The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

You'd be ok with a scientologist or a member of the christian Branch Davidians taking up the post, would you?

If they were qualified and had a proven track record of reliability in other roles then yes, wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Heck I wouldn't even mind if it was an atheist :pac:

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Strange that. You can perhaps understand why so many atheists might conclude that there's something wrong with the idea that one would need to believe in your own interpretation of your own specific deity to be nice.

I fully agree with them. Fear of the consequences in this life/fear of the consequences in the next life/conscience informing them of right & wrong - all these may lead an unbeliever to be nice. I've never heard a Christian say otherwise.

What I'm saying is that there is no actual right & wrong without God. Only imagined right & wrong. Or self-determined right & wrong. So the consistent atheist should think all acts are without intrinsic moral value - murder for example, is only immoral in the eyes of those who think it so. For those who do not, it is perfectly acceptable.

J C

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is a difference between someone who is a scientist who adheres by scientific principles by day and says a prayer when he comes home and a scientist whos religious beliefs drive him to try and validate something which has no scientific merit

...so what you want is for everyone to be a 'Sunday Christian' ... and an ATHEIST for the rest of the week!!!
:eek:

...can you not see the HYPOCRACY of such a proposal???

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they were qualified and had a proven track record of reliability in other roles then yes, wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

I'd imagine the Branch Davidians weren't an excessively unusual christian sect until they went bananas and shot up the place. Same for the christian Jim Jones and his crew, at least until they did Jonestown anwyay.

Anyhow, you'd be happy with any religious beliefs at all, regardless of how nutty they were?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Heck I wouldn't even mind if it was an atheist

If you were in certain parts of the USA, then you probably wouldn't be saying that

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationism has some basic dogma
Creationism is dogma. See again our old friend (diploma-mill-doctor) Ham's silly beliefs.

Wrong again. You confuse the religious dogma of AiG with its scientific argument. When will you learn not to mix science and religion? :pac:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We must never dismiss any evidence.
How do you square that with Ham's statement that anything that disagrees with him is flat-out wrong?

He never said any evidence is flat-out wrong. He did say many interpretations of evidence are.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only if every time they did so the business failed for the simple reason that it was because it was struck up with women and/or black people. Like putting your money on the wrong horse all the time. It just might be that in that particular business women and black might not be any good. But like I said already if it was for the simple reason that they were black people or women despite the fact that the might be great in the business then that would constitute discrimination.

Right so any time a christian has a business partnership with a non-believer it will fail then because non-believers are by definition not great in business?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if he was an out right atheist you wouldn't even care about that. The only reason you care about it in Collin's case is because he is a Christian.

No if anyone, regardless of personal belief publicly stated unscientific things or had different positions depending on whether the evidence supports his pre-decided position or not I would be against them being in that position. It has nothing to do with him being a christian.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You'd be ok with a scientologist or a member of the christian Branch Davidians taking up the post, would you?

Yes, I would if they had a track record like Francis Collins has. Religion shouldn't be a consideration. If they have the credentials that is all that matters.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

What I'm saying is that there is no actual right & wrong without God. Only imagined right & wrong. Or self-determined right & wrong.

Er, yes, that's the point.

Your own specific interpretation of your bible allows you to determine what's right and wrong for you. The gal in the next house will read the same text and come to a different conclusion. The guy on the next street will come to a third conclusion.

Christian morality is the ultimate in self-determined right and wrong.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

When will you learn not to mix science and religion?

As soon as (diploma-mill-doctor) Ham and his willing flock of sheep stop mixing them.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

We must never dismiss any evidence. What we must do is test our many alternative interpretations of it.

All we can ever do is test them and decide which theory is more probable. However, we have to the draw the line somewhere. It is no good in saying that magnetism is a consequence of the spritely interaction of the luminescence of light with dark. That's just plain nonsense that I made up, if the tests and experiments don't hold up, we gotta let it go. Bye, bye Malty theory.

Yes, I use the term in the sense I see electricity in action - the appearance of text on the screen as I type this in, for example. Not observing elections moving along the copper connections.

Relax, twas a joke. The forgotten smiley makes an awful difference.Just so you know though gravity has nothing to do with electricity...on the broad scale anyways.

We have pointed many times to the evidences that seem to support creationism. It is not merely pointing to gaps in evolutioniary theory.

Yeah, admittingly, ye may have. However, since I joined this thread only JC has attempted to show me it before we've been derailed on a least a few occasions now. Thanks, again JC for the help. Yes, I'll admit that ye've probably said it countless times before but finding it among a thousand or so pages is nigh on impossible. So your patience and help is kindly appreciated.

Oh and if I may just say this : I'm just learning properly about evolution for the first time now, so you're probably never again going to get a chance as good as this one. You're no longer preaching to the converted -I will try to keep an open mind and my little knowledge of evolution is on par with that of creationism I just want to decide which I should accept.:)

Some of them ARE anti-God. Others are fearful of consequences to their career if they questioned evolution. That was my point.

Ahh now don't say that. Some may be fearful, but call that unwarranted paranoia. Evolution is a scientific theory no different from any other. It is questionable to the day humanity ceases to be. Science isn't about absolutes it's about probabilities, evolution is currently regarded as the most probable, but that may yet still change...

No, it's not. Or, only if certain assumptions are made.


The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system
http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system

See Astronomical evidence in:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I'm pretty convinced that the solar system info is sound. However, as I've never heard of that paradox, I'll get back to you

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...if you want to study publicly-funded science, I'm sorry but you will have to work alongside Christians and other Theists ... tough ... but that's the way it is baby!!!!

Wicknight
Not if the Christians and other theists compromise scientific standards. You are a shining example of exactly what science wants to avoid, untestable unverifiable claims being passed off as science.

...so NO THEIST need apply then!!!

...I am indeed "a shining example" of what ATHEISTS fear and dread ... a Saved Christian and a top scientist ... who can SIMULTANEOUSLY rebuke all tempting demons and counter all erroneous science !!!:eek::D

...and by the looks of it the Atheists also want to AVOID the Leader of the Human Genome Project Professor Francis Collins and the Father of Creation Science, Sir Isaac Newton ... for good measure.:D:eek:

...YOU guys need to undergo a horse-load of 'anti-evasion' THERAPY!!!!:D

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

The atheist position is that the entirety of religion originated in the minds of men, that this wonderful perfect morality that's supposed to have originated from God actually came from the societies of the time

Dozens of religions and all secular ideologies have a version of the golden rule of ethics, the ethic of reciprocity, Jesus does not have a monopoly on it. It is just common sense and it makes just as much sense whether it comes from an all powerful deity or not

The concept of God was invented as the ultimate argument from authority. People already knew right from wrong because instinctively knowing that allowed our species to survive but, like you, they were worried that people would not act morally without the fear of consequences. Their solution to this problem was to write the already existing morality down in a book and say that it came from God so that there could be no argument over what was right or wrong

Yes, that's a fair summary of the atheist position.

Basically wolfsbane, acting morally presents no problem for an atheist

I never said they did. Only that a consistent atheist would hold that there is no real right & wrong. Only current conventions that one may properly violate if one so chooses.

because we still agree with the majority of the moral rules that were written down in the desert, not for the first time, 4000 or so years ago. The only difference between us and christians is that we can apply common sense to those parts of those books that no longer apply in modern society,

No, the only difference between moral atheists and Christians is that the former have no grounds to hold to any morality.

just like Jesus, a normal human being, did 2000 years ago when he said that people didn't have to follow all the old Jewish rules anymore.

He did so because He had fulfilled their meaning - and so properly set them aside. When we graduate from Uni we do not return to the same class next semester. He instituted the New Covenant, and the people of God entered their majority, leaving the things of their childhood education behind.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes, that's the point.

Your own specific interpretation of your bible allows you to determine what's right and wrong for you. The gal in the next house will read the same text and come to a different conclusion. The guy on the next street will come to a third conclusion.

Christian morality is the ultimate in self-determined right and wrong.

So the Bible can rightly mean anything to anyone? Nonsense. If that were the case with any writing, there would be no point with this forum. A careful examination of the poster's work will make him/her plain enough most of the time.

No, Robin, Christian morality is based on the Bible and not on one's individual whims. The overwhelming part of our morality is plain for any honest reader to see. They might not like it, but they cannot say it is not what the Bible teaches.

That aside, my point remains - true atheism should acknowledge no morality, even if for practical purposes they live by one. It is the fact that most of them insist that it really is wrong to murder, steal, etc. that makes me say they are living a lie.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Even though the crystals themselves are very ordered structures? OK, it doesn't matter which iron atoms are next to which sulphur atoms but the structure itself is very regular (barring contaminants and flaws of course) simply due to the way the atoms bond together... the laws of chemistry that we have learned through painstaking study and research...
Here we seem to have order from disorder, although of course through out all this the rules of entropy and energy are adhered to...

yes? So moving on.

ok... some time passes... the shale gets buried deeper and deeper... and because of all that insulating rock above, and heat from below and from the decay of any radioactive elements in the rock itself... the rock get hot... it goes through some changes, different minerals form, degrade or remain stable depending on the temperature and pressure...
These changes... would you still agree that they are spontaneous?

yes

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

That aside, my point remains - true atheism should acknowledge no morality, even if for practical purposes they live by one. It is the fact that most of them insist that it really is wrong to murder, steal, etc. that makes me say they are living a lie.

Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge morality because it is in human nature to be moral. Morals such as the golden rule
'Treat others as you expect them to treat you' or whatever way you want to paraphrase it, goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

As soon as (diploma-mill-doctor) Ham and his willing flock of sheep stop mixing them.

So honorary doctorates in theology are what? Claims that one has studied theology to that level? Or acclaimations of one's contributions? I thought it was the latter.

Are any honorary doctorates more than that?
Ken A. Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp
In recognition of the contribution Ken has made to the church in the USA and internationally, Ken has been awarded two honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity (1997) from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio and a Doctor of Literature (2004) from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Ken Hams' earned degree:

degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).

Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia
http://www.qut.edu.au/

J C

The TWO SIDES of Wicknight's BRAIN!!!!!

SIDE ONE

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....so why is all the active discrimination and vitrol directed against ID, Creationist AND Theistis Evolutionist SCIENTISTS then???!!!!

Wickniight
Because a lot of them are trying to pervert scientific standards in order to have their non-supported untestable ideas about biology sledge hammered into science.

...so he thinks that science can be taken over and 'perverted' !!!!.


SIDE TWO

wrote:

Originally Posted by Malty_T
Yes but can you give an example of where during the course of his WORK that Collins disobeyed those principles?

Wicknight
He couldn't disobey those principles during his work. Scientific safe guards prevent that from happening. That is one of the wonderful things about science.

...BUT on the other hand he thinks that science CANNOT be taken over and 'perverted'!!!


..the TRUTH is that science has been taken over by ATHEISTS and enlisted in the service of their 'cause' !!!!

...and the 'safe guards' to which Wicknight refers were deliberately and patiently constructed by Atheists to ensure that Science could be conscripted to help bolster their ultimately hopeless 'cause'!!!!

...go talk to YOURSELF Wicknight ... and when you decide what you ACTUALLY believe come back and tell us!!!:D:eek:

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge morality because it is in human nature to be moral. Morals such as the golden rule
'Treat others as you expect them to treat you' or whatever way you want to paraphrase it, goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

I agree about human nature. But a real atheist will use his reason to recognise morality is only a biological thing thrown up by evolution - and so is free from any of its claims.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so NO THEIST need apply then!!!

...I am an example of what ATHEISTS fear and dread ... a Saved Christian and a top scientist ... who can SIMULTANEOUSLY rebuke their tempting demons and counter their erroneous science !!!:eek::D

...and by the looks of it they also want to AVOID the Leader of the Human Genome Project Professor Francis Collins and the Father of Creation Science, Sir Isaac Newton ... for good measure.:D:eek:

Er...when did Isaac Newton ever write a paper on creationism?

As for 'NO THEIST need apply then!!!', that's just impractical. There's no issue with theists filling any of these positions. The issue is with anyone who might lean towards the 'then a miracle happens' kind of science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree about human nature. But a real atheist will use his reason to recognise morality is only a biological thing thrown up by evolution - and so is free from any of its claims.

Non-sequitur.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so he thinks that science can be taken over and 'perverted' !!!!.


he thinks that science CANNOT be easily taken over and 'perverted'!!!

My emphasis (in bold).

Do try not to be so transparent.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

In fairness to Newton he wasn't really a scientist, and didn't have scientific standards to be held against. So people can't really blame him for doing this.

It does highlight the dangers though of a person with a preconceived religious view facing data that conflicts with this view. Luckily modern scientific standards would not allow this to happen today.

...so you wouldn't give Sir Isaac Newton a job as a scientist EITHER!!!:eek::D

...anyway I give full honour to BOTH the great Creation Scientist, Sir Isaac Newton and the great Theistic Evolutionist Prof Francis Collins!!!

....I disagree profoundly with their Theology ... but I admire their genius!!!!!!:D

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the Bible can rightly mean anything to anyone? Nonsense.

Indeed, what you've written is nonsense

What I actually implied was that there is no single, fixed meaning for the bible. This is so painfully obvious that I didn't think it needed to be pointed out, however it seems that it must!

If every christian interpreted the text of the bible the same way, then every christian would believe the same thing. It is manifestly obvious that they do not and it is equally obvious that outside of a small number of basic things, they disagree fundamentally disagree about vast numbers of things.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christian morality is based on the Bible and not on one's individual whims.

Not in the slightest -- what you believe is an independent "christian morality" is, in fact, based entirely upon your own personal interpretation of what the bible says.

That's why there are so many divisions in the christian community about what constitutes "morality".

Like seriously, have you failed to notice that these differences exist? Or do you believe that every christian believes exactly the same thing?

wolfsbane wrote: »

true atheism should acknowledge no morality, even if for practical purposes they live by one.

You should ask an atheist sometime what we understand by "morality". But I'll save you the trouble and say that "morality" is something that's defined by the culture and time you live in, with some guidance from written legal texts, holybooks and so on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the fact that most of them insist that it really is wrong to murder, steal, etc. that makes me say they are living a lie.

No, we just reject as really quite silly the idea that you can only decide what to do because one's own particular holybook contains a character whose words are interpreted as instructions to do or not do do one thing or another.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Er...when did Isaac Newton ever write a paper on creationism?

...He was a young earth Creationist!!!!:)

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree about human nature. But a real atheist will use his reason to recognise morality is only a biological thing thrown up by evolution - and so is free from any of its claims.

Nonsense! Morality kept us alive as a species, humankind is too far advanced now with over 1000s of years to know that morals are what give us a distinct advantages. It's inbred within us - even if we wanted to we could not lose it, our neocortex is there to give us a conscience.

munsterdevil

People have to remember that Isaac Newton came from a different era, and atheism was we know it was in its infancy. To scientists in those ideas everything around them looked designed.

Thankfully nowadays science has evolved...

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...He was a young earth Creationist!!!!:)

Even if that's true, it doesn't make him a creation scientist. Though, if you're gonna insist on calling him the father of creation science, the fact that he said absolutely nothing on the topic is sort of revealing.

postcynical

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine that's a view shared by many of the world's physicists.

I've no idea. What do you think of it?

The issue is not that Collins can "appreciate nonscientific truths", but that he thinks non-scientific falsities are true.

I don't know his beliefs and would probably not dismiss them as falsities, given that he's a Christian. However the issue you've raised here shouldn't be an issue. Many people accept non-scientific propositions as true, even if it's just a working assumption. You might accept that your partner or children love you, despite that being a non-scientific truth (hopefully a truth:)). It does not compromise your ability to discern fact from speculation and provable truth from unproven truth. Nor should it be an issue for this scientist.

You wouldn't hire somebody to build your house who believed that fairies kept his buildings up. Why would one hire a geneticist who believes something analogous to this in his field?

If the person had a reputation as a good builder then I would hire them, whether I knew of their bizarre beliefs or not. Your claim that a Theistic geneticist is analogous to a cementfairy builder is not very helpful.

As for superstitious scientists, our economists are a prime example:pac:

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that's a fair summary of the atheist position.

I never said they did. Only that a consistent atheist would hold that there is no real right & wrong. Only current conventions that one may properly violate if one so chooses.

There is 'real' right and wrong but no absolutes. Right and wrong is decided by the society of the time just as it has always been. The big stuff like don't kill, don't steal etc is common across all cultures but some things change like attitudes to women, homosexuality, slavery etc

One cannot violate the current societal morality if one so chooses because society will punish you, be it through prison, shunning, shaming etc. What society considers moral may change over time but that doesn't mean that there can be no backlash for breaking the current moral code

postcynical

J C wrote: »

...I am indeed "a shining example" of what ATHEISTS fear and dread ... a Saved Christian and a top scientist ... who can SIMULTANEOUSLY rebuke their tempting demons and counter their erroneous science !!!:eek::D

You're hardly the only one. A sizable minority of top western scientists are theists. Many of the best ones are Jewish. A scientist's religion should be a non-issue, as it usually is.

...and by the looks of it they also want to AVOID the Leader of the Human Genome Project Professor Francis Collins and the Father of Creation Science, Sir Isaac Newton ... for good measure.:D:eek:

:eek:More remarkable stuff. Poor old Newton is getting it from all sides on this thread...

postcynical

Malty_T wrote: »

Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge morality because it is in human nature to be moral. Morals such as the golden rule
'Treat others as you expect them to treat you' or whatever way you want to paraphrase it, goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

True, but this is not the objective morality of Christianity.
It is in human nature to be superstitious but atheists usually don't openly embrace superstition.