Evidence for God from Science

Jeesh Bill, could you have possibly interviewed some Christians who were experts in the field rather than fanatics, politicians and truck drivers? Try Lee Strobel, Greg Lorrie or someone who has researched based answers to your questions. You didn't give Christians a very fair sounding board. Heck, you might as well've interviewed an ex stand up comedian and pretended he had some knowledge in the Christian arena, wink, wink. By the way, the comparisons of Horus and Christ are not near as many as you claim. Several are not at all alligned if you look at the research.

The movie simply seeks to discredit religion and faith, and will feed those who think this way...which is mostly everybody. (Thankfully, the movie hasn't been successful.) It is just another crockumentary. Don't worry about it.

FL

The only thing that worries me is how so many people admire those who's only credibility is crudeness and pessimism while making these documentaries! The nation seems to applaude anyone these days who is nasty and synical. As if that is the identifier of intelligence! Kind of scary. Oh yeah, throw in some snide comments, rudeness, sarcasm, sprinkle in some f-bombs- and you're a border line genius!

I just fail to see how Maher's questions were show stoppers... Like no one has ever asked the questions he has asked before.. Does he think he is unique or something? I've seen the flick and added a review here... I found it to be rather boring actually...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =2&t=33219

I can't help but to feel empathy for Mr. Maher.
He seems to have taken a confrontational line of belittling anyone who believes in anything and, at the same time, disrespects those who believe in nothing (won't take a stand). Yet, Maher insists he's a comedian. As Jay Leno once said in his critisicm of Andrew "Dice" Clay, "His (Clay's) act isn't funny at all. It's all based on hatred. I mean, where's the joke?"
I believe the same can be said for Bill Maher.
Just my opinion..

Bill is deceived by the devil and it was a choice he made to become so. So it's no surprise that he has chosen to remain ignorant about what the targets of his mockery actually believe. It's deliberate on his part. Additionally, Bill likes drugs, immoral sex, and money in addition to mocking and hating on Christians. He tries to couch all this in humor but given the wickedness of it all it's not funny. More like a sick perverted lost little boy trying to use the media to strike out at those that told him drugs and immoral sex weren't good for him. I see no reason to take anything Bill says seriously.

Maher's an ass on a par with Stein.

It seems recently he's turned his fine mind to anti-vaccination propaganda.

I watched the movie online about a year ago. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel, no offense intended to the Christians in the film, but come on!! He did speak to Francis Collins who is "supposed" to be smart but even Collins looked foolish. I wonder what got edited out. But, Collins believes in evolution so he doesn't have much cred with me anyway. What about the ex-gay preacher he spoke to? I thought the ex-gay preacher did a respectable job representing Christianity until the end of the interview. I can't remember specifically what the ex-gay preacher did but I remember it was kind of tasteless. I think he hugged Mahr and made a crude statement. He tried to pass it off as a joke but it didn't go over very well with me.

Just another Christian bashing film. That's all it is.

7777777 wrote:I watched the movie online about a year ago. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel, no offense intended to the Christians in the film, but come on!! He did speak to Francis Collins who is "supposed" to be smart but even Collins looked foolish. I wonder what got edited out. But, Collins believes in evolution so he doesn't have much cred with me anyway. What about the ex-gay preacher he spoke to? I thought the ex-gay preacher did a respectable job representing Christianity until the end of the interview. I can't remember specifically what the ex-gay preacher did but I remember it was kind of tasteless. I think he hugged Mahr and made a crude statement. He tried to pass it off as a joke but it didn't go over very well with me.

Just another Christian bashing film. That's all it is.

What do you have against evolution (and Francis Collins)?

Byblos wrote: What do you have against evolution (and Francis Collins)?

I don't believe it.

You can research on the Internet yourself and have biologists explain it to you better than I can. The bottom line is there are no fossils linking species together. Also, I don't believe God would use billions of years to create a human. Just look at the timetables He used in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert but aren't there 2000 years between the writing of the Old Testament and New Testament? Why would God present these to us in such a comparatively short time span? A God who took a billion years to create a human would not of presented His laws to us in such a short period.

7777777 wrote:

Byblos wrote: What do you have against evolution (and Francis Collins)?

I don't believe it.

You can research on the Internet yourself and have biologists explain it to you better than I can. The bottom line is there are no fossils linking species together. Also, I don't believe God would use billions of years to create a human. Just look at the timetables He used in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert but aren't there 2000 years between the writing of the Old Testament and New Testament? Why would God present these to us in such a comparatively short time span? A God who took a billion years to create a human would not of presented His laws to us in such a short period.

You do realize, don't you, that you are on a site that for the most believes in an old earth and a 13 billion year universe?

7777777 wrote:

Byblos wrote: What do you have against evolution (and Francis Collins)?

I don't believe it.

You can research on the Internet yourself and have biologists explain it to you better than I can. The bottom line is there are no fossils linking species together. Also, I don't believe God would use billions of years to create a human. Just look at the timetables He used in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert but aren't there 2000 years between the writing of the Old Testament and New Testament? Why would God present these to us in such a comparatively short time span? A God who took a billion years to create a human would not of presented His laws to us in such a short period.

To answer your question, no, there is far less then 2000 years between the last book written in the OT and the first of the NT. This is referred to as the intertestamental period and it is about 400 years. Now if you examine the first written book of the OT (generally believed to be Job) with the first of the NT then you're looking at thousands of years.

Your analogy is faulty I believe. First, time is a relative thing when speaking of God. God is outside of time so there's no measure of how long God "should" take to create anything.

For what it's worth most Old Earth Creationists (OEC) believe God created man either instantaneously or in a progressive manner and a relatively short period of time, not billions of years. Belief that the earth itself is billions of years old doesn't require a belief that God took that long to create man, nor does is require a belief in evolution on a grand scale.

The exception to that would be theistic evolutionists who technically fall within a broad definition of old earth creationism. They're a relatively smaller group than OECs in general. Francis Collins is a prime representative of Theistic Evolutionists today. C.S. Lewis fell in that camp as well.

The question is if God represents 24 hour days in Genesis in which case the other arguments are moot. If you look on the main site you should find many articles that explain why the Hebrew word "Yom" which is used in Genesis, much like our word "day" in english can be used properly to mean a period of time of more than 24 hours. You'll see in those articles that it indeed can and further that there is good reason to believe that it does in the context of the early chapters of Genesis.

Canuckster1127 wrote: To answer your question, no, there is far less then 2000 years between the last book written in the OT and the first of the NT. This is referred to as the intertestamental period and it is about 400 years. Now if you examine the first written book of the OT (generally believed to be Job) with the first of the NT then you're looking at thousands of years.

I can't argue because I don't know. So, I'll take your word for it.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Your analogy is faulty I believe. First, time is a relative thing when speaking of God. God is outside of time so there's no measure of how long God "should" take to create anything.

We still need to look at it in human time, however. I think history tells us what kind of time-span to expect from God.

Canuckster1127 wrote: For what it's worth most Old Earth Creationists (OEC) believe God created man either instantaneously or in a progressive manner and a relatively short period of time, not billions of years. Belief that the earth itself is billions of years old doesn't require a belief that God took that long to create man, nor does is require a belief in evolution on a grand scale.

I agree. It is possible the Earth could be billions of years old. This doesn't mean humans are. Adam and Eve could of been in the Garden of Eden for billions of years. The Bible gives no time frame in this regard. Human bones did not start to decay until after God cast Adam out.

Canuckster1127 wrote: The exception to that would be theistic evolutionists who technically fall within a broad definition of old earth creationism. They're a relatively smaller group than OECs in general. Francis Collins is a prime representative of Theistic Evolutionists today. C.S. Lewis fell in that camp as well.

There still is no evidence for evolution. I believe the Bible would say so if this is the way God created us. I simply think Collins is wrong.

7777777 wrote:I simply think Collins is wrong.

Prove it.

Byblos wrote:

7777777 wrote:I simply think Collins is wrong.

Prove it.

I don't need to. He does.