Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
"Mark T"
edited by
Mark I. Vuletic
Last updated 19 May 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public
school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to
religious views their parents don't hold, if we allow them to spout outright
lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left?
If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about
anything.
Philosopher Patricia Princehouse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not for a century has there been any scientific controversy over
creationism. Once the standard lens through which scholar and layman alike
viewed nature, creationism has long since been retired from the world of
science, retreating before new discoveries and the development of new
theories better able to explain the evidence on hand. Nor does it seem
likely that creationism will ever again gain a foothold in the world of
science. The failure of contemporary advocates of creationism to
meaningfully engage with the scientific community, opting instead to press
their views through legal and marketing campaigns, only guarantees that
creationism, no matter how subtly cloaked, will always be seen by the
scientific mind for the fanatical religious ideology it has become.
The modern controversy over creationism is a war over science education
rather than a war over science. Having no science to offer, creationists
have directed their efforts at subverting science education through the
courts and the media, understanding that once science education fails,
science itself cannot long stand. Recent headlines attest that their legal
machinations continue to result in high-profile failures, but that their
propaganda campaign has enjoyed moderate success. The only strategy that can
ultimately prevail against this campaign is to match propaganda with
information: to sink as much time and money into educating the public as the
creationists do into misleading it.
The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
of the creationist rejection of science, which extends beyond evolutionary
biology and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTENTS
I Cosmology
II Geology
III Abiogenesis
IV Evolutionary Biology
V Paleontology
VI Moral and theological issues related to science
VII Miscellaneous issues related to science
Chris Bell
As a scientist, I think we have already lost the battle (which is one
reason I don't even bother to join the group trying to educate Galdys!).
The general population does not understand science, or even consider it
remotely interesting. How much prime time television about science per
week? Much less than twenty years ago (proportionally).
The reasons are various.
1. Modern gadgets (digital TV, MP3 player, mobile phone, computer, the
Internet) are so complicated in operation that the average person has no
hope of understanding the science behind them. They just work by magic!
(Ask someone if you don't believe me!)
2. The world has changed from the modern world of the early 20th century
where science and engineering reigned supreme to that of the late 20th
and early 21st centuries where economics reigns supreme. After the world
wars, scientists were heroes because they won the wars with radar and
the A-bomb. Research and teaching were highly funded, with the aim of
bringing in a new utopian society of health, happiness and leisure. We
were to use science to bring about a new world. Well, we got our new
world and with lots of science, but not the other bits. And it didn't
quite work economically, so the economists got working and persuaded
Reagan and Thatcher that it had to be done differently. Now we are all
consumers, driving the economy by our profligate spending, and financing
it by working ever harder and longer. Joe Average understands this
(probably implicitly, not explicitly), and thinks that science has
failed. Why take an interest, it doesn't help him with the mortgage. So
science is no longer cool.
3. The rise of fundamentalism. I think you already understand this. It
also applies in science, where anything which doesn't fit into a 5
second soundbyte will not be understood by most people. People just
cannot cope with anything complicated any more. They just want instant
answers no matter how difficult the problem (eg how to maintain a good
relationship with Indonesia at present!). In a complicated world, most
people want simple answers, and they are always simplistic (and wrong).
And the media (and politicians) are very good at giving people just what
they want.
4. Postmodernism - there is no ultimate reality. My opinion is as good
as yours. You may have studied the subject for twenty years, and me for
20 seconds, but that is of no concern. We are both right even when we
disagree, and I will defend my position regardless of anything you might
say. Science of course is different to this, basically incompatible with
much of postmodernism, despite what some people say about quantum
mechanics, parallel universes etc.
Fortunately there will always be some people who resist the popular
culture and care about truth and beauty. We can only hope that one day
they will regain control of our society, probably when our current
populist politicians have totally screwed our world as they seem to be
doing at an ever increasing rate. I don't expect it to happen soon (the
world is remarkably resilient), probably not even in my lifetime.
So I have given up trying to show creationists how stupid they are. But
I wish these people every success, while expecting them to have very little.
>
> The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
> this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
> providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
> comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
> exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
> of the creationist rejection of science, which extends beyond evolutionary
> biology and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
> chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
> The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
> moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
>
> .....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> CONTENTS
>
> I Cosmology
> II Geology
> III Abiogenesis
> IV Evolutionary Biology
> V Paleontology
> VI Moral and theological issues related to science
> VII Miscellaneous issues related to science
>
> from http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
>
>
>
Chris
Michael
<cb...@NOSPMdatafast.net.au> wrote:
I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
the only viable scientific hypothesis.
>
> 3. The rise of fundamentalism. I think you already understand this. It
> also applies in science, where anything which doesn't fit into a 5
> second soundbyte will not be understood by most people. People just
> cannot cope with anything complicated any more.
We will leave you to your proofs.
They just want instant
> answers no matter how difficult the problem (eg how to maintain a good
> relationship with Indonesia at present!). In a complicated world, most
> people want simple answers, and they are always simplistic (and wrong).
Always?
> And the media (and politicians) are very good at giving people just what
> they want.
No dispute there.
>
> 4. Postmodernism - there is no ultimate reality.
At least that is the religious opinion of the radical religious left.
My opinion is as good
> as yours. You may have studied the subject for twenty years, and me for
> 20 seconds, but that is of no concern. We are both right even when we
> disagree, and I will defend my position regardless of anything you might
> say. Science of course is different to this, basically incompatible with
> much of postmodernism, despite what some people say about quantum
> mechanics, parallel universes etc.
No disagreement there. Science and Truth do have a correct and incorrect
solution delegating the religious beliefs of postmodern moral relativism
and situation ethics to the dust bin of history at the end of the day.
>
> Fortunately there will always be some people who resist the popular
> culture and care about truth and beauty.
True, that is why I am more convinced by the scientific Creation theories
instead of the evolutionary ones.
We can only hope that one day
> they will regain control of our society, probably when our current
> populist politicians have totally screwed our world as they seem to be
> doing at an ever increasing rate. I don't expect it to happen soon (the
> world is remarkably resilient), probably not even in my lifetime.
>
> So I have given up trying to show creationists how stupid they are. But
> I wish these people every success, while expecting them to have very little.
Some say the same regarding evolutionists.
>
> >
> > The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
> > this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
> > providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
> > comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
> > exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
> > of the creationist rejection of science,
What in the guide 'rejects science' with specificity and particularity?
which extends beyond evolutionary
> > biology
What about just plain old biology?
and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
> > chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
Assuming that the evolution hypothesis is ever proven. Evolution theories
have come a long way since the discarded and discredited Darwinism of slow
gradual change, and the most viable remaining evolution theory left,
Punctuated Equalibrium is so close to Creation theory that only God is
missing which PE calls an unknown force eventhough we all know Who the
unknown force is.
> > The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
> > moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
Much like religious evolutionism which produces the meaningless of human
life, moral relativism, situational ethics, Mme Blatvosky's Root Race
Theory so popular with Adolph Hitler and others who have followed, and the
tragedy of Marx's religiously atheistic socalism with its state as saviour
and god which sent 100 million to death by Siberia built on Darwin's
racism from the evolutionists buybull, "Preservation of the Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life' AKA The Origin of Species, murder by abortion at
the altar of convenience and a score of other fundamental religious
beliefs that flows from evolutionary belief by blind faith in evolution
theories.
--
"-----------------"
May God Bless You
Michael
"Mark T"
>> Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
>> edited by
>> Mark I. Vuletic
....
> As a scientist, I think we have already lost the battle
That's a worry!
> How much prime time television about science per week?
A little better on Pay TV ... but not much.
> 2. The world has changed from the modern world of the early 20th century
> where science and engineering reigned supreme to that of the late 20th and
> early 21st centuries where economics reigns supreme.
Yep! That is also a worry as economics now drives science.
> 3. The rise of fundamentalism. I think you already understand this. It
> also applies in science, where anything which doesn't fit into a 5 second
> soundbyte will not be understood by most people. People just cannot cope
> with anything complicated any more. They just want instant answers no
> matter how difficult the problem (eg how to maintain a good relationship
> with Indonesia at present!). In a complicated world, most people want
> simple answers, and they are always simplistic (and wrong). And the media
> (and politicians) are very good at giving people just what they want.
Nicely stated.
> Fortunately there will always be some people who resist the popular
> culture and care about truth and beauty. We can only hope that one day
> they will regain control of our society, probably when our current
> populist politicians have totally screwed our world as they seem to be
> doing at an ever increasing rate. I don't expect it to happen soon (the
> world is remarkably resilient), probably not even in my lifetime.
Again a worry!
"Mark T"
> I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
> the only viable scientific hypothesis.
Yes, it does! That's the problem. Fundamentalists don't want truth.
> True, that is why I am more convinced by the scientific Creation theories
> instead of the evolutionary ones.
There are NO "scientific Creation theories". That's the problem!
Creationism is pseudoscience not real science.
Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
Theistic evolution is totally consistent with Christian faith.
The early two chapters of Genesis are myth and not time / space history.
Creationism only works for fundamentalists.
Real science works for everyone ... if you are an atheist or a Christian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Theology is not science.
Science is not theology.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
them?
CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the bible as
interpreted by absolutist fundamentalists). What facts can we find to
support it?
Bible Verse Justification: Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 (all of it)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
--Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of
deductive reasoning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
St Augustine - "Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the
Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this knowledge
he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian,
presumably giving
the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "Mark T" wrote:
> > Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
> > edited by Mark I. Vuletic Last updated 19 May 2006
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public
> > school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to
> > religious views their parents don't hold,
What about the parents whose children can be 'converted' to secularist
views that they do not hold?
> > if we allow them to spout outright
> > lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left?
> > If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about
> > anything. Philosopher Patricia Princehouse
What is lying about science? It is just accepting what the secular
evolutionists are saying
is the truth, because they believe it to be so?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<snip> See previous posting.
>
> As a scientist, I think we have already lost the battle (which is one
> reason I don't even bother to join the group trying to educate Gladys.).
> The general population does not understand science, or even consider it
> remotely interesting. How much prime time television about science per
> week? Much less than twenty years ago (proportionally).
>
Chris, When I found aus.religion.christian I decided to present the
Creation scientists point of view.
In 1985 I spoke on Radio 2GB, Sydney about the attributes of living
organisms which include the ability to procreate - make others like
themselves. I asked that discussions be held between the leaders of
both sides of the issue to determine the truth and to avoid confusion.
At that time I was not aware that Evolution had been taught to ALL High
School pupils in NSW since 1962. I have not investigated the situation
in other states.
>From the fact that living organisms can procreate which could be given
to children at the Infants school level I had reasoned that indicated
that there had to be a supernatural living being (The Almighty God of
the Bible) who created intially. Later I was told that Anslem, the
Archbishop of Canterbury in the second half of the 1100's had reasoned
the same way.
Scientists who accept that Evolution happened have a faith position
which cannot be tested and retested by the scientific method in modern
times.
The Creationists have a faith position that cannot be tested and
retested by the scientific method in modern times.
Both groups are looking at the same evidence from the past, assessing
it and coming to their conclusions. As I have read articles on both
sides of this issue and am aware that research is still being conducted
by both groups of scientists there are still decisions to made in the
future.
Those of us who are not Tertiary trained in any of the scientific
disciplines make our decisions from what we read, hear &/or see on
Radio and TV. The fact is, that as the secularists have the dominance
in the school system (because of government decisions in the 1800's)
evolution can be given and is Behaviour Modified to be the correct
point of view
with the implication that naturalism and uniformitarianism did occur in
the past.
I can understand why some Creationists, especially in the USA, are
asking that their studies be given alongside evolution in the schools.
<snip> See previous postings.
> So I have given up trying to show creationists how stupid they are. But
> I wish these people every success, while expecting them to have very little.
>
The scientists who are working on the issue of creationism are not
'stupid' as you believe.
Some have earned triple doctorates. All scientists employed with
Creation Ministries International have degrees from accredited
universities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neither am I stupid as perhaps you seem to believe.
I have both a Teachers Certificate (two years training - 1946 /1947)
and the Diploma of Teaching - Special Education (four years - part-time
- training 1978 - 1981).
While what I have given below may not seem of importance to you it is
possible that had I had the opportunity to do a degree course in
Education they may have contributed to a Bachelor's or Master's
degree.
* I was teaching an eclectic approach to Reading from 40 years before
it was stated that such a method was 'the way to go'. What were the
Tertiary academics doing during that time?
* I was congratualted twice for the projects I gave my Second Classes
on Australian Aborigines and their traditional cultures
* I dreamt how I could teach square roots to Infants's children and
gave a revised way to work doubl-line subtraction that removed the
illogical 'borrowing and paying back' of previous years.
* I gave the idea from Canada of a Parent Literacy Support programme to
an Inspector of the NSW Education Deapartment. It was first
implementaed by a Primary Principal and presented at the Principal's
and Mistreses' Conference in 1972 and information published in the
Sydney Morning Herald.
* The Infants' Department of which I was the Teaching Mistress in 1973
was assessed as having games skills up to a year ahead of other schools
in the same area,
*I set out generalised areas for investigation for the prevention and
possible remediation of conditions called Mental Illnesses in 1975,
after being the advocate of reform against previous Psychiatric
treatments with NSW and Federal Governments from May that year.
* I wrote a paper on the effect of Nervous Breakdowns in teachers -
sent to the NSW Education Deprtment and the NSW Teachers' Federation
(their officer presented research on Stress in teachers about 10 years
later
*I set out ways to implement Community Education (a voluntary led
programme) at the local level in 1976 as I expanded the Community Youth
Support Scheme that had been set-up by the then Prime Minister,
Malcolm Fraser. A TAFE course was started in 1981,
a College of Advanced Education course was started in 1982 and a
University course about 2000 so it is now professionally organised.
*It is possible that discussions I had with certain persons in Sydney
eventuated in the 'Jump Rope for Heart' programme in the schools,
* I wrote a paper giving suggestions that I was of the opinion could
lead to the earlier detection of colour blindness in younger children
* I wrote a paper on a Moral Development Approach to Procreation
*I did a study with a language disadvantaged five year old girl and was
the first to have her speak a word on cue.
* I have written the outline of a programme for readiness to learn
another language other than one's own mother tongue (published in five
educational journals and sent to the United Nations. (UNICEF). I need
an input from Linguistic specialists to complete it.
* I worked out a a way in which younger children could centre clay on
a Potter's Wheel
* I amazed teachers in local schools with reading improvement in
children - showing that
Dyslexia in some children could be prevented by a Phonics-based
programme.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
> > this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
> > providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
> > comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
> > exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
> > of the creationist rejection of science, which extends beyond evolutionary
> > biology and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
> > chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
> > The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
> > moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
> >
If you do not accept that Almighty God exists and that the creation of
the Universe and living organisms came into existence through His
omnipotent power you only have evolution to rely on - a theory that has
been around since the time of the ancient Greeks.
Charles Darwin extrapolated from change within a species, which he
observed in the Galapogas Island finches, to change between species
from unicellular to multicellular. .
But how can organisms increase their DNA to give the more comples
multicellular forms of
life????????
AND WHAT IS MORE EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T WANT ANY IDEAS TO BE GIVEN SO
THAT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR THEIR IDEAS.
EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE THROUGH THE SCHOOLS.
It is a fact that many denominational Christians closed their own
schools in NSW, and I assume in other states as they were established
in the 1800's, to enable all children to be educated in the public
system by established by the Education Act of 1880, determined to be
free, compulsory and secular with an input from denominational clergy
or their representatives in times allocated to them. That act came
after smaller Christian denominations were not always able to provide
day schooling for all their children.
The Roman Catholic denomination (although willing, I have been told, to
join into the Public system) were forbidden to do so by the Vatican.
Whether there was a conspiracy from sometime after 1848 (the
establishment of the first Public School in NSW) to teach all children
evolutionary ideas in the later period of the 1800's or not I do not
know, but it is a fact that evolution was taught in Biology and Botany
classes from sometime prior to 1962 which meant there was a resource of
trained teachers from 1962 when evolution was first brought in for all
secondary students.
It is also a fact that as secularists - psychologists and others -
imposed their ideas on schools and society in the post-war years that
there was a deterioration in behaviours and attitudes, both in schools
and the wider community - possibly a fact that they are not willing to
accept.
Gladys Swager
"Mark T"
>> > Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
>> > edited by Mark I. Vuletic Last updated 19 May 2006
>> > If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the
>> > public
>> > school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting
>> > children to
>> > religious views their parents don't hold,
>> > if we allow them to spout outright
>> > lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have
>> > left?
>> > If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about
>> > anything. Philosopher Patricia Princehouse
>
> What is lying about science?
Nothing.
It's creationist pseudo-science that is the lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Theology is not science.
Science is not theology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Create Your Own Bible Creatures: An Interactive Creation Science Kit
A horse with a lion-head and a snake-butt may seem far-fetched to people who
are not familiar with the Holy Bible, but scripture teaches us that such
creatures exist...
From http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0802/biblecreatures.html
Chris Bell
> In article <448f...@news.eftel.com>, Chris Bell
> <cb...@NOSPMdatafast.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark T" wrote:
>>
>>>Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
>>>
>>>edited by
>>>Mark I. Vuletic
>>>
>>>Last updated 19 May 2006
>>>
>
>
> I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
> the only viable scientific hypothesis.
>
about a theory is that it will be superseded at some point. Its just
that at present its the only viable theory - there just aren't any
others out there that come anywhere near working.
>
>>3. The rise of fundamentalism. I think you already understand this. It
>>also applies in science, where anything which doesn't fit into a 5
>>second soundbyte will not be understood by most people. People just
>>cannot cope with anything complicated any more.
>
>
> We will leave you to your proofs.
>
> They just want instant
>
>>answers no matter how difficult the problem (eg how to maintain a good
>>relationship with Indonesia at present!). In a complicated world, most
>>people want simple answers, and they are always simplistic (and wrong).
>
>
> Always?
>
falsifiable by making predictions which can be tested), whereas
creationism is explanation after the fact. It is theology, not science,
although it is dressed in scientific clothes. OTOH, evolution is not
theology and says nothing about God, spirit or meaning.
>
>>>The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
>>>this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
>>>providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
>>>comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
>>>exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
>>>of the creationist rejection of science,
>
>
> What in the guide 'rejects science' with specificity and particularity?
>
> which extends beyond evolutionary
>
>>>biology
>
>
> What about just plain old biology?
>
> and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
>
>>>chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
>
>
> Assuming that the evolution hypothesis is ever proven.
You have just shot yourself in the foot here. You can never prove a
theory, or else it is not a theory. You can use it, but never prove it.
> Evolution theories
> have come a long way since the discarded and discredited Darwinism of slow
> gradual change, and the most viable remaining evolution theory left,
> Punctuated Equalibrium is so close to Creation theory that only God is
> missing which PE calls an unknown force eventhough we all know Who the
> unknown force is.
>
>
>
>>>The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
>>>moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
>
>
> Much like religious evolutionism which produces the meaningless of human
> life, moral relativism, situational ethics, Mme Blatvosky's Root Race
> Theory so popular with Adolph Hitler and others who have followed, and the
> tragedy of Marx's religiously atheistic socalism with its state as saviour
> and god which sent 100 million to death by Siberia built on Darwin's
> racism from the evolutionists buybull, "Preservation of the Favoured Races
> in the Struggle for Life' AKA The Origin of Species, murder by abortion at
> the altar of convenience and a score of other fundamental religious
> beliefs that flows from evolutionary belief by blind faith in evolution
> theories.
>
None of this has anything to do with science, merely politicians misuse
of science. It happens all the time. I have heard many, many such
misuses by Christian preachers, and it always makes me want to shrink
into my pew. What I would like to know is how do we stop it?
Chris
Chris Bell
> Chris Bell wrote:
>
>>"Mark T" wrote:
>>
>>>Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
>>>edited by Mark I. Vuletic Last updated 19 May 2006
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public
>>>school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to
>>>religious views their parents don't hold,
>
>
> What about the parents whose children can be 'converted' to secularist
> views that they do not hold?
>
"converted" to a religion, which is by definition not secularist?
>
>>>if we allow them to spout outright
>>>lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left?
>>>If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about
>>>anything. Philosopher Patricia Princehouse
>
>
> What is lying about science? It is just accepting what the secular
> evolutionists are saying
> is the truth, because they believe it to be so?
There is no concept of truth in science which is outside that in society
generally. Truth is just not a scientific concept (see further comments
below).
This is just not true. It is not faith and it is tested every single day.
> The Creationists have a faith position that cannot be tested and
> retested by the scientific method in modern times.
True. That is the difference.
>
> Both groups are looking at the same evidence from the past, assessing
> it and coming to their conclusions. As I have read articles on both
> sides of this issue and am aware that research is still being conducted
> by both groups of scientists there are still decisions to made in the
> future.
>
No, biologists are doing experiments all the time testing their
theories. Creationists are not.
> Those of us who are not Tertiary trained in any of the scientific
> disciplines make our decisions from what we read, hear &/or see on
> Radio and TV. The fact is, that as the secularists have the dominance
> in the school system (because of government decisions in the 1800's)
> evolution can be given and is Behaviour Modified to be the correct
> point of view
> with the implication that naturalism and uniformitarianism did occur in
> the past.
Are you suggesting that teachers must be persons of faith? This wouldn't
go down well with most teachers or their union!
>
> I can understand why some Creationists, especially in the USA, are
> asking that their studies be given alongside evolution in the schools.
>
>
> <snip> See previous postings.
>
>
>>So I have given up trying to show creationists how stupid they are. But
>>I wish these people every success, while expecting them to have very little.
>>
>
> The scientists who are working on the issue of creationism are not
> 'stupid' as you believe.
> Some have earned triple doctorates. All scientists employed with
> Creation Ministries International have degrees from accredited
> universities.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Neither am I stupid as perhaps you seem to believe.
>
Gladys, I do not believe that you are stupid and I apologise if I gave
you that impression. It is obvious to me that you are intelligent in
your field, but it is also obvious that this is not science.
As I have explained to you before, scientists produce theories which are
tested against experimental evidence until they fail, when they are
replaced by new theories. At no point can a theory ever be called true.
In a sense, any theory is true - that is it is a scientific theory which
purports to explain something or predict something. Truth is a
philosophical, religious, political or judicial concept - not a
scientific one.
If you want to claim that creationism is true and evolution false, go
right ahead. It may be that way for you, but any biologist is not
interested in that. A biologist is interested in a theory as a means of
helping to explain some observation, not in determining truth. And that
biologist will be entirely uninterested in your beliefs (or his or her
own for that matter). They are not relevant to the subject under study.
> I have both a Teachers Certificate (two years training - 1946 /1947)
> and the Diploma of Teaching - Special Education (four years - part-time
> - training 1978 - 1981).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>>>The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to
>>>this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by
>>>providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and
>>>comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or
>>>exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects
>>>of the creationist rejection of science, which extends beyond evolutionary
>>>biology and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to
>>>chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution.
>>>The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but
>>>moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
>>>
>
> If you do not accept that Almighty God exists and that the creation of
> the Universe and living organisms came into existence through His
> omnipotent power you only have evolution to rely on - a theory that has
> been around since the time of the ancient Greeks.
> Charles Darwin extrapolated from change within a species, which he
> observed in the Galapogas Island finches, to change between species
> from unicellular to multicellular. .
>
> But how can organisms increase their DNA to give the more comples
> multicellular forms of
> life????????
Well understood now. Many errors occur in reproduction, some of which
increase the amount of DNA.
>
> AND WHAT IS MORE EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T WANT ANY IDEAS TO BE GIVEN SO
> THAT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR THEIR IDEAS.
> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE THROUGH THE SCHOOLS.
This is not true. They simply do not want creationism taught as science,
which it patently is not (as agreed yet again by the latest test case in
the US). I know of no restriction to teaching it as religion, which it is.
>
> It is a fact that many denominational Christians closed their own
> schools in NSW, and I assume in other states as they were established
> in the 1800's, to enable all children to be educated in the public
> system by established by the Education Act of 1880, determined to be
> free, compulsory and secular with an input from denominational clergy
> or their representatives in times allocated to them. That act came
> after smaller Christian denominations were not always able to provide
> day schooling for all their children.
> The Roman Catholic denomination (although willing, I have been told, to
> join into the Public system) were forbidden to do so by the Vatican.
>
> Whether there was a conspiracy from sometime after 1848 (the
> establishment of the first Public School in NSW) to teach all children
> evolutionary ideas in the later period of the 1800's or not I do not
> know, but it is a fact that evolution was taught in Biology and Botany
> classes from sometime prior to 1962 which meant there was a resource of
> trained teachers from 1962 when evolution was first brought in for all
> secondary students.
>
> It is also a fact that as secularists - psychologists and others -
> imposed their ideas on schools and society in the post-war years that
> there was a deterioration in behaviours and attitudes, both in schools
> and the wider community - possibly a fact that they are not willing to
> accept.
I agree. I think it has to do with the gradual breakdown of the
patriarchal system which predominated prior to the 1950s. As a child in
the 60s, I have seen many changes in society (most for the better) as
children were taught to think for themselves and not just accept what
someone else told them. This has led to a much more questioning society
with more pressure on teachers and others in authority to be able to
explain their points of view. It is much less authoritarian, and much
more questioning of authority.
Unfortunately, many in authority are not up to the task, and they are
consequently ridiculed and/or ignored. This must be very hard for those
who were used to being obeyed without question.
> Gladys Swager
>
Chris
Jani
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
[]
> AND WHAT IS MORE EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T WANT ANY IDEAS TO BE GIVEN SO
> THAT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR THEIR IDEAS.
> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE THROUGH THE SCHOOLS.
Maybe you should come to England, where state schools - not faith-based
schools - are required *by law* to conduct a collective act of Christian
worship every day, and where the greater part of the RE syllabus is almost
invariably Christian-biased. Plenty of counter-indoctrination against your
wicked evolutionists there, but if you suggested that creationism should be
taught in the science classroom, people would think you were mad.
Jani
Theo Bekkers
> if you suggested that creationism should be taught in the science
> classroom, people would think you were mad.
She is. :-)
Theo
"Mark T"
> How can you be "converted" to a secularist view? Surely you can only be
> "converted" to a religion, which is by definition not secularist?
Yep!
>> The Creationists have a faith position that cannot be tested and
>> retested by the scientific method in modern times.
>
> True. That is the difference.
Therefore creationism is pseudo-science.
Compare to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
> No, biologists are doing experiments all the time testing their theories.
> Creationists are not.
There is NO scientific research being done by creationists. Commenting with
bible verses on research by true scientists is NOT science!
>> Those of us who are not Tertiary trained in any of the scientific
>> disciplines make our decisions from what we read, hear &/or see on
>> Radio and TV. The fact is, that as the secularists have the dominance
>> in the school system (because of government decisions in the 1800's)
>> evolution can be given and is Behaviour Modified to be the correct
>> point of view with the implication that naturalism and uniformitarianism
>> did occur in
>> the past.
>
> Are you suggesting that teachers must be persons of faith? This wouldn't
> go down well with most teachers or their union!
Exactly! As a teacher I value woirking with fellow professionals of all
faiths and non-faiths. Teaching is a bout EDUCATION NOT PROPAGANDA.
Creationism is propaganda.
> As I have explained to you before, scientists produce theories which are
> tested against experimental evidence until they fail, when they are
> replaced by new theories.
When creationism is tested against experimental evidence it repeatedly
fails.
>> AND WHAT IS MORE EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T WANT ANY IDEAS TO BE >>GIVEN SO
>> THAT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN >>DECISIONS.
>> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR >>THEIR IDEAS.
>> EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE >>THROUGH THE SCHOOLS.
>
> This is not true. They simply do not want creationism taught as science,
> which it patently is not (as agreed yet again by the latest test case in
> the US). I know of no restriction to teaching it as religion, which it is.
Same here.
Teaching creationism as science is like teaching astrology as science.
> I think it has to do with the gradual breakdown of the patriarchal system
> which predominated prior to the 1950s. As a child in the 60s, I have seen
> many changes in society (most for the better) as children were taught to
> think for themselves and not just accept what someone else told them. This
> has led to a much more questioning society with more pressure on teachers
> and others in authority to be able to explain their points of view. It is
> much less authoritarian, and much more questioning of authority.
>
> Unfortunately, many in authority are not up to the task, and they are
> consequently ridiculed and/or ignored. This must be very hard for those
> who were used to being obeyed without question.
... like clergy! ;-)
Overall the trend towards more questioning is a good thing. people who
question are less likely to be duped by nonsense. Creationists don't like
people who question. The creationist mantra is "Believe the bible and don't
question it." That is not sufficient for a scientific answer. It is merely
religious dogma - a form of propaganda.
"Mark T"
> if you suggested that creationism should be taught in the science
> classroom, people would > think you were mad.
They are mad!
swa...@ozemail.com.au
you state that I was mad.
I have had Psychiatric treatments during my life, when I should have
been treated for the pre-war named medical condition, Neurasthenia, a
state of debilitation that was treated with a convalescent programme
without anxieties.
I had Anaemia from combining farm and housework with school and piano
studies/church activities/Girl Guides/a little sport, finished late at
night and waking late often missed breakfast which my mother left
prepared me for as she worked on the farm as all young men were
called-up for war service and none were available for farmwork.
I would think that other farm children during those years 'kept the
home fires burning' as their older parents required them to fill in for
the men including sons were not available for employment. Towards the
end of my first year of teaching I was diagnosed with Rheumatic
Fever, but only took three weeks sick leave - there were no relief
teachers then to take classes of teachers on such leave. All of that
put 'paid' to the hopes I had of becoming a Demonstration teacher which
had been the assessment from my first Inspection report.
The Psychiatric treatments I had were ECT (Electric Shock Treatments) -
the first course given without anaesthetic - which were known to cause
Brain Damage - didn't remember the first course of those until 25 years
later and that was due to the fact that I had not been expected to live
at birth (a fact my mother only told me when I she was terminally ill
in her late eighties) and I have realised that I lived my early life in
the present and the future, but studying by intense rote learning for
tests and elocutionary items I was able to gain the qualifications that
I did
and
Psychotropic medications, after I had lost my voice for about 2 hours
due to Stress and later again in a state of exhaustion, I experienced
intense hallucinations following their use and was given more ECT.
Out of it all I became an advocate of reform in respect of the
treatments I say now that I should never have had. I set out a
programme which I believed would give remediation and even prevention
of conditions treated by Psychiatrists and began my own recovery
without Psychiatric consultations. In fact a Christian Psychiatrist
gave me a referral to a Christian GP for Vitamin B12 injections which I
have found from the Internet are used for frontal-lobe
brain damage.
As the Psychiatrists had acted according to their training they could
not be legally charged with an offence under criminal laws. As a
Christian, I wrote to two who had treated to say that I forgave them.
It was only my word against theirs. But there should have been more
investigation of the state I was in especially as I had first been
assessed as 'mature beyond my years' and as 'having a high
intelligence'.
My postings in this newsgroup have never given any indication of
madness and if, in the past it may have been given - I was never given
that assessment although I did reach the stage after one medication
when I could barely speak my name - it was medically, clinically
induced.
There is life after what used to be called a Nervous Breakdown, but
that, in itself, was a wrong term, as is also the use of the term 'mad'
for an opinion contrary to that which is held by another. It can be
used as a term of denigration to criticise the other person, rather
than to debate the issue.
When bad things happen in life there are two ways to go:-
1. hit out at those who hurt you
2. try to make the situation better for others and oneself
I believe that I have successfully done the latter as Christian prayers
for healing were answered, not spontaneously, but gradually, so that
others could also have the benefits. .
For myself, I can say that I have a better memory now as I am near to
eighty years of age than I did in my younger years.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
"Mark T" wrote:
<snip>
> Creationism is pseudoscience not real science.
>
That would not be the opinion of the Tertiary-qualified scientists who
are studying the same evidence as the Evolutionary scientists, but
for scientific evidence for a younger universe and living organisms in
the world.
> Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
>
Jesus Christ accepted the Genesis record.
But I would be of the opinion that you do not accept that He was God in
human flesh from His virgin birth.
I would think your assessment of Him is that he was a human person who
did good, but made mistakes.
> Theistic evolution is totally consistent with Christian faith.
>
Would God Almighty create by changes from unicellular to macrocellular
organisms when by His omnipotence - the power of His Word - He could
create fully formed?
Would you accept the miracles that Jesus did as true accounts
ie. He worked from supernatual science or do you believe they are
fictional stories?
> The early two chapters of Genesis are myth and not time / space history.
>
How do you know?
> Creationism only works for fundamentalists.
There are Christians who are not fundamentalists, by that definition
as it applies in USA, who accept that God created according to kinds -
a Biblical term that can be equated to 'family' and sometimes 'species'
in today's science terminology.
> Real science works for everyone ... if you are an atheist or a Christian.
>
Yes, lighting in homes, factories, shops, the way automobiles and
aeroplanes, trains and other forms of transport operate, means to
detect the approach of cyclones, tsusamis etc. unfortunately, modern
weapons of war, and many more.
>
> Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
>
The work of Creation scientists, as published in their journals and on
the Internet is not from a position of ignorance.
Also visit Creation Ministries International for information on dating;
The following are not exhaustive, but once in their web page you can
enter further searches
Radiocarbon 'dating' in conflict
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/731
Geological conflict
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/260
Dating dilemma: fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/224
> Theology is not science.
>
But the Bible does have facts about the world and the universe
The book of Job (Bible):- 'God hangs the world on nothing'.
The ancient Greeks thought the world rested on the back of Atlas (a
very strong man), others thought it rested on a giant tortoise or giant
fish and other ideas..
Simpson, the inventor of Chloroform was inspired by the fact that the
Bible record stated that God brought a deep sleep on Adam.
Maury - worked out the ocean currents in the Atlantic after reading
about 'the paths of the sea' in the Psalms and from his work navigation
in that ocean became much safer. .
> Science is not theology.
> SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
> them?
>
I would suggest to you that since Darwin published the Origin of the
Species that, either in attempts to prove him right or through
indoctrinations in the school system, many entering science faculties
at Universities are studying from the 'conviction' - the conclusion -
that evolution did happen.
> CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the Bible as
> interpreted by absolutist fundamentalists). What facts can we find to
> support it?
>
>From the time that Darwin published there have been Biblical
theologians and scientists who opposed his conclusions.
> Bible Verse Justification: Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
How else did they come about?
If as evolutionists say from 'The Big Bang'. Then from whence came all
the matter in that explosion that created a universe so vast that even
modern telescopes have not shown its full extent.
And why would God work that way when He could speak the Universe into
existence,
ex-nihilo - from nothing - by the power of His Word?
You might think THAT is fantastic, but it would not be so for God
Almighty. .
Revelation 22:21 (all of it)
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.
I'm not sure what you mean by those two verses. But in respect of the
second one,
yes, we all need grace, understanding and patience as this topic is
discussed.
> Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
> --Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of
> deductive reasoning
>
> St Augustine - "Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the
> Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this knowledge
> he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a
> disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian,
> presumably giving
> the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."
>
Quotes from books do not necessarily conclude an issue.
Deductive reasoning only works correctly as the first premise(s) is/are
correct.
Augustine lived 354 - 430 AD. There would have been errors in thinking
by persons of all ideologies at that time. I would think that the
balance of what was true concerning Biblical scriptures, as they were
known at that time, would have been more in favour of the Christians
than the non-Christians. But as reliable statistics on Biblical issues
were not taken at all during those years what I have posted is opinion,
not verifiable fact.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Chris Bell wrote:
> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > What about the parents whose children can be 'converted' to secularist
> > views that they do not hold?
> >
> How can you be "converted" to a secularist view? Surely you can only be
> "converted" to a religion, which is by definition not secularist?
> >
To 'convert' can just mean to change a person's opinion without any
religious aspects in the decision.
To 'indoctrinate' means to instruct in a belief that is to be accepted
without any questioning.
That is what is happening in the school system and through the media
now in respect of
evolution.
<snip>
> > What is lying about science? It is just accepting what the secular
> > evolutionists are saying
> > is the truth, because they believe it to be so?
>
> There is no concept of truth in science which is outside that in society
> generally. Truth is just not a scientific concept (see further comments
> below).
>
I would never had known except that you told me. Through ALL the
textbooks that I have, even ones for English, on an odd occasion,
Mathematics, Social issues, evolutionary science is presented as TRUTH.
> >
> > <snip> See previous posting.
> >
> > Scientists who accept that Evolution happened have a faith position
> > which cannot be tested and retested by the scientific method in modern
> > times.
>
> This is just not true. It is not faith and it is tested every single day.
How can evolutionary change that happened long ages ago be tested in
science laboratories every day in the present time?
>
<snip>
> >
> Are you suggesting that teachers must be persons of faith? This wouldn't
> go down well with most teachers or their union!
> >
I would say that all teachers have faith in the methods by which they
were taught to teach or in the methods they find to be best in their
classrooms.
As for Teachers' Unions, extrapolating from the Teachers' Federation
in NSW, I would be of the opinion that they work from a political
agenda. The first teachers'strikes came in 1968. As a teacher who was
not politically motivated I did not see the implications then as I have
assessed them in later times.
<snip>
> >
>> Neither am I stupid as perhaps you seem to believe.
> >
> Gladys, I do not believe that you are stupid and I apologise if I gave
> you that impression. It is obvious to me that you are intelligent in
> your field, but it is also obvious that this is not science.
>
Thank you for your apology.
> As I have explained to you before, scientists produce theories which are
> tested against experimental evidence until they fail, when they are
> replaced by new theories. At no point can a theory ever be called true.
> In a sense, any theory is true - that is it is a scientific theory which
> purports to explain something or predict something. Truth is a
> philosophical, religious, political or judicial concept - not a
> scientific one.
>
I would suggest that TRUTH is a very important matter when there are
opposite views
about the way the universe and organisms in the world came into
existence.
The issue requires dialogue between those involved in it.
<snip>
> >
> > But how can organisms increase their DNA to give the more comples
> > multicellular forms of
> > life????????
>
> Well understood now. Many errors occur in reproduction, some of which
> increase the amount of DNA.
> >
You are just giving statments without evidence.
How many mutations would increase the amount of DNA?
How many mutations would lead to another family of organisms?
How many mutations would be detrimental?
> This is not true. They simply do not want creationism taught as science,
> which it patently is not (as agreed yet again by the latest test case in
> the US). I know of no restriction to teaching it as religion, which it is.
>
But there is no restriction on teaching as facts evolutionary ideas, a
theory, that may be proved incorrect in the future.
<snip>
>
>.... with the gradual breakdown of the
> patriarchal system which predominated prior to the 1950s. As a child in
> the 60s, I have seen many changes in society (most for the better) as
> children were taught to think for themselves and not just accept what
> someone else told them. This has led to a much more questioning society
> with more pressure on teachers and others in authority to be able to
> explain their points of view. It is much less authoritarian, and much
> more questioning of authority.
But how many children are being taught to think for themselves that
evolution could not/ may not, have happened. Yes, sometimes there can
be the use of the word 'probable' in respect of the ancestry of
organisms as classified by cladistics. But the overwheming aspect of
science in schools is its indoctrinations.
>
> Unfortunately, many in authority are not up to the task, and they are
> consequently ridiculed and/or ignored. This must be very hard for those
> who were used to being obeyed without question.
>
Education is not just a school affair. There are three areas:- home,
school and community.
Home and community should be about learning to live a life; school
should be concerned
about learning how to work within the environment.
As far as Community Education is concerned, as I planned it in 1976, it
was to be a voluntary programme organised by the adults and some
teenagers.
The local council and Tertiary trained professionals took it over,
unbeknowns to me for quite a number of years, as I became involved in
other activities.
I find the fact of the involvement of the Tertiary professionals
interesting, as the more I can see it was changes imposed from the
Tertiary and political levels from the post-war years that brought
about the breakdown in our society and local community.
Gladys Swager
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing89326757657865876560> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
> > the only viable scientific hypothesis.
>
> Yes, it does! That's the problem. Fundamentalists don't want truth.
And what are the proofs that evolution is proven as the only viable
scientific hypothesis with specificity and particularity?
>
>
> > True, that is why I am more convinced by the scientific Creation theories
> > instead of the evolutionary ones.
>
> There are NO "scientific Creation theories". That's the problem!
How do they fail to meet the defination of 'scientific' with particularity
and specificity?
>
> Creationism is pseudoscience not real science.
According to what specifics?
>
> Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
Hmmm, must be why it is 6000 years old. Evolutionism traces its roots to
Babylon, which is much younger.
>
> Theistic evolution is totally consistent with Christian faith.
How so with specificity and particularity?
>
> The early two chapters of Genesis are myth and not time / space history.
And what are your proofs with specificity and particularity?
>
> Creationism only works for fundamentalists.
At least that is your opinion. How does it 'fail' to work for non
fundamentalists with specificity and particularity?
>
> Real science works for everyone ... if you are an atheist or a Christian.
True, that is why Creation theory is scientific, and a valid alternative
theory to evolution. What is your point?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
Why? Can't you explain it without hoping that something over there
hopefully supports your religious opinion?
>
> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
At least that is a trite but meaningless phrase.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Theology is not science.
Who said it was?
>
> Science is not theology.
Who said it was, science is the study of the creation. What is your point?
>
> SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
> them?
True, the same 'facts' that support the theory that tomatoe plants and
giraffes have a common ancestor also prove the equally valid alternative
that they have a common Creator instead. What is your point?
>
> CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the bible as
> interpreted by absolutist fundamentalists). What facts can we find to
> support it?
False, although the revelation can be used to posit a scientific theory,
your analysis is seriously flawed by prejudice.
>
> Bible Verse Justification: Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 (all of it)
Sounds more like Christophobia and nothing that supports your argument.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
> --Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of
> deductive reasoning
No one is disagreeing, but the revelataion is more than a book. It is
fine to posit the revelation by a scientific theory and then test the
theory with the scientific method. Scirntific Creation theory holds up
rather well actually.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> St Augustine - "Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the
> Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this knowledge
> he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a
> disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian,
> presumably giving
> the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."
OK, no one is disagreeing. So what?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark T"
>> Creationism is pseudoscience not real science.
....
>> Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
....
>> Theistic evolution is totally consistent with Christian faith.
...
>> The early two chapters of Genesis are myth and not time / space history.
....
>> Creationism only works for fundamentalists.
....
>> Real science works for everyone ... if you are an atheist or a Christian.
...
>> Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
>> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
....
>> Theology is not science.
....
>> Science is not theology.
>> SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
>> them?
...
>> CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the Bible as
>> interpreted by absolutist fundamentalists). What facts can we find to
>> support it?
...
>> Bible Verse Justification: Genesis 1:1
.....
>> Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
>> --Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of
>> deductive reasoning
>>
>> St Augustine - "Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the
>> Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this
>> knowledge
>> he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a
>> disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian,
>> presumably giving
>> the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."
>>
> Quotes from books do not necessarily conclude an issue.
Including quotes from the fallible man-made BIBLE??????
Jani
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Jani wrote:
>>
>> > if you suggested that creationism should be taught in the science
>> > classroom, people would think you were mad.
>>
>> She is. :-)
>>
> Theo, Neither you nor Jani know me personally, so how can she imply and
> you state that I was mad.
Good grief, Gladys, it's a common enough figure of speech in the UK, is it
not so in Australia?
Jani
"Mark T"
>> > I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
>> > the only viable scientific hypothesis.
>>
>> Yes, it does! That's the problem. Fundamentalists don't want truth.
>
> And what are the proofs that evolution is proven as the only viable
> scientific hypothesis with specificity and particularity?
Read http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
>> > True, that is why I am more convinced by the scientific Creation
>> > theories
>> > instead of the evolutionary ones.
>> There are NO "scientific Creation theories". That's the problem!
>
> How do they fail to meet the defination (sic) of 'scientific'
Why can't fundamentalists spell???????
>> Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
>
> Hmmm, must be why it is 6000 years old.
No, fundamentalism is about 150 years old!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which
arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to
modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the
inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of
substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the
authenticity of his miracles. This core set of beliefs was the "line in the
sand" drawn by conservative Christians as they battled against the rise of
rationalism, higher biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant
denominations.
The nature of the Christian fundamentalist movement, while originally a
united effort within conservative evangelicalism, evolved during the
early-to-mid 1900s to become more separatist in nature and more
characteristically dispensational in its theology. Most fundamentalists have
strongly opposed the Roman Catholic Church for theological reasons; in
recent years there has been limited political cooperation between
individuals in each group on certain social issues, such as abortion.
....
The term fundamentalist, in the context of this article, derives from a
series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony
To The Truth. Among this publication's 94 essays, 27 of them objected to
higher criticism of the Bible, by far the largest number addressing any one
topic. The essays were written by 64 British and American conservative
Protestant theologians between 1910 and 1915. Using a $250,000 grant from
Lyman Stewart, the head of the Union Oil Company of California, about three
million sets of these books were distributed to English-speaking Protestant
church workers throughout the world.
...
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to
the Niagara Bible Conference (1878-1897) and, in 1910, to the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became
known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:
a.. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
b.. The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
c.. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and
human faith
d.. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
e.. The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his
premillenial second coming)[4]
In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis-the theory
held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and
shaped by many people over the centuries.
........
Some fundamentalists have endorsed strict codes of conduct that prohibit
even moderate consumption of alcohol and tobacco, dancing, mixed bathing,
gambling, or engaging in secular cultural activities such as watching movies
or listening to rock and roll music.
........
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christians
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of
the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
--
#######################################################
The Features of Fundamentalism
1. A distrust and fear of freedom
2. A belief in the importnace of authority and in controlling what people
believe
3. A corresponding preference for obedience rather than love
4. A desire to give people what they want rather than the truth
5. A refusal to allow themselves to be in the least disconcerted when they
are confronted with the true nature of their religion
6. A readiness to persecute and exclude anyone who is of a different
persuasion.
A fundamentalist is uncomfortable with:
1. Freedom
2. Truth
3. Dissent
A fundamentalist is very much at home with:
1. Authority
2. Obedience
3. Conformity
[Adapted from Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freeedom" (Doubleday
Sydney 1995) p. 7]
########################################################
Chris Bell
> Chris Bell wrote:
>
>>s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>What about the parents whose children can be 'converted' to secularist
>>>views that they do not hold?
>>>
>>
>>How can you be "converted" to a secularist view? Surely you can only be
>>"converted" to a religion, which is by definition not secularist?
>>
> To 'convert' can just mean to change a person's opinion without any
> religious aspects in the decision.
> To 'indoctrinate' means to instruct in a belief that is to be accepted
> without any questioning.
>
> That is what is happening in the school system and through the media
> now in respect of
> evolution.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>What is lying about science? It is just accepting what the secular
>>>evolutionists are saying
>>>is the truth, because they believe it to be so?
>>
>>There is no concept of truth in science which is outside that in society
>>generally. Truth is just not a scientific concept (see further comments
>>below).
>>
>
> I would never had known except that you told me. Through ALL the
> textbooks that I have, even ones for English, on an odd occasion,
> Mathematics, Social issues, evolutionary science is presented as TRUTH.
>
School textbooks are not a good source about anything. They are full of
errors, mistruths and outright lies. Just ask any academic!
>
>>><snip> See previous posting.
>>>
>>>Scientists who accept that Evolution happened have a faith position
>>>which cannot be tested and retested by the scientific method in modern
>>>times.
>>
>>This is just not true. It is not faith and it is tested every single day.
>
>
> How can evolutionary change that happened long ages ago be tested in
> science laboratories every day in the present time?
>
Evolution can be and is demonstrated in the laboratory as populations of
organisms change their genetic makeup when put under stress.
It is not tested by paleontologists who use it to make sense of their
fossil discoveries.
That may be the case but it is of no interest to science. There are no
eternal verities in science - everything is always provisional and
always will be. There is some debate in cosmology as to whether or not
the origin of the universe is a scientific question at all. Some of the
current theories do attempt an explanation, others do not.
> <snip>
>
>>>But how can organisms increase their DNA to give the more comples
>>>multicellular forms of
>>>life????????
>>
>>Well understood now. Many errors occur in reproduction, some of which
>>increase the amount of DNA.
>>
> You are just giving statments without evidence.
> How many mutations would increase the amount of DNA?
> How many mutations would lead to another family of organisms?
> How many mutations would be detrimental?
>
I am not a geneticist and have no details. I only read New Scientist
where many of these issues are reported. I suggest you search the
literature if you want details.
>
>
>>This is not true. They simply do not want creationism taught as science,
>>which it patently is not (as agreed yet again by the latest test case in
>>the US). I know of no restriction to teaching it as religion, which it is.
>>
>
> But there is no restriction on teaching as facts evolutionary ideas, a
> theory, that may be proved incorrect in the future.
>
It is a fact that there are different species, sometimes only differing
in a few details. It is also a fact that you can demonstrate
evolutionary changes in populations of animals and plants when they are
put under stress. Certainly there is a theory about how the current
diversity of life came about from simpler forms through evolutionary
change, and it is only a theory. But it is the only theory around, and
because we weren't there, we will never know for sure. If anyone teaches
it is a certainty, they are lying.
> <snip>
>
>>.... with the gradual breakdown of the
>>patriarchal system which predominated prior to the 1950s. As a child in
>>the 60s, I have seen many changes in society (most for the better) as
>>children were taught to think for themselves and not just accept what
>>someone else told them. This has led to a much more questioning society
>>with more pressure on teachers and others in authority to be able to
>>explain their points of view. It is much less authoritarian, and much
>>more questioning of authority.
>
>
> But how many children are being taught to think for themselves that
> evolution could not/ may not, have happened. Yes, sometimes there can
> be the use of the word 'probable' in respect of the ancestry of
> organisms as classified by cladistics. But the overwheming aspect of
> science in schools is its indoctrinations.
>
This is not my experience. Science in schools certainly does seem to
sound too certain about some things which are not certain, but this is
because they must oversimplify quite complex ideas to make them suitable
for children. One of the major tasks of university teachers is to get
the students to unlearn much of what they learnt at school. It is
sometimes not easy, and often makes the students quite angry. I suppose
they think that they were lied to, but I'm sure school teachers don't
think that they are lying.
>>Unfortunately, many in authority are not up to the task, and they are
>>consequently ridiculed and/or ignored. This must be very hard for those
>>who were used to being obeyed without question.
>>
>
> Education is not just a school affair. There are three areas:- home,
> school and community.
> Home and community should be about learning to live a life; school
> should be concerned
> about learning how to work within the environment.
>
> As far as Community Education is concerned, as I planned it in 1976, it
> was to be a voluntary programme organised by the adults and some
> teenagers.
> The local council and Tertiary trained professionals took it over,
> unbeknowns to me for quite a number of years, as I became involved in
> other activities.
>
> I find the fact of the involvement of the Tertiary professionals
> interesting, as the more I can see it was changes imposed from the
> Tertiary and political levels from the post-war years that brought
> about the breakdown in our society and local community.
As an ex-tertiary teacher, I must say that I agree with you here. The
universities have had way too much influence in deciding school
curricula, to the detriment of trade and manual arts teaching. Schools
should be listening less to the universities and more to the local
communities. This is not a popular view in universities who see students
arriving less well prepared for tertiary studies every year. It has
taken a long time for society to wake up to the fact that a university
education is not everything, but being able to unblock the drain has a
somewhat more practical advantage. I think we are about to see such
changes also in theological education, were missiology and pastoral care
might make a comeback against the more academic pursuits of theology and
Greek.
> Gladys Swager
>
Chris
Sean McHugh
YOU ARE WRONG; AUSTRALIANS ARE NOT MAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In schools, prior to 1962, before the evolutionists . . . . .
Just kidding - doing a Gladys :-) It IS a common expression here too,
often used in a hypothetical context, just as you have done above?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing83464875634u56865982354> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I think science is really cool, it just doesn't prove that evolution is
> >> > the only viable scientific hypothesis.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does! That's the problem. Fundamentalists don't want truth.
> >
> > And what are the proofs that evolution is proven as the only viable
> > scientific hypothesis with specificity and particularity?
>
> Read http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
>
> Visit NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
IOW, you are unable or unwilling to share your opinion and hope something
over there supports your opinion but you are not sure what and want others
to do your homework?
>
>
> >> > True, that is why I am more convinced by the scientific Creation
> >> > theories
> >> > instead of the evolutionary ones.
> >> There are NO "scientific Creation theories". That's the problem!
> >
> > How do they fail to meet the defination (sic) of 'scientific'
>
> Why can't fundamentalists spell???????
IOW, change the subject when you can't address the issue.
>
>
> >> Creationism is a fundamentalist man-made theory of recent origin.
> >
> > Hmmm, must be why it is 6000 years old.
>
> No, fundamentalism is about 150 years old!
At least that is Barr and the radical religious left's falwed defination
of fundamentalism. A more accurate defination of the term, which is an
adjective that applies to the radical religious left as well is
Entry Word: fundamental
Function: adjective
Text: of or relating to the simplest facts or theories of a subject <the
purpose of the course is to furnish students with fundamental knowledge of
human reproduction>
Interesting, but more Christophobe than reality.
"Mark T"
>> > How do they fail to meet the defination (sic) of 'scientific'
>> Why can't fundamentalists spell???????
>
> IOW, change the subject
IOW, change the subject because you spelt the same word incorrectly several
times.
Are all fundamentalists as illiterate as you are?
See the same incorrect spelling below .....
> falwed defination (sic) of fundamentalism. A more accurate defination
> (sic) of the term,
Were you in the remedial class at school?
No wonder you can't understand basic facts!!!!! ............
>> Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement
>> which
>> arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early
>> 20th
>> centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to
>> modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs:
>> the
>> inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of
>> substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the
>> authenticity of his miracles. This core set of beliefs was the "line in
>> the
>> sand" drawn by conservative Christians as they battled against the rise
>> of
>> rationalism, higher biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant
>> denominations.
Jani
"Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:4492AC76...@shoal.net.au...
>
>
> Jani wrote:
>>
>> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1150416124....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> >> Jani wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > if you suggested that creationism should be taught in the science
>> >> > classroom, people would think you were mad.
>> >>
>> >> She is. :-)
>> >>
>> > Theo, Neither you nor Jani know me personally, so how can she imply and
>> > you state that I was mad.
>>
>> Good grief, Gladys, it's a common enough figure of speech in the UK, is
>> it
>> not so in Australia?
>
> YOU ARE WRONG; AUSTRALIANS ARE NOT MAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> In schools, prior to 1962, before the evolutionists . . . . .
>
> Just kidding - doing a Gladys :-)
Heh.
It IS a common expression here too,
> often used in a hypothetical context, just as you have done above?
Yup, it's just a general expression of astonishment at any idea which is
completely ludicrous or unworkable. I guess it's remained PC because what
used to be generically termed "madness" (anything from depression to mental
disability to schizophrenia) is now labelled accordingly, and it's no longer
a matter of simplistic "mad" or "not-mad".
Jani
(still very amused by the "delusion is culturally defined" thing)
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing83464875634u56865982354> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > How do they fail to meet the defination (sic) of 'scientific'
> >> Why can't fundamentalists spell???????
> >
> > IOW, change the subject
>
> IOW, change the subject because you spelt the same word incorrectly several
> times.
>
> Are all fundamentalists as illiterate as you are?
Upon what standard of judgement and facts in evidence have you made the
judgement that I am a fundamentalist?
Are you intolerant to the diversity of those whom you judge to be
'fundamentalists'?
>
> See the same incorrect spelling below .....
>
> > falwed defination (sic) of fundamentalism. A more accurate defination
> > (sic) of the term,
>
> Were you in the remedial class at school?
Spelling nazis usually materialize when they are incapable or unwilling to
respond to the issues. It is a good defense to change the lack of
response into a charge of less meaningfull issue. But thanks for trying.
>
> No wonder you can't understand basic facts!!!!! ............
Coming from you, that can only be accepted as a compliment, thanks.
--
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing832745858974365> wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
> >> > edited by Mark I. Vuletic Last updated 19 May 2006
> >> > If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the
> >> > public
> >> > school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting
> >> > children to
> >> > religious views their parents don't hold,
> >> > if we allow them to spout outright
> >> > lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have
> >> > left?
> >> > If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about
> >> > anything. Philosopher Patricia Princehouse
> >
> > What is lying about science?
>
> Nothing.
>
> It's creationist pseudo-science that is the lie.
What is the lie specifically and particularly?
>
> Creationism is pseudoscience not real science.
How so specifically and particularly?
snipped balance of strong religious opinion lacking scientific facts in
evidence.
"Mark T"
< snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
ooops! ... nothing left!!!!
Dear Trew Kristyun Michael
Kissy kissy! Now you pucker up and greet me with a kiss. (Romans 6:16;
1Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14.)
I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You make silence
a wonderful thing to look forward to. However I took exception to your
recent scribble
It was:
[X] backmasked with Satanic messages
[X] Pagan
[X] New Age
[X] unChristian
[X] Secular Humanist
[X] written in King James English
[X] written in tongues and did not include the interpretation
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
[X] You flamed the Archbishop of Canterbury
[X] You flamed the Pope
[X] You flamed God
[X] You contradicted Jesus
[X] You contradicted yourself several times
[X] You mindlessly chanted the Pente Mantra several times
[X] You repeatedly assumed unwarranted spiritual, moral or intellectual
superiority
It is recommended that you:
[X] Buy an indulgence from me.
[X] Send me a triple tithe.
[X] Do penance.
[X] Devote your life to missionary work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[X] Start up a Christian Clown Ministry
[X] Start up a Kristyun Skool
QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND YOU BETTER:
[X] Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
[X] Can I have your car after the Rapture?
[X] Have you ever sinned by eating rabbit, pork, shellfish (Leviticus 11:4,
7, 10)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by wearing clothes made of two types of material
(Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by cutting your hair (Leviticus 19:27)?
[X] Were you in the special class at school?
[X] Are you from the shallow end of the gene pool?
[X] Do you want fries with that?
Please save this message and review it occasionally to determine your
progress toward being;
[X] a tolerable Trew Kristyun
[X] a fully-functional human being
[X] integrated into humanity
[X] re-integrated into the wild
If what you don't know can't hurt you, you're practically invulnerable.
Thank you for taking the time to read this flame form.
Deuteronomy 23:12 -13 "You are to have a place outside the camp where you
can go when you need to relieve yourselves. Carry a stick as a part of your
equipment, so when you have a bowel movement you can dig a hole and cover it
up."
**********************************************************************
"Mark T"
< snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
ooops! ... nothing left!!!!
>> >> > How do they fail to meet the defination (sic) of 'scientific'
>> >> Why can't fundamentalists spell???????
...
>> > falwed defination (sic) of fundamentalism. A more accurate defination
>> > (sic) of the term,
>>
>> Were you in the remedial class at school?
...
>> Are all fundamentalists as illiterate as you are?
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing83464875634u56865982354> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> < snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
>
> ooops! ... nothing left!!!!
Snipped delusional religious left wing religious ratbaggery.
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing83464875634u56865982354> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> < snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
Snipped delusional religous left wing religious ratbaggery.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Jani wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1150416124....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Jani wrote:
> >>
> >> > if you suggested that creationism should be taught in the science
> >> > classroom, people would think you were mad.
> >>
> Good grief, Gladys, it's a common enough figure of speech in the UK, is it
> not so in Australia?
>
I was aware that it is 'a common figure of speech' - colloquial/
idiomatic, slang.
I over-reacted.
Creationism comes from the work of scientists who say that evolution
did not happen.
They are not idiots (mad).
They have as much right to be heard as scientists who believe
otherwise.
> Jani
"Mark T"
"Mark T"
< snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
Ooops! ... nothing left
Theo Bekkers
> Creationism comes from the work of scientists who say that evolution
> did not happen.
> They are not idiots (mad).
> They have as much right to be heard as scientists who believe
> otherwise.
We have the right to ask for an explanation of their theory and they have a
duty to provide it.
I haven't seen any yet.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Theo, You cause me to think that I have posted in an unknown foreign
language.
Others have posted about Scientific Creationism in much better ways
than I have,
I will grant you,
although I believe I am improving with time.
If you want to know what Creationists believe, there is a simple
answer,
"Go to their websites"
Who's really pushing 'bad science"?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
The Rules of the Game
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315
Adam's Brothers? Race, Science and Genesis Before Darwin
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4167
Those might do for starters. If you want more go to:-
http://www,reationontheweb.com
and in the Search enter the topic for which you want information.
Gladys Swager
Jani
Creationism *is* heard in schools; it's right there in RE lessons, where it
should be.
Jani
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing982374867490560865> wrote:
Snipped delusional left wing religious ratbaggery
ooops! ... nothing left!!!!
--
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
The same evidence that suggests that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a
common ancestor also suggest the equally valid alternative theory that
they have a common Creator instead. The evidence is all around you, you
need to examine the assumptions and limiting conditions which filter your
conclusion through.
If you change the assumptions, you will find that which was always there.
Ken Smith
>s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> Chris Bell wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark T" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
>>>>edited by Mark I. Vuletic Last updated 19 May 2006
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public
>>>>school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to
>>>>religious views their parents don't hold,
>>
>>
>> What about the parents whose children can be 'converted' to secularist
>> views that they do not hold?
>>
>How can you be "converted" to a secularist view? Surely you can only be
>"converted" to a religion, which is by definition not secularist?
[deletions]
>> Those of us who are not Tertiary trained in any of the scientific
>> disciplines make our decisions from what we read, hear &/or see on
>> Radio and TV. The fact is, that as the secularists have the dominance
>> in the school system (because of government decisions in the 1800's)
>> evolution can be given and is Behaviour Modified to be the correct
>> point of view
>> with the implication that naturalism and uniformitarianism did occur in
>> the past.
This is the main problem.
It doesn't matter how many times we tell Gladys, or any other
creationist, to go and read a textbook about some topic in science,
they simply won't do it.
Various people have posted titles and authors of useful books on a.r.c
and suggested that creationists should at least read them.
The almost invariable response is to post a link (quite often with
typographical errors) to some creationist web site.
There is far more reliable information available in books in libraries
than there is on the Web - aprticularly now that anyone, cometenet in
science or not, can put up a site with garbage on it.
[rest deleted]
>> Gladys Swager
>>
>Chris
Salaam
ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"... his wife had lost her clothes and gained a newspaper. `Have you seen
this?' she demanded. `Often,' said Pascoe gravely. `But I have no objection
to seeing it again.' " Ellie and Peter Pascoe in "Child's Play"
Ken Smith
Not to the creationist, Jani.
Everything is taken literally, even their own words.
Metaphors, analogies, satire, . . . are all quite alien to the
creationist mind.
I'm just waiting for Gladys or some other fundamentalist to complain
about the current quotation in my signature file.
>Jani
Salaam
Ken Smith
Ken Smith
It's a free country, Gladys.
You are free to believe and say anything you like - within laws
relating to libel, defamation, . . .
But what you *cannot* do is have your beliefs accepted by other
people, especially when they are put forward without any supporting
evidence. And things on a creationist web site are not evidence.
As someone said many years ago "You are free to believe anything. You
are not free to have your beliefs correct."
"Mark T"
>"\"Mark T\"" wrote:
>> < snipped delusional right wing religious ratbaggery>
> Snipped delusional left wing religious ratbaggery.
Mickey wanna cracker?
Theo Bekkers
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> We have the right to ask for an explanation of their theory and they
>> have a duty to provide it. I haven't seen any yet.
> If you want to know what Creationists believe, there is a simple
> answer,
> "Go to their websites"
>
> Who's really pushing 'bad science"?
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
>
> The Rules of the Game
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315
>
> Adam's Brothers? Race, Science and Genesis Before Darwin
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4167
>
> Those might do for starters. If you want more go to:-
> http://www,reationontheweb.com
>
> and in the Search enter the topic for which you want information.
Been there, done that. No rational explanation seen after many hours on the
sites.
As has been asked many times by many people, where is the research, where
are the results of their research? To me they are just saying, "Goddidit,
all the evo's are wrong". It may come as a great shock to you but some
people don't consider that to be research!
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> The almost invariable response is to post a link (quite often with
> typographical errors) to some creationist web site.
Like this one Gladys pointed me to yesterday
http://www,reationontheweb.com
:-)
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>> I haven't seen any yet.
> The same evidence that suggests that tomatoe plants and giraffes have
> a common ancestor also suggest the equally valid alternative theory
> that they have a common Creator instead. The evidence is all around
> you, you need to examine the assumptions and limiting conditions
> which filter your conclusion through.
No. "Goddidit" is not an equally valid alternative theory. It is not even a
theory, it is a belief.
Theo
Michael
<thinkaboutwh@youaredoing7426577568736875835395> wrote:
Snipped delusional left wing religious ratbaggery
--
Michael
Smith) wrote:
Yea, we know, even the fundies on the radical religious left have a blog
at http://www.talkorigins.org/.
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
IOW, 'Gid didn't do it" is the only religous belief allowed in formulating
scientific hypothesis? Thanks for the admission of the intolerance to
diversity.
Theo Bekkers
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>> No. "Goddidit" is not an equally valid alternative theory. It is not
>> even a theory, it is a belief.
> IOW, 'Gid didn't do it" is the only religous belief allowed in
> formulating scientific hypothesis? Thanks for the admission of the
> intolerance to diversity.
If religious beliefs are accceptable for theories of how the universe came
into being, then I prefer the Wagyll version. Can I assume that that is also
acceptable to you, as well as any other non-Christian creation stories?
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Jani wrote:
> >
<snip>
>
> Creationism *is* heard in schools; it's right there in RE lessons, where it
> should be.
>
stand beside those of Evolutionists-Long Age Universe/world theorists,
then the evidence from Creation Scientsits has as much right to be
heard.
Comets and the age of the Universe
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1528
The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth? Who
would be qualified to judge? A Christian? A Jew (Les)? A Muslim? A
Rastifarian? Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in Science
classes as well as the Wagyll Dream-Time story?
Theo
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
> >> No. "Goddidit" is not an equally valid alternative theory. It is not
> >> even a theory, it is a belief.
>
> > IOW, 'Gid didn't do it" is the only religous belief allowed in
> > formulating scientific hypothesis? Thanks for the admission of the
> > intolerance to diversity.
>
> If religious beliefs are accceptable for theories of how the universe came
> into being,
That is not what I said. I said that revelation is a valid basis for
formulating a scientific theory and testing it using the same scientific
method as hypothesis formulated fromm other religious sources.
then I prefer the Wagyll version. Can I assume that that is also
> acceptable to you, as well as any other non-Christian creation stories?
True, religious evolutionism has posited its non Christian creation story
as a scientific hypothesis, and so far, it has barely survived the
hypothesis testing for lack of conslusive evidence.
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> > schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> > is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>
> So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth?
Obviously.
Who
> would be qualified to judge?
Anyone.
>A Christian? A Jew (Les)? A Muslim?
As they rely upon the same revelation for the hypothesis, why wouldn't they?
A
> Rastifarian?
He might have different religious views for the posit of a hypothesis, but
the same scientific standard afterward.
>Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in Science
> classes as well as the Wagyll Dream-Time story?
AS to Gilgamesh, Abraham was from Ur and carried the original pre altered
revelation out of Sumner, what is your point?
Ken Smith
My personal favourite is the deity who had an attack of indigestion,
and proceeded to vomit up the sun, moon, stars, . . .
After all, the Milky Way got its name from its resemblance to a stream
of milk. And anyone who has watched a baby being fed will be familiar
with a stream of milk being spewed out occasionally.
>Theo
Ken Smith
>Jani wrote:
>> >
><snip>
>>
>> Creationism *is* heard in schools; it's right there in RE lessons, where it
>> should be.
>>
>If, however, there is scientific proof - or at least, theories that can
>stand beside those of Evolutionists-Long Age Universe/world theorists,
>then the evidence from Creation Scientsits has as much right to be
>heard.
There isn't - there aren't - and so it doesn't.
>Comets and the age of the Universe
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1528
More garbage.
>The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
>schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
>is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> > schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> > is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>
Science?
> classes ....<snip>
Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view3107
Theo, Please read the above website and then let me know if it changes
your ideas.
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
>s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Yes, let's have Gilgamesh taught in schools.
But not using one of the academic translations, where the translator
thanked someone for providing a Latin translation of teh rude bits.
Let's have a good lusty English translation.
And while we're on this topic, last weekend I had occasion to delve
into an 1820 copy of teh Book of Common Prayer to look at the
procedure for calculating the date of Easter. It has tables enabling
the calculation to work up to the year AD 8500.
Immediately preceeding this part was the Calendar of readings from the
Bible for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer for every day of teh year.
Browsing through this the whole of teh Old Testament is read during
the year, with a couple of exceptions.
One is the books of Chronicles, which largely repeat Samuel and
Kings, so that's understandable.
But the other omission is the Song of Solomon.
Now I wonder why those nice erotic poems weren't read aloud in
church?
>Theo
"Mark T"
> Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view3107
>
> Theo, Please read the above website and then let me know if it changes
> your ideas.
I quote from the site ........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The page you are trying to access does not exist.
Please select a page from the main menu.
© Creation Ministries International-formerly Answers in Genesis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The very BEST creationist article I have ever read.
Congratulations!
Ken Smith
>In article <44988c0c$1...@news.bekkers.com.au>, "Theo Bekkers"
><tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>> > "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>>
>> >> No. "Goddidit" is not an equally valid alternative theory. It is not
>> >> even a theory, it is a belief.
>>
>> > IOW, 'Gid didn't do it" is the only religous belief allowed in
>> > formulating scientific hypothesis? Thanks for the admission of the
>> > intolerance to diversity.
>>
>> If religious beliefs are accceptable for theories of how the universe came
>> into being,
>That is not what I said. I said that revelation is a valid basis for
>formulating a scientific theory and testing it using the same scientific
>method as hypothesis formulated fromm other religious sources.
>then I prefer the Wagyll version. Can I assume that that is also
>> acceptable to you, as well as any other non-Christian creation stories?
>True, religious evolutionism has posited its non Christian creation story
>as a scientific hypothesis, and so far, it has barely survived the
>hypothesis testing for lack of conslusive evidence.
Methinks you should read soem scientific books which have the word
"creation" in their title.
You might be surprised to discover that evolution is only very rarely
mentioned. They're all about thye creation of teh universe.
If creationists want to continue to use teh word "creation", without
any qualifying adjectives, in biology they are gioing to continue to
be dismissed as ignorant religious ratbags.
Now if you want to talk about "special creation" that's another
matter, but that was relegated to the dustbin of history before Darwin
wrote "On the Origin of Species".
>--
>"-----------------"
>May God Bless You
>Michael
Salaam
"Mark T"
Creation Ministries International-formerly Answers in Genesis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
......
The primary authority for Creation Ministries International is the
infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science
are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories.
Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it
should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific
theories need to be revised too.
........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more
loosely?
a.. 'Hanging Loose': What should we defend?
b.. Swaying in the breeze
c.. Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
a.. 'Darwin recanted on his deathbed'. Many people use this story,
originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and
there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from
Darwin's wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true,
so what? If a prominent creationist recanted Creation, would that disprove
it? There is no value to this argument whatever.
b.. 'Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon'. For a long time,
creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust
had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on
early estimates-by evolutionists-of the influx of moon dust, and worries
that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early
estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not
worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can't be used as proof of
a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of
the Solar System (Technical).
c.. 'NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a
missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua's "long day" and Hezekiah's
sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.' Not promoted by major
creationist organizations, but an hoax in wide circulation, especially on
the Internet.
Essentially the same story, now widely circulated on the Internet,
appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and
Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with
modern organization names and modern calculating devices.
Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible-it requires a fixed
reference point before Joshua's long day. In fact we would need to
cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any
missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these
reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is
certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain
location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time
that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Anyway,
the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two
centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected
by any computer. See also Has NASA Discovered a 'Missing Day'? for
historical and scientific documentation that this alleged discovery is
mythological.
Note that discrediting this myth doesn't mean that the events of Joshua 10
didn't happen. Features in the account support its reliability, e.g. the
moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but
this would be observed from Earth's reference frame if God had accomplished
this miracle by slowing Earth's rotation. See Joshua's long day-did it
really happen?
d.. 'Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe'. This
is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It's
most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in
catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof
of a snap freeze, because the elephant's stomach functions as a holding
area-a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western
USA, where the ground was not frozen. See also The extinction of the woolly
mammoth: was it a quick freeze?
e.. 'The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in "old" strata
invalidate the geologic column.' These are not sound examples-the
Castenedolo skeletal material shows evidence of being an intrusive burial,
i.e. a recent burial into older strata, since all the fossils apart from the
human ones had time to be impregnated with salt. The Calaveras skull was
probably a hoax planted into a mine by miners. For the current CMI view on
human fossil stratigraphy, see Where are all the human fossils?
f.. 'Dubois renounced Java man as a "missing link" and claimed it was just
a giant gibbon.' Evolutionary anthropology textbooks claimed this, and
creationists followed suit. However, this actually misunderstood Dubois, as
Stephen Jay Gould has shown. It's true that Dubois claimed that Java man
(which he called Pithecanthropus erectus) had the proportions of a gibbon.
But Dubois had an eccentric view of evolution (universally discounted today)
that demanded a precise correlation between brain size and body weight.
Dubois' claim about Java man actually contradicted the reconstructed
evidence of its likely body mass. But it was necessary for Dubois'
idiosyncratic proposal that the alleged transitional sequence leading to man
fit into a mathematical series. So Dubois' gibbon claim was designed to
reinforce its 'missing link' status. See Who was 'Java man'?
g.. 'The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New
Zealand'. This carcass was almost certainly a rotting basking shark, since
their gills and jaws rot rapidly and fall off, leaving the typical small
'neck' with the head. This has been shown by similar specimens washed up on
beaches. Also, detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of the Zuiyo-maru
carcass show that it could not have been a plesiosaur. See Live plesiosaurs:
weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that
the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur
h.. 'The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall'. This law says that
the entropy ('disorder') of the Universe increases over time, and some have
thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn't
always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex
food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which
turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat-otherwise Adam and Eve
would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example
to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth-to a physical chemist, heat
transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second
Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law
process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all
beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to
adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the
Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the
Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or 'groaning in travail' (Rom.
8:20-22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power
(Col. 1:15-17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no
longer countered.
i.. 'If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?' In response
to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don't believe that
we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor.
However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this
'pussyfooting', as he called it. He said, 'In fact, that earlier ancestor
would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who
saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's
ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous
[mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say
otherwise.'
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists
believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and
became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most
change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation
(a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's
nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become
extinct.
It's important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property
of evolutionists-creationists believe that most human variation occurred
after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam
and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is
analogous to saying 'If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why
are mid-brown people still alive today?'
So what's the difference between the creationist explanation of people
groups ('races') and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer:
the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of
information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of
millions of 'letters' of new information.
j.. 'Women have one more rib than men.' We have long pointed out the
fallacy of this statement, which seems to be more popular with dishonest
skeptics wanting to caricature creation. The removal of a rib would not
affect the genetic instructions passed on to the offspring, any more than a
man who loses a finger will have sons with nine fingers. Any skeptic who
tries to discredit the Bible with this argument must be a closet Lamarckian,
i.e. one who believes Lamarck's thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance
of acquired characteristics! Note also that Adam wouldn't have had a
permanent defect, because the rib is the one bone that can regrow if the
surrounding membrane (periosteum) is left intact. See Regenerating ribs:
Adam and that 'missing' rib.
k.. 'Archaeopteryx is a fraud'. Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike
Archaeoraptor, a 'Piltdown bird'), as shown by anatomical studies and close
analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a 'missing link'.
l.. 'There are no beneficial mutations.' This is not true, since some
changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say,
'We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in
those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.' For examples
of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be
an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic
resistance really due to increase in information?
m.. 'No new species have been produced.' This is not true-new species have
been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the
creation model. But this speciation is within the 'kind', and involves no
new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.
n.. 'Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood.' There is no basis for
this claim. Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which
strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists
believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah's
Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as
speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an
upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and
equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal.
The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon's
large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the
Earth's (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.
o.. 'Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.' Some
prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn
their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of
erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for
properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue
the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that
dinosaurs and humans co-existed-see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
p.. Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of
Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin
was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was
quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his
opinion, with which we obviously disagree-see Darwin v The Eye and An eye
for creation).
q.. 'Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to
catastrophic splitting of the continents.' Commentators both before and
after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold)
are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at
Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret
Scripture with Scripture, and there's nothing else in Scripture to indicate
that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note
that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, 'Now
the whole earth had one language and one speech' (Gen. 11:1), and as a
result of their disobedience, 'the LORD confused the language of all the
earth' (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the 'Earth' that was
divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. 'Earth' refers
in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such
splitting-another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the
continents did move apart - during Noah's Flood - see below on plate
tectonics.
r.. 'The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.' This is not
so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the
(obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The
Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based)
preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary
to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98-106, 1998.
s.. 'There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth
may be 10,000 years old or even more.' This is not so. The language is clear
that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of
the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about
6,000 years old. See Biblical chronogenealogies for exegetical proof.
t.. 'Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He
would have inherited original sin.' This is not stated in Scripture and even
contradicts important points. The language of the NT indicates physical
descent, which must be true for Jesus to have fulfilled the prophecies that
He would be a descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Also, the
Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, regarded as Messianic by both early Christians
and the Jewish Targums, refers to 'the seed of the woman'. This is supported
by Gal. 4:4, 'God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.' Most
importantly, for Jesus to have died for our sins, Jesus, the 'last Adam' (1
Cor. 15:45), had to share in our humanity (Heb. 2:14), so must have been our
relative via common descent from the first Adam as Luke 3:38 says. In fact,
seven centuries before His Incarnation, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as
literally the 'Kinsman-Redeemer', i.e. one who is related by blood to those
he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe
Boaz in relation to Ruth). To answer the concern about original sin, the
Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being
transmitted. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ for a defence of
this foundational doctrine and further discussion of these Biblical
passages.
u.. 'The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers
to evolution.' To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand
what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in
turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to
read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint.
The original Greek word translated 'science' is gnosis, and in this context
refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the mystery
religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not
an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have
changed their meanings over time. The word 'science' originally meant
'knowledge', from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning 'know'. This
original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern
translations correctly render the word as 'knowledge' in this passage.
Of course we believe that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds
the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God's action in Creation and
the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points
out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On
a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now,
'science really means knowledge', because meaning is determined by usage,
not derivation (etymology).
v.. 'Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an
absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is
anti-Scriptural.' We reject this dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the
Biblical passages about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth
as a reference frame, but that this is one of many physically valid
reference frames; the centre of mass of the solar system is also a valid
reference frame. See also Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and
Creation , TJ15(2):110-121; 2001.
w.. 'Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark' This claimed Ark shape is a natural
geological formation caused by a mud flow.
x.. 'Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible' There is
not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt's claims, just excuses to explain
away why the evidence is missing.
y.. Many of Carl Baugh's creation 'evidences'. Sorry to say, we think that
he's well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is
not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any 'evidence' he
provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for
Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented
creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who
continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh 'evidences' despite being
approached on the matter.
z.. 'Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational
collapse, and is proof of a young sun.' This is about a formerly vexing
problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos
from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the
neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one
'flavour' to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available,
some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and
two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far
less than 4.5 billion years.
However, a new experiment was able to detect the 'missing' flavours, which
seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that
neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all-experimental data must
take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke
the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of
energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicator-nor an
old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found!
No longer an 'age' indicator, TJ16(3):123-125, 2002.
aa.. 'Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to
belief in a Creator.' However, in the normal meaning of these terms,
Einstein believed no such thing. See also Physicists' God-talk.
What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
a.. Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is
no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that
holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may
have been present. For CMI's current opinion, see Noah's Flood-Where did the
water come from?.
b.. 'There was no rain before the Flood.' This is not a direct teaching of
Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5-6 at face
value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But
it doesn't rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great
pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related
fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12-17 proves that there
were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently
invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the
Lord's Supper.
c.. 'Natural selection as tautology.' Natural selection is in one sense a
tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most
offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of
this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and
for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in
which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge?
That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric
field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one
would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can't
explain how motors work.) - it is only that circularity cannot be used as
independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become
misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore
doesn't happen. Of course the environment can 'select', just as human
breeders select. Of course demonstrating this doesn't mean that fish could
turn into philosophers by this means - the real issue is the nature of the
variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract
attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism - the source of the new
information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example,
an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian
recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be
capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been
demonstrated amply in practice.
Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist
modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation [see Q&A: Natural
Selection].
d.. 'Evolution is just a theory.' What people usually mean when they say
this is 'Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted
dogmatically.' Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the
word 'theory' in this case is that scientists use it to mean a
well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such
as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, and
lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions
and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of
lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people
evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
e.. 'There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.' We should
interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended
readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in
reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen
it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For
example, Job's readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching
anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather,
the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God's
might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a
tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as
a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job's ability.
Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth's
rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to
the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
f.. 'The speed of light has decreased over time' (c decay). Although most
of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be fallacious,
there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by
creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered. CMI
currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys' explanation for distant starlight,
although neither we nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible.
See How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? from the Answers Book.
g.. 'There are no transitional forms.' Since there are candidates, even
though they are highly dubious, it's better to avoid possible comebacks by
saying instead: 'While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show
numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a
handful of disputable examples.' See also Q&A: Fossils.
h.. 'Gold chains have been found in coal.' Several artefacts, including
gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in
each case the coal is no longer associated with the artefact. The evidence
is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. 'This object was left behind in the
fireplace after a lump of coal was burned'). This does not have the same
evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artefact still
associated.
i.. 'Plate tectonics is fallacious.' CMI believes that Dr John Baumgardner's
work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good explanation of
continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, we
recognise that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate
tectonics.
j.. 'Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.' These
terms, which focus on 'small' v. 'large' changes, distract from the key
issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires
changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and
loss of information. We have yet to see even a 'micro' increase in
information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were
true. Conversely, we do observe quite 'macro' changes that involve no new
information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
k.. 'The Gospel is in the stars.' This is an interesting idea, but quite
speculative, and many Biblical creationists doubt that it is taught in
Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.
Ken Smith
>In article <4498b510$1...@news.bekkers.com.au>, "Theo Bekkers"
><tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
>> > schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
>> > is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>>
>> So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth?
>Obviously.
>Who
>> would be qualified to judge?
>Anyone.
>>A Christian? A Jew (Les)? A Muslim?
>As they rely upon the same revelation for the hypothesis, why wouldn't they?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ever heard of the Koran, Michael?
Perhaps you should get hold of a copy and read it.
Or, even better, sit down with a Muslim scientist and talk about the
origin of the universe.
>A
>> Rastifarian?
>He might have different religious views for the posit of a hypothesis, but
>the same scientific standard afterward.
Or a Raelian?
>>Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in Science
>> classes as well as the Wagyll Dream-Time story?
>AS to Gilgamesh, Abraham was from Ur and carried the original pre altered
>revelation out of Sumner, what is your point?
>--
>"-----------------"
>May God Bless You
>Michael
Salaam
"Mark T"
> Yes, let's have Gilgamesh taught in schools.
> But not using one of the academic translations, where the translator
> thanked someone for providing a Latin translation of teh rude bits.
> Let's have a good lusty English translation.
Yah!
Just like my French teacher in high school who introduced me to Rabelais
instead of teaching me how to speak French.
> But the other omission is the Song of Solomon.
> Now I wonder why those nice erotic poems weren't read aloud in
> church?
Of course, fundamentalists will read Song of Solomon as Trew Kristyun Porn
and not an allegory because it is "God's word".
Athanasius
Smith) wrote:
>But the other omission is the Song of Solomon.
>Now I wonder why those nice erotic poems weren't read aloud in
>church?
I have been told in my Protestant seminary days and have no way of
checking that the Hebrew people also were not permitted to read the
Book until they were above 30 years of age and married. :-)
Peace and grace.
Athanasius, dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against
the world." St Athanasius the Apostolic, 20th Patriarch of Alexandria.
Theo Bekkers
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > <snip>....... Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in
> > Science? classes ....<snip>
> Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view3107
>
> Theo, Please read the above website and then let me know if it changes
> your ideas.
If you want me to read stuff please try to get the url correct.
"The page you are trying to access does not exist.
Please select a page from the main menu".
Theo
Theo Bekkers
>>> Science? classes ....<snip>
>
>> Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic
>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view3107
>>
>> Theo, Please read the above website and then let me know if it
>> changes your ideas.
>
>
> "The page you are trying to access does not exist.
> Please select a page from the main menu".
Found it. I found the first reference note to be interesting.
""The Sumerian language was a living, spoken form of speech from before 3500
B.C. to about 2050 B.C.; then it became a dead, classical language." G.
Herbert Livingston, "
Is not 3500BC way before Noah? And 2050BC after Noah? Who was speaking this
language after Noah? Noah?
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > > <snip>....... Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in
> > > Science? classes ....<snip>
>
>
> If you want me to read stuff please try to get the url correct.
>
do better next time.
Dr Jonathan D. Safati, B.Sc (Hons), PH. D., F.M.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/ 3547
Scroll down to Creation science articles, scroll futher to Fossils and
the Flood, Noah's Ark,
then to Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic.
<snip>
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
It's a bad day! Again, apologies! The websites below do come up on my
monitor.
I hope they will on yours!
>
Noah's Flood. Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000
Fossils Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
<snip>
Gladys Swager
Jani
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150855436....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jani wrote:
>> >
> <snip>
>>
>> Creationism *is* heard in schools; it's right there in RE lessons, where
>> it
>> should be.
>>
> If, however, there is scientific proof - or at least, theories that can
> stand beside those of Evolutionists-Long Age Universe/world theorists,
> then the evidence from Creation Scientsits has as much right to be
> heard.
But there aren't.
>
> Comets and the age of the Universe
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1528
>
> The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
As far as science is concerned, religion is simply *not relevant*. They
could all be myths, they could all be true, the issue is just not part of
the science curriculum.
Jani
Jani
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-210...@192.168.1.102...
> In article <4498b510$1...@news.bekkers.com.au>, "Theo Bekkers"
> <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
>> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
>> > schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
>> > is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>>
>> So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth?
>
> Obviously.
>
> Who
>> would be qualified to judge?
>
> Anyone.
It's only 'obvious' (or, indeed, a valid viewpoint) to a christian. Someone
outside of that worldview would judge differently.
Jani
Michael
Smith) wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
>
> >Jani wrote:
> >> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Creationism *is* heard in schools; it's right there in RE lessons, where it
> >> should be.
> >>
> >If, however, there is scientific proof - or at least, theories that can
> >stand beside those of Evolutionists-Long Age Universe/world theorists,
> >then the evidence from Creation Scientsits has as much right to be
> >heard.
>
> There isn't - there aren't - and so it doesn't.
Sounds like something chicken little said what his religious foundations
were shaken.
>
> >Comets and the age of the Universe
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1528
>
> More garbage.
>
> >The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> >schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> >is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
> >Gladys Swager
>
> Salaam
> Ken Smith
>
> --
> Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
> "... his wife had lost her clothes and gained a newspaper. `Have you seen
> this?' she demanded. `Often,' said Pascoe gravely. `But I have no
objection
> to seeing it again.' " Ellie and Peter Pascoe in "Child's Play"
--
Michael
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Gilgamesh is just an altered version of the original, which Abraham took
out of Ur with him.
Michael
Smith) wrote:
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
>
> >In article <44988c0c$1...@news.bekkers.com.au>, "Theo Bekkers"
> ><tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Michael wrote:
> >> > "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No. "Goddidit" is not an equally valid alternative theory. It is not
> >> >> even a theory, it is a belief.
> >>
> >> > IOW, 'Gid didn't do it" is the only religous belief allowed in
> >> > formulating scientific hypothesis? Thanks for the admission of the
> >> > intolerance to diversity.
> >>
> >> If religious beliefs are accceptable for theories of how the universe came
> >> into being,
>
> >That is not what I said. I said that revelation is a valid basis for
> >formulating a scientific theory and testing it using the same scientific
> >method as hypothesis formulated fromm other religious sources.
>
>
> >then I prefer the Wagyll version. Can I assume that that is also
> >> acceptable to you, as well as any other non-Christian creation stories?
>
> >True, religious evolutionism has posited its non Christian creation story
> >as a scientific hypothesis, and so far, it has barely survived the
> >hypothesis testing for lack of conslusive evidence.
>
> Methinks you should read soem scientific books which have the word
> "creation" in their title.
Already have.
> You might be surprised to discover that evolution is only very rarely
> mentioned. They're all about thye creation of teh universe.
For which there is no known viable alternative hypothesis for abiogenesis
beyond the more complete creation hypothesis.
>
> If creationists want to continue to use teh word "creation", without
> any qualifying adjectives,
Why do evolutionists continue to demand a qualifying adjective?
in biology they are gioing to continue to
> be dismissed as ignorant religious ratbags.
What would would expect from 'evolutionary' biology? If evolutionists
want to continue to use the word "evolution", without any qualifying
adjectives, they are gioing to continue to be dismissed as ignorant
religious ratbags.
>
> Now if you want to talk about "special creation" that's another
> matter, but that was relegated to the dustbin of history before Darwin
> wrote "On the Origin of Species".
Darwin's theory of slow gradual change was relegated to the dustbin of
history not that long after he wrote his buybull 'on the preservation of
the favoured races in the struggle for life" for lack of supporting
evidence.
Michael
Smith) wrote:
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
>
> >In article <4498b510$1...@news.bekkers.com.au>, "Theo Bekkers"
> ><tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >>
> >> > The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> >> > schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> >> > is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
> >>
> >> So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth?
>
> >Obviously.
>
> >Who
> >> would be qualified to judge?
>
> >Anyone.
>
> >>A Christian? A Jew (Les)? A Muslim?
>
> >As they rely upon the same revelation for the hypothesis, why wouldn't they?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Ever heard of the Koran, Michael?
Yes.
> Perhaps you should get hold of a copy and read it.
And what therein, disagrees with the Hebrew text upon which it also
recognizes as authoritive?
How does the Quran differ from the Christian Hebrew text as to the
creation revelation?
> Or, even better, sit down with a Muslim scientist and talk about the
> origin of the universe.
You seem to be mixing revelation with science. REligious revelation can
be posited as a scientific hypothesis availabe for testing, whether that
revelation claims its origins to religious atheism, Islam, or
Christianity.
Any religious belief can be posited as a scientific hypothesis and tested
by scientific method, how do you think we got evolution?
>
> >A
> >> Rastifarian?
>
> >He might have different religious views for the posit of a hypothesis, but
> >the same scientific standard afterward.
>
> Or a Raelian?
Second verse, same as the first.
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
No one knows for sure, but the best estimate is, yes, and an educated
guess is that Noah may have spolen Sumarian.
And 2050BC after Noah? Who was speaking this
> language after Noah? Noah?
Sumarian was commonly used in official communications of Babylon and even
used some by into the Persian empire.
Michael
wrote:
No one said that they should be. HOwever, a valid scientific hypothesis
posited from any of them remains a valid scientific hypothesis ignored
only by closed minded folks claiming to be scientists.
Michael
Smith) wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> writes:
>
> >s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
> >> schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
> >> is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>
> >So is the Judeo-Christian religion the only religion that is not myth? Who
> >would be qualified to judge? A Christian? A Jew (Les)? A Muslim? A
> >Rastifarian? Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in Science
> >classes as well as the Wagyll Dream-Time story?
>
> Yes, let's have Gilgamesh taught in schools.
If one posits a scietific hypothesis from it, it is an acceptable
scientific hypothesis to test using scientific method as any other
hypothesis posited any other way.
> But not using one of the academic translations, where the translator
> thanked someone for providing a Latin translation of teh rude bits.
> Let's have a good lusty English translation.
>
> And while we're on this topic, last weekend I had occasion to delve
> into an 1820 copy of teh Book of Common Prayer to look at the
> procedure for calculating the date of Easter. It has tables enabling
> the calculation to work up to the year AD 8500.
It probably enables the calculation beyond even that.
>
> Immediately preceeding this part was the Calendar of readings from the
> Bible for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer for every day of teh year.
> Browsing through this the whole of teh Old Testament is read during
> the year, with a couple of exceptions.
> One is the books of Chronicles, which largely repeat Samuel and
> Kings, so that's understandable.
>
> But the other omission is the Song of Solomon.
> Now I wonder why those nice erotic poems weren't read aloud in
> church?
Nothing particuarly erotic in the song of the Bride and Bridegroom.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Ken Smith wrote:
<snip>
> Methinks you should read some scientific books which have the word
> "creation" in their title.
> You might be surprised to discover that evolution is only very rarely
> mentioned. They're all about the creation of the universe.
>
Creation of the Universe? By What? By Whom?
What part do you think that the Almighty God Creator of the Biblical
scriptures (Old and New Testaments) had in the process of 'creation' as
mentioned in those texts which you have not specifically named.
> If creationists want to continue to use the word "creation", without
> any qualifying adjectives, in biology they are going to continue to
> be dismissed as ignorant religious ratbags.
>
By whom?
By those who do not believe that a Supernatural Eternal Living Being -
the Triune Almighty God - created by the power of His Word?
> Now if you want to talk about "special creation" that's another
> matter, but that was relegated to the dustbin of history before Darwin
> wrote "On the Origin of Species".
>
By whom?
>From the ancient Greek philosophers there have been those who accepted
an evolutionary process of 'particles-to-people',
'molecules-to-(hu)man'.
Those scientists who believe that God created according to basic kinds
(families) with the genetic information to change within those kinds
(families) according to certain environmental conditions are being
scientifically legitimate as they research in their various scientific
disciplines for the evidence to support those ideas.
Charles Babbage -
(a Christian who made significant discoveries and inventions. I need to
do extra reading about his views on Creation according to Genesis 1)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/632/
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
Origins Science of a universe created by the Big Bang (4.5 billion
years ago?),
with the evolutionary aspect of change from unicellular to multicelluar
organisms by Natural Selection for new Families of living organisms
IS
contrary to the revelation of the Bible.
'God said'........creation of kinds occurred....God saw that it was
good.
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> Jani wrote
>> But there aren't.
> HOwever, a valid scientific
> hypothesis posited from any of them remains a valid scientific
> hypothesis ignored only by closed minded folks claiming to be
> scientists.
But there aren't.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>> Found it. I found the first reference note to be interesting.
>> ""The Sumerian language was a living, spoken form of speech from
>> before 3500 B.C. to about 2050 B.C.; then it became a dead,
>> classical language." G. Herbert Livingston, "
>> Is not 3500BC way before Noah?
> No one knows for sure, but the best estimate is, yes, and an educated
> guess is that Noah may have spolen Sumarian.
And did he bring the Gilgamesh story with him in the ark?
Theo
Jani
If they ever come up with a valid scientific hypothesis, no doubt scientists
will take notice of it.
Jani
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
At least according to the opinion of the closed minded and intolerant to
diversity with religious fear that might shake their religous faith in a
alternative scientific theory which doesn't support their religious
beliefs that 'God didn't do it'.
Michael
<tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
No, since Gilgamesh is the corrupted story about the event, Noah didn't
take something which didn't exist onto the ark; however, he took the true
account of the event off of the ark. Too bad Gilgamesh got the event
wrong.
Michael
wrote:
They already have, except for the closed minded who reject scientific
method and ignor theories that might shake their religous foundations held
by blind faith that 'God didn't do it'.
Jani
Even scientists who have a religious faith are aware of the difference
between their personal beliefs, and science.
Jani
Ken Smith
>Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>> > > <snip>....... Or should we be teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh in
>> > > Science? classes ....<snip>
>>
><snip>
>>
>> If you want me to read stuff please try to get the url correct.
>>
>With apologies. I forgot to test the url before posting it. I hope to
>do better next time.
>Dr Jonathan D. Safati, B.Sc (Hons), PH. D., F.M.
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/ 3547
I haven't tried this, and I'm not going to try it, because I'm sure
that I'll get another of those messages "This page does not exist".
And I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know what qualifications
Sarfati has for writing about anything written in Sumerian.
>Scroll down to Creation science articles, scroll futher to Fossils and
>the Flood, Noah's Ark,
>then to Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic.
><snip>
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character." Martin Luther King, "I Have a Dream"
Ken Smith
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
>In article <e7cm0c$1jfp$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken
>Smith) wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> writes:
>>
>> >s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >> The presentation of some information within the science syllabuses in
>> >> schools can give some children the idea that the Judeo-Christian faith
>> >> is just a myth as can other religions in the world be assessed to be.
>>
Huh?
"You are like a palm tree, and your breasts are like clusters of
dates. I will climb the palm tree and take hold of its clusters."
Not erotic?
If the much touted free anti-porn filters from the Federal Government
are like some others accessing anything which includes the word
"breast" won't be allowed.
So you won't be able to access any sites dealing with breast cancer -
this has already caused a lot of strife - but nor will you be able to
download an online copy of the Bible.
>--
>"-----------------"
>May God Bless You
>Michael
Salaam
Ken Smith
In the faint hope that she might, just might, go and read some science
I'll scan by bibliography database tomorrow for books with the word
"creation" in the title and give her a list.
And wait and see if she can come up with a link to AiG or CMI which
reviews any of these books.
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>Ken Smith wrote:
><snip>
>> Methinks you should read some scientific books which have the word
>> "creation" in their title.
>> You might be surprised to discover that evolution is only very rarely
>> mentioned. They're all about the creation of the universe.
>>
>Creation of the Universe? By What? By Whom?
>What part do you think that the Almighty God Creator of the Biblical
>scriptures (Old and New Testaments) had in the process of 'creation' as
>mentioned in those texts which you have not specifically named.
Since they're books on science, not religion, they don't, in most
cases, make any mention of what/who, if anything/anyone, was
responsible.
>> If creationists want to continue to use the word "creation", without
>> any qualifying adjectives, in biology they are going to continue to
>> be dismissed as ignorant religious ratbags.
>>
>By whom?
By virtually all scientists.
Try reading something on teh history of science, Gladys.
>By those who do not believe that a Supernatural Eternal Living Being -
>the Triune Almighty God - created by the power of His Word?
>> Now if you want to talk about "special creation" that's another
>> matter, but that was relegated to the dustbin of history before Darwin
>> wrote "On the Origin of Species".
>>
>By whom?
See my pervious comment.
>>From the ancient Greek philosophers there have been those who accepted
>an evolutionary process of 'particles-to-people',
>'molecules-to-(hu)man'.
>Those scientists who believe that God created according to basic kinds
>(families) with the genetic information to change within those kinds
>(families) according to certain environmental conditions are being
>scientifically legitimate as they research in their various scientific
>disciplines for the evidence to support those ideas.
You can, of course, Gladys, provide us with evidence that "kinds" in
teh Bible are to be taken as a "family" in modern classification
terms?
You might like to tell us how many different "kinds" of beetles Noah
had on the ark with him, for a start, if there were a pair - or seven
pairs - of each family of beetles.
>Charles Babbage -
>(a Christian who made significant discoveries and inventions. I need to
>do extra reading about his views on Creation according to Genesis 1)
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/632/
>Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
>Origins Science of a universe created by the Big Bang (4.5 billion
>years ago?),
>with the evolutionary aspect of change from unicellular to multicelluar
>organisms by Natural Selection for new Families of living organisms
>IS
>contrary to the revelation of the Bible.
>'God said'........creation of kinds occurred....God saw that it was
>good.
You've mixed up the age of teh universe and the age of the eartyh,
Gladys.
Can you show us how Genesis 1:1 refutes the big-bang?
>Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> Not erotic?
> If the much touted free anti-porn filters from the Federal Government
> are like some others accessing anything which includes the word
> "breast" won't be allowed.
> So you won't be able to access any sites dealing with breast cancer -
> this has already caused a lot of strife - but nor will you be able to
> download an online copy of the Bible.
Porn filters are probably worse than useless. They are easy to circumvent by
people wanting to sell you porn, and by people who want to view porn. They
are a pain in the butt for the vast majority of people who just want to get
on with life without having t jump through hoops and over hurdles.
Four years ago we were known as Bekkers Information Technology, normally
abreviated to BIT for internal stuff. The boss decided that this new
filtering software would help people to learn to be more polite. A week
later he got upset because nobody responded to his call for suggestions for
the BIT Christmas party (we all went to Bali for a long weekend). His new
software found the word BITCH in his email from 'BIT Christmas', and dumped
it in the bin so nobody received it. Shortly after, the software also went
in the bin.
Theo
Barry OGrady
When Gladies prays she gets
"The god you are trying to access does not exist.
Please select a god from the many available."
>Theo
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:26:36 +0800, "Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> "The god you are trying to access does not exist.
> Please select a god from the many available."
>
realities.
Flippant - marked by shallow or disrespectful levity (lack
of seriousness)
When I pray God Almighty (Jesus Christ) gives me one of three answers.
What you are praying for is NOT My will for you.
What you are praying for IS My will for you, but not just now.
What you are praying for IS My will for you now.
>
Even the Apostle Paul was not given everything he prayed for.
2 Corinthians 12 : 7 - 9 (KJV)
Paul had something that was irritating him greatly) - 'a thorn in the
flesh' (he called it).
'For this thing I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from
me.'
And He said to me , "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength
is made perfect in weakness"
Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that
the power of Christ may rest upon me.'
For five years people were praying that I would be healed and there was
no response.
In fact there were those who said prayers for healing 'were
illegitimate' - the age of such miracles was past.
However, I prayed that cures and preventitive methods might be found.
When I was placed on what came to be called Stress Leave
* I first became an advocate of reform in respect of Psychiatric
treatments previously used.
* I set out more naturalistic means of managing stress conditions
* I became aware that I should have been treated for Neurasthenia (an
older term used at least
from the early 20th century) with a convalescent programme following
Rheumatic Fever.
* The most important aspect was that there came to be an increased
awareness through the
the media of aspects of better health so that many more could
realise the benefits than if I
had been miraculously healed and had no knowledge of how to avoid
the complications I had
had in the previous years.
Ephesians 3 : 20 - 21 Now unto Him (God Almighty) that is able to do
exceeding abundantly above all that we ask (pray for) of think,
according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the
church (all believers) by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
without end. Amen.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:26:36 +0800, "Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> When Gladys prays she gets
>> "The god you are trying to access does not exist.
>> Please select a god from the many available."
They had intended to install a system that would allow you to select a god by pressing buttons,
but it would have been impractical.
Press 0001 for Jehovah, press 0002 for Satan...................press 9086 for..........
>Barry, It would be helpful if you were not so flippant about Christian
>realities.
I'm not aware of any Christian realities.
> Flippant - marked by shallow or disrespectful levity (lack
>of seriousness)
Of course. Christianity is absurd.
>When I pray God Almighty (Jesus Christ) gives me one of three answers.
>
>What you are praying for is NOT My will for you.
>What you are praying for IS My will for you, but not just now.
>What you are praying for IS My will for you now.
The last one has been out of service for 2,000 years.
>Even the Apostle Paul was not given everything he prayed for.
Do you get "on hold" music while you wait?
>2 Corinthians 12 : 7 - 9 (KJV)
>Paul had something that was irritating him greatly) - 'a thorn in the flesh' (he called it).
>'For this thing I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me.'
>And He said to me , "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength
>is made perfect in weakness"
>Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that
>the power of Christ may rest upon me.'
You must be smoking the same stuff.
>For five years people were praying that I would be healed and there was
>no response.
The no response is the only response you get.
>In fact there were those who said prayers for healing 'were
>illegitimate' - the age of such miracles was past.
>However, I prayed that cures and preventitive methods might be found.
>When I was placed on what came to be called Stress Leave
>* I first became an advocate of reform in respect of Psychiatric treatments previously used.
>* I set out more naturalistic means of managing stress conditions
>* I became aware that I should have been treated for Neurasthenia (an older term used at least
> from the early 20th century) with a convalescent programme following Rheumatic Fever.
There is a saying in Christianity, "If you want something done do it yourself."
or
"Call out to God but row away from the rocks."
>* The most important aspect was that there came to be an increased awareness through the
> the media of aspects of better health so that many more could realise the benefits than if I
> had been miraculously healed and had no knowledge of how to avoid the complications I had
> had in the previous years.
If course if God fixed his mess there would be no health problems.
>Ephesians 3 : 20 - 21 Now unto Him (God Almighty) that is able to do
>exceeding abundantly above all that we ask (pray for) of think,
>according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the
>church (all believers) by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
>without end. Amen.
Did you know you were being honest when you admitted that God did nothing?
>Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
I wrote recently
> It seems that Gladys wants some information.
> In the faint hope that she might, just might, go and read some science
> I'll scan by bibliography database tomorrow for books with the word
> "creation" in the title and give her a list.
> And wait and see if she can come up with a link to AiG or CMI which
> reviews any of these books.
Here is the list, extracted from the Science section of the database.
There are assorted books in the Religion and Science section, and some
others in various other parts, but this is strictly books about the
various aspects of science, including a subsection on teh history of
science.
I decided to limit it to books with the word "Creation" in the title,
and exclude those with "Creationism", since these mostly have a short
extract of creationism followed by an exposition of science showing
that creationists sim[ply don't understand what they are talking
about. Anyway, here is the list.
Those not familiar with the BibTeX format shouldn't have any problem
looking for these in your nearest library - though whether the library
holds a copy is another matter.
editor = {Asimov, Isaac and Zebrowski, George and Greenberg, Martin H.},
title = {Creations: The Quest for Origins in Story and Science},
pages = {xii, 351},
publisher = {Harrap},
address = {London},
year = 1984,
author = {Atkins, Peter},
title = {Creation Revisited},
pages = {viii, 163},
publisher = {Penguin Books},
address = {Harmondsworth, Middlesex},
year = 1994,
author = {Barrow , John D. and Silk, Joseph},
title = {The Left Hand of Creation: The Origin and Evolution of the
Expanding Universe},
pages = 256,
publisher = {Unwin Paperbacks},
address = {London},
year = 1985,
author = {{Conway Morris}, Simon},
title = {The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of
Animals},
pages = {xxii, 242},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
year = 1999,
note = {Originally published (hardback) in 1998},
author = {Dauber, Philip M. and Muller, Richard A.},
title = {The Three Big Bangs: Comet Crashes, Exploding Stars, and the
Creation of the Universe},
pages = {viii, 207},
publisher = {Perseus Books},
address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
year = 1996,
author = {Eccles, John C.},
title = {Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self},
pages = {xv, 282},
publisher = {Routledge},
address = {New York},
year = 1989,
author = {Gamow, George},
title = {The Creation of the Universe},
pages = {xviii, 413},
publisher = {The Viking Press},
address = {New York},
year = 1952,
author = {Gillespie, Neal C.},
title = {Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation},
pages = {xiii, 201},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
address = {Chicago},
year = 1979,
author = {Jaki, Stanley L.},
title = {Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating
Universe},
pages = {viii, 367},
publisher = {Scottish Academic Press},
address = {Edinburgh},
year = 1974,
author = {Parker, Barry},
title = {Creation: The Story of the Origin and Evolution
of the Universe},
pages = {xiii, 297},
publisher = {Plenum Press},
address = {New York},
year = 1988,
author = {Riordan, Michael and Schramm, David},
title = {The Shadows of Creation: Dark Matter and the Structure of
the Universe},
pages = {viii, 277},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
year = 1993,
author = {Shapiro, Robert},
title = {Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth},
pages = {332},
publisher = {Penguin Books},
address = {Harmondsworth, Middlesex},
year = 1988,
author = {Smoot, George and Davidson, Keay},
title = {Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation},
pages = {vi, 331},
publisher = {Little, Brown and Company},
address = {New York},
year = 1993,
author = {Steneck, Nicholas H.},
title = {Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of
Langenstein (d.~1397) on Genesis},
pages = {xiv, 213},
publisher = {University of Notre Dame Press},
address = {Notre Dame, Indiana},
year = 1976,
author = {Trefil, James S.},
title = {The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from before the
First Millisecond to the Present Universe},
pages = {vi, 234},
publisher = {Macmillan},
address = {New York},
year = 1983,
author = {von Weizsacker, Carl Friedrich},
title = {The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony},
pages = 192,
publisher = {Collins},
address = {London},
year = 1964,
Even Steneck writing on historical matters includes some science, and
is careful to distinguish what Henry of Langenstein writes about
science from his religion.
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> >Ken Smith wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Methinks you should read some scientific books which have the word
> >> "creation" in their title.
> >> You might be surprised to discover that evolution is only very rarely
> >> mentioned. They're all about the creation of the universe.
> >>
> >Creation of the Universe? By What? By Whom?
> >What part do you think that the Almighty God Creator of the Biblical
> >scriptures (Old and New Testaments) had in the process of 'creation' as
> >mentioned in those texts which you have not specifically named.
> Since they're books on science, not religion, they don't, in most
> cases, make any mention of what/who, if anything/anyone, was
> responsible.
A few of the books in the above list do, indeed, say something about
religion. But is is almost always in the concluding pages, and
usually points out that thiose whom oppose science on religious
grounds have a very limitede idea about God.
> >> If creationists want to continue to use the word "creation", without
> >> any qualifying adjectives, in biology they are going to continue to
> >> be dismissed as ignorant religious ratbags.
> >>
> >By whom?
> By virtually all scientists.
> Try reading something on the history of science, Gladys.
Would you like me to provide another list of books, Gladys, written by
evangelical Christians, who are also scientists, listing some of the
errors made by creationists?
Just ask, and I'll do it - though it might take some time to sort out
those books in the Creationist section (almost all of these are
anti-creationist) written by Christians from those written by people
about whom I have little or no information on their religious beliefs.
[deletions]
> >Those scientists who believe that God created according to basic kinds
> >(families) with the genetic information to change within those kinds
> >(families) according to certain environmental conditions are being
> >scientifically legitimate as they research in their various scientific
> >disciplines for the evidence to support those ideas.
> You can, of course, Gladys, provide us with evidence that "kinds" in
> the Bible are to be taken as a "family" in modern classification
> terms?
> You might like to tell us how many different "kinds" of beetles Noah
> had on the ark with him, for a start, if there were a pair - or seven
> pairs - of each family of beetles.
[more deletions]
> >Origins Science of a universe created by the Big Bang (4.5 billion
> >years ago?),
> >with the evolutionary aspect of change from unicellular to multicelluar
> >organisms by Natural Selection for new Families of living organisms
> >IS
> >contrary to the revelation of the Bible.
> >'God said'........creation of kinds occurred....God saw that it was
> >good.
> You've mixed up the age of the universe and the age of the earth,
> Gladys.
> Can you show us how Genesis 1:1 refutes the big-bang?
> >Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Caviar comes from the virgin sturgeon, virgin sturgeon very fine fish.
Virgin sturgeon needs no urgin', that's why caviar's a very rare dish.'
sung by Tony Benskin in "Doctor in the House"
Ken Smith
>Ken Smith wrote:
I wonder if anyone has tried to get politicians to understand
something about images on websites.
Suppose I come across a site which has on it a series mary6a.jpg,
mary6b.jpg, mary6c.jpg, ...
This could be a harmless series of photos of six-year-old Mary
enjoying her birthday party along with her school friends.
Or it could be the sixth series of twenty-year-old Mary enjoying a
romp with her latest partner, both of them dressed as Adam and Eve
were in Genesis 2.
How do we get a porn filter to distinguish between these?
Easy.
Find a human being who has the time to look at each of these series
and make the decision.
And if Mary and her partner start off fully dressed and don't start
disrobing until mary6j.jpg the censor might well pass the series as
harmless.
>Theo
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Barry OGrady wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2006 20:29:54 -0700, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any Christian realities. Of course. Christianity is absurd.
>
Those are your opinions. It is obvious to me that you have set yourself
against God Almighty.
To assure yourself of your opinions you misread the Biblical
scriptures.
In the Biblical account it was Adam who disobeyed God, even though he
was warned that if he did he would surely die. (Genesis 2 : 16 - 17).
Obviously spiritual death - loss of God's spirit within him came first,
followed by physical death (Genesis 3 : 5) at the age of nine hundred
and thirty years.
> >When I pray God Almighty (Jesus Christ) gives me one of three answers.
> >
> >What you are praying for is NOT My will for you.
> >What you are praying for IS My will for you, but not just now.
> >What you are praying for IS My will for you now.
>
> The last one has been out of service for 2,000 years.
>
How can you say that/ Have you personally lived throughout the last
2000 years and have known all the prayers and their outcomes to have
undeniable proof?
You fling 'off-the-cuff' statements, but they are not the truth.
> >Even the Apostle Paul was not given everything he prayed for.
>
> Do you get "on hold" music while you wait?
>
> >2 Corinthians 12 : 7 - 9 (KJV)
> >Paul had something that was irritating him greatly) - 'a thorn in the flesh' (he called it).
> >'For this thing I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me.'
> >And He said to me , "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength
> >is made perfect in weakness"
> >Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that
> >the power of Christ may rest upon me.'
>
> You must be smoking the same stuff.
>
I have never smoked anything in my lifetime of nearly eighty years,
except to be near the smoke from fires (in our home fuel stove for
cooking and fire under a copper for washing clothes and preparing feed
for fowls in early 1930's), fires on the creek at the back of our
property,
a school fire in 1965, from bush fires in the Sydney area, and
recently when school pupils were smoking and caused a fire at the side
of the house.
> >For five years people were praying that I would be healed and there was
> >no response.
>
> The no response is the only response you get.
>
Again an 'off-the-cuff'remark that is contrary to what I posted. You
just don't read intelligently.
> >In fact there were those who said prayers for healing 'were
> >illegitimate' - the age of such miracles was past.
> >However, I prayed that cures and preventitive methods might be found.
> >When I was placed on what came to be called Stress Leave
> >* I first became an advocate of reform in respect of Psychiatric treatments previously used.
> >* I set out more naturalistic means of managing stress conditions
> >* I became aware that I should have been treated for Neurasthenia (an older term used at least
> > from the early 20th century) with a convalescent programme following Rheumatic Fever.
>
> There is a saying in Christianity, "If you want something done do it yourself."
or "Call out to God but row away from the rocks."
>
Better, to pray to God that He will give the strength and knowledge to
meet the needs for the situation you are in.
> >* The most important aspect was that there came to be an increased awareness through the
> > the media of aspects of better health so that many more could realise the benefits than if I
> > had been miraculously healed and had no knowledge of how to avoid the complications I had
> > had in the previous years.
>
> If course if God fixed his mess there would be no health problems.
>
God is a Spirit. God calls upon us to allow Him to guide us in
correcting the problems within the world.
> >Ephesians 3 : 20 - 21 Now unto Him (God Almighty) that is able to do
> >exceeding abundantly above all that we ask (pray for) of think,
> >according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the
> >church (all believers) by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
> >without end. Amen.
>
> Did you know you were being honest when you admitted that God did nothing?
>
God is doing much in the world through Christians
who are working to alleviate the problems of man's inhumanity to his
fellow man.
You are just not willing to give credit where credit is due.
In Africa, where there is much political corrption, Christians are in
the forefront of providing aid.
Do you do anything to help that work?
Have you started an aid organisation to alleviate the need,
to teach sexual abstinence before marriage so the AIDS problem is not
increased,
to provide food, water and other essentials to school children
and in other areas of human need?????.
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> How do we get a porn filter to distinguish between these?
> Easy.
> Find a human being who has the time to look at each of these series
> and make the decision.
Herein lies my problem with censorship. If it is bad for me to look at or
read something, why is not also bad for the censor?
Theo
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On 27 Jun 2006 20:29:54 -0700, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> I'm not aware of any Christian realities. Of course. Christianity is absurd.
>>
>Those are your opinions.
Yes, and its true too.
>It is obvious to me that you have set yourself against God Almighty.
I would need iron chariots to do that.
>To assure yourself of your opinions you misread the Biblical scriptures.
No need. The absurdities in the Bible are obvious to the undeluded.
>In the Biblical account it was Adam who disobeyed God, even though he
>was warned that if he did he would surely die. (Genesis 2 : 16 - 17).
Adam did not die the day he ate. God lied. The snake said A and E would
have their eyes opened and would be like gods. The snake told the truth.
>Obviously spiritual death - loss of God's spirit within him came first,
>followed by physical death (Genesis 3 : 5) at the age of nine hundred
>and thirty years.
>
>> >When I pray God Almighty (Jesus Christ) gives me one of three answers.
>> >
>> >What you are praying for is NOT My will for you.
>> >What you are praying for IS My will for you, but not just now.
>> >What you are praying for IS My will for you now.
>>
>> The last one has been out of service for 2,000 years.
>>
>How can you say that/ Have you personally lived throughout the last
>2000 years and have known all the prayers and their outcomes to have
>undeniable proof?
The fact of God's non-exsistence makes it obvious.
>You fling 'off-the-cuff' statements, but they are not the truth.
Then you should be able to refute them.
>> >Even the Apostle Paul was not given everything he prayed for.
>>
>> Do you get "on hold" music while you wait?
>>
>> >2 Corinthians 12 : 7 - 9 (KJV)
>> >Paul had something that was irritating him greatly) - 'a thorn in the flesh' (he called it).
>> >'For this thing I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me.'
>> >And He said to me , "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength
>> >is made perfect in weakness"
>> >Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that
>> >the power of Christ may rest upon me.'
>>
>> You must be smoking the same stuff.
>>
>I have never smoked anything in my lifetime of nearly eighty years,
Perhaps you should have smoked something.
>except to be near the smoke from fires (in our home fuel stove for
>cooking and fire under a copper for washing clothes and preparing feed
>for fowls in early 1930's), fires on the creek at the back of our
>property,
>a school fire in 1965, from bush fires in the Sydney area, and
>recently when school pupils were smoking and caused a fire at the side
>of the house.
>
>> >For five years people were praying that I would be healed and there was
>> >no response.
>>
>> The no response is the only response you get.
>>
>Again an 'off-the-cuff'remark that is contrary to what I posted. You
>just don't read intelligently.
I have this habit of reading what is there.
>> >In fact there were those who said prayers for healing 'were
>> >illegitimate' - the age of such miracles was past.
>> >However, I prayed that cures and preventitive methods might be found.
>> >When I was placed on what came to be called Stress Leave
>> >* I first became an advocate of reform in respect of Psychiatric treatments previously used.
>> >* I set out more naturalistic means of managing stress conditions
>> >* I became aware that I should have been treated for Neurasthenia (an older term used at least
>> > from the early 20th century) with a convalescent programme following Rheumatic Fever.
>>
>> There is a saying in Christianity, "If you want something done do it yourself."
>> or "Call out to God but row away from the rocks."
>>
>Better, to pray to God that He will give the strength and knowledge to
>meet the needs for the situation you are in.
I suppose there is no point asking God to get off his arse and fix the mess he made.
>> >* The most important aspect was that there came to be an increased awareness through the
>> > the media of aspects of better health so that many more could realise the benefits than if I
>> > had been miraculously healed and had no knowledge of how to avoid the complications I had
>> > had in the previous years.
>>
>> If course if God fixed his mess there would be no health problems.
>>
>God is a Spirit. God calls upon us to allow Him to guide us in
>correcting the problems within the world.
If God was good there would be no problems.
>> >Ephesians 3 : 20 - 21 Now unto Him (God Almighty) that is able to do
>> >exceeding abundantly above all that we ask (pray for) of think,
>> >according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the
>> >church (all believers) by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
>> >without end. Amen.
>>
>> Did you know you were being honest when you admitted that God did nothing?
>>
>God is doing much in the world through Christians who are working to alleviate
>the problems of man's inhumanity to his fellow man.
>You are just not willing to give credit where credit is due.
That's not true. I give credit to God for crreating the mess we are in,
Do you give credit to humans for our increasing ability to overcome God's will?
>In Africa, where there is much political corrption, Christians are in
>the forefront of providing aid.
South Africa used to be able to feed itself and even export. But the PC crowd
changed that by removing Apartheid.
>Do you do anything to help that work?
Christians are at the forefront of forcing their way into places where they are
not wanted.
>Have you started an aid organisation to alleviate the need, to teach sexual
>abstinence before marriage so the AIDS problem is not increased,
What was God smoking when he came up with the idea of sex?
>to provide food, water and other essentials to school children
>and in other areas of human need?????
Are you helping to distribute Bibles in places where food and fresh water
are needed?
What sort of God creates a world where life feeds off life and only the strongest
survive? What sort of religion calls that a God of love?
.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On 28 Jun 2006 17:49:46 -0700, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >It is obvious to me that you have set yourself against God Almighty.
>
> I would need iron chariots to do that.
>
not flesh and blood as we are.
Jesus speaking to the woman at the well of Samaria said to her, (John 4
: 24)
"God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit
and truth."
v. 25 The woman said to Him, "I know that the Messiah comes, which is
called Christ;
when He comes He
will tell us all things
v 26 Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am He."
ie Jesus claimed to be the Messiah promised through the Old Testament
scriptures.
<snip)
>
> >In the Biblical account it was Adam who disobeyed God, even though he
> >was warned that if he did he would surely die. (Genesis 2 : 16 - 17).
>
> Adam did not die the day he ate. God lied. The snake said A and E would
> have their eyes opened and would be like gods. The snake told the truth.
>
Barry,
you are still repeating the false ideas that you have programmed into
your brain over a long period of time.
Sometime in the future you may come to realise the mistakes that you
have made.
> >Obviously spiritual death - loss of God's spirit within him came first,
> >followed by physical death (Genesis 3 : 5) at the age of nine hundred
> >and thirty years.
> >
<snip>
> >Better, to pray to God that He will give the strength and knowledge to
> >meet the needs for the situation you are in.
>
> I suppose there is no point asking God
<snipped - because it is offensive - blasphemous)
(to) fix the mess he made.
>
Barry, You do not learn. God did not make the mess. Humans did!
In Jesus Christ, God came to help humans rectify the problems in the
world.
Health care was one of the first.
Care of prisoners and their families came with the work of Elizabeth
Fry and others.
Elizabeth Fry inspired Florence Nightingale who helped to improve the
care of soldiers and others and was also involved in the early days of
Sydney (NSW - Australia) Hospital - to name just two persons - women
who were involved years before the modern-day feminist movement.
>
<snip>
> Do you give credit to humans for our increasing ability to overcome God's will?
>
That is a very foolish statement. You do not consider just how foolish
it is.
Christians are involved in fulfilling God's will in loving God and in
helping others
> >In Africa, where there is much political corrption, Christians are in
> >the forefront of providing aid.
> South Africa used to be able to feed itself and even export. But the PC crowd
> changed that by removing Apartheid.
>
The Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world developed cultures
according to their understandings of survival.
It was in Europe that the modern-day scientific understandings of life
during the last 600 years came about.
The Indigenous peoples of the world have a right to share in those
benefits and to have training so that they, too, can contribute.
In Australia, one Indigenous person of note in the 1800's was David
Unaipon who was helped by Christian missionaries and who is now
featured on our $50 banknote.
Political correctness has had its good side and its wrong side.
I am aware of some of its aspects.
Political correctness by secularists has attributed incorrectly,
by blaming without giving a wider understanding
if by that means those promoting that viewpoint could gain political
power.
I am well aware of that as it has been done from the end of World War
II -
without even mentioning anything before that date.
> >Do you do anything to help that work?
>
> Christians are at the forefront of forcing their way into places where they are
> not wanted.
>
Christians have a message to give, just as do others of different
ideological beliefs.
In Australia, it was Christians who helped Aborigines,
wrote down some of their languages,
gave them schooling to help them come into a modern world.
Those involved with 'political correctness' gave Aborigines alcohol
when their bio-chemistry was not conditioned to take it even in very
moderate amounts and in North Queensland brought about the highest
suicide rate amongst them in that state.
> >Have you started an aid organisation to alleviate the need,
> > to teach sexual abstinence before marriage so the AIDS problem is not increased,
>
> What was God smoking when he came up with the idea of sex?
>
Again, this is just foolishness.
Through sex most species are procreated through the generations, the
milleniums of history.
In humans it is an aspect of life that men and women can CHOOSE to be
involved in
OR
they can CHOOSE to remain celebate.
The celebate aspect, in respect of humans,
is generally not given any guidelines
because authorities want children to be born for the next generation.
It is an aspect of life for a small number
and should be voluntarily accepted in the knowledge that a better
contribution
can be made to society through that denial.
> >to provide food, water and other essentials to school children
> >and in other areas of human need?????
>
> Are you helping to distribute Bibles in places where food and fresh water
> are needed?
Actually, I have done both in the past as has been appropriate
and continue to do so at present
as I have given/give to various programmes
in Africa, Palestinia, Iraq, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China, Korea,
Pacific Islands, South America,
Australian Aborigines,
in my local community in which my idea (an extension of Malcolm
Fraser's Community Youth support Scheme was implemented from 1977,
through my own Community Education programme with the distribution of
newsletters
and through health organisations.
I would have liked to have been a Christian missionary,
but aspects of my own health prevented that.
However, from an analysis of that health record
I made suggestions to health authorities for
the prevention of what I had had to live through.
I did not come into this newsgroup with the intention of recording my
contributions.
I have done that only after criticisms have been made of me in some
postings.
Mistakes I have made through ignorance and incorrect training I have
sought to correct.
> What sort of God creates a world where life feeds off life and only the strongest
> survive? What sort of religion calls that a God of love?
You are confusing evolution with the Christian God.
God gave humans plants for food; but in the changed world after the
flood in Noah's day
(brought about because of man's increasing depravity)
animal flesh was allowed for food.
Having grown up on a poultry farm I see nothing wrong with eating meat
when animals are cared for and killed humanely
and plants are consumed as appropriate within a diet.
The world is imperfect due to humans.
Barry, when you accept that as basic to your understandings
you may then be able to think more constructively on these issues.
What I can say, at the present,
is that you are the most difficult, the most contentious student that I
have ever had to teach.
However,
my prayer for you is that sometime in the future, sooner rather than
later, you will will able to understand that God is working through
those whoi believe in Him,
even those who do not believe He exists
as those of us who are concerned about life on this planet
work for the betterment of life for as many as possible.
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
>Ken Smith wrote:
Easy.
Find one of those incorruptible fundamentalist Christians, Like Jimmy
Swaggart, and get him to view all the images. :-)
>Theo
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"Discworld runs on magic, Roundworld runs on rules, and even though magic
needs rules, and some people think rules are magical, they are quite
different things." From "The Science of Discworld II - The Globe"
Michael
wrote:
True, but when a personal belief is posited as a scientific hypothesis, it
is no longer a personal belief but a scientific hypothesis testable by
scientific method. Creation hold up rather wellboth as a religious
revelation as well as a scientific theory.