Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
...that is a very fair and reasonable acceptance of another point of view.
I would also say that I fully accept the right of Evolutionists to hold their particular 'worldview' and carry out scientific research into this 'worldview'.
See we can agree on somethings:)All that I ask is that this be reciprocated to Creation Science.
This is always possible JC, but for it to be the case you need to show the 'science' behind Creation science, so far you're falling short on this.
In science, the evidence talks regardless of the belief if you have no evidence then no one is going to listen.
I'm sorry but that's the way it is, if it wasn't then everyone would be listening to everything.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Ohh like a secret resistance group. C'mon JC, there are no creation scientists NONE whatsover. You cannot even give an example of so-called creation science in action, can you?Allow me:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
And from here, we can see that the Bearded Wonder is clearing over $160,000 per year, plus company car, pension, sundry expenses etc.
Creationists' tax dollars at work.
LOL
What possible movitation would the millionaire Ken Ham have for lying to the public :pac:
Funny how all these things end up really being about money ...0 -
-
-
-
-
monosharp said:
Quote:
Creation science is the science presented by a religious group who feel false science threatens their beliefs. And they do indeed they fight against anything which goes against their beliefs, including current theories held in reverence by the scientific establishment.Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolutionary science and Creation science are both interpretations of Science.
Creation Science or Scientific Creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
Creation Science is fundamentalist religious people desperately trying to discredit any science which contradicts their religion.
It is not an interpretation of science, it is a religious group who feel science threatens their beliefs and as all good fundamentalists do, they fight against anything which goes against their beliefs.
No, nor do I believe life spontaneously arose from non-life, or any other fairy story. As to religious people believing fairy stories, the world is full of false religion, both of the atheistic and theistic kind. Evolution is one of the main contenders.Creation 'science' is no different from the nonsense sprouted by opponents of Galileo Galilei and even now, 2009, there are still some religious people who actually believe the sun orbits the earth. Do you ?
Glad we agree on that.Quote:
Evolutionism and Creationism have all the great Laws of science in common.
Objects on Earth tend to fall downwards unless otherwise prevented from doing so.
The tendency of objects to fall is called gravity.
Gravity is a fact.
And on that too.The prevalence of different traits changes from generation to generation in populations of living organisms.
It is indeed - by evolutionists. It is also called diversification by creationists. We observe changes in flies, for example. But never them ending up as non-flies. But a more accurate description is given by this quote in A-i-G:Changes in trait prevalence from generation to generation is called evolution.
What really matters is not the size of changes, but rather whether changes add information to a creature’s genome. Observational science tells us that all the “evolutionary” changes we observe either keep genetic information constant or reduce it. That’s the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution would require. Furthermore, humans are set apart as a unique created kind in the Genesis account.
Diversification is a fact. Evolution in the sense of molecules-to-Man is a fiction.Evolution is a fact.
Right!Gravity is a fact and a theory.
Wrong!Evolution is a fact and a theory.
Great!Einstein's explanation of the fact of gravity, called the general theory of relativity, greatly modified the older Newtonian notions of gravity and is currently the most accepted theory of gravity.
Sad, but correct. It is the most accepted theory of evolution. However, all theories of evolution are fictions.The modern explanation of the fact of evolution, called the modern evolutionary synthesis, has greatly modified and extended the ideas of Darwin and is currently the most accepted theory of evolution.
That too.Quote:
They both incorporate the main body of Science but they differ on how that explains the matter of the development of the universe, or more particularly, the biosphere.
No, they differ on science which contradicts the Bible for religious reasons.
I'm a non-scientist, so it depends on what I trawl from the sites. Glad to help.Quote:
Here's an example of evolutionary science misleading the medical world and the creation model being seen as correct:
Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp
Oh good you found an example.
OK. But did he not presuppose our curvature was in itself a weakness due to our evolutionary inheritance?Well first of all what you are talking about is the Williams exercises developed in the 1930's. So lets start rebuking the rubbish in that article shall we.
1. Williams believed that back problems were the result of our sedentary lifestyle, slouching etc. Specifically the curve of our spine.
Are you denying that the scientific world held that our curvature was a weakness in itself, due to our supposed move from our ape-like originals?2. Evolution says we once walked on all fours, it also says we used to live in the sea but I don't expect many doctors will tell you to start drinking sea water for your health. Williams did not base his exercises on evolution, he based his exercises on the spine because of what he observed as problems with his patients.
In fact, never mind the scientific world in general, what about Williams himself? Williams’ treatment was based on the conclusion that simply standing up straight ‘causes most low back problems,’35 i.e. humans have back problems because of their erect posture, a posture ‘different from that of any of earth’s other creatures.’35 Many problems result from erect posture because humans are ‘physically ill-equipped to walk upright.’35 Part of the solution, he concluded, is to walk with the body tilted forward. To achieve this forward posture, the individual must force the lumbar spine backward, thereby changing the weight distribution on the vertebral column. Williams also believes that walking upright is an ‘extremely difficult skill to master’—which is why ‘it takes a human child about three years to become an accomplished walker; whereas most other land animals become quite competent within the first few weeks following their birth.’35 He compares the human’s standing erect problems to trying to ‘stand a soft drink bottle on its neck.’35 35. Williams, P.C., Low Back and Neck Pain: Causes and Conservative Treatment, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, p. 13, 1982 Edition.
Doctors differ... I would not like to be treated by yours.3. Your article incorrectly claims that the Williams technique is harmful, again truth mixed with lies.
I'm glad he looked beyond evolutionary presuppositions and focussed on the actuality. When evolutionists leave their fairy story behind and work on observed science, good things happen.Secondly his thinking and exercises are NOT based on creationism. Its based on exactly the same thing as Williams. He observed pain in his patients and designed exercises to try and relieve that pain.
It fits the creationist model. We are meant to have human spines, not ape-like ones. Designed for work and play.This has nothing to do with creationism.
That you for that article, which confirms what I said about the evolutionary presuppositions on back-pain.If our spine was designed there would be no problem, because our spine evolved we have these problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s..._to_bipedalism
I can find no better description of it than your own words:
This is one of the most laughable things I have ever read
You need to focus to follow:to suggest the notion that god 'magicked' us into existence as we are was supportive of an exercise to relieve back pain. Only delusional fundamentalists could come up with this.
Human spine the ideal = God designed us.
Back pain should not be dealt with on the basis that our spines are poorly evolved = Back pain should be dealt with on the basis of restoring our natural posture.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Creation science is the science presented by a religious group who feel false science threatens their beliefs. And they do indeed they fight against anything which goes against their beliefs, including current theories held in reverence by the scientific establishment.
No theory is held in 'reverence' by the scientific establishment. I don't believe evolution because I 'want' to or because I am 'atheist'. My atheism has nothing to do with how I view science.
If tomorrow someone brought serious evidence that for example seriously questioned natural selection as a process of evolution then science would change.
Scientists base their knowledge on evidence, it is constantly changing and mistakes are corrected. Scientific theories are not 'beliefs', they are the best explanation using the current evidence at that time.
For example Newtons view on gravity was scientific theory for years, he made some mistakes which were later corrected by Einstein and I'm sure in a few years we'll find that Einstein had made mistakes which will be corrected.
Thats science. We don't hold anything in 'reverence'.
Thats the main difference. Whether or not you are right or wrong you will always hold your view because its your belief. If we should you 100% irrefutable evidence you will not change and you will find anyway out of accepting it because it goes against your belief.
And that is why creation science is not science.No, nor do I believe life spontaneously arose from non-life, or any other fairy story. As to religious people believing fairy stories, the world is full of false religion, both of the atheistic and theistic kind. Evolution is one of the main contenders.
Honestly, Why do you assume belief in evolution means belief in abiogenesis ? They really are not the same thing. Its like saying believing in evolution means believing in the big bang. Its not the same thing at all.
If you ask a scientist where does life come from he will say, "We don't know but there are many theories"
If you ask a scientist about the diversity of life he will point you to the theory of evolution.What really matters is not the size of changes, but rather whether changes add information to a creature’s genome. Observational science tells us that all the “evolutionary” changes we observe either keep genetic information constant or reduce it. That’s the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution would require. Furthermore, humans are set apart as a unique created kind in the Genesis account.
Please tell me you do understand that that is not science ?Diversification is a fact. Evolution in the sense of molecules-to-Man is a fiction.
Abigenesis = evolution.Are you denying that the scientific world held that our curvature was a weakness in itself, due to our supposed move from our ape-like originals?
Who are you talking about here ?It fits the creationist model. We are meant to have human spines, not ape-like ones. Designed for work and play.
Designed badly.
From talkorigins.
Williams' treatment for back pain was not based on evolutionary theory. It was based on observations of normal people and people with back pain. Part of his rationale was that people from African and Asian cultures who sat on the floor had less back pain than Westerners with their chairs.
Furthermore, Williams did not recommend decreasing lordosis all the time, but only in cases of posterior disc bulging. It was already well known that anything which interfered with the spine's normal curvature, increasing or decreasing it, tended to cause pain. As even Bergman acknowledges, the Williams flexion exercises are beneficial in cases of spinal stenosis.
Mackenzie's exercises were more effective because they were simple and required no special equipment, so patient compliance was much greater.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement