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
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wolfsbane is more impressed by the testimony of scientists to their persecution by the establishment, than by the excuses offered for their (undeniable) punishment.
Why? You think just because a scientist is ignored (or "persecuted" as you put it) by the scientific community it means he is on to something?He has read justification of this treatment that sounds positively Stalinist, right here on this thread.
You have? Can you link to this "Stalinist" persecution of scientists? Does it involve banning, censorship and forced labour prison camps?
Or is it more the "That is unscientific nonsense, we aren't publishing it" type of Stalinism. Stalin was a stickler for scientific standards, apparently
Such is the power of the evolutionary delusion. People just get mad, go crazy at any challenge to this modern 'faith'.
Yeah they start websites claiming massive conspiracies, claim wide spread persecution, and campaign for millions of dollars in "support for the truth" from their followers ... oh waitIf it were just science, a more relaxed approach could be expected.
You would think so, wouldn't you, almost as if eternal souls are at stake
0 -
-
-
-
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Ooh, wow, scientists. Fifty of them.
I guess the Theory of Evolution isn't altogether unanimous!
0 -
I guess the Theory of Evolution isn't altogether unanimous!
A quick Google suggests that there are approximately six million scientists in the world. And you've found fifty of them who are creationists? Bravo.
How many of those fifty are biologists, I wonder? I'd say it's a round number. Probably circular.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »How many of those fifty are biologists, I wonder?
9.
So 9 biologists. Which is about as many physicists who think the Earth is flat.
Impressive.
I wonder how many biologists in the world you can find who are clinically insane. Probably more.0 -
-
Wolfsbane is more impressed by the testimony of scientists to their persecution by the establishment, than by the excuses offered for their (undeniable) punishment. He has read justification of this treatment that sounds positively Stalinist, right here on this thread. Such is the power of the evolutionary delusion. People just get mad, go crazy at any challenge to this modern 'faith'.
If it were just science, a more relaxed approach could be expected. But it is a spiritual matter, a challenge to the zeitgeist of this age.
I don't think it is.
Whilst it may be the case that 'Research Funding' and 'Government Grants' are stong motivating factors in what science is researched and developed, scientific discoveries are still made. It may happen from time to time that an undergraduate may have to wait years for his discovery to be announced that proves that a current 'project' is doomed but truth will out in the end. Just as religious organisations have a history of political intrigue, so too does science.
Have you noticed on these fora that when someone who is perceived to be an atheist involves themselves with a discussion with Christians, the Christians unite against a common enemy; even when their opinions vary greatly, Christians don't challenge each other?
Have you noticed that?
Whereas, on the other hand you will find that atheists often argue with each other too. In fact, for a while, I thought Wicknight and Morbert were Christians themselves. And they may have thought me one too.
That's the difference; the church is happy to live without a consensus and science is not. Scientists will argue with each other and that results in the furtherance of knowledge. Eventually.
Evolution is science. It is a study of evidence. And you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as observation fails to back up the theory, the theory will be modified or rejected. Would that hurt some scientists? Perhaps. Would it hurt science? No!
So, would it hurt religious leaders if their version of history is wrong? Yes. Would it hurt religion to change its doctrine in order to reflect the current best understanding? Absolutely. Religion would be redundant.
Intelligent Design - religion's last best hope, but is it science?
Well, what is their claim; DNA is too complex to be understood and this proves the truthfulness of the Bible.
No, it's not science.
You cannot look to religion for science but perhaps you can look to science for religion.
Finally, I just wonder: Why did an Intelligent Designer not utilise the 'wheel' or 'cog' or the internal combustion engine? Why don't we have titanium skeletons, for example, and wouldn't it be handy if we could bounce when we fall off a ladder?
Why would an intelligent creator create an unstable planet and them populate it with such fragile forms of life?0 -
Research overturns oldest evidence of life on Earth
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-overturns-oldest-evidence-life-earth.html
(PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that the supposed oldest examples of life on our planet -- 3.5 billion-year-old bacteria fossils found in Australian rock called Apex Chert -- are nothing more than tiny gaps in the rock that are packed with minerals.
The new findings by geologists at the University of Kansas show that microscopic structures many scientists had thought to be primeval oxygen-producing cyanobacteria really are lifeless bits of hematite. The reexamination of the Apex Chert was published recently in Nature Geoscience, a respected peer-reviewed journal.
“We found no sign of any microfossil,” said Alison Olcott Marshall, assistant professor of geology at KU. “What we found were minerals that took the appearance of life. We went into this assuming these were microfossils — as was pretty well accepted in the scientific community. It was a good lesson in trusting your data over what you’d been told you should find. At every step of the way, we would do an experiment expecting to find one result and find the complete opposite instead.”
Odd. Scientists revising theories in relation to life on Earth. Isn't that supposed to not happen, according to Wolfsbane and JC.
Its almost as if they are, shock horror, doing science. Someone better tell these scientists quickly that if they don't toe the line they will be censored and fired from their jobs 0 -
-
-
To lighten the mood!
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just leave us be.”
God listened patiently to the man and after the scientist was finished talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Let’s have a man making contest.”
The scientist, with great arrogance said, “That would be fine.”
The Lord added, “Now, we are going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem,” then bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt.
God said to the scientist, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”0 -
To lighten the mood!
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just leave us be.”
God listened patiently to the man and after the scientist was finished talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Let’s have a man making contest.”
The scientist, with great arrogance said, “That would be fine.”
The Lord added, “Now, we are going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem,” then bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt.
God said to the scientist, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”
Why God never got tenure
1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from
the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told his students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son to teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
Lol at 13 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement