The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 16-03-2013 02:08AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Hi ,j.c.

I wasn't asking whose p.o.v. was right /wrong...or who should get funding.

I only asked why you reject the idea that "life" can be self organising ,yet accept that "god" can be self organising.

So ,again, why accept one and ,yet, reject the other?

What is the difference?

To clarify, i just want to understand the difference.

My apologies for misunderstanding your question.

I reject the idea that life is self creating because we have never observed this and it breaches the principle that nothing can create something with greater capacities than itself ... and something that is dead remains dead ... indeed Biogenesis (the theory that only life can produce other life) is a Law of Biology ... and Spontaneous Generation has been disproven by Pasteur and is considered to be invalid.

Abiogenesis (which is Spontaneous Generation with time added) has been spectacularly unsuccessful in both theory and practice.

So we have a conundrum ... the Universe exists and life exists ... so where did it all come from if it logically couldn't produce itself?

The theoretical answer is that an inordinate Intelligence produced it ... because of the inordinate levels of CFSI that are observed to exist.
The Intelligence must have been outside or transcendent of time, space and matter ... because, as the Cause of time, space and matter ... it had to be in existence before time, space and matter.
... and finally, the Cause must have a greater or equal capacity to what it caused ... and so it must be effectively omnipotent and omniscient, when we consider the effectively infinite scale of the Universe.

Masteroid · 16-03-2013 02:37AM

J C wrote: »

What are you talking about ... please stop talking in riddles ... and dreaming up imaginary scenarios that are deeply prejudicial to Theists in general ... and Creationists in particular.

The failure of Miller-Urey et al ... and I did say et al i.e. all of the Abilogenesis research since Miller-Urey as well ... has failed spectacularly to come anywhere near producing life ... and thus it is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt that only an Intelligence of inordinate capacity could have produced life.
I'm not saying that it has proven it absolutely because such a proof is impossible ... but it has proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.

You are even dishonest about what you have actually posted.

And no amount of wriggling can get you off the hook.

At any rate, the argument seems to be settled and you have run out of pants to have beaten off you.

Good luck with your future endeavours which I trust will not involve teaching science to young people.

Masteroid · 16-03-2013 03:02AM

J C wrote: »

We scientists sometime take ourselves too seriously!!!

I can't imagine that even you takes you seriously.

Masteroid · 16-03-2013 03:17AM

J C wrote: »

I reject the idea that life is self creating because we have never observed this with life ...

Then you are forced to reject intelligent design for the same reason - it has never been observed.

J C · 16-03-2013 10:15AM

Masteroid wrote: »

You are even dishonest about what you have actually posted.

And no amount of wriggling can get you off the hook.

At any rate, the argument seems to be settled and you have run out of pants to have beaten off you.

Good luck with your future endeavours which I trust will not involve teaching science to young people.

Where was I dishonest in my posting?

... and is that all you have to say about the invalidity of Abiogenesis? ... a few unfounded personal remarks about me and an unsupported contention.
... the argument has been settled for a long time now ... in favour of ID and against Abiogenesis ... and 'all the kings horses and all the kings men' are unable to alter this stubborn fact!!!

... you also need to be more inclusive ... and you need to do some 'respecting diversity' training if you are going to go around advocating job discrimination on the basis of religious belief ... especially advocating discrimination against Christians within Christian controlled schools !!!!

J C · 16-03-2013 10:21AM

Masteroid wrote: »

I can't imagine that even you takes you seriously.

I'm not a 'pompous twat' ... if that's what you mean.
... but I am a serious scientist supervising some very important stuff.

J C · 16-03-2013 10:33AM

Masteroid wrote: »

Then you are forced to reject intelligent design for the same reason - it has never been observed.

Intelligent Design is commonplace ... it is observed in almost every constructive action of Human Beings.
Abiogenesis has been found to be an impossibility even with the appliance of the formidable Intelligent Design capacities of modern science ... so this indicates that the Intelligent Design capacities of the Creator of life are vastly greater than the very best that Human ID capacities can muster.

... and if I were you I'd start to respect the Creator who possesses such inordinate capacities.
He literally has the power to make somebodies eternal life a Heaven or a Hell ... but the choice of which power He will exercise is up to them.

J C · 16-03-2013 11:12AM

doctoremma wrote: »

This is nonsense, just lots of words out together to try to sound scientific.

And point 3 is sooooooo false, it's hilarious.

Could you please be a little more specific in your argument against my posting.

I have posted specific logical answers to a previous posting ... and the best you can come up with are two meaningless generalisations in response.

ManMade · 16-03-2013 11:50AM

J C wrote: »

Intelligent Design is commonplace ... it is observed in almost every constructive action of Human Beings.
Abiogenesis has been found to be an impossibility even with the appliance of the formidable Intelligent Design capacities of modern science ... so this indicates that the Intelligent Design capacities of the Creator of life are vastly greater than the very best that Human ID capacities can muster.

... and if I were you I'd start to respect the Creator who possesses such inordinate capacities.
He literally has the power to make somebodies eternal life a Heaven or a Hell ... but the choice of which power He will exercise is up to them.

Bullsh*t. ID is not common place. Belief in god is a lifestyle choice. Many people no longer choose to believe in god, so to them god has never existed. Most people who choose to believe in god would not classify themselves as creationist.

J C · 16-03-2013 12:03PM

ManMade wrote: »

Bullsh*t. ID is not common place. Belief in god is a lifestyle choice. Many people no longer choose to believe in god, so to them god has never existed. Most people who choose to believe in god would not classify themselves as creationist.

Now ... now, bad language indicates a bad loser!!
Intelligent Design as performed by Humans is commonplace ... and it is observed in almost every constructive action of Human Beings.
Abiogenesis has been found to be an impossibility even with the appliance of the formidable Intelligent Design capacities of modern science ... so this indicates that the Intelligent Design capacities of the Creator of life are vastly greater than the very best that Human ID capacities can muster.

Belief in God may well be a lifestyle choice ... but this doesn't alter the reality of His existence ... and the fact that this can be logically proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Belief in God is certainly an eternal lifestyle choice ... and the eternal lifestyle for the people who reject Him will be austere ... to say the least.

doctoremma · 16-03-2013 01:08PM

J C wrote: »

All correct so far

It may surprise you, but with an undergrad degree in Biochemistry, I don't require your validation for my factual summary of chirality in biological molecules.

J C wrote: »

'Its still very early days, with no firm conclusion' could sum this up. Whatever about achieving insignificant amounts of spontaneous enantiomeric excess ... the chain reaction claim is wishful thinking.

Agree no firm conclusion. But there are data to demonstrate mechanisms that generate enantiomer excess to 100 %. Did you read the paper I cited? And I used 'chain reaction' in layman's terms.

J C wrote: »

'In addition to some Bacteria, the platypus, funnel web spider, and cone snail all have D-amino acids in their venom. Isomerases in these organisms are thought to produce the D-amino acids needed for the venom. The fact that the D-AAs are found in venom may not be coincidental, as they are poisonous to the normal L-AAs in the victims of the venom.
Although D-amino acids may not be as common as the L variety, they are important in living things and more studies need to be done to find their exact roles.

What do you mean 'The D amino acids are poisonous to L amino acids'?

doctoremma · 16-03-2013 01:09PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not a 'pompous twat' ... if that's what you mean.
... but I am a serious scientist supervising some very important stuff.

What's your area of research, JC?

doctoremma · 16-03-2013 01:12PM

J C wrote: »

Could you please be a little more specific in your argument against my posting.

Of course.

Your second statement is a jumbled bunch if words that only sound coherent in your own head.

Your third statement is patently untrue. Indeed, prompted by Koth (whose patience with you I have to admire), you have already retracted it.

maguffin · 16-03-2013 02:01PM

J C wrote: »

Belief in God may well be a lifestyle choice ... but this doesn't alter the reality of His existence ... and the fact that this can be logically proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Show us this 'logical proof', take us step by logical step through it, and convince us, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ahh, but, once again you can't....because there is no proof of the existence of (your) god, logical or otherwise. All you have is faith, and faith is not science, and since it is not science there can be no logic process to it that can be measured or observed.

Belief in God is certainly an eternal lifestyle choice ... and the eternal lifestyle for the people who reject Him will be austere ... to say the least.

All faith based conjecture, since there is no proof of a god, there is no proof of a heaven or hell, or punishment or eternal damnation.....absolutely no proof!!!

ManMade · 16-03-2013 03:40PM

J C wrote: »

Belief in God is certainly an eternal lifestyle choice ... and the eternal lifestyle for the people who reject Him will be austere ... to say the least.

But no. God simply does not exist. Ones belief in a deity does not make him exist nor does the fact many people follow the Abraham deity qualify the superstition a right of recognition or place in the scientific community.

The concept of heaven and hell is so simplistic it hurts.

JimiTime · 16-03-2013 04:06PM

ManMade wrote: »

But no. God simply does not exist. Ones belief in a deity does not make him exist nor does the fact many people follow the Abraham deity qualify the superstition a right of recognition or place in the scientific community.

The concept of heaven and hell is so simplistic it hurts.

Its unapologetically simple. In fact, its simplicity will make foolishness of of what man considers wisdom. You can be full of every knowledge, and yet, you die. I can be a simple childlike person with faith in Christ, and gain life and realise the full potential of my being as our creator intended.

Your belief that God doesn't exist doesn't make it so

doctoremma · 16-03-2013 06:23PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Its unapologetically simple. In fact, its simplicity will make foolishness of of what man considers wisdom. You can be full of every knowledge, and yet, you die. I can be a simple childlike person with faith in Christ, and gain life and realise the full potential of my being as our creator intended.

Your belief that God doesn't exist doesn't make it so

Jimi, thoughts on creationism? Do you accept evolution or Genesis? How do you think science can add to knowledge of a god/s?

J C · 16-03-2013 09:05PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, thoughts on creationism? Do you accept evolution or Genesis? How do you think science can add to knowledge of a god/s?

All mono-theists are creationists (with a small c) ... they all believe that God Created/made the Universe and all life ... some believe it was done in six days, as described in Genesis ... others run with the Evolution hypothesis ... and billions of years, but with God doing the 'making' of step changes along the way (the Theistic Evolutionists).

J C · 16-03-2013 09:23PM

ManMade wrote: »

But no. God simply does not exist. Ones belief in a deity does not make him exist nor does the fact many people follow the Abraham deity qualify the superstition a right of recognition or place in the scientific community.

The concept of heaven and hell is so simplistic it hurts.

You're quite entitled to your opinion that God doesn't exist ... but you're not entitled to ban the perfectly valid opinion that God exists ... within and without science ... and within and without schools.

That's what a truly pluralist society that really respects diversity is all about.

ManMade · 16-03-2013 09:46PM

J C wrote: »

You're quite entitled to your opinion that God doesn't exist ... but you're not entitled to ban the perfectly valid opinion that God exists ... within and without science ... and within and without schools.

That's what a truly pluralist society that really respects diversity would do.

... but then the pseudo-liberals only want a pluralist society when they are trying to demolish Christendom ... but when they achieve their objective ... they don't want to know about pluralism ever again.
Like I say, it seems to be all 'take' and no 'give' with these guys.

The current situation within 'origins' science, where Atheistic ideas are absolute, (and Thiesm isn't tolerated) is an indicator of what will happen throughout the rest of society, if these guys ever gain control there as well.

They have made it clear that they believe Theism to be a form of 'child abuse' ... and they will ban the transmission of the Christian Faith both within and without schools, if they can.

Like Manmade has said about science, "the fact many people follow the Abraham deity doesn't qualify the superstition a right of recognition or place in the whole of society, if these guys can get their way.

I'm not talking about religions place in society. I respect people's choice to believe what they want. I'm trying to discuss the beginning of life on earth. You have your views which I'm trying to understand. I hope you can understand my views although you might disagree with them. I just want a discussion not a fight. I apologise if my early points came off aggressive. I believe in proof then acceptance. Not acceptance them proof.

J C · 16-03-2013 10:02PM

ManMade wrote: »

I'm not talking about religions place in society. I respect people's choice to believe what they want. I'm trying to discuss the beginning of life on earth. You have your views which I'm trying to understand. I hope you can understand my views although you might disagree with them. I just want a discussion not a fight. I apologise if my early points came off aggressive. I believe in proof then acceptance. Not acceptance them proof.

Apology accepted.

I too believe in proof ... then acceptance. I once was a committed Evolutionist ... and it took over 10 years of proofs for me to accept the validity of Creationism.

I wasn't fighting with you ... merely pointing out the gross intolerance of diversity of opinion inherent in your position that the mono-theist religions (that are rooted in Abraham) are 'superstitions' unworthy of a right of recognition or place in the scientific community.

I understand your views ... I was once exactly like you in my views on the 'origins' question ... although I was never intolerant of other views on the 'origins' question or dismissive of people of faith.

What I'm asking for is very reasonable ... which is mutual respect for the opinions of all religions and none ... and it's the Atheists and their fellow like-minds who are resisting this ... with all their might!!!

Masteroid · 16-03-2013 10:09PM

J C wrote: »

Where was I dishonest in my posting?:(

J C wrote: »

An Intelligence of God-like proportions has been mathematically proven to be the creator of all life .

It hasn't.

J C wrote: »

God has effectively been proven to exist

It hasn't.

J C wrote: »

so Abiogenesis research has actually proven that the intelligence levels and ingenuity required to produce life are at God like levels of omnipotence and omnicience.

It hasn't.

Now compare:

J C wrote: »

the ID hypothesis has been validated and Miler-Urey proves that life could never spontaneously arise.

with:

J C wrote: »

I'm not saying that it has proven it absolutely because such a proof is impossible ...

So you changed your mind?

J C wrote: »

Miller-Urey et al proved that only about half of the amino acids required for life could be produced using sophisticated lab techniques ... and they were produced as a racemate ... which would be useless for life.

They didn't. They provided encouraging data which means that abiogenesis cannot be ruled out.

J C wrote: »

ID has produced proven means to identify the 'fingerprint' of intelligent actions ... and living systems have these 'fingerprints' in every aspect of their activity.

It hasn't.

J C wrote: »

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis has effectively proven the actions of an Intelligence of Divine proportions by analysing the CFSI of life.

It hasn't.

J C wrote: »

or an answer that has more qualifications and obfuscations than you could shake a stick at

It hasn't.

J C wrote: »

I am an eminently qualified scientist

Need I say more?

Delirium · 16-03-2013 10:27PM

J C wrote: »

You're quite entitled to your opinion that God doesn't exist ... but you're not entitled to ban the perfectly valid opinion that God exists ... within and without science ... and within and without schools.

Opinion isn't banned anywhere. Science works on evidence, and as yet no evidence has confirmed the existence of God. Schools have banned religion from the science classroom as is correct in a class teaching verified facts/evidence. Creationism is still taught as part of a religion class.

That's what a truly pluralist society that really respects diversity is all about.

You're confusing society and science again.

... but then the pseudo-liberals only want a pluralist society when they are trying to demolish Christendom ... but when they achieve their objective ... they don't want to know about pluralism ever again.
Like I say, it seems to be all 'take' and no 'give' with these guys.

you realise that you can't campaign for a pluralist society and try to demolish a (or all) religions? Sounds like you're using the term "pseudo-liberals" to describe anti-Chiristians/anti-theists. This has nothing to do with how science is investigated, it's just muddying the waters.

The current situation within 'origins' science, where Atheistic ideas are absolute, (and Thiesm isn't tolerated) is an indicator of what will happen throughout the rest of society, if these guys ever gain control there as well.

This is wrong. Science is independent of atheism/theism. You're repeatedly alluding to a conspiracy to suppress/ban certain scientific opinions without anything to substantiate the claims. And you're now using a slippery slope fallacy to suggest the atheists will take over society in some sort of Orwellian way.

They have made it clear that they believe Theism to be a form of 'child abuse' ... and they will ban the transmission of the Christian Faith both within and without schools, if they can.

Religious instruction has no place in publicly funded schools. Private schools can do as they like. But it should really be the responsibility of the parents and the religious group they belong to. States can't ban parents from raising their kids in the religion of the parents. At least not in a democratic secular society.

What you have said about science will apply in the rest of society, if these guys can get their way. Your statement that "the fact many people follow the Abraham deity doesn't qualify the superstition a right of recognition or place in the scientific community" will be extende to the whole of society.

What exactly does this mean? What "will extend to the whole of society"?

Its the logical follow-on from such intolerance ... and its happened before ... in Atheistic societies ... and currently in the American Public Schools System.

Having a certain standard of scientific investigation isn't intolerance. Are governments intolerant of children by not allowing minors to vote/drive/drink etc.?

The American public school system doesn't engage in religious instruction as the constitution requires separation of state and religion. This protects Christians, as well as all other religious groupings, from the state imposing religious ideology onto children via the school system.

Masteroid · 16-03-2013 10:28PM

J C wrote: »

Evolution has been assumed to account for the assumed contiuum between Pondkind and Mankind ... when it is only capable of accounting for speciation/variation within Kinds using pre-existing genetic diversity.
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis has effectively proven the actions of an Intelligence of Divine proportions by analysing the CFSI of life.
ID is standing at the doors of conventional 'origins' science and knocking ... so far all that is happened is that it has been told to 'clear off' ... or words to that effect.

Firstly, once again I feel the need to correct you.

I'll do this by way of your 'mirror-hypothesis' analogy.

Evolution is a hypothesis that is supported by mountains of observable evidence.

The mirror of this is:

'Goddunnit' is a hypothesis that is supported by mountains of unobservable evidence.

Which hypothesis should sensible scientists concern themselves with?

And which hypothesis should be given funding?

I'm quite sure that you will obfuscate and misrepresent so pre-emptively I will say this.

The things that I object to most about you is that you are quite happy to send people on fool's errands, to waste their time, stunt their intellectual growth and derogade the science that has been so carefully assembled by disciplined men of great integrity by suggesting that it is run by anti-theistic upstarts who wish to corrupt the minds of the young by teaching the scientific method.

Quite deplorable, really.

Obscene, even.

J C · 16-03-2013 10:42PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C

An Intelligence of God-like proportions has been mathematically proven to be the creator of all life .

It has.

Originally Posted by J C

God has effectively been proven to exist

He has

Originally Posted by J C

So Abiogenesis research has actually proven that the intelligence levels and ingenuity required to produce life are at God like levels of omnipotence and omnicience.

It has.

Originally Posted by J C

the ID hypothesis has been validated and Miler-Urey proves that life could never spontaneously arise.

I'm not saying that it has proven it absolutely because such a proof is impossible ...

So you changed your mind?

Its been proven beyond reasonable doubt ... which means that it has been proven ... like I have said.

Originally Posted by J C

Miller-Urey et al proved that only about half of the amino acids required for life could be produced using sophisticated lab techniques ... and they were produced as a racemate ... which would be useless for life.

They didn't. They provided encouraging data which means that abiogenesis cannot be ruled out.

'encouraging data' from1952 ... which hasn't proven to be justified since ... despite massive resurces being deployed to substantiate the initial enthusiasm that was based on the experiment.

Originally Posted by J C

ID has produced proven means to identify the 'fingerprint' of intelligent actions ... and living systems have these 'fingerprints' in every aspect of their activity.

It has.

Originally Posted by J C

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis has effectively proven the actions of an Intelligence of Divine proportions by analysing the CFSI of life.

It has.

Originally Posted by J C

or an answer that has more qualifications and obfuscations than you could shake a stick at

Quite true.

Need I say more?

I think you do.

.

J C · 16-03-2013 10:50PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Firstly, once again I feel the need to correct you.

I'll do this by way of your 'mirror-hypothesis' analogy.

Evolution is a hypothesis that is supported by mountains of observable evidence.

The mirror of this is:

'Goddunnit' is a hypothesis that is supported by mountains of unobservable evidence.

Which hypothesis should sensible scientists concern themselves with?

And which hypothesis should be given funding?

I'm quite sure that you will obfuscate and misrepresent so pre-emptively I will say this.

The things that I object to most about you is that you are quite happy to send people on fool's errands, to waste their time, stunt their intellectual growth and derogade the science that has been so carefully assembled by disciplined men of great integrity by suggesting that it is run by anti-theistic upstarts who wish to corrupt the minds of the young by teaching the scientific method.

Quite deplorable, really.

Obscene, even.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

What I'm asking for is very reasonable ... which is mutual respect for the opinions of all religions and none ... and it's the Atheists and their fellow like-minds who are resisting this ... with all their might!!!

... science can just as easily test the God hypothesis as it can test the anti-God Hypothesis ...

Delirium · 16-03-2013 11:01PM

J C wrote: »

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

What I'm asking for is very reasonable ... which is mutual respect for the opinions of all religions and none ... and it's the Atheists and their fellow like-minds who are resisting this ... with all their might!!!

how exactly is suggesting atheists want to outlaw religion showing mutual respect? Or that they're engaged in a conspiracy to pervert scientific investigation?

... science can just as easily test the God hypothesis as it can test the anti-God Hypothesis ...

what experiments would a scientist carry out to test for the existence of God?

J C · 16-03-2013 11:14PM

koth wrote: »

Opinion isn't banned anywhere. Science works on evidence, and as yet no evidence has confirmed the existence of God. Schools have banned religion from the science classroom as is correct in a class teaching verified facts/evidence. Creationism is still taught as part of a religion class.

The evidence for God is all there ... but the Atheists are studiously looking the other way ... and they have introduced the self-serving idea that Atheistic 'origins' beliefs are scientific ... but Theist 'origins' ideas aren't.

koth wrote: »

This is wrong. Science is independent of atheism/theism. You're repeatedly alluding to a conspiracy to suppress/ban certain scientific opinions without anything to substantiate the claims. And you're now using a slippery slope fallacy to suggest the atheists will take over society in some sort of Orwellian way.

They have done it in Soviet Russia ... and they have also done it in American Public Schools. You guys keep saying that Theist 'origins' hypotheses have no place in 'origins' science ... and then ye say that there isn't any ban on Theist-friendly 'origins' science. One end of your tongue is denying the other!!!

koth wrote: »

Religious instruction has no place in publicly funded schools.

If that's going to be the case then they should also leave out the Atheist 'origins' explantions ... which are core beliefs within the Atheistic Humanist Faith.

You simply cannot logically ask for a ban on all religious instruction ... while placing your own Atheistic religious instruction at the heart of the School curriculum ... under the guise of 'origins' science.
What is the difference between teaching Creation Science, ID or Abiogenesis? ... none ... they are all 'origins' hypotheses believed in by people of different religions and none ... but Abiogenesis is the one with the least evidential and logical support.

koth wrote: »

Private schools can do as they like. But it should really be the responsibility of the parents and the religious group they belong to. States can't ban parents from raising their kids in the religion of the parents. At least not in a democratic secular society.

States can do many kinds of things, if the belief emerges that the Faith being taught is 'child abuse' ... which is the sinister claim of some people in relation to Christianity ... and I haven't heard any dissenting voices on this thread.

koth wrote: »

Having a certain standard of scientific investigation isn't intolerance. Are governments intolerant of children by not allowing minors to vote/drive/drink etc.?

... they would be intolerant if they banned all adult Theists from these activities ... especially if they simultaneously allowed Atheists to do these things

koth wrote: »

The American public school system doesn't engage in religious instruction as the constitution requires separation of state and religion. This protects Christians, as well as all other religious groupings, from the state imposing religious ideology onto children via the school system.

... and yet the prime article of Atheist faith (that materialistic processes alone account for the origins of the Universe and life) is taught by law in these schools ... it was a pity when they where busy separating state and religion they didn't go all the way and separate state and irreligion as well.:(

koth wrote: »

how exactly is suggesting atheists want to outlaw religion showing mutual respect? Or that they're engaged in a conspiracy to pervert scientific investigation?

They have outlawed Theist 'Origins' hypotheses within science, within Public Schools ... and some want to outlaw Christianity being taught to children at all.

... no Theist I know, wants to outlaw Atheism, or its ideas, in any of these situations.

Delirium · 16-03-2013 11:57PM

J C wrote: »

The evidence for God is all there ... but the Atheists are studiously looking the other way ... and they have introduced the ruse that Atheistic 'origins' beliefs are scientific ... but Theist 'origins' ideas aren't.

So scientists are devoid of professional integrity? Atheism is a singular statement about deites. It states nothing about the origin of life. Attempting to paint science as the reserve of atheism is quite dishonest.

They have done it in Soviet Russia ... and they have also done it in American Public Schools. You guys keep saying that Theist 'origins' hypotheses have no place in 'origins' science ... and then ye say that there isn't any ban on Theist-friendly 'origins' science. One end of your tongue is denying the other!!!

There isn't, but that fact isn't much use to you so you ignore it. It's been repeated frequently that creationists need to start producing evidence to be taken seriously.

If that's going to be the case then they should also leave out the Atheist 'origins' explantions ... which are core beliefs within the Atheistic Humanist Faith.

So you want to ban evolution from the classroom because the story of Genesis isn't taught in a science class? Not a very logical way to go.

You simply cannot logically ask for a ban on all religious instruction ... while placing your own Atheistic religious instruction at the heart of the School curriculum ... under the guise of 'origins' science.
What is the difference between teaching Creation Science, ID or Abiogenesis? ... none ... they are all 'origins' hypotheses ... but Abiogenesis is the one with the least evidential and logical support.

A baseless accusation. Teaching evolution isn't anything to do with atheism, it's just science. Quite strange that a self-professed scientist wouldn't know that.

States can do many kinds of things, if the belief emerges that the Faith being taught is 'child abuse' ... which is the sinister claim of some Atheists in relation to Christianity.

huh? You're saying that thiests would support a move to ban religion?

... they would be intolerant if they banned all adult Theists from these activities ... especially if they simultaneously allowed Atheists to do these things

And water's wet. What's your point?

... and yet the prime article of Atheist faith (that materialistic processes account for the origins of the Universe and life) is taught by law in these schools ... it was a pity when they where busy separating state and religion they didn't go all the way and separate state and irreligion as well.:(

It's a pity that you don't inform yourself about atheism rather than make things up about it.

They have outlawed Theist 'Origins' hypotheses within science, within Public Schools ... and some want to outlaw it being taught to children at all.

They're not outlawed in science. State schools require separation of religion and state in the US. This actually guarantees that raising kids as Christian can't be outlawed.

... no Theist I know, wants to outlaw Atheism, or its ideas, in any of these situations.

IHEU highlights the criminalisation of atheism in many parts of the world.

Delirium · 16-03-2013 11:59PM

koth wrote: »

how exactly is suggesting atheists want to outlaw religion showing mutual respect? Or that they're engaged in a conspiracy to pervert scientific investigation?

what experiments would a scientist carry out to test for the existence of God?

@JC it would be nice to get an answer to this question.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments