Creationism VS Public schools

[AV1611VET]

Hey, they're using God's creation to come to this decision.

Wrong emphasis though --- the Bible is also one of God's creations.

And it doesn't make them any less Christian than you.

I didn't say it did. Now you're changing the word from "religious" to "Christian." Trying to start something here?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Buddha was a deadbeat dad traipsing around the countryside telling others how to find enlightenment. Mohammed was a one-man author of fiction, but a military genius who united 12? rag-tag tribes into a well-oiled fighting machine. Neither one were deities.

And Jesus attracted men.

So they were all preachers of magical mysticism and none had any idea of the natural world around them.

Now we do understand the natural world, there is no place for prophets, except in the minds of delusional, mystical, easily corrupted people.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Wrong emphasis though --- the Bible is also one of God's creations.

No the bible is a poor translation of earlier texts. so it is the work of scribes not god.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe have a look at the difference between making a scientific observation and making sweeping judgements about fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am not going to let this conversation go from "the religious," to "my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ."

 

[Cabal]

I am not going to let this conversation go from "the religious," to "my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ."

Don't think it matters at this stage, does it now, AV? You're so hell-bent on overturning anything that disagrees with your theology you'll write off anyone no matter what religion, and that includes your fellow Christians.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Below is a paragraph outline the oldest copies of the new testerment, interestingly the oldest dates to about 140AD.So anything in the new testament about Jesus is as accurate as I would be writing about Abraham Lincoln, without any reference materials.


All your faith is in the hands of scribes; how about that you put your trust in the word of man.

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wrong emphasis though --- the Bible is also one of God's creations.

In the world of bad theology, perhaps. But in reality, the Bible is a human record of interactions with the divine from the human POV, whereas God's creation comes directly from His own hands, without the interference of fallible human agents.

Luckily for you, reality can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Jesus attracted men.

Jesus attracted everyone He came in contact with. When He showed up in the neighborhood, everyone knew it.

And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

So they were all preachers of magical mysticism and none had any idea of the natural world around them.

In Mohammad's case, that "magical mysticism" united the Arab tribes into a death machine that was hard (if not impossible) to stop.

Now we do understand the natural world, there is no place for prophets, except in the minds of delusional, mystical, easily corrupted people.

Don't count on it. You have more prophets per square acre than any two religious countries combined --- only they wear lab coats instead of robes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't think it matters at this stage, does it now, AV? You're so hell-bent on overturning anything that disagrees with your theology you'll write off anyone no matter what religion, and that includes your fellow Christians.

Cute.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Cute.

and dead-on accurate.

 

[Cabal]

Cute.

What can I say, I just used the typical definition of "religious" as being "those with faith." Y'know, the usual meaning.

Edit: nm

 

[AV1611VET]

What can I say, I just used the typical definition of "religious" as being "those with faith" and OH LOOK

Don't look, but that includes you too. I've shown from at least two of my challenges (one in particular) that we all walk by faith.

 

[Cabal]

Don't look, but that includes you too. I've shown from at least two of my challenges (one in particular) that we all walk by faith.

Can't recall those exact challenges (got QVs?), that aside, I was responding from my point of view as a Christian scientist. I prefer to keep faith for the former and keep it well away from the latter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't recall those exact challenges (got QVs?)...

QV1

QV2

... that aside, I was responding from my point of view as a Christian scientist. I prefer to keep faith for the former and keep it well away from the latter.

That's your prerogative.

 

[Cabal]

QV1

QV2

1: Just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean it won't ever, but I think between us we'd both agree that God was the "first cause" at whatever point in existence that happened to have been at.

2: Ok, AV, well seeing as you have one book to work with and science has OVER 9000 monthly peer reviewed journals to work with, excuse us if we haven't found time in our busy schedules to read it all. I'm not arguing that quantity makes science right by default, nothing like that, but do be reasonable. The "peer review" part kinda sorts that one out, and there's always the option of re-review.

That's your prerogative.

Indeed, as it is likely to be for any other Christian scientist.

 

[Psudopod]

Wrong emphasis though --- the Bible is also one of God's creations

Acording to the bible it is. Put it this way:
Can men create a book with some vague profacies proclaiming itself to be the TRUTH above all else? Yes. Has been done several times.

Can man create a planet, let alone a universe? No, certainly not at the moment.

So, we have two things that may or may not have been created by God. If they disagree, which one is more likely to be wrong?

I didn't say it did. Now you're changing the word from "religious" to "Christian." Trying to start something here?

You said that "they considered science their god". I know you were referring to all evolutionists, and I only referred to Christians as you are one yourself. I can hardly say they no less Muslim than you, can I?

 

[AV1611VET]

2: Ok, AV, well seeing as you have one book to work with and science has OVER 9000 monthly peer reviewed journals to work with, excuse us if we haven't found time in our busy schedules to read it all.

I think you need to take a walk through that thread. I wasn't disagreeing with their finding; I was pointing out that those who don't go there and verify it themselves are taking it on faith that the trench is indeed what they say it is.

 

[Tomk80]

I think you need to take a walk through that thread. I wasn't disagreeing with their finding; I was pointing out that those who don't go there and verify it themselves are taking it on faith that the trench is indeed what they say it is.

Yes, I do assume honesty in the scientists who report their results. That honesty is something I take on faith, as it were.

However, I have tested the honesty of many scientists, like the ones on this board, and found my assumption to be verified by most of them. I have also tested the honesty of creationists on this board and in various persons I met, and found it to be absent.

I can be wrong on this, as with everything. However, based on my current experiences I see no reason to think I am. I am always ready to change my views pending new evidence, so if you have any I'll be all ears.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I do assume honesty in the scientists who report their results. That honesty is something I take on faith, as it were.

So do I. They have to be honest.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a scientist is found to be consistently lying? Or even if he is found consistently wrong? Is there a way to revoke his status as a scientist?

And what makes a person an official scientist in the first place? Does he have to pass an examination of his peers and get certified?

 

[plindboe]

It's been a fun thread. But it appears my writing style and errors-of-fact are being nitpicked over the ideas I'm trying to convey. I'll be moving over to a more appropriate thread dealing directly with the creation/evolution debate.

It sounds to me like you don't want to be corrected when you state things that are wrong. How else can you learn?

I forgot to mention? I thought I was allowed to state my own ideas. Yes I agree though that the universe tends towards maximum value of entropy.

You forgot to mention, because we were talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you throw out the most important part of the 2nd law, you're not talking about reality anymore.

I'm sorry I was using the word "what I believe" when I'm not stating or quoting scientific fact. But if your interested we can debate what science says in more appropriate evolution/creation thread. I think I'm running off the subject matter of this thread.

No need to be sorry. I was interested in your claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, i.e. what the science says. If you believe that the 2nd law says something it doesn't, that's fine, but realize that and stop describing your misunderstanding as "the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as such would be dishonest.

Now I need to provide a clearer argument about a seed sprouting(yes I mention errors-of-fact in my writing)? I thought we were debating the second law?

Wow, you have a really hard time having your mistakes corrected. Yes, we were talking the 2nd law, that's why I used the word "nitpick". When I see people in a science discussion producing mistakes I tend to correct them, so they can learn from it.

When did I use the term "scientific theories" and claim that all of my information comes from creation websites? In fact I derive most of my own personal ideas from the useful information that evolutionistic believing, wonderfully smart scientist have provided. Sorry just nitpicking and you've got my sarcastic side out.

If you're not talking about scientific theories I'm not sure what your statement was about in the first place. That said, your posts has parroted several creationist arguments, misunderstandings and strawmen. They have been picked up from creationist websites, whether you realize it or not.

Well thank you. I aim for understanding and finding truth not winning debates.

Then accept your mistakes and learn from it, instead of feeling offended. It sounds to me like your ego is getting in the way of your aim for understanding and truth.

A seed is a working machine with preprogrammed instructions.

What does that have to do with the 2nd law?

The lack of evidence from the millions of living organisms today increasing in complexity is just not convincing.

That you deny evidence exists because of your own confirmation bias doesn't make it go away. You earlier said you aimed for understanding and truth. I suggest you live up to that statement and try to listen when people tell you that there is vast amounts of evidence. You can start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I see all the species today exactly the way they have been for thousands of years(or millions to those need humoring), as a beetle, a frog, a salamander, a fish, a human. Is there variations in skin color, size, hair? Well these things fall under microevolution which I do believe in.

Another example of you parroting creationist websites. The bastardization of scientific words (as creationists do with micro- and macroevolution) is typical. You've funnily enough changed the meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet you still insist calling it the 2nd law, even though it's not. Don't skew scientific words to fit your own agenda and then pretend you're talking science. I advice some honesty.

I find the theory of evolution that every complex living organism today came from simple organisms insane.

That you find reality insane is your problem, not mine.

Peter