I'm not sure how to express what a big deal this is. I believe it may represent one of the seven seals of the apocalypse.
Dr Anthony Flew now believes in God. I'm not sure how to express what a big deal this is. I believe it may represent one of the seven seals of the apocalypse. Soon dogs and cats will begin sleeping with each other and Michael Moore will be publicly repeating the Pledge of Allegiance.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - alimison
Yes well, I haven't read all the comments. My brain is tired. But when someone said, big deal, Flew isn't a scientist, he's only a philosopher - have you missed the point of science? Science does not deal in the intangible. Science cannot tell us whether there is a god/s. Science studies the concrete, the tangible; it cannot prove or disprove the spiritual, and it doesn't really give meaning to facts. I'm no scientist personally but I think that's what twelve years of it at school taught me. Philosophy, however, is the search for meaning behind facts. Yes, we exist, but WHY do we exist?
Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, Anthony Flew is perfectly qualified to make a judgement on the existence of God. Especially after pondering the idea for his entire life. He's not some cocky little PhD student who thinks he knows everything.
27 - JR
From what I'm reading here, Flew is making his judgement based on his interpretation of the findings of science: ...there's simply too much complexity in DNA for life to have developed without some kind of intelligent guidance.
So yeah, we get to question his qualifications.
28 - Angela Chen Shui
Thanks for the links... sounds like an interesting man...
29 - Al Barger
Indeed, Alimison, Flew is not only not a cocky grad student who thinks he knows everything, but an accomplished and well recognized scholar actually changing his mind about a central tenet on which he has built his entire career. This is tantamount to saying, hey, maybe I've actually been WRONG all these years.
How many 80 year olds would change their minds like this about something central to their lives? Even the best scientists rarely do something like this.
30 - TCL
well.... things in our lives changes..... Since there wasn't a strong infomation about DNA at his time.... now in this major technology period with more and more discoveries, it ain't surprised that he changed his mind....
31 - atheist
More on Flew and his 'conversion' here
32 - oof
Hey, if religious conversion is the downhill, a slippery slope for everyone, then why is it wrong? What's the benefit of an uphill fight if there's no one at the top, or who will remain on the hill after you die, that cares how far up you make it?
On the other hand, living according to morals set forth by religion at least gives practical and character benefits to the uphill climb of moral living.
As far as intellectual growth is concerned, a few things are for sure- when today's kids are our age, they'll either know a heck of a lot more than we did now, or they won't care what we thought at all.
33 - David Dana-Bashian
To the one who said
"To what extent does each one CHOOSE their own religion? They don't, [sic] it is chosen for them by virtue of where they are born and their parents."
I would comment that I came from a family, neighborhood, and community where Christianity, rightly understood, was virtually *unknown*. In America. In Indiana! I became a Christian, but not because of family, neighborhood, or community.
Years after I left the neighborhood I made many trips back and found that, of those still living there, only two, I repeat, two, people knew what Christianity is, and neither of these two people told me what it is when I lived there. So when someone asks me what becomes of aborigines who die without hearing the message, I am here to tell you that my neighborhood was isomorphic to a village of aborigines, yet I still became a Christian. Even Socrates knew there is only one God, though he was completely surrounded by polytheism, to which he nevertheless paid passing respect.
34 - Al Barger
Yo David, what town here in Indiana did you come from where Christianity was unknown and exotic? Such a place would seem unlikely here in the Bible belt.
35 - D Turner
There are only two possible answers to the question of where the universe came from and how life began -- 1. Some intelligence caused it or 2. It just happened.
For the most part, most people put the cart before the horse and choose which of those positions they like and then seek out evidence that supports their choice. For the lesser part, some, after looking at the evidence, conclude that it is highly unlikely that it could have "just happened."
However, I think there is enough evidence on either side of this issue to intellectually come down on either side of it.
While I may believe the cause was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I also admit that it could have been a committee of 12 sent from the 14th dimension.
I don't "know" how it all came about nor am I able to intellectually eliminate all the possibilities including some that disagree with what I believe.
However, what I believe today is not what I believed for the first 35 years of my life. And what I now believe was not the result of some intellectual decision. I can only say that there was a moment in which I did not believe and in the next moment I did believe. I cannot explain how or why, I can only report that in less than a trice my entire thinking on this matter was changed.
36 - David Dana-Bashian
To Al Barger, the city is Lafayette. I knew everyone in our average-sized neighborhood, in which I lived for many years. After extensive trips back there over a period of years, I found only two people in the whole neighborhood who knew what Christianity is, rightly understood, and neither of them brought up the subject to me. No one in the family or the schools or even the church knew either. There are citizens in Lafayette who know, but I found them to be quite rare.
37 - Scotus
To Jim Carruthers:
What is the extent of your knowledge of philosophy? As a man of science (presumably) you should, by principle, have a strong understanding of philosophy to criticize it as vehemently as you have. Don't you believe in collecting data before making such a sure judgment?
I know a fair amount about philosophy, and have not come to the same conclusion that you have--all that about mystic mumbo jumbo--so I wonder what you're basing your opinion off of.
38 - Brinky
hello everybody
i appreciate that its easy in the modern age to get caught in webs of naive realism (possibly caused by excessive 'individual self' based materialism), but something the 'ancients' seem to have realised, which many intelligent people today obviously have not is the concept of Totality, or rather, the 'I'm afraid irrefutable truth' of Totality.
By Totality I mean, 'Reality as a Whole' aside from individual conceptions of this, as in, the reality of Reality, as it is, in its infinite completeness.
The unity of being is corroborated by the actuality that reality as a whole exists as totality. For the purposes of clarity, we can bifurcate this reality into two definable constituents.
1) Reality - space, time, perception, matter
2) Infinitude - the reality that the intellect cannot comprehend fully - the gaps inbetween our perception of reality that cannot be covered by secular mathematics.
i) our naive realism is unfounded once we place in perspective our stimuli - reaction existance. Actually accepting our existence in context leads to an acceptance of a reality outside of our own selves.
As we know the universe expands perpetually, whilst the concept of time is a self - evident truth within our physical reality, and of course this works in reverse - the point at which space and time merge, right at the beginning, is physical nothingness but INFINITE TOTALITY. The space and time based reality is not self - existent due to its lack of existance at the beginning within its own laws. However the blueprint for all of space and all of time is necessarily existant in order for space and time to exist, due to their self - evident lack of infinity (i.e that fact that we exist - infinity within space and time is a scientific impossibility)
The blueprint for existance resides in the pre , post and meta material infinitude of totality which 'created' the illusory material reality, which was caused by, exists in, and is due to, Totality.
Most people call Totality, 'God'.
p.s: by the way, the 'multiple universe' theory makes no difference to this. (think about it.)
The above is pretty much a condensed version of what great thinkers of the past have realised, such as plato, st john of the cross, muhammad, avicenna, ibn arabi, einstein, and so forth.
39 - scotus
How does the multiple universe theory make no difference to this appeal to "the blueprint for existence?" That theory debunks all arguments from design, so far as I see.
And what do you mean by "as we know the universe expands perpetually?" Has that been proven? If it hasn't, I don't see how you can claim that there is a point at which space and time merge.
40 - Tarsanth
Though I am aware that I will not change any ones mind on this matter, I am personally interested in a certain set of questions pertaining to the so-called "all mighty one".
IF god did create the universe in seven days (meaning he was producing an impressive 4.9x10^43 metric tons of matter per second, assuming he worked on the seventh day), and IF he somehow managed to program the development of our planets several billion species all in that time as well as design all the chemistry, mathematics, laws of physics, etc, then what did he do before all this? What came before that? How did god arrive? Who created him? Lastly and most importantly, WHY did he create us?
For once I will not accept the response I have heard so many a time before as proof, in the form of "We don't need to ask that, he does not need to give reasons" or "Because he chose to" or any other answer to the effect of "Just because!". Random coincidence in a universe that so far we know to be 14 billion light years wide, or this mysterious super-guy who thought it would be fun to whip up a universe over the period of a week? Hmmmmmmmm...
41 - Erald
I would like to mention there has been a great deal of controversy and confusion surrounding this "news," and Mr. Flew hasn't helped matters along. An Associated Press article in December 2004 quoted Flew as believing in some sort of deity or super-intelligent entity. However, an interview conducted by Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News later in the month had Flew responding, "Oh yes. Yes I think so.." when asked whether he still supported the arguments for atheism. It may be a contradiction, or it may not. Anthony Flew generally believes one should be atheistic until evidence arises to the contrary. He has now changed his mind on what the evidence means, but that certainly doesn't mean he believes in "god." Furthermore, as he is quick to point out, even if he were to have suddenly changed beliefs to a pro-deity stance, he does not believe in the same "god" that Christians, Muslims, or Jews do, but rather the "god" of Spinoza (the same one Einstein said he believed in), that entity which manifests itself in the workings of nature and the Universe. So I just wanted to let people know that this "news" has been overblown....
42 - Ruslfish
Oh...either way I think its fantastic that the old guy has an open mind to the possibility.
We must acknowledge evolution is a theory, intelligent design is also a theory, and that the final answer is one of faith and not irrefutable evidence.
43 - ClubhouseCancer
No, we mustn't, but thanks for the order.
Intelligent design is not a "theory" in the scientific sense. Most people minimally fluent in science grasp this easily.
44 - Duane
Oh God (pardon the expression), not this stuff again.
Evolution is a theory.
Intelligent Design is a conjecture.
There is a difference.
...the final answer is one of faith and not irrefutable evidence.
No, it isn't.
45 - Bruce
I believe that what we live in, life, the universe, is a system. It reacts to stimuli in certain ways. It has Phisical laws , garavity etc. and non-phisical laws, eg when you try earnestly in good you suceeede and when you want somthing too much you don't get it etc. This is what some people see as God. the system of the universe. I believe, that God is trancendent of the universe. By his willing of it to "be" the so called "spark", big bang or what ever, it, the universe came into being. Progressing just as God had planned without his intervention. Every thing planned out, contained in that spark. The action that resulted in the "equal and opposite reaction" the equal and opposite reaction being the universe. He is so infallible, incapable of error, that he does not need to intervene into the system, as it will progress just as he had planned. Each action of the universe leads to a definite. Just as one plus one must equal two. Yes Sliding is a myth. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hey it hurt me to. :)
46 - Edward
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
For the creation of the universe there must have been an action.
The entity that started the action is "The Creator." But some may ask
Who created "The Creator?" In my Belief the answer is nothing. The
reason being that he created the "Laws of creation." The system that
is the Universe, the living entity that is time and space. Ergo,
"The Creator" created within the system, the law of :for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Being a trancendant being, (the creator seprorate from the creation)
These Laws do not apply to him.
The above sumorizes my view on why God has no creator.
Seven days or time periods? I think it depends on translations.
Days in terms of the earth spinning could have differed from to days spin.
Its cool that like me you won't just except what every one tells you. You got to be a truth seeker
like Abraham. Hey much of what we see on the meadia is myth. Did you know that it seemes so
is the 10% brain myth. Dude it looks we all use 100% just food for thought.
E-mail me at arabian_knight@yahoo.com Later.
47 - Patrick Teasley
"As William Gibson, a son of the south, but now and for some long time part of the frozen chosen, points out on his blog, the major engine behind "creationists" in the States is that they just don't want to accept that different races are related, that we are all one."
This is the most ridiculous critique of creationists that I have ever heard. It is very common to hear creationists argue the contrary; that the theory of evolution has along history of being connected to racism. Creationists usually believe that all men descended from one set of parents, thus making us all related. Many well-known creationists have stressed racial unity as opposed to the implied racial inequality in Darwinism.
48 - junaid
I feel sorrry for the aged Dr,.....first of all he took 50 years to understand what's going on in this universe we live in ....and secondly even then he is trying to find his own GOD ......a GOD which apeals to his mind...and and fits in his logic.... does it not defy your imagination that a creater who created you and gave you wisdom you are so proud about must be of such a powers which would be far beyond you comprehension....after all you are created by him and all the capabilities you posses today are given to you by him ...so how can your mind have the slightest capability to get understanding about that lord of all the universe with the help of your own mind....offcourse it is never posssible ...but only throug when our lord our God choose to reveal himself through his guidence(THE KORAN) through which our small minds get an understanding about the supereme powers of ALLAH. surpersing that after wasting 50 years of his life,s work,he wants to further put his week mind through another wrong turn....He should realize that he was wrong for 50 years and also wronged others which is a failed theory.A person who has been all that wrong about such a simple fact hold no further credibility.......I would think a million times before taking any influence fron the aged Dr,....as he was wrong for 50 years and took half a century to understand such a SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS fact that trheir is a GOD and every thing in the universe is created by him and belongs to him.....now how most certain it is become that almighty lord is ALLAH ....THE LORD OF ALL CREATIONS EVER MADE OR EVER WILL BE MADE....
49 - Al Barger
Junaid, you're certainly welcome to believe in your oriental despot Allah. Personally, I'd rather believe in Santa Claus if I want an imaginary friend.
You are also welcome to HONK OFF with that "feeling sorry" for Dr Flew. That's not feeling anything for him, but simply an expression of condescension and contempt. Dr Flew has had an impressive academic career, and continues trying to ferret out the truth about the mysteries of the universe.
He certainly does not need the fake pity of an illiterate who cannot even write a simple English sentence, but presumes to talk down to one of the leading academics of his generation.
50 - David R. Emmons, Ph.D.
To ClubhouseCancer: Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and in one form or another it is the basis of forensics, the underlying approach to the SETI project, and behind all interpretation of intentionality. In its present adversarial appearance as a challenge to Evolutionary theory it is still immature, but Evolution as a theory has been strongly criticized by non-defensive Evolutionists themselves as a very weak theory indeed. It is circular in its arguments and none of its evidence is clearly observable or empirically repeatable.
51 - Diane Dana-Bashian Brown
This comment is directed toward David Dana-Bashian (post 33).
As we grew up in the same house, you would think we learned the same Christianity. The Jesus I learned about taught me to care about others, to honor my parents and family, and to forgive the trespasses of others.
On August 5th, 2005, my husband of 19 years died. Only one of my brothers was there at the funeral.
52 - Al Barger
Miss Diane, I'm sorry about the passing of your husband. However, Blogcritics is not the forum to call out your family members for personal beefs.
Did you have any comments on Dr Flew or intelligent design theory?
53 - Jorge Millan
Dear Sirs,
I am a believer and I find quite interesting that a renowned atheist revises his conclusions and considers God as the answer to the evident design in nature.
Nevertheless, what Michael Moore's position and ideas have to do with this ? I believe most of you do not understand what he defends. Your comment on Mr. Moore is not something wise here and gives you the image of intolerant fanatics. I see clearly that if there is someone who really gives alegiance to what America and a free country is and to the principles that suposedly inspired the creation of the US, is Michael Moore. Is there something wrong in figthing political lies and corruption as he does ? The problem with may americans is that they believe that being an American is to say that everyting that their country does is right. Is it the case that for a politician to say that he believes in God and acts in his name, it makes right everything he does ?
54 - alienboy
It is neither interesting nor remarkable that some 81 year old person suddenly finds something to believe in, some promise of after life is it?
55 - Al Barger
Alienboy, this is not "some 81 year old person." This is Dr Anthony Flew, the most intellectually respected atheist in academia. That's something else entirely.
56 - alienboy
Obviously a lightweight then to repent so close to death! I hope I don't do the same come the time. Very disappointing that he seems to have gone for the "design" fallacy.
I'm not sure one can actually be intellectual about this, you either believe in the existence of superbeings with incredible powers despite the complete lack of evidence for their existence or you don't.
You know, it occurs to me that we need a new word, a word that doesn't have its origins in the topic itself; atheist is a religious term, and so is agnostic. There's no word for people who don't believe in astrology for example. I'd settle for rational of course but I would imagine people of faith might find that demeaning.
57 - Erick Dumas
Excuse me. But why is it always left out that when Jehovah, God's actual name, is mentioned it doesn't get talked about anywhere in the news. Good and well it is reported that it is 'very unlikely that Anthony Flew will become a christian', but he did say if he was going to have any kind of future life he would become a Jehovah's Witness. It seems that people know Jehovah is God's name, they just can't accept it just yet. Just so your wondering as well Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. also in everyone's discussions the bible isn't mentioned once. Answers to every question about life is provided in the scriptures. I'll be happy to show them to you if you would like to know [deleted. personal contact data is not within BlogCritics policy]
58 - martin
former athiest with the history to prove it. Taught evolution in school accepted it as a reality however this theory continues to be just that, a theory based on the behaviour of mankind.(allienated from god.)Having recently fallen for a Muslim girl i peered into islam this lead me to the scriptures that were writen before the koran. (The koran says that the scriptures writen before should be read) and my study of these along with ancient and modern day history prove beyond doubt that god realy exists. Science doesn't disprove god but the truth is that god is the supreme scientist and if things were aloud to continue science would prove the existence of God.(if it doesn't already}. By the way i also believe in dinosaurs and that the universe is thirteen or so billion years old but this actually lends weight to the original scriptures being accurate. Things don't happen by themselves i can look at this bottle of wine for as long as i like but i no for a fact that someone made it no one could convince me otherwise why is it then that i was convinced that the complex universe the earth the life upon it happened by itself. Darwin went to his grave having not proven evolution the fosil records today don't either. Of coarse things don't happen by themselves, well, if that were true who made God? The paradox raises its head. I was quite happy believing that God didn't exist you see if he does this brings responsibility and who wants that. Bottom line my life makes more sense than before im not old only 35 when when i realised this reality. I asked a friend should a person question what they believe or their faith she said no. This would make eveyone right. I don't agree im glad that i questioned what i was taught.
59 - John Kenny aka Conan the Republican
So, at last, the atheists are finally coming around. Nature itself declares an Invisible Creator, and science can now do nothing else but the same! From male/female in the human/animal realm, down through cation/anion, proton/electron, positive/negative valence to the depths of quantum mechanics (Planck-1918), where it all disappears (for some strange reason!), atheism finally reaches its inevitable intellectual cul-de-sac. You simply cannot account for the origins of the universe, so you say there was none. Brilliant! Something, somewhere, somehow larger than us had to bring it about. At least have the intellectual honesty to say: "I don't know". Can you manage that? At least a healthy agnosticism... Don't worry, it won't hurt you. "The FOOL hath said in his heart: 'There is no God'" - Psalm 14:1
60 - gonzo marx
too funny...here the christians are trying to take all the credit!!
Ju-Ju, the Elephant God, may his tail keep the flies of intolerance away from the Holy Buttocks, has told me that all the gods laugh...
they don't know how everything started either...
so the Universe was set up a long time ago, in the hope that some clever creature would evolve to figure it all out and let them know
i will also Reveal that the reason for the sabbath is really due to the god's weekly card game...Hera gets pissed and hangs out with Isis to bitch about the males...
but they still play every week and get a good laugh at the folly of Man, and the hubris to think such an insignificant creature can know the Mind of a god
Excelsior!
61 - Christopher Rose
Conan: People who don't believe in religious cults aren't atheists, the adherents are faithists.
62 - Bennett
Good one Gonzo. "Holy Buttocks" indeed!
63 - Brith Aspenlind
Please, I would appreciate if anyone could give me some names of God - believing scientists with a highly respected background in astronomy, bio - chemistry(except M. Behe)and dealing with subject connected with the start of the Universe and the evolution.
Thanks!
64 - Jet in Columbus
Now try to stay with me on this... The problem, as I see it, is wrapping your mind around the concept of infinity. Not only in terms of space, but in time. If you can understand that as far in distance as you can imagine, you can always go outward at least another inch, and yet another beyond that, then in terms of time you can go forward or backward at least double what you can imagine.
Since many minds are too feeble to grasp infinity, it's impossible to explain that as long as God has existed, there's an equal time when he didn't, in terms of space, there's an equal amount of distance that he did create, that he didn't.
Having said that, that the entity created only one universe in all that time and space is an equally hard concept for most to wrap their limited brain power around.
What puts fear into most people is the most heart pausing question of all.
Who/what created God?
I personally believe it was man, so he'd have an answer for all his unanswerable questions. If he can't explain it, or understand it, he'd just say "God did it"
Why would an all powerful/all seeing entity create such a feeble being as man, such a tiny solar system as ours, in such a tiny and common galaxy as ours? We exist only in a blink of God's eye-in terms of time and space.
If he were creating companions, "especially ones in his own image" in the vastness of infinite space, he'd have a hard time expaining why we'd individually, or yet collectively, be as hard to find as an atom in a galactic sized haystack, and exist in less time than he could think of us, compared to "forever".
So man would have to ask, why DID God create all those other Galaxys? Certainly not to shine light on us?
The answer is simple, he didn't, there's no earthly of unearthly explanation why he would. Especially if you might consider that they were his first tries. Someone as perfect as God created all this, or is it all by chance?
Well lets look at his perfect creation.
The moon wasn't always at the exact right distance from the sun to block it out during an eclipse, the earth wasn't always at the exact right distance from the sun to support life, that shattered asteroid belt used to be something that was later destroyed, so why would God create, much let exist, something that could potentially throw boulders at us big enough to destroy his perfect creation!
So the absolute question isn't any of that, it the simple query "Why?" and since man can't answer it, he Created God, to answer it.
65 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Senator Barger,
I tried your link and found that the page did not exist. But the name sounded familiar to me. I went to Dr. Gerald Schroeder's websight and found this link to the story.
The story, which dates from 2004, by the way, has this quote about Flew's video "Has Science Discovered G-d?" in it.
The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.
The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.
Elsewhere on this site, I have seen Dr. Schroeder called a charlatan, at best.
Flew's arguments are those of a philosopher, because he is a philosopher. But note, he draws on a physicist, as well as a theologian. This is the concept of the convergence of science and religion at work.
66 - Jet in Columbus
Erick #57, I actually subscribed and read from cover to cover every issue of Jahovah's Witnesses' "The Watchtower" for a year back in the 70s, just to see what I was up against.
That's pretty much what inspired my comment #64.
We all need something to cling to, I'm glad you have your's.
67 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jet,
Man created G-d? I suggest you need to refuel.
There are some little problems with your suggestion. To begin with, where did you come with the idea that there had to be an equal amount of time that G-d existed as to the time he didn't exist? That doesn't compute at all.
Second of all, what made you assume that a perfect Entity would create something perfect? There is no reason that this should be so.
There are certain clear assumptions that one can draw from the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.
1. G-d is infinite.
2. G-d created the universe.
3. G-d created rules by which the universe operates.
4. When G-d is dissatisfied with how those rules work, He intervenes in one way or another.
5. G-d has certain specific characteristics.
6. G-d has a minimal set of rules for mankind, particularly a minimal set for that group known as the Children of Israel.
One can go beyond this, but these assumptions are enough to be going on with.
It appears that an old man, a reknowned atheist who is now 83, accepted at least some of these principles about two years ago.
I would posit three points for your consideration. The first is that there is evidence of extra-terrestrial creatures that have been here. The second is that there is evidence, albeit indirect, of a Divine Being. The third is that the extra-terrestrial creatures and the Divine Entity are two entirely separate things.
68 - Jet in Columbus
If you could comprehend infinity, you'd know that God could only exist as a Parallel to an infinity. If it is true that the Earth has only existed according to biblical scholars for a mere 2000 years ago, what was he doing for and during the infinity before that, and since this imperfect earth won't last more than a few thousand more, what will he do after it's gone-create another, and under that supposition how do we know he didn't create many before ours? He certainly had the time.
The above would have to come from a mind that can't think past a text written over 2000 years ago.
I respect you for your devotion enough to say that it is my OPINION that your facts are faulty and admit that I may be wrong. However anyone else would get self-righteous and say you're wrong and I'm right, but i won't because I respect other's devotions.
69 - Rodney Welch
Nobody says 2,000. You have your numbers wrong.
70 - Jet in Columbus
Well, let's just nit-pick! Oh well then by all means, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater and discard the whole comment! Is that the best you can do? Most TV bible pounders use 2000-3000 years.
71 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jet,
Where did you get the number 2,000? Even the guys who claim to read the Bible "literally" say 6,000. If you ask me, I'll tell you that the universe itself is 15 billion (thousand million) years old, and that the interaction required for the Big Bang to take place happened over a period 15 billion years prior. In other words the phrase "let there be light," extends back 30 billion years." In the words of the late atheist, Carl Sagan, "billyuns and billyuns of years ago..."
72 - Warren
Just popping in on this one for a moment:
Jet, I know all the TV Bible-pounders, some VERY well. None have ever said 2,000 years. Get your facts straight. The LOWEST estimate among us Bible pounders is 6,000 -- and those who believe that are vocal, but are far from a majority.
Someone once asked Augustine (or Luther, depending on who you hear telling the story) what God was doing before time began. The response: "Creating Hell for over-inquisitive seminary students like you." Of course, logically, before time God was doing nothing -- it is only with the beginning of time that things started happening at all.
One of the biggest problems I've seen in this debate is that the non-theists refuse to educate themselves about what their opponents actually believe, and then build their arguements around that misunderstanding. And, of course, refusing to admit they are wrong (comment 70 is a pretty good example of that). Of course, we theists do pretty much the same thing; thus, the disagreement is never resolved, and both parties end up talking past each other, attacking fictional straw men of their own creation. That's why I stopped arguing creation/evolution/ID.
73 - Jet in Columbus
I believe it's actually included in "Intelligent Design" text books.
I however am not too proud to admit I'm wrong.
I myself agree that we're billions and billions of years old, but why distract from the rest of comment 68? You have your beliefs, and I have mine. I've already said I respect yours, though I don't agree with them, I'd at least hope to get the same from you.
I've never professed to be the be all-know all high and mighty around here as others have.
74 - Jet from Columbus
Ruvy, this is a quote from a chapter in the Text of Creation-evolubtion Encyclopedia-easily found by googling it...
HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO?
The earliest records of mankind only go back a few thousand years. Yet intelligent men are supposed to have lived on earth for over a million years! The evidence supports the Biblical record; it does not support evolutionary theory. This is science vs. evolution"a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO? - 1
Historical Records - Everything started off fully developed about 2000-3000 B.C.
Early Egyptian Records - Manetho's king lists should be revised downward to 3200 to 3600 B.C.
Radiocarbon Dates - They are not accurate prior to 1600 B.C.
Biblical Records - The oldest history book was Genesis, which Moses wrote about 1510-1450 B.C.
Astronomical Records - The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 2250 B.C. This fact is highly significant
Writing - The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
Civilizations - All the earliest ones were located in Mesopotamia, which is a little southeast of the Ararat mountains, where Noah's Ark came to rest
75 - Warren
Jet:
Intelligent Design advocates disagree about the age of the earth. I've heard anywhere from 30-40,000 yearts to Ruvy's 15 billion. I don't know any YECs (Young Earth Creationists) who are in favor of Intelligent Design. (Read this commentary by Dr. Russ Moore for a few reasons why YECs don't like ID very much)
And given the information you found yourself, it's easy to dismiss the 2-3,000 year figure that you mentioned. 3500 BC plus 2006 AD equals 5506 total. Thus, even if the timeline on that site is accurate, it's advocates have to affirm an earth at least 5500 years old -- quite a ways from your 2-3000 year figure.
The point is that when you use "facts" that are so easilly dismissed, you make the rest of your arguement less reliable. If you're going to play fast and loose with what can be verified, how trustworthy is anything else you say? It goes to credibility.