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 a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…706707709711712…822

Comments

  • #21242
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Better than magic. :pac:
    ... do you mean the 'magic of evolution' ... that supposedly turned a frog into a prince ... with nothing added but time!!!!:eek:


  • #21243
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    1) Ben Stein is a 'tard.
    2) The 'evidence' for creation science does not point to any particular deity.

    So I guess I'll continue to accept The Theory That Explains The Diversity of Life Better Than Any Other Theory To Date.
    ... yes indeed the Theory of Intelligent Design by Direct Creation does explain the diversity of life better than any other theory to date!!!:);)

    ..and you are correct that the Theory doesn't identify any particular deity ... but the prime candidate is the Creator God of the Bible!!!!:D


  • #21244
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote:
    ...what has that got to do with anything ...

    ...are Roman Catholics now going to leave their children to the 'tender mercies' of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... just like they unquestioningly entrusted them to priests and religious in the past?

    ... I think not ... but I could be wrong!!!

    ... once bitten ... twice shy ... would be my motto on this!!!

    Well, if the majority of people had a problem with what is being taught in schools, then it would be changed.

    The majority are religious and don't. So it may have been Atheists that put forward this curriculum (ProTip: It wasn't) but it was the religious masses that kept it.
    J C wrote: »
    ... do you mean the 'magic of evolution' ... that supposedly turned a frog into a prince ... with nothing added but time!!!!:eek:
    No it doesn't.
    J C wrote:
    I could be wrong!!!
    Don't worry, you are.


  • #21245
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    ... yes indeed the Theory of Intelligent Design by Direct Creation does indeed explain the diversity of life better than any other theory to date!!!:);)

    ..and you are correct that the Theory doesn't identify any particular deity ... but the prime candidate is the Creator God of the Bible!!!!:D

    So you're telling me what I believe now, how unexpected from a fundie...


  • #21246
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    the ones who believe in the mythical powers of 'Pondscum' to become Man with nothing added but time!!!

    Nobody here believes that.
    J C wrote: »
    ...and they expect Christians and other rational people to 'roll-over' and have their children 'brainwashed' with a one-sided account of this stuff!!!

    JC, do you know what I expect? I expect a rational and grown man to understand the position he is debating, to argue coherantly and to avoid repeating petty errors over and over again. In short, I expect an adult discussion.

    So can we clarify, for your benefit:
    Nobody here thinks pondslime became man with nothing added but time.
    Nobody here thinks we are an accidental product of random mutations.


  • Advertisement
  • #21247
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, if you were set up a scale from +1 to -1, in terms of objectivity and with religion occupying +1, where do you perceive science/atheism to lie? I think you're suggesting we are all pushing for -1 but this is not true. Science should sit at 0 and Genghis exemplified it perfectly with his alternative name for evolutionary theory. None of us will say that the theory is perfect or not subject to change (see definitions of "science" for clarification). None of us would formally assert that it is "true" (although for the purposes of internet discussion, it doesn't always seem like that). All we know is that, as it stands, it is the most appropriate scientific model for the life we observe around us. It has been adapted and altered as new findings are made but the basic premise has never been found to be flawed.
    ...unfortunately this hasn't proven to be the case ... and the Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' aren't the objective creatures that they often claim to be ... and their suppression of 'origins' information in schools and job discrimination in America means that they no longer enjoy the moral authority to exclusively determine what is a balanced curriculum on the 'origins' issue ... either within science or religion class!!!

    They will need to demonstrate that these curricula are determined with due respect for Christians and Orthodox Jews, if they are to make any claim to anything other than forced indoctrination in relation to the 'origins' question.


  • #21248
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Nobody here believes that.



    JC, do you know what I expect? I expect a rational and grown man to understand the position he is debating, to argue coherantly and to avoid repeating petty errors over and over again. In short, I expect an adult discussion.

    So can we clarify, for your benefit:
    Nobody here thinks pondslime became man with nothing added but time.
    Nobody here thinks we are an accidental product of random mutations.
    ...so WHAT exactly do you think when it comes to the 'origins' of Man ...
    ... that he 'evolved' from Pondkind ... with no intelligence allowed ... with plenty of time and the selection of 'mistakes'???

    ... doesn't sound like much of an explantion to me !!!!:eek:


  • #21249
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    They will need to demonstrate that these curricula are determined with due respect for Christians and Orthodox Jews, if they are to make any claim to anything other than forced indoctrination in relation to the 'origins' question.

    Why should a science lesson pay any respect to religious belief?

    This fundamentally misuses the premise of free speech to demand that one's unsubstantiated views be treated as validly as established scientific models. This would be laughable if a minority demanded that the theory of gravity discuss the premise of "intelligent falling". And why pick those two religious views (remarkable as atheists outnumber Jews in America)? Why do we not give equal accord to all religous and philosophical views on creation?

    I'll ask again, do you understand what "science" is?


  • #21250
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    So you're telling me what I believe now, how unexpected from a fundie...
    ...I don't particularly care WHAT you believe ... as long as you don't force your errant views on me or my fellow Christians!!!

    ..and I was merely pointing out that The Theory That Explains The Diversity of Life Better Than Any Other Theory To Date is in fact the Theory of Intelligent Design by Direct Creation.:)


  • #21251
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...so WHAT exactly do you think when it comes to the 'origins' of Man ...
    ... that he 'evolved' from Pondkind ... with no intelligence allowed ... only plenty of time and the selection of 'mistakes'???

    ... doesn't sound like much of an explantion to me ... however you define it!!!!:eek:

    Well, at least you credited selection with a role which is a start - remind me, you do understand what selection is, yeah? You understand that scientists can view how this process can radically alter the genetic makeup of a population of organisms, yeah? Quite a powerful force that you appear to consider as an afterthought.

    And yes, selection is the key to the whole thing. Selection is not in any way "random" or "accidental", even if the raw material it uses is derived from "accidents" or "random" changes.

    I am neutral on the issue of whether it sounds like an explanation to you. It's more important that the model accurately accounts for what we can observe around us. And it does. Without the need to evoke an intelligence at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #21252
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    ...I don't particularly care WHAT you believe ... as long as you don't force your errant views on me or my fellow Christians!!!

    ..and I was merely pointing out that The Theory That Explains The Diversity of Life Better Than Any Other Theory To Date is in fact the Theory of Intelligent Design by Direct Creation.:)

    I thought that explained the origins of life.
    I thought you accepted micro evolution as the means for diversity.


  • #21253
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why should a science lesson pay any respect to religious belief?
    ...BECAUSE the curriculum for these science lessons IS ALREADY paying (scientifically undeserved) respect to the religious beliefs of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... that life was effectively produced and developed WITHOUT God!!!
    ... when the evidence is indicating that 'God DID in fact do it'!!!

    doctoremma wrote: »
    This fundamentally misuses the premise of free speech to demand that one's unsubstantiated views be treated as validly as established scientific models. This would be laughable if a minority demanded that the theory of gravity discuss the premise of "intelligent falling". And why pick those two religious views (remarkable as atheists outnumber Jews in America)? Why do we not give equal accord to all religous and philosophical views on creation?
    ...more strawmen and red herrings than you could shake a stick at!!!!

    ... look, none of these ridiculous analogies EXIST!!!!
    ... but Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists DO claim that there was an Intelligent input into the origin of life on this planet ... and any science curriculum deserving of the name must recognise this REALITY and provide a balanced treatment for this very powerful and robust SCINTIFICALLY VALID theory !!!

    ...and there are no valid reasons for its continued suppression other than the self-serving ideas and the Anti-God agenda of the Atheists themselves!!!:(


  • #21254
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    I thought that explained the origins of life.
    I thought you accepted micro evolution as the means for diversity.
    ...I wasn't talking about the means ... I was talking about the origin of the CSI that provides the means !!!:)


  • #21255
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    ...and there are no valid reasons for its continued suppression other than the self-serving ideas and the Anti-God agenda of the Atheists themselves!!!:(

    In a religious country.


  • #21256
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Well, at least you credited selection with a role which is a start - remind me, you do understand what selection is, yeah? You understand that scientists can view how this process can radically alter the genetic makeup of a population of organisms, yeah? Quite a powerful force that you appear to consider as an afterthought.

    And yes, selection is the key to the whole thing. Selection is not in any way "random" or "accidental", even if the raw material it uses is derived from "accidents" or "random" changes.

    I am neutral on the issue of whether it sounds like an explanation to you. It's more important that the model accurately accounts for what we can observe around us. And it does. Without the need to evoke an intelligence at all.
    ..selecting from a 'load of rubbish' means that you will always end up with a 'load of rubbish' ... 'selcted rubbish' ... but still a 'load of rubbish' none-the-less!!!:eek:

    NS can only work where there is an abundance of functional high quality genetic diversity ... and functional high quality genetic diversity can only be derived from the high quality CSI infused at Creation ... by whatever intelligence did the creating !!!

    ...an ultimate Intelligent input is required for all CSI and that is WHY there was an Intelligent input at the origin of life ... and no futher CSI has been developed since, by any non-intelligently directed processes such as mutation and/or NS!!!


  • #21257
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...BECAUSE the curriculum for these science lessons IS ALREADY paying (scientifically undeserved) respect to the religious beliefs of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... that life was effectively produced and developed WITHOUT God!!!

    Atheism is not a religion. Many theists accept evolution (although I may agree with you here in that I don't they're compatible).

    I'm afraid that to assert that evolution is undeserved of scientific respect, you are going to have to take the argument down. As this is however many pages into this thread with no valid counterargument from you, I won't hold my breath. Rest assured, your Nobel Prize waits.

    You simply cannot demand that your views are taken into account if you have no reason for them to be so. Must try harder.
    J C wrote: »
    ...more strawmen and red herrings than you could shake a stick at!!!!

    I don't see them. I see no difference in teaching creationism to teaching that Santa Claus exists to teaching that intelligent falling is a valid explanation for gravity.


  • #21258
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    In a religious country.
    ...what has that got to do with anything???

    Like I have already said, Irish Roman Catholics have been 'once bitten' in the trust that they have placed in various authorities ... and if they are 'twice shy' they will indeed closely examine exactly what is being taught to their children both within church-run schools and without them!!!


  • #21259
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ..selecting from a 'load of rubbish' means that you will always end up with a 'load of rubbish'

    Please define "rubbish" in this context. It's not a scientific word so can you find a suitable alternative? I doubt very much that organisms who find themselves far more fit to survive would call any part of the process which got them there "rubbish".
    J C wrote: »
    NS can only work where there is an abundance of functional genetic diversity

    OK...
    J C wrote: »
    ... and functional genetic diversity can only be derived from the otiginal CSI infused at Creation!!!

    So not mutation? Not any of the fusions, frameshifts, translocations, duplications, operons etc that we can actually observe in real life?


  • #21260
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...what has that got to do with anything???

    Like I have already said, Irish Roman Catholics have been 'once bitten' in the trust that they have placed in various authorities ... and if they are 'twice shy' they will indeed closely examine exactly what is being taught to their children both within church-run schools and without them!!!

    I suspect the point was that you live in a country where the vast majority of people are Christian and some to the very extreme of what we recognise as Christianity. While this correlates well with many demographics (high murder rate, high std rate, high abortion stats), it strangely doesn't correlate with the push to get creationism taught in schools. And this depsite the fact that you have had a bible-bashing president for most of this century.

    So JC, why can the majority religious group not get creationsim taught?


  • #21261
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Atheism is not a religion. Many theists accept evolution (although I may agree with you here in that I don't they're compatible).

    I'm afraid that to assert that evolution is underserved of scientific respect, you are going to have to take the argument down. As this is however many pages into this thread with no valid counterargument from you, I won't hold my breath. rest assured, your Nobel Prize waits.

    You simply cannot demand that your views are taken into account if you have no reason for them to be so. Must try harder.
    ..if Atheism isn't a religion ... then they should stay out of essentially religious questions like the 'origins' issue.
    ...if they want to have their 'origins' story recognised in school curricula ... then they need to allow other scientifically valid 'origins' explantions to ALSO be presented in a balanced and fair manner!!!

    ...equally, individual churches who have thrown their lot in with the Evolutionists ALSO must recognise the rights of minority faiths such as Saved Christians and Orthodox Jews to have their scientifically valid explanations presented in a balanced fashion on the 'origins' issue!!!!

    ...the era of taking what an Atheist or a cleric says as Gospel are over!!!:(

    ... and all the talk about 'respecting diversity' and 'valuing difference' is just so much 'hot air' ... if the views of Eminent Creation Scientists aren't also respected!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #21262
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I suspect the point was that you live in a country where the vast majority of people are Christian and some to the very extreme of what we recognise as Christianity. While this correlates well with many demographics (high murder rate, high std rate, high abortion stats), it strangely doesn't correlate with the push to get creationism taught in schools. And this depsite the fact that you have had a bible-bashing president for most of this century.

    So JC, why can the majority religious group not get creationsim taught?
    ... it is indeed a very good question!!!

    ...and I can guarante you that NO CONTRIBUTION was made to the murder rate, the std rate or the abortion stats by ANY Saved Christian ... after they have been Saved!!!:)


  • #21263
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ..if Atheism isn't a religion ... then they should stay out of essentially religious questions like the 'origins' issue.

    Ok, now the labels are getting confusing and this is getting a bit sinister. Are you saying that atheists or scientists or atheist scientists should stay out of the origins issue? The issue of how we got here isn't a religous issue, it's a biological issue - why would you ask scientists to stay away?
    J C wrote: »
    then they need to allow other scientifically valid 'origins' explantions to ALSO be presented in a balanced and fair manner!!!

    I don't disagree with the premise. However, I do not consider the biblical story of creation as scientifically valid. Your Nobel Prize awaits...


  • #21264
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... it is indeed a very good question!!!

    Perhaps you might like to try and answer it?


  • #21265
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Well, if the majority of people had a problem with what is being taught in schools, then it would be changed.

    The majority are religious and don't. So it may have been Atheists that put forward this curriculum (ProTip: It wasn't) but it was the religious masses that kept it.
    ... if the majority didn't know what is being taught they mightn't have any problem with it!!!!

    ...equally the majority in some communities in America are Creationists ... yet teachers have still been sacked for mentioning ID ... because it's the Law.

    'Majorities' don't count when it comes to the Law!!!
    ...and that is the real genius of the Evolutionist approach in America!!!


  • #21266
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... if the majority didn't know what is being taught they mightn't have any problem with it!!!!

    ...equally the majority in some communities in America are Creationists ... yet teachers have still been sacked for mentioning ID ... because it's the Law.

    'Majorities' don't count when it comes to the Law!!!
    ...and that is the genius of the Evolutionist approach in America!!!

    Have you questioned why it is the law? And let's be real here, it's not just in America that creationism is scorned. You need to be questioning why these guidelines exist in the majority of the developed world.

    TBH, it's good that majority rule doesn't dictate law.


  • #21267
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Perhaps you might like to try and answer it?
    ... NO!!

    ...you are better off remaining in your innocence on this one!!!


  • #21268
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Have you questioned why it is the law? And let's be real here, it's not just in America that creationism is scorned. You need to be questioning why these guidelines exist in the majority of the developed world.

    TBH, it's good that majority rule doesn't dictate law.
    ...how very 'democratic' of you!!!!:):D


  • #21269
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...how very 'democratic' of you!!!!:):D

    Indeed. Democracy does not impart truth. Just because a lot of people want something doesn't make it right.


  • #21270
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... NO!!

    ...you are better off remaining in your innocence on this one!!!

    For sure, why don't you treat me like a child.

    Or could it be that you don't have an answer....


  • Advertisement
  • #21271
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Ok, now the labels are getting confusing and this is getting a bit sinister. Are you saying that atheists or scientists or atheist scientists should stay out of the origins issue? The issue of how we got here isn't a religous issue, it's a biological issue - why would you ask scientists to stay away?



    I don't disagree with the premise. However, I do not consider the biblical story of creation as scientifically valid. Your Nobel Prize awaits...
    ...There is nothing sinister about asking people to extend the same rights to 'others' ... that they wish the 'others' to extend to them!!!

    ... so if you want to have your Atheistic Religious point of view included in an essentially religious matter ... then you should extend the same right to people of other faiiths ... especially when you intend to present your religious perspective to the children of these people from other faiths!!!!

    ...similarly, if you are claiming scientific validity for your point of view it is not sufficient just to use a self-serving definition of science to protect your 'pet theory' from the devastation that results when Creation Scientists scientifically examine ANY aspect of Materialistic Evolution!!!
    ...and its certainly completely unacceptable to suppress invalidating information on your theory and validating infomation on alternative theories ... just because the alternative also happen to validate the existence of God!!!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement