religion. At the end of the day there is no part of the production process that can be traced back to a religion being the cause. Now I think you may have just mis-worded your statement (at least I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt here).

    Religion has been an "inspiration" to many musicians worldwide but as far as stating that music has been "advanced" by religion is just utter nonsense. Music is a mathematical art. The deaf can create beautiful works without ever hearing a note in their life and it is not because of religion. Music like math has certain algorithms that are nearly guaranteed to arouse a certain mood in the listener. At the end of the day the majority of the music us Americans/Europeans are exposed to are as simple to make as picking a scale and working within it. In fact, all those top 40 songs you listen to in your ipod are made this way, I would even go as far as to say the gospel you no doubt listen to is written with those simple rules.

    Religion can inspire many forms of art, but to say something so bold without any evidence is just plain absurd. Until you can cite a peer reviewed source for your ideas, you should not speak on what you don't understand.

    Edit: I'm sorry, you are absolutely right, since "GOD" created everything, then it's safe to assume he created music in it's entirety. In that aspect you are 100% correct. Do you see how silly that sounds?

  • robertallen1

    Where does micro evolution end and macro evolution begin? Answer: it's all evolution proceeding in tiny steps and this phony "distinction" is merely a creationist fiction.

    It is ridiculous to use the bible as any sort of scientific guide or blueprint and why some people have to bring it as well as their idiotic religion into everything they encounter is beyond me.

    The quote which ends your second paragraph is quite correct, but where's it from?

  • robertallen1

    You're right, his claim that religion was in any way responsible for the "advancements" in classical music is complete nonsense and the music itself is the best evidence.

    As for the sentence which ends your second paragraph, simplistic is a much better word to characterize the music Americans/Europeans are exposed to today, including Gospel, rock, country western, etc. The music of the '20's, '30's and '40's was far more complex and far more creative.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    You give words to my thoughts.

  • wald0

    I don't claim at all that religion had anything to do with the beginnings of morality, never have. I also do not claim that the ideals of religion or the act of believing has done anything to advance civilization. What I am saying is that the formal structure religion inspired and the rules it laid down gave us the first semblance of a hierarchal power structure; that the early attempts of the church to examine the natural world in a systematic way, all be it for the purpose of proving their religious text accurate, eventually led to science and the scientific method; that building all the churches, temples, and monuments religion inspired advanced architecture, mathematics, and art; that it inspired epic works of literature, etc., etc. I am not saying that believing in an omnipotent deity or any particular religious ideal did anything to advance civilization, only that the structure and bureaucracy it has created has done much to advance civilization and at other times much to hinder it. I mean if you want specific examples of advancements that can be accredited to the church I suppose I could roll up my sleeves and do a little Google research but is that really necessary? I don’t think what I am asserting is anything ground breaking or new.
    One example that comes to mind is that before the printing press it was the church that copied and preserved literature, works like the Epic of Gilgamesh would have been lost forever but for the church. Instead it was preserved and is now known as one of the first real works of literature in the ancient world. Religion did much to inspire the first political structure in Mesopotamia and surrounding areas, which is why rulers were considered gods. We have records indicating that the church operated as the first civic organization, assitsting with everything from architecture and literacy (although for only a select few) to sanitation and agriculture in some ancient civilizations. Of course I could cite just as many if not more instances when the formal structure surrounding religion hindered the advancement of civilization- Galileo comes to mind, as well as the destruction of the libraries at Alexandria but records clearly indicate that the chuirch also helped create much of what it later destroyed or suppressed. Whether in the end it was a net gain or loss can and is argued between historians often, but one can't simply say it has always been a negative influence on the advancement of civilization- reality is simply not that cut and dry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    The inspiration, for many of the great works of music and art, come from the inspiration of faith in God. Advancements, in any art or science can also come from this faith. Yes there were secular pieces as well, but that does no diminish the effect a faith in a greater power had and still does have..

  • robertallen1

    You do all right on your own--and I repeat, you are absolutely correct. And I also repeat from a few posts back, that many of the composers cited by Brandon Costa wrote just as much if not more secular music--and it was in the same style as their "sacred music." There is no stylistic (harmonic, contrapuntal) difference between Bach's "Jesus, Joy of Man's Desiring" and his A minor violin sonata. A Bruckner symphony is no different sylistically that a Bruckner mass. So this business of religion inspiring the "advancement" of music is, as you say, complete nonsense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    Your claim is that music was advanced not inspired by religion. There is no denying that a faith in god can inspire art, but this same religion can also inspire mass murder. I could sit here and say Satan advanced Death Metal, but that would be an unfair generalization not based in actual fact. See what I'm getting at? If you are willing to say your god advanced music then you must also assert that your god also advanced genocide.

  • robertallen1

    Name one work of music and art which came from inspiration of faith in God and while you're at it, name one advancement in any art inspired by religion. The only effect faith in a greater power has is mental numbness, not great creativity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    You will have to excuse the depressed athiests on board. I personally don't see things exactly the way you do, but there is such a thing as manners and consideration, and it doesnt exist in this place..You see they have an agenda. They want to rid the world of religion. They see it as the single greatest roadblock to the advancement of man. In many ways I agree with this, however, the new religion will be theirs. Absense of God. To believe in God will be met violently I fear. Ironic. They will deny this, but all it takes is one demented charasmatic leader to create the new Athiest Youth Rallies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    I dont deny that, no. I think many attrocities have been caused in the name of God. However, this is mans fault in my opinion. The central figures in/most religions were the most compassionate figures in history.

    But absence of God does not cure man's dark side. Look at the Soviet attrocities.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    Oh come on. lol.. Even if you hate faith in imaginary things, even an unbeliever should be able to agree that believing in something greater than self, can bring rise to great compassion and creativity. Why not? If God(I know you dont believe in him/her/whatever) came down to you, and said he has a palace for you in afterlife and their would be great joy, how would your existence be for the rest of your mortal life? If you were an musical artist, your music would representative of that joy within you. Your clarity would be acute as well as your creativity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    You are absolutely correct. The atrocities carried out by man are the absolute result of man. You know it's like that saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Religion can be twisted in the minds of men to justify some of our darkest moments. But can you really assume that these Soviet atrocities you speak of were a direct result of their falling out with God?

    I would like to think that man makes decisions based on an internal moral understanding of right and wrong. At least that's how I live day by day. I don't need God to tell me to help or hurt someone, I rely on common sense.

  • robertallen1

    It's the other way around, the hierarchy you describe came about secularly and religion drew from it. By its very nature, religion militates against an examination of the natural world in a systematic way; it was the break from religion resulting in the age of enlightenmentt that engendered the scientific method we use today. Advanced architecture led to the building of religious edifices and monuments, not the other way around. Religious authors such as Milton and Dante were inspired not so much by religion itself as by their attempts to create classic-style epics in their own way. Religion did absolutely nothing for math. As a matter of fact during the middle ages, it was a capital crime even to mention the infinitely large or the infinitely small, for such concepts went against the concepts of Aristotle and an omnipotent god.

    I could go on, but religion was never responsible for the advancement of these things. It merely sapped from them.

  • robertallen1

    But it's more likely that one demented charasmatic religee will crop up first. And yes, history has shown religion to be the greatest roadblock in the advancement of man.

  • robertallen1

    And just who were these?

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    Very good I 100% agree with you that the belief in something greater than self "can" be beneficial. I frequently say "thank god I don't have to hurt myself or those around me any longer", but this to me isn't that religious. The God I know is simply an accronym for "Good orderly direction", which as you stated, we all could use more of.

  • robertallen1

    First of all, you did not answer my question. Secondly, you do not know enough about music and composing it and for that matter about art and its creation to be able support the twaddle you have just written.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    I dont think the attrocities had anything to do with God in the USSR. But it doesnt take a belief or disbelief to make man the ass he is in the world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    Oh, don't get me wrong I hate religion, I just believe in a higher power.

  • robertallen1

    That is a religion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Costa/1243110309 Brandon Costa

    Robertallen, I dont have the time to waste to look up every single fact you complain about. Ive taken enough school to know religion played a role, like or not. If you are such an expert on everything why arent you a college professor or something. Im starting to think you arent as smart as you think you are. As was stated earlier, its 'silly' to think religion did not play a role in mans advancements. The majority of the world is religious, there is no possible way advancements are purely seculary rooted. LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    School taught you that? What about separation of church and state? Unless you went to a private school or bible school, in which case what you may have been taught might be quite biased.

  • KingGeorgeIV

    I took it from a lecture/Q&A panel from a conference, his name is Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

  • wald0

    The first organizational structures were within the hunter gather tribes and were based on family units and pagan relgions, this was how we identified with others- they were part of your family/tribe or a stranger. This later evolved into identity as a religious group, empathy now expands to include everyone within your religious family- this is when we get Mesopotamia, Egypt, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. This later evolved into nation state identity, emapthy now expands again to include everyone that identifies as American, or Russian, etc., etc. For further information regarding this well thought out and researched anthropological observation check out The empathic civilization on keen talks. If thats not a big enough contribution to civilization simply examine the fact that the fist political structures to emerge in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylonia, etc., etc. were based directly on religion and that these civlizations are considered the first real civilizations. For more information on this read western civilizations sixteenth edition volume one by Coffin and Stacy. For information on how the catholic church shaped civilization by making one of the first attempts to examine the natural world in a sytematic way which led to the fight over the helio and geo centric models and the famous imprisonment of Galileo read volume two of the same series on western civilization.This book also covers the enlightenment of course and explains how the scientific method was refined by enlightenment thinking- you are quit right to point that out. However, Aristotle is recognized as the father of empirical science and the scientific method was first concieved by Islamic scholars between the tenth and fourteenth century. These concepts did not simply pop onto the scene as a result of the enlightenment, they were simply refined and put to work during this time.
    To say that the architecture inspired by and built directly for religious purposes did nothing to expand the field and advance architectural mathematics is just laughable and doesn't need adressing in my opinion. Pick up any architecture text book and it will referr over and over again to iconic religious architecture and how it inspired whole styles of building in later civilizations. As part of my degree in Western Civics I had to take whole classes dedicated to examining how certain relgions shaped certain cultures and how these cultures helped shape modern civilization. The early Islamic church did not in any way hinder or restrict scientific knowledge, in fact the first star charts were made by an Islamic scholar and finally were found in Spain after the occupation of the Islamic Moores- it along with other Greek writings found there (apparently preserved and studied by the Islamic scholars) are credited with helping to inspire the enlightenment in fact. For more infomation on this again I reffer you to Volume one edition sixteen of Western Civilizations by Coffin and Stacy, an accredited text book used to teach western civics in many colleges accross the U.S.
    Relax man, I am not supporting or premoting religion or its utility. That said I am not going to pretend it has in no way helped to advance what we call modern civilization, no more than I will pretend it never hindered it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/glen.hale2 Glen Hale

    The Bible thumpers will be getting over worked as time goes on trying to explain a Myth.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @wald0,

    If we go that way, Nazis also had their moments. Hitler built some fine buildings, and in his time probably some art, music and literature was created. He also established "unique" political system. He also manufactured some awesome cars. But for what reasons and what was the underpinning point of all that? Did humanity benefit from his overall doings?

    Religion indeed created and inspired things but censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought, made a great damage, which makes religion hindrance not achievement.

    Political systems created by religion were cruel, despotic and anti-human. In fact it is religion fault that we have this political blueprint today. Is there any "good" in political systems created and inspired by religion?

    Religion spent fortunes and countless of hours of human labor for building their shrines. For what reason and purpose? What is the overall good of all those buildings? The only good is that during their building math, logic and architecture was used, but couldn't they've been used better? Every other employment of math, and logic you can think off would have been more productive. Imagine, if all that workforce, time, and brain power, instead of building some useless cathedrals were used for building real purpose architecture. Therefore hindrance, not achievement.

    It is the same with the literature and literacy. Yes they were writing and printing texts but they were suppressing literacy whenever they could. They originally used writing and printing to disseminate their holy books. How can that be an advancement?

  • Pythus

    learn how to use a microphone. you are clipping! i cant watch it. very distracting to me

  • wald0

    See you aren't getting it man. I completely agree with everything you have said. I never made a value staement about their contributions I only stated they made contributions, that was my only point. And yes you are quite right, under Hitlers rule advancements in egineering and other fields definetly occurred of course so did the genocide of the Jewish people and the opression and extermination of many others. What bothers me is this mentality that if the over all is bad and we disagree with something we paint it as all bad, never any good coming from it in anyway. The same mentality is often applied to drugs, I happen to think (along with Bill Hicks and others) that we have gotten some definite positive advancements in civilization due to drug use. Now does that mean i approve of drug use, no- I am a drug addiction counselor and an x-addict. Why can't we see it for what it really was/is and still be against it?

  • Achems_Razor

    Where do I sign up? Am not demented nor depressed (as an unbeliever) but am (sic)charasmatic. Hehe. And no violence, "leave your guns at home son"

  • Kateye70

    I have to say I agree with having a balanced viewpoint. Any power structure is going have both good and bad in it.

  • robertallen1

    Is this the best you can do? You are comlpetely wrong and I'm not the only one who says so. Either your education was insufficient or you are letting your theology get in the way of actual facts. In addition, you have still not indicated what you mean by "advancement." An assertion without backing is worthless and if you don't have the time to research your assertions before making them, expect to be judged accordingly. Your last sentence makes no sense and only goes to show that you don't know what you are talking about.

  • robertallen1

    That's where you went wrong. If you want to learn about science, go to scientists (popularizers are fine too). For starters, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article "Objections to Evolution."

  • robertallen1

    Evolved is the key word. What started off as secular, e.g., family or tribal units, evolved into religions. The political structures of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylonia, etc. evolved into religious hierarchies which religion exploited. As for architecture, religion was merely the arena not for development, but for implementation. Religion did not contribute to the designs of say the gothic architecture. That was secular. It merely gave the architects the arena to put them into practice. The same with music, religion did not contribute to the harmony, counterpoint, etc. It simply gave the composers the arena in which to compose.

  • Achems_Razor

    Since I also looked at the link robertallen1 suggested thought I would enter it for you.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

  • robertallen1

    That was most considerate of you. How does one enter links or does one enter them and have a moderator pass judgment?

  • Achems_Razor

    The posters themselves have to enter the links, but as per the comment policy, the links are automatically queued for approval for and by the moderators, to determine whether they are viable or no.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-D-Wilson/1190439399 Keith D. Wilson

    I don't think I'll bother to watch this. I have never, nor have many of us who view Genesis as part of our religious tradition, considered Genesis to be anything approaching a scientific text. The noisy clueless people who attempt to read a bronze age poetic telling of Creation as a literal and scientific account give the rest of us reasonable people a bad name. I don't see the merit in devoting two hours of a documentary to the obvious.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Kateye70,

    Balanced view is OK, but when deserved. Would you agree that Nazis had balanced (equally good and bad) impact on the world or not?

    With that analogy I argue that horrors of religion outweigh religious good deeds by very far. Further more those good deeds are not a direct product of religion, but just a social byproduct, which could have easily happen (and indeed happened) without religion.

    Hitchens was right: Religion Poisons Everything.

    Even today it is all good when believers go to church or mosque, hold hands and sing Kumba Yo, but the overall picture is more than alarming:

    1. Avoiding taxes,
    2. Vilification of homosexuality,
    3. Door-to-door and TV religion salespeople,
    4. People dying because religion campaigns against safe sex (AIDS in Africa),
    5. People dying because religion condemns abortion and therefore stem cells research,
    6. People disowning family members for leaving their religion,
    7. Genitalia mutilation,
    7. Invading schools with anti-science dogmas (ID),
    8. Children traumatized by vivid religious stories (hell, sin, sex abstinence, punishment etc.)
    9. Suicide bombers,
    10. Discrimination against atheists (may not hold public office),
    11. Massive violence caused by by differences in belief or doctrine (Bosnia, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc),
    12. Harboring and protecting pedophilia,

    This is just a fraction of what is happening today or happened in the very recent past. If we go deeper in the past, the gravity of the situation will become unbearable.

    Logical question would be what are the deeds of organized religion that will outweigh or balance the above.

  • robertallen1

    I understand. Thank you.

  • robertallen1

    There are all to many who are not as enlightened as you and besides, there's a lot of interesting biology and cosmology in the documentary. It really is time well spent watching it.

  • Emanouel

    Vlatko,

    Do you honestly believe, that if religion did not exist, man would not spill blood ?

    If religion did not exist, and there were no laws forbidding murder, let me tell you, the streets would be full of blood.

    Are you of the belief that all the crimes committed nowadays in your neighbourhood are driven by religious reasons?

    Maybe violence is just part of our nature, our makeup, our genes....
    but you are just too happy and simple to blame it on religion.

    It is in our nature to hate and kill- ask any "evolutionist"-blaming religion is far too simplistic.

  • robertallen1

    You're right, mankind has always found a reason for murder and destruction--it's just that religion with its reliance on ignorance (faith) provides such a convenient tool. We can do nicely without it, substituting logic, reason and knowledge in its place.

  • Emanouel

    Hear Hear !

  • Kateye70

    "If religion did not exist, and there were no laws forbidding murder, let me tell you, the streets would be full of blood."

    Really? We're social beings, we don't need religion to know that murder is bad. There are certain rules of social interaction across all societies.

    The "don't do's": Don't lie, cheat, steal, or kill.

    The "golden rule": Treat others as you yourself want to be treated.

    Yes, people do all those things, and people try to catch others out in doing all those things.

    None of it takes religion. We do it all by ourselves.

  • robertallen1

    Right. You might want to look up the golden rule and see where in the bible it occurs. I've often been told that my problem is that I take the golden rule all too seriously by expecting others to live up to it.

  • wald0

    True but it was a preciouse gift considering the context in which these artists lived. And I am sorry but you simply have the part about political hierarchy evolving into religious hierarchy backwards, it is clearly supported by established main-stream history that political structure evolved from religious hierarchy in the first civilizations. One need only read the Epic of Gilgamesh to see this clearly for themselves. Gilgamesh was a real man, although he wasn't named Gilgamesh and he did not possess the extrodinary powers nor take the fantastic journey he describes in his epic. Instead he commissioned a writer to write the story and used his influence to make sure bards and preists spread it about. It borrowed greatly from the religion of his people and set him up as a god, clearly an example of one of the first known political leaders borrowing from religious ideas of hierarchal power and so forth to gain the trust, love, and fear of his subjects. Before this we have the example of Ur, considered the first real city by most historians, whiuch formed around a religious temple south of Mesopotamia. Again we see religion advancing civilization by providing a common meeting area for the exchange of ideas and goods. One of the first written languages, cuneiform (misspelled I am sure) consisting of mostly little wedges and so forth cut into clay tablets, evolved during this time in Mesopotamia- the scholars that invented it were educated by the church which also worked to spread literacy among a certain chosen group of people called scribes. The purpose of the language was to assist with trade and commerce, which of course advanced civilization greatly. The first rulers feared the church, which had much more influence and power than they, and sought its approval for almost evrything they did. Egypt though is probably the best example of early political structure emerging from religion. The emperor was considered to be a walking living god. This is what gave him his validity as a ruler. In fact if you simply do a Google search titled Egyptian religion and politics one of the first lines that jumps out at you is, "Religion and politics went hand in hand and were one in the same during this time." This same fact is expressed over and over through out most Western Civ courses.

    Anyway, we will have to agree to diagree on this point obviousely- I have provided what I consider ample evidence to support my assertion so if that didn't sway you i am at a loss. At least we agree that relgiion is a detriment and definite hinderance to the advancement of what i call civilization 2.0. Let me make that clear, I am an atheist who would love to see all religion done away with. I simply refuse to see those that still believe as st@pid or ignor@nt, I refuse to pretend nothing but evil has ever come of religion or that it is the root of all blood shed and conflict. In my opinion these are the same kind of absolute, subjective, and false claims religion makes. Reality is always much more subtle and complicated than that.

  • wald0

    When we say a balanced veiw we don't mean they did an equal amount of good and bad, we simply mean we do recognize the good they did along with the bad. I wouldn't call it balanced as much as realistic. In my opinion trying to paint anything as all bad or all evil for simply evils sake destroys credibility and reeks of relgious type thinking. Even the Nazis, to borrow your example, did some good- they did end a horrible period of unemployment and starvation for the German people. And yes some egineering and scientific advancements in rocketry and aero-dynamics took place under Hitler's rule, how is asserting this fact approving of his reign, why must it even suggest we are sympathetic to his cause in anyway? Its just a simple fact, not a value statement. Why can't we remember such historical events exactly as they happened and take the good while leaving the bad behind? Isn't that learning from your past? Remember the words of the Godfather, Don Corleon-"Never hate your enemies Vincent, it affects your judgement."

  • Emanouel

    Don't ever let anybody accuse you of not treating others the same as you would expect from them ha ha ha !

  • slpsa

    Meh, I loved Genesis, still love em. Peter Gabriel left, the band was never as good. As for the other one, more tosh, from sky fairy people. Not going down that road today. Ive no patience for silliness left, my last nerve was broken a few hours ago at work.

  • slpsa

    Well Kat, there are times, the streets are full of blood. Being from where you come from dear, I would assume you understand my metaphor. Religion teaches to be a good person, for those that take it literally. The truth of it is all in the readers eye and imagination. I for one, do not need such things to be a good person, as you say. The golden rule does need need a fake sky fairy to maker it valid. we know what side of the fence I sit on, but to each his own at this point. If a person is religious, to me that person is weak and afraid of their own mortality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    sorry to be unkind but lol, pmsl, rotfl...etc

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    wendy is top of the class at sunday school ;-)

  • fonbindelhofas

    superb list!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @wald0,

    I'm sure Ted Bundy had a few good bits in his character. Did ever someone recognized those bits publicly in him? No.

    Are you saying that advancements of V rockets was a good thing? And are you saying that Nazis were essential for that advancement?

    Are you saying that killing thousands of Jews and taking their properties and fortunes, and invading other countries was a good thing, because that is how Hitler ended a horrible period of unemployment and starvation for the German people - by taking from others.

    In your original comment you state the following "religion it was the beginning of what evolved into legitimate science, politics, the arts, and philosophy."

    I say that is completely inaccurate, dishonest and not necessarily a positive thing.

    1. Science and the scientific method was existent way before any religion appeared on the face of the Earth. (stone tools, hunting tools, painting tools). Without science you can't have religion and pretty much anything else, therefore religion did not evolved into science. You can dance around this, claiming that you meant modern legitimate science, but even that is not true. Modern religion was always keeping modern science on a short rope.

    2. Religion (on some occasions) did sprung political systems, but on many other occasions did not. It is not true that every political system evolved from religion. Further more you have to ask yourself a question: Politics that evolved from religion - were they good? They were despotic, anti-human, cruel, and selfish, thus they can't be credited as an advancement.

    3. Arts and philosophy are societal byproducts. Religion did not evolve into art and philosophy. (cave paintings happened without religion). Religion is not prerequisite for those things to happen. The church was simply the employer of artists and philosophers, who were in turn often mocking religion. It is absurd to think that Leonardo would have not painted as good as he did if religion was not present.

    One of the few good things that religion did and does today (and I can acknowledge) are charities, orphanages and helping the poor and sick.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Emanouel,

    No I don't believe that if religion did not exist, man would not spill blood, but that is not what we argue.

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. - Steven Weinberg.

  • robertallen1

    If I hire an architect to build a church and the architect does such a marvelous job that his work is hailed as an architectural breakthrough, it is dishonest for me to claim that religion was responsible for this advancement in architecture, which was the original assertion made by Brian Costa. But I can honestly state that a religious organization gave the architect a forum in which to create and that his creation turned out successfully--and this is certainly a major difference for the "advancement" was due to the skill of the architect.

    Do you think that religion merely sprang up out of nothing? I believe that you'll agree that religion is a later development in the history of homines sapientes. (I wonder if homo erectus and other hominids had anything similar to it.) If it parallels the history of everything else, religion evolved from something quite different, commandeering some if not all of the parts, and adding a superior being(s). Hence, it has been given all too much credit for the positive accomplishments of mankind. The real credit should go to what preceded it which established elementary concepts of morality, ethics, group mentality (leadership), creativity, etc. which religion lapped up. Terming this predecessor "social structure," this sequence seems to go from social structure ? religious structure (or religion) ? political structure with, of course, considerable overlap. Also it must be borne in mind that for a considerable period in time, religion was the only game in town for artisans, artists, intellectuals, etc. which is another reason why it has been given too much credit.

    Unlike you, I regard anyone who in the face of modern science still takes the Genesis account of creation literally as st*pid and ignorant and those who try to jackhammer it into conformity with modern science just as contemptible. The only viable path seems to be to treat the account as a literary work and nothing else without trying to pick it apart--at least that renders it palatable. One way or the other, it is irrelevant to science and why people keep bringing it up is a mystery to me.

  • robertallen1

    Comparing your answer to mine, I notice that although we take different paths (or perhaps different approaches) regarding the role of religion in history, we arrive in the same place. However, unlike you, I question the altruism behind these charities, orphanages, etc., especially regarding Catholics.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @robertallen1,

    I question religious altruism too, but that is the only thing left if you strip down religion.

  • robertallen1

    What a shame, but you know something, even though we both disagree with Waldo's view of the role of religion in man's accomplishments, I, for one, must admit that it is intelligent.

  • Jack1952

    I have family members and friends that I grew up with and care a great deal for, who have religious beliefs. I would never call them contemptible or ignorant unless they make unwarranted and vicious attacks on others for their lack of belief. You're going to burn in hell or you have Aids because you have sinned would be examples. As long as their beliefs are not intrusive and kept in their personal space, they can believe what ever they like. I would also expect them to respect my own beliefs as much as I respect theirs. I would never sit down to eat at my brother's table and treat their religious supper rituals with disdain. If I did, I would be the contemptible and ignorant one at the table, not them.

  • robertallen1

    They can have their beliefs, but I don't have to associate with them.

  • Jack1952

    That's true. You don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to. I find, however, that life happens and the people that have the special place in your life may arrive there in spite of logic. I would never cut myself off from my grandchildren if they became religious no more than I would if they declared sexual preferences that are not traditional. Their importance in my life is a combination of many things not just the one. That goes the same for other family members and friends. I have a friend who annoys me to no end but he has been a part of my life for fifty years and he will continue to be. That is the social fabric of our lives. Sometimes we choose but other times we allow the choice to made for us. I don't make conditions on relationships and expect to not have them imposed on me.

  • robertallen1

    I refuse to allow the choice to be made for me, relations or otherwise.

  • Emanouel

    "Nazis also had their moments. Hitler built some fine buildings....
    ...... He also manufactured some awesome cars.... Did humanity benefit from his overall doings ?"

    World War 2 resulted in the deaths of over 60 million, including innocent women and children.

    Vlatko, you ask "Did humanity benefit from his overall doings?

    Perhaps we can undertake a cost-benefit analysis to answer this question.

    60 million lives for some fine buildings, probably some art, music and literature. Oh, and let's not forget those awesome cars !

    By the way Vlatko, while we're on the topic of the Nazis, are you of the belief that World War 2 was fought on religious grounds ?

  • wald0

    No, religion is not a later development, it was present in the very first hunter gatherer tribes we know of. These people depended on nature for all their needs and due to the fickle nature of well, nature itself its no suprise they invented gods that could intervene on their behalf. It was from this primitive pagan religion that later religions evolved. It seems to me when we say religion you automatically think of the Christian church or Judaism or something, yes these more organized, monotheistic traditions are later developments for mankind. However, by the time man settled into the first real cites and civilizatons pagan religion was already well developed.
    As far as your other point, sure I will agree it is the skill of the artist that advances his trade in the end. My point is that that skill is develped though working hands on with whatever your medium is and the church often gave artists a chance to do just that when there would have been no other way. The church also preserved alot of art and helped premote art education.

  • wald0

    Ok. man you want to make this into somekind of value statement or something so I give up. I have told you time and time again that I am not making any kind of value statement about whether religion nor Nazism was a good or bad thing overall, I am merely pointing out that even Nazism brought about some advancements. And now you want to say science was around before religion? Give me a break, I would hardly call making stone tools science. You know better, obviousely you got offended and want to argue now. I was obviousely reffering to legitimate science but you knew that already didn't you. Wow, you guys will even argue with a fellow atheist that agrees with ninety percent of what you say- you have a nice day I wont bother your lttle club any further. Trying to paint someone up to be a Nazi supporter after they have clearly stated they do not support such things is just cheap. To set the record straight before I leave let me make it abudantly clear, I do not think religion nor nazism were or are positive advancements of civilization when considered in their totality. I do however freely admit that yes, some good advancements came from both Germany under Nazism and from the formal structure that arose around religion called the church.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @wald0,

    I don't see anything bad in arguing with a fellow atheist. It is just a conversation. You presented an opinion, I disagree. I presented the reasons why I disagree. Nothing wrong in it. We don't have to always agree. Would you agree?

  • robertallen1

    Tribalism itself is a later development, hence so is religion--and I was not thinking of any religion in particular.

    This discussion began with Brian Costa's statement, "Many of the advancements in classical music were inspired by the church and god," to which I and I believe Vlatko took exception. From your last paragraph, it seems that our only disagreement is the amount of credit to be given to the church. Is this accurate?

  • robertallen1

    Just why isn't making stone tools science? The scientific method is certainly employed to the fullest.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I had noticed you had taken a back burner lately and thought that all the arguments were just too much for you..i think your comment express that. It's a shame as you are one of my favorite participant but i see you on Keen talk and that's good.
    I must say though stone tools is as much science as pagan is religion.
    1i

  • Achems_Razor

    There you go, I agree, making stone tools is science and "probably" all religion stems from pagan sources.
    I said probably so it is not a claim I make which I then do not have to prove for the religee's who are always waiting in limbo lol.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @wald0,

    In order to have primitive religion you need the following:

    1. Tool use (primitive science),
    2. Group living (primitive society), and
    2. Development of language (primitive culture).

    Without tools you can't make ritual burials (earliest signs of primitive religion). Without tribe you can't organize people around those rituals. Without language you can't effectively pass those cultural memes to the next generations.

  • trevor vanhemert

    What is the music at 2:00? I would love to find the song but without lyrics music searches are not easy. I think it is Mozart?

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    In order to have had spiritual-mindedness one needed a mind and the realization of being a self....the rest came after.
    This is my opinion not a fact as it is unprovable, we would have to go back before the time we were primitive.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Man made organized religion may have sprung from paganism, but paganism sprung from "something" too.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    the one to ask is @Pysmythe.
    1i

  • Dante78

    Beethoven's 7th symphony , second measure

  • Pysmythe

    It's the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony. One of my favorites of his. Very, very beautiful "inner voices" in it throughout.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IOT3ESY7PBJ2RO2U34WRBZWSJM M.

    Yes. throwing rocks at the moon...

  • robertallen1

    Or stones at the sun.

  • Effn Wasted

    Gotta love that you have to interpret the meanings of the word of God. Wonder why he had to speak in riddles...

  • John Pro

    I don't care what the scientists say ..they are all wrong
    Jp

  • Jack1952

    I don't know whether to take you seriously or not. If you are serious shame on you. That is a very hateful thing to say and believe. You're a bully and a coward. Even Abraham stood up to God and tried to negotiate for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. God held him up as an example for all of us.

    If you're being facetious, never mind and LOL.

  • Kateye70

    Wrong about what?

  • awful_truth

    @Waldo. Couldn't have said it better myself. In case you haven't noticed, do not give any credit to any aspect of religion with this 'little club', (not even history) or you will be mobbed. I have friends that cover the spectrum from atheist to theist, and never witnessed the disrespect I have seen blogged here. Ironically, it kind of reminds me of the intolerance of the Spanish inquisition. A good thing it is the virtual world, or someone may have 'smited' us already, theist, and atheist alike!

  • awful_truth

    @robertallen1. Although I don't agree with what John Pro said, I fail to see any threat for you to report.(just a standard religous belief) Furthermore, is this site not your 'private pulpit' since you seem not to sleep, and blog 24/7 insulting anyone who doesn't think like you. Out of curiosity, do you even have a job?

  • robertallen1

    You wouldn't be worth the effort.

  • awful_truth

    @qQ. Absolutely!

  • awful_truth

    @Vlatko. Cudos for acknowledging the efforts of the church regarding charities, orphanages and helping the poor and sick. I think we both can agree this doesn't wash clean the blood from the hands of those who have used religion for persecution. As with all things, there are good and bad results, all of which are man made, not the tools we create as a catalyst for immoral intentions.

  • fonbindelhofas

    i would like to comment on charities & orphanages, mother teresa is great example, she let people die in horrible agony with no medication because her religion tells that a way to heaven is via suffering and pain. great icon of mercy for religious institutions.

  • Emanouel

    She is an "icon of mercy" for humanity first and foremost.
    Are your deeds comparable to hers ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Scminka Ola Rhodes

    I agree with you one hundred percent. When she fell ill and was dying what happened? She was flown first class to one of the best hospitals in America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Scminka Ola Rhodes

    When a man has a reputation for being an early riser, he may sleep till midday.

  • fonbindelhofas

    yes an "ICON", and no, my deeds are not comparable, i would be terrible person if they would. i dont force other to suffering, i dont hide millions from donations meant for medicine, im not a fanatic...

  • Emanouel

    So, you think you are a better person than Mother Theresa?
    If you do, hopefully you can get some medicine.

  • robertallen1

    Talk about false idols.

  • robertallen1

    She was a despicable witch who, as fonbindelhofas rightly stated, let people die in horrible agony because of her goddam religion.

  • robertallen1

    Almost anyone is a better person than Mother Theresa.

  • Emanouel

    Recently you were postulating how desirable it would be for all members of religions to eliminate each other yet you criticize Mother Teresa for allowing people to die in horrible agony.
    Unless you are baiting me, lift your game because I have no time for hypocricy.

  • Achems_Razor

    Right, the Ho of Calcutta...

    Mother Teresa.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

  • robertallen1

    One thing has nothing to do with the other.

  • Emanouel

    You've just proved that high intelligence and sophistication can be mutually exclusive. (sigh)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil

    On the surface it's rather silly to use 3000+ year old stories to reference current science nd those who are simply out to make money on the myth.
    But taking a different view, this documentary takes the belief in myth and uses it as a tool to explain the history of the Universe in such a way that helps people to break free of the past and consider new ideas.

  • robertallen1

    If you're saying that the maker of this documentary could have done the same thing using any of the other creation myths, you're absolutely correct. It's just that as Christianity is the world's number one religion in terms of population, why not start with the Bible?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ND2YNBYAQNQ2UEEL3RM76SDTKY Mom

    Genesis did not get anything wrong. Moses wrote Genesis, and he did not know about the age of the universe or the earth, because it was not necessary to know at that time. He only wrote the testimonies of what God was doing with people. it does not take rocket science to figure out that the people created in Geneis 1:26-28 were created long before Adam and Eve, who put in the Garden of Eden, because the people in Gen.1 were told to "have dominion" over the entire world of animals, including those in the oceans, while Adam and Eve were only informed about the trees(Gen.2:16-17)

  • robertallen1

    As the documentary clearly demonstrated, a literal reading of the Genesis account is scientifically incorrect. It's really pathetic when a grown-up takes the fairy stores in Genesis literally as you do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Jacquard/1210162491 John Jacquard

    the only problem that i have with the science used in the examples are not all fact but instead deductive.

  • robertallen1

    And just which examples are these--and by the way science is in essence deductive.

  • awful_truth

    @Emanouel: Robertallen1's game is already at it's peak! Achem's comment regarding mother Theresa, and wikipedia assertion (Christopher Hitchens) is disappointing. Athiests referencing other athiests. Sounds like another cult to me. How easy it is to attack those who are already passed on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    The religious already know the answer, so they never ask the questions. Science asks the questions because it wants to know the truth. I like to see proof for any bold claims from either camp. And while science doesn't have all the answers, what it does tell us is unbiased and backed up by trial and error, careful studies, and the most judgemental peer review system in existence. I trust in the people honest enough to answer back to me "we don't have an answer to that yet".

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.placid Okbe Mehretab

    are you mad! why is science questioning our bible? am not even gonna listen to that video and be deceived. after science have search and questioned everything else and now its coming to make some changes in our bible. am i not right? isn't it about time we realize the anti-Christ is coming and it has already come? behold brothers and sisters.

  • robertallen1

    I suggest that you read the comment policy against preaching before posting your idiocy. This is not your personal pulpit.

    "Am not even gonna listen to that video and be deceived." That shows the level of your intelligence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    You are a fear monger, even the religious look down on you.

  • Ben Ward

    Does that mean when science is trying to explain something literal to a Christian they should change so it has a more fairy tail feel to it

  • robertallen1

    Your question makes no sense?.Just what are you asking?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    so an atheist should not reference anything said by another atheist?

    where is the logic in that?

    Mother Teresa was a terrible person. but why would you learn anything objective?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Moses never existed.

  • robertallen1

    Let's be more precise. There is no evidence of an exodus from Egypt as massive as that described in the Old Testament, much less have any artificats been obtained from the desert in which the Jews of Egypt are said to have wandered.

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    <--"heaven and the earth" set phrase meaning everything

    2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    <--earth was not yet formed
    3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    <--big bang

    4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    <--Photon epoch

    6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    <--creation of the sky/heaven and division of the earth from heaven/sky

    9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
    <--dry land emergin

    11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    <--plant life

    14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
    16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    <--this part is probably about Earths trajectory and axis spin
    and not about celestila bodies. Altough the creation of the
    moon(or its positioning in the Earths orbit) may have a lot to
    do with the earths current trajectory ans axis spin

    19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    <--first animal life emergin from the sea an dsome of them aquiaring ablity to fly or float
    24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    <--complex land animals
    26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    <--humans emerging as the dominant species

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    This story is repeated in many versiones in creation myths of civilizationes all over the world.
    I belive the author knows very well that day does not mean an actual day nor water actual water or that the heaven and earth is a set phrase. One only needs to check wikipedia to find the intrepretation of genesis.
    For these reasons I urge the people to read (primeraly wikipedia) about
    creation myths, flood myths, evolution of man, genetics, and of life in general and draw their own conclusiones rather than beeing spoonfed
    with interpretations and opinions of other people.
    This author is not the first nor the last to mock ancient scripture which
    in many cases refers to actual events and scientific fact.
    A documentary is a way of transfering knowlage and experience to people it should not be used as a battlefield in one mans personal war against religion.

  • Achems_Razor

    You can determine anything that you want from the bibles, how about all the lost gospels, or as a matter of fact millions upon millions of manuscripts stored in the Vatican Vaults, so many so that the foundation has to be propped up (as in the news right now).

    The bibles are all just hearsay put to pen and ink as is everything of that ilk.

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    The lost gospels is a beautifull documentary i learned a lot watching it and enjoyed it. It didn't "debunk" anyone, it didn't insult anyone or ridicule his views. It did not distorte science fact or theory or translationes. It presented facts and theory in an orderly logical fashion.
    Science and ancient scripture are legacy of mankind and should not be used in mudslinging matches atheists vs christians or muslims or budists or any combination or order of before mentioned. A documentary should be impartial and accurate or its just a propaganda film supporting the authors views and ridiculing
    opposing views.
    I do not support spreading histeria and anatgonisam under the cover of educating the public. Would you characterize films titled "Atheists are wrong" or "Muslims are wrong" or "Budists ar wrong" as documentary or as propeganda?
    Beliving or not beliving in God is a matter of faith not fact or proof. Litteraly interpreting then debunking ancient scripture as a way of dispoving God(for whos existance there is no scientific proof) is apsurd, ridiculous, childish.

  • robertallen1

    No matter how much you comment, from a scientific standpoint (the only standpoint that matters in this instance) Genesis got the creation wrong.

  • robertallen1

    The ancient writers simply based their their writings on the knowledge or lack thereof of the world at the time. That's it.

  • robertallen1

    So this documentary is hysterical (please note spelling) and antagonistic. Well, I tell you what's really hysterical, those who take the Genesis story of creation or, for that matter, the entire bible literally. Talk about absurd (note spelling), ridiculous and childish. They deserve to be mocked.

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    If taken litteraly word for word the Genesis story is not in line with
    big bang and earth formation theories. My point is that it should not be taken litteraly and that translating the story from language to language results in loss of informatiin(example: English translaton uses "create" ancient Hebrew has several words). I belive the Genesis
    story is probably tens of thousends of years old since some versions
    depict pree flood events(example: Native American , wood men, clay man, refernce to mount Toba eruption 75 000 BC).
    If you take into consideration the age of the strory and the fact that it has lived trough the rise and fall of civilizationes it makes no sense to take it appart word for word and insist on exact translation.

    As for the knowlage of ancient writers and civilizationes. I'm more impressed by their possesion of knowlage which according to mainstream historians they should not have. I belive it is wrong to make a theory about how the past looked like and teach it as fact.
    Historians tend to present ancient people as "backward" and can not explain their knowlage.(example: maps that show Antartica without ice, tracjetory of stars and planets not visible by the naked eye).

    As for creationists that "deserve to be mocked". Let's just say for the sake of the argument that you are superior to someone in both education and intelect and you mock this person, How does that make you different from a school bully who is physically superior to
    his classmates?

  • robertallen1

    A literal translation (word for word) is an impossibility. So that's not the problem. It's when people take the accounts literally, such as the creation story in Genesis, that the problems occur.

    In comparison with the knowledge of modern times, ancient people are backward, no matter how much knowledge they had.

    As for creationists and the like, let me put it this way, when they try to pass off their ignorance as knowledge or their non-science as science, they deserve ridicule and contempt.

  • kbeslic

    hmmm ... mapping Siruis ... well someone did that before us ...probably before flood ... that would explain knowlage of things without the tech level to reach it. Historians agree that Genesis and other creation myths draw information from a common source.

  • robertallen1

    There is no scientific evidence (the only type of evidence that matters) of a biblical flood and what this has to do with mapping Sirius is beyond me.

  • Kateye70

    You're right, if I am understanding you correctly, that Genesis is a creation myth, and not an actual scientific document. Most people understand that, and appreciate the mythology for what it is. I, too, appreciate that our ancestors were pretty smart people who understood much more than some want to give them credit for.

    Sadly, however, there are people who not only take this account as *literal* -- i.e., not a myth, but an actual, factual, scientific (in their view) description of how the earth and its inhabitants came to be.

    The reason for videos like this is to refute the misinformation being spread by the Design Institute and other religious groups. They are attempting to have their religious theology taught as science.

    Why? Power and control. A mis-educated public is one lacking in critical thinking skills and therefore easy to mislead.

    Science education demands critical thinking and is therefore dangerous to those who want an uncritical following.

  • kbeslic

    There isnt apslolute evidence. There i circumstacial evidence, Flood story beeing repeated in civilizationes which had no contact with one another. There are a few theories on how it migh have happe(Iridium black mat 13000 BC)

    Mapping of Sirius is (circumstancial) evidence of high tech in ancient times since its difficult to map it even with todays tech. That kind of disproves the notion of today beeing the peek of civilization and science and poslibly the level of civilzations from which Genesis myths originated.

    Altough this is all theory its pretty solid. Not all that much worse than big bang, earth formation.

  • robertallen1

    Your knowledge of science is as incomplete as your spelling.

    The existence of a number of parallel accounts of a flood does not imply that such a flood occurred; only hard evidence can do that--and there is none.

    Sirius has been mapped for thousands of years and mapping it is commonplace in todays' technology. So once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Why don't you read up BEFORE posting?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "Flood story beeing repeated in civilizationes which had no contact with one another"

    there would be a flood story in every ancient civilization because they were all built up around rivers because people need water to survive in large numbers. however all the stories are different and take place at different times.

    there was NEVER a global flood. if anything the story of noahs ark is an exaggerated retelling of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    any claims about the Dogon people knowing the mapping of the Sirius star system is nonsense.

    none of this stuff is theory. all of its is conjecture with no evidence. thus useless junk.

    to compare it to the big bang shows that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    no, no they did not

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    And what might this common source be? You can't say god since it can not be backed up with evidence. Betty Hill drew a star map of what would later come to be known as the binary star system Zeta Reticuli claiming she was given that knowledge during an alien abduction. For years it looked like bs until one day an amateur astronomer (that wanted to believe) discovered a patch of sky matching the points she drew. Does this prove she was abducted? Absolutely not, chances are if I place a bunch of dots on a piece a paper and tell you it's a star map, there is a good probability that a piece of night sky holding similar star clusters will inevitably be found. Does this mean I got knowledge from a higher power or was it just chance? How are we supposed to believe anything not backed up by science?

    There is only one reason to believe in religion and

    Science > myth > religion > Kent Hovind

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    I supppose that the Amrican Natives, Chinese also repeated Epic of Gilgamesh. Please give me a link supporting this statement:
    "any claims about the Dogon people knowing the mapping of the Sirius star system is nonsense."

  • Krešimir Bešli?

    The existence of a number of parallel accounts of a flood does not imply that such a flood occurred; only hard evidence can do that--and there is none."

    As I said flood is a theory

    "Sirius has been mapped for thousands of years and mapping it is commonplace in todays' technology. So once again, you don't know what you're talking about. "

    Sirius B dwarf star diameter of earth mass of Sun.
    It gives Sirus A a small eliptical trajectory and fluctuation in brightness. Detecting this requiers a big space orbiting telescope
    and big image processing computer. Also you need to have an advenced knowlage of physics.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Flood a theory? A theory cannot be without evidence. A Theory is that which best explains the evidence.

    And your Dogons knew about Sirius, well congratulations for spotting one of the brightest stars in the sky. They were not an isolated people, and since their mythology was recorded in the 30's any astronomical information they did have was likely learned from Europeans.

    If you want anyone to give a second glance at the idea that they knew anything about Sirius B then again some evidence is required otherwise it's an idea, an hypothesis and nothing more.

    It comes from a book published in 1975 by Robert K. G. Temple called 'The Sirius Mystery' and is just that, a presentation of an hypothesis involving contact with either advanced ancient civilisations or aliens, neither of which have any evidence to support them. It is conjecture and speculation only.

    Unless you have new evidence? but I think not.

    Regards,
    Sam.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, there is no evidence for the biblical flood. What part of this don't you understand?

    And once again, you don't need advanced knowledge of physics to map Sirius.

    Once again, why don't you read up before you post this nonsense?

  • kbeslic

    Sirius is a binary system with a dwarf star as the mineor member.
    The minor member isn't visible even with an earth orbiting telescope. The existance of a minor member is determined by
    change in brightnes and a small eliptical orbit of Sirius A.
    All of this requiers image processing software.
    If ther is some part of this u don't understand I would be glad to give you some links to help you understand.

  • kbeslic

    This hypotesis(Dogan) was never disproved. In cas that I am wrong plese give me a link to an article which proves the contamination theory is correct.

    There are a few flood theories (with evidence, including simulation model) as there are of the moon formation. Nothing fictional about them.

    Alien life is a hypothesis and a mathematical probability in line with
    the current life formation theories. You should not declare someone a "wacko" just becus he speaks the word alien.

  • robertallen1

    Sirius is the brightest star system in the sky and has been used by navigators for millennia So spare me your crap about needing imaging processing software to track it and do try to improve your spelling; it's as ignorant as your astronomy.

  • kbeslic

    As I said these are circumastatial evidence and theories. But on the other hand big bang is also a theory, atom model also a theory, Schrodringer wave function also a theory, black hole a theory. It is very unlikely that we all give a same probability for each of these theories to be true. And you should not be offended if other people don't agree with you.

  • robertallen1

    Why don't you read up on what a scientific theory is BEFORE posting about it. Clue: It has nothing to do with probability.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i dont think you know what a theory is.

    A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can in fact be tested.

    Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a culmination or a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AaronKKalat Aaron K' Kalat

    Those are many different theories from many different sciences, to group them all together as a single party that together proposes every major scientific theory is just silly. We still haven't been presented with any scientific evidence that supports a global flood, men walking on water, or a giant omnipotent being in the sky that one day (or whatever measurement you use considering day is dependent on orbit around a star) birthed the entire universe "just cause he could".

    The fact of the matter is religion doesn't have a stringent peer review system. Understand that when a scientist or group of scientists proposes any idea, it is criticized by other scientists in the same field. Theories cannot be accepted without first running through the academic gauntlet. Scientist want to leave their mark in the academic world whether it be for coming up with the big bang theory or trying to disprove the big bang theory. With that said, it is safe to assume, given our current knowledge, that those theories you think are just ideas might be much more.

  • kbeslic

    Thank you for the link and the information about the Dogons and Sirius B. I had no idea that it was poslible to se it with a telescope from Earth even if it si only for a few seconds every few years.

    Do you know of any "debunk" flood myth articles/documetaries
    like the one about the Dogon? I would very much like to read/see them.

  • Jack1952

    The moderator has left my previous comment a little in left field. It made sense before he cleaned up the statement I was commenting on. Good job though. It wasn't very nice.

  • Jack1952

    Geologic records point to immense flooding incidents when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Ancient myths may be the legacy of those floods. If some of them are based on fact, they may not refer to the same inundations but to different floods and climactic incidents that happened in each specific locale and how it may have affected their ancestors. It definitely doesn't mean it happened the way it is related in the Bible or in any of the other flood stories. It has become myth, just a shadow of what could have happened.

    As for a God like figure that has created the universe, it would seem a natural way for the ancients to try to understand the world and how it got there. It is the result of limited resources and information. Interesting to read about but hardly the stuff of science.

  • awful_truth

    He is making reference to Sirius b, a star that went supernova thousands of years ago. (now a white dwarf) which we only got our 1st look at after the placement of Hubble. If you followed astronomy, you would know this!

  • awful_truth

    @Epicurus: Since you all live for wikipedia, look up mother Theresa, and look up Christopher Hitchens. When your finished,( you wouldn't even start) tell me again who was a terrible person. Compare what she accomplished to compared to Hitchens, and you soon realize that none of you, (not even Hitchens) even played a hand compared to her accomplishments.

  • robertallen1

    I know about Sirius B and I also know about Robert K. G. Temple's phony little volume "The Sirius Mystery" based upon misrepresentations of Griaule and Dieterlen. Don't ever try that again!

  • robertallen1

    She prohibited birth control. She allowed people to suffer in compliance with her vile religion. She and her minions were responsible for innumerable deaths. She was a financial cheat. She had no business in Calcutta. In short, she was no more than a vile, meddlesome Catholic.

  • kbeslic

    I belive that the great flood might one day be "scientifily" proven. Pelase notice that I never claimed that the flood was a scienitfic theory. With that said before almost every major breakthrough in science was a period where the author was mocked, named a quack, ran from a mob that wanted to tie him to a pole and burn him ... the "nice" pattern of behaviour that humans adopt when they don't agree with you.

    As for "men walking on water, or a giant omnipotent being". Beliving in God ,and that the Son of God walked on water is in the domain of religion not science. I'm not trying to prove God with science. My point was that you should not dissmis claims of events stated in the religious scripture simply because it's religious and you have a atheistic or anti-theistic view of the world. In my eyes intentional misinterpretation of scripture and the folowing "debunking" fall well within that category. If word for word interpretation is wrong when creationists do it then its wrong when filmakers do it, Flawed logic is flawed logic no way around that.

  • kbeslic

    Thank you all for the links. I think hearing both sides of the argument is the best way to get all of the infromation. Since everyone is "pushing" the facts that support their side.

  • robertallen1

    You obviously didn't read Epicurus' excellent post as to why a worldwide flood would have been scientificially impossible; hence, a biblical flood will never be scientifically proven whether you believe so or not.

    You obviously know little about the history of science, for only a few of the major scientific discoveries, especially in modern times, were greeted in the manner you describe.

    You really don't get the picture. It has nothing to do with atheism or theism. It's the corpus of hard evidence known as science (naturalism) which supersedes anything and everything religion promulgates. Anyone who believes literally in the Genesis account of creation, the flood, walking on water or any of the unnatural "miracles" described in the bible is patently ignorant and empty-headed.

    Also, it is impossible to read without interpreting. Even literalism is a form of interpretation. So once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Why don't you learn about the subjects you write about before writing about them. In that way, your judgments won't appear to be so idiotic and ignorant?

  • robertallen1

    You haven't come up with one fact yet nor have you shown any knowledge of the subjects of which you write. Facts don't take sides.

  • awful_truth

    @Robertallen1: She took an oath of poverty, and helped those in poverty. Whether you like the way she performed her self imposed duties, or not, is yours to decide. If you truly believe that she was swindling money, (a nun from the catholic church with that kind of power, yeah right!) is delusional, and contradictory. As I said to Epicurus, check your beloved wikipedia, and compare her accomplishments to that of Christopher Hitchens, and then come back, and try again. As I stated before, shame on you little Bob.

  • awful_truth

    If you knew about Sirius b, then why didn't you mention it the first time? Oh that's right, you are perfect, and never have lied, or done a dishonest thing in your life. (your words) Ultimately, You babble much, but say nothing.

  • robertallen1

    Like most missionaries she went where she was not wanted, stuck her nose into other people's affairs and caused a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering, all in the name of Catholicism. So to hell with her self-imposed duties. The people of Calcutta are no better off now than they were when she inhabited the area.

    Did the funds from the Duvaliers and Keating really go to helping the people of Calcultta or towards gaining more converts? And what about the money she never returned when asked to do so?

    Everything written and said about her was simply a Catholic P.R. job and nothing else.

    P.S. My name is Robert.

  • kbeslic

    Tallen,

    Why is it that everyone else can post links and actual facts and only you insist on insults? When I said Sirus you had no idea i was talking about Sirius B yet you insist on advertisuing me as ignorant.

    " Anyone who believes literally in the Genesis account of creation, the flood, walking on water or any of the unnatural "miracles" described in the bible is patently ignorant and empty-headed. "

    Einstein belived in God, probably in some miracles. Does he fall into the categrory of empty headed.

    "Also, it is impossible to read without interpreting. Even literalism is a form of interpretation. So once again, you don't know what you're talking about."

    Yes Even literalism is a form of interpretationand as are
    insulting and swearing are a form of posting replys.

    "Why don't you learn about the subjects you write about before writing about them. In that way, your judgments won't appear to be so idiotic and ignorant?"

    All I can learn from you is that people that don't have knowlage and facts use swearing and insults to support their position

    "You obviously know little about the history of science, for only a few of the major scientific discoveries, especially in modern times, were greeted in the manner you describe."

    And in what manner did you welcome the idea that Genesis if not
    interpreted litteraly might be referning(with some degre of accuracy) to actual events in history?

  • robertallen1

    Yes, I knew you were talking about Sirius B, only I wanted you to state it and yes, I know about Robert K.G. Temple and his distortion of Griaule and Dieterlen

    By 1952 Einstein stated had become an agnostic--and in no way did he believe in miracles a la the bible, much less in religion. Why didn't you read up on what Einstein said about his beliefs before posting? And what was your purpose in linking Einstein to a belief in the literal Genesis story of creation in which he never believed in the first place?

    As every reading, including a literal one, is a form of interpretation, your statement denigrating interpretation was patently silly.

    Your last question makes no sense.

    Once again, why don't you learn about the subjects you write before writing about them? Guesswork doesn't wash.

  • awful_truth

    @kbeslic: In my opinion, your efforts regarding Robertallen1 are ambitious. (especially regarding Einstein) I gave references and direct quotes, (Einstein's belief in the god of Spinoza) and he just ignores them. In case you haven't noticed, several people who blog on this site cherry pick only the information that supports their atheist ideology, and are oblivious to anything else.
    I mean, if Christopher Hitchens (athiest) writes a book calling down mother Theresa, they all believe it, ignoring the bulk of information that matter most.

  • kbeslic

    Tallen you are a liar. Your own posts prove that. Copy pasting from your "classmates" and then saying "... i knew that i was just testing you " .. ermh I don't know what to say to that maybe "... you should be ashamed of yourself..."

    This is ridiculous, post whatever you like, I'm just gona ignore you

  • over the edge

    kbeslic
    you state "I belive that the great flood might one day be "scientifily" proven." in order to prove/disprove a claim some specifics on the claim are needed. could you provide some of these specifics?
    1. when was this flood
    2. how long did it last
    3.where did the water come from and go afterward
    4. what flood story do you feel that is correct
    5. why did this flood happen
    yes there are many flood stories. early human civilizations tended to settle along waterways. many of the most fertile areas tend to flood (flood waters leave nutrients behind making land more fertile). these local floods could have been exaggerated or incorrectly could have been perceived to flood their "entire" world.

  • kbeslic

    1. when was this flood
    <--not sure but probably roudn 13 000 BC(black mat), i remeber a documentary where they showed model of the flood that fits that time frame(i remeber somethig about vedic text and teh flow of rivers if i find ili post a link)
    2. how long did it last
    <--honestly i have no idea, if you are refernig to the number 40 in the bible it's probably used to empahises that it was long. From what I know 40 means long in bible language
    3.where did the water come from and go afterward
    <--sudden ice Breking/melting or tsunami waves sound like the most logical explanationes but once again I hav eno idea
    4. what flood story do you feel that is correct
    <--since I have no idea how it exacly happened I can't raelly say
    which accont has the most correct facts
    5. why did this flood happen
    <--Well the flood scroll begins the sons of God coming onto the daughtes of men and producing nephilim(Castelnau, France , Lock...sth,USA). Giants are mentioned in the Bible a coupel more times always in teh context of dangerous/evil and to be destroyed.
    In other mythologies they are also mentioned in a similar context.
    Mating with "gods" is also mentioned in other mythologies

    I'm not saying I have a firm grasp on this. But id does not seem unlikely that someone back than was doing something that they shouldn't have and got punished or it backfired on them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Spinozas 'god' was a philosophical retort to religious ideas about 'god' in that it has no entity behind it. It is a philosophical stance, not a religious or spiritual one. It comes from a time when atheism was shunned almost globally, and in fact calling yourself a Spinozist was as close to atheism as sensibilities of that time allowed. Spinoza himself was widely considered to be an atheist heretic for his views, and he was a philosopher not a theologian.

    Einsteins quote was in response to a direct question from a Rabbi as to whether or not he believed in god. It went no further than that and it certainly does not imply that he was religious or that he believed in any sort of creator god from human imagination, particularly when you read his other quotes when pressed about this subject. No, quite the opposite in fact. His repeated articulation of true religiousness as an unending wonder at the mysteries of the universe as far as our science can uncover it sits very well with atheism.

    So your accusation of cherry picking... pot/kettle/black.

    The universe and existence are indeed over flowing with deep and profound mystery, to require it to have a deistic or theistic basis is to demean it somewhat I think. Is it not fantastically wonderful enough as it is?

    For me, unequivocally yes. It is wonder beyond any belief. I cannot understand why anyone would want anything more, other than selfish self important reasons, or irrational fear of death etc. Back to Buddhism then as the only 'religion' Einstein ever spoke favorably about - I want knowledge/happiness/peace of mind etc. So get rid of the 'I' that's ego. Drop the 'want' that's desire. See now what you are left with?

    'god' is, was and always will be, irrelevant at best.

  • over the edge

    kbeslic
    first off i appreciate the "i do not know" answer. in many cases it is the only honest thing to say. i am not familiar with all flood stories but the ones i have investigated they do not seem possible without invoking a supernatural agent. at that point the agent has to be backed with demonstrable evidence before i will consider it. a worldwide flood is impossible without dramatically increasing the amount of water on the earth and if you have a non supernatural explanation i will look into it. floods happen and we as a species look for reasons/patterns so if the only explanation (based on limited knowledge of the processes involved within the natural world) was to invoke a supernatural cause i am not surprised that similar explanations were invented by people to explain similar events.

  • robertallen1

    My information about Mothern Theresa comes from Calcuttans who were there at the time, not from Christopher Hitchens whom I never mentioned regarding Mother Theresa.

    I provided two quotes from Einstein on religion considerably later than those you furnished, in one of which (from 1952) he described himself as an agnostic. So it's you who cherry picked by not mentioning them.

    So get your facts straight. Don't lie.

  • robertallen1

    Your initial post read in part "Mapping of Sirius is (circumstantial) evidence of high tech in ancient times since it is difficu8lt to map it ever with today's tech." Samuel Morrissey wrote in part, " . . . and your Dogons knew about Sirius, well congratulations for spotting one of the brightest stars in the sky," obviously understanding that meant Sirius 1. You apparently expected the reader to glean from your statement that you were talking about Sirius 2 which as Epicurus informed you the Dogons never mapped.

  • robertallen1

    "I'm not saying I have a firm grasp on this" is putting it mildly. From your answers, you don't have any idea of anything. So how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

  • robertallen1

    Well put and perfectly in line with Einstein's description of himself in 1952 as an agnostic. Notice how awful-truth never uses that quotation, probably because it serves as a stunning counterexample to his fallacious conception of Einstein as a theist.

  • kbeslic

    Well I'm not about to say i know when I actualy don't. Size of the flood is also questionable. "there were giants in those days (before the flood) and also after. " How did the giants survive the flood if it destroyed everything?
    The civilizationes developed round rivers therfore the flood myths seems an unlikely explanation. There's just to much of a diffrenece between a river flood and a deluge described in those myths. Look at the stuf peopel include in their religion: creation of the world, giant eruptions like Toba, first kings and the formation of a nation. A river food looks like meanigles detail compared to those things. Also some of these societes are nomadic a river flooding would have no effect on them. I just sounds like an attempt to explain it away.
    Look at the giant of Castelnau and the giants of Lovelock. Don't just look
    at their hight find the estimates of bodyweight(femur bone). Look at the surrounding where they were found. Look for opinion of biologist how big can humans grow and why? What did they eat? These "things" are mentioned in the first line of text in the flood scroll and at the time it was written probably nobody saw a giant. Keep in mind thet when Jews of that time told a story
    the first line was usually a sighn of things to come. "A man traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho "(differnce in altitude) would usually mean a "fall" in the future.
    Some of the things in this scroll add up to good with some physicall evidence. Thats the reason I'm not willing to dismiss the flood as
    jiberish. In my eyes its a posibility. i 'm not saying that I'm sure and understand everything, but something is "fishy" here.

  • over the edge

    kbeslic
    why are we changing subjects? please provide some testable evidence for a worldwide flood? giants or other ancient claims true or not have nothing to do with the topic we were discussing. a common tactic is to throw out as many claims as possible and see what sticks. i am not interested in playing such games. if you do not wish to discuss the flood myths and exchange evidences for and against i have no desire to continue at this time

  • robertallen1

    "There giants in those days (before the flood) and also after." When you use a quote, you are required to state its source.

    Your holding out for the possibility of a biblical flood despite its scientific impossibility elucidated by Epicurus, coupled with your lack of study of the development and structure of mythical literature as pointed out by Jack1952 among others, coupled with your discounting of science in favor of some 2,000+ year old series of books which do not even claim to be scientific do not say much for what you think.

    And speaking of what you think, just where are you getting your interpretation of "A man traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho" to indicate a "fall" in the future (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    yes lets do that shall we:

    After Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of civil liberties in 1975, Mother Teresa said: "People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes." These approving comments were seen as a result of the friendship between Teresa and the Congress Party. Mother Teresa's comments were even criticised outside India within Catholic media.

    An Indian-born writer living in Britain, Aroup Chatterjee, who had briefly worked in one of Mother Teresa's homes, began investigations into the finances and other practices of Teresa's order. In 1994, two British journalists, Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali, produced a critical British Channel 4 documentary, Hell's Angel, based on Chatterjee's work. Chatterjee himself published The Final Verdict in 2003, a less polemic work than those of Hitchens and Ali, but equally critical of Teresa's operations.

    Christopher Hitchens published The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, a pamphlet which repeated many of the accusations in the documentary. In articles with Free Inquiry and Slate magazines Hitchens said Mother Teresa is widely and falsely seen as selflessly devoted to serving mankind. People who would normally think rationally fail to examine claims about Mother Teresa because she is considered holy. The pope (Pope John Paul II) abolished the traditional wait of five years after a person’s death before starting the procedure for canonisation and also the "devil's advocate", both safeguards against unsuitable people being declared saints and against irrational thinking. Further the pope nominated Mother Teresa a year after her death. There was in Hitchens’ opinion no reason to pay so much attention to Mother Teresa rather than to very many other people working to relieve Third World misery.[citation needed].
    Further Hitchens claimed Mother Teresa promoted an extreme fundamentalist view of Roman Catholicism and that was never investigated. Under Pope John XXIII Mother Teresa spoke against doctrinal reform.
    Hitchens also claims that Mother Teresa accepted money from Charles Keating despite knowing it was obtained illegally.

    Mother Teresa encouraged members of her order to baptize dying patients, without regard to the individual's religion.[citation needed] In a speech at the Scripps Clinic in California in January 1992, she said: "Something very beautiful... not one has died without receiving the special ticket for St. Peter, as we call it. We call baptism ticket for St. Peter. We ask the person, do you want a blessing by which your sins will be forgiven and you receive God? They have never refused. So 29,000 have died in that one house [in Kalighat] from the time we began in 1952."

    Critics have argued that patients were not provided sufficient information to make an informed decision about whether they wanted to be baptized and the theological significance of a Christian baptism.

    In 1981, Teresa flew to Haiti to accept the Legion d'Honneur from the right-wing dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who, after his ouster, was found to have stolen millions of dollars from the impoverished country.There she said that the Duvaliers "loved their poor", and that "their love was reciprocated".

    In 1987 Teresa visited Albania and visited the grave of the former Communist dictator Enver Hoxha. Critics said her actions compromised her perceived moral authority through unwise and controversial political associations.

    Critics also cite the case of Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, and who had donated $1.25 million to Mother Teresa's cause. Teresa interceded on his behalf and wrote a letter to the court urging leniency. The district attorney responded in private, and asked her to return the money. She did not respond to the request.

    Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organization as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
    Chatterjee added that the public image of Mother Teresa as a "helper of the poor" was misleading, and that only a few hundred people are served by even the largest of the homes. According to a Stern magazine report about Mother Teresa, the (Protestant) Assembly of God charity serves 18,000 meals daily in Calcutta, many more than all the Mission of Charity homes together.

    Chatterjee alleged that many operations of the order engage in no charitable activity at all but instead use their funds for missionary work. He stated, for example, that none of the eight facilities that the Missionaries of Charity run in Papua New Guinea have any residents in them, being purely for the purpose of converting local people to Catholicism

    This, to me, is the most damning:
    In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.

    Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying".

    In contrast to the conditions at her homes, Mother Theresa sought medical treatment for herself at renowned medical clinics in the United States, Europe, and India, drawing charges of hypocrisy from critics such as Hitchens.

    It has been alleged by former employees of Mother Teresa's order that Teresa refused to authorize the purchase of medical equipment, and that donated money was instead transferred to the Vatican Bank for general use, even if it was specifically earmarked for charitable purposes.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    its good to hear/see that.

  • robertallen1

    I've been trying to find articles exposing those giants kbleslic named as frauds. I read about them quite some time ago, but I can't remember where. I would appreciate whatever assistance you could provide. By the way, I really liked your post on the impossibility of a global flood and what would have happened had there been one.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    thanks.

    John T. Reid, a mining engineer and avid amateur anthropologist, found bones in the vicinity of Lovelock, which he told local newspapers were from a race of giant, redheaded Indians.

    Reid had heard Paiute stories about tall, redheaded cannibals, said to have lived near Lovelock Cave, so when he found red-haired skeletons he assumed he’d discovered the remains of the legendary giants.

    He measured the bones and calculated that when alive the people had been between seven-feet, seven-inches tall and nine-feet, six-inches.

    The bones became lost for several decades—during which time the legend of the redheaded giants grew—before surfacing again in the late 1970s. An analysis showed that Reid had incorrectly measured the bones, which were actually from normal-sized people.

    Additionally, the red hair was the result of discoloration caused by natural deterioration of the bodies as well as dyes used by Great Basin tribes during preparations for burials.

    In other words, the bones were not of red haired giants.

  • robertallen1

    Thank you.

  • Emanouel

    What a load of crap- providing a link to an article that is totally biased against the creationists.

    There is plenty of evidence which suggests catastrophic floods have occurred in the past.

    One large meteor splashing in the middle of the Pacific is all it would take.

    We all know you are a staunch atheist who doesn't want to admit that a great flood occurred but don't embarrass yourself because of this.

  • Emanouel

    Your comments regarding Mother Teresa are far too simplistic and pathetic. Your research is far too narrow. Who cares what Hitchens said? He made his living from being controversial; no different to a phone sex hooker speaking trash for cash.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    you stated concerning epics link "What a load of crap-"could you expand on that and tell me what is incorrect within the link?

    then you stated "One large meteor splashing in the middle of the Pacific is all it would take" and you have evidence for this event? i would assume (i will look for info) an impact of that size (obviously much larger than one that killed of the dinosaurs) would kill everything on the entire planet including passengers on a boat. and of course that is ignoring the fact that there isn't enough water on the planet in any form to back up the biblical claims.

    finally "There is plenty of evidence which suggests catastrophic floods have occurred in the past." yes where did anyone claim different?

  • over the edge

    here is what the site states (in one of three articles haven't read them all yet)
    "A fast-hitting, catastrophic deluge is, of course, what Genesis describes. And the timing seems about right--scholars date the Noachian passages of the Bible to 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, and the verses profess to describe events from that period's far past. The catastrophic flood in the general area of the Black Sea doesn't live up, perhaps to the flood in Genesis, which says it extended across the entire Earth, until "all the high mountains on the whole heaven were covered." But a deluge of the scope and depth documented by the new study may well have seemed to its survivors in the ancient Middle East as though the waters had covered the whole of the Earth. At the time the Noachian passages were composed, no one knew other continents even existed. "
    i agree that a flood could have happened that covered what they thought was the whole earth but as the article said " no one knew other continents even existed. " no one knew other continents even existed." but a all knowing being would have. the story is wrtten by those who did not know better and that is fine. but no supreme being caused or described it

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Is that supposed to lend credibility to your argument for a global flood? because it doesn't, quite the opposite I'm afraid.

    A faith based view from that site is about as one sided and biased as you can get. There are statements like 'researchers think' without any real reference to what researchers doing what research where. etc.

    No links to or information about specific studies or their results.

    Idle speculation, does not an argument make.

  • Emanouel

    Mentioned in that article-

    1.American Journal of Archaeology
    2.Oceanographers from the University of Pennsylvania and the Institute for Exploration, a science organisation in Connecticut. The work was sponsored by the nonpartisan National Geographic Society.
    3.Mentions 1996 book, "The Time Before History" by English science writer Colin Tudge which details a number of archaeological and geological studies.

    Not good enough?

  • robertallen1

    You just can't get it straight. Not only is there no scientific evidence (the only type of evidence that matters) for a biblical flood, it is scientifically impossible. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

    As creationism is not science and creationists are not scientists, your complaint of bias against creationists in the article provided by Epicurus is as invalid as everything else you write.

  • robertallen1

    She was a horrible excuse for a person and that's all there is to it, Hitchens or no Hitchens.

  • robertallen1

    So science is nitpicking.

  • robertallen1

    You don't get it. A global flood would have destroyed the earth entirely. This is simply a matter of science, not your idiotic faith.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    the article does not claim a global flood as the bible does. do you agree? do you believe that a global flood happened? if so please provide proof. i have no problems with the article i read. as it pointed out " At the time the Noachian passages were composed, no one knew other continents even existed." so again if the story was inspired/penned by a god he did not know of the other continents either.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    ......give me any evidence for a global flood. i would like to see ONE piece of evidence.

    if a meteor hit the oceans we would see evidence of a massive flood along the coasts.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    lol ya ya ya. way to completely dismiss everything that is known about that cunt.

  • robertallen1

    Your description is accurate, but I didn't know the word could be used on TDF.

    Incidentally, I base my statements against this plastic saint not so much on Christopher Hitchens' writings, but rather on accounts from a number of native Calcuttans (and not rich ones) who loathed the very ground on which she and her harpies trod.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Hitchens didnt make a living being controversial. but whatever keeps your silly beliefs in tact.

  • awful_truth

    @Samuel Morrissey: My reference to cherry picking is based upon numerous referenced quotes from Einstein that I have already provided. I haven’t denied any comments brought forward by others, yet the ones I have provided have been absolutely ignored by the people I was making reference to. (cherry picking) ergo, I am not the pot calling the kettle black.
    As I have stated before, one statement does not make a man. To understand the thinking of any individual, one must delve deeper and study the individual as a whole. This not only includes the works produced by Einstein himself, but includes the people who were closest to him.
    Family/friends/associates - Maya , Elsa, Helen Dukas , Marcel Grossman, Michael Besso, Linus Pauling, Abraham Pais, Neils Bohr, etc.
    In a nut shell, quotes are highly unreliable because more often than not, they are taken out of context. (only the part used to support an argument is stated, not the complete thought itself)
    It is clear that Einstein did not believe in traditional religions, (all knowing, judgmental, personal god – Spinoza’s god) but continuously alluded to a 'spirit' behind nature, that humanity was intellectually 'impotent' to understand, nor explain. For this reason, calling him an atheist is completely wrong. If people wish to debate whether he was agnostic (I don't know) or spiritual, (belief in higher forms of life) is for people to decide for themselves. (Einstein is not here to speak for himself )
    One thing for certain: To call oneself agnostic, while fervently discounting any aspect of religion, or spirituality, is a contradiction in terms. (Robertallen1, Achems_Razor, etc ) At least Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens had the courage to label themselves accordingly, however some bloggers on this site have difficulty admitting they are true atheists. (Contempt for anything religious) If I was to use the term agnostic the way these individuals do, then technically, all 7 billion people on the planet are agnostic, because no person alive can know with certainty what the 'truth' regarding this issue really is.
    The best answer regarding Einstein's thoughts regarding this issue, comes from a wide variety of information, and from many sources. In reality, this theological debate only occurs because people wish to take a short cut. (wikipedia) If people not only studied Einstein’s life, but the history of his science, (special, and general relativity) this debate wouldn’t even leave the gate. Ultimately, His own pre-conceived notion of what god is, prevented him from accepting quantum mechanics, a byproduct of his own discoveries. “god doesn’t play dice with the universe”. His inherent belief was there was ‘no chance’ in nature, a nature that was intelligible, by design. (20 year debate with Neils Bohr) If anyone who reads this cannot acknowledge this simple fact, than you have more research to perform. (you don't know!)
    In my opinion, Einstein's response to an elementary student, regarding whether scientists pray, most accurately demonstrates his true belief. Actually, his reply makes reference (with some contempt) for people who think 1 dimensionally regarding religion! It is as follows:
    "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
    However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
    But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
    humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
    Thus, take from this what you wish. I am not here to convince people of that which I already know, only to share information regarding something of which I am well versed on. Best wishes to you; live long and prosper!

  • awful_truth

    To begin with, I have no doubt that there is some truth in some of the items that you have imparted. What I have difficult time believing is that Mother Theresa (a woman in a male dominated establishment)
    1) had any say in where the finances were directed to.
    2) had any say regarding who helped financed the catholic church. (Keating)

    Furthermore, no one disputes that this woman lived in poverty. Are you trying to imply that she was living in the lap of luxury, while pretending to be poor?

    Than on your information, you find multiple examples where Hitchens claims this, and Hitchens claims that. I would like to know who made Hitchens an authority on Mother Theresa. You apparently believe everything he is saying without question.
    The most pernicious part, is you make all these judgments regarding this woman from that of an observer. You were even raised remotely in a as difficult environment as she was.
    In reality, I could easily make the same stand that you are regarding the 'insanity' of the world around us, but where we depart is that I am smart enough to respect those who came before us, and thankful I didn't have to live, or be left to make the choices they were left with. In my opinion, you are devoid of respect of anything from the past, pretending you are on some higher moral ground. You want to impress me? Calling mother Theresa a c*#t exposes your limited morality, and is proof beyond any doubt, that you would fold under the first sign of pressure regarding anything of real importance. (arm chair critic)
    Your willingness to believe anything, even that which doesn't pass the sniff test (bullcrap) amazes me, for someone who is obviously is educated, yet attack everyone with a religious stand for their stupidity. In essence, you identify the obvious mistakes of others, but are unwilling to look in the mirror regarding your own idiotic thinking. the awful truth is, that the administrator has allowed you, and others of similiar belief a forum, where you are not bound by the rules that everyone else has to abide by. (little bob included)
    At least we all have one thing in common. I could care a less what you think, anymore than you care what I think. At least I am 'evolved' enough not to attack those who were less fortunate than I. In my opinion, you should take all that angst you have agianst the church, and take on the banks, the corporations, and the governments who do the real damage to everyone. (but I am not holding my breath) I can make this judgment, because I have already taken them all on, and held my own, and I still don't think for a minute, that I have even touch the grief of a life like that of mother Thersa!

  • Emanouel

    Good comments- but for mine, when I am confronted with waste, I just press "flush"

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    You are cherry picking again. You have again taken 1 individual quote, "god wouldn't play dice'' completely out of context (do you know the rest of the conversation? - clue: it has absolutely nothing to do with 'god') but without that context it seems as if it supports your view that he was in some way a 'believer'. Even if you were right, this God who wouldn't play dice cannot exist, to yours and his frustration. It is a figure of speech in the same way I might say 'god knows', or 'bless you' or even 'for gods sake!' were I quoted in such few words you might also believe I was a person of faith. If god does play dice (another figure of speech in case you misunderstand), as quantum theory suggests then your god is simply random chance, bereft of will, power and intelligence.

    Okay actually you cherry picked 2 quotes and the second is far more interesting as you keep some of the context, (minus the other half of the dialogue)though your attributing a belief in god to Einstein is simply your own confirmation bias. What he is talking about is humility before the near infinite wonder of the universe and a warning against over estimating our significance within it. Like believing that god created us especially for some some reason for instance. That is honestly how I view his statement from your second quote, and is supported by the quotes I left in my previous post. The manifest spirit is the law itself, not the arbiter of it.

    So you see I have not used any more quotes here, only have I analysed yours. Do yourself a favour, you are obviously not unintelligent, and try to reconcile your interpretation against not only those quotes that seem to support you, but against those that don't. Then you will not be Cherry Picking.

    You accuse me and others of not studying Einsteins science etc. As far as it is possible for a lay person to study it I have, though not exclusively as quantum mechanics and astronomy are far more interesting to me. General relativity always seemed quite obvious, and special relativity was painfully incomplete and has been greatly added to since his death. It is still painfully incomplete, unlike quantum theory which has a level of completeness currently that with the confirmation of the Higgs particle is indistinguishable from absolute completion. For most scientists this discovery is at best slightly disappointing as it clearly implies the standard model is correct, which leaves us with currently insurmountable problems regarding accessible information and uncertainty. It means the door we might expect to find linking the realms of Einsteins relativity and quantum theory is not a door, rather it is an impenetrable barrier. Moreover it implies that relativity is as I have stated at best sadly unfinished, and at worst plainly wrong.

    From reading your post it is obvious to me that you do not understand a) agnostic and b) Spinoza. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. It is the honorable 'I don't know' - a (anti) gnostic (knowledge). Nothing more, nothing less. Religiousness or spirituality are statements of belief, therefore it is them that are antagonistic to agnosticism, as opposed to atheism which is a statement of disbelief. It is possible to be atheist and agnostic, but if you believe in god (you're absolutely sure) then you can't be agnostic about it. In my previous post I articulated a brief description of Baruch Spinoza and his philosophy. May I humbly suggest you research him with the same fervour as you say you researched Einstein, before you comment about him again in obviously mistaken contradiction. It might give you a clue about some of your interpretations of what Einstein is quoted as saying regarding him.

    Good day and best regards to you sir.

  • Emanouel

    From Wikipedia

    Burckle Crater

    -lies in Indian Ocean (3800m below ocean surface)
    -crater is 18miles in diameter
    -comet or meteorite impact event 5000 years ago(3000 bc)

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    are you claiming this event flooded the ENTIRE planet?

  • Emanouel

    Draw your own conclusions from the information I have provided.
    How would I know if such an event flooded the ENTIRE planet?
    I wasn't there. Were you there? Do you have an expert opinion on the extent of the flooding caused by such an event?

  • Emanouel

    over the edge

    This crater needs more study as it has only been discovered recently.
    But the consensus is that its impact would make the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami look like a ripple on the beach.

    As the relevant scientists have stated that this crater requires much more investigation, you can throw all that garbage you have provided in the bin.

  • robertallen1

    In 1952, Einstein described himself as an agnostic, using just that term. In a letter to Hans Muehsam, dated March 20, 1954, he wrote, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever--This is a somewhat new kind of religion." All of this renders your wall of text, containing among other things your iterative misrepresentative of the "debate" between Einstein and Neils Bohr, a waste of time and effort.

    Equating the naturalistic purview of science to the mindless faith upon which religion is based is a gross distortion tantamount to your attempts to equate the hard evidence and deductions therefrom which constitute science to this same low level of intellection.

    "One thing for certain,To call oneself agnostic, while fervently discounting any aspect of religion, or spirituality, is a contradiction in terms." The only thing certain about this statement is that it makes no sense. However, if all 7 billion people on this planet are at heart agnostics, this alone makes religion and spirituality (whatever that is) even more idiotic.

    In essence, you've merely repeated your same tired arguments which have been refuted time and time again by those who know a lot more than you on the topic.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    so you admit that this event requires more study. so it cannot be used as evidence for/against anything. why is my referenced and sourced counter thrown in the bin? is it false? is it not backed by evidence? do you have any referenced sourced and demonstrable evidence for a worldwide flood?

  • Emanouel

    Scientific theories/models are constantly revised when discovery of new evidence demands it.

    Do you not appreciate that every meteor hit is a unique one?

    Do you appreciate what the variables would be from one meteor hit to another?

    Hence, the investigating scientists have stated that much investigation needs to be done.

    Do some research for yourself.
    Hint: the crater is 18miles (30kms) in diameter.

  • robertallen1

    So you would like to know who made Hitchens an authority on Mother Theresa. Well, who made you an authority on her and, for that matter, Einstein? Secondly, your refutation of Hitchens is simply and completely to term him an atheist (one of your few accurate statements).

    "No one disputes that this woman lived in poverty." I know a few Calcuttans who were there and would be happy to debate this issue with you. In addition, the medical treatment she received, especially towards the end of her life, was far superior to what those she was "helping" could ever hope for.

    "What I have difficult time believing is that Mother Theresa (a woman in a male dominated establishment) 1) had any say in where the finances were directed to, 2) had any say regarding who helped financed [sic] the catholic church. (Keating). " And you who posit a statement of disbelief in answer to the facts accuse Epicurus of believing uncritically.

    What evolving to the point of not attacking those less fortunate has to do with this thread is beyond me and I can consider such a statement only as a feeble attempt at self-aggrandizement. However, along this line, I have evolved to the point that I do not claim that I'm helping those less fortunate when I'm really not.

    You mention the grief allegedly endured by M.T. How much suffering was caused by her and her harpies in their attempts to inflict their Catholic ways and standards on those they were supposed to be "helping."

    Another wall of text defending the indefensible, someone who wanted to be a big fish in a small pond because she could be nothing else. Epicurus is right, Mother Theresa was no more than a typical, meddling Catholic cunt.

    You complain so long and so loud about not only about those who post on this site, but about its administration that I'm surprised you still hang around.

  • robertallen1

    Fine post as usual, but I have a question which I've asked before. Is there a delineation between the quantum and the macro worlds?

  • robertallen1

    At this point, Burckle Center is only hypothesized to be an impact crater and is certainly not evidence of a global flood.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    i agree with you about science. i have looked into it and nowhere does it state it caused a worldwide flood or even mentions that possibility. again do you have any evidence for a worldwide flood? do you believe any of the religious flood stories are accurate? all i am asking for is evidence and clarity on your claims. if you think that is too much to ask please let me know and i will move on

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Hi Robert,
    Sorry I'm not sure I follow...
    Delineation between? a way of describing or pictorially embodying the difference between them? Is there a separation?

    I don't personally see them as separate, the distances to the furthest galaxies are to the macro what the distances between quanta are to the quantum.

    The Higgs particle ties mass into the quantum. I might be wrong in assuming gravity will shortly hereafter be better explained as well. Then there will be no separation, all forces evident in the macrocosm are explained in the quantum. (apart from dark energy maybe)

    Regards, Sam.

  • robertallen1

    Were you there when the dinosaurs ruled the earth? Where you there during the Cambrian explosion? Were you there when the cosmos was formed? Why did you even mention the Burckle Crater? What a silly post.

  • Emanouel

    over the edge

    Try googling...
    ... "Did an Asteroid Impact Cause an Ancient Tsunami?- New York Times"

    14 Nov. 2006

    Should help with any queries

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Hitchens was a journalist. he was doing research. you can claim he is lying but now it is his word against yours and based on his work record i have no reason to assume he lied.

    and shifting the blame to the church is no better. thats like saying nazis were just following orders. sure they were but they were immoral orders.

    so you are claiming hitchens lied about his entire book and so did the other people who researched her...and then you claim that i am devoid of anything from the past even though im in school to be a paleoanthropologist.

    "At least I am 'evolved' enough not to attack those who were less fortunate than I."

    i am not attacking anyone. i am voicing my opinion. and towards those who think i am less than them because i dont believe in the same fairy tale.

    "I can make this judgment, because I have already taken them all on, and held my own, and I still don't think for a minute, that I have even touch the grief of a life like that of mother Thersa! "

    nonsense.

  • robertallen1

    In other words, it works like evolution. There is no macro, no micro; it's all evolution. There is no quantum world; no macro world; it's all the universe. Is this correct?

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    ok lets see
    -"A large asteroid or comet, the kind that could kill a quarter of the world’s population, smashed into the Indian Ocean 4,800 years ago" so did not kill everything not on an ark
    -"Most astronomers doubt that any large comets or asteroids have crashed into the Earth in the last 10,000 years" so most astronomers disagree?
    i have gone to all your suggestions and tried to address your statements and questions (if i missed any you would like addressed please repeat) could you do me the same in return? i have asked many questions if you are not going to try to answer please let me know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    As I see it, absolutely yes.

  • Emanouel

    From the article,

    "We're not talking about any tsunami you've ever seen" Dr Bryant said.
    "Aceh was a dimple. No tsunami in the modern world could have made these features.
    END-OF-THE-WORLD MOVIES DO NOT CAPTURE THE SIZE OF THESE WAVES. Submarine landslides can cause major tsunamis, but they are localized. These are deposited along whole coastlines."

  • robertallen1

    Notice all the material that awful-truth left out in his obsessive focus on the atheism, as opposed to the journalistic reliability, of Christopher Hitchens:
    1. Aroup Chatterjee, an M.D. who was born and grew up in Calcutta.
    2. Tariq Ali of New Left Review
    3. Donald MacIntyre, Scottish journalist
    4. Samuel Edamaruku President of Rationalist International
    5. Dr. Robin Fox in the Lancet, a medical publication
    6. The British Medical Journal
    7. Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity.

    Notice also how he accuses everyone of cherrypicking when he is the worst offender. Notice how he complains not only about a number of those who regularly post on this site but about the administration of the site itself and yet hangs around like a stick of gum accidentally swallowed.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    yes i read that. still doesn't state that this was a worldwide flood. i have read multiple accounts now so i cannot remember where i read the following. but these chevrons were measured four miles in . that seems devastating but not an indication of a worldwide flood. i will look up again if you dispute that. this is an interesting discovery but as you stated "Hence, the investigating scientists have stated that much investigation needs to be done." they have not reached a conclusion as far as i know. again are you going to address my questions? if not please let me know.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Most geologists dont recognize that as a meteor crater.

    From wiki:
    "But the theory that these chevron dunes are due to tsunamis has been challenged by geologists Jody Bourgeois and R. Weiss. Using a computer model to simulate a tsunami, they argue that the structures are more consistent with aeolian processes. The tsunamis origin of these chevrons is also disputed by other Earth scientists"

    also where are the huge layers of extinct life from that time if this were true?

    its such a fringe idea that even the wiki page is nearly empty. and even if it were a meteor impact it would only show that a natural event occured that would have only effected some coastal cities. not even close to a global flood.

  • Emanouel

    over the edge

    Personally, I believe that a catastrophic flood occurred. The content in the articles I have pointed out to you support that belief in my humble opinion. Many of the ancient cultures separated by large distances reported "flood" events.
    Did the flood cover every single inch of the earth?
    I don't know. It is a minor, insignificant detail in the grand scheme of things anyway.

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    if you do not subscribe to a biblical flood event i agree that it is insignificant. but if you do it is very important that the bible can add more things to the list of inaccuracies,logical impossibilities and outright contradictions with science,logic and history.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    its really the biggest waste of my time bothering answering these people. facts and evidence do not matter to them. i might as well be screaming at my dog.

  • Emanouel

    Epicurus

    Have you read the articles that I have suggested ?
    (they are listed further down the page)

    If so, do you reject the arguments contained within?

    Given the crater(18miles diameter) is a result of a comet/meteor impact event, I think you have severely discounted the catastrophic effects of such an impact.

    But thanks for your opinions anyway.

    P.S. Perhaps that wiki page is nearly empty because of ongoing investigation. The scientists did state that given the location of the crater, investigations were going to be somewhat difficult as a result.

  • over the edge

    Epicurus
    don't scream at your dog lol. you can at least teach them new tricks. instead of the same old tricks we see here

  • Emanouel

    Epicurus

    Just one more point

    Computer models are no substitute for actual,direct physical confirmation.

  • robertallen1

    That your belief is worthless because it goes against science of which you have little or knowledge judging by the comments which follow.

  • robertallen1

    I'd rather you screamed at wilful and deceptive ignoramuses such as awful_truth than at your poor dog whose only sin is behaving like a dog.

  • Kateye70

    " Notice how he...hangs around like a stick of gum accidentally swallowed."

    I'm still laughing at that one! /high-five

  • robertallen1

    I had to give Epicurus the same admonition. The dog can't help behaving like what he is. To what extent can the same be said for awful_truth?

  • robertallen1

    But in the absence of direct physcial confirmation, they do awfully well. You need to learn more about them and mathematical modeling before making any further statements.

  • Kateye70

    Why is it so hard to believe that multiple catastrophic, yet local, floods have occurred, thus finding their way into the lore of diverse cultures around the world?

    Simplest explanations being the best, humans like to live near water. Floods happen.

    I mean, people re-settled New Orleans after Katrina...

  • Emanouel

    Sadly, you behave like an adolescent in a classroom trying to gain friends to bully others.

  • Emanouel

    Kateye70

    Try googling..

    "Did an Asteroid Impact Cause an Ancient Tsunami?-New York Times

    14 Nov.2006"

    Contains interesting implications ...

    If you are interested in seeing what the fuss is over

  • robertallen1

    I wonder if it wasn't a natural fire which allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah. It would certainly make sense within the context of the narrative.

    And speaking of the myths surrounding fire, especially in its more virulent form, volcano comes from Vulcan, its head honcho.

    The Hindus of India believed that eight elephants held up the earth and that when one of them grew weary, it lowered and shook its head, causing an earthquake. The Incas believed that whenever a god visited earth to take a census [I have no idea why he would need to considering his omniscience] his footsteps caused earthquakes. So to prevent what they suspected was an iminent arrival at certain times of the year, they would run out of their houses shouting, "I'm here."

    None of these is any different in nature from the biblical accounts of natural disasters. So Occam and Achem . . .

  • robertallen1

    And you behave like someone who places his religion above science and attempts to justify his wilful ignorance.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    which direct physical confirmation is there? a computer model takes the direct physical information and inputs it into a simulation in order to confirm a hypothesis.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    their only sin is being only as bright as their environment allowed them to be. i can only assume they have been taught this nonsense by those around them.

  • robertallen1

    O.K., but please, your dog is as innocent as my bird.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    lol okay i promise i will not yell at my dog about biology and geology

  • Emanouel

    belief.net was not the only link

    Try googling,

    "Did an asteroid impact cause an ancient tsunami?-New York Times
    14 Nov.2006"

  • robertallen1

    I take it then that you might yell at the beast about physics and mathematics.

  • Emanouel

    not just the belief net link

    try googling the..... New York Times article 14 Nov 2006

    Did an asteroid impact cause an ancient tsunami?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    yes that is a news article. not the best place to get scientific information. however going through that with a trained eye you find a lot of things that show this is not conclusive in the least bit.

    "Most astronomers doubt that any large comets or asteroids have crashed into the Earth in the last 10,000 years."

    "Peter Bobrowsky, a senior research scientist in natural hazards at the Geological Survey of Canada, said “chevrons are fantastic features” but do not prove that megatsunamis are real. There are other interpretations for how chevrons are formed, including erosion and glaciation. Dr. Bobrowsky said. It is up to the working group to prove its claims, he said."

    "So far, astronomers are skeptical but are willing to look at the evidence, said David Morrison, a leading authority on asteroids and comets at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif. Surveys show that as many as 185 large asteroids or comets hit the Earth in the far distant past, although most of the craters are on land. No one has spent much time looking for craters in the deep ocean, Dr. Morrison said, assuming young ones don’t exist and that old ones would be filled with sediment."

    "Astronomers monitor every small space object with an orbit close to the Earth. “We know what’s out there, when they return, how close they come,” Dr. Morrison said. Given their observations, “there is no reason to think we have had major hits in the last 10,000 years,” he continued, adding, “But if Dallas is right and they find 10 such events, we’ll have a real contradiction on our hands.”"

    And finally, none of this is evidence of a global flood and certainly not evidence that god caused it and killed everything and made a man make a boat with two of everything.

    there are plenty of stories used to show that the flood in the bible was most likely a local event.

    but I have no idea how you could accept such a claim on such tiny evidence.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    no, thats my weak field. i would have a better time getting the dog to teach me that.

  • Kateye70

    Thanks for the suggestion, although I've been reading the conversation.

    Interesting idea, but I couldn't find any followup to it.

  • robertallen1

    Peabody and Schroder.

  • Emanouel

    " as many as 185 large asteroids or comets hit the Earth in the far distant past, although MOST of the craters are on the land.
    No one has spent much time looking for craters in the deep ocean."

    They are clearly conceding that there are a number of craters in the ocean. Is it really any surprise no one has spent much time looking for them in the deep ocean? A very costly, difficult process you would think.

  • awful_truth

    @Epicurus:
    1) I never said that Hitchens lied.
    2) Notice how you dodged the obvious questions I raised regarding Hitchen's claims.
    3) I would have loved to see how you would have responded in Nazi Germany under their rule, or like that of Mother Theresa under the weight of the church. (all talk, no action)
    4) You believe that calling someone you never met(and passed away) a c@#t is not attacking anyone?
    (verbal diarrhea - a disorder characterized by abnormal frequency and fluidity of fecal evacuations. - talking crap )

    The awful truth is I gave some of you people way to much credit regarding intelligence. So, live your life out, and die in ignorance. I will leave your little circle jerk club to it's immoral insanity. (little bob leading the way!) You are precisely where you all belong, in the virtual world, devoid of reality, and coherent thought!

  • awful_truth

    @ Samuel Morrissey: I didn't give you a quote, I gave you a complete letter. Since you are Johny come lately regarding this discussion, it is acceptable for your lack of understanding regarding what has already transpired.
    The Higgs particle has not been confirmed, only narrowed down to a specific region of energy, if it exists at all. Furthermore, dark matter, and dark energy are only theories equivalent to Einstein's attempt at a 'cosmological constant', to explain the lack of matter that should exist, under the standard model. As far as Einstein being wrong regarding special, and general relativity, I would love to see your evidence that strikes down their validity. (good luck)
    Agnostic IS NOT a statement of knowledge. It is a 'I don't know' statement from the lack of knowledge, or regarding something that can never be known. One should ask themselves how someone can believe in something that can't be seen (dark matter, dark energy, string theory)yet deny someone else's belief in unseen higher forms of life. (hipocracy) As with Ptolemy, (mathematics) because you can predict something, doesn't mean you understand it.

  • robertallen1

    1. and 2. You concentrated on his atheism rather than his journalism.
    3. Irrelevant to the discussion, but expected.
    4. Alive or dead, she was still a cunt.

    And we rightfully gave you no credit regarding your intelligence. And speaking of being devoid of reality, one has only to read through your various posts, especially the dishonest ones on Einstein

    Ta-ta.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    oh of course, its because its costly and difficult....science hates doing costly and difficult things /sarcasm.

    no one spent time looking for them in the deep ocean BECAUSE (you seem to conveniently stop the sentence where you want so it says what you say....*shakes head*) there have been no recent meteor impacts and if there were old ones they would be covered by sediment since its underwater and the sediment moves a lot more.

    are you being dishonest or are you SERIOUSLY this unaware?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i didnt dodge any questions. i just went through your post and mine and i answered every question that deserved responding to.

    you are just mad that im calling her a cunt. it seems you cant believe that i would dare call someone you think is so great a cunt and now you have to have a little fit. thats fine. you just had to look for a way out that made you look like a victim.

  • robertallen1

    Dark matter, dark energy and string "theory" are still hypotheses. So you've lied once again for the sake of proving what you believe to be a point.

  • Emanouel

    "if there were old ones they would be covered by sediment..."

    Did I not state that no one spent time looking for them in the deep because it's DIFFICULT; perhaps for the very reason that you suggested above.

  • awful_truth

    @Emanouel: Agreed, and amen!

  • Emanouel

    Try googling..

    "Burckle Abyssal Impact Crater: Did this Impact Produce a Global Deluge?"

    I'm sure you will find the report very interesting, especially since it may pertain to your studies.

    From the report:

    CONCLUSION

    "We have strong evidence for at least one large oceanic impact event during Holocene time. This event produced Burckle crater and its ejecta layer. It may also have produced numerous subsidiary craters that are too small to see with our present data. We infer that the Burckle impact was a part of a Shoemaker-Levy type impact of a comet which vaporized enough seawater to produce a GLOBAL deluge. It also produced megatsunamis in many parts of the world. An expanded sample of deluge myths, additional study of the Burckle crater site, studies of potential megatsunami locations and the search for contemporaneous craters in the Pacific will help refine and validate our references."

  • over the edge

    awful_truth
    thanks for the insult. now try reading my posts again and notice i said the same thing. but if god didn't know that he is no god. the biblical account is also wrong (or strongly exaggerated)

  • Kateye70

    I think you've been missing the point that no matter how many impact craters there may be in the recent and/or distant past, not one of them has left evidence of a single global flood in the geologic record, as has been pointed out to you.

    Or else not missing it, but deliberately ignoring it.

    All the googling in the world isn't changing the evidence.

    About the best I have come up with is the raising and lowering of the oceanic shorelines between glacial periods. I'm not sure how catastrophic those events were, however; my impression is that they were fairly slow by human time scale standards.

    Is there some significance to this particular religious myth being world-wide vs. local events that I'm missing?

    I thought you said previously that you're not a bible literalist (although I could be wrong there).

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    honestly, no one except the team studying it believes this is what you are claiming it is.

    we will have to wait and see but i wouldnt put any money on it.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    not because its difficult but because its pointless.

    and the main reason is because THERE HAVENT BEEN ANY RECENT METEOR IMPACTS.

    astronomers know these things.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    wow. you went on an insult spree eh. tsk tsk tsk. sad to see someone resort to that when they have lost all intellectual avenues.

  • robertallen1

    But you must admit that by doing so, he showed his true colors, black and pink.

  • Emanouel

    Ok, so you are saying that these scientists' inferences(regarding the Burckle crater) are absolutely wrong and that you are right?

    It's pointless in YOUR view, not theirs.

  • Emanouel

    I am not a bible literalist fwiw. It is very likely that you have read more of the bible than myself.
    My whole point is that it is quite possible that a large(global??) flood did occur in our recent, not so distant past. Some, for whatever reasons, are not willing to entertain such a possibility.

  • robertallen1

    No. He's saying just what the scientists are saying.

  • robertallen1

    No, no, no. Once again, there is no scientific evidence (the only type of evidence that matters) for a global flood because a global flood is a natural impossibility. Which part of that don't you understand?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    no im saying that they are probably being persuaded by confirmation bias. i could go through the trouble of checking each ones background to see if they are christians or known for this type of eccentricism.

    I am also saying that YOU shouldnt hold up something that isnt confirmed yet and claim that is the best evidence for why you believe something to be the case.

  • robertallen1

    Is it possible to flatten something so that it's not perfectly flat?

  • Achems_Razor

    Okay, you got me, meant perfectly smooth not flat. lol

  • over the edge

    Emanouel
    i am not willing to entertain the possibility because it is impossible. without both dramatically increasing the volume of water on earth and killing everything. that is unless you invoke a supernatural event.

  • robertallen1

    What I can't understand is that although as you have clearly demonstrated using only scientific knowledge, a global flood is a physical impossibility, people like Emanouel still keep coming at you. It reminds me of those who still believe that a circle can be squared.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Where did the water come from? (It would take 4.4 billion cubic kilometers to cover Mt. Everest.)
    Where did it go?
    How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top? They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
    How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting fail to explain:
    the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
    the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
    why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
    why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
    why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
    how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
    why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
    How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per day*. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, followed by thirty minutes more of .... well, I think you get the picture. [From: Bill Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen, 1992]
    How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
    Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. All such evidence is lacking in annual layers dating back 40,000 years.
    How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
    How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
    How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.
    How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood. Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
    How do you explain the survival of any sensitive marine life (e.g., coral)? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt would cover the reef after the rains were over, and the coral would ALL DIE. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for MILLIONS of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
    Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating?

  • Emanouel

    The scientists involved in making that report:

    Dallas H. Abbott, Lloyd Burckle and Perri Gerard -Little

    Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY

    W. Bruce Masse

    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

    Dee Breger

    Drexel University, Philadelphia

    Why don't you address them since they are the scientists making the inference that an oceanic impact event 5000 years ago caused a global deluge and megatsunamis?

    I didn't make the claim. I am conveying these claims.
    "Don't shoot the messenger"

  • awful_truth

    @over the edge: Apologies regarding the 'simpleton' comment. It is perplexing to me, when people judge what was written thousands of years ago(literally) by today's standard of knowledge. The biblical account of what occured at that time, speaks of a world wide flood. (not written by god, but by man) This is in the context of what they believed the world to be at that time. (much smaller, flat, and the center of everything) I only suggest that the bible, (historically speaking) is based upon their world view of the time. Thus, the event may very well have occured, just not on the scale they had envisioned. (to err is human)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    so I watched it, Maybe I missed something...praise jesus!

  • get1949

    About 6 minutes into part 3 it talks about light being set free and that the light was not around until the first stars (first generation stars) were formed. OK fine but what about the CMBR? That radiation was the first light at about 380,000 years after the BB. If it is not then what is it that the WMAP and COBE have scanned? True it is not ‘true’ visible light (within the frequency of light that our eyes can see—a very narrow range) but all light is radiation just at different frequencies. To make a point all matter can also be considered energy at other frequencies ‘weaved’ together (into what might seem like a ‘solid’ hologram) and is then what we call solid matter (recall that E=MC^2 is saying that energy = matter by the constant exchange rate of the speed of light squared).

    And where is the moon going to pop into the situation?

  • robertallen1

    One way or the other, the order of creation expressed in Genesis is completely wrong (with perhaps the exception of the sabbath).

    The moon was covered in the documentary.

  • Springbreaze

    the Beliefs or Disbelief of God is Not the issue at hand ;
    the belief or Disbelief of religions [thought patents]
    is the question ;
    dose it [religions] get Me where I want to go ;;

    As a child ;
    there was an old wreck of a car in the back yard ;
    We [my siblings ,friends and I ]
    spent many hours driving around town ,even the world ,
    [china ,Calcutta, Africa]
    Adventures galore ,
    And if U have not got it yet ,the travel was all an our "Minds";
    The car never Moved ,it ran on pretend Gas ,
    the gas attendant even washed the pretend windows ,
    [it's real ones long broken]

    This word "God" is possibly where all the misconception comes from,,
    And the separation implied
    when I name something anything, It is now separate ,
    before the naming it was , but not separate.

    Back to that wreck of a car ,
    In the engine that did not run ,
    there were spark plugs [that did not fire].
    The plugs were before the naming ;
    but they were just part of the whole "that We called car";
    This is where it is really fabulous ,
    the whole is God ;
    before the naming of "It"
    [God],
    Then it is just a separate "Thing",
    And the more I describe "IT",
    the more Separate "IT" becomes .

    The wreck and religions ;
    have much similarities ;
    Dose your religion take U were your vocation is ?
    Or does it only go ;where your imagination takes U ?
    Dose it tack U out of the Now-Here ;
    to No-Where ?
    If You’re here on "the hereafter plan"?

    or from no-where to now-here,,?
    But if you’re here for a more filling Life ;

    the Question is do U Believe in the "religion"?
    or a fulfilling life ?
    The All [god] will support U either way ;
    As tho thinks ,,
    So above so below,
    I know U thought that was what the religions were saying ,
    But I say Not,,
    I say they are just riding around in a wreck that don’t move .
    blessings

  • meso phyl

    its funny how the almighty God can't even write a clear straight forward text that is so important to believers. And leaving simple things out like 'hey the earth is a round when i created it'

    when science overcomes religion, all of a sudden the almighty bible texts are widely interpretable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Nice passage. Could be in a book or something, it affects a certain poetic nature.

    So what you are saying is - that religion is essentially a game of 'lets pretend' for adults?

    Regards,
    Sam.

  • 50_below_0

    Video speaks with such certainty and authority.
    I wonder - was anyone there to observe the "facts" stated in this doc?
    If Einstein's theory of relativity is true, and time is inconsitent, or relative, how can scientist give dates to anything?
    Science, in terms of how things began, seem full of speculatiion, conjecture, assumption, hypothesis and imagination.
    True science is proveable and demonstrative - which none of this is.
    Just asking!

  • robertallen1

    You are so ignorant of science that you can't even spell Einstein correctly. Maybe you should study a bit (quite a bit, in fact) because making such ignorant and idiotic statements.

  • robertallen1

    You do not know enough about science, especially physics and biology to be making such a statement. Why don't you hold off posting further until you have obtained something approaching an education.

  • Guest

    Genesis
    So many read the bible and try to interpret it with their natural mind. But this is where many make their mistake. Jesus said "Father, I thank you that you hid it from the eyes of the wise and the prudent, but reveal it to babes such as will learn.
    It must be revealed to you. That is the key to understanding the book. Having said that, let me prove to you that Genesis Ch. 1 was not wrong. It said in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Now that could have been billions and billions of years ago it did not say when or how long, it just said God created the heaven and the earth. Then in Vs 2 it said, And,(Now "And" is a conjunction that joints two sentence together. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Now the earth became without form and void.
    For if you know anything about God at all you will know that anything that God does the first time he does it perfect. God in Genesis Ch 1 is really restoring the earth back to it’s original condition, proving that there is no condition that God cannot restore. It also reveal the different steps that God takes in restoring anything
    (1) His spirit has to move first,(that word move, is to flutter like
    a dove)
    (2) God begins to speaks (showing that God's word must be spoken)
    (3)The first thing he called for was light, because where there is no light there
    is no life. And light is God's word made manifest.
    In reading your bible carefully you will see that these are the steps
    that God always take to restore anything. You'll see it in the days of Noah's ministry. You'll see it in the days of Jesus ministry. You'll see it in the ministry of the early church proving that God never changes. Bye for now.

  • Achems_Razor

    Do you realize you are just reading stuff out of an old man made book, made by basically bronze age dessert dwellers, you talk as if your deities and passages in your man made books are real, show proof that your man made deities and gods are real before you go any further.

  • robertallen1

    What makes you think you know more about god whose existence you cannot even establish than anyone else--and by the way, which god are you talking about? This post is as pathetically ignorant and as much an insult to the intelligence as all of your others.

  • anthony glaude

    The Bible
    was not written for unbelievers, it is written for the believers.
    Jesus said “if thou can believe all things are possible. It is a fact that not everyone could believe, for it is easier to disbelieve than it is to believe.
    The bible said in Hebrews Ch. 3:12 “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
    Also in Vs 18 & 19 “And whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? “So we see that they could not enter in {that is the eternal blessing of the Lord} because of unbelief. Jesus could not do any mighty works in some cities because of their unbelief and it’s the same thing today, unbelief is the devil’s power. Satan reigns in unbelief.
    There have been millions and millions who have died,{that is eternally
    separated from God} trying to disprove the bible, but there are millions and millions who are alive because they believe that the bible is the infalible word of Almighty God, I am one of them. In closing, the bible is a jig-saw puzzle with thousands and thousands and thousands of pieces, before you can put the pieces together you have to first see the picture. IT IS THE BOOK OF LIFE.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Myra-McQueen/100000136123892 Myra McQueen

    The problem with Scriptural analysis is that those who choose to analyze it, lack understanding of the fact that Genesis 1 most likely took place over a period of billions of years, with humans only coming on the scene in verse 26-29, that were not of the time of Gen.2, when Adam and Eve were only in a garden for awhile. Cain found his wife outside that area

  • poths11@gmail.com

    You should try to make Science line up with The Bible. It was made by the Creator. Science is man made and full of errors.

  • Jeff B

    A careful reading of Genesis 4 indicates that Cain was already married when he and Abel offered sacrifice to the Lord...he was most likely married to his sister...the Bible clearly says that Cain "knew" his wife...and she had Enoch...he could not have known his wife if he did not first have one...

  • Jeff B

    Hmmmm...if asteroids did so much to influence life on earth today...why aren't we still being pelted by them as we were in the past and evolving into even higher sources of life today...because this whole video was a biased load of crap...I wonder what would there have been that could have made something out of nothing??? Do you suppose it may have been God...oh, but science isn't sophisticated enough yet to find HIm...and never will be....

  • James J.

    That is just flawed. So for Christians we should make science line up with the Bible. For Muslims we should make it line up with the Qumran. Both books claim to be written on divine info, who do we believe? Let alone the myriad other religious beliefs in human history. No. We use originally gained and proven info, and believe no one who claims to have divine inspiration, conversation, dictation or any other form of supernatural information streams.

  • James J.

    No, that's not even the problem. The problem is that even if you look at it in terms of days being different (not even just a thousand years, but going with your billions of years for the total time of Genesis 1) it still doesn't work because it simply doesn't match the facts.

  • EZ Cortez

    So.... What's the hebrew word for proton, ion, subatomic particles? It needed to be explained in a way that they could understand and run with it. That includes using terminology that they understood in a context they used. They thought the world was flat for the longest time. Imagine trying to explain the beginning and having to explain the big bang theory, subatomic particles, and so on. How many books do we have on that now. And they had to explain it in a chapter. I sure they skipped over things including dinosaurs. Maybe because it wasn't important to the spiritual growth of the people. Plus, it seems it may have been written from the perspective of earth, not the "center" of the universe.
    Not for or against, just finding a different perspective on the different perspective.
    Question everything !

  • B.C.

    So... you didn't even watch the movie.