Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
YouTube - ‪Libera - All Things Bright And Beautiful‬‏Sure thing -- as long as he isn't hypocritical about anything.
And the first thing he will have to do before he preaches is participate in the song service.
And the first song?
O How I Love Jesus
Sure thing -- as long as he isn't hypocritical about anything.
Get what? If I aid something as nonsensical as "prove a theory" i hope you or anyone else would call me on it.
This is what you don't get. Calling someone on it and insulting them because of it are two different things. Tell what you disagree with... Tell why you disagree... but using adjectives such as "dumb", "nonsensical", "liars", "good christian", "bad christian", etc. these are all personal and insulting. If you cannot not express your opinions without having to insult someone or their ideas, it just shows you are insecure in your stand and therefore you feel you must SLAM them to make them feel inferior. It is a manipulative ploy and does not need to be used to get your point across. You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
Seems like a rephrase of the same falsehood, that involves scientists around the world acting in direct contravention of the most basic concepts of science and for most, the very reason they went into research... curiosity, wanting to know. its as outlandsih as if I said most preachers want us not to hear about god.
That's what this thread is... ISSUES IN SCIENCVILLE!! Now again, I make my point and I will add to it. Just because YOU think something is a "falsehood" does not make it a fact, that is just YOUR opinion and not necessarily something that ANYONE need to acknowledge, but IF you have some PROOF that it is a falsehood you need to give that to give some CREDIBILITY to your allegations other than that it is just your opinion.
touchy touchy! You were talking about what you think you see as an inconsistency between the professional goals of scientists and their actual behaviour. Reckless repetition of falsehoods is not consistent with Christian principles.
Not so. Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and disciples down through the ages have pointed out the insconsistencies and hypocrisies in the world for thousands of years. What I have posted are REAL LIFE and CURRENT situations of what some of those hypocrisies are and you just don't like it, therefore, you attempt to attack my Christian character based on some misguided understanding of your own view of Christianity.
i did point out a couple of things already. But this shift burden of proof biz is ridiculous. Prove a negative is ridiculous.
The point is Hespera, you NEVER provide proof or support for any of your opinions not only with me but with ALMOST EVERY post you put in CF. You just blab, blab, blab your opion which holds ..... NOTHING in the great scheme of things. I'd say "put up or shut up" but you are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to argue your opinion or just plain ignore your opinion and I find the latter much more appealing, especially when I have to keep asking you NOT to insult me.
I dont htink anyone has been "oppressed" for the reasons you cite, but rather because of what i said...bad science, no science, trying to be accepted for conclusions with no data..
What I cite is an article of SCIENTISTS and those who would like to be scientists, saying they have been mistreated and discriminated against because of their beliefs. Are you saying they are lying or that the article is lying and if so what proof have you of this?
The essence of "creation science" is to violate the most basic principles and code of conduct in science
Really? How so?
Here I ask.. DID YOU read the whole article?
if you look at the very next line after you asked that i wrote conclusion first, no data.
So you are saying here, that just because a scientist believes in creation that they are violating the code of conduct in science. So the "code of science" is to deny data because of someone's belief. It is not based so much on the data but the conclusion that the "essence or nature" of creation science is wrong. Ahhh ... I get it. The code of science has become a manipulative tool to exclude what ever they do not want to accept. I'm sure at one time it wasn't meant to be that, but now, for purpose of controlling all aspects of truth and fact (keeping it within the confines of what is "popularly" accepted) it must be used in this way for "the good of science and humanity." "Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some for the good of all." This tactic has been used down through all of history. It is used in war and science and religion. Sounds so grand and lofty and idealistic but it really is just a disquise for DISCRIMINATION and CONTROL.
But is this because they were creationists, or they because they weren't doing science? How do they know they will lose their jobs if they simply admit to being creationist? How many creationists have been actually been fired because they professed a belief in special creation, rather say, failing to publish work, or teaching false things to students?
If I thought this was happening, I would agree that this is wrong. But I have yet to see any evidence of this. I have yet to see any evidence of students being denied degrees because they are creationist, rather than because they failed their exams. I've certainly never seen anyone denied a degree because they believed in God. I graduated with lots of Christians when I got my degree.
"Nature, and Nature's laws lay hid in night and God said "let there be Tesla and all was light"!
Originally Posted by Psudopod
If I thought this was happening, I would agree that this is wrong. But I have yet to see any evidence of this. I have yet to see any evidence of students being denied degrees because they are creationist, rather than because they failed their exams. I've certainly never seen anyone denied a degree because they believed in God. I graduated with lots of Christians when I got my degree.
A new immigration law has been passed in Scienceville:
Creationists are allowed entry visas on the condition that an atheist evolutionist biologist be allowed to preach in church on Sunday mass.
Also the existing law that allows believers in God to become scientists will remain as is.
You obviously did not read this part of my post: Also the existing law that allows believers in God to become scientists will remain as is.So you admit that discrimination is happening and that the conditions based on that discrimination do occur in regards to peoples beliefs... thank you for proving my point.
While I do realize this was just your attempt at humor. It does underline my point and the point of the article I shared. Ridicule and discrimination do happen in Scienceville. Here it is just a little trickle from above but discrimination nonetheless.
Perhaps you should know that Tesla was responsible for giving mankind electrical power and lighting. His insistence on the use of Alternating current as opposed to the Direct current favoured by Edison; gave us not only electrically run industry etc. but most important LIGHT!
But I'm not making sweeping claims that an entity called Scienceville is performing a systematic discrimination of creationists, preventing them from even aquiring degrees. (You've even implied that extends to Christians in general). If i was, this is the sort of evidence I'd want to check first. I'm not saying there haven't been individual cases from time to time. I've not seen any industry that hasn't had a case of unfair dismisal in its time. But that's very different to an open policy of discrimination.
You obviously did not read this part of my post: Also the existing law that allows believers in God to become scientists will remain as is.
That's what the article is talking about. The existing law is not supporting and therefore does not allow believers to become scientist anymore. Discrimination is slipping right on through the law.
Get what? If I aid something as nonsensical as "prove a theory" i hope you or anyone else would call me on it.
This is what you don't get. Calling someone on it and insulting them because of it are two different things. Tell what you disagree with... Tell why you disagree... but using adjectives such as "dumb", "nonsensical", "liars", "good christian", "bad christian", etc. these are all personal and insulting. If you cannot not express your opinions without having to insult someone or their ideas, it just shows you are insecure in your stand and therefore you feel you must SLAM them to make them feel inferior. It is a manipulative ploy and does not need to be used to get your point across. You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
That's what this thread is... ISSUES IN SCIENCVILLE!! Now again, I make my point and I will add to it. Just because YOU think something is a "falsehood" does not make it a fact, that is just YOUR opinion and not necessarily something that ANYONE need to acknowledge, but IF you have some PROOF that it is a falsehood you need to give that to give some CREDIBILITY to your allegations other than that it is just your opinion.
Not so. Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and disciples down through the ages have pointed out the insconsistencies and hypocrisies in the world for thousands of years. What I have posted are REAL LIFE and CURRENT situations of what some of those hypocrisies are and you just don't like it, therefore, you attempt to attack my Christian character based on some misguided understanding of your own view of Christianity.
The point is Hespera, you NEVER provide proof or support for any of your opinions not only with me but with ALMOST EVERY post you put in CF. You just blab, blab, blab your opion which holds ..... NOTHING in the great scheme of things. I'd say "put up or shut up" but you are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to argue your opinion or just plain ignore your opinion and I find the latter much more appealing, especially wThe point is Hespera, you NEVER provide proof or support for any of your opinions not only with me but with ALMOST EVERY post you put in CF. You just blab, blab, blab your opion which holds ..... NOTHING in the great scheme of thing
What I cite is an article of SCIENTISTS and those who would like to be scientists, saying they have been mistreated and discriminated against because of their beliefs. Are you saying they are lying or that the article is lying and if so what proof have you of this?
So you are saying here, that just because a scientist believes in creation that they are violating the code of conduct in science. So the "code of science" is to deny data because of someone's belief. It is not based so much on the data but the conclusion that the "essence or nature" of creation science is wrong. Ahhh ... I get it. The code of science has become a manipulative tool to exclude what ever they do not want to accept. I'm sure at one time it wasn't meant to be that, but now, for purpose of controlling all aspects of truth and fact (keeping it within the confines of what is "popularly" accepted) it must be used in this way for "the good of science and humanity." "Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some for the good of all." This tactic has been used down through all of history. It is used in war and science and religion. Sounds so grand and lofty and idealistic but it really is just a disquise for DISCRIMINATION and CONTROL.
Your statement about "prove a theory" IS nonsense! but I will try to find a nicer sounding way to say it.
do you at lat understand that in science one does not try to prove a theory? We got off the issue and onto manners, so back to issue. Do you recognize that in science one does not try to prove a theory?
You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
i didnt do either of those, i said it was nonsense.
i did nothing of the kindyou attempt to attack my Christian character based on some misguided understanding of your own view of Christianity.
The point is Hespera, you NEVER provide proof or support for any of your opinions not only with me but with ALMOST EVERY post you put in CF. You just blab, blab, blab your opion which holds ..... NOTHING in the great scheme of things
That is not true, and is an example of what you say you dont want me to do.
see your above statement about me.have to keep asking you NOT to insult me.
if you look at the very next line after you asked that i wrote conclusion first, no data.No, i have said several times with the utmost clarity that belief is protected but bad science is snot. if by "belief" you mean that a eprson should be allowed to believe that doing things upside down and backwards should be acceptable well too bad. They dont allow that at the bank either. "Forced balancing" say, which isnt a bad analogy for doing conclusion first.So you are saying here, that just because a scientist believes in creation that they are violating the code of conduct in science
My geologist father in law believes in creation! So do all of the christians working in science. is it not so? They just dont believe in a version of it that is at odds with reality, or in their ability to inerrantly inteerpret the bible.
its not the belief that is a violation at all. it is what you do with it!!!!!!!
Like its ok to believe that forced balancing is ok, just dont start doing it!
not at all. its all about data. "creations science" doesnt do data.It is not based so much on the data but the conclusion that the "essence or nature" of creation science is wrong. Ahhh ... I get it
That is their problem.
If anyone ever could come up with some data, they'd get a hearing. Your unfortunate attitude notwithstanding.
People do lie about things, and they always present their side. A eprson would have to do a very very detailed examination of each case one at a time. Neither of us can or will do that.What I cite is an article of SCIENTISTS and those who would like to be scientists, saying they have been mistreated and discriminated against because of their beliefs. Are you saying they are lying or that the article is lying and if so what proof have you of this?
They have a vested interest in presenting it the way they do. i have expressed doubts based on the nature of science, scientists and of institutions as I know them.
my dad, as a christian, would rightly be voting against tenure for someone who persisted in doing bad science, be it astrology or phrenology or any other 'gy that cannot be supported with any data.
if i said i went to a church dressed nicely, said I was an atheist but wanted to attend, and they said "get out you asian atheist freak, we dont want you here" you would rightly doubt me as you know church people dont act that way.
same same
.DISCRIMINATION and CONTROL
I suppose it is in the sense that anyone who cant or wont do science cant get a job. its like that with yellow cab, a driver who cant or wont drive gets discriminated against.
Speaking of unfortunate,
lets look at this again...
So the "code of science" is to deny data because of someone's belief. It is not based so much on the data but the conclusion that the "essence or nature" of creation science is wrong. Ahhh ... I get it. The code of science has become a manipulative tool to exclude what ever they do not want to accept. I'm sure at one time it wasn't meant to be that, but now, for purpose of controlling all aspects of truth and fact (keeping it within the confines of what is "popularly" accepted) it must be used in this way for "the good of science and humanity." "Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some for the good of all." This tactic has been used down through all of history. It is used in war and science and religion. Sounds so grand and lofty and idealistic but it really is just a disquise for DISCRIMINATION and CONTROL
There are plenty of Christian colleges and nobody there generates any data either!!! Could you explain that as discrimination?
But try looking at it this way.
this attack on the character, ethics, professionalism, integrity etc of the entire scientific community is really way way over the top. it doesnt describe reality at all.
You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
No data means all there is left to do is attack someone else as if its their fault?
ps... i will try to be careful not to say anything that can be taken as an insult. you do the same, dont make up things about me, etc, and no more bad feelings will be necessary. 'k?
Your statement about "prove a theory" IS nonsense! but I will try to find a nicer sounding way to say it.
do you at lat understand that in science one does not try to prove a theory? We got off the issue and onto manners, so back to issue. Do you recognize that in science one does not try to prove a theory?
You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
i didnt do either of those, i said it was nonsense.
i did nothing of the kind
That is not true, and is an example of what you say you dont want me to do.
see your above statement about me.
No, i have said several times with the utmost clarity that belief is protected but bad science is snot. if by "belief" you mean that a eprson should be allowed to believe that doing things upside down and backwards should be acceptable well too bad. They dont allow that at the bank either. "Forced balancing" say, which isnt a bad analogy for doing conclusion first.
My geologist father in law believes in creation! So do all of the christians working in science. is it not so? They just dont believe in a version of it that is at odds with reality, or in their ability to inerrantly inteerpret the bible.
its not the belief that is a violation at all. it is what you do with it!!!!!!!
Like its ok to believe that forced balancing is ok, just dont start doing it!
not at all. its all about data. "creations science" doesnt do data.
That is their problem.
If anyone ever could come up with some data, they'd get a hearing. Your unfortunate attitude notwithstanding.
People do lie about things, and they always present their side. A eprson would have to do a very very detailed examination of each case one at a time. Neither of us can or will do that.
They have a vested interest in presenting it the way they do. i have expressed doubts based on the nature of science, scientists and of institutions as I know them.
my dad, as a christian, would rightly be voting against tenure for someone who persisted in doing bad science, be it astrology or phrenology or any other 'gy that cannot be supported with any data.
if i said i went to a church dressed nicely, said I was an atheist but wanted to attend, and they said "get out you asian atheist freak, we dont want you here" you would rightly doubt me as you know church people dont act that way.
same same
.
I suppose it is in the sense that anyone who cant or wont do science cant get a job. its like that with yellow cab, a driver who cant or wont drive gets discriminated against.
Speaking of unfortunate,
lets look at this again...
So the "code of science" is to deny data because of someone's belief. It is not based so much on the data but the conclusion that the "essence or nature" of creation science is wrong. Ahhh ... I get it. The code of science has become a manipulative tool to exclude what ever they do not want to accept. I'm sure at one time it wasn't meant to be that, but now, for purpose of controlling all aspects of truth and fact (keeping it within the confines of what is "popularly" accepted) it must be used in this way for "the good of science and humanity." "Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some for the good of all." This tactic has been used down through all of history. It is used in war and science and religion. Sounds so grand and lofty and idealistic but it really is just a disquise for DISCRIMINATION and CONTROL
There are plenty of Christian colleges and nobody there generates any data either!!! Could you explain that as discrimination?
But try looking at it this way.
this attack on the character, ethics, professionalism, integrity etc of the entire scientific community is really way way over the top. it doesnt describe reality at all.
You can call people on what they say without slamming their intelligence or integrity.
No data means all there is left to do is attack someone else as if its their fault?
ps... i will try to be careful not to say anything that can be taken as an insult. you do the same, dont make up things about me, etc, and no more bad feelings will be necessary. 'k?I admire your patience! Personally I would have given up on her as it is very clear that she is not here to debate but to preach!
That's what the article is talking about. The existing law is not supporting and therefore does not allow believers to become scientist anymore. Discrimination is slipping right on through the law.
Your statement about "prove a theory" IS nonsense! but I will try to find a nicer sounding way to say it.
do you at lat understand that in science one does not try to prove a theory? We got off the issue and onto manners, so back to issue. Do you recognize that in science one does not try to prove a theory?
I admire your patience! Personally I would have given up on her as it is very clear that she is not here to debate but to preach!
Both of my parents earned their PhDs and taught for many years.
I guess its kind of in my blood to try to instruct people.
I will keep trying if I think there is ghost of a chance, thats just me.
I would tho like to see if the 'prove a theory" thing can be settled.
if we cant even get past that, I guess I will give up.
Psudopod, you would only need to go onto most science sites online and you will find repeated references and mockery of creationists being wrong and lying and unintelligent, etc. That is discrimination in Scienceville.
Just follow the posts on this one forum and you will see it is filled with mocking, insults, attacks against creationists (not just us posters)etc. Far more than you would ever have against science.
You can't go to a Richard Dawkins meeting without his continuous stream of insults upon creationists. It just trickles down from the top to the bottom. It is everywhere now. It's in the books, it's in the blogs, it's in the articles, it's everywhere and you still try to deny that you don't see any evidence of it and you need some?
Well, while you keep your eyes closed and don't want to imagine that something this bad IS happening, I can see it and I don't need to go very far to believe that it is happening.
This particular article and interviewer went further. He took it out to those who were the very victims of it and exposed it in his article. I believe him and those he interviewed are not lying or mistaken. It happens. It's out there. I know it and you know it too, if you will just look.
Not if it's true -- if your beliefs force you to espouse ideas which are wrong and unintelligent, and you are forced to lie in otder to make them appear otherwise, then you've gotten what you've deserved -- ejection from Scienceville.
There's a reason for that -- but not one that you'll agree with.
Have you read some of the drivel posted by creationists around here? Dad, Doveman, AV1611VET -- have these self-appointed creationist spokesmen earned anything but mockery?
Dawkins is a man with an agenda -- no doubt about that.
The rest of it, well, is well-deserved.
Well boo hoo -- sorry, there's no place in Scienceville for self-pity.
If Scienceville is such a big, bad place, why do you want in in the first place?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?