Right and wrong are learned cultural things. We have some genetic behaviour patterns, but in general we learn what is right and wrong in the current culture. And that can totally differ from culture to culture. We had cultures before where killing the weaker was the RIGHT part.

Human behaviour has the whole palette of all behaviours that could help the species or individuum to survive or even just to reach an advantage. Priests have a BIG advantage from being priests ...

Dooley, the cosmic microwave background radiation is always there, also at night. But it still is dark at night. Like the name says, they are just weak microwaves, which were sent after the big bang as normal light but are red shifted because of the expansion of the universe, so that they reach us as microwaves.
So the cosmic microwave background radiation is an evidence for the big bang and the expansion of the universe, not for creationism.

You are also unable to prove the existence of god, aren't you?
You can't disprove the invisible pink unicorn either. Does that mean it exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn

We've disproven big parts of the bible. We've disproven the just black and white issue, we've disproven the religious concept in general. Plus there is not a single proof for the existance of any god. That all is for me so close to disprove your god that it makes no difference to me. For me your god is disproven.

Yes true, however the earliest religions (not talking about Islam, Christianity or Judaism) do make sense in a scientific way. Worship of nature because of nature's influence on everyday life, alignment of stars indicating the coming of a new season, things like that. Needless to say, the mere appreciation of all these natural wonders caused worship and is the foundation of all religions.

In fact, by merely comparing Christianity to other older religions you can see exactly what was taken from other beliefs and turned into a new religion. Most of the biblical stories are quite likely to have been copied and in their original form had a whole different meaning. Mostly a purely astronomical, not a historical or even 'divine' meaning in the modern sense of an invisible all-powerful being behind the scenes.

No disrespect, but people that think Christianity somehow has the right answers are therefore quite hypocritical.

Cheers

Look, I'm not saying that the existence of background radiation proves the Bible, just that on this point there seems to be some evidence that there was light before the sun. Therefore the argument that the Bible is not true -because- it claims that God created light before He created the sun, is not a valid argument. There are plenty of valid arguments against the Bible, this however, is not one of them.

Hi Frank. Don't mean to pick on you, but I wanted to respond to some things in your post.



Actually, no. Each star in the sky is a light as well. They are also "suns". They may not give off enough light to see by, but they are still light producers.



I agree. However, we were talking about Bible contradictions ... and I will cover that in just a moment.



This is not true. They used to believe that all life required the sun in some fashion. I forget the scientific name for it, but they believed that plants needed the sun and creatures ate the plants and, therefore, all life needed the sun. Then we were able to begin exploring the vast deeps of the ocean. We went where the sun cannot penetrate. They expected to find a vast area totally devoid of life, but instead find an amazing abundance of life ... life that had no need for the sun at all! Their heat source was from the volcanic activity of the planet. Its nutrients were derived from chemicals in the water. This life includes both PLANT and ANIMAL life.



Actually, no. And I think this comes from possibly not understanding what a "Bible contradiction" is. I would say this is a Bible ERROR but not a CONTRADICTION. Let me try to explain.

A Bible contradiction is when the Bible says one thing in one place and then contradicts itself in another place. For example, if the Bible said that men originally had two heads (and, yes, I am making this up) and then, in another place, said that men originally had three heads, then that would be a contradiction. In other words, Bible contradictions are INTERNAL, within the Bible itself.

What you are talking about is an ERROR. When we compare the creation story with what we know from reality and science, then we find that the Bible story falls far short and, thus, cannot be taken seriously. But this is different than a Bible contradiction. And that was my point in my previous post. If all you had was the Bible (no science) and you believed that book to be true, then the concept of there being light without a sun for four days is not a contradiction. If a god-like being is assumed (and that is how the first words of the Bible start out ... with the assumption of a god) then creating light without a sun would be plausible.

Now, if we want to talk about creation story contradictions in the Bible, then we can compare Genesis chapter one to Genesis chapter two.

A bit depending on what's being described, even without the assumption of a God it makes sense; suns basically come and go in our universe, of course our sun isn't the only one, it's simply the closest.

Cheers

Both positions take a leap of faith. Whether you believe in God or not. When I look at the facts of this universe, I cannot help but see an intelligent design. This lead me to seek out a religion, not the other way around.

You, on the other hand, prefer to see the universe as a result of chance. You cannot prove that it was chance, but you believe it was.

But that is the issue, isn't it? If god wanted himself to be known, loved and worshiped by his creation, then there should not be an equal chance of it being either chance that we are here or a result of his divine creation. It should not require a "leap of faith" at all. It requires as much of a leap of faith to believe in any of the myriad of deities (or even one that I could create on the spur of the moment) as it does to believe in the god of the Bible or the god of the Qu'ran. In this case, lack of proof is as much evidence as proof.

You see, the problem is that many religions claim that they are the one, true way and that all others are false. They claim that their god desires to be known and worshiped. However, the god of these religions refuses to make himself known, demands a "leap of faith" and then punishes anyone who would dare refuse to take this irrational leap.

Let's talk about "faith" for a moment. Faith, in and of itself, is worthless. Faith is ONLY as good as the object in which it is placed. If I have absolute faith that I can fly if I leap off a building, then that faith will prove itself to be worthless once I come crashing into the pavement. Faith, therefore, must have evidence ... something that validates it. You give credence to your faith via the known universe. In it, you see "intelligent design" and, as a result, you take a leap to a divine creator. However, your thinking could be faulty. Why is a divine creator any more plausible than, say, an advanced alien race coming here and planting life? And, no, I don't believe that myself, but why is it any less likely? Why does one man look at what is all around us and he sees design while another man does not? Is one man really so blind? Or is it the other that is blind?

I rejected the Bible because I saw that I could not place my faith in it. The errors of that book, the contradictions within ... they validated that I could not trust the book and, as a result, I could not trust the god portrayed therein. I admit that I don't know a lot about the Qu'ran, however I am inclined to think the same way about it and its god.

Please understand, Dooley, it is not my intention to be mean spirited. I understand that you believe the Qu'ran and in its god. However, anything that requires a leap of faith is not valid. As pointed out, such a leap renders faith worthless.