The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Then why do you support Creationists like JC and their campaign to destroy modern science? Is that not exactly what you claim to not see the point in?

This is quite surreal. Maybe you could tell me how, precisely, I am supporting a campaign to destroy modern science? Such paranoia is quite amusing to me.

Ekancone

PDN wrote:

This is quite surreal. Maybe you could tell me how, precisely, I am supporting a campaign to destroy modern science? Such paranoia is quite amusing to me.

Well apparantly you support JC on his arguments (im not here long enough to know that) so if you do you support this so-called Creation 'Science'. I would regard that campaign, especially regarding their wish to have this allowed in science classes in public school, as an attack on modern science.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

This is quite surreal. Maybe you could tell me how, precisely, I am supporting a campaign to destroy modern science? Such paranoia is quite amusing to me.

Just as daithifleming said.

The goal of Creationism is to destroy modern science, since the methods and practices of modern science conflict with how they wish to view the world, and more importantly how they wish others to view the world.

By supporting Creationism, specifically this idea that all theories of the natural world have validity and should be taught and explored until they are "proven" false (and since God cannot be proven false this leads to God being explored by science for ever), you support this campaign to destroy the foundations of modern science.

I appreciate that you may not have initially understood that this is what you were doing, but after hundreds of pages on this thread you really have no excuse for claiming ignorance now.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, while I don't always agree with all JC's interpretation of the Bible, I think he honestly believes it to mean what he says it means. People should be allowed a diversity of opinion without being compared to those who are trying to make dishonest financial gain. But then again, I'm a tolerant kind of a chap who doesn't see the point in hounding and ridiculing someone until they promise to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day.

Ah, and we are, by implication? Do bear in mind that JC comes here of his own free will to attempt to convert us. Certainly we ridicule him, but many of his ideas are, from a scientific point of view, utterly ridiculous - or some word meaning the same thing, but in spades.

I'd accept your point that he is sincere in what he believes, and to you, no doubt, that's what's important - at the end of the day, JC is a good Christian, if a little hung up on some odd ideas.

To others, the damaging effects that well-funded Creationist claims have on science are what's important - because the world has a number of urgent problems that can only be diagnosed and remedied through the application of science to public life.

An analogy might be a cancer patient being urged not to listen to "conventional" doctors, but to trust to faith alone. Your place in that analogy is to one side, smiling tolerantly and commending the sincerity of the believers, despite the harm they are urging - as it appears to be here.

I presume you don't see things that way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Just as daithifleming said.

The goal of Creationism is to destroy modern science, since the methods and practices of modern science conflict with how they wish to view the world, and more importantly how they wish others to view the world.

By supporting Creationism, specifically this idea that all theories of the natural world have validity and should be taught and explored until they are "proven" false (and since God cannot be proven false this leads to God being explored by science for ever), you support this campaign to destroy the foundations of modern science.

I appreciate that you may not have initially understood that this is what you were doing, but after hundreds of pages on this thread you really have no excuse for claiming ignorance now.

First of all, daithifleming is incorrect to say that I support JC in his arguments. What I have done is to occasionally point out flaws in some of the attacks on JC from other posters. Also I have asked questions, which apparently are judged by others not to be the 'right' questions (shades of Galileo and the Inquisition here, I think).

At no point have I supported the teaching of creationism in schools, and I have, on several occasions, stressed that biblical Christianity is perfectly compatible with believing in both an old earth and in evolution. I have hinted occasionally at my own beliefs on these matters without ever, as far as I remember, arguing dogmatically for or against evolution or creationism.

I support no campaign to have scientists exploring the existence of God. I believe that God's existence is a philosophical and theological question and that scientists are generally poorly equipped or educated to undertake any such investigation.

Your post appears to be arguing that, since I believe in God, I am therefore somehow necessarily guilty of supporting an attack on science. Is that really what you are saying?

As for reading hundreds of pages of this thread, you must be joking if you expect me to read all that crap. I've read a few pages and that is enough for me. I see a harmless guy with some unorthodox views, and a host of others who can't tolerate someone thinking differently from themselves. Don't start trying to include me in your little witch hunt.

He's not harmless if he's spreading lies. If this was a very private debate it would be fine, but it's not really. Scofflaw sums it up

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

He's not harmless if he's spreading lies. If this was a very private debate it would be fine, but it's not really. Scofflaw sums it up

Ah well, that all depends on who defines what as lies.

There are those who think that every Christian is spreading lies. I personally think much of what is posted on these boards (including the buddhism board) is untrue, but I'm tolerant enough not to get my knickers in a twist over the beliefs of others.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah, and we are, by implication? Do bear in mind that JC comes here of his own free will to attempt to convert us. Certainly we ridicule him, but many of his ideas are, from a scientific point of view, utterly ridiculous - or some word meaning the same thing, but in spades.

Yes, and JC does seem happy to keep this whole thread going, doesn't he? You are free to ridicule his ideas, but to compare him to a moneygrabbing medieval Pope is to imply a selfish motive that I don't see in JC.

I'd accept your point that he is sincere in what he believes, and to you, no doubt, that's what's important - at the end of the day, JC is a good Christian, if a little hung up on some odd ideas.

No, the issue of him being "a good Christian" is neither here nor there, I would feel exactly the same if a Buddhist was being falsely accused of selfish motives.

To others, the damaging effects that well-funded Creationist claims have on science are what's important - because the world has a number of urgent problems that can only be diagnosed and remedied through the application of science to public life.

An analogy might be a cancer patient being urged not to listen to "conventional" doctors, but to trust to faith alone. Your place in that analogy is to one side, smiling tolerantly and commending the sincerity of the believers, despite the harm they are urging - as it appears to be here.

Aah, I see where you're coming from. Creationists are hindering scientific progress because, presumably, if we could enforce a 100% belief in evolution then suddenly we'll start discovering all kinds of new cures for cancer or AIDS?

Your analogy only holds valid if you accept the premise that Creationists are somehow stopping vital research from taking place. I don't see it that way. Creationism and evolutionism argue about what happened many years ago. That may be interesting, but hardly vital to finding cures for diseases etc.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Also I have asked questions, which apparently are judged by others not to be the 'right' questions (shades of Galileo and the Inquisition here, I think).
...
I see a harmless guy with some unorthodox views, and a host of others who can't tolerate someone thinking differently from themselves. Don't start trying to include me in your little witch hunt.

PDN your insistence that you don't support JC or his cause, while continuously branding those that seek to oppose his cause, and the cause of Creationism, as on a witch hunt, does not add up.

If you oppose the teaching of Creationism, or any other non-scientific nonsense, then you to are on the same "witch hunt" as the rest of us.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Aah, I see where you're coming from. Creationists are hindering scientific progress because, presumably, if we could enforce a 100% belief in evolution then suddenly we'll start discovering all kinds of new cures for cancer or AIDS?

Your analogy only holds valid if you accept the premise that Creationists are somehow stopping vital research from taking place. I don't see it that way. Creationism and evolutionism argue about what happened many years ago. That may be interesting, but hardly vital to finding cures for diseases etc.

Actually it is.

Firstly Creationists have attempted, in Europe and America, to change the very formal definition of science with regard to public eduction, to fit their agenda. Forget evolution, forget biology. That effects the entire realm of science education and how future generations learn about science.

Secondly, as has often been stated here, modern biology (which includes modern medicine) is founded on the theories of evolution. Remove the theories of evolution and you remove modern biology/medicine. It is as simple as that.

Now do you understand what is at stake?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Biology_can_reasonably_be_taught_without_evolution

PDN

PDN wrote:

Ah well, that all depends on who defines what as lies.

There are those who think that every Christian is spreading lies. I personally think much of what is posted on these boards (including the buddhism board) is untrue, but I'm tolerant enough not to get my knickers in a twist over the beliefs of others.

Considering I'm clearly not "getting my knickers in a twist", have said I wouldn't care if it was a private matter, and would not consider converting anyone from a belief system to another[particularly not buddhism], I don't like you lumping every non-christian into the same "they're persecuting us" or whatever, group.
"I've read every book and paper ever published on evolution" is a lie, plain and simple
So are various other things he says, debate on evolution in general aside

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

PDN your insistence that you don't support JC or his cause, while continuously branding those that seek to oppose his cause, and the cause of Creationism, as on a witch hunt, does not add up.

If you oppose the teaching of Creationism, or any other non-scientific nonsense, then you to are on the same "witch hunt" as the rest of us.

The old "If you're not with us then you're against us" argument. Have we learnt nothing from history?

I simply stated that it is inaccurate and unfair to attribute base and selfish motives to a person because he holds (apparently sincerely) unorthodox beliefs. Your hysterical allegation that I am thereby supporting a campaign to destroy modern science is certainly the language of witch-hunters.

Is it really so terrible for me to suggest that JC should be treated fairly? I do not believe that JC's opinions are so dangerous that therefore it is justified to use any means possible to attack him. I'm sorry if that appears to you to consitute a campaign to attack modern science, but I think that says more about you than it does about me.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

I don't like you lumping every non-christian into the same "they're persecuting us" or whatever, group.

Could you please show me where I said anything that stated or implied that?

PDN

PDN wrote:

Could you please show me where I said anything that stated or implied that?

Well, unless "I think much is untrue too but I'm tolerant and not getting my knickers in a twist" as a reply to me was completely unconnected to me...?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Actually it is.

Firstly Creationists have attempted, in Europe and America, to change the very formal definition of science with regard to public eduction, to fit their agenda. Forget evolution, forget biology. That effects the entire realm of science education and how future generations learn about science.

Secondly, as has often been stated here, modern biology (which includes modern medicine) is founded on the theories of evolution. Remove the theories of evolution and you remove modern biology/medicine. It is as simple as that.

Now do you understand what is at stake?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Biology_can_reasonably_be_taught_without_evolution

Your link (evoWiki.org? :rolleyes: ) appears to make the following argument:
1. Evolutionary theory states that man and animals are related and therefore share similar features.
2. These similar features allow us to conduct tests and develop procedures on animals that can be later used on humans and thus save lives.
3. Therefore belief in evolution is essential to continued medical advances.

Of course this argument completely ignores the fact that Galen of Pergamum was engaged in animal experimentation for the purpose of improving medical knowledge 1600 years before Darwin. Galen deliberately chose animals (such as Barbary apes) that he judged to be most similar to humans. So, it is clear that one did not have to be evolutionist to pursue medical advances on the basis of similarities between humans and animals.

It looks like the Creationists are not the only ones who are prepared to tell a few porkies to advance their cause.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

Well, unless "I think much is untrue too but I'm tolerant and not getting my knickers in a twist" as a reply to me was completely unconnected to me...?

What are you talking about? I was referring to all those who get annoyed at JC, and get annoyed at me because I can happily tolerate JC's right to hold and express his opinions.

Just how that can be construed as lumping every non-christian into the same "they're persecuting us" or whatever, group is beyond me. Lots of non-Christians are well able to accept the fact that others can disagree with them, and indeed can hold rather unusual beliefs, without feeling they need to launch a crusade over the issue.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I simply stated that it is inaccurate and unfair to attribute base and selfish motives to a person because he holds (apparently sincerely) unorthodox beliefs.

And as has been pointed out, that isn't why base and selfish motives were attributed to JC.

In all your huff and bluff about "witch hunts" and "unorthodox beliefs" you are actually doing the very thing you complain about.

You think people are going after JC and Creationists because he is a radical thinker, or someone who won't conform to what society tells him to believe. That is nonsense.

If that is all Creationists like JC do no one here would give two hoots about it.

In your rush to dismiss posters here as fanatical and one a "witch hunt" you are not bothering to actually understand why objections are being made. By your own admission you haven't read most of this thread.

PDN wrote:

Is it really so terrible for me to suggest that JC should be treated fairly?

You aren't suggesting JC be treated fairly. You are asserting that there is a witch hunt out to get him. It is a classic straw man argument. You now have everyone debating whether or not it is fair to have a witch hunt out against JC, and the fact that there is nothing of the sort out to get JC has been quietly left behind.

You complain about hysteria on one side, while ignoring your own hysterical use of phrases such as "witch hunt" and "any means possible to attack"

When someone says JC lies about science and evidence you launch into a response as if someone has just claimed all Christians lie, another Straw man argument. Where the heck did that come from?

You appear to have an agenda to paint any legitimate criticism and concern as something part of a wider anti-Christian tirade

This has been going on for a number of your posts and it gets very tiresome.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

When someone says JC lies about science and evidence you launch into a response as if someone has just claimed all Christians lie, another Straw man argument. Where the heck did that come from?

Where did I state or imply that?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Your link (evoWiki.org? :rolleyes: ) appears to make the following argument:
1. Evolutionary theory states that man and animals are related and therefore share similar features.
2. These similar features allow us to conduct tests and develop procedures on animals that can be later used on humans and thus save lives.
3. Therefore belief in evolution is essential to continued medical advances.

No, that isn't the argument.

PDN wrote:

It looks like the Creationists are not the only ones who are prepared to tell a few porkies to advance their cause.

Oh I don't know where to begin :rolleyes:

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Where did I state or imply that?

Here -

PDN wrote:

I see a harmless guy with some unorthodox views

Bluewolf wrote:

He's not harmless if he's spreading lies.

PDN wrote:

Ah well, that all depends on who defines what as lies.
There are those who think that every Christian is spreading lies.

Seriously, WTF?

Bluewolf is pointing out that JC lies, quite a bit, on this forum. And you launch into rant that not only implies JC doesn't actually lie (what is a lie?), but that Bluewolf is one of those who thinks all Christians lie, instantly trying to lump Bluewolf into this little group of witch hunters you have going.

Playing the persecution card gets rather tiresome, even for a Christian.

The issue isn't those who think all Christians lie (who here thinks all Christians lie?)

The issue isn't the nature of a lie (a false statement knowingly put forward as accurate or true)

The issue is that JC lies. A lot.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Oh I don't know where to begin :rolleyes:

You could begin by explaining how my objection to the unfairness of comparing JC to a moneygrabbing Pope constitutes my supporting a campaign to attack modern science.

You could begin by explaining why you make the following false statements about me.

When someone says JC lies about science and evidence you launch into a response as if someone has just claimed all Christians lie,

You appear to have an agenda to paint any legitimate criticism and concern as something part of a wider anti-Christian tirade

Ekancone

PDN wrote:

You could begin by explaining how my objection to the unfairness of comparing JC to a moneygrabbing Pope constitutes my supporting a campaign to attack modern science.

You could begin by explaining why you make the following false statements about me.

Both twisted biblical text to suit their own needs.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

You could begin by explaining how my objection to the unfairness of comparing JC to a moneygrabbing Pope constitutes my supporting a campaign to attack modern science.

that isn't why. It is your insistence to dismiss any criticism of JC as a witch-hunt, and your belief that he is simply a harmless free thinker that is being put upon those out to get him for such free thinking, that is the problem.

Do you believe that Creationism is simply harmless free thinking?

PDN wrote:

You could begin by explaining why you make the following false statements about me.

Because of what you said to Bluewolf, and your insistence to launch into a rant about witch-hunts at every opertunity.

Even if the comparison to a corrupt Pope and JC was unfair (its not by the way), how does that constitute a which hunt?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Bluewolf is pointing out that JC lies, quite a bit, on this forum. And you launch into rant that not only implies JC doesn't actually lie (what is a lie?), but that Bluewolf is one of those who thinks all Christians lie, instantly trying to lump Bluewolf into this little group of witch hunters you have going.

Playing the persecution card gets rather tiresome, even for a Christian.

The issue isn't those who think all Christians lie (who here thinks all Christians lie?)

The issue isn't the nature of a lie (a false statement knowingly put forward as accurate or true)

The issue is that JC lies. A lot.

I was pointing out that on a discussion board there are such differences of opinion that many people will see others sincerely held viewpoints as lying. There are those who think that all Christians are spreading lies because there are posters who see Christian beliefs as being nothing but lies. Similarly I would consider a lot of the stuff that is posted on the Islam board to be lies. I have no problem with that, people believe all kind of stuff and I'm tolerant enough to be able to disagree with them, smile and shrug my shoulders. If that constitutes a rant for you then there seems little point in continuing any discussion on the subject

robindch

PDN wrote:

...enforce a 100% belief in evolution [...] conform to the prevailing orthodoxy [...] your little witch hunt. [...] launch a crusade [...] .

Good heavens, a christian accuses non-christians of requiring conformance to orthodoxy, creating witch-hunts and lanching crusades?

What a strange, looking-glass world we live in today.

Ekancone

robindch wrote:

Good heavens, a christian accuses non-christians of requiring conformance to orthodoxy, creating witch-hunts and lanching crusades?

What a strange, looking-glass world we live in today.

lol!!

PDN

PDN wrote:

I was pointing out that on a discussion board there are such differences of opinion that many people will see others sincerely held viewpoints as lying. There are those who think that all Christians are spreading lies because there are posters who see Christian beliefs as being nothing but lies. Similarly I would consider a lot of the stuff that is posted on the Islam board to be lies. I have no problem with that, people believe all kind of stuff and I'm tolerant enough to be able to disagree with them, smile and shrug my shoulders. If that constitutes a rant for you then there seems little point in continuing any discussion on the subject

Except I specified that "I have read every single book on evolution", which JC did post, is clearly a lie. He subsequently admitted it was a lie when I called him on it.
Just because we are in a debate partly concerning beliefs, does not mean every single post, claim, and statement is a matter solely of belief and unchallengeable.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

Except I specified that "I have read every single book on evolution", which JC did post, is clearly a lie. He subsequently admitted it was a lie when I called him on it.
Just because we are in a debate partly concerning beliefs, does not mean every single post, claim, and statement is a matter solely of belief and unchallengeable.

Yes, you specified it after I had asked what constitutes a lie. And, yes, I would say that such a statement is obviously a lie.

PDN

PDN wrote:

Yes, you specified it after I had asked what constitutes a lie. And, yes, I would say that such a statement is obviously a lie.

Yes well a little more credit than to assume I mean any old belief is a lie, without reason, would have been nice

PDN

robindch wrote:

Good heavens, a christian accuses non-christians of requiring conformance to orthodoxy, creating witch-hunts and lanching crusades?

What a strange, looking-glass world we live in today.

Maybe because I am capable of recognising that both Christians and non-Christians have been guilty of these activities in the past.