The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...OK it was all a bad dream... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their 'friendly' Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists have taken over science ... and they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...so it was all a bad dream... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their 'friendly' Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists have taken over science ... nor that they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!!

Malty_T
Ahh hypnosis, only works when you say it twice

...the TRUTH cannot be repeated often enough!!!!!:pac::):D

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Whereas atheism should have a place in the science lab? What nonsense :pac:

I wonder if we were discussing Richard Dawkins and his rabid bias and a similar position to Francis Collins would a similar response be given. I think Richard Dawkins as a biologist has a good record just as Collins has a good record. I wouldn't be opposed to either getting an administration position in a scientific field.

Apparently atheists have descended into promoting favouritism in allocating such positions, which is really quite disappointing to say the least.

As PDN said, I think this view is as much anti-science as you claim Creation Science is.

Atheism has no place in a science lab either!

It's agnosticism or (work in) engineering!

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Atheism has no place in a science lab either!

It's agnosticism or (work in) engineering!

I don't think atheists, or people of belief should be excluded from consideration for positions like the position Francis Collins now works in based on their beliefs if they have proven themselves to be effective in scientific fields before. This is what I find to be lunacy. The fact that people are on this board attempting to justify it is somewhat disheartening, I had more hope in humanity

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists, or people of belief should be excluded from consideration for positions like the position Francis Collins now works in based on their beliefs if they have proven themselves to be effective in scientific fields before. This is what I find to be lunacy. The fact that people are on this board attempting to justify it is somewhat disheartening, I had more hope in humanity

I am NOT against Collins, I am NOT against Christians or Atheists, or Jews, or Concrete Donkey Worshippers. I am merely stating the fact that science NEEDS scientists to be agnostics while they do their work. Outside of it one can smoke weed, worship a teapot, eat pillows for all I care. So long as they're impersonal at work. Thus far, no-one has provided evidence of Collins er bringing the grass into work.

So best of luck to the chap

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I am NOT against Collins, I am NOT against Christians or Atheists, or Jews, or Concrete Donkey Worshippers. I am merely stating the fact that science NEEDS scientists to be agnostics while they do their work. Outside of it one can smoke weed, worship a teapot, eat pillows for all I care. So long as their impersonal at work. Thus far, no-one has provided evidence of Collins er bringing the grass into work.

So best of luck to the chap

That's nonsense too :pac:

All one needs to do is to recognise that what one believes by faith, is not the same as what one knows. After this is established there is little or no difficulty in being a scientist while believing in God, yes even when they do their work as there is no risk that one will misunderstand beliefs as what one knows factually.

J C

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

...BUT it obviously doesn't work the other way around in the 'what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own' world of the Crusading Atheist!!!!:eek:

stevejazzx

Something which seems badly out of sync is that someone mentions the Branch Dividians's and gets accused of slanting Christianity in general as being violent when everyday the Stalin/Pol Pot/ thing is thrown in the face of atheists.

With regard to Francis Collins I would only say say best of luck to him. I agree that there is little evidence to show that he is likely to have an unprofessional bias towards his personal 'spiritual beliefs' but at the end of the day the skeptical argument holds water here. In initial consideration for this post, academics should be judged squarely and fairly and those who judge them have an obligation to consider all aspects of character when vetting. Collins' Christian outlook cannot be ignored, it has to be considered, it neither qualifies nor disqualifies it merely makes the selection process more difficult than if we were dealing with say an agnostic deist. That's just the way it is, if the consideration isn't there out of a misplaced sense of political correctness and Collins is afforded undue renumeration because Christians feel his beliefs shouldn't be challenged then what was have is little more than a charade. Surely it is better that everyones opinion is in the open. It should be easy for Collins to negate criticisms of his faith by simply being a good scientist.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

That's nonsense too :pac:

All one needs to do is to recognise that what one believes by faith, is not the same as what one knows.

Hence be open minded and agnostic :pac:

Turtwig

stevejazzx wrote: »

It should be easy for Collins to negate criticisms of his faith by simply being a good scientis.

Ditto:)

philologos

Does anyone else here feel increasingly tired of atheists speaking as if they have a monopoly on science? I certainly do.

Lesson is rather simple. Atheism and science are mutually exclusive.

I surely hope that there will be more people of faith involved in science in the coming years to stop this kind of nonsense impeding upon scientific progress. If science is going to be clouded with an atheistic bias, its about as useful as how you guys view Creation Science.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Whereas atheism should have a place in the science lab? What nonsense :pac:

Yes it is. Lucky I didn't say that

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Hence be open minded and agnostic :pac:

No, one can believe in God and still be a great scientist. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone who actively believes in God is an agnostic.

Francis Collins is off the fence on God. Richard Dawkins is pretty much off the fence on God too albeit in opposite directions.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Lesson is rather simple. Atheism and science are mutually exclusive.

QFT

Just out of curiousity who here is actually an atheist? Non-believers yes, but atheists??

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

No, one can believe in God and still be a great scientist. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone who actively believes in God is an agnostic.

Francis Collins is off the fence on God. Richard Dawkins is pretty much off the fence on God too albeit in opposite directions.

They can believe in whatever they like, fairies in the Garden, God, Toaster Macduff. They still have to remain impartial during their work - all scientist need to. I've no doubt Collins knows this too.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

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.

....a small bit of progess ... an Evolutionist talking in thousands (rather than millions) of years...keep with the programme MALTY ... and you will come out the other end as a fully fledged CREATIONIST!!!!:pac::):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....a small bit of progess ... an Evolutionist talking in thousands (rather than millions) of years...keep with the programme MALTY ... and you will come out the other end as fully fledged CREATIONIST!!!!:pac::):D

Neocortex is relativity new :pac:

philologos

Being impartial at work isn't limited to agnosticism :pac:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Being impartial at work isn't limited to agnosticism :pac:

Yet again, an argument over semantics has arrived...why is it that all religious debates inevitably lead here sometime or another?

A scientist can't have a bias on his work can we just agree on that?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion has no place in a science lab

Why not?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Neocortex is relativity new :pac:

...is that 'new' in Evolutionist Time or REAL Time ???

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
Religion has no place in a science lab

Soul Winner
Why not?

...because you HAVE to be an Atheist (or give the impression that you are an Atheist) to work there!!!

...obviously if you believe in God, you won't know your Pipette from your Burette!!!:pac::):D

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct.


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

Unless I am missing something you are essentially using a model that predicts the expected luminosity of a 4.6 billion year old star of about the same size as the Sun to help 'prove' a creation date of about 6000 years ago?

J C

postcynical wrote: »

Sure, I was paraphrasing your post. I agree with Wolfsbane here but morality isn't really my area of interest. What does interest me is the idea of objective morality, or objective truth.

Originally Posted by Malty_T
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.

Originally Twisted by PC
Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge superstition because it is in human nature to be superstitious. Superstitions such as belief in an afterlife
goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

Your argument for atheists adopting morals is not a good one, as (under the reasonable assumption that scientists can show an innate human tendancy to superstition) the parallel argument does not apply: atheists do not usually openly adopt superstitions.

...most Atheists I know are full of superstition!!!

...they think that Matter could 'mystically' morph from Muck to Man ... without a shred of evidence to back their belief ....

...I'd say that was pretty superstituous!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well there, I rest my case :P

...burying your case 'six foot under' would be more appropriate ... as it has just DIED!!!:eek:

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sam Vimes wrote:

Religion has no place in a science lab

Why not?

Because if you assume that the physical world is subject to the continuous unpredictable influence of an undetectable but powerful or omnipotent entity -- or group of co-operating or conflicting entities -- then you will get people producing predictably useless rubbish like creationism, homeopathy, astrology, chiropracty, UFOlogy, feng shui, crystal healing and so on and so on.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists, or people of belief should be excluded from consideration for positions like the position Francis Collins now works in based on their beliefs if they have proven themselves to be effective in scientific fields before. This is what I find to be lunacy. The fact that people are on this board attempting to justify it is somewhat disheartening, I had more hope in humanity

...humanity is fine .... these guys are 'hardball' Atheists!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...is that 'new' in Evolutionist Time or REAL Time ???

Depends, I was hoping you could tell me when ID predicts it appears.

Evolution and modern neurology predicts it was the one of the later things to form and it's what gave us the survival edge in a sort of Flight-or-Fight mechanism. Now it's the reason we get mad, lose the head at someone and realise a few seconds later that our madness was irrational.
Emotional response is wired faster than logical response hence in the modern society of human beings our brain design is impairing us...we need it to evolve and fast!!


If you don't believe in evolution then the brain was always this way - Why would a designer, leave such a critical flaw in our design?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So best of luck to the chap

Stevejazzx wrote:

With regard to Francis Collins I would only say say best of luck to him.

Robin wrote:

The best of luck to him.

...the congratulations are flowing in for Prof Collins now ....who knows, maybe Prof Dawkins will even CANONISE him ... to show how much he loves and admires him!!!


....BUT the damage HAS been done ... and the bigoted cat is out of the Atheistic bag!!!!!:D:)

...and it has ALREADY badly mauled all of the Theists on the thread!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....the congratulations are flowing in for Prof Collins now ....maybe even Prof Dawkins will even CANONISE him ... to show how much he loves and admires him!!!


....BUT the damage HAS been done ... the bigoted cat is out of the Atheistic bag!!!!!:D:)

...and it has ALREADY mauled all of the Theists on the thread!!!:D

Please state who here you think is Atheist?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Please state who here you think is Atheist?

...I don't know ... and I don't really care!!!:eek::D