The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 17-03-2013 04:34PM

ManMade wrote: »

You have no idea what doublethink is.
Evolution is religion neutral. That doesn't make it part atheist "faith".

I know all about orwellian doublethink!!!
Doublethink like 'Evolution is religion neutral' ... when Materialistic Evolution is directly contrary to Christian Creeds and in full alignment with the 'No God' beliefs of Atheism.
Doublethink like Theism is religion ... but Atheism isn't religion ... when they're both religious beliefs (in the existence/non-existence of God).

ManMade wrote: »

To be fair the whole "because goddunnit" answer would make biology exams so much simplier.
God shouldn't be taught in schools and atheism shouldn't be taught in school, religion has no place in schools or science exams. It should be up to each individual to decide what they believe in, it's not the job of the state to push religion in anyway.(Evolution should be taught)

Koth disagrees with you on Atheism (irreligion) being removed from school ... it's apparently against the separation of church and state, no less!!

Originally Posted by koth
To "remove" irreligion would be to put religion into the classrooms, which is contrary to the separation of church and state.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 05:02PM

J C wrote: »

and you are saying that evidence for it (even though none exists IMO) must be submitted by Christians or they will lose marks. So Christians will be penalised for being Christians

Yes, they will lose marks. But they will lose marks for being unable to answer a scientific question in a science exam. As is right.

J C wrote: »

However, if the question is to outline the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis, when none exist ... and it is directly contrary to the student's faith that God is Maker of all things visible and invisible -then this is asking the student to disavow the Creed of their Faith.
Its like asking an Atheist to outline key pieces of evidence for Creation - which would negate his/her faith in Atheism, if they did so.

I don't know which part of 'scientific knowledge is separate from one's personal beliefs' you don't understand.

If I were required to outline the key pieces of evidence for creationism, I could do so, quite easily and with honesty and with intergrity. I might reference historical documentation and its plausibility as evidence. I might discuss the mathematical long-shots. And so on.

For me to do so would say nothing - precisely nothing - about my 'faith in Atheism' (which is again, typical of you, a nonsensical bunch of words). To do so would not, in any way, negate my 'worldview'. To do so would simply be to follow an instruction or meet a request.

And this is a concept you have trouble with. In your head, the origin of life is so completely enmeshed with your religious faith that you simply don't understand how that can't also be the case for your opposition. I understand why you feel like you do - you have previously said that if Genesis is found to be false, the basis of your faith would be damaged beyond repair. This means that you are unable to even give a single inch on your central thesis, even in the face of utterly overwhelming evidence against you.

But, the reciprocal situation is not the case for me, nor for many others here, I suspect. My study of evolution does not inform my atheism, nor vice versa. If you continue to dispute that, I will take that as you calling me a liar.

I don't read papers about evolution with an atheist's eyes, I read them with a scientist's eyes.

J C · 17-03-2013 05:41PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Yes, they will lose marks. But they will lose marks for being unable to answer a scientific question in a science exam. As is right.

A scientific question with a strong Atheistic bias ... that is repugnant to their Faith Creed.
... so no Christians need apply is your solution?
... or if you want to get maximum science marks you will have to deny your Christian Faith?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know which part of 'scientific knowledge is separate from one's personal beliefs' you don't understand.

... if it was 'scientific knowledge' that Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evoolution was validated, you might have a point ... but neither have been scientifically validated ... but even this uncomfortable fact isn't allowed to be thought in Atheist/Secular Public Schools.
Criticism of Abiogenesis/Materialistic Evolution is also banned as 'religion' within these schools as well.
A more perfect and protected 'breeding ground' for new atheists (from families of all religions and none) couldn't be thought up!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

If I were required to outline the key pieces of evidence for creationism, I could do so, quite easily and with honesty and with intergrity. I might reference historical documentation and its plausibility as evidence. I might discuss the mathematical long-shots. And so on.

For me to do so would say nothing - precisely nothing - about my 'faith in Atheism' (which is again, typical of you, a nonsensical bunch of words). To do so would not, in any way, negate my 'worldview'. To do so would simply be to follow an instruction or meet a request.

... if there are key pieces of evidence for Creation ... then this would negate your Atheism ... or else you would have to reject the evidence with good cause.
The religion-neutral question would be to ask a student to 'outline the reasons for the Creation Hypotheses within science'.
Bullying you into presenting evidence to which you have personal faith objections, in order to pass your exams, would be just as wrong whether the question is on Creation or on Abiogenesis.

doctoremma wrote: »

And this is a concept you have trouble with. In your head, the origin of life is so completely enmeshed with your religious faith that you simply don't understand how that can't also be the case for your opposition. I understand why you feel like you do - you have previously said that if Genesis is found to be false, the basis of your faith would be damaged beyond repair.

But, the reciprocal situation is not the case for me, nor for many others here, I suspect. My study of evolution does not inform my atheism, nor vice versa. If you continue to dispute that, I will take that as you calling me a liar.

I'll dispute that ... because I believe you are mistaken in your conclusion. It is obvious that if Creation was to be disproven, the basis for a belief in the Genesis Account of Creation would indeed be destroyed - you could 'limp along' consoling yourself that Creation means something different, like God having a role in evolution ... but the Genesis Account would be seriously inaccurate, to say the least.
It is also obvious that if Creation was to be proven, the basis for believing that God doesn't exist would be destroyed - again you could 'limp along' consoling yourself that the Creator mightn't be the God of the Bible ... but the substantive basis for Atheism would be destroyed ... all you would be arguing over is the kind of God that did it.

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't read papers about evolution with an atheist's eyes, I read them with a scientist's eyes.

I have no doubt that you read operative science papers with a scientists eyes ... but when it comes to issues of 'origins' you have shown yourself to be biased towards hypotheses that don't involve God ... even though none of these hypotheses have borne any scientific fruit in proving that this is even possible.

Of all of the posters on this thread, ironically, it is myself who can claim to be the least biased ... as I was once an Evolutionist ... and it took over 10 years of criticising the evidence for ID/Creation before I accepted it.
I can see it from both points of view ... because I have held both points of view.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 05:54PM

J C wrote: »

Because I'm alive and a Christian ... why are you here?

Meh! I am here because of mutations and natural selection.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 06:03PM

J C wrote: »

A scientific question with a strong Ateistic bias ... that is repugnant to their Faith Creed.
... so no Christians need apply is your solution?
... or if you want to get maximum science marks you will have to deny your Christian Faith?

Why should science be 'repugnant' to a faith or creed? Not believing something to be true does not prevent one from summarising the details as required. The very emotion in your language betrays the strength of your feelings here. I'm sorry but I simply have no such strength of feeling. Science is science, evidence is evidence. It is neutral with respect to personal emotion, feelings of repugnance or religious (or lack of) faith.

J C wrote: »

... if it was 'scientific knowledge' that Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evoolution was validated, you might have a point ... but neither have been scientifically validated ... but even this uncomfortable fact isn't allowed to be thought in Atheist/Secular Public Schools.
Criticism of Abiogenesis/Materialistic Evolution is also banned as 'religion' within these schools as well.

Emotional invective. Criticism of aspects of evolutionary theory, or the experimental data that supports it, should, and is, encouraged. Certainly, in any lecture I've ever given on it, I'm delighted if someone has that level of engagement that they have read around, determined limits, found flaws.

In fact, not only is criticism encouraged, it's actually the mechanism (falsification) that drives scientific knowledge further. I would be inclined to give extra marks to a student who presented the evidence (as asked for) then pointed out flaws (as brownie points).

'God dunnit' is not a valid criticism of experimental data. If a student answered in an exemplary fashion, then added 'But I don't believe a word of this data because god dunnit', they would not be penalised. I'd question their future in a scientific discipline, but not their ability to present the evidence which they have been taught. If a student answered only 'God dunnit', my response would be 'That wasn't the question' and therefore, zero marks.

J C wrote: »

... if there are key pieces of evidence for Creation ... than this would negate your Atheism ... or else you would have to reject the evidence with good cause.

Of course. But what you shouldn't confuse is the rejection of such evidence because it's rubbish data with a political move on the part of the person dismissing the evidence.

When I say that the concept of irreducible complexity is scientifically invalid, it's because I think it's scientifically invalid. Same for CSI (which is even more nonsense a concept than irreducible complexity). Your mistake is to accuse me of rejecting such hypotheses out of hand, based solely on their perceived threat to my worldview. This attitude is why you offend so many here, why you are accused of deceit and insult.

J C wrote: »

I'll dispute that ... because I believe you are mistaken in your conclusion.... It is also obvious that if Creation was to be proven, the basis for believing that God doesn't exist would be destroyed - again you could 'limp along' consoling yourself that the Creator mightn't be the God of the Bible ... but the substantive basis for Atheism would be destroyed ... all you would be arguing over is the kind of God that did it.

Ok, I can understand the dispute. It's fair to say that my atheism is informed somewhat by the fact that I don't see evidence for god, either scientifically or in philosophical arguments. If there were evidence that strongly supported the existence of god/s, of course that would impact on my atheism.

J C wrote: »

I have no doubt that you read operative science papers with a scientists eyes ... but when it comes to issues of 'origins' you have shown yourself to be biased towards hypotheses that don't involve God ... even though none of these hypotheses have borne any scientific fruit in proving that this is even possible.

No JC, I have shown myself, and quite proudly so, to be biased towards hypotheses that HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM. Anything lacking evidential support will be dismissed out of hand.

J C · 17-03-2013 06:08PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Meh! I am here because of mutations and natural selection.

You're quite entitled to your faith in the power of mutations ... I don't share your faith as mutations are invariably destructive of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information).
I have also found that Evolutionists don't actually believe that mutations are as good as they say ... they never volunteer to undergo mutagenesis, for example ... and I certainly don't blame them for that.

So I think that mutations are invariably destructive of CFSI ... and I avoid mutgenesis, like the plague that it is.
... and Evolutionists think that mutations provided all of the amazing structures that differentiate Mankind from Pondkind ... and they still avoid mutagenesis ... like the plague.
... oh ye of little faith ... in the logic of your own ideas!!!:)

maguffin · 17-03-2013 06:17PM

J C wrote: »

... if there are key pieces of evidence for Creation ...

It is also obvious that if Creation was to be proven,

So, now you don't actually believe in creation either!!! You really should think before speaking and above all else...check that you are being consistent....

Of all of the posters on this thread, ironically, it is myself who can claim to be the least biased ... as I was once an Evolutionist ... and it took over 10 years of criticising the evidence for ID/Creation before I accepted it.
I can see it from both points of view ... because I have held both points of view.

Egotistic tendencies as well as everything else..... you should also add 'persecution complex' as that is also coming through loud and clear.

AND...you still haven't supplied examples of those experiments that supposedly prove what you so emotionally defend.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 06:28PM

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, if religion is going to be removed from the classroom ... then irreligion must also be removed.

Then we would be left with empty classrooms.

J C wrote: »

This can easily be achieved, by removing any reference that denies God from the classroom.

You do realise that religious watchdogs would have to be in operation too in order to make sure the rule is enforced..

J C wrote: »

That's an interesting admission that removing irreligion i.e. Atheism from schools is contrary to the principle of the separation of church and state.

What is more interesting though is your own admission that you would like to see a situation where there is an Board of Inquisition operating in all our schools making sure that God is not denied.

J C wrote: »

... so you are admitting that the 'separation of church and state' is just the copperfastening of Atheism within schools by kicking Churches out of schools.

Churches and schools should be in different buildings.

J C wrote: »

I see, the clue is in the word church ... it means only church ... glad we have cleared that up.

Faith-based education should be properly termed 'indoctrination' and knowledge-based indoctrination should be properly termed 'education'.

Anyway, the Vatican is one of the wealthiest organisations on the planet. Why can't religion fund its own 'scientific research'?

J C · 17-03-2013 06:36PM

maguffin wrote: »

So, now you don't actually believe in creation either!!! You really should think before speaking and above all else...check that you are being consistent....

I was speaking rhetorically.

maguffin wrote: »

Egotistic tendencies as well as everything else..... you should also add 'persecution complex' as that is also coming through loud and clear.

It isn't a 'persecution complex' if there is active persecution ... and forcing Christians to regurgitate Atheist ideas that are repugnant to their Faith, on pain of losing exam marks, or not being employed is persecution.

I hasten to add that I have never been subjected to persecution for my faith ... but I am concerned about where our young people stand, with the kind of stuff that is emerging on this thread.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 06:40PM

JC, any thoughts on the rest of my post?

maguffin · 17-03-2013 06:46PM

J C wrote: »

.. and forcing Christians to regurgitate Atheist ideas that are repugnant to their Faith, on pain of losing exam marks, or not being employed is persecution.

Who are these christians you speak of?? what schools do they go to? How many have you actually spoken to that have stated they were forced in the manner of which you speak??

Do you actually know anything of the science curriculum as published by the educational department??

Also...why do you reference american schools....do you live in the US?? (that might explain a lot of your highly emotionally charged rant on all of this)

J C · 17-03-2013 07:05PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Like I have said, if religion is going to be removed from the classroom ... then irreligion must also be removed.

Masteroid
Then we would be left with empty classrooms.

Why?
Surely children would continue to attend these schools ... and receive a Theist and Atheist - free education?
... or else both Theist and Atheist views would be fairly presented in each class.

Masteroid wrote:

You do realise that religious watchdogs would have to be in operation too in order to make sure the rule is enforced.

I'd be counting on it.

Masteroid wrote:

What is more interesting though is your own admission that you would like to see a situation where there is an Board of Inquisition operating in all our schools making sure that God is not denied.

It would make a pleasant change and would balance any current 'inquisitors' making sure that God isn't allowed.

Masteroid wrote:

Churches and schools should be in different buildings.

That's fine and that is the way it already is.

Masteroid wrote:

Faith-based education should be properly termed 'indoctrination' and knowledge-based indoctrination should be properly termed 'education'.

It all depends on how you define 'Faith' and 'knowledge' ...
... the faith-based idea the 'life created itself' would be 'indoctrination' ...
... and the knowledge that an Intelligence designed life because of its inherent CFSI would be termed 'education' ...
... on the basis of your proposal above.

Masteroid wrote:

Anyway, the Vatican is one of the wealthiest organisations on the planet. Why can't religion fund its own 'scientific research'?

I know nothing about the Vatican ... perhaps other people could comment on this.

J C · 17-03-2013 07:08PM

maguffin wrote: »

Who are these christians you speak of?? what schools do they go to? How many have you actually spoken to that have stated they were forced in the manner of which you speak??

I'm just commenting on what is emerging/proposed on this thread.
They are hypothetical situations ... but they will be reflected in real life, if people with the views expressed on this thread have their way ... and so far, I haven't heard any dissenters.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 07:18PM

J C wrote: »

I was speaking rhetorically.

It isn't a 'persecution complex' if there is active persecution ... and forcing Christians to regurgitate Atheist ideas that are repugnant to their Faith, on pain of losing exam marks, or not being employed is persecution.

I hasten to add that I have never been subjected to persecution for my faith ... but I am concerned about where our young people stand, with the kind of stuff that is emerging on this thread.

Seeing as religion is all made up should there be no wrong answer in a state science exam? Couldn't I become a pastafarian or would Christian's persecute me with my alternative views which they deem made up but I firmly believe.

J C · 17-03-2013 07:32PM

ManMade wrote: »

Seeing as religion is all made up should there be no wrong answer in a state science exam? Couldn't I become a pastafarian or would Christian's persecute me with my alternative views which they deem made up but I firmly believe.

Where do you envision a serious scientific conflict between 'pastafarianism' and atheism might arise (with strong scientific evidence favouring the pastafarian position)?

ManMade · 17-03-2013 07:42PM

J C wrote: »

Where do you envision a serious scientific conflict between 'pastafarianism' and atheism might arise (with strong scientific evidence favouring the pastafarian position)?

Im asking should are all religions equal in your view? Should 'Christianity' beliefs be given priority over pastafarian beliefs or do the government get to decide what constitutes a religion? Should Scientology be put in the science curriculum?

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 07:43PM

J C wrote: »

So I think that mutations are invariably destructive of CFSI ... and I avoid mutgenesis, like the plague that it is.

What you think is inconsequential since, as has been pointed out numerous times, your thinking is suspect. Your looseness with facts and language betrays flawed thinking apparatus.

You don't know what atheism is and you don't understand the scientific method and yet still you conflate the two.

Why do you want to make science the enemy of Christianity?

If atheism is the natural enemy of Christianity then it seems to me that you are attempting to destroy science by trying to make science and atheism appear as the same thing in the minds of those you might have influence over.

Weak and gullible minds who will fight your cause in ignorance.

As you do.

J C wrote: »

... oh ye of little faith ... in the logic of your own ideas!!!:)

Now you're getting it.

The less faith the better. It is by testing the logic of ideas that one obviates the need for faith.

Knowing that something works is much more useful than simply believing it works.

Also, do try to remember that there is a difference in 'blind faith' and confidence.

Someone who is confident on the basis of knowledge might be described as having faith but it is not blind faith, is it?

For example, England were playing Argentina, I think, in a world cup and I was watching the match at home. At the end of the first half, David Beckham received a red card and was sent off.

Because of this, I decided to watch the second half in the pub with friends and during half-time, I went to the pub.

After the match finished there was a dispute over when Beckham was sent off. I said he'd been sent off at the end of the first half while another was so sure that it had happened at the beginning of the second half, he challenged me to a betof fifty quid.

Now, I am famous for not gambling and I have never once bought a lottery ticket but I only had twenty quid in my wallet. I asked a friend to loan me thirty quid for five minutes whereupon I would pay him back forty quid.

My friend realised that I was supremely confident from the fact that I was willing to take the bet and thusly he had confidence in me. He loaned me the money then we checked out the Teletext report.

I won the bet and made forty quid which allowed me to spring for a round for all of us including the guy who lost the bet.

So you see, I had faith that I would win the bet because I knew I had seen Beckham sent off when I was at home, during the first half.

My friend had faith because he knew I would not make a bet unless I was supremely confident.

Both of us were using a hypothesis for which there is supporting evidence, experience.

Oh, and the guy who lost the bet had faith that he would win but his hypothesis had no supporting evidence rendering his faith as 'blind faith'.

Perhaps you should use the word 'confidence' instead of 'faith' as a distinction between 'scientific knowledge based' and 'wishful thinking based'.

Perhaps this would help you to be more unbiassed.

J C · 17-03-2013 07:44PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Why should science be 'repugnant' to a faith or creed?

Objective science ethically performed isn't repugnant to the Christian Faith ... what is repugnant to the Creed is the Atheist-inspired (and logically and evidentially challenged) idea that 'life created itself'
... it is doubly repugnant, when there are well researched and scientifically validated hypotheses, like ID, that is entirely compatible with the Christian Creed that 'God made all things visible and invisible'. Everybody who attended church today will have assented to having this belief.

doctoremma wrote: »

Not believing something to be true does not prevent one from summarising the details as required. The very emotion in your language betrays the strength of your feelings here. I'm sorry but I simply have no such strength of feeling. Science is science, evidence is evidence. It is neutral with respect to personal emotion, feelings of repugnance or religious (or lack of) faith.

So you have no problem with ID being taught and examined in school then?
Unlike the atheistic version of 'origins' ... ID has substantive evidence and mathematical proof for its scientific conclusion that an inordinate Intelligence created life.

doctoremma wrote: »

Emotional invective. Criticism of aspects of evolutionary theory, or the experimental data that supports it, should, and is, encouraged. Certainly, in any lecture I've ever given on it, I'm delighted if someone has that level of engagement that they have read around, determined limits, found flaws.
In fact, not only is criticism encouraged, it's actually the mechanism (falsification) that drives scientific knowledge further. I would be inclined to give extra marks to a student who presented the evidence (as asked for) then pointed out flaws (as brownie points).

All very laudable and objective to be sure ... but what is the reality where there is any serious criticism of Evolution?
It is a fact that no criticism of the core Atheistic belief in 'life creating itself' is allowed in American Public Schools.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 07:59PM

JC, you already answered my post, on the last page. Now I see you have removed that answer. And posted a new one. Which is different.

What laudable behaviour.

And by 'laudable', I mean 'weird'.

J C · 17-03-2013 08:02PM

ManMade wrote: »

Im asking should are all religions equal in your view? Should 'Christianity' beliefs be given priority over pastafarian beliefs or do the government get to decide what constitutes a religion? Should Scientology be put in the science curriculum?

Atheist beliefs shouldn't be given a protected position within either science of school ... unless Theist beliefs are similarly respected.

... and there is only two serious 'origins' scientific hypotheses at present ... ID and Abiogenesis.
... if more arise, they should be evaluated on their merits.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 08:08PM

J C wrote: »

Atheist beliefs shouldn't be given a protected position within either science of school ... unless Theist beliefs are similarly respected.

... and there is only two serious 'origins' scientific hypotheses at present ... ID and Abiogenesis.
... if more arise, they should be evaluated on their merits.

And seeing as creationism has as much evidence as pastafarinism do we leave them in the garbage or make them both viable answers in origin science?

J C · 17-03-2013 08:10PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Perhaps you should use the word 'confidence' instead of 'faith' as a distinction between 'scientific knowledge based' and 'wishful thinking based'.

Perhaps this would help you to be more unbiassed.

You need to take your own advice ... the wishful thinking is all on the Atheist side of the equation.
Abiogenesis is logically and evidentially challenged ... and ID is now well established scientifically.

J C · 17-03-2013 08:21PM

ManMade wrote: »

And seeing as creationism has as much evidence as pastafarinism do we leave them in the garbage or make them both viable answers in origin science?

Creation Science is evaluating the scientific evidence for Biblical events.
Creation Science is a separate branch of science ... and it has its own independent funding and peer review.

[-0-] · 17-03-2013 08:28PM

Completely ignored. Outstanding.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 08:31PM

J C wrote: »

It all depends on how you define 'Faith' and 'knowledge' ...
... the faith-based idea the 'life created itself' would be 'indoctrination' ...
... and the knowledge that an Intelligence designed life because of its inherent CFSI would be termed 'education' ...
... on the basis of your proposal above.

So now you are saying that science is a faith-based enterprise whereas religion is a knowledge-based enterprise.

You are saying that science is built on evidentially unsupported hypotheses whereas religion is built on evidentially supported hypotheses.

If these claims don't have all your would-be acolytes running a mile from you then nothing will I fear.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 08:34PM

J C wrote: »

... why are you here?

Because evil flourishes where good men do nothing.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 08:50PM

J C wrote: »

Creation Science is evaluating the scientific evidence for Biblical events.
Creation Science is a separate branch of science ... and it has its own independent funding and peer review.

It's so separate a branch, it's a different tree. In a different field. With a sign saying 'The Magic Faraway Tree'.

You've already conceded that creation 'science' doesn't follow the scientific method (as evidenced by your plea for a 'change of rules') so I'm surprised to see you persist with the notion that it is science.

What was your research field again?

(-0- is not the only only one who gets ignored).

J C · 17-03-2013 08:55PM

Masteroid wrote: »

So now you are saying that science is a faith-based enterprise whereas religion is a knowledge-based enterprise.

You are saying that science is built on evidentially unsupported hypotheses whereas religion is built on evidentially supported hypotheses.

If these claims don't have all your would-be acolytes running a mile from you then nothing will I fear.

It can be either way ... science can be knowledge and evidentially based ... or it can amount to little more than conjecture ... abiogenesis being an example of this.
Religion can just amount to somebodies speculations ... or it may be grounded in well thought out logical reasoning based on observation ... the belief is the transcendent personal omnipotent God of the Bible would be an example of this.

maguffin · 17-03-2013 08:59PM

(JC's answer to my question about the identity of these christians forced to regurgitate (what he calls) 'Atheist Science)

J C wrote: »

I'm just commenting on what is emerging/proposed on this thread.
They are hypothetical situations ... but they will be reflected in real life, if people with the views expressed on this thread have their way ... and so far, I haven't heard any dissenters.

Hypothetical...not real in other words...so why even comment in such a way?

And you think that a handfull of people here on this thread will suddenly influence the educational systems (somewhere...) just because we are trying to get you to see sense and answer questions honestly on a topic that, in the end, is not really of great importance.
Of more importance is how you live your life and how you treat other people.....

I'm not saying debate is a waste of time...just don't make it your life's mission to be proved right, at any cost.

* that's how I really feel about this...I have no care as to who/what created this or that, whether it arose by accident, or was seeded by asteroids, or was created by ID....... we are here, we are human and we have very short lives!!

J C · 17-03-2013 09:00PM

doctoremma wrote: »

It's so separate a branch, it's a different tree. In a different field. With a sign saying 'The Magic Faraway Tree'.

No ... that is the Tree of Evolution!!

doctoremma wrote: »

You've already conceded that creation 'science' doesn't follow the scientific method (as evidenced by your plea for a 'change of rules') so I'm surprised to see you persist with the notion that it is science.

I'm arguing that 'origins' science doesn't follow the scientific method in so far as it rejects all physical evidence for the action of God a priori .

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments