What Genesis Got Wrong

2010, Religion  -   337 Comments
176
7.00
12345678910
Ratings: 7.00/10 from 33 users.

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?

More great documentaries

337 Comments / User Reviews

  1. The bible says the earth was formless and desolate, with the whole place waterlogged and the spirit of God hovering above the waters. Zachariah Sitchin interpreted this as a waterlogged planet not that the waters came before everything in the universe. Read his book the twelfth planet and see how Sitchin add the pieces together and harmonises science, history, philosophy and archaeology. The universe is very complex and both the bible, science and others correct pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle. All of the pieces if deciphered correctly and positively can bring correct understanding of our wonderful universe.

  2. 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 !

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

  3. 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....

  4. 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.

    1. 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.

  5. 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

    1. 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...

    2. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  8. 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!

    1. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

    1. 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.

  11. 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?

    1. 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.

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

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. over the edge

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

      14 Nov. 2006

      Should help with any queries

    5. 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.

    6. 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."

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

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

  16. 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?

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  17. 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.

    1. 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

    2. "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)?

  18. 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

    1. 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.

  19. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. @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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. @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!

    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. As I see it, absolutely yes.

    13. @ 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. "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?

  20. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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!

    9. 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!

    10. 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.

    11. "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.

    12. 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."

    13. 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

    14. 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.

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

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

  21. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. no, no they did not

  22. 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.

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

  23. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

  24. 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.

    1. 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.

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

  25. 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".

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

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

  27. 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)

    1. 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.

    2. 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

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

    4. Moses never existed.

    5. 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.

  28. 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.

    1. 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?

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

  30. @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?

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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Wrong about what?

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

  33. 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?

    1. the one to ask is @Pysmythe.
      1i

    2. Beethoven's 7th symphony , second measure

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

  34. 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.

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

    2. 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.

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

  35. 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.

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

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

    1. 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.

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

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

  41. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  42. 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..

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. And just who were these?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

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

    10. That is a religion.

    11. 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.

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

  44. 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.

    1. 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?

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

    3. 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."

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

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

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

    6. 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.

    7. I understand. Thank you.

  45. 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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. You give words to my thoughts.

    7. 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.

  46. 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)

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

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

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

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

    5. How do you know this? Sounds mo*onic.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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"

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

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

    1. 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?

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

    1. It's also good for those who enunciate it.

  50. @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"

    1. 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.

  51. 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!!

    1. 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.

  52. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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...

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

    7. 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.

  53. what IS the universe?

  54. this doc is awesome!

  55. 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!

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

    1. Peter? or Gabriel? ;-)