The REAL shame of creationism: its fradulent spokemen

[AV1611VET]

x

 

[AV1611VET]

We get it, AV, you're anti-science.

Either that, or we hold science up to a higher Standard than you guys do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whoa, I guess AV is an epistemological anarchist. He wants to completely and utterly destroy science.

Either that, or we hold science up to a higher Standard than you guys do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what on earth was the point of posting the link to Junk Science.

Holding science to a higher Standard, means holding science to a higher level of accountability. With God replaced by Mother Nature, all sorts of junk science (like global warming) can be trumped up.

 

[Elduran]

Either that, or we hold science up to a higher Standard than you guys do.

No, you really don't...

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you really don't...

Ya --- I know --- because we claim God as our higher Standard, right?

 

[dlamberth]

Ya --- I know --- because we claim God as our higher Standard, right?

Often, I think that many hold the Bible, not God, to the higher standard.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Often, I think that many hold the Bible, not God, to the higher standard.

How does one hold God to any standard outside the Scriptures?

 

[astroweezer]

How does one hold God to any standard outside the Scriptures?

Well, perhaps, you could hold God to a standard that doesn't make him seem like a whiny little child that gets angry when he can't make his creations love him like he acts in the Bible.


If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
--Mark Twain

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, perhaps, you could hold God to a standard that doesn't make him seem like a whiny little child that gets angry when he can't make his creations love him like he acts in the Bible.


If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; ...

I stopped reading this here --- is there anything else I can help you with?

 

[dlamberth]

How does one hold God to any standard outside the Scriptures?

Personally, I don't hold my Beloved God to any standard. The Bible, I believe, sets the standard for ME, not God.

The problem is, way too many are trying to hold God to the standard that they think they are getting out of the Bible, even if they need to be fradulent to do so.

.

 

[necroforest]

Holding science to a higher Standard, means holding science to a higher level of accountability. With God replaced by Mother Nature, all sorts of junk science (like global warming) can be trumped up.

Why is global warming "junk science" now?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Either that, or we hold science up to a higher Standard than you guys do.

 

[dlamberth]

Why is global warming "junk science" now?

Because AV thinks so.

.

 

[MoonLancer]

I stopped reading this here --- is there anything else I can help you with?

afraid to see a god described with better qualities then yours? trust me, it happens. the god of the bible is a monster and you look the other way, with this post as evidence.

you could use some mental fortitude.

 

[The Bellman]

Oh, so it's a matter of extent now?

Of course it's a matter of extent. All human enterprise has corruption, crooks and falsifiers, as well as the simply incompetent. That's why science incorporates peer-review, an effort to weed out work by those people. Creationism, however, consists of nothing but those people, and it includes no form of peer review, so garbage is all it ever outputs.

Either that, or we hold science up to a higher Standard than you guys do.

Well, we all know that's not the case.

 

[Washington]

I stopped reading this here

Gee, we wonder why.

 

[ReverendDG]

Holding science to a higher Standard,

oh you mean if it agrees with your book of choice?

means holding science to a higher level of accountability.

what accountability? you mean every page in every science book praising your god you mean?

With God replaced by Mother Nature, all sorts of junk science (like global warming) can be trumped up.

seriously AV, where do you get the idea that anyone "worships"mother
nature? I think you are just making that nonsense up, how many bloody times do we have to tell you that christians accept science including evolution?
please show me what evidence you have that GW is "junk" science. its obvious that we are having a bad effect on the earth, believing we don't is sticking your head in the sand

 

[Tonks]

The problem of "academic" (and I use the term loosely) fraud within the Creationist discipline really isn't that much different than serious academic disciplines in actual hard sciences.

The problem, frankly, is trying to force science on what is really a branch of philosophy and theology. All of the various hypotheses can't even be tested by scientific method. I think that Creationists do a disservice by attempting to pretend that the study is a "science" when there are, perhaps, more forceful advocates from other disciplines.

Plus...there is the issue not constrained to Creationism where someone has to have a PhD to be considered smart on the issue. That is a problem with the public at large.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How does one hold God to any standard outside the Scriptures?

So, God obeys the Scriptures. So much for omnipotence.