Are Evolutionists Burning Creationist Books?

Trogool · Sep 10, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans]Harun Yahya, one of the most prolific publishers in the Muslim world, gave proudly secularist France a scare in January 2007 by mass-mailing thousands of free copies of his "Atlas of Creation" to schools and libraries across the country.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans]The Education Ministry quickly ordered headmasters to seize and hide copies of the large format book that, over 768 pages of glossy photographs and easy-to-read text, argues that all living things were created by God exactly as they are formed today.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans]"People who defend evolution can't accept the existence of a Creator," Sadun said at La Reussite ("Success"), one of the few Muslim-run private schools in France.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans]"Life is not the result of chance, it's the creation of a higher power, which of course is Allah," he said in fluent French, adding that the confiscation of the "Atlas of Creation" was similar to book-burnings staged by the Nazis in the 1930s.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans]Sadun's lecture depended heavily on slides purporting to show ancient fossils of a fish, cricket, lizard and frog looking exactly like photographs of their modern day descendants. He claimed no fossils proving evolutionary transitions existed.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans]Muslim creationists tour France denouncing Darwin | Reuters[/FONT]

Burning books is intrinsically stupid and immoral.

Phred · Sep 10, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
And what makes you think that? Once the Australian Aboriginals were the most innovative people in the world - they must have made several dangerous sea-crossings in order to get to Australia in the first place. Yet by the time Europeans arrived, they were barely more advanced than they were 50,000 years ago. They never even moved beyond using stone tools, despite the fact Australia is full of metal ore.

No-one is quite sure why they failed to advance, but my point is that they show we have no reassurance whatsoever that people "will" make scientific advances.

Eventually. People. If they look. Will find the same things we've found. They will not find the same religions.

Don't confuse science and technology.

The Engineer · Sep 10, 2012

Tomk80 said:
Indeed, that's where the books I don't read anymore end up. If I don't want them and if nobody else does either, waste paper it is going to be.

Wouldn't it be better to give them away?

Tomk80 · Sep 10, 2012

The Engineer said:
Wouldn't it be better to give them away?

If nobody wants them, that doesn't work.

Face it, books are not holy, and some books are bad. No reason to keep them in circulation.

Notedstrangeperson · Sep 10, 2012

Phred said:
Eventually. People. If they look. Will find the same things we've found. They will not find the same religions.

Don't confuse science and technology.

Again, do you actually have anything to back up your statement? Or - if you'll pardon the cliche - are you just putting your faith in science?

Loudmouth · Sep 10, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Again, do you actually have anything to back up your statement? Or - if you'll pardon the cliche - are you just putting your faith in science?

We have the facts, and those facts are rediscoverable. There are still the same fossils in the ground, the same genetic markers in different species, the same geographic distribution of species, the same ratio of isotopes in rocks, etc. All of it can be discovered again and the same conclusions can be reached. This isn't faith. This is just the facts. I think it is also interesting that Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace arrived at nearly the same theory independently at about the same time.

If all of our knowledge of everything were erased and we had to start from square one there is absolutely no reason anyone would propose that there was a recent global flood, a 6,000 year old Earth, or that species were created over a span of 6 days. There are no facts leading to these conclusions. There is no reason anyone would think that these things occurred.

Notedstrangeperson · Sep 10, 2012

Loudmouth said:
We have the facts, and those facts are rediscoverable. There are still the same fossils in the ground, the same genetic markers in different species, the same geographic distribution of species, the same ratio of isotopes in rocks, etc. All of it can be discovered again and the same conclusions can be reached.

Just because it can doesn't mean that it will. It was perfectly possible that the Aboriginals could move on from using stone tools to using metals tools, just like (almost) every other group of people on Earth ... but they never did.

They aren't the only example. No New World civilisation ever developed the plow, stringed instruments, bellows or even the wheel. This is particularly bizarre considering one particular group of Mexicans did use wheels on their little clay figures - but it seems the transition between using wheels on toys and using them in real life to make carts and chariots never occurred to them. 15,000 years, dozens of civilisations and a population of hundreds of millions of people ... all without the wheel.

But I digress. As I said, there is no guarantee that people of the future would rediscover the same science we have today.

Skaloop · Sep 10, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Just because it can doesn't mean that it will. It was perfectly possible that the Aboriginals could move on from using stone tools to using metals tools, just like (almost) every other group of people on Earth ... but they never did.

They aren't the only example. No New World civilisation ever developed the plow, stringed instruments, bellows or even the wheel. This is particularly bizarre considering one particular group of Mexicans did use wheels on their little clay figures - but it seems the transition between using wheels on toys and using them in real life to make carts and chariots never occurred to them. 15,000 years, dozens of civilisations and a population of hundreds of millions of people ... all without the wheel.

But I digress. As I said, there is no guarantee that people of the future would rediscover the same science we have today.

True, there's no guarantee that they would make the same scientific discoveries. But there's a reasonable expectation that they could.

Notedstrangeperson · Sep 10, 2012

Skaloop said:
True, there's no guarantee that they would make the same scientific discoveries. But there's a reasonable expectation that they could.

Sure. I mean, there's no guarantee that they won't make the same discoveries as us.

Skaloop · Sep 10, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Sure. I mean, there's no guarantee that they won't make the same discoveries as us.

But it can be pretty much guaranteed that they won't discover the Bible narrative to be true by studying their environment.

Jamin4422 · Sep 10, 2012

Skaloop said:
True, there's no guarantee that they would make the same scientific discoveries. But there's a reasonable expectation that they could.

It seems to me the question is could a Aboriginals go to the university and get a degree? Do they have the ability to learn. Although they say there has been enough inner marriage so that question no longer has any meaning.

Skaloop · Sep 10, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
It seems to me the question is could a Aboriginals go to the university and get a degree? Do they have the ability to learn. Although they say there has been enough inner marriage so that question no longer has any meaning.

*an *Aboriginal */the/ *intermarriage

Yes, an Aboriginal could go to university and get a degree. Did you? Because your grammar is somewhat lacking.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

There's some irony in Jamin's vaguely racist, badly spelt musings over whether Aborigines have the same intellectual calibre that he does...

[must...resist...obvious...comment...]

Jamin4422 · Sep 11, 2012

Skaloop said:
Yes, an Aboriginal could go to university and get a degree. Did you? Because your grammar is somewhat lacking.

Imagine that and to think I took English 101 TWICE. I better contact that useless university and demand a refund as they clearly ripped me off. I do not have a degree, but I got close to enough credit hours to get one.

Jamin4422 · Sep 11, 2012

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
There's some irony in Jamin's vaguely racist, badly spelt musings over whether Aborigines have the same intellectual calibre that he does...

Does that bother you that God wants to use someone like me to deliver a message to you?

Glory Only in the Lord

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Does that bother you that God wants to use someone like me to deliver a message to you?

I am far from convinced he has any such intention.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Imagine that and to think I took English 101 TWICE. I better contact that useless university and demand a refund as they clearly ripped me off. I do not have a degree, but I got close to enough credit hours to get one.

You took it twice - but did you pass it?

Jamin4422 · Sep 11, 2012

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
You took it twice - but did you pass it?

Second time I got a C. I was running around a 2.8 grade point average. Back then you could get into most anything with a 3.0. Now they tell me there are some programs that require a 3.5. After that I started to sign up for more evening and summer classes where it is a lot easier to get a higher grade point average with less work. Usually the people that sign up for those classes work full time and just pick up a class here or that as they are able. Also if I talked to the instructor to tell them how much work I was putting into it, then they usually gave me a higher grade after that.

The main thing is you have no right to judge me. You set your standard for yourself and it is up to you to live up to the standard you set. You have no right to try to impose that on others. Anymore then you would want Christians to impose their standards on you. If your a backslider then you admit that you are the one that is falling short here. So you really have no room to be judgemental and critical of others. As they say in the end God is the judge, it is before Him we stand or fall. That is why we are to judge ourselves, not others. To see if we are where God wants us to be.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Second time I got a C. I was running around a 2.8 grade point average. Back then you could get into most anything with a 3.0. Now they tell me there are some programs that require a 3.5. After that I started to sign up for more evening and summer classes where it is a lot easier to get a higher grade point average with less work. Usually the people that sign up for those classes work full time and just pick up a class here or that as they are able. Also if I talked to the instructor to tell them how much work I was putting into it, then they usually gave me a higher grade after that.

The main thing is you have no right to judge me. You set your standard for yourself and it is up to you to live up to the standard you set. You have no right to try to impose that on others. Anymore then you would want Christians to impose their standards on you. If your a backslider then you admit that you are the one that is falling short here. So you really have no room to be judgemental and critical of others. As they say in the end God is the judge, it is before Him we stand or fall. That is why we are to judge ourselves, not others. To see if we are where God wants us to be.

You take everything so seriously, Jamin. You don't seem to understand irony, banter or subtlety, or humour in anything but its most blatant forms. No-one's "judging" you. It was just vaguely amusing watching someone mangle the English language while apparently questioning a group's ability to learn. You surely know the First Law of Internet Spelling Correction - that any post attempting to correct someone's spelling will contain one or more errors itself? Why not amuse yourself and see if that law applies to this post? Probably does.

As for "liberal backslider", I suggest you try to understand by starting here: Martyn Joseph - Liberal Backslider Lyrics

Notedstrangeperson · Sep 11, 2012

Skaloop said:
But it can be pretty much guaranteed that they won't discover the Bible narrative to be true by studying their environment.

Depends. They may not conclude that the entire world was flooded 5,000 years ago, yet many unrelated mythologies have some kind of flood narrative.

The funny thing is that phred argues that we would never rediscover the religions we have today if all knowledge were suddenly wiped out - yet atheists frequently point out the similarities between the Bible and other religions to try and disprove the uniqueness of the Christianity.

Are Evolutionists Burning Creationist Books?

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

I defeated Dr Goetz

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Senior Veteran

Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads