The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

The plan is also to teach that it is possible to see stars that are billions of light years away, something that would not be possible in a world that was 10000 years old, despite the few pathetic creationist attempts at explaining away this basic fact that disproves their ridiculous god of the gaps*



*note that I'm talking only of the creationist god that was disproved hundreds of years ago, not the christian god

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so WHAT EXACTLY does that weasel word 'Evolution' say in your humble opinion???:eek:

The plan is to teach them what you call micro evolution, something that you totally accept the existence of. The only difference is that scientists teach that macro evolution occurs when two divergent branches can no longer interbreed, that it's just a lot of cumulative micro evolution and the imaginary "kind" barrier that creationists speak of doesn't exist

J C wrote: »

...and WHICH fairytale is it planned to teach these four year olds???

In religion class we might teach them the fairy tale that the world was created 10000 years ago

J C

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, thanks for proving you actually are completely unbalanced. I pity any child who will be denied a proper education because of the irrational beliefs of their parent.

P.

...and I pity any child because of the Anti-God outlook of its parents ... but I fully respect the Atheist parents right to hold such a worldview ... and pass it on to their children!!!!

...and all I ask is that they equally respect my Human Rights in this regard!!!:(

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...and all I ask is that they equally respect my Human Rights in this regard!!!:(

If you want your religious beliefs taught in science class, all you have to do it submit papers for peer review like other scientists. But oh yeah, every scientist on the planet, be they atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or ju ju-ist is biased against you so creationists never submit papers and then claim they're being censored :rolleyes:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The plan is also to teach that it is possible to see stars that are billions of light years away, something that would not be possible in a world that was 10000 years old, despite the few pathetic creationist attempts at explaining away this basic fact that disproves their ridiculous god of the gaps*

...the jury is very much out on this ... with the latest 'inflation' theory which postulates that the Universe inflated to infinity INSTANTLY at the 'Big Bang'!!!!

This could indeed imply that this once-off event has strange effects like light being able to be seen over millions of light years distance ... even though the actual 'inflation event' only occurred thousands of years ago!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want your religious beliefs taught in science class, all you have to do it submit papers for peer review like other scientists. But oh yeah, every scientist on the planet, be they atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or ju ju-ist is biased against you so creationists never submit papers and then claim they're being censored :rolleyes:

...we have excellent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists who are Christians, Muslims and Jews ... so thanks ... but no thanks for you offer to use Creation Science papers for jax paper by guys like you!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the jury is very much out on this ... with the latest 'inflation' theory which postulates that the Universe inflated to infinity INSTANTLY at the 'Big Bang'!!!!

This could indeed imply that this once-off event has strange effects like light being able to be seen over millions of light years distance ... even though the actual 'inflation event' only occurred thousands of years ago!!!!

The "jury is very much out" because that is nonsense pulled out of some creationist's arse that could never have any evidence to support it even if it actually did happen. Even coming up with that nonsense shows that creationists fail one of the fundamental tests of science by showing that they're just trying to confirm the preconceptions that they're not supposed to have if they're doing science properly

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...we have excellent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists who are Christians, Muslims and Jews ... so thanks ... but no thanks for you offer to use Creation Science papers for jax paper by guys like you!!!!:D

No matter how biased someone is, if the science is good, if you prove your case beyond all doubt, everyone else has to shut up. Everyone that is except creationists who are still using ideas that were debunked in the 19th century. That creationists aren't even willing to try shows that even they know they're talking nonsense and the fact that they then claim to be censored shows their systematic dishonesty

Edit: and the fact that they then demand that their beliefs be taught as science after refusing to submit them to the scientific process and pretending they were prevented from doing so shows their breathtaking inanity

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I wasn't talking about Abiogenesis (see my opening sentence above which you left out of my quote) ... I was talking about the increase in CSI required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind ... which the Atheists claim to have happened by 'evolution' and are planning to tell ALL four years olds is a 'fact' ... without a shred of evidence or logic to support such a claim!!!!:(

Natural selection of random mutations.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The plan is to teach them what you call micro evolution, something that you totally accept the existence of. The only difference is that scientists teach that macro evolution occurs when two divergent branches can no longer interbreed, that it's just a lot of cumulative micro evolution and the imaginary "kind" barrier that creationists speak of doesn't exist

... I don't think that is the plan (although even this much is clearly wrong) ... it is obviously the plan to teach the 'whole unfounded nine yards' ... billons of years, Darwin worship, etc. just like they do in America ... and indeed in second level schools already!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In religion class we might teach them the fairy tale that the world was created 10000 years ago

... I have no doubt that you would do this ... with the 'spin' that it is a myth ... but if the pseudo liberals are to have any semblance of plausibility for their claims to 'cherish difference' they won't go down the road of anti-semetic remarks about 'bronze age' ignorant shepherds writing Genesis ... when it is a historical fact that the people who wrote Genesis were the leading intelligensia of their day operating under the direct inspiration of God ... a God who was PHYSICALLY present in their midst !!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... I don't think that is the plan (although even this much is clearly wrong) ... it is obviously the plan to teach the 'whole unfounded nine yards' ... billons of years, Darwin worship, etc. just like they do in America ... and indeed in second level schools already!!!!

Billions of years is taught in every single scientific discipline. If you don't want that you have a problem with the whole science class. No one teaches Darwin worship any more than Alexander Fleming is worshipped for discovering penicillin

As for the part that you said is clearly wrong, what's wrong with it? The first part we both agree on and I've never seen any evidence from creationists of a "kind" barrier beyond a declaration that they think it exists. Macro evolution as it is understood in modern biology has been observed many times

J C wrote: »

... I have no dubt that you would do this ... but if the pseudo liberals are to have any semblance of plausibility for their claims to 'cherish difference' they won't go down the road of anti-semetic remarks about 'bronze age' ignorant shepherds writing Genesis ... when it is a historical fact that the people who wrote Genesis were the leading intelligensia of their day operating under the direct inspiration of God ... a God who was PHYSICALLY present in their midst !!!

I would hope that the bible wouldn't even get a mention in biology class. It wouldn't if creationists didn't have this bizarre idea that evolution is an atheist conspiracy that for some reason is accepted by the majority of religious people. Whatever nonsense people want to teach their kids in their religion class is their own business

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No matter how biased someone is, if the science is good, if you prove your case beyond all doubt, everyone else has to shut up.

...do they really HAVE to shut up???

...and did they shut up when, one of their own, Dr Colin Patterson or Dr Fred Hoyle showed them that Materialistic Evolution is an unscientific IMPOSSIBILITY?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...do they really HAVE to shut up???

...and did they shut up when, one of their own, Dr Colin Patterson or Dr Fred Hoyle or showed them that Materialistic Evolution is an unscientific IMPOSSIBILITY?

It's hilarious that you call a few out of context quotes "showing them that Materialistic Evolution is an unscientific IMPOSSIBILITY". It's just a quote man, it shows nothing. That is unless you're a creation "scientist", where out of context quotes are king

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would hope that the bible wouldn't even get a mention in biology class. It wouldn't if creationists didn't have this bizarre idea that evolution is an atheist conspiracy that for some reason is accepted by the majority of religious people

...if the Bible isn't to be mentioned in Science Class why should the Atheists 'Holy Books' be mentioned in Religion class.

...I have no problem with the Bible not being mentioned in science class BTW ... it is the uncritical presentation of 'verses' from the Atheists 'Holy Books' that I object to!!!

Intelligent Design DOES NOT refer to the Bible or any other 'Holy Book' of any religion (including Atheistic Humanism) !!!!
:eek:

oceanclub

Just curious, JC but do you also disbelieve the godless, humanist theory of heliocentrism?

P.

oceanclub

J C wrote: »

...if the Bible isn't to be mentioned in Science Class why should the Atheists 'Holy Books' be mentioned in Religion class.

...I have no problem with the Bible not being mentioned in science class BTW ... it is the uncritical presentation of 'verses' from the Atheists 'Holy Books' that I object to!!!

Intelligent Design DOES NOT refer to the Bible or any other 'Holy Book' of any religion (including Atheistic Humanism) !!!!
:eek:

It's funny watching you both bold and underline the same words. "Hmm, bolding doesn't quite get my argument across - I really need to bold and underline words to make it a zinger."

P.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...if the Bible isn't to be mentioned in Science Class why should the Atheists 'Holy Books' be mentioned in Religion class.

They're not. Science is though, including biology and the basis on which modern biology is built, evolution. The fact that you think something supports what you think is a religious view doesn't automatically mean it should be excluded from science class, anything can get into science class as long as it successfully goes through the peer review process, which creationists refuse to submit their "work" to

J C wrote: »

Intelligent Design DOES NOT refer to the Bible or any other 'Holy Book' of any religion (including Atheistic Humanism) !!!!
:eek:

Which shows only creationist dishonesty. They removed all references of "creator" from their work and replaced it with "designer" in an attempt to deliberately subvert American laws about church state separation

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Natural selection of random mutations.

....the random mutations would be so overwhelmingly deleterious (in the absence of pre-existing CSI-rich self correcting mechanisms) that they would completely overwhelm any selection system including NS.

... you should remember that very often there is a very limited number of functional permutations for any specific function and the non-functional permutations are effectively infinite.

...and here is what the fossil record ACTUALLY says (according to an Evolutionist) Dr Colin Patterson :-

"Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin of Species to fossils, but spent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. It seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps. Evolution (1999) p.106

But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109

....the 'fossil record' is actually the 'drowning record' of Noah's Flood ... nothing more ... nothing less ...

....and that is why the 'fossil record' simply doesn't 'fit' with Darwins idea that it is a historical record of supposedly 'emerging' new species.:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... you should remember that very often there is a very limited number of functional permutations for any specific function and the non-functional permutations are effectively infinite.

Uh oh here we go again. The fact that you keep using that nonsense even though it has been shown to be a self refuting circular argument shows at the very least that you are scientifically incompetent completely independent of any religious beliefs you think you're being discriminated against for

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

"Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin of Species to fossils, but spent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. It seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps. [/COLOR] Evolution (1999) p.106

I don't have a copy of that text, so JC would you mind quoting the rest of that passage please. As a sign of good faith.:)
Preferably the preceding paragraph beforehand and the one directly after it.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're not. Science is though, including biology and the basis on which modern biology is built, evolution. The fact that you think something supports what you think is a religious view doesn't automatically mean it should be excluded from science class, anything can get into science class as long as it successfully goes through the peer review process, which creationists refuse to submit their "work" to

...Which part of Dr Colin Pattersons statement, that historical claims in relation to the supposed development of 'Pondkind to Mankind' isn't Operative Science, do you not understand????

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which shows only creationist dishonesty. They removed all references of "creator" from their work and replaced it with "designer" in an attempt to deliberately subvert American laws about church state separation

...any proposed Laws on church state separation are blatantly anti-christian discrimination as they target ONLY one religion (one that has churches) i.e. Christianity for 'separation' i.e. for no protection by the state.

These laws would be an anachronism ... and they would need to be reframed to treat ALL religions EQUALLY ... and that includes extending the SAME rights to Christian Young Earth Creationists as are already enjoyed by Atheistic Humanists ... and vice versa!!!:(

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...Which part of Dr Colin Pattersons statement, that historical claims in relation to the supposed development of 'Pondkind to Mankind' isn't Operative Science, do you not understand????

I don't see thew above source as contributed by you saying that!
All the saurce you supply says is that there is not a totally complete fossil record available to us showing all the species and all the species they evolved into.

There is no complete bible record either showing a complete New Testament text since say about fifty years after the the time of Jesus. The first complete New Terstament comes together about 300 years after Jesus but we can still infer the gaps. similarly of the millions of species it isnt necessary to hav a fossil ovf every single one to infer evolution.
In additin to that we now also have an explaination of DNA and can explain how it mutates. It all fits with the theory of Evolution!

Patterson nowhere above says "evolution is not science" as you claim!

These laws are an anachronism ... and they need to be reframed to treat ALL religions EQUALLY ... and that includes extending the SAME rights to Christian Young Earth Creationists as are already enjoyed by Atheistic Humanists ... and visa versa!!!:(

So the "flying spaghetti monster" church and all other interpretations should have equal time as well?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps[/B]. Evolution (1999) p.106

You do realise that saying there are gaps in the fossil record is not the same thing as saying there are no transitional fossils?
Unless the fossil of every last creature ever to have existed is found there will always be gaps in the fossil record. However, every fossil that gets found is filling a gap.

But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109

That piece is quite out of date. Evidence of animals ancestral to those which lived in the Cambrian has been found. In other words we now know that complex life lived before the Cambrian period - another link found.
As a side note, I find it funny how you can cite things which happened in the Cambrian period as evidence when you don't in fact believe in the Cambrian period! :pac::D:):eek:

chozometroid

J C wrote: »

...when the Atheists stop repeating their unfounded nonesense ... I will stop repeating my scientific refutation!!!:eek:

...anyway Chozometroid ... do you have NOTHING to say about the effective eclipsing of the 'Liberal Christian' Faith in Britain (which was already on the way out anyway) by the coup de grace that was deftly delivered by the Atheistic Humanists and their 'fellow travellers' within the said Liberal Churches ... by allowing Darwinism to effectively take over both the religion and the science classes in public schools on the 'origins' issue!!!!:(

...do you have NOTHING to say about the sacking of Christian teachers in America ... and now their possible sacking in Britain ... if they don't deliver the course on Darwinism without mentioning the dreaded word 'design' .. or questioning any of the tall tales that they will be forced to relate to innocent four year olds????

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

I'm not insulting you, so no need to whip out the anti-hypocrite verses.
I was just pointing out that your arguments are the same, even though no one seems to except the idea of CSI. So, even though you may feel the need to continue using it in your defense, it is to no avail.
There has not been any headway made in this thread regarding the validity of CSI. Until this is settled, it will not be taken seriously in any other context or argument.

I hear you and support the cause. As for myself, I haven't been following the situation with schools here in America regarding the teachings of origins, because I just haven't cared enough. I have a 7 month old child now, so I'm gonna start taking this seriously. My child will be homeschooled or go to a Christian academy where evolution is not presented as "duh everyone knows centipedes are a billion years old and the Creation story is just a fairy tale." I do not plan on hiding the teachings of evolution, however. Just want to be sure Creationism is not misrepresented and evolution is not glorified.

I am not educated enough to present myself as an authority on the faults of the evolutionary theory, nor on the alternative theories of YEC's, so until that changes, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the cause.

Time is something I don't have, and there are like a million things I'm trying to learn at once.

wolfsbane

I've been very busy, but hope to catch up in the next day or so.

Here's a significant new book on the debate:
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
Biblical and scientific responses
Norman C Nevin (Editor)
http://www.ivpbooks.com/1059

http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844744060

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Which part of Dr Colin Pattersons statement, that historical claims in relation to the supposed development of 'Pondkind to Mankind' isn't Operative Science, do you not understand????

I haven't even read it. I don't read mined creationist quotes. I did read doctoremma's quote from him saying how creationists misrepresented his position though

J C wrote: »

...the American Laws on church state separation are blatant anti-christian discrimination as they target ONLY one religion (one that has churches) i.e. Christianity for 'separation' i.e. for no protection by the state.

These laws are an anachronism ... and they need to be reframed to treat ALL religions EQUALLY ... and that includes extending the SAME rights to Christian Young Earth Creationists as are already enjoyed by Atheistic Humanists ... and visa versa!!!:(

They do treat all religions equally. Evolution is science as solid as the science used to make the computer you're typing on. It's not a religion. And if evolution is a religious belief then so are astronomy and physics because they disprove your god just as easily as evolution does

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And if evolution is a religious belief then so are astronomy and physics because they disprove your god just as easily as evolution does

Really?
I don't think astronomy or physics makes any such claims.
Nor does evolution disprove God.

In fact science and religion are compatible and can co exist.

Science as we know it and Christianity for example are rooted in the same foundation of Greek rationality.

There seems to be one group of people who thing Biblical fundamentalism is Christianity and another group who think Christianity and science can not co exist. Ironically, scientism has much the same sociological hallmarks that religious or atheistic fundamentalist has!

J C

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not insulting you, so no need to whip out the anti-hypocrite verses.
I was just pointing out that your arguments are the same, even though no one seems to except the idea of CSI. So, even though you may feel the need to continue using it in your defense, it is to no avail.
There has not been any headway made in this thread regarding the validity of CSI. Until this is settled, it will not be taken seriously in any other context or argument.

I hear you and support the cause. As for myself, I haven't been following the situation with schools here in America regarding the teachings of origins, because I just haven't cared enough. I have a 7 month old child now, so I'm gonna start taking this seriously. My child will be homeschooled or go to a Christian academy where evolution is not presented as "duh everyone knows centipedes are a billion years old and the Creation story is just a fairy tale." I do not plan on hiding the teachings of evolution, however. Just want to be sure Creationism is not misrepresented and evolution is not glorified.

I am not educated enough to present myself as an authority on the faults of the evolutionary theory, nor on the alternative theories of YEC's, so until that changes, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the cause.

Time is something I don't have, and there are like a million things I'm trying to learn at once.

...fair enough ... I was merely asking why you would join the Atheists in 'nit picking' over my answer to a particular question (that I have comprehensively and devatatingly answered numerous times ... and that they have asked numerous times) ... rather than helping me by adding your insights, if you have any, to the point at issue.

... and BTW you don't need any formal scientific training to condemn crass discrimination directed against Christian teachers when you hear about it ... or to recognise that 'separation of church and state' is focussed on removing the protection of the state and therefore the protection of Law from Christians ONLY.
If you are a Christian with a poor knowledge of Science, like you claim, then please leave the Science to me and if you are not going to help me, at least don't get in my way when I am landing a 'knock out' blow on yet another Atheist ... and believe me the Atheist Lurkers know when I have done this ... even though you may not realise what has happened!!!!

...BTW homeschooling may not be the best idea for your child as :-

1. You are a taxpayer - so you should be able to avail of a publicly funded education that doesn't undermine your Christian values.
2. If you are not a qualified teacher and you are not unemployed you will find it very difficult to homeschool your child with any degree of competence or convenience.
3. Your child will be marked out later in life for active discrimination by people like the guys on this thread - because they can see that your child was homeschooled!!!
If they would summarily sack me and rescind my earned qualifications, if they could do so, even though I am eminently and conventionally qualified and I have had a conventional education from start to finish ... just imagine what they will do with your child if they see from his/her education record that s/he was homeschooled!!!!
...s/he will be lucky to be a manual labourer ... if these guys have any say in the matter.

...so my advice, for what it is worth, is for you to conventionally educate your child ... and make contact with Saved Christians in your area and bring your child along to Creation Science events that are organised in your area ... and you will have the last laugh at the Atheistic Humanists and their Anti-God agenda!!!!

You could possibly avail of a Private Education at a Christian Academy ... but be aware, that your child may be openly discriminated against afterwards and I am unaware of any case where such discrimination against Christians has been punished or even the person restored to their job. If the Atheists can cite any example where a sacked Christian teacher or science researcher has been restored to employment I would certainly like to hear about it.

May the blessing of Jesus Christ be on you and your family.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I find it funny how you can cite things which happened in the Cambrian period as evidence when you don't in fact believe in the Cambrian period! :pac::D:):eek:

...the fact that the evidence for the Cambrian Time Period doesn't stack up, is proof that there wasn't a Cambrian Time Period ... or any other of the 'Time Periods' that the Evolutionists confuse themselves with.

The so-called 'Periods' are the burial and fossilsation records of similar creatures during Noah's Flood!!!

They are useful camparitors and they are critically important in Geology, Hydrology and mineral/oil exploration

oceanclub

chozometroid wrote: »

I am not educated enough to present myself as an authority on the faults of the evolutionary

Well, that's just fantastic. You admit you youself have no idea of the actual scientific validity of evolution - you just want to stop your children learning it because of your religion. 2 centuries ago, you probably would have stopped your children being taught that the Earth went around the sun instead of vice versa(*).

P.

(*)The Catholic church only accepted this in 1822.