Fundamentalist Christian Reaction to COSMOS

Last night, Polly and I watched the first episode of COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey, starring Neil deGrasse Tyson and produced by Seth MacFarlane. As I watched COSMOS I said to Polly, boy the creationists are going to have their panties in a knot over this show.

And right on cue:

cosmos objection

cosmos objection 2

cosmos objection 3

cosmos objection 4

cosmos objection 5

cosmos objection 6

cosmos objection 6

cosmos objection 8

Carl Sagan-COSMOS Edited For Rednecks

YouTube Preview Image

Video Link

HT: Americans Against the Tea Party

Comments (81)

  1. Ben

    I was wondering if there would be some sort of religious blowback. Glad to see that they can at least be predictable.

    Reply
  2. Becky Rogers Wiren

    Apparently, science is EVIL. Because it used to be people actually believed in science. Now, people who don’t even know what their Bible says, will claim it is “scientifically” right. I don’t go with the theory that the whole Bible must be accurate for it to have inspiration. But the behavior of all the so-called Christians has soured me on their religion, at least the conservative version.

    Reply
    1. aguy

      is there any other version?

      Reply
      1. Becky Rogers Wiren

        Well, liberal Christians don’t think like these people. I don’t really call myself liberal Christian though, as my beliefs are even more laid back.

        Reply
        1. Guybrush Threepwood

          Oxymoron. A liberal christian is like a pacifist general. Too much cognitive dissonance to be common. But then again, cognitive dissonance is what religious people are best at!

          Reply
          1. Bill Reynolds

            wrong. I work at a liberal Christian church. You’d be shocked at how liberal it is. It is even “Open and Affirming” which means welcoming to the LBGT community. ALL the causes they give their money to are left-wing.

            Speak AFTER you know what you’re talking about.

          2. Amanda Mayer

            Absolutely wrong. Jesus was obviously the ultimate liberal. What are you even talking about?

          3. Daniel

            I know is kind of difficult for an American to imagine a liberal Christian, but in some countries this isn’t so difficult, in Europe for example many churches are very progressive an inclusive, and bless gay unios for example (like the Church of England).
            Lutherans (in my country at least) are also very liberal and progressive and are in favor of LGBTI rights and the sort. (Costa Rica)

          4. Sarah

            You are literally the other side of the same coin from the people hating Cosmos. Close-minded as hell and wanting to create an us vs. them paradigm through which to see the world. Look at how they classify those who don’t believe in creationism as evil, hateful and their enemy. You’re doing the same. MOST people’s beliefs fall somewhere around the center. The majority of religious people believe in evolution. The problem isn’t that they have their own beliefs, there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is that ultra-conservative christians (like most ultra-anything groups) want the world to only see things from their perspective. I don’t believe in god, but I don’t need to deny him to other’s in order to enjoy learning more about nature. Wanting to deny others the right to freedom of thought, consciousness and religion is apparent on extremes of both sides and is why I find talking to ultra-liberals as exhausting and uninteresting as talking to ultra-conservatives. Might as wel engage a brick wall. Einstein said that he finds the arrogance of atheists as amusing as the arrogance of theists. I agree.

        2. Amanda Mayer

          Thank you. I was starting to get a very lonely feeling.

          Reply
  3. August

    I nearly face-palmed myself into unconsciousness, Bruce. My fault for not thinking about the implications of your title.

    Reply
  4. Terri

    I’m trying to figure out why creationists were even watching since they don’t believe any of that science stuff.

    Reply
    1. Beelzebub

      Thats a good point.

      Reply
      1. Small Bang

        It’s on Fox. It came on after the NASCAR race undoubtedly

        Reply
  5. Margo

    When I was in the 3rd grade my mother insisted that I sit down with her and watch all 13 hours of Cosmos. I loved it! Carl Sagan did a wonderful job of making that which is so complicated, so understandable to a little girl like me. I re-watched the entire series again when I was in college and again appreciated the way the show was set up, written and presented. I also noted that Carl seemed to have an amazing reverence for science and the natural world and that reverence came forth in his presentation. He approached the study of science with respect and awe. And if there be a Divinity involved in science and natural laws then that Divinity would want Carl (and the rest of us) to study, learn, respect, appreciate and Marvel at the Wonder and the Beauty of the Universe that is our home. No book of Bronze age fairy tales can unravel questions about black holes, pulsars or volcanoes on the Moon of Europa, but Science can. Throughout the original series of Cosmos, there are stories of persecution of scientists, philosophers and librarians. These people were being told to shut the hell up by churches and superstitious ignoramuses under penalty of death. Some died, some shut up, but all of them were correct in the Science and scientific theories they were studying. The Christian Right in America can tell the rest of us to shut up and read their sacred text for their version of “truth”, but we won’t. The rest of us like Science. Science leads to cures for diseases, better ways to take care of our planet, feed our hungry, or just build a cooler looking car. The Bible does NONE of that.

    Reply
    1. Bill Reynolds

      make yours kids watch the new one.
      Since Carl, we have learned that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. That the universe could have come from nothing. That there is a Higgs field, which gives mass to matter. And that’s just physics.

      Reply
    2. Pattty Dee

      Amen!!!

      Reply
  6. Troy

    All I can say is at least they are watching it. As Nietzsche put it you look into the abyss and the abyss looks into you. There is enough Christian programming out there, I think they are lamenting the influence and the effect on the cultural zeitgeist. I’m glad they are worried.

    Reply
  7. Doug B

    Wow. Religious fundamentalists do scare me. Although some of the posted responses were funny, deep down it isn’t a laughing matter. And to think I was there once myself.

    Reply
  8. Chuck

    You must realize that religious fundamentalists also believe — that men can live to be 900; that a man can live in a big fish for 3 days; that a 500 year old man can build a vessel large enough to fit 2 of every creature, taking 100 years to do so; that snakes talk;that a woman can turn to salt; that a man dead for three days can be resurrected; that tales with origins in many other faiths can be the literal word of an unseen/unheard deity.

    Reply
    1. Keith Bowden

      Dead for a day and a half. Death in the evening on Friday, up and gone before dawn on Sunday. 35-38 hours? lol

      Reply
  9. 1415dr

    Wow. This reminds me of my old pastor, Tom Pendergrass (at Urbancrest Baptist in Lebanon Ohio). One time he said “I aint never read a science book before, but evolution is the dumbest thing I ever heard of.” (verbatim from a sermon 4 years ago. I wrote it down).

    The sad thing is that he was usually a very intelligent man. He just felt like he had to pander to anti-intellectualism with “science is stoopid” catchphrases. For some reason that resonates with people.

    He also paid Answers in Genesis to give guest lectures, so maybe he wasn’t so bright after all.

    Reply
    1. Dakota

      as a lebanon citizen and former member of urbancrest church, I quite literally know exactly what you’re talking about.

      Reply
  10. unapologist

    Religion is and always will be anti-science regardless of all the claims made by religious apologists. Believers have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every scientific discovery that conflicts with religious belief. Reginald Scot wrote definitive works disproving witchcraft in the 1500′s but that work was rejected by religious believers. The reason, witchcraft was in the Bible therefore it must be real.

    Reply
    1. Becky Rogers Wiren

      I wonder. I’m only in tune with what Christianity may have done. But usually the fundamentalists of any religion are the crazies. The Dalai Lama has said things that show he has quite an open mind.

      Reply
  11. rickray1

    Denial, Denial, Denial ! I see a lot of Christians drowning in that river !

    Reply
  12. anon

    Sigh…and I have to share the world with these people…

    Reply
  13. Max

    I grew up watching Cosmos and read the book as an adult. One of the things it talks about, is that the same conflict between science and christianity today was going on between science and paganism 2000 plus years ago. Yes, christianity even stole its science denial from an earlier religion. So the next time you hear someone advocating creationism, look suprised and say you didn’t realize that they’re pagan.

    Reply
    1. Amanda Mayer

      Bazinga! -_- Not really.

      Reply
    2. Ron Zajac

      Funny you mention that whole pagan thing. I’ve long felt that fundamentalist Christianity is pagan, at heart. Think about it: The idea of a man/god being scapegoated to appease a universal spirit that demands mystic sacrifice… is pagan to the bone.

      The genius of Paul the Apostle is that he realized you could take the hoary blood sacrifice of the Jews, sanitize it, wrap it in plastic, and sell it off the shelves to the goyim and make a fucking MINT.

      Reply
      1. Sarah

        Ummmm, have you ever met any ultra-conservative Jews? I have, I live in Greenpoint Brooklyn. They’re pretty much exactly the same as ultra-conservative Christians. This is about characteristics that are common to people, not groups that we need to demonize. The Jewish religion, like all religions has its own bloody hands. God said to do what to every man, woman and child in Canan? Palestinians might also not see Judaism as without it’s own bloody history. Anytime you want to act as though some other group is responsible for the world’s ills and capable of the worst of human nature, you are probably dead wrong. We all are.

        Also, paganism isn’t a thing. It simply refers to an incredibly wide range of extremely diverse beliefs that existed outside of and prior to Judaism and Christianity. Both Judaism and Christianity are extremely similar to many of these religions (specifically Zoroastrianism) because they came from those beliefs.

        Reply
  14. lethalsound

    Guess some people want to pretend they are still in the 16th century.

    Reply
  15. Jada

    “Keep that atheist propaganda off of my tv screen.”

    Snerk. Guess he doesn’t remote control very well.

    Reply
    1. Travis

      he doesn’t believe in the science that created it

      Reply
  16. Daniel Benhayon

    Daniel from Argentina. This folks don´t believe in science… until they got sick and need the medicine that the same science they mock, made to cure their illness. If they have so much faith, why they don´t pray to get cured? instead of that, they don´t see any theological contradiction in getting out of their sickness with medicine provided by the science. Hypocrites!!!!

    Reply
    1. Mechashinsen

      Sadly, sometimes they do. Recently this has caused a child to die because the parents thought it was best that they pray for the cure rather than taking their son to see a doctor and get treatment.

      Reply
    2. Tomas Stephens

      It really is a shame that they don’t just pray for a cure.. or at least the religious extremists. That way they would all die out and we could continue progressing at a much faster rate. Not to mention the money we would save from the possible absence of war. Oh, what a dream. Sigh

      Reply
  17. isaac

    As a man of faith who was raised on science and astronomy, my eyes and my hands were always lifted upward. Not is denial or disdain, but for hope and faith that my creator was up there and needed no words or image to describe them. We are blessed. That’s all that matters.

    Reply
    1. Amanda Mayer

      Amen

      Reply
  18. Pingback: Random Midweek Observations | Kibbitz Corner

  19. Jeff Q

    I’m a Christian and have no problem with the hard data (distances, temperatures, etc) given on the show. But I do have an honest question–the segment where he shows the creature crawl out of the water…..do those commenting here believe that we came from that? He talks about it thinking it was probably in a different world…then shows a flower…yada, yada, yada, a few hundred million years later, here we are!!

    As the Seinfield episode said…the “yada, yada, yada” is the important part! Don’t you even consider for one tiny little millisecond that “our ancestors, small mammals scurry under foot” is just as implausible as an intelligent being creating our world? There is no mention of how we came from the 4 footed water creature to the species we are right now. Why is that?

    It’s definitely easy to point out the ignorant in any group, that doesn’t mean that the questions are any less important. While none of the commenters seem to be interested in the dissenting opinion, there is definitely intelligent dissent out there to be found.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I am all for peer reviewed, testable, repeatable dissent that doesn’t start with the Bible.

      The ignorant don’t have questions. They think they already have the answers, and it is their fundamentalist certainty that keeps them from considering that they might be wrong.

      Reply
      1. Becky Rogers Wiren

        Sorry Jeff. The Bible is something for the faithful, and depends on your level of belief in the reality or literalness of scripture. Science is for science class, the Bible is for religion class.

        Reply
        1. Jeff Q

          First of all, I didn’t bring up the Bible. Second, my question wasn’t answered. Do you support the idea that you and I came from the 4 footed mammal that came out of the water, as depicted in the show?

          The thing I’m after here, is for someone to admit that it takes a certain amount of “faith” to believe in these things as well.

          Reply
          1. gimpi1

            The best genetic evidence is that you did evolve from a mammal, and that mammal evolved from earlier life-forms. No faith is required. Only a study of DNA and biology. Have you looked into this from a scientific standpoint?

    2. Bob Steiler

      ” Don’t you even consider for one tiny little millisecond that “our ancestors, small mammals scurry under foot” is just as implausible as an intelligent being creating our world?”- Considering we have a plethora of evidence to support the former and precisely zero for the latter, then no, its not as implausible. Quite the opposite actually.

      “There is no mention of how we came from the 4 footed water creature to the species we are right now. Why is that?”- Maybe because he only has an hour? As you said it was a few hundred million years, so even if he talked on nothing but that few hundred million years for the entire hour he STILL wouldn’t able to cover it all and would still require some “yada yada yada”-ing.

      The show is only able to cover so much in the span of the hour. If you want the finer details you’ll have to go and research that yourself.

      Reply
    3. bingethinking

      Keep watching the episodes, it will go into detail as to how the changes happen through natural selection and adapting to an environment over the course of time. The second episode even explains in detail the different stages in the development of our eyes. Give it enough time and animals start to look radically different from each other. The thing that crawled out of the water is Tiktaalik, and it is one of our first ancestors that walked out of the water. It was predicted we would find that transitional fishlike/mammal creature and we did. It is a big tree of life. There’s no such thing as one existing animal turning into a different kind of animal that is alive today…It all started with a common ancestor and branched out from there…populations over hundreds of thousands and millions of years start morphing and evolving into ways that are better suited for their environments…environments keep changing and that change is reflected in the animals needing to adapt to them. The tree is constantly growing

      Reply
  20. Pingback: On the Contrary » Blog Archive » Religion is the Problem

  21. Charles Seale

    I’ll take the wonders and adventures of provable science over close-minded “God magic” any day. I’m agnostic and do not rule out the existence of a God or higher power. However, if such exists, I can say with absolute certainty that his/her/whatever’s power is based in science and physics.

    Reply
  22. Pingback: Creationists *yawn* Criticize “Cosmos” | Synaptic Curl

  23. Jeff Q

    Good stuff Bruce, I’m fascinated by your journey. As a mid-30s Christian who grew up in church and has no doubts about my faith, your story is very interesting to me.

    You substitute the word “trust” for “faith.” I just wonder how the atheist/agnostic/evolutionist/whatever term you want to use, reacts to seeing their belief system illustrated as it is in the tv show. Sometimes it’s easy to believe these things in theory, but then seeing it visualized in front of you can be surprising, i.e..seeing the tetrapod crawl out of the water, watching him explain where the eye came from.

    What frustrates me, is the fact that one has to “trust” at all. If it was clear, undeniable 100% fact, then there would be no need for trust, right? As you say, the evidence leads you down that path and they’ve given you no reason not to trust them.

    My basic point is that the atheist/agnostic/etc believes they stand on 100% solid ground and turns their nose up at those who have “faith” in something, when in fact their position requires faith or trust as well.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      It is a fact to the degree that the overwhelming evidence says that evolution is true and the overwhelming evidence says creationism is not true. But, here’s the difference…the scientist leaves room for the fact that he could be wrong. He is willing, if pushed into the corner, to finally admit that his conclusions were wrong. Not so, with the creationist. They are certain they are right and all the evidence in the world will not move them from their certainty? Why? Because their belief ultimately rests on faith not fact, and once religious faith is interjected into the discussion there can be no discussion. If I ask you to give me evidence for the miracles of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection. what evidence, outside of the Bible, can you possibly give? There is none. The overwhelming evidence that IS available tells us that Jesus did not work the miracles ascribed to him, virgins don’t have babies, and dead people don’t get out of the grave and live again. As a Christian, you will not accept and believe this overwhelming evidence because, by faith, you believe these things to be true.

      Reply
  24. Jason

    Comment Deleted.

    Reply
  25. Jason

    Bruce please share with us this overwhelming evidence that evolution is true.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      According to scientists, who are experts in their particular field, the evidence is overwhelming. It is the only way to explain the evidence. To loosely quote Ken Ham, There are some books…(but you will have to first admit that the Bible is not a science textbook.)

      Reply
    2. Becky Rogers Wiren

      One thing: our DNA. Human DNA is 96% identical to chimpanzee DNA. Here is a website if you have ANY interest in studying (it is a short article): http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution.

      Reply
    3. John Arthur

      Hi Jason,

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution

      Shalom,
      John Arthur

      Reply
    4. Andres Jaramillo

      http://enviro.doe.gov.my/lib/digital/1385460100-3-s2.0-B0122268652001140-main.pdf

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC432657/pdf/pnas00048-0267.pdf

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-005-0020-4#page-1

      And the list goes on forever, as “evolution” is studied by a huge number of disciplines. It is hard and complicated to understand, as we “mere mortals” only see evolution as depicted in the cosmos show, however it is by far a lot more difficult and complicated. That is why bilble thumpers love to talk about “overwhelming” evidence against evolution, because they do not know the very first thing about what they are talking about.

      Reply
    5. Tomas Stephens

      You’re obviously on a computer, look it up. Or purchase a science book.

      Reply
  26. Becky Rogers Wiren

    If you are a conservative Christian who has to believe that Genesis is accurate and the Bible literal then you have to deny evolution. I used to be that Christian. And I didn’t study the evidence and reject it, I completely ignored it. But when I finally hit a moment where I saw that my reality contradicted the Bible, I stopped believing it was literal. I still believe that God is great and good and loves mankind. But fundamentalist Christians wouldn’t call me Christian any more. But I’m pretty tired of fundamentalists’ racism, sexism, homophobia, and deliberate ignorance. I love God but my God doesn’t require people to be blindly obedient but loving. Because love is what matters. And if I stopped believing in God I would believe in love.

    Reply
  27. Michael D Campbell

    I have watched the first two episodes and I am quite impressed with it. It definitely got me thinking about my religion and science. I know God is real and is the creator of all things. Who is to say that God didn’t have us evolve? I do believe that the earth is billions of years old. God had lots of time on his hands and was waiting on his perfect creatures, us, to evolve. I don’t take the bible literally, but I use it as a guide in my life. I believe Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead. I can’t connect all the dots, but I refuse to be ignorant and hateful. The bible has been used so to beat people over the head. It has been used to just about justify anything as long as it can be twisted in the users image. Just look at Slavery and all the homophobia in the world.

    Reply
  28. Jason

    Bruce I have no problem saying the Bible is not a science textbook. However when the Bible talks of scientific things it is correct. Once again please share with us this overwhelming evidence that evolution is true that you speak of. If there is so much of it you should not have a problem listing several facts that prove evolution is true. Saying a scientist said so is not overwhelming evidence.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Saying that the vast majority of scientists, especially those in biological sciences, say it is so, is overwhelming evidence. Since I am not a scientist, I put in my trust in those who are. I trust the scientific method..

      So, you believe that the Bible is a science textbook, history textbook, archeology textbook, etc. if so, please go back and answer the questions i asked you in our previous discussion. (The post where you thought you were a science teacher educating the ignorant atheists) You got upset and refused to answer my questions. Here’s why this is important. The argument here is not about science, it is about theology and your presuppositions about the Bible. You think the Bible is a science textbook because you have to think this. Your belief that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and meant to be interpreted literally is the presupposition behind your claim the Bible is a science textbook.

      I won’t approve any more comments until you deal with the questions previously asked. As far as you trying to bait me into a science discussion neither of us are qualified to have, it ain’t going to happen.

      Reply
    2. gimpi1

      The biblical timeline is way off. Everything from carbon-dating to plate-tectonics give us a 4-billion plus age for Earth. For the bulk of that time, there was no life above the single-cell. Life moved to land only recently. The continents have been in different configurations, and are still on the move. Many resources (coal, oil) are the remnants of earlier life. When the Bible talks of scientific things, it is not correct.

      Reply
  29. Jason

    Bruce I said the Bible is NOT a science textbook. I am unaware that I did not answer a question you asked me. What was it? I do not get upset at you. If you do not feel qualified to get into a science discussion then why post things about science?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      No, you do say the Bible is a science textbook. If you say that the Bible is correct on science then you are saying it is a science textbook. You are also saying it is a history, astronomy, biology, archeology,paleontology, psychology,and sociology textbook. Perhaps they are not comprehensive textbooks,but accurate and true on everything they address.

      Go back and read your comments on the previous post where you said you were schooling us about science. There you will find my questions and the reason why many of your comments are now routinely deleted.

      I post many things that I think are informative. Like with this post, the real issue is the ignorance shown in the fundamentalist’s tweets about COSMOS. That’s the reason I wrote this post (which, for the most part, is based on info I found on another website) While I am quite willing to admit that I am not qualified to have a discussion about science, I find it astounding that you think you are. As far as I know, the only training you have in science is whatever you were taught in a creationist oriented Christian school classroom and whatever you were taught at young earth creationist college, Pensacola Christian College. Am I missing any advance degrees you have in science, in biology, in evolutionary biology? Or is your only degree a KingJames.PhD?

      This is why my aforementioned questions are vitally important. Your whole argument is not based on your educated understanding of biological science but on your literal, reductionist, simplistic, interpretation of the Bible. If I can disabuse you of these notions then the science questions take care of themselves.

      Reply
  30. John Arthur

    Hi Jason,

    On the bible as being scientifically accurate, you might like to read http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible.

    For an article, one refuting the so-called 101 evidences for creationism, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe.

    Shalom,

    John Arthur

    Reply
  31. Jason

    Hello John Arthur. Thanks for the reference. I have read it before and a few others similar to it. It’s a decent effort at disproving what the Bible says but doesn’t quite do the job. The Bible has many scientific facts in it that we now know are true. Atheists cannot believe this. It goes against everything they think to be true. Evolutionists also cannot believe this. It destroys their idea of a big Bang and points toward an intelligent designer that communicated these scientific facts to his Creation.

    Reply
  32. Jason

    Bruce I do not need a PhD to understand a science book. I can go to a library and get all the education I want for 50 cents in late fees or skip the late fees and read about whatever I am interested in online. Just as you can sir. I do not claim to be a scholar of any subject but I can read about science and understand many aspects of it without a degree. No one in this blog or the last one I participated in with you has yet to give any facts that evolution is true. Don’t feel bad about that. No one on any other blog I have participated in outside of The Way Forward has either. I know that my questions are difficult and my arguments are as well which is why you deleting my comments is much easier than trying to answer them but if I am going to give one ounce of trust in evolution then everything I know now must be disproved and that is simply impossible. The Bible is not a science textbook. It is a book that has a few scientific facts that the writers wrote down. That does not make it a scientific textbook. As far as i can tell Bruce I did answer all your questions in our last discussion. If you have more please feel free to ask me.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Since you are not going to answer my questions, I assume this discussion is over. You assume throwing a fit and saying you are done talking to me:

      “Yes I copied and pasted the definition. Get over it. Guess what? All languages have them including Hebrew. Bruce your intellectual shortcomings are getting old. I will not continue to hold your hand through this. I am casting my pearls of knowledge before swine and will no longer respond to your intellectually dishonest remarks. I bid this blog farewell.”

      is answering my questions.

      Let me remind you of why your comments are moderated and many of them are deleted:

      “You are correct. You are absolutely missing something here. Look I have explained these things in extremely dumb downed terms so that anyone with half a brain can understand. If you can’t understand what I have written here then please go back to school and learn this. I have given you multiple science lessons through this blog. If you can’t wrap your head around what I have said then you are in worse shape than I had anticipated. Go back and read what I have already posted here. I explained micro vs macro already yet you seem to not be getting it. So far you are just running in circle trying to address the same things over and over with different wording. Please be better than your evolution “scientists” and come up with something that benefits the conversation.”

      Now to the questions you never answered. I wrote:

      I am not going to answer this, Jason but I suspect other people might want to. Before they do, please give your top five science references in the Bible that have been proved by modern science. Also, to get the obvious questions out of the way: 1:) Do you think the earth is flat 2:) does the sun revolve around the earth 3:) Has the sun/earth ever stood still

      On to theology. Where are these scientific references found? If you point to the English translation of the Bible, how do you know that God told the writers the scientific things that are found in the English translation of the Bible? I assume you believe in the dictation theory of inspiration or in some form of divine preservation of the Biblical text? Please define exactly what view you are taking so readers can know where you are coming from. And while you are at it, since there are thousands of variations, contradictions, and differences in the various translations and the extant manuscripts, how do you determine that certain words in a translation or an extant manuscript are what God originally told the author/translator? Other than faith, what evidence do you have that any of the translations or extant manuscripts came directly from, not just any God, but your God, the Christian God?”

      And:

      “Jason, neither of these verses mention the first or second law of thermodynamics. You are taking a science principle and trying to find a Bible verse to fit it so this will then prove the Bible is true.

      You state, or should I say whoever wrote this information you are using, says that creation no longer takes place today. I can disproves this in one verse.
      2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here! 2 Cor 5:17 The King James uses the word creature for the word creation.”

      And:

      It is likely that no intelligent conversation about science and evolution is going to happen because you are using the Bible in ways it was never meant to be used. You are ripping verses out of their context, demanding a literal reading of them, and then saying that they prove, however so loosely, that the Bible predicted thousands of years ago certain discoveries modern scientists would make. As long as you think this way, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about science or the Bible. I suspect others will feel the same way.

      Consider Job 41:19-21:

      Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

      Using your methodology, these verse predict that some day people would smoke cigarettes. Modern people smoke cigarettes. Bingo! The Bible is true.

      And I concluded:

      No, I am not going to try again, Jason. Go ahead, claim victory, but understand, the silence you hear is people who are astounded that you are using this methodology to “prove” that the Bible predicts future science discoveries.

      In my worldview Jason, words are taken in context and read according to the style the writer used in writing them. Some writing is meant to be taken allegorically, metaphorically, and poetically. There is no possible way to discuss a zebra when you say it is a giraffe.

      The only question you made a stab at is my challenge of your used of the word day. (I showed you it is used three different ways in Gen 1-3, yet according to you days in the days of creation MUST mean a literal 24 hour day)

      Lest you forget what I said to you:

      Jason,

      It is the same Hebrew word in all instances. So, if in Genesis 1-2 day means 24 hour day, but in Genesis 2:2 it means an indefinite period of time, and in Genesis 2:7 it means centuries, or 900 or so years, what in the text itself warrants your variable approach to the word day? What justification is there for saying day means anything other than a 24 hour day? Again, my purpose is is to disabuse you of your literalness and to show you that you want to interpret the Bible literally until you don’t, so you really don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. You are actually using reason and critical thinking skills to determine that day means one thing in one verse and another thing in another verse. Now if you can use reason and critical thinking skills every time you read the Bible, I suspect you will eventually abandon your fundamentalist mindset.

      I would add, being able to read a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance does not make one fluent in Hebrew/Greek. Besides, the words referenced in Strong’s are not from the original manuscripts (they do not exist) so at best Strong’s is a compilation of the words found in manuscripts and translations are dated centuries/millennia after the events they record. Take Genesis, where did the authors of Genesis get the information/stories they wrote down? We know it was written thousands of years after the fact:

      Today the majority of biblical scholars accept the theory that the Torah does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[4] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c. 450 BC by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (c. 900 BC), the Elohist, or E (c. 800 BC), the Deuteronomist, or D, (c. 600 BC), and the Priestly source, or P (c. 500 BC)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship

      Which led to you concluding:

      Yes I copied and pasted the definition. Get over it. Guess what? All languages have them including Hebrew. Bruce your intellectual shortcomings are getting old. I will not continue to hold your hand through this. I am casting my pearls of knowledge before swine and will no longer respond to your intellectually dishonest remarks. I bid this blog farewell.

      So, there are plenty unanswered questions and what I want to focus on is your belief that the Bible is an inerrant, inspired, supernatural book written by the Christian God. Your belief that the Bible is scientifically correct flows from this foundational belief. If I can show that your foundational belief is false then maybe, just maybe you will consider that you might be wrong about creationism.

      You have been given more access to the comment section of this blog than any other fundamentalist. (almost 100 comments) Let me remind you of your first comment on this blog:

      “Wow. I haven’t heard this much wining in a long time. It’s sad when Christians contribute to the pussifacation of America. I would be ashamed if this is how I had to get 15 mins of fame. When I first saw this I thought this was a joke but then I realized you people are serious. There are consequences that come with attacking a man called by God. Everyone who is pointing a finger needs to realize that no person is blameless. I have not seen one bit of proof that proves any of these theories. My advice… Shut up and worry about your own life and let ALMIGHTY GOD worry about everyone else.”

      I hope people will read your comments http://brucegerencser.net/2013/10/ifb-pastor-bill-wininger-outed-as-sexual-predator/

      As I said to you 4 months ago in a snarky, exasperated moment:

      Comment deleted.

      Thou hath been warned and thou choosest to ignore the warning from the God of this blog. Thy words are therefore deleted and thou are banished to the world thou hast come from. Be warned, further ignorance wilt be dealt with in a similar manner. If thou art offended, by all means starteth up thy own blog and whineth away.

      In the name of the father, son, grandson, brother, and grandfather, the great five in one. Bruce Almighty is his name and he ruleth over all this IP address. Blessed be his name.

      Bruce

      Reply
      1. sgl

        wow, while i recognized jason’s name, i didn’t recall that he’d been that obnoxious for such a long time.

        bruce, i think you’ve been more than generous with your time responding to jason, but clearly he’s done nothing to help the discussion along. perhaps save yourself (and your readers) a bit of time and sanity and just ban him outright. you’re more than justified.

        Reply
  33. Jason

    Your questions: 1:) Do you think the earth is flat 2:) does the sun revolve around the earth 3:) Has the sun/earth ever stood still

    1. No
    2. No
    3. Yes

    I apologize for not answering these questions. I took them as you being sarcastic and didn’t realize you actually wanted an answer for them. Everything else has been answered in the blog these questions originated from.

    Thank you for the comment history. The truth is that my point of view is much different than what you are use to from a Christian or so it would seem. My comments spark interest in your blogs because I challenge you and your readers. You are not complaining about this are you Bruce?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Really, you think your comments spark interest for my blog? Trust me, Jason, it is my writing people come here for and not your regurgitation of fundamentalist Christian dogma. Many of us spent a lifetime in the Evangelical church. You have not advanced one new thought or said anything that we have not heard countless times before.

      You need to have your own blog. This will allow you to advance the fundamentalist/creationist cause. If you do start your own blog let me know and we can compare readership numbers after you have been established for a while.

      You still didn’t answer all my questions (challenges to your presuppositions) and I know you are not going to do so. That’s fine. If you noticed, I have said three times to you, no more comments. I don’t know why I indulge you and other readers are wondering the same. But, this time it really is the end of commenting for you. Let me know if you ever move off your intractable fundamentalist beliefs. You are a young guy, so I hope that age and maturity will bring to you enlightenment.

      I wish you well.

      Bruce

      Reply
    2. sgl

      re: “The truth is that my point of view is much different than what you are use to from a Christian or so it would seem. My comments spark interest in your blogs because I challenge you and your readers.”

      i concur with bruce — none of your answers was remotely unique from the standard christian platitudes and evasions. that’s why i personally didn’t realize your long history of comment abuse, because i rarely or never responded to any of your comments and hence didn’t recall them. each individual comment screamed “fundy” so loud, i knew there wasn’t any point in engaging you in any sort of dialog.

      and the fact that you interpret your behavior as being “much different” and “spark[ing] interest” just shows how extreme your reality distortion field is.

      the fact is, you have no understanding of the viewpoints of bruce or anyone else who doesn’t believe in your god. however, bruce and quite a few of his readers, know exactly how you view the world, and know all the weaknesses of those views, and because of that, no longer believe in your god the way you believe in him.

      Reply
  34. vern davids

    I see no conflict intentionally leveled at christianity.
    I see science as endangering unfounded irrational beliefs like a 6000 year old earth and humans being created in present form and mythical Noah flood etc.

    Some would believe the nonsense of literal biblical interpretation and, indeed, science is a threat to such superstition.

    Religion, of all things, must evolve into something that is not in conflict with what we see around us in the everyday experience of living to survive and help it’s adherants or it will pass the way of Greek mythology and countless other unfounded human belief systems.

    Reply
  35. Mick Wright

    Science does endanger Christian worldviews, it’s true. The same way gay marriage threatens the fundamentalist worldview. And the same way that the act of looking up threatens the worldview of people who think the sky doesn’t exist.

    Reply
    1. vern davids

      Indeed.
      But we have compelling evidence that the “sky” exists or, at least, something very much like a sky is a physical reality.

      Not so with a fundamentalists’ worldview. Compelling evidence, given centuries of philosophical contemplation, is hard to come by.

      deGrasse Tyson makes an impassioned plea to keep that faith-based worldview out of the classroom and out of the legislative process, please.

      Believe what you wish in your church or mosque or synagogue or temple, directed safely away from the arena of public influence where it might impact others that are not of like mind.

      Reply
  36. Becky Rogers Wiren

    Fundamentalists are NOT looking for truth. They know the truth, it is their truth, and according to them, we are all foolish and deceived. Fundies of ALL stripes are this way. I am a theist and am comfortable with truth seekers of all religions or non-religions. Jason kept trying to prove he was right, and he had no interest in looking at other POVs. So he didn’t check out anything we had to say, because he was too busy shooting it all down. You were awfully nice to him Bruce. But then, you’re one of the good guys. ;)

    Reply
  37. Theresa

    Carl Sagan originally did this show. Was there a backlash then or did they get stupider?

    Reply
  38. XCO

    It’s OK to use religion as a source material for what you think makes a good person. But you cannot take it literally, In the sense that IF YOU BELIEVE in GOD than you must BELIEVE is your GOD given senses (Seeing, Hearing, etc…) and that is SCIENCE!

    :D

    Still I think some people remember that religion is about reminder. It’s about remembering to be good (Via Story’s), though it’s not a perfect system.

    I for one am VERY thankful that I was not raised in a religious house hold. From an outsiders point of view it looks a lot like Brain conditioning, Sorry, but how can you know what you “believe” in is real if you have been told to believe in that your whole life.

    I mean if you were a Muslim woman right now, you would be all covered up lol.

    The point is YOU don’t believe in what you believe because of divine feelings, you are just a victim of your psychology.

    It’s OK to “USE” religion as a guide if you need one, but you can also just get up everyday keep it real with yourself and aspire to be a “Good Person”, without “fear or reward”.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>