The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

If you don't care then why post in the Christianity forum?

*sigh*

I post here because i disagree with Christian views, and i openly challenge them. Or do you believe that Christianity is above criticism?

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

*sigh*

I post here because i disagree with Christian views, and i openly challenge them. Or do you believe that Christianity is above criticism?

There has been discussion before on the exclusivity of the Christian forum, but PDN's point may have been somewhat broader - as in why challenge Creationism if you don't care what Christians think?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Nobody is suggesting that Christianity should be above criticism. But if you don't care about what the Bible (the basis of Christian belief) says then why argue about it?

It would be like me going onto the soccer forum and arguing about a team's use of the offside trap, and then, when someone refers to the rules of the game, saying "I don't care what the rules are".

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that Christianity should be above criticism. But if you don't care about what the Bible (the basis of Christian belief) says then why argue about it?

It would be like me going onto the soccer forum and arguing about a team's use of the offside trap, and then, when someone refers to the rules of the game, saying "I don't care what the rules are".

Well my issue above was the two-faced nature of your belief. You publicise yourselves as being loving and caring, as if butter wouldn't melt. But when you do a little scratching, you find this horrible undertone. I have found this in every christian i have bothered to probe with questions. I think you guys are portraying a false image and i don't like hypocrisy.

EDIT: What did i mean about 'Who cares what desert nomads thought'? Well i suppose my problem would be taking standards and morals from the 1st millenium BC and applying them to the modern world. Its not as if you don't cherry pick your favourite bits anyway, why not be a little less of a bigot?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC would be the man to point you to more relevant articles.

Why?

You know more about this stuff that JC does, at least you seem some what genuinely interested in learning, even if that is only to learn what the Creationist side is. JC just posts silly comments about how evolution has been "disproven", followed by nonsense "science" repeated from earlier in the thread, followed by strings of smilie faces.

Zombrex

Good blog piece about how popular scientific journalism's narrative of the lone under dog scientist over throwing the crusty dogmatic scientific establishment is leading to a misrepresentation of what science is and how it works in the mainstream public. Applies to everyone here who thinks there is a conspiracy shutting people out of science.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/bad_science_journalism_and_the_myth_of_the_oppressed_underdog

robindch

Not sure if anybody here follows the binary newsgroups, but a truth-war has broke out on alt.binaries.documentaries over the last few days, with somebody apparently objecting to the appearance of reams of honest, solid scientific documentaries by the BBC, CBC, PBS and others, and who has retaliated by posting heaps of drivel by convicted fraudster (diploma-mill) Dr Kent Hovind and (diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham.

A predictable fight ensued and a few bits of anti-creationist stuff has appeared including an interesting-looking video called "Why do people laugh at creationists?" I'd have thought the answer obvious, but the title was interesting and it's downloading as I type. If it's any good and not restricted viewing, I'll put it somewhere for download.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Not sure if anybody here follows the binary newsgroups, but a truth-war has broke out on alt.binaries.documentaries over the last few days, with somebody apparently objecting to the appearance of reams of honest, solid scientific documentaries by the BBC, CBC, PBS and others, and who has retaliated by posting heaps of drivel by convicted fraudster (diploma-mill) Dr Kent Hovind and (diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham.

A predictable fight ensued and a few bits of anti-creationist stuff has appeared including an interesting-looking video called "Why do people laugh at creationists?" I'd have thought the answer obvious, but the title was interesting and it's downloading as I type. If it's any good and not restricted viewing, I'll put it somewhere for download.

Hovind gets owned in part 4:D

BrianCalgary

daithifleming wrote: »

*sigh*

I post here because i disagree with Christian views, and i openly challenge them. Or do you believe that Christianity is above criticism?

If that is your goal then you have to do two things:

1) Be prepared to be openly challenged yourself

2) Be prepared to possibly learn something.

Because of this statement why should the moderators not look on you as a troll only interested in getting rises out of people as opposed to be genuinely interested in elarning something?

pH

I know in the past we've been hard on J C's scientific qualifications, but this week in Oklahoma they're passing a law to make his geology, biology, history, cosmology and physics answers as correct as Scofflaw's in an exam situation.

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_067125346.html

How this works is beyond me, how they could prevent any kid from making up answers and prefacing them with "My pastor told me ..." I just don't know.

Zombrex

Ah yes, people are all "Creationism is harmless" this and "Religious belief in school isn't bad" that, and then this type of nonsense happens. :mad:

The lunatics are running the asylum.

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If that is your goal then you have to do two things:

1) Be prepared to be openly challenged yourself

2) Be prepared to possibly learn something.

Because of this statement why should the moderators not look on you as a troll only interested in getting rises out of people as opposed to be genuinely interested in elarning something?

If you had bothered to look at all my posts in this thread, you would have seen that i do pose the odd question about scripture and faith (mainly to wolfy) without any notion of using it for attack. Sometimes, i am genuinely interested in what they have to say about theology. But of course, you are just jumping to conclusions in a effort to get me banned. For shame.

toiletduck

robindch wrote: »

Not sure if anybody here follows the binary newsgroups, but a truth-war has broke out on alt.binaries.documentaries over the last few days, with somebody apparently objecting to the appearance of reams of honest, solid scientific documentaries by the BBC, CBC, PBS and others, and who has retaliated by posting heaps of drivel by convicted fraudster (diploma-mill) Dr Kent Hovind and (diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham.

A predictable fight ensued and a few bits of anti-creationist stuff has appeared including an interesting-looking video called "Why do people laugh at creationists?" I'd have thought the answer obvious, but the title was interesting and it's downloading as I type. If it's any good and not restricted viewing, I'll put it somewhere for download.

I'm watching it now on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

robindch

pH wrote: »

How this works is beyond me, how they could prevent any kid from making up answers and prefacing them with "My pastor told me ..." I just don't know.

Er, I think that's probably the idea...

While 99% of me finds this ludicrous, irresponsible, stupid, abusive, bizarre and so on, there is 1% which says, "Well, why not let their leaders go do that". And leave the poor unfortunate students from Oklahoma be laughed out of every job interview they ever do; leave them sink to the bottom of the educational pond, there to blow their religious bubbles as they please.

There are certainly plenty of states and countries whose legislators take education seriously -- a lot of Asian countries come to mind -- who will be thrilled to receive the economic investment and jobs that would otherwise have gone to Oklahoma.

Zombrex

The people who pushed the bill are defending it saying that all work must still be held to "academic standards", what ever that means. Then the bill goes on to contradict itself by saying that homework cannot be marked down because of religious content, because that is discrimination.

"Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

The last line is the bit causing the problem. It should of course be "students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work unless the religious content expressed is the wrong answer"

Reading the bill itself it sounds like a law suit waiting to happen.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Reading the bill itself it sounds like a law suit waiting to happen.

I'm waiting for the guy who sets up a religion where the answer to the ultimate question, indeed every question, is "42"...

pH

robindch wrote: »

Er, I think that's probably the idea...

I very much doubt it. The idea I guess was to try and legitimise their particular faith based answers to some of these questions. However expecting someone pushing this law to be clever enough to see why it could never work is perhaps overly optimistic on my part.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Well my issue above was the two-faced nature of your belief. You publicise yourselves as being loving and caring, as if butter wouldn't melt. But when you do a little scratching, you find this horrible undertone. I have found this in every christian i have bothered to probe with questions. I think you guys are portraying a false image and i don't like hypocrisy.

EDIT: What did i mean about 'Who cares what desert nomads thought'? Well i suppose my problem would be taking standards and morals from the 1st millenium BC and applying them to the modern world. Its not as if you don't cherry pick your favourite bits anyway, why not be a little less of a bigot?

Bigot? I actually advocate tolerance, both here and on the atheist board. I have consistently argued that in a secular society we should be tolerant of those who hold different beliefs.

I will certainly pull people up when they post wrong information about Christianity, and I am scathing at times of those who use sloppy or dishonest arguments. However, I don't think I have ever posted blanket denunciations of those who hold different beliefs to me in the same bitter way that you do against Christians. You appear to be much more of a bigot than me.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I very much doubt it. The idea I guess was to try and legitimise their particular faith based answers to some of these questions. However expecting someone pushing this law to be clever enough to see why it could never work is perhaps overly optimistic on my part.

From a reading of the bill it seems to be in response to the perceived decision by US school boards that students cannot practice religion in school, that they must pretend to be "secular" or atheist, that if they express an opinion or view that is formed from a religious view point they will be punished by the school.

For example there is a lot of attention paid to public speaking. Traditionally schools have not accepted religious content in speeches made by students making public speeches to the school body.

This bill is basically trying to get around the separation of church and state by claiming that it is violation of individual rights

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
When biological systems start behaving chaotically .....'bad things' happen to the organism.......so Chaos Theory doesn't even get to the starting blocks as an explanation for life.

Eschatologist
I never said it did. This was merely a reply to your post that all causes of a certain magnitude have an equal effect of equivalent magnitude. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that this is a massive generalisation. Small nudges can indeed produce huge effects, as described in Chaos theory. You misinterpreted by reply is all.

Yes, small 'nudges' can have greatly amplified effects……..flicking a switch can start-up a Ship ……and 'moving the points’ on a railway line could send a train in a completely different direction…….and a butterfly beating it’s wings could potentially set off a chain reaction that can ultimately cause a Hurricane……..
......and opening a can of Guinness has been shown to trigger an enormous ‘domino effect’ !!!!

……HOWEVER…..all of these effects rely on very significant external energies being available to magnify the initial low-energy trigger….or ‘small nudge’ ….as you have termed it!!!!!:eek::D

………Chaos Theory and the Domino Effect can explain many phenomena within our energy-rich Universe ……but they DO NOT explain the emergence of either matter or energy …..in the first place!!!!!

……so Chaos Theory DOESN’T provide an explanation or ‘cause’ for the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) …….which MUST have an equally big ‘cause’ and only an omnipotent God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’!!!!!:cool:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
OK......so our observed tera tera tera tera tera......tera watts of energy in a trillion trillion trillion trillion stars.......indicates that they ALL originated from NO energy at all ........first there was nothing .......and then it blew up with the ferocity of a trillion trillion trillion trillion Suns!!!

.......that sure was some 'nothing!!

Eschatologist
I can't answer what the Universe was like at the moment of the Big Bang, I can only fall back on what I've learned from physics lectures and reading papers. Perhaps there was nothing in the beginning, then it exploded (or inflated rather, to be pedantic), a singularity maybe, of maximum entropy and zero information. I can't say, I'm not a theoretical physicist.

I can say with confidence that the ‘Big Bang’ DIDN’T or COULDN'T happen

wrote:

Eschatologist
I myself would not rule out intervention 'in the very beginning', something which gave the Universe a nudge be it divine or whatever, because I'm not ignorant enough to use the 'argument from incredulity' fallacy.

Of course, there WAS Divine intervention 'in the very beginning'………because NOTHING could be created without such intervention!!!!!

…….and it ALL occurred over a period of 6 days less than 10,000 years ago!!!!:)

wrote:

Eschatologist
Some theories postulate that our Universe sits within a 'Multiverse', in that case the energy could easily have come from outside our own Universe. Some propose that gravity is actually a force acting from outside the Universe which is why it's so weak. But surely such physics is beyond the scope of this thread?

…..a ‘Multiverse’ only moves the problem to one of answering who Created the ‘Multiverse’ ……which AGAIN would be a task requiring God-like omnipotent powers!!!!:eek:

wrote:

Eschatologist
Many of my geological questions are still being ignored by the creationists. Fine, ignore the fact that I just slammed your argument with K-Ar (have you read up on andesites yet?!), ignore the thousands of isotopic ages which back up accepted geology. Creationists seem to forget that showing a few ages to be spurious does not invalidate the radiometric process, nor does it even back up their claims. *sigh*

How about an age of 340,000 to 2.8 million yearsfor rocks that are about 10 years old......using K-Ar dating????

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
........so you believe that the collagen in a fossilised frog can be preserved and recovered........after 180 million years!!!!!!!!!!

Eschatologist
I don't believe it's true, I know it's true. I've seen her thesis work and the evidence. It's not my fault you choose to ignore that.

How do you KNOW the age of the Frog fossil......

Were you there when the Frog died????

......as I have already said, the fact that many fossils contain blood and collagen…..as well as recoverable DNA is strong evidence that they have been preserved very recently indeed!!!

wrote:

Scofflaw
A pity you missed JC's original comments on this...he had blood squirting across the room from the specimens.

...and in response to THAT .....I'll simply post THIS....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

wrote:

pH
The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

Such a Bill might NOT be a good idea…….and it could ‘fall’ at the first legal challenge.

It is important that ALL children ARE properly taught about Evolution, and all of the other Evolutionist ideas as well........ so that they will not be disadvantaged when they apply for jobs or enter Universities controlled by Evolutionists.
Nobody would want the ‘wrong’ answer to the question “Describe the Theory of Evolution?” ……to destroy the career prospects of brilliant young scientist who is a Christian!!!!!:eek:

wrote:

Robin
.....there is 1% which says, "Well, why not let their leaders go do that". And leave the poor unfortunate students from Oklahoma be laughed out of every job interview they ever do; leave them sink to the bottom of the educational pond, there to blow their religious bubbles as they please.

……as I have said, every young person should know ALL there is to know about Evolution………. because it is an important scientific theory........and because Robin has said that some Evolutionists would refuse to give a job to anybody who is unable to explain it to them !!!!:eek::)

Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should be taught to children in school……they concentrate on doing and reviewing scientific research amongst ADULT Scientists…….and they leave the school curriculum up to the EDUCATIONALISTS ............and the religious education of children up to the PARENTS!!!!:cool:

American students already have considerable constitutional freedom to organize religious groups, to pray or to engage in whatever religious activity they want to, so long as they do not impose it on others or use public resources to support their religion……and IF this Bill goes beyond this, it may be counter-productive.:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Yes, small 'nudges' can have greatly amplified effects……..flicking a switch can start-up a Ship ……and moving the ‘points’ on a railway line can send a train in a completely different direction…….and a butterfly beating it’s wings can potentially set off a chain reaction that can ultimately cause a Hurricane……..or opening a drink could trigger a ‘domino effect’ like in the Guinness Ad.
……HOWEVER…..all of these effects rely on very significant external energies being available to magnify the initial low-energy trigger….or ‘small nudge’ ….as you have termed it!!!!!:eek::D

………Chaos Theory and the Domino Effect can explain many phenomena within our energy-rich Universe ……but they DO NOT explain the emergence of either matter or energy …..in the first place!!!!!

……so Chaos Theory DOESN’T provide an explanation or ‘cause’ for the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) …….which MUST have an equally big ‘cause’ and only an omnipotent God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’!!!!!:cool:


[/B]

Having trained in Theoretical Physics myself, I can say with confidence that the ‘Big Bang’ DIDN’T happen …..and nothing DIDN’T blow up or ‘inflate’!!!!!


Of course, there WAS Divine intervention 'in the very beginning'………because NOTHING could be created without such intervention!!!!!

…….and it ALL occurred over a period of 6 days less than 10,000 years ago!!!!:)




…..a ‘Multiverse’ only moves the problem to one of answering who Created the ‘Multiverse’ ……which AGAIN would be a task requiring God-like omnipotent powers!!!!:eek:




How about an age of 340,000 to 2.8 million yearsfor rocks that are about 10 years old......using K-Ar dating????

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating



Were you there when the Frog was alive????

......as I have already said, the fact that many fossils contain blood and collagen…..as well as recoverable DNA is proof that they have been preserved very recently indeed!!!



...and in response to THAT .....I'll simply post THIS....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

[/b][/i]

I DON’T think that such a Bill is a good idea…….and it looks like it could ‘fall’ at the first legal hurdle.

It is important that ALL children are properly taught about Evolution, and know all about the other Evolutionist ideas as well........ so that they will not be disadvantaged when they apply for jobs or enter Universities controlled by Evolutionists.
We don’t want the ‘wrong’ answer to the question “Describe the Theory of Evolution?” ……to destroy the career prospects of brilliant young scientists who are Christians!!!!!

[/b][/i]
……as I have said, we don’t want to put any young person in a position of not knowing ALL there is to know about Evolution………. BECAUSE some Evolutionists ARE quite prepared to engage in gross discrimination against anybody who disagrees with them and their 'pet' Theory!!!!:eek::)

Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should be taught to children in school……they concentrate on doing and reviewing scientific research amongst ADULT Scientists…….and they leave the school curriculum up to the EDUCATIONALISTS and the religious education of children up to the PARENTS!!!!:cool:

Students already have considerable constitutional freedom to organize religious groups, to pray or to engage in whatever religious activity they want to, so long as they do not impose it on others or use public resources to support their religion……and I think that going beyond this, like this Bill seems to do, is probably counter-productive and a mistake.:)

Educationalist? Educationalism? Que?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Educationalist? Educationalism? Que?

Will you please stop copying my detailed postings en mass.....without any substantive answers .....


.....and please do me the courtesy of allowing me the time to edit my posts to remove phrasing and spelling errors!!!!:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Will you please stop copying my detailed postings en mass.....without any substantive answers .....


.....and please do me the courtesy of allowing me the time to edit my posts to remove phrasing and spelling errors!!!!:)

I promise to if you stop using all those dots and exclamation points. Deal?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Will you please stop copying my detailed postings en mass.....without any substantive answers .....

Annoying isn't it. Of course at least daithifleming doesn't copy on mass, provide a quick non-answer and then put a load of smilie faces at the end :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::):):):D:D:D:p:p:p

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

I promise to if you stop using all those dots and exclamation points. Deal?

.....no deal.......I'll just fully edit my Postings before I post them in future!!!!


......and I wouldn't be in the least annoyed if you were to use smileys or dots or exclamation marks!!:)

.....that's what they are THERE FOR!!!!:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.....no deal.......I'll just fully edit my Postings before I post them in future!!!!


......and I wouldn't be in the least annoyed if you were to use smileys or dots or exclamation marks!!:)

.....that's what they are THERE FOR!!!!:D

Just to recap, you're a theoretical physicist and a geologist? Did you get your Phd's from Kent Hovind?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Just to recap, you're a theoretical physicist and a geologist? Did you get your Phd's from Kent Hovind?

Your 'recap' is currently WRONG on ALL counts!!!!!:eek::):D

......so are you just going to fiddle about, blowing the breeze about me.......or do you have any substantive rebuttals to what I have said????

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Your 'recap' is WRONG on ALL counts!!!!!:eek::):D

Well just a few pages back you said that you were trained in geology and worked for drilling companies. Then just above you said you are trained in theoretical physics.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Well just a few pages back you said that you were trained in geology and worked for drilling companies. Then just above you said you are trained in theoretical physics.

Is this thread about my CV.......or is it about "The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy"??????

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

I know in the past we've been hard on J C's scientific qualifications, but this week in Oklahoma they're passing a law to make his geology, biology, history, cosmology and physics answers as correct as Scofflaw's in an exam situation.


http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_067125346.html

How this works is beyond me, how they could prevent any kid from making up answers and prefacing them with "My pastor told me ..." I just don't know.

But is this an accurate description of the bill? Sounds very weird. Maybe the commentator is skewing it to suit his anti-creation prejudices?

As a Creationist, I would be opposed to any such bill. I would expect any student be required to give the current scientific consensus view, and then critique that if it is not what he believes.

That is a freedom that needs to be enacted. I have seen academic fascism at work, demanding the student take the lecturer's view as the only possible one. That was in the Arts; I'm not sure how it works in the Sciences.