Man-ofGod vs Evolution, etc.

[curiosityandthecat]

It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[Man-ofGod]

Good question. In this case, I'm the guy who's right and you're making this really easy. Every definition you supplied is wrong. It's that simple. Astronomers and Cosmologists don't even wallow in the definition of Big Bang as an explosion. It, like so many other analogies used to describe complex things, is a faulty analogy.

It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Or here, where you get the correct definition of Big Bang Cosmology: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

As for the second link, it takes you to an online biology glossary published by the Estrella Mountain Community College. Don't know that college, and it might be good, but their online biology glossary gives an incorrect definition of Big Bang. Again, it's that simple.

Same deal for your last link, MOG. Won't even bother repeating it.



This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.
[

Really? Why does he bring it up? And no, it was not a common nickname. The common nickname has always been the Helix Nebula. Its actual designation is NGC 7293.



I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

The rest of your post is as pointless as your initial posts and shows your lack of veracity. You don't even know what a theory is or does, or you would not have posed those questions. And you do not dictate that I answer your questions before you answer mine, MOG. Additionally, I didn't ask you to answer mine from the start, but other people who posted long well though-out messages to you.

Waste no more time with this. I know I won't. But if you continue to troll, you're going to be banned.

If anyone else would like to pick this up and explain basic science, please do so.

Edit to add: I was in a huge hurry typing this post and had to leave it to go pick up my son. I ended it hastily, so to clarify one thing...

I do not debate with creationists for the exact reasons demonstrated by MOG. I broke the rule in this thread to keep it on track, but it is pointless to try to do so. It is obvious that for one thing, MOG has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and that he also has no intention of trying to learn why he is wrong.
Again, the main reason I no longer engage in discussion or debate with creationists about either cosmic origins or evolution.

All I see is excuses here.  Its obvious that science does not care how people come to believe in evolution or the BigBang.  The fact remains that this definition is being taught in schools.  Furthermore, it really makes no difference,  its still a hypothesis, not a theory.  The very name  "Big Bang" in itself also will tell you a little of what the initial implications were of the theory.  So your accusations are not relevant, and again are petty in light of the overall definition of the Big Bang.  Call it just expansion if you want (btw, cosmologist adjusted the theory to account for the uniform temperatures in the universe, and this part of the new hypothesis is flawed as well), its still the same premise.  Does anyone on this forum have the guts to admit that this is how they came to know the Big Bang?  I doubt it.  But to satisfy anyones curiosity on whether science ever called it an explosion,

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt < title of this article is "MOST POWERFUL EXPLOSION SINCE THE BIG BANG"

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/ ... l/cobe.htm -

A Single Explosion

COBE's first test of the theory showed that 99.97 percent of the energy of the Universe was released in the first year after the Big Bang. This suggests that only one explosion "the Big Bang" created the Universe. NASA researchers determined this by measuring the spectrum of cosmic background radiation, which is the Big Bang afterglow that exists all around us. According to predictions, the background radiation should have a "blackbody" spectrum unless there were major energy releases more than a year after the explosion. COBE found this spectrum precisely as it was predicted.

Recently, we know that the definition has changed to suit the apparent errors in the original theory.  Interesting how this so called established"theory" needs so many adjustments.  In fact, it is not a theory at all, just a hypothesis.(belief).


Your frustration is a natural response to things that cannot be explained.  You cannot answer the questions I posted below, as a result you lash out in anger.  No one can, you devoted yourself to this belief on the presumption that it was a fact.  And now someone who probably does not have the scientific credentials you have, is exposing this fallacy.

You call it trolling, yet no one can answer the question.  Not one, including you.  You will ban me before the question is ever answered, I GAURENTEE (and you will be doing what every other evolutionist does to people who express a view contrary to evolution. This type of behavior is very similar to a cult).  So again, I ask, when did evolution and the Big Bang ever go from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Look forward to your ban/reply, whatever.

[curiosityandthecat]

Okay. I gotta step in for McQ, here.

Excuses? Excuses? MoG, you don't understand science. You even use the word "science" in a way that carries an air of conspiracy or "new world order" cynicism. I'll break it down for you.

We notice something.
We ask questions about it.
We propose answers to those questions.
We test those answers as best we can.
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent.

Now, here's where it gets tricky:

**NEW INFORMATION APPEARS**
We notice something (and new information).
We ask questions about it (in light of new information).
We purpose new answer in light of new information (could be same answer as before).
We test those answers as best we can (in light of new information).
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent (in light of new information).[/list]

There is no conspiracy. No one is making "excuses" to get a certain thing taught to children or agreed upon by everyone. It is simply, inasfar as current technology and observation will allow, the best answer that makes the most sense based on the evidence.

Now, here's something else that you don't seem to get: people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and the other cutting edge astrophysicists are way, way more educated on these matters than any of us here. I GUARANTEE it. The reason we get frustrated is not because we are arguing for something that isn't accurate, its' simply that we (at least, I'm speaking for myself) have neither the resources nor the time to defend something we (and 99% of the scientific community) sees as simple fact with people who make it a point to nitpick every little unexplained thing. Remember, these things are unexplained because we are (by and large) using layman's terms and not because they are, in fact, unexplained. Do you know what the Higgs boson is? I mean, do you really know? Sure, you can do a 90 second Google search or read the Wikipedia page and parrot what information you find, but are you trying to learn with honesty and integrity, or just trying to make a point?  That's all I've seen happen here. McQ has tried to inject some of that honesty and integrity, but it has fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

I don't know everything about the big bang. I don't even like that term. It's misleading. What I do know is that when NASA or the people in CERN say something on the topic, I'm going to believe them, just as much as I believe my doctor when she tells me something about my health. Occasionally there is a technological or theoretical breakthrough and they have (see above) NEW INFORMATION with which to work. When that happens, yes, the theory changes slightly. That's the beauty of the scientific method: it allows for malleability.

A hypothesis is a belief (you're right in that much) that is untested. You take that hypothesis and run it through the model I typed out above. If the hypothesis is proven false, you discard it, as it's obviously worthless. If there's something to it, you take your results, change the hypothesis a little bit, and try it again. You repeat. You repeat. You repeat. Eventually, when (by using the information and resources available to you) you have come to reach the same answer repeatedly and consistently, you now have a working theory. Theories are imperfect, but they're more than simply a belief.

Even the law of gravity gets wonky when you start getting very, very large, or very, very small. These are simply human words used to express something that existed well before our tiny little minds. Don't get hung up on them.

Those who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

[McQ]

Colossal, willful ignorance on a grand scale, MOG. As in you...the Paragon of. Typical straw men yet again, all through your post. You even ascribe anger to me. That's as laughable as everything else you post. I can't say it any better than Curio, so I'll leave it at that, since I certainly can't stand up against your revelations of all the conspiracies and cover ups that science has engaged in over the centuries. We finally got caught.

Damn.

To quote someone near and dear to me, "This conversation can serve no purpose anymore."

 

[Man-ofGod]

Okay. I gotta step in for McQ, here.

Excuses? Excuses? MoG, you don't understand science. You even use the word "science" in a way that carries an air of conspiracy or "new world order" cynicism. I'll break it down for you.

We notice something.
We ask questions about it.
We propose answers to those questions.
We test those answers as best we can.
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent.

Now, here's where it gets tricky:

**NEW INFORMATION APPEARS**
We notice something (and new information).
We ask questions about it (in light of new information).
We purpose new answer in light of new information (could be same answer as before).
We test those answers as best we can (in light of new information).
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent (in light of new information).[/list]

There is no conspiracy. No one is making "excuses" to get a certain thing taught to children or agreed upon by everyone. It is simply, inasfar as current technology and observation will allow, the best answer that makes the most sense based on the evidence.

Now, here's something else that you don't seem to get: people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and the other cutting edge astrophysicists are way, way more educated on these matters than any of us here. I GUARANTEE it. The reason we get frustrated is not because we are arguing for something that isn't accurate, its' simply that we (at least, I'm speaking for myself) have neither the resources nor the time to defend something we (and 99% of the scientific community) sees as simple fact with people who make it a point to nitpick every little unexplained thing. Remember, these things are unexplained because we are (by and large) using layman's terms and not because they are, in fact, unexplained. Do you know what the Higgs boson is? I mean, do you really know? Sure, you can do a 90 second Google search or read the Wikipedia page and parrot what information you find, but are you trying to learn with honesty and integrity, or just trying to make a point?  That's all I've seen happen here. McQ has tried to inject some of that honesty and integrity, but it has fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

I don't know everything about the big bang. I don't even like that term. It's misleading. What I do know is that when NASA or the people in CERN say something on the topic, I'm going to believe them, just as much as I believe my doctor when she tells me something about my health. Occasionally there is a technological or theoretical breakthrough and they have (see above) NEW INFORMATION with which to work. When that happens, yes, the theory changes slightly. That's the beauty of the scientific method: it allows for malleability.

A hypothesis is a belief (you're right in that much) that is untested. You take that hypothesis and run it through the model I typed out above. If the hypothesis is proven false, you discard it, as it's obviously worthless. If there's something to it, you take your results, change the hypothesis a little bit, and try it again. You repeat. You repeat. You repeat. Eventually, when (by using the information and resources available to you) you have come to reach the same answer repeatedly and consistently, you now have a working theory. Theories are imperfect, but they're more than simply a belief.

Even the law of gravity gets wonky when you start getting very, very large, or very, very small. These are simply human words used to express something that existed well before our tiny little minds. Don't get hung up on them.

Those who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

[Sophus]

Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

This is your response?   ....... Seriously?  

[Squid]

Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

Who fed you this crap?

[Man-ofGod]

Those who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.  

During the time of Nazi Germany, the collective thought was to blame the Jews for all the economic problems in Germany, and that lead to the holocaust.  When you look at these events in hind site, we often say "I would never have done what the Germans did."  But if you grew up in that time, chances are we all would have.  I see these same thought patterns cultivating in pop culture, in the movie theater (and not just the more obvious movies that been out recently, but in entertaining movies with a subtle message against Christians), television, news, politics, and the internet.  For example,  right wing somehow became synonymous with Christianity when everyone should know that this has been a tool used by the republicans and democrats to win votes (although a large amount of Christians do not vote republican).  

So to bring things back into focus, evolution/Big bang and these beliefs should be recognized as such.  How can science explain things of the past, thats historical science and can never be proven.  Besides, creationism fits with the same evidence that now exist. Its just a matter of where your belief lies, in evolution and the BigBang, or in the Bible.  Thats all that separates the two.

[curiosityandthecat]

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in God and Jesus as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Bible has never made a major contribution to science, neither has Creationism. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Fixed it for you.

[Man-ofGod]

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in God and Jesus as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Bible has never made a major contribution to science, neither has Creationism. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Fixed it for you.

No argument there.  Although there is a contribution that comes from the Bible, but thats really not he point I want to make here.  

Point is, creationist know its a belief, evolutionist do not.

[curiosityandthecat]

Someone want to field that one? I'm busy eating pizza and shooting hookers. Or I can do it later. Whatever.

[Sophus]

I'll take it  

Point is, creationist know its a belief, evolutionist do not.

Uhh.... ever heard of Epistemological Nihilism? Anyways...

"All generalizations are false... including this one." ~ Samuel Clemens

I am well aware belief in the big band theory is a belief. However it remains a theory. Gravity, too is a theory. Do you know the definition of "theory"?

By believing in something (at least for me anyways) it doesn't mean that I'm hidebound; completely certain X is true, without any doubt. Belief does not necessarily equate to fact in the owner's mind. To me my beliefs mean what I currently think is most likely/reasonable given what I currently know. They're out of my cognitive control. What I believe may change as new information is presented.

[Hitsumei]

Facts, and knowledge are themselves beliefs. We are not privy to absolutes, so everything we think we know could be false, it isn't impossible. I merely contend that my beliefs happen to be justified, whether they turn out to be false or not. I was justified in believing it taking into account the evidence available to me at the time.

I contend that creationism is not only unjustified, but completely counter to the evidence. Pointing out that knowledge is not absolute, and it is not impossible that it turn out to be false in no way makes all beliefs equally justified, or on the same playing field. They may be both beliefs, but one explains, and is supported by all the available evidence, and the other explains nothing, and is completely counter to the available evidence.

It isn't impossible that my dog created the universe, and is an omnipotent deity, pretending to be a normal dog -- this fact does not render believing that my dog is the creator of the universe reasonable.

[joeactor]

I am well aware belief in the big band theory is a belief.

I thought Professor Tommy Dorsey proved the Big Band Theory?  

This thread's been Godwinned.

Hypothesis.  Theory.   Fact.
The bible is none of these.
I will allow that it does contain some facts.
But no more than the Odyssey, War and Peace, Harry Potter, Angels and Demons, Moby Dick, etc.

Why are you guys still at this?

(wait, what am I doing here?),
JoeActor

[PipeBox]

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.  

Holy expletive, Batman.   The Theory of Evolution as well as the Big Bang Theory are both fully substantiated as scientific theories.  This isn't hard to understand, especially evolutionary theory, where every post we've made on the topic has apparently been ignored.  But hey, let's make it really simple.  Do you agree that the universe is expanding?  Do you agree the rate of expansion is increasing?  Do you agree that the visible universe has a nearly-uniform blackbody radiation, even in the absence of large heating structures?  The last one is important, because it means the universe, the whole universe, was once nearly in thermal equilibrium, and you cannot achieve that over extremely large distances without much greater amounts of time.  Now, we would start winding back the clock and see the universe get smaller and smaller, but it could be claimed that it wasn't always expanding, but the WMAP survey of blackbody radiation indicates the universe must have been far more compact once.  It doesn't just kinda corroborate it, the prediction for what we would see if the universe was much more compact matches the actual observation.  The Big Bang Theory does not actually tell us where the universe came from.  It explains the current body of information by proposing early states of the universe based on evidence.  It does make testable predictions, such as blackbody radiation, and it also gives us a lower limit for the beginning of our universe.  It does not give us medicine, nor contribute directly to technology, except maybe in the development of testing apparatuses, but then, anthropology doesn't contribute to either of these things, either.  Neither does paleontology.  Neither does astronomy.

If you agree with the premises I listed earlier, you agree with Big Bang Theory.  If you don't, I should like to see you explain how you consider it reasonable to ignore the supporting evidence.

Now, do you agree that mutation happens?  And natural selection?  Would you agree that more basal forms appear the deeper we go into the fossil record?  Would you agree that continuous, slow change is possible down any given line of descent?  Would you agree that there is no genetic limit imposed on this change?  Guess what deals with all of this, along with all the morphological, anatomical, and developmental similarities (IE, why trees are so similar in their basic structure and the backbone is popular with everything that possesses a skeleton) throughout various lifeforms.  Evolution.  Again, if you object with the premise, I would like to hear why.  I think you just don't like the words, and are of the opinion that admitting, or dare I say accepting, the solidity of the theories would hurt your position.  It would not.  You can still tease us about the prime causes, but it's pretty evident to anyone who dares to look objectively at the evidence what is going on.

In fact, the only way to avoid these conclusions is either to invoke an unknown natural component, which you have no honest reason to assume is a given (and if we were to discover that, we'd all update), or to invoke a supernatural intervention so that it only looks like these natural processes take place.  And this is science, where we don't do either of those and get a pass.

So to bring things back into focus, evolution/Big bang and these beliefs should be recognized as such.  How can science explain things of the past, thats historical science and can never be proven.  Besides, creationism fits with the same evidence that now exist. Its just a matter of where your belief lies, in evolution and the BigBang, or in the Bible.  Thats all that separates the two.

Right, just like we can never prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed someone.  Sure, we might find a person who has gunshot residue on their hands, and who has a motive, and who has no alibi, or we may find DNA evidence in the case of a rape (which we would use the same testing and comparative methods used to demonstrate how like chimps we are), but we weren't there, we didn't observe the process of the murder or rape, we can't know it happened!  This is ridiculous, and likewise, saying God created the murder scene in situ, ex nihilo is also a valid philosophical objection.  You can't say God didn't do it!

Creationism only accounts for all the evidence when you discard many of the observations.  Creationism does not explain why we see stars that are so old, nor can it cope with radioactive dating, nor the well-ordered fossil layer (no Permian era poodles).  It's only claim is God wants it to look that way, but it's totally not indicative of how it went down.  The Bible is indicative of how it went down and all the contrary evidence is just fluff that man cannot claim to understand.

You have nothing but your desire for the stories of the Bible to be true backing you.  Nothing.  You can keep your belief in Christ the redeemer and the loving God and many of the possibly historical odds and ends of the Bible if you like, but some of it, like the creation myth, is wrong, outside of an allegorical interpretation.  Please, be courageous and accept the this.  Please.