Meteorology is an atheistic deception!

[shernren]

Well, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe in there being places where it is ok to be silent about Jesus Christ and what He has done.

Try going to Iran where you can be killed for being a Christian, yet Christians there won't be silent about the One who came and died for them.
Only in places like America, where the people are complacent, will they agree that it is ok the be silent about Jesus Christ.

Just because creationism is proclaimed will not mean Jesus Christ is proclaimed. Just because Jesus Christ is proclaimed will not mean creationism is proclaimed. Whether or not creation science talks about God, it is bad science, fullstop, and it should not be taught as if it is good science.

Besides, do you know what will happen if creationism is taught in schools? Your students will be indoctrinated with creationism and grow up believing that evolution is nonsense, there are no transitional fossils, radiometric dating is shot through, etc. etc ... and then they will go to college and university and learn that half of creation science is wrong, and start thinking and realize that the other half of creation science even if it is right says nothing about the God of the Bible, and more likely than not the whole bunch of them will lose their Christian faith along with their creationist indoctrination. If creationism really is as robust as claimed it should be able to compete in the open with evolutionism, without needing to be taught in schools.

You don't see anything wrong with the above piece that I bolded [we don't need God], shernren?

Bad to bold out of context. Look at the whole quote:

Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?

There lies the great creation science flaw. Every other science says that we "don't need God". The only science that draws flak for it is evolutionism. Don't you think that's a bit dishonest? Don't you think that a really honest Christian would say that spacetime doesn't bend, that God and not hot and cold masses of air are responsible for weather, and so on?

Someone who says that God can only be responsible when He directly and supernaturally intervenes (which is a succinct statement of how they view evolutionism) says that God is not responsible for anything scientific, historical, or otherwise understandable by man.

 

[ascribe2thelord]

If creationism really is as robust as claimed it should be able to compete in the open with evolutionism, without needing to be taught in schools.

I would say the same for evolutionism. It's only "natural" for people in sin as we are to despise the supernatural. See, evolution has had its say for some 125+ years in America and across the world. Does it need to keep getting taught in universities to be believed? Just beause it has a completely naturalist explanation does not make it true, either. What if everything was created instantly ... and the speed of light was much faster at the moment of creation than it is now ... or that there are other processes that we don't know about that took place in the years and years before we discovered modern scientific methods?

(Note: Why are evolutionists afraid of intelligent design being taught? Creationists aren't afraid of evolution being taught ... !)

About radiometric dating: I won't dispute the claim that it takes uranium 1.8 billion years (in its natural, undisturbed state) to experience one half life. But how can it be known that there haven't been, assuming 6,000 years (as evolution assumes 4.55 +/- 0.1 billion years), especially strong bursts of radiation that could have caused sudden decay in those atoms, to make certain rocks appear extremely old?

(For instance, what if 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars suddenly ignited, all at once? Would that not cause a huge burst of radiation? This could be the reason behind all of these extremely old dates. And the reason why some lava flows have registered at several hundred million years old - although they're really just 300 or so, at most.)

"Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?"

I personally wouldn't say that any theory ... other than the theory that we don't need God (atheism) ... can say that we don't need God.

Someone who says that God can only be responsible when He directly and supernaturally intervenes (which is a succinct statement of how they view evolutionism) says that God is not responsible for anything scientific, historical, or otherwise understandable by man.

Good point. Unfortunately a lot of creationists are ignorant of these things. But I personally don't consider the theory of evolution a threat to God's existence ... or even his work of creation.

But you see, even creationists can theorize. And just because we consider ourselves bound *within reason* by Scripture does not mean we cannot be right, or scientific, or anything.

The problem is that evolution's reputation as a true scientific theory comes into question when its researchers begin adopting it as a religious belief (praising their version of "science" above all reason and knowledge that otherwise man can afford).

 

[ascribe2thelord]

"Just because creationism is proclaimed will not mean Jesus Christ is proclaimed. Just because Jesus Christ is proclaimed will not mean creationism is proclaimed."

-A warning to conservatives. Become anarchists and hate your government for creating a monopoly in public education, paving the way for the persecution of Christian students who are barred from talking about God in school

-Personally there was this one class I had in web design. I was told to build a website. I did, and used it to share the gospel. Doing everything the teacher told me to. And I was told not to put religious elements into my presentations anymore. Even though I didn't waste class time.

 

[Critias]

Just because creationism is proclaimed will not mean Jesus Christ is proclaimed. Just because Jesus Christ is proclaimed will not mean creationism is proclaimed. Whether or not creation science talks about God, it is bad science, fullstop, and it should not be taught as if it is good science.

And if the Evolutionary Theory did talk about God, many would call it bad science, not because of scientific grounds, but because it speaks of God.

Besides, do you know what will happen if creationism is taught in schools? Your students will be indoctrinated with creationism and grow up believing that evolution is nonsense, there are no transitional fossils, radiometric dating is shot through, etc. etc ... and then they will go to college and university and learn that half of creation science is wrong, and start thinking and realize that the other half of creation science even if it is right says nothing about the God of the Bible, and more likely than not the whole bunch of them will lose their Christian faith along with their creationist indoctrination. If creationism really is as robust as claimed it should be able to compete in the open with evolutionism, without needing to be taught in schools.

You mean like when ID'rs challenged Evolutionists to many debates and the Evolutionists didn't show up? Why is it that it seems all evolutionists are afraid of their theory being questioned? We can see it here when people like Gluady's say they are saddened because now schools are being allowed to question the theory instead of it being presented as a fact.

If the theory is as strong as you argue it to be, then evolutionists shouldn't be so afraid of creationists or ID'rs questioning it. If evolutionists are so confident then they should welcome the questioning in schools and the public knowing that it will stand up. Instead, we see fearful evolutionists when their theory is questioned.

Also, why do evolutionists take it personal when their theory is questioned? If it is questioned, it is as if you said something about their mother or another close relative. The react as if they have been personally insulted. The same reaction you get from someone who has had their beliefs insulted.

Bad to bold out of context. Look at the whole quote:

Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?

There lies the great creation science flaw. Every other science says that we "don't need God". The only science that draws flak for it is evolutionism. Don't you think that's a bit dishonest? Don't you think that a really honest Christian would say that spacetime doesn't bend, that God and not hot and cold masses of air are responsible for weather, and so on?

Someone who says that God can only be responsible when He directly and supernaturally intervenes (which is a succinct statement of how they view evolutionism) says that God is not responsible for anything scientific, historical, or otherwise understandable by man.

Do you agree with science that we don't need God? If you don't, can you see why creationists have problems with a theory that is taught to our children as fact that takes the stance that we don't need God. Especially in the light of the fact that so many, including TEs, want the Creation that is taught in the Bible removed and a godless version taught instead.

This ties into a lot of what is happening within America today. In Texas, the colors red and green have been banned in a city because the secularists say they refer to Christianity. Yet, companies like Sears are ok to present the colors of Hanukkah.

Other cities have banned Christmas trees. Another city has banned Santa Claus, stating it is a Christian symbol. All public schools are not allowed to say Merry Christmas; kids, teachers, faculty and parents alike on school grounds. Yet, in the beginning of the year, teachers are given calendars that include Jewish and Muslim holidays so that they can be sensitive those childrens needs. (in the LA unified schools atleast)

I have no problems whatsoever with teachers or anyone being sensitive towards Jewish and Muslims holidays. Those religions are not my point. The point is, this war on Christmas we are seeing happening right now, is a war on Christianity, not any other religion.

America is not about separating religion from the state, it is about separating Christianity from the state.

A lawsuit is in motion currently to remove the name Jesus and God from the FCC airwaves in America. Note, the name Allah, will not be removed. History books have been rewritten to remove the fact that America was founded on Christian principles. Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa was given a demand by the State of California to remove their history books that included the older version of stating that America was founded on Christian principles.

And TEs wonder why those who hold to God and the Bible so dearly are up in arms about this as well as other area's in American life. What TEs don't see, is that they are aiding in the removal of God within America by their support of a theory that allows postulating of a creator such as aliens, but not the Creator God.

Wherever God is included, is under attack. Even Churches now are under the hate laws that allows anyone to sue the Pastor who preaches on a Sunday morning, if he states that you [general you] are sinful if you are sexually immoral.

Christianity is under attack and a TEs response is 'what is wrong with being silent about God'.

 

[shernren]

And if the Evolutionary Theory did talk about God, many would call it bad science, not because of scientific grounds, but because it speaks of God.

Critias, I think there's a fundamental communication breakdown here because I'm not being clear about what science really is. What do you think science is? How should science operate in relation with God? How should the existence of God and His supernatural interaction with nature be treated by science? Until we can answer these questions properly and agree on it I'm afraid we will never get past this stage where I say all science, even creation science, "rejects God", while you say that evolutionary science "rejects God" while turning a blind eye to the rest of the whole edifice of science that also "rejects God".

You mean like when ID'rs challenged Evolutionists to many debates and the Evolutionists didn't show up?

I'm not aware of the event you're talking about. In any case there's enough battling online to show that evolutionists are serious about their theory being questioned.

If the theory is as strong as you argue it to be, then evolutionists shouldn't be so afraid of creationists or ID'rs questioning it. If evolutionists are so confident then they should welcome the questioning in schools and the public knowing that it will stand up. Instead, we see fearful evolutionists when their theory is questioned.

Well, it depends on who you ask. I would believe (although I can't speak for gluadys, she'll have to say whether it's right or not) that when gluadys and other evolutionists say that IDism shouldn't be taught in schools, it is on philosophical grounds. They are looking at the motivation behind it, and the motivation is that the IDists say evolutionism is a godless wanton science and YECism is the God-approved holy science and it should be smuggled into schools under any name and with any compromise possible. And thus it shouldn't be so.

But I don't see such qualms. Fine, teach IDism in schools. You see how much students can learn. You see how much of the "scientific process" students can understand from IDism. Right now 99% of it is simply "Evolution hasn't figured it out, so there must be a designer behind it" which is simply a statement in the negative and statements in the negative are never good science. Remember when I had a thread in this forum earlier on where I asked "How would you teach creation science / ID" and nobody had anything substantial to offer.

Yes, IDism should be taught in schools alongside evolution so that students can see for themselves which is the stronger science and we won't have any more accusations from YECs that students aren't given a choice about what to learn.

America is not about separating religion from the state, it is about separating Christianity from the state.

Well, my condolences for America. But on an aside, how do you know that this is not God's will for America? Personally I believe that in a modern, democratic, wealthy nation like yours, this kind of persecution is the only kind of persecution a church will ever face. At least Christians aren't physically abused there (as far as I know), compared to in China or elsewhere around the world. And persecution makes a church strong. It is discipline and God only disciplines a church He intends to grow. Yes, you should pray that these obstacles and barriers be removed. At the same time you should be praying that the church will be strong enough to survive even behind the obstacles and barriers faced. After all, churches can still legally exist in America. They can't in China. Christians can evangelise to Muslims there, right? Here they can't, officially, and 60+% of the people here are Muslims. I understand your sentiments.

But teaching creationism in schools won't help. Science by very nature - whether evolutionary or creationist, I can't stress this point enough - doesn't talk about God. If God had wanted science to talk about Him, He would have made a world in which nothing makes sense. God could have made a world in which there is no science and there is no order - where lightning bolts are literally hurled from His hands and can't be explained by the mechanisms of electrostatics, or where He really breathes on the atmosphere to create snow instead of leaving cold air and high altitudes to do His job. God had reasons to make this world a scientific one and I believe that we should respect those reasons.

In any case, I think that pushing for creationism even if it was the Christian thing to do is really misprioritising. The church in America needs to put all its effort and strength into legalizing prayer in schools. That's far more important than debating fossils.

 

[shernren]

Hey does anybody here have subscriber access to the Time Archive? Am looking to unlock this interesting-sounding article:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1126751,00.html#anch_ofie

 

[f U z ! o N]

And if the Evolutionary Theory did talk about God, many would call it bad science, not because of scientific grounds, but because it speaks of God.



You mean like when ID'rs challenged Evolutionists to many debates and the Evolutionists didn't show up? Why is it that it seems all evolutionists are afraid of their theory being questioned? We can see it here when people like Gluady's say they are saddened because now schools are being allowed to question the theory instead of it being presented as a fact.

If the theory is as strong as you argue it to be, then evolutionists shouldn't be so afraid of creationists or ID'rs questioning it. If evolutionists are so confident then they should welcome the questioning in schools and the public knowing that it will stand up. Instead, we see fearful evolutionists when their theory is questioned.

Also, why do evolutionists take it personal when their theory is questioned? If it is questioned, it is as if you said something about their mother or another close relative. The react as if they have been personally insulted. The same reaction you get from someone who has had their beliefs insulted.

my my my. why is it that when evolutionist's want to debate creationists dont show up? want proof? visit the creation and evolution forum. if creaton is so strong as many claim it to be why are people afriad of it being questioned? why do creationists take it so personal when you question creationism? why do they label you as a heathen just because you don't believe what they believe? creationists get insulted just as easily. my my now the tables are turned. oh yeah why is it if you mention evolution in church it causes an uproar among people?

 

[Micaiah]

The notion that we can somehow create a parallel between weather forecasting and Creation is fundamentally flawed.

1. A plain and down to earth account of Creation was given in Geneis. It is complete enough for us to recognise that the universe and life did not evolve in the way theorised by man. That is important because many of the inherent assumptions in these theories undermine some of the most important Scriptural teaching about man and God.

2. Unlike the account of Creation given in Genesis, the language of Job is obviously poetic and metaphorical. It does emphasise that God is in control of Creation.

The mistake TE's make here is to take some passages of Scripture which use metaphorical language and assume that all assertions in Scripture of a scientific nature must be interpretted in this way. TE's appear to have imposed a total ban on God revealling in Scripture any of the scientific/historical facts of Creation. There is no reason why this should be. Those who accept the plain historical narrative of Genesis reject this ban as a human invention.

 

[shernren]

But just saying "Job is poetic; Genesis is literal" isn't going to get you off the hook. You can't make out that just because Job (or Elihu and God as quoted in the book of Job) is being poetic about the weather, means that Job is saying nothing about the weather. What is Job poetically saying? That, of course, God is fundamentally responsible for the weather. God's purpose guides the weather. The very lightning bolts are at His command.

And modern meteorology says no, it is not God's purpose guiding the weather, it is temperature fluctuation and air mass movement that guides the weather, lightning bolts are caused when giant sparks cross great potential differences and now people create little lightning bolts everyday in petrol engines - God's "not in charge (punintended!)" anymore! According to proper YEC hermeneutics, therefore, modern meteorology is in direct conflict with this passage.

Let's reply to this:

That is important because many of the inherent assumptions in these theories undermine some of the most important Scriptural teaching about man and God.

I'm not sure which inherent assumptions you're talking about but taking a wild guess (which may be wrong, so too bad for me if they are) you're referring once again to the way "evolution rejects God". Evolution "rejects God" because it does not see God as a direct causative agent and as the direct controller of creation. Well, so does meteorology. It is up to Christians to say that God created the laws that govern meteorology, and so is responsible for running the weather according to scientifically discoverable laws; and that God created the laws that govern the creation of the world, and so is/was responsible for creating the world according to scientifically discoverable laws.

Besides, it's dangerous to take the Job passage so "poetically" as you put it. Let's see. Because Job 37 is poetic, God did not: -

lay the earth's foundations
mark off its dimensions
shut the sea behind doors and fix limits for it
make clouds its garment and wrap it in darkness
shape the earth's features

(vv 1-11), in the same way that He does not store up hailstones and snow. Those are rather direct references to the creative acts of Genesis 1 and to say that they are also poetic would be rather shooting the YEC literalism defence in the foot ...

 

[Micaiah]

Job 38 records a dialogue between God and Job in which God showed Job how incomplete his knowledge was. We do well to walk away from the passage with a renewed sense of humility recognising that God alone knows the truth regarding Creation. Fortunately, He has chosen to communicate some of the essential facts of Creation to us in Genesis.

 

[shernren]

God showed Job how incomplete his knowledge was.

Therefore:

Meteorology completes man's knowledge of the weather and allows man to usurp God in this field. It's evil!

Isn't that the logical conclusion, then?

 

[Micaiah]

God showed Job how incomplete his knowledge was.

Therefore:

Meteorology completes man's knowledge of the weather and allows man to usurp God in this field. It's evil!

Isn't that the logical conclusion, then?

No harm in studying science. Man has been greatly helped by scientific enquiry. A problem occurs when people start to speculate about how the earth was created and disregard what God has revealled on the subject.

 

[shernren]

But the same "speculation" about how the earth was created has also greatly helped man. It is the same geology that helps us find oil, gas and coal. Do you really want to live in a world without them?

 

[philadiddle]

No harm in studying science. Man has been greatly helped by scientific enquiry. A problem occurs when people start to speculate about how the earth was created and disregard what God has revealled on the subject.

speculate is the wrong word. "inductive reasoning" is the right word. look it up on wikipedia.org

ppl are only disregaurding it if it was meant to be literal, but since it isn't, no problem then