Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Doctrine? Sounds rather religious don't you think? No one is talking of setting up a Bible school in public schools and placing the Pope in charge or a Baptist. The reality is that THOUGHT is being deprived to students merely because it emerges from a belief in GOD. This is unacceptable. RELIGION is an exclusive form of worship. Religion is not an understanding that there is or is not a GOD. Satan and the demons know the reality and that does not make them "religious." What makes a "reputable" scientist? One who is honest an thoughtful or one who agrees with you?
you are free to practice and hold whatever religion you like. you just can't teach it as fact in science class, because that's not what it is.
You were not taught anything concerning the history of the non-acceptance of the FLOOD while in a public school. I attended college and I never heard any discourse from any science professor concerning the subject. So please, excuse me if I am rude to you when I say ------- put up or shut up.
It couldn't be because a year-long global flood ca. 4000 ya is simply an empirically empty explanation, could it? Nah, it must be because 18th century geology didn't consider the right kind of flood (Kind of flood? Irony, thy name is YEC).
Funny, it surely seems like you're the one who needs to put up. Summarize, please, the history of flood geology and exactly where those old Christian naturalists went wrong. And cite your sources should we care to double-check your work.
__________________
"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
It couldn't be because a year-long global flood ca. 4000 ya is simply an empirically empty explanation, could it? Nah, it must be because 18th century geology didn't consider the right kind of flood (Kind of flood? Irony, thy name is YEC).
Funny, it surely seems like you're the one who needs to put up. Summarize, please, the history of flood geology and exactly where those old Christian naturalists went wrong. And cite your sources should we care to double-check your work.
you are free to practice and hold whatever religion you like. you just can't teach it as fact in science class, because that's not what it is.
I should be able to say in a science class that I see intelligent design in what I look at. That is freedom of speach, and if that implies that there had to be an intelligent Creator, well I apologize to no one.... That is my GOD given right and not one that Congress has given to me.... And that is what it amounts to. Freedom of expression, thought, imagination, and religion.
The fact remains that 200 years ago, they had neither the research nor the technology to disprove the FLOOD. They didn't even know about thumb prints or DNA or the need for gasoline. So please stick a banana in it fella, your arrogance is showing.
You obviously didn't read my thread - William Smith and The Geological record - because if you had you wouldn't have made such an ignorant fool of yourself here.
The thread shows just who these christian men were and what the evidence was that pursueded them that a global flood had never happened.
The most famous case is that of William Buckland who was a geologist and the Dean of Westminster Cathedral, he changed his mind from flood geology to uniformitarianism based on the evidence that he found for himself and that presented to him by Agassiz.
The evidence that there was no flood has always been there, and you need no technology to get out to a rock outcrop and understand the evidence of your eyes.
As usual you are spouting from a position of ignorance in the hope that no one will pull you up on it.
Well you lose, I happen to know a fair amount about this because I just wrote a thread on it.
It couldn't be because a year-long global flood ca. 4000 ya is simply an empirically empty explanation, could it? Nah, it must be because 18th century geology didn't consider the right kind of flood (Kind of flood? Irony, thy name is YEC).
Funny, it surely seems like you're the one who needs to put up. Summarize, please, the history of flood geology and exactly where those old Christian naturalists went wrong. And cite your sources should we care to double-check your work.
Hey, bub---don't dump this on me. You need to provide proof that a full explanation of how science drifted from theocratic to secular and why the FLOOD was dropped. If you cannot THEY (secular education) doesn't present it. What they teach in Christian institutions is obviously far less inhibited.... The fact is that they were far less technical in the 18th century and were not in a position to properly investigate the reality. By the time such possibilities presented themselves, society had become a "sophisticated" secular world with "unfair" governmental interference and atheistic support...
Last edited by LittleNipper; 19th May 2006 at 12:00 PM.
Hey, bub---don't dump this on me. You need to provide proof that a full explanation of how science drifted from theocratic to secular and why the FLOOD was dropped.
Read my threads: James Hutton and Deep Time, and William Smith and the Geological Record. They will answer your questions on how this shift happened. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to answer them.
Originally Posted by LittleNipper
The fact is that they were far less technical in the 18th century and were not in a position to properly investigate the reality.
This is rubbish, you need nothing more than an enquiring mind and a pair of eyes to understand the geology that falsifies the flood
Hey, bub---don't dump this on me. You need to provide proof that a full explanation of how science drifted from theocratic to secular and why the FLOOD was dropped. If you cannot THEY (secular education) doesn't present it.
First, science has never been theocratic. Theocrats have, at various times, attempted to direct by fiat the "proper" avenues of scientific study, but real science has always managed to emerge from the shadow of the church.
Second, this burden-shifting on your part is now officially tedious. It was your initial claim that the 18th century Flood falsifiers assumed the wrong type of flood. Everyone reading this thread saw it; don't try to weasel out.
What they teach in Christian institutions is obviously far less inhibited....
You mean "less inhibited" like presupposing various truisms - a 6000-year-old Earth first and foremost - against which no disconfirming evidence will be permitted in the first place, then seeking empirical support for that which you have already deemed true? That kind of "less inhibited"?
The fact is that they were far less technical in the 18th century and were not in a position to properly investigate the reality. By the time such possibilities presented themselves, society had become a "sophisticated" secular world with "unfair" governmental interference and atheistic support...
Wow... should be easy to find documented support for such grand assertions. Get to it.
__________________
"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
Linear Mode
