How many creationists...

[MarkFL]

...does it take to change a light bulb?

None...they've invented the torch.

The opinion expressed in this riddle are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Christianity Haven.

 

[MS140ukn]

:birgits_giggle:

 

[psalms 91]

and led lights:lol:

 

[tango]

...does it take to change a light bulb?

None...they've invented the torch.

The opinion expressed in this riddle are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Christianity Haven.

Does that mean that evolutionists...

...continue to sit in the dark waiting for a torch to form all by itself?

 

[MarkFL]

Does that mean that evolutionists...

...continue to sit in the dark waiting for a torch to form all by itself?

No, those who accept scientific facts...

...agree that fire is not alive. op2:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

 

[MarkFL]

During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, one morning's executions began with three men: a rabbi, a priest, and a rationalist skeptic.

The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, "I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me." The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim's neck. To which the rabbi said, "I told you so."

"It's a miracle!" gasped the crowd. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go.

Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, "I believe in Jesus Christ the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost who will rescue me in my hour of need." The executioner then positioned this man beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward thump! creak! ...stopping just short of its mark once more.

"Another miracle!" sighed the disappointed crowd. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free.

Now it was the skeptic's turn. "What final words have you to say?" he was asked. But the skeptic didn't hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply.

"Oh, I see your problem," the skeptic said pointing. "You've got a blockage in the gear assembly, right there!"

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

A blockage caused by a loving and caring God, of course!

 

[TurtleHare]

...does it take to change a light bulb?

None...they've invented the torch.

The opinion expressed in this riddle are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Christianity Haven.

I don't get it.

 

[MarkFL]

I don't get it.

Light bulbs came about because of the study of and application of certain laws of physics (electrodynamics), with physics being the foundation of the natural sciences. This joke implies that creationists would not use something whose invention relied on an understanding of science because they don't accept science.

 

[Josiah]

I know of NOTHING in science that indicates God is not the Creator..... I know of NOTHING that remotely even suggests that.

Yes, "science" does ATTEMPT to address the issue of how.... but that does not even address the issue of who.

I have two nieces whom I love. I believe GOD created them and gave them life.... my (admittedly limited) knowledge of biology suggests to me that God used some means, some process to accomplish this but that makes those girls no less HIS work, HIS gift, HIS creation.

I know of NOTHING in science that remotely even suggests there is no God or that God is not the Creator. ONLY some who point to science to ATTEMPT to support their OWN baseless denial.... but only show that science never remotely so suggests; their attempts to point to science to support their position only helps reveal the baselessness of their denial.

Now, I'd agree, pointing to science also does not NECESSARILY prove the existence of God or that God is the Creator.... but then science can't prove love or a lot of other things I believe are very real. And I am aware that science itself seems aware that there are realities beyond itself (as in theories of pre-Big Bang, etc., etc., etc.). To limit all reality to what science currently "understands" or even attempts to address is to make self an Ostrich, IMO. I'm sure you disagree, Mark. I'm okay with that.



Blessings.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I know of NOTHING in science that indicates God is not the Creator..... I know of NOTHING that remotely even suggests that.

Science addresses those thing for which there is evidence, from which testable models and hypotheses can be formulated. Since there is no evidence for a creator, it is a useless proposition in science.

Yes, "science" does ATTEMPT to address the issue of how.... but that does not even address the issue of who.

If the issue of "who" ever becomes a valid scientific question, I am sure it will be addressed.

I have two nieces whom I love. I believe GOD created them and gave them life.... my (admittedly limited) knowledge of biology suggests to me that God used some means, some process to accomplish this but that makes those girls no less HIS work, HIS gift, HIS creation.

You are entitled to your own faith-based beliefs. However, such beliefs are of no real value in getting to useful testable information.

I know of NOTHING in science that remotely even suggests there is no God or that God is not the Creator. ONLY some who point to science to ATTEMPT to support their OWN baseless denial.... but only show that science never remotely so suggests; their attempts to point to science to support their position only helps reveal the baselessness of their denial.

My atheism is driven by my skepticism of beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence. I do not hold the position that there is no god or gods. I simply realize there is no reason to accept this claim. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not on those who do not accept the claim.

Suppose you and I are celebrating New Year's Eve in Times Square. I turn to you and say "The number of people here is an even number." You would naturally doubt that claim, but that doesn't mean you are asserting the number is odd. You are simply saying we do not have enough evidence to make any kind of claim regarding the parity of the number of people.

Now, I'd agree, pointing to science also does not NECESSARILY prove the existence of God or that God is the Creator.... but then science can't prove love or a lot of other things I believe are very real. And I am aware that science itself seems aware that there are realities beyond itself (as in theories of pre-Big Bang, etc., etc., etc.). To limit all reality to what science currently "understands" or even attempts to address is to make self an Ostrich, IMO. I'm sure you disagree, Mark. I'm okay with that.

Blessings.

- Josiah

Science is a dynamic and self-correcting system. If god or gods is what we use to "explain" that which we currently do not understand, then that belief is relegated to an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

I posted the initial joke as a friendly jab at young-Earth creationists who deny mountains of evidence from cosmology, geology and biology which clearly demonstrates they are simply wrong. These branches of science do not say there is no god or gods, they simply demonstrate that claims made by young-Earth creationists are invalid.

 

[Romanos]

Let's not get into a debate here please. Please utilize the respective forum.