Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Another Challenge to my Site

Here are portions of another email I received, defending the Bible and opposing my site. The writer begins with an interesting take on science:


You can tell us about light reaching the earth at the rate of speed that in some way you believe makes your theories disprove those of the bible. Since the so called big bang theory which i believe was Gods original creation of our universe, since then the universe has been constantly expanding. The light was already there and the distance to travel was closer to the original point of entry and some of those are actually moving away from us, and others with us.,some reflecting from other bodies such as the moons reflection of the sun.. The expansion of the universe along with the enormous black hole that was created also would bend and transverse all areas. And light that reached the earth would not necessarily have to travel far since expansion of the universe is still moving all things out at a terrific rate of speed, and also the expansion of the black holes which accellerate all matter and anti matter to speeds that cannot be measured. And what about light from stars that exploded before we arrived or could record the event. , the light is still coming. How fast does a small atomic blast spread, and how fast would it spread if in a vacuam and with black hole accelleration and warpage and an uncomprehensible size.with no original gravity from other universes and constellations to slow that growth and expansion.. So much for Science



So much for science? Some might suggest that this paragraph doesn't even begin to cover real science.

How do I begin to unravel the errors here? First, how can you say that the light was already there when the stars were created? The light contains information about the stars from which it came. Was that information ingrained in the starlight to make it look like it came from those stars, even though it hadn't? Wouldn't that be deceptive?

And yes, stars are moving outward, but that does not solve the problem that the light we see came from stars that were millions of light-years away when the light left the stars. And the light shows that the stars were very far away from us at that time.

Hell can scientists bring a man back from death after 4 days.



Nope. But science can develop the technology to give you a computer which allows you to get on the Internet and attack science. You know. if science hadn't done that, you wouldn't be here attacking science, would you?

Did it ever occur to you that you might be cutting off the branch you are sitting on?

Anything one Scientist says can be explained away entirely with a little thought.



Uh, and which scientist are you referring to , whose every word can be explained away entirely with a little thought?

Or are you condemning all scientists? If so, please explain away Isaac Newton's Principia with a little thought. I would be interested in hearing you explain that one away.

about these fossils and such. Science still has not proven that humans came from other species as in evolution, in fact they are completely at a loss in DNA mapping and fossil studies. Now they are telling us that aliens from outer space may have created mankind .



Scientists are at a complete loss in DNA mapping? Really? Why is it that we can find the spot in the human genome where two of an ape's genes were joined together to make the human gene? Can you explain that? That is one of the many ways that DNA mapping verifies evolution.

And please show me one respectable scientists that says aliens made humans. Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Our Scientists are only human and many of our best cant perform some simple tasks, but can offer baffling explanations to get noteriety or sell a book.



Many of our best scientists cannot perform simple tasks? My you go to extremes to attack science. Can you prove this statement? How do you know it is true?

There are some obviously fabricated lies even on the Discovery channel. I have even responded to their program about one of their shows, and caused them to remove the program. They removed it because they knew they would lose credibility in their programming. Funny thing is they even called me with an apology. I told them to apologize to the people who watch, but that never happened.



Oh, so your search for science has taken you all the way to the Discovery channel?

I think I may have found part of the problem with what you write.

If you want to learn about science, you will need to move beyond the Discovery channel. I would recommend you turn to the writings of scientists themselves.

I can buy books to tell me how to do anything, but most are total garbage and I end up doing it another way.



You end up doing it your way, and ignore what the books say? Somehow, I am not surprised.

Is it possible that your willingness to write off the ideas of others is preventing you from expanding your horizons?

Yes we may look like descendants of apes but it doesnt mean Mom and Dad were apes.



Ah, but what about all of the fossils that have been found intermediate between humans and apes? Don't they indicate something?

Now they say birds may have descended from Dinosaurs, yes the got real tiny and sprouted wings?.



Uh, some dinosaurs were small. And no, they didn't spout wings. Have you ever studied the structure of the wing of a bird? Amazingly, it resembles the forelimb of a dinosaur. Can you explain that? Could it be that the reason for this is that the dinosaurs' forelimb evolved into a wing?

Yeah this is from Sceintists who tell us they can prove chocolate is bad, then no, now its good for us. Take these pills proven to keep you from heart disease but give you an aneurism which stops your heart.



Okay, now you turn to attacking nutritionists, medicine, and pharmacology? You sure have unleashed a broad based attack on science.

Surely you must be aware that science and medicine have made tremendous advances in the last 200 years. Could it be that, although medicine has had some setbacks, that the advances in modern medicine far exceed the setbacks?

Then we find that if we ate fish twice a week and got off my butt it would accomplish better cure for the problem. at least for me it has. Hey thats a diet used in the bible, better than the doctors cure for me. Isnt it strange that the bibles words about food are still the most healthy.



Uh, but the Bible also encourages the eating of beef, which is not very healthy.

And when you talk about the old testament you need to realize that many of those laws were created for the Isrealites who were in need of strict law. And these same laws were nailed to the cross with Jesus.



Hmm. So the Israelites needed a strict law? Why? Were they not human just like you and me? And don't humans work better when not restricted by strict laws? So why did they need a law forbidding people to wear mixed fabrics or to work on Saturday?

If these laws were later nailed to the cross, why were such strict laws given out in the first place?

And as The New Testament states in so many places we are not bound by most of those laws. [Jesus] dispelled many of their laws and rulings in the old testament.



What about the New Testament verses that say we need to keep the law?

And if most of those laws have been obsoleted, which of them have been dispelled and which have not?

You claim to have read every line in the bible numerous times but I guess you cant see the forest for the trees. So what if every line in the bible were not perfect, or even the printer may spell some wrong, or even leave some pages out accidentally. How many places are most things explained frequently, and where is there a better guide anywhere to living.



Ah, so you admit the Bible may not be perfect? I agree. So let's discuss which verses might be in error.

Where is a better guide for living? How about the Humanist Manifesto? Many agree with me that it is a better moral guide.

Read history before Christ. The strongest dominated the weak . Seventy five percent of the world were treated as slaves.Unwanted children were killed or fed to animals regularly. Babies were sacrificed to pagan gods. Children born with defects were commonly killed or disposed of. Do you have any defects?. There were no morals and people lived like animals, could do whatever they pleased, take your property, kill you , steal your wife and children.



Uh, actually Greek and Roman civilizations had some high standards of human decency before Christ. And the advances that have been made by civilization can be attributed to many causes, not just the life of one man.

Even the Isrealites killed their people for breaking the commandments. Work on the sabbath, they killed you, steal a mans property or wife, they could kill you or beat you until you were a vegatable.



Uh, yes, and the Bible told the Israelites to kill a person who worked on the sabbath. That is the problem with your book. It commands things that you apparently consider to be wrong.

Pestilance and disease killed whole cultures because of lack of cleanliness, and sex with animals, and many partners, and lack of morality which leads to more disease. There was no charity , no respect for life, no hospitols. Much of the non Christian world still live like savages , with no respect for life, women, children, disease and more. Hospitols and nursing were founded by Christians.



Well, yes, disease killed many until modern science developed many cures. It would seem to me that science should take the credit for overcoming diseases.

And hospitals are primarily funded by secular governments, not by Christians only.

It is irrefutable that Chritianity is responsible for modern science.



How so? Much of the foundation of modern science was laid out by Greeks, Chinese, and Arabs, who were not Christians. It seems to me that people of many religions have contributed to science.

All and every branch of Science was developed by a practicing Christian.



That depends how you define branches of science. Much of science began outside of Christian lands. Yes, there was a period when science grew most rapidly among Christian Europeans, but there were other factors--such as plenty of food and leisure time-- that probably contributed more to Europeans' success than their religion.

The greatest litirature, the greatest art, the most beautiful architecture , the rules of law, government, The Constitution, our money ,
Can you honestly believe that Christ has not influenced every aspect of our life. I shudder to think what the world would be like if he had not been born.



There have been many influences on culture besides just Christ.

And I believe now that many are denying God we will see a faster decline in our way of life.



But in many ways life today is so much better than life in the past. Slavery and oppression of women have been largely eliminated in many countries.

Are you sure society is in decline?

You are one of our generation that has been affected by Jesus even if angry or in denial of him.



Angry? Gosh, what makes you think I am angry?

In denial? How can I be in denial when I was driven to my new view by the weight of the evidence?

I know the power of prayer as it works for me because i have been to that door numerous times.



And has the power of prayer delivered results that are better than chance? If you think so, how do you know this to be so?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

RE: Light

I imagine the person was trying to convey that if many light omitting objects were first at a relatively central area then spreading outwards, there would be a trail of light in existence from the moment of the lights conception, and continuing on in the outward direction of the object. Therefore light would initially be seen in it's infancy of close proximity to the central point (let's assume that was in the near vicinity of our solar system) and it's progressive age respective of it's time travelled away from the centre.

MERLE SAYS

"...the light we see came from stars that were millions of light-years away when the light left the stars."


How sure are you of the truth of this statement you have made Merle?

Honey

Merle said...

"Honey"

No, we cannot simply assume that most of the stars were in close proximity to the earth in recent times. Supernova SN 1987A can be shown convincingly to have been 169,000 light years from the earth at the time that the light we now see left that supernova 169,000 years ago. And other stars have been measured to have been much further than SN 1987A when their light left the star. So yes, I am very confident that starlight has been traveling for far more than 4000 years.

Anonymous said...

"169,000 light years from the earth"? How is this measured that it becomes so convincing?

Honey

Noogatiger said...

You guys need to read up on cosmology and the big bang a little more.

The big bang does not have a central point. Everything is expanding away from everything else in a uniform manner, not from some central point. It is more like space was an infinite soup which exploded at all points and all points are expanding from each other.

So the idea of light being concentrated at one central point is bogus.

The Bible is fairy tale. (Like Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and Zeus). The sooner you guys realize this the sooner you will gain your freedom, from your Biblical opressions and fears of hell.

You just don't know real freedom until you have rid yourself of these superstitions.

Noogatiger said...

To quote from NASA:

"The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from."

Therefore this theory of light coming from some central creation point is bogus.

Noogatiger said...

Science is a natural response to the reality we see around us, whereas religion demands that we distrust our senses and our intellect, instead relying on a supernatural explanation. Blind faith in religious doctrines robs us of the best tools we have for learning about our world and understanding our true position in it. Without doubt and questioning, there is no way to acknowledge or even correct for errors. This is how the explanation for light which has traveled millions of years from the stars to reach us, becomes explained supernaturally as; “just already pre-existing”, or how a 300 million year old rock becomes a 6000 year old rock, “just created to look old”.
Since the process of scientific inquiry is the best tool for the success of man in the world, the denial of it is a grave threat to our future prosperity. Far from making us stronger, blind faith cripples us, because it takes away our greatest advantage in this world, and over other creatures: our ability to question, reason, learn, adapt and therefore live better.

coljac said...

Good grief Merle, you're at it again. You have a very clear and respectful writing style that I like a great deal, but there is such a thing as "dignifying with a response." This squawking lunatic is not going to change a lifetime of magical thinking no matter what anyone says to him. Save your energy for writing more good content that might prompt a thoughtful believer to question some of their assumptions.