The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Tim Robbins

J C wrote:

Tim Robbins
I am coming from a Roman Catholic background (long time ago now) but at the time, between very few and nobody believed either the above(Creationism).

I know of several Roman Catholics who are active World-Class Creation Scientists and many other Roman Catholics who are Creationists.

Can you name the world class creation scientists?
Also please tell us more about yourself?
What other interests do you have besides Christianity?
Where did you study Science?

J C

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you name the world class creation scientists?

As I don't know if they wish their identity to be made public I will defer naming them........but you can take my word for it that they exist!!!

Please also bear in mind that Roman Catholocism was one of the most vociferous opponents of Darwinism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries......so it shouldn't be any surprise that Creationists are still to be found within Roman Catholocism.:cool:

I also recall a project at a recent Young Scientist Exhibition, where the Evolution / Creation issue was the subject of one of the exhibits.

The exhibit presented the results of a survey of 200 twelve to sixteen year olds on their knowledge and views of Creation and Evolution.

The data presented indicated significant confusion among young people about the issue with 40% of the respondents claiming that they didn’t understand the concepts. The 60% who did claim to understand evolution and creation, were split 50:50 on whether they believed that the ‘origins mechanism’ was creation or evolution. Of the people who believed in evolution 22% didn’t know what caused it, 30% believed it to be by natural processes and 48% believed it to be controlled by God.

The 50:50 split on the Creation / Evolution issue among this group of young people, is not as high as in America, where up to 80% are Creationists. However, the number of Creationists is still surprisingly high, in view of the fact that young people in Ireland have been largely exposed to theistic and materialistic evolution, with hardly a mention of Creation Science in the popular media.
It may also be one of the reasons WHY the Pope is apparently moving towards developing a more Creationist-friendly approach to the 'origins question' within Roman Catholocism.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Also please tell us more about yourself?
What other interests do you have besides Christianity?
Where did you study Science?

Why this fascination with me, an unworthy sinner, saved by God's Grace through no merit on my part.
I am merely a vessel used by God to proclaim the good news of salvation to you all......and things must be pretty desperate, when I have been chosen to do so!!!:)

J C

jonny72 wrote:

"Paul Nelson, who can’t even get his allegedly scientific monograph which disproves common ancestry finished, let alone publish it, and who can’t even get basic concepts about evolutionary theory right (example 1, example 2 from just yesterday), has opted to stick all his half-baked arguments for special creation into a high-school textbook instead.."

Dr Paul Nelson has certainly been very busy writing and publishing papers on his diverse research interests as the following link PROVES:-:D

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Paul%20Nelson&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true

Tim Robbins

J C wrote:

As I don't know if they wish their identity to be made public I will defer naming them........but you can take my word for it that they exist!!!

That sounds very strange, Scientists not wishing to make their identity public.

Please also bear in mind that Roman Catholocism was one of the most vociferous opponents of Darwinism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries......so it shouldn't be any surprise that Creationists are still to be found within Roman Catholocism.:cool:

Disagree. You cannot maintain a universal Church with beliefs that contradict Science. If you did you would become a fringe Church quite quickly.

Why this fascination with me, an unworthy sinner.
I am merely a vessel used by God to proclaim the good news of salvation to you all......and things must be pretty desperate, when I have been chosen to do so!!!:)

I am interested in the pyschology of your brain because it is fascinating. I don't know whether you are eccentric, having a laugh or part or some creationist propaganda movement and you are testing out your material on people here.
Tell us more about your faith? Do you go shopping or play Sport on Sunday?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

I believe the world was made in 6 days.

PDN wrote:

There is a difference between not knowing if there was a creator (no evidence required to be an agnostic) and actively arguing that the universe came into being without a creator (extraordinary claim requiring evidence).

And there is a difference between both and believing the world was created in six days, for which there is very strong evidence against.

5uspect

J C wrote:

…….it is the disease-causing bug POPULATIONS that become resistant……… BECAUSE a small minority of ALREADY RESISTANT bacteria survive and build up their numbers rapidly, when the non-resistant bacteria are eliminated by the antibiotic.

J C, your hypothesis of pre-existing genetic diversity has been falsified, by evidence to the contrary from biology and by basic information theory.
This has been explained to you numerous times. Evidence has been presented to you which you then ignored.

As someone who claims to be a scientist you should accept this.
Otherwise you just continue to show yourself for what your really are:
A religious crank who obviously doesn't understand, or refused to understand the basic principles of science.

J C wrote:

Do some Materialistic Evolutionists believe that the only way that they are going to win any debate with Theistic Evolutionists / ID Proponents is by physical violence??????????

Once again you totally fail to understand a simple metaphor. Maybe thats why this thread is so long. You seem incapable of reading anything non-literally. Are you on any medication J C?

J C wrote:

Hang in there, PDN.
The harvest is great (over 70,000 hits on this thread) ……
……but the labourers are few……..
……just me and you and very few!!!!!:D

And not an iota of evidence...

Galvasean

jonny72 wrote:

Oh and the creationists are at it again, third time's a charm?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/dont_say_i_didn.html

"Paul Nelson, who can’t even get his allegedly scientific monograph which disproves common ancestry finished, let alone publish it, and who can’t even get basic concepts about evolutionary theory right (example 1, example 2 from just yesterday), has opted to stick all his half-baked arguments for special creation into a high-school textbook instead.."

Typical. Can't get your scribblings published by a reputable organization or get your ideas recognized by the scientific community? Just preach to the impressionable children!

5uspect

Galvasean wrote:

Typical. Can't get your scribblings published by a reputable organization or get your ideas recognized by the scientific community? Just preach to the impressionable children!

I dug this out:

Lawrence Krauss, New Scientist, 2507, 9 July 2005 wrote:

Scientific ideas that have become sufficiently mainstream to be taught in high school have survived a gauntlet of stringent tests. The first takes place when proposals are published in peer-reviewed journals, often resulting in severe criticisms that must be addressed. After publication the proposals must be compelling enough to prompt exploration by other researchers. If they survive perhaps 20 years of testing against evidence, they make it into high school texts. ID Proponents wish to bypass these messy steps and go directly into classrooms. Key aspects of other theories such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics remain hotly debated in the literature, yet there is no call to "teach the controversy

Of course it must be the Nazi Lesbians stopping peer review of creationist ramblings.

J C

Tim Robbins
I am interested in the psychology of your brain because it is fascinating.

As I have already said, I am a sinner, saved by God's Grace through no merit on my part.:D


Tim Robbins
I don't know whether you are eccentric, having a laugh or part or some creationist propaganda movement and you are testing out your material on people here.

None of the above!!!!:)


Tim Robbins
Tell us more about your faith? Do you go shopping or play Sport on Sunday?
My philosophy is one of moderation in all things.

I try to avoid working on Sundays or needlessly causing others to do so……..but I will do essential or incidental work on Sunday.

Jesus Christ criticised all forms of extremism, including extreme Sabbath observance in Mt 12:1-13 :-
1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.


Galvasean
Can't get your scribblings published by a reputable organization or get your ideas recognized by the scientific community? Just preach to the impressionable children!

As I have already said, most Creationists DO NOT want Creation Science taught in Public School. They are happy to have Creation Science professionally taught outside of the Public School System to PEOPLE who WISH to know about it.:cool:

The ONLY ones preaching to children in American Public Schools, are the Materialistic Evolutionists …..
……..however, they don’t seem to be very effective……
…………. even though Evolutionists have the ‘preaching monopoly’ in Public Schools, about 80% of Americans are Creationists!!!!:eek:

J C

5uspect wrote:

Of course it must be the Nazi Lesbians stopping peer review of creationist ramblings.

Creation Scientists have established their own peer-review processes, as they are quite entitled to do, because they are conventionally qualified Scientists !!!!:D

jonny72

Are there any other religions trying to force their version of creation into school textbooks?


There are so many religions out there, so many different versions of creation.


I don't hear of these other religions so enthusiastically choosing and discarding what they want from the sciences such as evolution, physics, astrophysics, geology, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, biology, zoology, chemistry, astronomy, etc just to push their own creation belief on others..

Why not? perhaps they aren't zealous enough? perhaps by some sort of natural selection of the strongest, biggest and most powerful religions in the world their's isn't near enough the top of the pile to warrant something so bold?


These sciences weren't just compiled in some ancient book, they were discovered by us, human beings, over time, slowly, gradually, through trial and error, through exploration, curiosity, wars, plagues, through necessity, through persecution, through debate, disagreement, through common sense...

Yet here we are, in the 21st century, with a two thousand year old book, written at a time when man knew little about the world and less about the mechanics of it, written at a time when there were probably thousands of different versions of how we came to be, with this book been taken as literal fact by more than a few people..

Perhaps in two thousand years L Ron Hubbards view will be in process of being forced into school textbooks, except that I think Scientologists have already seen the huge complications and contradictions in the beliefs of creationists and have wisely swept under the carpet the bit about the Galactic Lord Xenu, with the stacking of people into volcanoes and the killing with the hydrogen bombs and so on and so forth..

MooseJam

J C wrote:

…….it is the disease-causing bug POPULATIONS that become resistant……… BECAUSE a small minority of ALREADY RESISTANT bacteria survive and build up their numbers rapidly, when the non-resistant bacteria are eliminated by the antibiotic.:cool:

so they are already resistant, they have evolved previously, you do agree there are resistant bacteria and non-resistant bacteria, how is this possible ?

Tim Robbins

J C wrote:

As I have already said, I am a sinner, saved by God's Grace through no merit on my part.:D

Have you felt this way you entire life? Or are you one of these people who were atheist when younger and then changed?

Which Christian Church do you belong to?
What type of Music do you like?
Do you like any sports?
What edge did you stop believing in Santa?

5uspect

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists have established their own peer-review processes, as they are quite entitled to do, because they are conventionally qualified Scientists !!!!:D

No J C, a fringe group of cranks citing their own propaganda pamphlets is not peer review and you know that. For creationism be be accepted as anything approaching a science they will have to come up with evidence and publish it in a real scientific journal.

I've even managed to have my work published in peer reviewed journals. Its not that hard. The simple fact is that is no evidence to support the simplest of your wild claims and ultimately none of them are falsifiable.

Get over it J C.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

…………. even though Evolutionists have the ‘preaching monopoly’ in Public Schools, about 80% of Americans are Creationists!!!!:eek:

Not only do I doubt that statement, I also challenge it. Do you mean 80% of Americans believe in God? Because if so I'm sure you're probably right. However if you are actually (and from the way you phrased it it seems like you do) suggesting that 80% of Americans believe the biblical account of 6 day creation I can safely tell you that either:
a) You have your statistics mixed up
or
b) You plucked that one out of your ass.

jonny72

Galvasean wrote:

Not only do I doubt that statement, I also challenge it. Do you mean 80% of Americans believe in God? Because if so I'm sure you're probably right. However if you are actually (and from the way you phrased it it seems like you do) suggesting that 80% of Americans believe the biblical account of 6 day creation I can safely tell you that either:
a) You have your statistics mixed up
or
b) You plucked that one out of your ass.

Its about 50% believe in creationism in America, and about one third of college graduates.

Anyone know the figures in Ireland?

J C

jonny72 wrote:

Are there any other religions trying to force their version of creation into school textbooks?..

Creation Scientists AREN'T trying to FORCE anything into school textbooks.....

......and in any event the ONLY people who have the legal right to determine the content of American textbooks are the Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!:D

As I have already said, most Creationists DO NOT want Creation Science taught in Public School. They are happy to have Creation Science professionally taught outside of the Public School System to PEOPLE who WISH to know about it.:)

jonny72 wrote:

There are so many religions out there, so many different versions of creation.

I don't hear of these other religions so enthusiastically choosing and discarding what they want from the sciences such as evolution, physics, astrophysics, geology, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, biology, zoology, chemistry, astronomy, etc just to push their own creation belief on others..

That is their own business.:)

.......and BTW the 'entusiastic choosing and discarding' from the sciences is largely done by Evolutionists.....as this thread has amply demonstrated!!!:D

jonny72 wrote:

These sciences weren't just compiled in some ancient book, they were discovered by us, human beings, over time, slowly, gradually, through trial and error, through exploration, curiosity, wars, plagues, through necessity, through persecution, through debate, disagreement, through common sense.....

Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!:D

J C

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you felt this way you entire life? Or are you one of these people who were atheist when younger and then changed?

Which Christian Church do you belong to?
What type of Music do you like?
Do you like any sports?
What edge did you stop believing in Santa?

...and what did YOU have for YOUR breakfast ??

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!:D

Charles Darwin disagrees.

robindch

johnny72 wrote:

Are there any other religions trying to force their version of creation into school textbooks?

There are a few islamic fundamentalists who are following Ken Ham's act in Turkey -- the most prominent guy is one Harun Yahya (at http://www.harunyahya.com/), the pen-name of a white-suited preacher named Adnan Oktar. Yahya has been doing a lot of high-profile marketing in Europe and more recently in the USA, in the last year or so, peppering hundreds of media organizations and schools with creationist videos, pamphlets and tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies of a two volume book that he is alleged to have written entitled "The Atlas of Creation". Here in Ireland, no less a man than Kevin Myers has taken his hat off to Yahya and his hare-brained lies.

I don't believe that creationism is such an issue within other religions yet because few people have noticed what an incredible marketing opportunity it represents -- the unscrupulous selling idiocy to the gullible. It reminds me of modern art.

Expect to see more of this in the islamic world as people realise how much money you can make out of it.

jonny72

J C wrote:

As I have already said, most Creationists DO NOT want Creation Science taught in Public School. They are happy to have Creation Science professionally taught outside of the Public School System to PEOPLE who WISH to know about it.:)

There's been numerous attempts in the States

That is their own business.:)

.......and BTW the 'entusiastic choosing and discarding' from the sciences is largely done by Evolutionists.....as this thread has amply demonstrated!!!:D

Creation science is like telling someone you saw a ghost and asking them to disprove it.

Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!:D

God help the poor creationist who discovered radiocarbon dating! well he probably wasn't but wouldve been funny anyway

Tim Robbins

J C wrote:

...and what did YOU have for YOUR breakfast ??

Yesterday: Rashers and Suasages.
Today: A scone.
Yourself?

robindch

JC wrote:

even though Evolutionists have the ‘preaching monopoly’ in Public Schools, about 80% of Americans are Creationists!!!!

You're underselling yourself!

If you define a "creationist" as somebody who doesn't accept that humans arrived on this planet aided only by natural selection, then around 90% of the population of the USA are "creationists". If you define an "evolutionist" as somebody who accepts at least some of modern biology's thoughts on biology, then around 50% of the population are "evolutionists". It basically comes down to how you define the terms, and how you ask the question:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Interestingly, what is clear from the stats is that the more education you've had, the more likely you are to accept the findings of modern biology, while the more you attend religious services, the less likely you are. whih is hardly unexpected.

There's a few other interesting notes on that page too, amongst which are that 97% of religious service providers in a small survey (survey data not included) in the UK did not believe that the world was created in six days, which would indicate that the service providers are quite possibly out of touch with consumers on the matter.

The Mad Hatter

J C: Firstly, there are three dots in an elipsis. Like this: '...'. Not five, as seems to be your preferred number.

Secondly, smilies are not compelling arguments, contrary to what you seem to believe. (But then, you also seem to believe that you're winning this 'debate', so hey...)

Now,

As I have already said, most Creationists DO NOT want Creation Science taught in Public School. They are happy to have Creation Science professionally taught outside of the Public School System to PEOPLE who WISH to know about it.:cool:

That is incorrect. There have been numerous lobbies in the States to introduce creationism to science classes. Some have been successful. In any case, it is not taught to 'PEOPLE who WISH to know about it.:cool:' [your emphasis and smiley], it is taught to people who wish their children to know about it. This is worrying, because, as you are deftly proving, people brought up to believe something without question will defend it without reason.

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists have established their own peer-review processes, as they are quite entitled to do, because they are conventionally qualified Scientists !!!!:D

This is just risible. It's not a peer-review process if the scientists are selected by those propogating the 'theory'. It's like a musician only listening to his friends' opinions of his music - only rather more serious than that, because music is music and science is facts.

Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!:D

lol, what a pointless truism. Yes, modern science was largely developed by people who believed that God had created the earth, et c., but only because evolution hadn't been discovered yet.

robindch wrote:

what is clear from the stats is that the more education you've had, the more likely you are to accept the findings of modern biology, while the more you attend religious services, the less likely you are. whih is hardly unexpected.

Heh, I'm glad someone finally did a study on it. Not surprising in the least, though.

robindch

PDN wrote:

It appears obvious to me that, from a onlookers standpoint, the sun stood still in the sky. This may have been because the earth stopped revolving, or there may have been some other cause.

Good, we agree on that. But I asked you to suggest what it might mean, given that you believe that it may mean something other than what it says, and also say why the plain meaning is wrong.

The full text, including context, is here:

NIV wrote:

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel! Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

The train of events is quite clear - Joshua asked god to make the sun stop moving presumably so that Joshua could have daylight to defeat his enemies, god stopped the sun and the moon for some time, the author is amazed that god did that. Life continued. In fact, the story contains all the normal elements of a normal religious story -- a need, a deity, an intercessor, a request, a miraculous fulfillment, a conclusion.

If you want to say that the bit about the sun and moon stopping in the sky is a turn of phrase, then you must give a convincing alternate interpretation of the text (and not your thoughts on cars getting smaller when viewed from an airplane window). You must also explain why this alternate interpretation is more likely than the straightforward one, then you must explain how your alternate explanation makes sense in the context of the tale that it rests in.

Can you do this?

CiDeRmAn

Its rather tragic, as the foundations of science were laid down by muslims, christians and hindus and who knows how many others from faiths followed around the world, that we see the basic scientific method of observe, theorise, test and evaluate being perverted to sell fanciful creationist nonsense to the masses, never admitting the belief to the rigor of testing, instead disengaging any mammallian desire to explain how the world works and placing it all in the hands of a book.

Daft.

I come back to this "debate" every couple of months or so and see the same old nonsense being trotted out by the same old "creationists", I guess it'll never change. I don't reckon there's a piece if solid research, proof if you will, of evolution; stellar/galactic or biological that will not be deemed heretical by these folk.

Well, let them keep their blinkers on, once they're not hurting anyone and keep it to themselves.

Not sure if I'd like to see them being allowed to adopt though.....

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!

Galvasean
Charles Darwin disagrees.

…and all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Bible-believing scientists AGREE!!!!:eek:


Robin
… Harun Yahya (at http://www.harunyahya.com/), the pen-name of a white-suited preacher named Adnan Oktar. Yahya has been doing a lot of high-profile marketing in Europe and more recently in the USA, in the last year or so, peppering hundreds of media organizations and schools with creationist videos, pamphlets and tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies of a two volume book that he is alleged to have written entitled "The Atlas of Creation". Here in Ireland, no less a man than Kevin Myers has taken his hat off to Yahya ….

Expect to see more of this in the islamic world……

……If you define a "creationist" as somebody who doesn't accept that humans arrived on this planet aided only by natural selection, then around 90% of the population of the USA are "creationists"…..

The truth will out !!!!!:eek:

Europe, the USA, the Moslem World, the Pope and Kevin Myers……all deeply impressed by Creation Science…:D
……and the overwhelming evidence for, and logic of Creationism is ALSO deeply impressing everyone who had been exposed to it on this thread (with the notable exception of a handful of ‘fundamentalist Evolutionists’)!!!!!:eek:


Robin
97% of religious service providers in a small survey (survey data not included) in the UK did not believe that the world was created in six days, which would indicate that the service providers are quite possibly out of touch with consumers on the matter.

….IF this is true, then they may be out of touch with BOTH ‘the producer’ and ‘the consumers’ on this matter!!!!!:D


Tim Robbins
Yesterday: Rashers and Suasages.
Today: A scone.
Yourself?

I think that my personal dietary intake is (slightly) off-topic for even this mega-thread!!!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
…as you are deftly proving, people brought up to believe something without question will defend it without reason.

Yes indeed, when I was an Evolutionist I DID believe in Evolution without question and I defended it without reason……until I encountered a Creation Scientist, who rapidly demolished ALL my unfounded ideas!!!:eek:


The Mad Hatter
It's not a peer-review process if the scientists are selected by those propogating the 'theory'. It's like a musician only listening to his friends' opinions of his music

Such a criticism could possibly be made of Evolutionist peer-review…….and perhaps your ideas could be taken ‘on board’ and some (openly) Creationist Scientists could be appointed to such review committees!!!:)

In the case of Creation Science, the MAJORITY of any peer-review committee is likely to be made up of FORMER Evolutionists, thereby giving a proper balance to their deliberations ....... as well addressing your legitimate concerns in relation to this important issue!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!

The Mad Hatter
…. what a pointless truism. Yes, modern science was largely developed by people who believed that God had created the earth, et c., but only because evolution hadn't been discovered yet.

……but Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

…….so all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ WOULD have been aware of Evolution as an alternative ‘origins explanation’ ……..but they rejected it!!!!:D


Originally Posted by NIV
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel! Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

Robin
The train of events is quite clear - Joshua asked god to make the sun stop moving presumably so that Joshua could have daylight to defeat his enemies, god stopped the sun and the moon for some time, the author is amazed that god did that. Life continued. In fact, the story contains all the normal elements of a normal religious story -- a need, a deity, an intercessor, a request, a miraculous fulfillment, a conclusion.

The whole event is described from an Earth-based Frame of Reference……which is the most straightforward and appropriate Frame of Reference, given the fact that the event occurred on Earth and the target audience are Earth-bound peoples!!!!!!

Could I point out that Modern Science still routinely uses Earth-based Frames of Reference. For example, Astronomical Tables still publish ‘Sunset’ and ‘Sunrise’ timetables. We know that the sun never sets in a Space-based Frame of Reference – but it does ‘set’ and night-time comes within an Earth-based Frame of Reference!!!!:cool:

5uspect

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Modern Science was largely developed by Creationists!!!!

Galvasean
Charles Darwin disagrees.

…and all of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal who were all Bible-believing scientists AGREE!!!!:eek:

But the theory of evolution didn't exist back then J C. Just because they were uninformed about modern biology doesn't show that they by default believed the literal word of the bible. By trying to paint these scientists as creationists with the same brush you paint yourself you may as well say Moses et al. were damned because they didn't accept Jesus. Utter nonsense.

These people bear nothing in common with you and your falsified creationist views. They have the advantage of having lived too early to see the advancements in science that lead to evolution and genetics to explain their perceived ignorance.

Whats your excuse?

J C

5uspect wrote:

But the theory of evolution didn't exist back then J C......

These people ('The Fathers of Modern Science') bear nothing in common with you and your falsified creationist views. They have the advantage of having lived too early to see the advancements in science that lead to evolution and genetics to explain their perceived ignorance.

Whats your excuse?

Evolution traces it’s roots right back to Ancient Greece and probably to Babel!!!!

…….so all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ WOULD have been aware of Evolution as an alternative ‘origins explanation’ ……..but they rejected it!!!!:D

Equally, the advances in our understanding of Biology and Genetics have completely undermined the simple notion that we are Spintaneously 'Morphed' from Muck!!!!:eek: :cool:

pH

J C have you given any thought to the question of where atoms such as Iron come from?

We find these on Earth and the scientific explanation is that these atoms are created in stars, and spread when the stars explode - a process that takes millions (if not billions) of years.

May I ask once again what is the "Creation Science" explanation for the production of these heavier elements that we see here on Earth?