Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[DogmaHunter]

You don't believe it, then you can try to find some statistics about it.

Why should he do YOUR homework?

You're the one who made the claim.

Perhaps, just this once, you should actually try and support your bare assertion instead.

Many things can be known without actual data. If you do not have that capability, then you life would be very difficult.

Translation: I don't have any evidence and I don't feel like I need to have any to make bare assertions about atheists.

Like a good little fundie.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I asked you to list item of content in creationism to be included in a course, how far can you go? Two lines? 5 lines?

Creationists themselves couldn't even get to 2 lines. Because creationism isn't anything. There is no material to teach.

There is just a religious belief.

 

[Givemeareason]

Nobody says that. You simply do not understand how could creationism be integrated into a science course because you do not know anything about creationism.

If I asked you to list item of content in creationism to be included in a course, how far can you go? Two lines? 5 lines? Are you going to repeat those few lines of creationism content in every chapter or every page of a science textbook? What do you know? God creates everything. Is that it? What else?

You are arguing on something you know very little about.

Most things that are argued by creationists are argued against evolution. It's a ploy to trick others into making YECs look more credible to those on the sidelines who don't know anything either. If you want to give your ideas at least a small amount of real credibility you need to switch over to old Earth creationism and admit that Genesis is not the literal truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

If so, why not in public schools?

The US Constitution prevents the government from evangelizing for a religion.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You overlooked the real reasons. Christianity is not likely the cause. It is very easy to see.

I think he is correct. Government corruption and poverty seem to have the strongest correlation with religion not really correlating at all.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=religu...=-1&sk=&cvid=9dc84a8d87d844e392354a580d010456

 

[Givemeareason]

 

[Not_By_Chance]

US was founded on the base of religion, and she was strong.
US religion became more and more noisy, then she became weaker and weaker.
So, if the US became a creationism nation, then she would become a super strong nation.

Anyway you look at it at anywhere anytime, your logic is wrong.
The more religious, the stronger the nation.

It seems that the atheists are getting more and more militant. They are angry because an advanced country like America is daring to teach anything that goes against the sacred cow of evolutionism (despite that lack of any real evidence to support it - heck, they can't even tell us how the first life got started from non-living chemicals or even where the chemicals came from in the first place). They are afraid that when children and young adults see the gaping holes in their theories, that they will realise they are being duped on a massive scale. If their theories are so convincing, then why are they so afraid of letting the creation scientists present their case? No, they want censorship of anything that doesn't promote the religion of humanism.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This is in response to a message above (#32 I think) that for some reason didn't show up in my reply. Here is the original text I wanted to quote...

Why couldn't high crime and poverty exist in countries with a lot of Christians? We have countless examples of this being true, along with examples of low crime and high standard of living in countries with far fewer Christians.

And here's my reply. Sorry for the confusion.

That's because the ones carrying out the crimes are not really Christians. If they were, they would follow the example set by Jesus when he was here on earth. Do you remember what he said? Here are some quotes for you to ponder:-

Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
Mat 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
Mat 5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
Mat 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Mat 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Mat 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Mat 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

But a word of warning to whoever wants to follow Jesus:-

Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Mat 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Mat 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Creationists themselves couldn't even get to 2 lines. Because creationism isn't anything. There is no material to teach.

There is just a religious belief.

Atheism is just a religious belief as well and it's founded on very little real evidence, just loads of bluff and bluster. If you knew anything about the creation organisations and scientists you would know that they have masses of materials in all the popular media formats. What's more, they go to great lengths explaining complex subjects so that non-scientists can understand. I can't wait to see the DVD I have ordered where a creation scientist debates an evolution-believing scientist. I expect it to be quite an eye-opener.

 

[bhsmte]

Go backwards: Most criminals ARE atheists.

Prove it, with objective evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

This is a typical slur which shows speechless on the topic.

No, just inconvenient reality for you.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

On page 134/135 of "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" there are these telling conclusions:-

"Life does not consist merely of chemicals. If that were the case, mixing the chemicals of life in a test tube would produce life. Life clearly consists of more than chemicals; it also includes specified complexity (which comes only from a mind). Therefore materialism is false.

The simplest life consists of amazing specified complexity; equivalent to 1000 complete sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

There are no known natural laws that create specified complexity (information). Only intelligence has been observed creating specified complexity.

Science is a search for causes that is built on philosophy. There are only two types of causes, intelligent and natural, but Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they even look at the evidence. That's why when Darwinists look at those thousand encyclopaedias of information, despite observing and recognising their obvious design, they assert that their cause must be natural.

Spontaneous generation of life, which Darwinism requires to get the theory started, has never been observed. It is believed in by faith. And in light of the strong cosmological and teleological evidence that this is a theistic universe (and for many other reasons), the Darwinian belief in naturalism (or materialism) is also an article of faith. Hence, Darwinism is nothing more than a secular religion masquerading as science."

 

[Jan Volkes]

Life clearly consists of more than chemicals; it also includes specified complexity (which comes only from a mind).

Which means when your mind dies your religion dies with it and all that's left is chemicals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheism is just a religious belief as well . . .

What next? Not playing golf is a sport? Bald is a hair color? Not collecting stamps is a hobby? Atheism is the lack of religious belief, last I checked.

Also, you are avoiding the point the post was making. There is no creation science to teach. None.

If you knew anything about the creation organisations and scientists you would know that they have masses of materials in all the popular media formats.

None of which is scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Givemeareason]

On page 134/135 of "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" there are these telling conclusions:-

"Life does not consist merely of chemicals. If that were the case, mixing the chemicals of life in a test tube would produce life. Life clearly consists of more than chemicals; it also includes specified complexity (which comes only from a mind). Therefore materialism is false.

The simplest life consists of amazing specified complexity; equivalent to 1000 complete sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

There are no known natural laws that create specified complexity (information). Only intelligence has been observed creating specified complexity.

Science is a search for causes that is built on philosophy. There are only two types of causes, intelligent and natural, but Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they even look at the evidence. That's why when Darwinists look at those thousand encyclopaedias of information, despite observing and recognising their obvious design, they assert that their cause must be natural.

Spontaneous generation of life, which Darwinism requires to get the theory started, has never been observed. It is believed in by faith. And in light of the strong cosmological and teleological evidence that this is a theistic universe (and for many other reasons), the Darwinian belief in naturalism (or materialism) is also an article of faith. Hence, Darwinism is nothing more than a secular religion masquerading as science."

Again you make some incredible leaps. It's either God or nothing. The only one who has stopped looking for cause or evidence are the creationists. You guys already have your conclusions an no amount of evidence to the contrary can dispute it even though you have this conspiracy thinking that science is out to do just that. It seems to me creationists are mostly here just for our entertainment.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Atheism is just a religious belief as well and it's founded on very little real evidence,

As are all religions that's why they are all called 'Faiths', which means that all religious beliefs are bad, right?

 

[Givemeareason]

Atheism is just a religious belief as well and it's founded on very little real evidence, just loads of bluff and bluster. If you knew anything about the creation organisations and scientists you would know that they have masses of materials in all the popular media formats. What's more, they go to great lengths explaining complex subjects so that non-scientists can understand. I can't wait to see the DVD I have ordered where a creation scientist debates an evolution-believing scientist. I expect it to be quite an eye-opener.

I am assuming you are talking about
Bill Nye who is not a scientist. Everyone is still trying to figure out why he would debate Ken Ham and especially in front of a group of creationists. Don't get your hopes up. I guess Hamy has been trying to get a debate for a long time and no real scientist wants anything to do with him. He is considered a waste of time. Most debates are free and on the web.

 

[bhsmte]

I am assuming you are talking about
Bill Nye who is not a scientist. Everyone is still trying to figure out why he would debate Ken Ham and especially in front of a group of creationists. Don't get your hopes up. I guess Hamy has been trying to get a debate for a long time and no real scientist wants anything to do with him. He is considered a waste of time. Most debates are free and on the web.

Here is a real good example, as to why real scientists, don't waste their time debating certain people.

 

[Givemeareason]

Here is a real good example, as to why real scientists, don't waste their time debating certain people.

After watching 12 minutes of it, I couldn't stand it anymore. Is there something I missed? They are well rehearsed on their anti-evolution drivel. When science has been misconstrued and is viewed with an anti-science attitude, it's hard to understand science. Hence nothing but the usual.

 

[bhsmte]

After watching 12 minutes of it, I couldn't stand it anymore. Is there something I missed? They are well rehearsed on their anti-evolution drivel. When science has been misconstrued and is viewed with an anti-science attitude, it's hard to understand science. Hence nothing but the usual.

It is quite painful to watch and is again, one major reason real scientists don't bother with these types of folks.