The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Safehands · 06-12-2013 01:06AM

Quatermain wrote: »

You're confusing mutagenesis with DNA damage, which is not a surprise. The first is a change in the sequence of standard base pairs, the second is a caused by abnormal chemical structure. Five minutes' worth of research brought this up. You also ignore the fact that mutations can be reversed, as DNA bases can change from A to G and back again. Should a mutation result in a loss of information, therefore, a gain must be established from the reversion.

Quarterman, you are playing JC's favourite card here. This will keep him going for hours and it will sound really convincing. I will be impressed with his answer no doubt, I won't understand it but I will be impressed nonetheless. Over to you JC my friend.

MrPudding · 06-12-2013 09:51AM

J C wrote: »

On this basis even Professor Dawkins could be considered to be within the ID community, whilst he obviously wouldn't be regarded (or regard himself) as a Creation Scientist
Quote:-
"Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Prof. Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "

And...?

MrP

Safehands · 06-12-2013 10:45AM

J C wrote: »

On this basis even Professor Dawkins could be considered to be within the ID community, whilst he obviously wouldn't be regarded (or regard himself) as a Creation Scientist
Quote:-
"Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
Prof. Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "

Wow JC! I would advise everyone reading this thread to have a look at that clip. The fact that you can put forward that clip as some sort of proof of Dawkins' support for your thesis, shows how delusional you can be at times.
He is suggesting nothing of the kind. He is speculating that at some time, millions of years ago, it is possible that some far away planet in the universe was inhabited by a life form, developed by an evolutionary process. He speculates that they may have come here and seeded Earth with intelligent life and we may have developed from that.
I would concede that this possibility is light years more probable than God waving his hand and saying "Ok now I'm creating a fully formed man and making a woman from one of his ribs".
The possibility that you could agree with him would be a major step forward for you JC.

bumper234 · 06-12-2013 09:11PM

A couple of interesting articles

Die, selfish gene, die

The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong

http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

Why Evolution Is True

David Dobbs mucks up evolution, part II

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/david-dobbs-mucks-up-evoution-part-ii/

J C · 07-12-2013 01:14AM

Safehands wrote: »

Wow JC! I would advise everyone reading this thread to have a look at that clip. The fact that you can put forward that clip as some sort of proof of Dawkins' support for your thesis, shows how delusional you can be at times.
He is suggesting nothing of the kind. He is speculating that at some time, millions of years ago, it is possible that some far away planet in the universe was inhabited by a life form, developed by an evolutionary process. He speculates that they may have come here and seeded Earth with intelligent life and we may have developed from that.
I would concede that this possibility is light years more probable than God waving his hand and saying "Ok now I'm creating a fully formed man and making a woman from one of his ribs".
The possibility that you could agree with him would be a major step forward for you JC.

The point I'm making is that ID is a much broader idea then the 'Creationism in Disguise' dismissal that often is made about it by some Materialists.

Safehands · 07-12-2013 01:30AM

J C wrote: »

The point I'm making is that ID is a much broader idea then the 'Creationism in Disguise' dismissal that often is made about it by some Materialists.

I don't really understand that point JC.
I think you are a man who enjoys a good argument, just like most of us who post on Boards. You are obviously very intelligent. But you see, there is the contradiction. You believe in things that don't make sense to any rational thinking person. You believe that Moses was spoken to by a burning bush. You genuinely believe that Noah lived until he was 950 years old. These events clearly did not happen. Some part of your mind must tell you that. But you have some form of little person in your head saying 'Yes they did, the bible says it so it is true, because the bible was 'inspired' by the holy spirit'. Your rational self must tell you that these events are, at the very least, taken out of context or are metaphors for some other messages which have been distorted by translations and time.

lmaopml · 07-12-2013 01:48AM

I rather think that JC is not the only 'Creationist' out there...there are very many who are Creationists, but not in a 'scientific' way, just by faith - but not entirely willing to debate the ins and outs that they are not equipped to argue..JC is to my mind fodder for the 'in' crowd.

Personally, I think he's not doing any harm, unless one can point it out?

I rather think he is, as they say- the easy target in a crowd of people..and those who argue are..well engaging themselves, sometimes for years..which speaks volumes..no?

.... and they put themselves into that gear willingly, possibly because they don't have any faith in others at all, or would like to see an easy target as the most sure one to argue with.

I'm sorry but, I think the whole 'Oh my God, here we go again with the 'Creationists' is a little bit owned by those who love to debate them for so very very very long...and there has been quite a few who loved to do so over the years.

Meh.

J C · 07-12-2013 06:11PM

Safehands wrote: »

I don't really understand that point JC.
I think you are a man who enjoys a good argument, just like most of us who post on Boards. You are obviously very intelligent. But you see, there is the contradiction. You believe in things that don't make sense to any rational thinking person. You believe that Moses was spoken to by a burning bush. You genuinely believe that Noah lived until he was 950 years old. These events clearly did not happen. Some part of your mind must tell you that. But you have some form of little person in your head saying 'Yes they did, the bible says it so it is true, because the bible was 'inspired' by the holy spirit'. Your rational self must tell you that these events are, at the very least, taken out of context or are metaphors for some other messages which have been distorted by translations and time.

Thank you for the civility of your post.
You are indeed correct that I enjoy a good argument.
You are also correct that the only evidence for Noah's great age is in the Bible ... but I wouldn't reject it just because of that. There is circumstantial evidence that Human Beings were stronger and possibly even more intelligent on average than Human Beings are today, in the enormous megalithic structures found abandoned all over the World.
It therefore is a distinct possibility that Humans also lived to be much older than we do today.
I don't think the great ages of the Patriarchs are distorted by translation nor are they metaphors ... so, either the Bible is wrong on these issues or it is correct.
I think that it is correct ... taking it to the most negative ... why would Moses lie about the age of Noah and the Patriarchs when it is of little significance to his overall narrative ? If he were to lie about something, surely it would be something that aggrandised himself ... or even God ... rather than possibly opening himself to derision by recording great ages for the Patriarchs who lived before him, If these people didn't actually live for hundreds of years?

J C · 07-12-2013 06:24PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I rather think that JC is not the only 'Creationist' out there...there are very many who are Creationists, but not in a 'scientific' way, just by faith - but not entirely willing to debate the ins and outs that they are not equipped to argue..JC is to my mind fodder for the 'in' crowd.

Personally, I think he's not doing any harm, unless one can point it out?

I rather think he is, as they say- the easy target in a crowd of people..and those who argue are..well engaging themselves, sometimes for years..which speaks volumes..no?

.... and they put themselves into that gear willingly, possibly because they don't have any faith in others at all, or would like to see an easy target as the most sure one to argue with.

I'm sorry but, I think the whole 'Oh my God, here we go again with the 'Creationists' is a little bit owned by those who love to debate them for so very very very long...and there has been quite a few who loved to do so over the years.

Meh.

Thanks lmaopml. What you say is true and insightful.
I think that anybody who says that they believe in God risks drawing some derision and certainly 'raised eyebrows' from people who don't believe in God and who think that science backs their Atheism.
However, when somebody also says that they believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that all life was Directly Created they are directly challenging current materialistic science explanations for these issues ... and like anybody directly challenging somebody else's worldview, it is bound to 'draw fire' from them.
The situation that Creation Science finds itself in the current Atheist-dominated worldview, that informs conventional science, is similar to the situation that Atheists found themselves when challenging the pronouncements of Christianity, when Churches were in the ascendent from the Middle Ages up to the Nineteenth Century.
Ironically, it is history repeating itself in reverse ... and with the 'boot on the other foot'.

J C · 07-12-2013 06:38PM

Safehands wrote: »

Wow JC! I would advise everyone reading this thread to have a look at that clip. The fact that you can put forward that clip as some sort of proof of Dawkins' support for your thesis, shows how delusional you can be at times.

I'm not saying that Prof Dawkins is a Creationist ... he certainly is not.
What I am saying is that Prof Dawkins accepts that life could have originated from the intelligent design of 'aliens' ... and even more crucially, he accepts that proof of this intelligent design could be found in some kind of 'signature' in the details of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. This places Prof Dawkins firmly within the ID fold ... but as an Atheist coming to ID from an Atheitic perspective.
It proves that the ID of life is a much broader idea than the 'Creationism in Disguise' dismissal, that is often made about it by some Materialists ... and a few theists, as well.

Safehands wrote: »

He is suggesting nothing of the kind. He is speculating that at some time, millions of years ago, it is possible that some far away planet in the universe was inhabited by a life form, developed by an evolutionary process. He speculates that they may have come here and seeded Earth with intelligent life and we may have developed from that.
I would concede that this possibility is light years more probable than God waving his hand and saying "Ok now I'm creating a fully formed man and making a woman from one of his ribs".
The possibility that you could agree with him would be a major step forward for you JC.

Prof Dawkins is doing all you say ... but he is going significantly further than you say, when he says "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "
I fully accept that the 'designer' Prof Dawkins is talking about wasn't God, but was some kind of 'Alien' (itself evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, as he says) ... but nonetheless, the fact that Prof Dawkins accepts that it is scientifically possible to find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the biochemistry of life legitimises ID research for everybody, including Atheists and Theists, from their own belief/non-belief perspectives, of course.

PopePalpatine · 08-12-2013 03:24AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Personally, I think he's not doing any harm, unless one can point it out?

If an acquaintance of yours believed the Earth was flat, wouldn't you want to convince them otherwise?

MrPudding · 08-12-2013 11:59AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Personally, I think he's not doing any harm, unless one can point it out?

Creationism is harmful to humanity. It promotes idiocy and ignorance. it tells people that being completely delusional is somehow now ok. It poisons the minds of children and turns them into idiots. Is that enough harm for you?

MrP

Benny_Cake · 08-12-2013 03:00PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If an acquaintance of yours believed the Earth was flat, wouldn't you want to convince them otherwise?

This discussion kicked off in 2005 and has generated some 28000 posts in the time since then. When it started it was largely JC taking a creationist position vs everyone else, and 8 years on,it's largely JC taking a creationist position vs everyone else. Now I'm not saying that it's beyond the bounds of possibility that someone will say something that will cause JC to re-evaluate his position, but it doesn't seem too likely, does it? Everything that can be said on the subject must have been said multiple times already!

I'd share the view of Fr.George Coyne on the matter:

Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

That said, despite the concerns of some posters to this thread, I'm not noticing a plague of creationism spreading across this country. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think that JC posting what he posts here does any harm (I think he quite sincerely holds the position that he does).

J C · 08-12-2013 04:10PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Creationism is harmful to humanity. It promotes idiocy and ignorance. it tells people that being completely delusional is somehow now ok. It poisons the minds of children and turns them into idiots. Is that enough harm for you?

MrP

This is sometimes also said of Christianity itself ... indeed the transmission of the Christian Faith has been equated to the transmission of a 'mind virus' and/or 'child abuse' ... which isn't too far off what you are claiming about Creationism in your post:(

Of course, there is no evidence that either Christianity or it's belief that God Created all life (as expressed in the Creeds of all mainstream Churches) has any of the effects that you claim.:(

The reverse is in fact the case ... and Creation Science stimulates critical thinking about the validity of current Evolution hypotheses and the reality of the 'information age' that the biological sciences are entering ... despite some attempts by Evolutionists to 'rubbish' Intelligent Design and the Complex Functional Specified nature of genetic information ... and the validity of epigenetics.

J C · 08-12-2013 04:51PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

This discussion kicked off in 2005 and has generated some 28000 posts in the time since then. When it started it was largely JC taking a creationist position vs everyone else, and 8 years on,it's largely JC taking a creationist position vs everyone else. Now I'm not saying that it's beyond the bounds of possibility that someone will say something that will cause JC to re-evaluate his position, but it doesn't seem too likely, does it? Everything that can be said on the subject must have been said multiple times already!!

I see no scientific reason to change my mind ... and Creationism is fully in line with the declarations of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, that God is Creator/Maker of Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible ... so I have no theological reason to change my mind either.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd share the view of Fr.George Coyne on the matter:

Quote:
Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

Firstly, Dr. Coyne is equating Creationism and Intelligent Design ... even Prof Dawkins accepts the possibility of a form of Intelligent Design ... and that a signature of such a designer could be scientifically established in the details of biochemistry and/or molecular biology.

Quote Prof. Dawkins:
Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "

Secondly, Creationism (and Creation Science) ... which they call 'Origins Science' is also to be found alive and well within Roman Catholocism ..
Here are some details on the book 'Creationism Rediscovered', by Gerard J Keane.
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/crreview.html
Quote:-
"In addition to the Foreword by distinguished geneticist Professor Maciej Giertych, there is a Preface by Franciscan dogmatic theologian Fr. Peter Fehlner, who affirms the book is "free of errors in faith and morals, and advances sound Origins arguments on the premises of Catholic theology."

There are some reviews of the book on the Amazon Site here:-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895556073/theotokoscath-20

... and this is a young earth creationism site run by Roman Catholics
http://www.daylightorigins.com/our-organization/about.html

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That said, despite the concerns of some posters to this thread, I'm not noticing a plague of creationism spreading across this country. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think that JC posting what he posts here does any harm (I think he quite sincerely holds the position that he does).

Thanks Benny.
... and unfortunately, I haven't noticed any great stirring of Christianity occurring across the country either.

Safehands · 09-12-2013 12:58AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That said, despite the concerns of some posters to this thread, I'm not noticing a plague of creationism spreading across this country. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think that JC posting what he posts here does any harm (I think he quite sincerely holds the position that he does).

I agree, and it is entertaining for some of us, as I'm sure it is for JC. Maybe some post will ignite a spark which will make him see how improbable his beliefs actually are.

J C · 09-12-2013 01:28AM

Safehands wrote: »

I agree, and it is entertaining for some of us, as I'm sure it is for JC. Maybe some post will ignite a spark which will make him see how improbable his beliefs actually are.

The same 'improbability' (certainly as far as all non-Christians are concerned) applies to the fact that a man called Jesus Christ arose from the dead and goes before us to prepare a place for us in Heaven.
The same 'improbability' applies to all of the miracles that Jesus performed while on Earth ... we only have the Word of God and our walk with Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for all of these things ... but we can scientifically evaluate the physical evidence for Direct Creation and Noah's Flood ... as well as having the Word of God on these events.:)

Safehands · 09-12-2013 11:16AM

J C wrote: »

we can scientifically evaluate the physical evidence for Direct Creation and Noah's Flood ... as well as having the Word of God on these events.:)

Sorry JC. If we are going down the road of evaluating physical evidence we enter the realm of real science not creationist science. No real scientist could ever endorse the possibility that Noah lived and procreated for nearly a thousand years. Creationist scientists have no problem with that. I suppose that is the difference. Physical verifiable Reality verses supernatural unverifiable reality.

MrPudding · 09-12-2013 11:45AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That said, despite the concerns of some posters to this thread, I'm not noticing a plague of creationism spreading across this country. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think that JC posting what he posts here does any harm (I think he quite sincerely holds the position that he does).

Perhaps not, but that is despite their trying hard spread it, to get it into our schools. Creationism is damaging, I genuinly beleive, to those that follow it. But I think what you should be more concerned with, as a christian, is the damage it does to the image of christianity. Yes, I am concerned with what it does to people's minds, and I am really concerned for what it would mean for children, should it be taught, as creationist are constantly calling for, as science, but you should be concerned with how it makes christianity look.

Of course, not all christians belevie the utter, utter rubbish that is YEC, but as you very well know, human love to tar other humans with the same brush. You should be worried about JC's posted for exactly the same reason as I love them, everytime someone reads one of his posts, someone not familiar with the background here, I expect they walk away thinking, "wow, those christians are idiots." Just think about that for a minute. JC and his ilk do more damage to christianity than Hitchins, Harris and Dawkins ever could. You have the pope and the arch bishop of Canterbury warning of the danger and evil of secularlism. Seriously guys, forget those high profile atheists, forget secularism, JC and his ilk are your biggest problem. They make you all look like a bunch of mental loons that have lost all connection with reality.

J C wrote: »

... but we can scientifically evaluate the physical evidence...

No. Some people can, but you can't. You really can't. I am 100% positive you can't. Do you know how I can be so certain you can't? If you could you wouldn't be a YEC.

MrP

Safehands · 09-12-2013 12:27PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course, not all christians belevie the utter, utter rubbish that is YEC, but as you very well know, human love to tar other humans with the same brush. You should be worried about JC's posted for exactly the same reason as I love them, everytime someone reads one of his posts, someone not familiar with the background here, I expect they walk away thinking, "wow, those christians are idiots." Just think about that for a minute. JC and his ilk do more damage to christianity than Hitchins, Harris and Dawkins ever could. You have the pope and the arch bishop of Canterbury warning of the danger and evil of secularlism. Seriously guys, forget those high profile atheists, forget secularism, JC and his ilk are your biggest problem. They make you all look like a bunch of mental loons that have lost all connection with reality.
MrP

There is a tendency to tar all them all with the same brush all right. My family think that there is no talking to "born agains" so they would never engage with them. I enjoy it, but my kids think I'm wasting my time because there is absolutely no way that a man like JC would ever think logically, when logic conflicts with the bible.

Good points Mr. P! :rolleyes:

Benny_Cake · 09-12-2013 05:23PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps not, but that is despite their trying hard spread it, to get it into our schools. Creationism is damaging, I genuinly beleive, to those that follow it. But I think what you should be more concerned with, as a christian, is the damage it does to the image of christianity. Yes, I am concerned with what it does to people's minds, and I am really concerned for what it would mean for children, should it be taught, as creationist are constantly calling for, as science, but you should be concerned with how it makes christianity look.

Of course, not all christians belevie the utter, utter rubbish that is YEC, but as you very well know, human love to tar other humans with the same brush. You should be worried about JC's posted for exactly the same reason as I love them, everytime someone reads one of his posts, someone not familiar with the background here, I expect they walk away thinking, "wow, those christians are idiots." Just think about that for a minute. JC and his ilk do more damage to christianity than Hitchins, Harris and Dawkins ever could. You have the pope and the arch bishop of Canterbury warning of the danger and evil of secularlism. Seriously guys, forget those high profile atheists, forget secularism, JC and his ilk are your biggest problem. They make you all look like a bunch of mental loons that have lost all connection with reality.

I understand your point, and tbh I used to think that way myself, but ultimately someone who categorises all Christians as young-earth creationists is making a very lazy generalisation. If it wasn't about creationism, it would be something else. I dislike sweeping generalisations, regardless of the target (and I've seen enough of them from hanging around here, from Christians and non-Christians alike!). Worrying about it isn't a particularly productive use of time.

I'm not seeing any push to include creationism / intelligent design in the curriculum in this country. If that day ever comes, I'll be out there protesting with the rest of you.

Brian Shanahan · 09-12-2013 07:45PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps not, but that is despite their trying hard spread it, to get it into our schools. Creationism is damaging, I genuinly beleive, to those that follow it. But I think what you should be more concerned with, as a christian, is the damage it does to the image of christianity. Yes, I am concerned with what it does to people's minds, and I am really concerned for what it would mean for children, should it be taught, as creationist are constantly calling for, as science, but you should be concerned with how it makes christianity look.

There is one area where the YECcers have cottoned on to reality better than other christians, and that is the effect admitting the creation myth is wrong has on the believability of the rest of the bible. Because if you throw out creation you are perforce going to have to throw out most of the old testament with it. And that means that most of the "prophecies" which supposedly fortell Jesus with it, therefore leaving no actual base upon which to claim his divinity.

The whole bible is like a house of cards with a single card holding all the others up. And IMO that is why the likes of JC, the discovery institute and others are so heat up about trying to "disprove" reality, because they know that the more people know that the bible is unreliable from the foundations up the less they'll believe and the quicker they'll grow out of christianity.

J C · 09-12-2013 08:18PM

Safehands wrote: »

Sorry JC. If we are going down the road of evaluating physical evidence we enter the realm of real science not creationist science. No real scientist could ever endorse the possibility that Noah lived and procreated for nearly a thousand years. Creationist scientists have no problem with that. I suppose that is the difference. Physical verifiable Reality verses supernatural unverifiable reality.

Creation Science is also real science ... and the fact that the surface of the Earth is covered by fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers laid down catastrophically by water and full of dead things all over the Earth does provide physical evidence for Noahs Flood.
Equally, Direct Creation by an omnipotent God is a much more plausible explanation for the origins of life than suggesting that it was formed spontaneously from pondslime and dragged itself up by its own bootstraps using a process of selecting the best damage and mistakes that mutagenesis could muster!!!

Safehands wrote: »

No real scientist could ever endorse the possibility that Noah lived and procreated for nearly a thousand years.

Real scientists believe many, even more unbelievable things ... like the one about nothing blowing up to produce everything ... and Pondscum sparking spontaneously into life ... like a frankeinstein movie!!!:)

Turtwig · 09-12-2013 08:20PM

J C wrote: »

the one about nothing blowing up to produce everything !

So playing it backwards, everything shrunk back down to nothing. How exactly did God do it so?

J C · 09-12-2013 09:02PM

Jernal wrote: »

So playing it backwards, everything shrunk back down to nothing. How exactly did God do it so?

He said it ... and it was.
Told you he was omnipotent.:)

J C · 09-12-2013 09:09PM

wrote:

Brian Shanahan
There is one area where the YECcers have cottoned on to reality better than other christians, and that is the effect admitting the creation myth is wrong has on the believability of the rest of the bible. Because if you throw out creation you are perforce going to have to throw out most of the old testament with it. And that means that most of the "prophecies" which supposedly fortell Jesus with it, therefore leaving no actual base upon which to claim his divinity.

A fair point that I actually agree with ... although I would term it the Creation Event ... rather than myth.

wrote:

Brian Shanahan
The whole bible is like a house of cards with a single card holding all the others up. And IMO that is why the likes of JC, the discovery institute and others are so heat up about trying to "disprove" reality, because they know that the more people know that the bible is unreliable from the foundations up the less they'll believe and the quicker they'll grow out of christianity.

Again a fair and insightful point ... although I wouldn't quite phrase it like you do.
Creation Scientists use reality to prove the existence of God ... because God Created reality ... and it therefore bears His 'signature'.

Turtwig · 09-12-2013 09:11PM

J C wrote: »

He said it ... and it was.
Told you he was omnipotent.:)

So from there being no world, there suddenly was a world.
Out of nothing he created something?

J C · 09-12-2013 09:24PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I understand your point, and tbh I used to think that way myself, but ultimately someone who categorises all Christians as young-earth creationists is making a very lazy generalisation. If it wasn't about creationism, it would be something else. I dislike sweeping generalisations, regardless of the target (and I've seen enough of them from hanging around here, from Christians and non-Christians alike!). Worrying about it isn't a particularly productive use of time.

I'm not seeing any push to include creationism / intelligent design in the curriculum in this country. If that day ever comes, I'll be out there protesting with the rest of you.

There is a strong push to exclude Christianity from society and it doesn't seem to cost most Christians a second thought!!!
Like you insightfully say, if it wasn't Creationism it would be something else ... and that 'something else' is Christianity itself ... which is compared to a 'virus' and its transmission to the next generation as 'child abuse' !!!

Please remember, Benny, that these guys want a separation (or disempowerment) of the Christian churches and state ... not Creationism and state (because no links exist) ... not other religions and state ... and certainly not Atheism and state (which they actually want to increasingly unite).:)

J C · 09-12-2013 09:27PM

Jernal wrote: »

So from there being no world, there suddenly was a world.
Out of nothing he created something?

Yes indeed, ex nihilo ... He Created everything!!:):eek:

It was supernatural ... and it is a logical requirement to explain the origins of the Universe ... because natural processes cannot create anything (including the Universe) out of nothing.

Festus · 10-12-2013 12:28PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not seeing any push to include creationism / intelligent design in the curriculum in this country. If that day ever comes, I'll be out there protesting with the rest of you.

As long as we have Catholic schools and institutions with a Catholic ethos it is highly unlikely that creationism or intelligent design will become part of any science curriculum.

As the country becomes more secular the risk increases as secular society attempts to avoid being "discriminatory".

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments