The Creationist Museum

[Kerry-Exile]

<h1>So what's with all the dinosaurs?</h1>






The
world's first Creationist museum - dedicated to the idea that the
creation of the world, as told in Genesis, is factually correct - will
soon open. Stephen Bates is given a sneak preview and asks: was there
really a tyrannosaurus in the Bible?</font>







Monday November 13, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)




</font>


<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="140"><t><tr><td>http://image.guardian.co.uk/sp.gif</td><td>http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2000/10/18/dino128.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Educati&#111;n/schools/story/0,,592105,00.html)
The Creation Museum's motto: Prepare to Believe.
</font></td></tr></t></table> <div id="GuardianArticle">Just
off the interstate, a couple of junctions down from Cincinnati's
international airport, over the state line in rural Kentucky, the
finishing touches are being put to an impressive-looking building. When
it is finished and open to the public next summer, it may, quite
possibly, be one of the weirdest museums in the world.

The Creation
Museum - motto: "Prepare to Believe!" - will be the first institution
in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles
swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake. It is dedicated to
the proposition that the account of the creation of the world in the
Book of Genesis is completely correct, and its mission is to convince
visitors through a mixture of animatronic models, tableaux and a
strangely Disneyfied version of the Bible story.Its designer, Patrick Marsh, used to work at Universal Studios in Los
Angeles and then in Japan before he saw the light, opened his soul to
Jesus, and was born anew. "The Bible is the only thing that gives you
the full picture," he says. "Other religions don't have that, and, as
for scientists, so much of what they believe is pretty fuzzy about life
and its origins ... oh, this is a great place to work, I will tell you
that."

So
this is the Bible story, as truth. Apart from the dinosaurs, that is.
As you stand in the museum's lobby - the only part of the building
approaching completion - you are surrounded by life-size dinosaur
models, some moving and occasionally grunting as they chew the
cud.Beside the turtle pool, two animatronic, brown-complexioned
children, demurely dressed in Hiawatha-like buckskin, gravely flutter
with movement. Behind them lurk two small Tyrannosaurus Rexes. This
scene is meant to date from before the Fall of Man and, apparently,
dinosaurs.

Theological scholars may have noticed that there are,
in fact, no dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible - and here lies the
Creationists' first problem. Since there are undoubtedly dinosaur bones
and since, according to the Creationists, the world is only 6,000 years
old - a calculation devised by the 17th-century Bishop Ussher, counting
back through the Bible to the Creation, a formula more or less accepted
by the museum - dinosaurs must be shoehorned in somewhere, along with
the Babylonians, Egyptians and the other ancient civilisations. As for
the Grand Canyon - no problem: that was, of course, created in a few
months by Noah's Flood.

But what, I ask wonderingly, about those
fossilised remains of early man-like creatures? Marsh knows all about
that: "There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them
today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could
have

[Ronnie]

The Guardian likes to portray intself as a 'quality paper', but it's really no better than any tabloid. It just has a better vocabulary. Bates wihes to know why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. It's very simple really. The word wasn't coined until 1841. This article is just a re-hash of other Guardian articles. I heard Ken Ham speaking at a series of lectures he held in Liverpool a few years ago. Top lad. Very well read and knows his subject.

[Balla Boy]

Ronnie,


You're not a creationist are you?

Ronnie v Balla Boy on Creationism - I pay for tickets to see thatsmileys/wink.gif

[Clon]

One of the best parts of the Borat film is an Evangelical Christian that looks like he would make a good prop preaching to church members that he wasn't letting anyone tell him that he was descended from no monkeysmileys/biggrin.gif. I thought it was funny anyway.

[Jenta]

<DIV id=GuardianArticle>


"You can surmise," says Marsh. When you get inside, there's nifty computer software telling you how they fitted all the animals in, too.</DIV>





Nifty software eh? I wonder if he means nifty in the sense that it's a computer showing a picture of one really big f**king boat. With a seperate compartment for all the carnivores of course.

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,


You're not a creationist are you?





I certainly am. Everyone knows Darwin only came up with the Theory of Evolution to explain to his mates why he looked like that.

Ronnie,


You're not a creationist are you?





I certainly am. Everyone knows Darwin only came up with the Theory of Evolution to explain to his mates why he looked like that.

What about Wallace - he was a looker!

[Ronnie]

What about Wallace - he was a looker!







Which one? That Jock king with the blue face?

This guy:
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Wallace_Alfred.gif
The lad who came up with the theory of evolution.

[Ronnie]

This guy:
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Wallace_Alfred.gif
The lad who came up with the theory of evolution.







I think the Greeks beat him to it by a few centuries. He's hardly a looker though.

[Snamh]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.

The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.

[Cathal]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.

The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.



What else do you expect from a proponent of 'the dismal science'?

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.

The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.



What else do you expect from a proponent of 'the dismal science'?



Speaking of which what about poor old uncle Milt - kicked the bucket this week.

[Cathal]

My heart truly bleeds for the man, only Maggie left now and the Triumvirate of Evil will be defeated by the Fellowship of...eh...well they won't be defeated. Didn't Brown pay tribute to him? smileys/redface.gif

[Jenta]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.




The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.




Wait 'til the oil runs out, then Malthus will look like a genius.

[Snamh]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.




The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.



What else do you expect from a proponent of 'the dismal science'?



Speaking of which what about poor old uncle Milt - kicked the bucket this week.




Good to see all the informed intellectuals out in force last night.

[Balla Boy]

Ronnie v Balla Boy on Creationism - I pay for tickets to see thatsmileys/wink.gif


Afraid you'll have to take them back to the box office. I've come to realise through grim experience that I'm incapable of grappling with the notion of creationsim. To me the arguments against seem so overwhelming and the arguments for seem so utterly vapid that I'm rendered incapable of any rational consideration at all. I find it's the natural habitat of pseudo scientists and those whose belief in the literal nature of scripture (another endless source of wonder for me) renders all other knowledge irrelevant.


Ultimately, you either believe that the world was created in 6 days by an omnipotent deity who found himself a bit shagged out and so invented sunday to have a rest, or you don't.


I don't (in case anyone was wondering).

[Sarsfield]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.

The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.



What else do you expect from a proponent of 'the dismal science'?


Oi, less of your dismal! I'll have you know that just as Uncle Milt the Moentarist shuffles off this mortal coil, Pigou is making a comeback...

[bruffian]

What a disgusting idea. That Dubliner, Ussher, has a lot to answer for. 4004 me arse.




The guy I can't stand is Malthus. I think his half formed theories formed the basis for a lot of cruelty.



What else do you expect from a proponent of 'the dismal science'?



oi,as an aspiring economist,id thank you not to ,insuly my future profession.quite possibly the only social science that can theoretically solve the worlds problems.while sociologists moan about the worlds problems,economists try to fix them

[bruffian]

My heart truly bleeds for the man, only Maggie left now and the Triumvirate of Evil will be defeated by the Fellowship of...eh...well they won't be defeated. Didn't Brown pay tribute to him? smileys/redface.gif



of course he did,he was the only great economist leftalive.of the current batch hes the only one who students will be learning about in a couple of centuries.he was just an economist,he never told anyone to go to war.

[Ronnie]

I have no problem believing in the Almighty, the once and for all, never to be repeated sacrifice of His Son at Calvary, His ressurection, salvation by faith alone for the elect and His imminent return in glory. Evolution on the other hand, requires far more faith in the improbable than I could ever muster, especially since evolutionists can't agree on what they believe themselves and are easily fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown Man and that mythical animal, the brontosaurus. If I'm going to exercise faith, it will have to be in God and not something someone thinks might have happened and that by complete chance.

[sewa]

I have no problem believing in the Almighty, the once and for all, never to be repeated sacrifice of His Son at Calvary, His ressurection, salvation by faith alone for the elect and His imminent return in glory. Evolution on the other hand, requires far more faith in the improbable than I could ever muster, especially since evolutionists can't agree on what they believe themselves and are easily fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown Man and that mythical animal, the brontosaurus. If I'm going to exercise faith, it will have to be in God and not something someone thinks might have happened and that by complete chance.


Evolution is less probable than the stuff I've highlighted above? Evolutionary theoryis something that came about due to logic, reasoning and observation. Religion on the other hand requires you to suspend your faculties based on blind faith.On top of that with religion you have to hope you've got lucky and been born into the right one.

[Upfront_1979]

Ronnie v Balla Boy on Creationism - I pay for tickets to see thatsmileys/wink.gif


Afraid you'll have to take them back to the box office. I've come to realise through grim experience that I'm incapable of grappling with the notion of creationsim. To me the arguments against seem so overwhelming and the arguments for seem so utterly vapid that I'm rendered incapable of any rational consideration at all. I find it's the natural habitat of pseudo scientists and those whose belief in the literal nature of scripture (another endless source of wonder for me) renders all other knowledge irrelevant.


Ultimately, you either believe that the world was created in 6 days by an omnipotent deity who found himself a bit shagged out and so invented sunday to have a rest, or you don't.


I don't (in case anyone was wondering).





my sentiments exactly Balla Boy. Its probably one of the hardest arguments to have as debate is based on logic which has been dismissed out of hand before you start!

[Jenta]

that mythical animal, the brontosaurus


They renamed that Dinosaur the Apatosaurus years ago.

[Upfront_1979]

http://www.creationism.org/griggs/index.htm (http://www.creati&#111;nism.org/griggs/index.htm)


have a read and draw your own conclusions on these "theories".....

[dino]

Ronnie v Balla Boy on Creationism - I pay for tickets to see thatsmileys/wink.gif


Afraid you'll have to take them back to the box office. I've come to realise through grim experience that I'm incapable of grappling with the notion of creationsim. To me the arguments against seem so overwhelming and the arguments for seem so utterly vapid that I'm rendered incapable of any rational consideration at all. I find it's the natural habitat of pseudo scientists and those whose belief in the literal nature of scripture (another endless source of wonder for me) renders all other knowledge irrelevant.


Ultimately, you either believe that the world was created in 6 days by an omnipotent deity who found himself a bit shagged out and so invented sunday to have a rest, or you don't.


I don't (in case anyone was wondering).





my sentiments exactly Balla Boy. Its probably one of the hardest arguments to have as debate is based on logic which has been dismissed out of hand before you start!

The scientific community (or others who hold science as the ultimate authority) may like you to believe that they are all dispassionate, purely logical, lacking in ego and immune from opinion and the worst qualities (e.g self-interested and greedy) that affect all us mere non-scientists.

However the reality is that many scientists are indeed passionate, opinionated, ilogical, egotistical and self-interested. To say that main stream science (in this case evolutionary theory) is coming from a purely logical and deductive standpoint is simply wrong.

Take the great proponent of Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, whose current book attributes all the ills in the world to religion..hardly the realm of logic and reason...more the realm of dogmatic philiosophical opinion and bias. (http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/06186 80004)

Be cautious in claiming that the science presented to us is coming from the bastion and pinacle of human logic and reason. It does not. If it did there would be no debate in the scientific community, only logical people accepting the current understanding and building on top of each's work as a co-operative unit.
*<!-
var SymReal&#079;nLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

Sym&#079;nLoad()
{
if(SymReal&#079;nLoad != null)
SymReal&#079;nLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymReal&#079;nLoad = window.&#111;nload;
window.&#111;nload = Sym&#079;nLoad;

//->

[Ronnie]

that mythical animal, the brontosaurus


They renamed that Dinosaur the Apatosaurus years ago.








The Apatosaurus was discovered first. Two years later the Brontosaurus was discovered which was really the skeleton of an apatosaurus minus the head. A head was discovered some distance away which the palaentologist (whose name escapes me) assumed belonged to the skeleton but belonged to a camatosaurus.

[Upfront_1979]

I do not disagree with anything you say dino and absolutely believe in the fact science is constantly evolving but I utterly reject the idea that the world is only 6000 years old and that every single science disipline from astrology, geology, biology, chemistry, etcis incorrect.

[Jenta]

that mythical animal, the brontosaurus


They renamed that Dinosaur the Apatosaurus years ago.








The Apatosaurus was discovered first. Two years later the Brontosaurus was discovered which was really the skeleton of an apatosaurus minus the head. A head was discovered some distance away which the palaentologist (whose name escapes me) assumed belonged to the skeleton but belonged to a camatosaurus.





I remember reading that years ago, it was missing the feet as well iirc, leading the chap who discovered it to believe it was amphibious. How the f**k something that size could be amphibious is beyond me.

[Jenta]

I do not disagree with anything you say dino and absolutely believe in the fact science is constantly evolving but I utterly reject the idea that the world is only 6000 years old and that every single science disipline from astrology, geology, biology, chemistry, etcis incorrect.


That'd be 6010 years old since 9am on October 23rd this year Upfront, according to that Ussher lad. Must have been some size of a birthday cake.

[Upfront_1979]

I do not disagree with anything you say dino and absolutely believe in the fact science is constantly evolving but I utterly reject the idea that the world is only 6000 years old and that every single science disipline from astrology, geology, biology, chemistry, etcis incorrect.


That'd be 6010 years old since 9am on October 23rd this year Upfront, according to that Ussher lad. Must have been some size of a birthday cake.





did anybody get her (mother earth) a card?

[Jenta]

I do not disagree with anything you say dino and absolutely believe in the fact science is constantly evolving but I utterly reject the idea that the world is only 6000 years old and that every single science disipline from astrology, geology, biology, chemistry, etcis incorrect.


That'd be 6010 years old since 9am on October 23rd this year Upfront, according to that Ussher lad. Must have been some size of a birthday cake.





did anybody get her (mother earth) a card?





Of course I did! I couldn't let such an occasionpass without honouring it. Unforunately it was just a generic card since Hallmark make no "Happy 6010th Birthday" cards, I think they stop at 6000.

[Balla Boy]

Science is, of course, grounded in all of the failings that human beings bring to it.


There may be flaws in evolutionary theory, as there are in any field where our knowledge is constantly growing. But at least we can see where the flaws are and seek out the knowledge to correct them.


Creationists feel that the fact there is debate in the scientific community about different forms of evolution shows that it can't be true. What it actually shows is that the world is not made up of convenently packaged and digestible truths, and that sometimes we have to accept that the development of our knowledge is a work in progress.


But that no reason to suppose that the judaeo-christian creation myth is any more valid than many others that sit alongside it, or to retreat to the "certainties" offered by Genesis.


Creationism is the biggest manifestation of the god of the gaps. Before we know why crops failed, we blamed God. Before we knew what caused plague, or storms, or volcanic eruptions we blamed God/Gods.


Pretty soon, we'll have knocked creator off his CV as well.

Balla the 6 day thing is a red herring and only ever enters the debate because of Bible literalists and other sudry nutjobs.

The way I see it there is nothing incompatible between a belief in evolution and a belief that God created the world.

This is where the likes of Dawkins irritates me. He sets it up as a choice between great science and backward bible literalism - that is bull as far as Iamconcerned.

[Upfront_1979]

the something from nothing debate is the only one that holds water for me. its not answered by science (yet)and is about the only thing that might make me believe in some creator but as balla said Gods fill gaps so I'm pretty sure in a few hundred years or so it will be explained.

[dino]

The God of the Gaps approach is a dangerous and slippery slope for Christians to adopt, as the gap keeps getting smaller. It's certainly not the approach that Creationists adopt....trying to fit God in to the supposed unknowns.

I remain skeptical of simply accepting the perceived wisdom of the scientific community when there is so much legitimate debate between respected scientists. However I'm not knowledgable enough and don't have the time to fully investigate all the conflicting claims and come to a logical and fully reasoned and investigated outcome. So it does come down, at the end of the day, to trust (for the vast majority of the planet that don't have PhDs in the relevant field).

So accepting the word of the scientific community is an act of trust...or even faith. To criticise the religious community for placing their trust in a deity isn't a balanced criticism when the alternative is to put their trust in the sceintific community on areas that are clearly debatable. And yes, there is legitimate debate in the area of evolution/creation.
<!-
var SymReal&#079;nLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

Sym&#079;nLoad()
{
if(SymReal&#079;nLoad != null)
SymReal&#079;nLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymReal&#079;nLoad = window.&#111;nload;
window.&#111;nload = Sym&#079;nLoad;

//->

[daveirl]

Balla the 6 day thing is a red herring and only ever enters the debate because of Bible literalists and other sudry nutjobs.

The way I see it there is nothing incompatible between a belief in evolution and a belief that God created the world.

This is where the likes of Dawkins irritates me. He sets it up as a choice between great science and backward bible literalism - that is bull as far as Iamconcerned.

Why I'm in Dawkin's camp, how come you're allowed to pick and choose what parts of Christianity you want to believe in?

Balla the 6 day thing is a red herring and only ever enters the debate because of Bible literalists and other sudry nutjobs.

The way I see it there is nothing incompatible between a belief in evolution and a belief that God created the world.

This is where the likes of Dawkins irritates me. He sets it up as a choice between great science and backward bible literalism - that is bull as far as Iamconcerned.

Why I'm in Dawkin's camp, how come you're allowed to pick and choose what parts of Christianity you want to believe in?


Who said anything about Chriatainity?

[beatlefan]

my head hurts. what ever happened to blabba section being concerned with jokes, traffic jams, planning controversaries and funny photo threads?

[sewa]

Were doing rascialism and property prices next week.

[Balla Boy]

Balla the 6 day thing is a red herring and only ever enters the debate because of Bible literalists and other sudry nutjobs.

The way I see it there is nothing incompatible between a belief in evolution and a belief that God created the world.

This is where the likes of Dawkins irritates me. He sets it up as a choice between great science and backward bible literalism - that is bull as far as Iamconcerned.

Why I'm in Dawkin's camp, how come you're allowed to pick and choose what parts of Christianity you want to believe in?


Who said anything about Chriatainity?



Well, the creation myth we refer to in talking about Creationsim is a judaeo christian one, so it's sort of implied (unless someone wants to resurrect the ancient Egyptian model).


Dino - Accepting "scientific opinion" may be an act of faith, but it's not the same as yours. It brings with it an understanding that our perception will shift, and that what we know now is only an element of what we will know in the future.


What I find so offensive about creationism, and all literal biblical interpretation, is the notion that all has been revealed to us and we can stop acting the questions and get on with lighting candles.


I am happy to accept we know relatively little, as I can't accept what creationists tell me is all there is to know.


All of the competitive theories you talk about are based on observable phenomena. Creationism is based on groundless assertion based on the belief in an all powerful deity.


And even if we assume that a creator is required for the universe (the central tenet of creationism), why does it have to be God? Why can't it be some entity that died in the act or shortly afterwards, having not been able to invent a rest day fast enough to avoid pegging out?

[ozoyo]

I have no problem believing in the Almighty, the once and for all, never to be repeated sacrifice of His Son at Calvary, His ressurection, salvation by faith alone for the elect and His imminent return in glory. Evolution on the other hand, requires far more faith in the improbable than I could ever muster, especially since evolutionists can't agree on what they believe themselves and are easily fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown Man and that mythical animal, the brontosaurus. If I'm going to exercise faith, it will have to be in God and not something someone thinks might have happened and that by complete chance.

Well that's the difference between a dogma and a theory. Religions are based on dogmas that can't be questionned, Science is based on theories that need to be contradicted.

Religions should stick to the spiritual and leave the understanding of the physical world to science.

I think any religious person trying to fight science on its own turf (ie. with pseudo-scientifical explanations) can only discredit itself as well as the dogmas on which its faith relies.

[Ronnie]

I have no problem believing in the Almighty, the once and for all, never to be repeated sacrifice of His Son at Calvary, His ressurection, salvation by faith alone for the elect and His imminent return in glory. Evolution on the other hand, requires far more faith in the improbable than I could ever muster, especially since evolutionists can't agree on what they believe themselves and are easily fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown Man and that mythical animal, the brontosaurus. If I'm going to exercise faith, it will have to be in God and not something someone thinks might have happened and that by complete chance.

Well that's the difference between a dogma and a theory. Religions are based on dogmas that can't be questionned, Science is based on theories that need to be contradicted.

Religions should stick to the spiritual and leave the understanding of the physical world to science.

I think any religious person trying to fight science on its own turf (ie. with pseudo-scientifical explanations) can only discredit itself as well as the dogmas on which its faith relies.








Coming up with different suppositions on how the earth was formed every few years is hardly scientific. Before Darwinism science was based on factual evidence. The evolutionist takes supposition and assumption and presents them as fact. They have to since the fossil record doesn't support their myth.

[dino]

Well, the creation myth we refer to in talking about Creationsim is a judaeo christian one, so it's sort of implied (unless someone wants to resurrect the ancient Egyptian model).


Dino - Accepting "scientific opinion" may be an act of faith, but it's not the same as yours. It brings with it an understanding that our perception will shift, and that what we know now is only an element of what we will know in the future.


What I find so offensive about creationism, and all literal biblical interpretation, is the notion that all has been revealed to us and we can stop acting the questions and get on with lighting candles.


I am happy to accept we know relatively little, as I can't accept what creationists tell me is all there is to know.


All of the competitive theories you talk about are based on observable phenomena. Creationism is based on groundless assertion based on the belief in an all powerful deity.


And even if we assume that a creator is required for the universe (the central tenet of creationism), why does it have to be God? Why can't it be some entity that died in the act or shortly afterwards, having not been able to invent a rest day fast enough to avoid pegging out?





I've stopped arguing the details of the creationist/evolutionist position a long while back. The complexity of the arguments are, I readily admit, beyond me.


However I think there is a general diservice done on two fronts within these debates that I take issue with.


1.) That those that hold a creationist viewpoint are somewhat anti-intellectual and base their views purely on the account of creation in the Bible.


2.) That those that hold an evolutionary/big bang viewpoint are somewhat anti-philosophical and base their views purely on exact, precise and incontrovertible scientific measure.


Point 1.) ignores the very many scientists and intelluctuals who believe in a personal creator and who, using scientific discipline, see evidence for a creator in the universe around them. There are many that articulate their views using "real" science and would definetly not take the position of just believe the Bible and don't bother looking at the world around us.


Point 2.) ignores the real human passions, bias, agendaand limitations behind the ever refining/changing theories of evolution developed by scientists. The history of science is a fascinating one, filled with passionate and controversial people that were driven by a belief that often ran contrary to the scientific standard of the time.


So I hold my opinion on creation/evolution(which I don't think I've actually shared....) humbly....accepting that their are passionate and intellectual people on both sides of the debate.

Balla the 6 day thing is a red herring and only ever enters the debate because of Bible literalists and other sudry nutjobs.

The way I see it there is nothing incompatible between a belief in evolution and a belief that God created the world.

This is where the likes of Dawkins irritates me. He sets it up as a choice between great science and backward bible literalism - that is bull as far as Iamconcerned.

Why I'm in Dawkin's camp, how come you're allowed to pick and choose what parts of Christianity you want to believe in?


Who said anything about Chriatainity?



Well, the creation myth we refer to in talking about Creationsim is a judaeo christian one, so it's sort of implied (unless someone wants to resurrect the ancient Egyptian model).

Not at all.

I haven't mentioned Judaeo/Christian anything. All I have said is that there is no incompatability between believing in God and in Evolution. If there is, point it out to me. There is definately an incompatability between the 6 day crap and evolution - but so what. The bible thumpers have it arseways - tell me something I don't already know.

The way I se it is that evolution is a mechanism - nothing more.

A belief in the scientific theory of evolution doesn't presuppose any belief in who created the universe or whether it was created at all. Evolution simpy describes it as it is.

If you say there is no God because of the fact of evolution then you pushing a scientific theory far beyond the bounds of reason, are not a scientist. you are at that stage an evolutionist - in your own little evolution religion. This is where Dawkins lurks.

[ozoyo]

I have no problem believing in the Almighty, the once and for all, never to be repeated sacrifice of His Son at Calvary, His ressurection, salvation by faith alone for the elect and His imminent return in glory. Evolution on the other hand, requires far more faith in the improbable than I could ever muster, especially since evolutionists can't agree on what they believe themselves and are easily fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown Man and that mythical animal, the brontosaurus. If I'm going to exercise faith, it will have to be in God and not something someone thinks might have happened and that by complete chance.

Well that's the difference between a dogma and a theory. Religions are based on dogmas that can't be questionned, Science is based on theories that need to be contradicted.

Religions should stick to the spiritual and leave the understanding of the physical world to science.

I think any religious person trying to fight science on its own turf (ie. with pseudo-scientifical explanations) can only discredit itself as well as the dogmas on which its faith relies.








Coming up with different suppositions on how the earth was formed every few years is hardly scientific. Before Darwinism science was based on factual evidence. The evolutionist takes supposition and assumption and presents them as fact. They have to since the fossil record doesn't support their myth.

I am not aware of any major change in the theories about how the earth was formed, maybe a few details but nothing major.

To answer your other point, I don't know any serious scientist who's ever presented a theory as fact.
As far as I know scientists produce theories from observed facts. Then, they try to verify those theories through observation. From what I understand, the essence of science, from the greeks to today's astronomers, has always been extrapolation.

Any serious scientist knows he's progressing through a dark room, from previous experience he knows he will find a door somewhere but he also knows he will hit a few walls first.

[Balla Boy]

I'm not saying that I reject the notion of a God because of the existance of evolution.


What I am saying is there is only so much you can throw away from God's traditional make up before you lose the point of him altogether.


To say evolution is God's mechanism is essentially to argue that while the creation myth is false, we will build God into our new understanding as some sort of architect.


The issue there isn't that there's a logical contradiction - the issue is that it is a cosy and groundless compromise.


Without a belief in scripture as laid out in the Old and New Testament, or the acceptance of the creation myth of another belief system, there is no reason to suppose any role for God in creation or evolution.There may not be an inconsistancy in arguing that he has a role, but only in the same way that there's no reason he shouldn't look like the Fonz and play the ukelele.


He is assigned a role simply because he already has one.


Surely the notion of creation sits far more easily with the notion of a deity than the series of mishaps, dead ends and f**k ups that makes up evolutionary progress.

[Ronnie]

I am not aware of any major change in the theories about how the earth was formed, maybe a few details but nothing major.

To answer your other point, I don't know any serious scientist who's ever presented a theory as fact.
As far as I know scientists produce theories from observed facts. Then, they try to verify those theories through observation. From what I understand, the essence of science, from the greeks to today's astronomers, has always been extrapolation.

Any serious scientist knows he's progressing through a dark room, from previous experience he knows he will find a door somewhere but he also knows he will hit a few walls first.




Darwin, as far as I know only ever presented the theory of evolution as a theory, but Dawkins, Gould and Patterson present it as if it is a proven fact, which it isn't.Darwin argued that the theory of evolution showed changes taking place in small steps over a long period of time, but since no evidence to support this has ever been found in the fossil record. To get around this, other evolutionists have come up with the idea of saltations where changes have come about very quickly, often within a single generation. They have nothing in the way of hard evidence to support either theoryso in my view it isn't science at all but supposition dressed in scientific terms and as such is worthless.

I'm not saying that I reject the notion of a God because of the existance of evolution.


What I am saying is there is only so much you can throw away from God's traditional make up before you lose the point of him altogether.


To say evolution is God's mechanism is essentially to argue that while the creation myth is false, we will build God into our new understanding as some sort of architect.


The issue there isn't that there's a logical contradiction - the issue is that it is a cosy and groundless compromise.


Without a belief in scripture as laid out in the Old and New Testament, or the acceptance of the creation myth of another belief system, there is no reason to suppose any role for God in creation or evolution.There may not be an inconsistancy in arguing that he has a role, but only in the same way that there's no reason he shouldn't look like the Fonz and play the ukelele.


He is assigned a role simply because he already has one.


Surely the notion of creation sits far more easily with the notion of a deity than the series of mishaps, dead ends and f**k ups that makes up evolutionary progress.

I see you point but there are valid and reasonable arguments (whether
you agree with them or not well leave for later) to include God in any
explanation of existance. An if I do it is because I believe it is the
best explanation not out of comfort or habbit as you suppose.

This is what bugs me about Dawkins (and with your argument above as well I suppose), rather that arguing the facts presented Dawkins presumes to explain to me whay I believe what I believe. And that because of why I came to believe it - as upposed to beliefs themselves - I must be mistaken.

I think we agree thet a belief in evoultion is not incompatible with and belief in God and also the fact of evolution cant be used in a proof/disproof of Gods existance.

What we are left with then is the old debate as to whether there is a God or not. And there are clever men then either you me or Dawkins who couldn't come to a conclusion on that! But I have certainly heard no argument yet that convinces me my belief in God is mistaken.

[Ronnie]

Surely the notion of creation sits far more easily with the notion of a deity than the series of mishaps, dead ends and f**k ups that makes up evolutionary progress.


I'm sure it does sit easily with some deities, and I'm sure it fits easily with those who like to take all the nice bits of the Bible and apply it to themselves, but reject those bits which many people today are uncomfortable withsuch aseternal punishment, monogamy, etc. But we find ourselves involved in a debate concerning two faith systems: God versus Evolution.

[McCloud]

my god this is heavy reading............

[Riptide]

Intellectual on both sides? Brilliant minds perhaps but faith is not a componet of intellect..


I attended the funeral of a woman I knew well recently outside NY. She dies a mother of six. The funeral was the most offensive tribute I ever attended. I could only think of the 6 kids, but the priest felt we all should be so honored that the woman was where she always wanted to be "at one with the body of Christ", presumably happy to be no longer caring for her distraught children. Her family were all quite devout, and took great strength and comfortin their Catholic faith,their belief that Godwould have saved her if he wanted... that her death was all God's will. I was nonplussed by what I heard. But in their darkest moments they found relief I never could.


So, while I believe that religion as "taught" in Ireland is little more than the self-serving (for the clergy)brainwashing of children, I can still acknowldegethat the "revelation" fromreligious scriptures, rituals and traditions, offersextraordinary comfort to many.Ican acknowledge thatrevelation, but I cannot accept that it isthe equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence open to peer review and scrutiny. Butit should be enoughfor those who
believe"to the mystery and majesty of their God (unknown to me) to embark on a journey ofpersonal spiritual discovery.Science encapsulates the rigorous discipline of discovery. Creationism is pseudo-nothing and nothing more than part of an ill-conceived marketing campaign conceived toaddresssome concerns the religious right in the US.

[ozoyo]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.






By the same token it is just a dangerous when a scientific theory like evolution gets conflated with a philosophy, namely aethism in this case.

Intellectual on both sides? Brilliant minds perhaps but faith is not a componet of intellect..

whyever not?

[Ronnie]

Creationism is pseudo-nothing and nothing more than part of an ill-conceived marketing campaign conceived toaddresssome concerns the religious right in the US.


It remains a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is hardly concerned with the religious right in the U.S. since the R.C. church, and the non-conformist denominations in the U.K. who hold creation as true pre-date the likes of Billy Graham and Oral Roberts by quite a bit.

[Ronnie]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.








I don't think anyone is denying scientific facts. Personally I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact.

[ozoyo]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.






By the same token it is just a dangerous when a scientific theory like evolution gets conflated with a philosophy, namely aethism in this case.




Very true...

It is as stupid to say that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so as to use evolution to describe the Bible as a farce.

As I said before, Religion and Science are on two completely different levels and there is absolutely no contradiction between believing in God and admitting the scientifical fact that is evolution.

[ozoyo]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.








I don't think anyone is denying scientific facts. Personally I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact.

Well, I see your point so we agree that evolution is a scientifical fact that can be described through different unproven theories smileys/wink.gif.

Creationism is pseudo-nothing and nothing more than part of an ill-conceived marketing campaign conceived toaddresssome concerns the religious right in the US.


It remains a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is hardly concerned with the religious right in the U.S. since the R.C. church, and the non-conformist denominations in the U.K. who hold creation as true pre-date the likes of Billy Graham and Oral Roberts by quite a bit.

Not quite Ronnine. The 6 day ceationism expoused by evngelical protestism is well removed from catholic dogma which has no problem with evolution.

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new
findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an
hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater
influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different
scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent
studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant
argument in favor of the theory."

Who wrote the above? any guesses?

[Clon]

My view is that much of the Creationist theory is based on wishful thinking, whereas Evolutionary theory has more facts behind it.I like an approachbased on science where everything is not set in stone, and we can still learn more. Still, I believe it is possible to merge the twoapproaches slightly. Even if you believe in the Big Bang then it is still possible to claim tht God preordained it, and that he preordained the scientific discovery since, that he/she knew that evolution would be the outcome (I know that many scientists claim that the bigbang was an accident, but that could also be a belief, it's hard to prove that one). I'm not very religious but I think this is posssible.


As Albert Einstein would say :"Science without religion is lame, religionwithout science is blind"


I'd like us to discuss Big Bang theory, and Blackholes next.smileys/smile.gif

[Ronnie]

Well, I see your point so we agree that evolution is a scientifical fact that can be described through different unproven theories smileys/wink.gif.





Which makes it no fact at all.

[Snamh]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.








I don't think anyone is denying scientific facts. Personally I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact.





You are confused about scientific method, which reflects your position as a creationist, which fundamentally rejects scientific method. Theories are not to be denied or accpeted, they are to be tested, and evidence accumulates either for or against a particular hypothesis. New evidence may arise which overturns previous positions. That is the nature of science; as Balla Boy rightly noted, the fundamental concept of scientific method is that of doubt, because no theory is a "fact", its a theory which is there to be rejected or improved upon by subsequent researchers.


What you may instead be saying is that you are rejecting the position of those whom you regard as promulgating the view that evolution is a scientific fact, whereas no credible scientist would ever conceive of adopting such a position; they would recognise the evolution as a theory describing a particular aspect of the world. Successful scientific theories are falsifiable and predictively successful; despite the ardent efforts of people who subscribe to creationism, no one has successfully falsified the theory of evolution. For example, Stephen Jay Gould suggested that one possible way to falsify evolution would be to locate a fossil that was found to be very old located stratigraphically above a fossil which was very young. This has never occurred. If it does, or some other falsification is produced, then scientists will be obliged to revise and perhaps abandon pre-existing theories of evolution. So when you say "I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact" it seems you are setting up a straw man to "deny". No one accepts a theory as scientific fact; they accept itas a theory, which is tobe testedusing scientific facts. It is an important distinction.


I don't see why you would accept the benefits of scientific method in other parts of your life but choose to denyit in cases where it would otherwise contradict theBible.I presume if you were tobecome ill you would be pleased to endorse andbenefit from the science of medicine or would you insteadpray for a cure? If you would go to a doctor, you are placing implicit reliance on scientific method, since the accumulated knowledge at the disposal of the doctor is something that has developed over the centuries through the testing and rejection of theories regarding the human body in particular and many other parts of science. So why accept scientific method to cure you of a illness, but not to understand the world more generally? Seems completely inconsistent.

[Snamh]

I'd like us to discuss Big Bang theory, and Blackholes next.smileys/smile.gif





What always confuses me is - what existed before the Big Bang, and why and how did it start? I can imaginethe explosion of a super dense ball of matter, but everything before that seems rather difficult. Sure didn't Stephen Daedalus have the same query in POTAAAYM? Saying God started it doesn't resolve anything because you have a prime mover problem then. Does Simon Singh's book address this topic?

[Ronnie]

My view is that much of the Creationist theory is based on wishful thinking, whereas Evolutionary theory has more facts behind it.I like an approachbased on science where everything is not set in stone, and we can still learn more. Still, I believe it is possible to merge the twoapproaches slightly. Even if you believe in the Big Bang then it is still possible to claim tht God preordained it, and that he preordained the scientific discovery since, that he/she knew that evolution would be the outcome (I know that many scientists claim that the bigbang was an accident, but that could also be a belief, it's hard to prove that one). I'm not very religious but I think this is posssible.


As Albert Einstein would say :"Science without religion is lame, religionwithout science is blind"


I'd like us to discuss Big Bang theory, and Blackholes next.smileys/smile.gif








Just two things: Wishful thinking by whom? And, if evolutionary theory had facts behind it, I'm sure an evolutionist would have presented them by now instead of placing thecart before the horse, giving us the theory and scrambling aroundtrying to find evidence to support it.

[Riptide]

Intellectual on both sides? Brilliant minds perhaps but faith is not a componet of intellect..




whyever not?



Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.

[ozoyo]

Well, I see your point so we agree that evolution is a scientifical fact that can be described through different unproven theories smileys/wink.gif.





Which makes it no fact at all.

Why?

Evolution is a fact, how it exactly happens (slow, fast through adaptation or accidents) is still open to questions, research and extrapolations.

The fact that penicilline heals has been established well before understanding the exact process (why or how).

Intellectual on both sides? Brilliant minds perhaps but faith is not a componet of intellect..




whyever not?



Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.

Explain what you mean by transcending known fact.

Well, I see your point so we agree that evolution is a scientifical fact that can be described through different unproven theories smileys/wink.gif.





Which makes it no fact at all.

Why?

Evolution is a fact, how it exactly happens (slow, fast through adaptation or accidents) is still open to questions, research and extrapolations.

The fact that penicilline heals has been established well before understanding the exact process (why or how).




Evolution is not a fact. The variety of species on earth is a fact. Evolution is the theory which explains that fact.

[Ronnie]

No offense meant here but I can't see how any Homo Sapien Sapiens of today can see evolution as anything else than a fact.

There is no fossil that contains in itself the evidence (I can't see how that would be possible anyway). Even admitting that evolution cannot be proved, I can't see any way out of it... So, all the species existed in the beginning and have progressively died? Or some species died while others spontaneously appeared?

Anyway, I still think evolution and creation cannot be opposed or compared they are two different visions of the world and contain their own truth. Matters of faith cannot be proved and scientifical facts cannot be denied.

Anyone trying to apply scientifical methods to religious matters is IMO either a fool or a dangerous man.








I don't think anyone is denying scientific facts. Personally I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact.





You are confused about scientific method, which reflects your position as a creationist, which fundamentally rejects scientific method. Theories are not to be denied or accpeted, they are to be tested, and evidence accumulates either for or against a particular hypothesis. New evidence may arise which overturns previous positions. That is the nature of science; as Balla Boy rightly noted, the fundamental concept of scientific method is that of doubt, because no theory is a "fact", its a theory which is there to be rejected or improved upon by subsequent researchers.


What you may instead be saying is that you are rejecting the position of those whom you regard as promulgating the view that evolution is a scientific fact, whereas no credible scientist would ever conceive of adopting such a position; they would recognise the evolution as a theory describing a particular aspect of the world. Successful scientific theories are falsifiable and predictively successful; despite the ardent efforts of people who subscribe to creationism, no one has successfully falsified the theory of evolution. For example, Stephen Jay Gould suggested that one possible way to falsify evolution would be to locate a fossil that was found to be very old located stratigraphically above a fossil which was very young. This has never occurred. If it does, or some other falsification is produced, then scientists will be obliged to revise and perhaps abandon pre-existing theories of evolution. So when you say "I'm denying a theory which has been accepted as scientific fact" it seems you are setting up a straw man to "deny". No one accepts a theory as scientific fact; they accept itas a theory, which is tobe testedusing scientific facts. It is an important distinction.


I don't see why you would accept the benefits of scientific method in other parts of your life but choose to denyit in cases where it would otherwise contradict theBible.I presume if you were tobecome ill you would be pleased to endorse andbenefit from the science of medicine or would you insteadpray for a cure? If you would go to a doctor, you are placing implicit reliance on scientific method, since the accumulated knowledge at the disposal of the doctor is something that has developed over the centuries through the testing and rejection of theories regarding the human body in particular and many other parts of science. So why accept scientific method to cure you of a illness, but not to understand the world more generally? Seems completely inconsistent.





You suppose I reject science, which I don't. It's perfectly reasonable to reject spurious ideas presented as fact which is why I would reject the ideas of Mengler, the evolutionistbut accept the ideas of Von Braun whose ideas wer

[Clon]

Just two things: Wishful thinking by whom? And, if evolutionary theory had facts behind it, I'm sure an evolutionist would have presented them by now instead of placing thecart before the horse, giving us the theory and scrambling aroundtrying to find evidence to support it.





The main proponents thatI hear of Creationist theory these days are American Evangelical Christians. Their main sales pitch is that we could not possibly be descended from monkeys, that part I believe is wishful thinking. Their is some science, and fact to show bones, skulls etc. from several thousands of years ago that back up evolutionary theory. I admit that debating Creationism v Evoluioary theory is not my forte, but that's whatI believe

[Ronnie]

Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.








If faith required no reason, why would God give us the ability to reason? It requires no proof which is why it is faith. I mentioned Von Braun, the man who put the Yanks on the moon. Would you class him as an intellectual? Or Bernard Lovell, or Isaac Newton? They all believed in God.

[Ronnie]

Just two things: Wishful thinking by whom? And, if evolutionary theory had facts behind it, I'm sure an evolutionist would have presented them by now instead of placing thecart before the horse, giving us the theory and scrambling aroundtrying to find evidence to support it.





The main proponents thatI hear of Creationist theory these days are American Evangelical Christians. Their main sales pitch is that we could not possibly be descended from monkeys, that part I believe is wishful thinking. Their is some science, and fact to show bones, skulls etc. from several thousands of years ago that back up evolutionary theory. I admit that debating Creationism v Evoluioary theory is not my forte, but that's whatI believe








It's not my forte either (being a postman), but I know the British Museum during the 1800s used to offer five shillings a time for the skulls of Australian Aborigines which scientists believed were the missing link. It's true that many evangelical Americans believe in creation and it would seem that they are it's main champions, but that's just because Yanks tend to shout louder than anyone else.

Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.








If faith required no reason, why would God give us the ability to reason? It requires no proof which is why it is faith. I mentioned Von Braun, the man who put the Yanks on the moon. Would you class him as an intellectual? Or Bernard Lovell, or Isaac Newton? They all believed in God.

As did Einstein, Galilleo, Darwin himself,

[Riptide]

Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.





If faith required no reason, why would God give us the ability to reason? It requires no proof which is why it is faith. I mentioned Von Braun, the man who put the Yanks on the moon. Would you class him as an intellectual? Or Bernard Lovell, or Isaac Newton? They all believed in God.





Brilliant minds who had faith in the existence of "God" but who suspended their scientific method of hypothesis testing. Reason was of little help to them as they sought answers.


For example, "When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.”


It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.


“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops. You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ”


The merit of claims ofCreationism, or the virgin birth of certain people,or even thesurvival of the an individuals personaliy/ self/"soul"after death, purport to be about reality, what is real. The Creation myth, in great part, is one that may cultures conceivedto assist in finding meaning and purpose in lifewhen science, the known world, or observetaions could not provide all answers.


Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.

[CCHA]

And the agnostic dyslexic still does not know if there is a dog!

[ozoyo]

Well, I see your point so we agree that evolution is a scientifical fact that can be described through different unproven theories smileys/wink.gif.





Which makes it no fact at all.

Why?

Evolution is a fact, how it exactly happens (slow, fast through adaptation or accidents) is still open to questions, research and extrapolations.

The fact that penicilline heals has been established well before understanding the exact process (why or how).




Evolution is not a fact. The variety of species on earth is a fact. Evolution is the theory which explains that fact.


Sorry but species evolve and that IS a fact, it has been observed.

The variety of species is on earth is one of the clues that led Darwin to his theory. Since then his theories have been proven true through observation and experimentation and have become a scientifical fact.

Once again, how it happenned is still subject to a number of theories that need to be investigated, experimented and observed.

No. Species change and appear to adapt to better fit their surroundings is a fact. Evolution by survival of the fittest through successive genertions is the theory which explains this fact.

When you say evolution is a fact you are muddling the observible facts- the changes and adaptations with the explanation - evolution.

[ozoyo]

Faithdoes not require reason.Faithrequires noproof, it basically transcendsknown fact, not does it seek fact.


You can define intellectin many ways, but itsfoundation is a pursuit of thinking, a processbasedon logic or reason.


So there are many brilliant minds who choose to have faith, nut not intellectuals IMO.








If faith required no reason, why would God give us the ability to reason? It requires no proof which is why it is faith. I mentioned Von Braun, the man who put the Yanks on the moon. Would you class him as an intellectual? Or Bernard Lovell, or Isaac Newton? They all believed in God.

As did Einstein, Galilleo, Darwin himself,


Most great scientific minds bielieved in God.

One of the greatest, Blaise Pascal (invented the calculator at age 14) even tried to justify faith through his famous "bet" theory:

There are two possibilities:

1. God exists (probability=0,5)
2. God does not exist (probability=0,5)

(a=pleasure)

&gt; You chose to believe

</font>@@@@SPAN style="font-weight: bold;">&gt;&gt;&gt; God does not exist (-a +0)@@@@/SPAN>
You live a vertuous life and restrict your pleasures on earth but gain nothing
@@@@SPAN style="font-weight: bold;">
&gt;&gt;&gt; God exists (-a +∞)@@@@/SPAN>
You live a vertuous life restrict your pleasures on earth but gain eternity in heaven

We can consider that pleasures on earth are neglectable compared to heaven (so we can take a out of the equation).
0,5*0 + 0,5*+∞=+∞ (you lose almost nothing but can gain everything)


&gt; You chose not to believe </font>
@@@@SPAN style="font-weight: bold;">
&gt;&gt;&gt; God does not exist (+a -0)@@@@/SPAN>

You live a life of pleasures on earth but gain nothing

@@@@SPAN style="font-weight: bold;">&gt;&gt;&gt; God exists (+a -∞)@@@@/SPAN>

You live a life of pleasures on earth but spend the eternity in hell

0,5*0 + 0,5*-∞=-∞ (you gain almost nothing but can lose everything)

There... Not a fan of this theory myself but it is hard to contradict.

[Upfront_1979]

Just as a matter of interest what exactly are we debating here?


1. the existence of god - can't win this one with science or anything else. its the oldest question.


2. The validity of the bibles version of creation - hmmm, science can definitely have a crack at this one and In my opinion this myth is just that, a myth.


3. Evolution - its a strong theory but its still only a theory so can only be debated much as 1. above.


So 1. and 3. are theories and debatable but there is no definite answer either way. If you are a scientist or believe (awkward wordsmileys/smile.gif) in the scientific method than you have to conceed that the existence of God, like evolution, and a dozen other theories are just that.


What most people reject is creationism as espoused by those who believe the Bible implicitly and reject the mountains of observable, non-evolution related evidence to the contrary.


Its perfectly acceptable to believe in god and scienceas its as good a theory as any of where everything came from in the Big bang (which is also an unproved theory).


my 2 cents

[Balla Boy]

I'm not saying that I reject the notion of a God because of the existance of evolution.


What I am saying is there is only so much you can throw away from God's traditional make up before you lose the point of him altogether.


To say evolution is God's mechanism is essentially to argue that while the creation myth is false, we will build God into our new understanding as some sort of architect.


The issue there isn't that there's a logical contradiction - the issue is that it is a cosy and groundless compromise.


Without a belief in scripture as laid out in the Old and New Testament, or the acceptance of the creation myth of another belief system, there is no reason to suppose any role for God in creation or evolution.There may not be an inconsistancy in arguing that he has a role, but only in the same way that there's no reason he shouldn't look like the Fonz and play the ukelele.


He is assigned a role simply because he already has one.


Surely the notion of creation sits far more easily with the notion of a deity than the series of mishaps, dead ends and f**k ups that makes up evolutionary progress.




I see you point but there are valid and reasonable arguments (whether you agree with them or not well leave for later) to include God in any explanation of existance. An if I do it is because I believe it is the best explanation not out of comfort or habbit as you suppose.

This is what bugs me about Dawkins (and with your argument above as well I suppose), rather that arguing the facts presented Dawkins presumes to explain to me whay I believe what I believe. And that because of why I came to believe it - as upposed to beliefs themselves - I must be mistaken.

I think we agree thet a belief in evoultion is not incompatible with and belief in God and also the fact of evolution cant be used in a proof/disproof of Gods existance.

What we are left with then is the old debate as to whether there is a God or not. And there are clever men then either you me or Dawkins who couldn't come to a conclusion on that! But I have certainly heard no argument yet that convinces me my belief in God is mistaken.




I think you do Dawkins a disservice. Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of the existance of God, and has stated so openly. What he rejects is the notion that an unprovable and untestable concept can be known or understood in the sense that religious individuals claim to know or understand God. In his position as an atheist, the only thing he explicitly opposes is theism.


Theists will propose that they have a knowledge of God, either through personal revelation or tradition and scripture, and so it is valid to propose suggestions asto why this may be so. Dawkins would not say that your belief in God is definitely mistaken - he would argue that all of the things that makepeople think there is a God (the traditional role ofcreator being one) can be explained in other ways - hence evolution entering the debate about religion. His underlying issue with religion is not the possibility that there may be something we might identify as God floating around somewhere - it is the claim to truth and knowledge made by religions.


There are no facts presented by theists, and I don't accept that there is ever a reason to propose a role for God in creation - there are merely things we don't know yet. Theists point to the things we can't explain and suggest God as an explanation. I haven't seen anyone point to anything that positively suggests the existance of a creator - only people suggesting that God could be a solution to the areas we don't understand.


And naturally, he fits that bill - that's why we invented him in the first place.

[sewa]

Just as a matter of interest what exactly are we debating here? Good question. there appears to be seveal people discussing completely different things.


2. The validity of the bibles version of creation - hmmm, science can definitely have a crack at this one and In my opinion this myth is just that, a myth.





And once you reject certain parts of the bible the rest of it crumbles. What reason would you have to believe any of it when parts of it are false?

[Upfront_1979]

Just as a matter of interest what exactly are we debating here? Good question. there appears to be seveal people discussing completely different things.


2. The validity of the bibles version of creation - hmmm, science can definitely have a crack at this one and In my opinion this myth is just that, a myth.





And once you reject certain parts of the bible the rest of it crumbles. What reason would you have to believe any of it when parts of it are false?








Believe in it as a historical document? none. its not a primary source but I would not think the bibles value is as a historical document. Its purpose is to teach a certain moral code and way of living. I personally cannot see the purpose in ritual and dogma myself but I believe that some of the teachings in the bible are quite good its just outdated. Modern people are far more educated and able to make up their own minds. The bible was written when we were more primitive and it uses dogma, doctrine, ritual etc to get people to do what it wants rather than clearly reasoned arguments.


The peasant in the field who is good because he fears hell should now be replaced by the modern man who does good because he realises why he should in my opinion.


Education and moral teaching whether through a religion or education is whats important so long as people don't just do things because their priest/pope/iman/whatever told them to then I have no problem with religion.

[sewa]

Pretty sure were signing off the same hymn sheet here Upfront. The point is there are people who do believe in it as a historical document.

[Gibson]

I am feeling pained (head),emotional (heart) and sick (stomach).


Some (Scientists) will say this is due to a psychosomatic illness from reading through this heavy material


Some (Christians) will say God is punisihing me for agreeing with the blasphemous content therein.


I think it's the gallon of guinness and kebab from last night!!!!

[QUOTE=Balla Boy]


I'm not saying that I reject the notion of a God because of the existance of evolution.


What I am saying is there is only so much you can throw away from God's traditional make up before you lose the point of him altogether.


To say evolution is God's mechanism is essentially to argue that while the creation myth is false, we will build God into our new understanding as some sort of architect.


The issue there isn't that there's a logical contradiction - the issue is that it is a cosy and groundless compromise.


Without a belief in scripture as laid out in the Old and New Testament, or the acceptance of the creation myth of another belief system, there is no reason to suppose any role for God in creation or evolution.There may not be an inconsistancy in arguing that he has a role, but only in the same way that there's no reason he shouldn't look like the Fonz and play the ukelele.


He is assigned a role simply because he already has one.


Surely the notion of creation sits far more easily with the notion of a deity than the series of mishaps, dead ends and f**k ups that makes up evolutionary progress.




I see you point but there are valid and reasonable arguments (whether you agree with them or not well leave for later) to include God in any explanation of existance. An if I do it is because I believe it is the best explanation not out of comfort or habbit as you suppose.

This is what bugs me about Dawkins (and with your argument above as well I suppose), rather that arguing the facts presented Dawkins presumes to explain to me whay I believe what I believe. And that because of why I came to believe it - as upposed to beliefs themselves - I must be mistaken.

I think we agree thet a belief in evoultion is not incompatible with and belief in God and also the fact of evolution cant be used in a proof/disproof of Gods existance.

What we are left with then is the old debate as to whether there is a God or not. And there are clever men then either you me or Dawkins who couldn't come to a conclusion on that! But I have certainly heard no argument yet that convinces me my belief in God is mistaken.




I think you do Dawkins a disservice. Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of the existance of God, and has stated so openly. What he rejects is the notion that an unprovable and untestable concept can be known or understood in the sense that religious individuals claim to know or understand God. In his position as an atheist, the only thing he explicitly opposes is theism.

@@@@SPAN style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204);">I think either Dawkins or me is confused as to what he means by aethism.@@@@/SPAN>



Theists will propose that they have a knowledge of God, either through personal revelation or tradition and scripture, and so it is valid to propose suggestions asto why this may be so. Dawkins would not say that your belief in God is definitely mistaken - he would argue that all of the things that makepeople think there is a God (the traditional role ofcreator being one) can be explained in other ways - hence evolution entering the debate about religion. His underlying issue with religion is not the possibility that there may be something we might identify as God floating around somewhere - it is the claim to truth and knowledge made by religions.

@@@@SPAN style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204);">This is exactly the reasoning I was complaining about above. @@@@/SPAN>



There are no facts presented by theists, and I don't accept that there is ever a reason to propose a role for God in creation - there are merely things we don't know yet. Theists point to the things we can't explain and suggest God as an explanation. I haven't seen anyone point to anything that positively suggests the existance of a creator - only people

[Balla Boy]

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings. Dawkins, I think, would accept that theremay bean ultimate contingententity that we could choose to call God - his issue is that all of the "truths" that emanate from that are groundless.


None of the arguments from first principlesare proofs of the existance of God as we postulate him/her or it. The prime mover, ultimate contingent being and all the rest of it carries no implication of anything other than that individual function.

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings. Dawkins, I think, would accept that theremay bean ultimate contingententity that we could choose to call God - his issue is that all of the "truths" that emanate from that are groundless.


None of the arguments from first principlesare proofs of the existance of God as we postulate him/her or it. The prime mover, ultimate contingent being and all the rest of it carries no implication of anything other than that individual function.

I agree with you there, there is no logical way to extrapolate from the existance of God to the religuous trappings and I certainly wouldn't see the arguments from first principles as supporting any particular sect.

My original points still stand - firstly there is no contradiction between a belief in God and in Evolution and secondly there are valid and reasonable reasons to believe in God.

I have not speculated on what this God is like. I have not come down an any particular religuous sect.

Much of Dawkins argument has to do then with how the selection of a particular sect is meaningless. Fine. I suppose where he sees meaninglessness I see tradition and faith in any event neither of us see logic in the choice.

However regardless of that choice if my two points above stand then what Dawkins is arguing against is religion not theism and furthermore using evolution as a support for aethism is not valid.

[Ronnie]

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings.





I'm not familiar with Dawkins' work, but certainly Christians who hold to the reformed (i.e. Biblical) view would not say that morality is dependent on faith in God. I think it was Dr John Owen, the 17C theologianwho said 'we do not condemn morality, but we do not rely upon it for our salvation'.

[Balla Boy]

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings. Dawkins, I think, would accept that theremay bean ultimate contingententity that we could choose to call God - his issue is that all of the "truths" that emanate from that are groundless.


None of the arguments from first principlesare proofs of the existance of God as we postulate him/her or it. The prime mover, ultimate contingent being and all the rest of it carries no implication of anything other than that individual function.




I agree with you there, there is no logical way to extrapolate from the existance of God to the religuous trappings and I certainly wouldn't see the arguments from first principles as supporting any particular sect.

My original points still stand - firstly there is no contradiction between a belief in God and in Evolution and secondly there are valid and reasonable reasons to believe in God.

I have not speculated on what this God is like. I have not come down an any particular religuous sect.

Much of Dawkins argument has to do then with how the selection of a particular sect is meaningless. Fine. I suppose where he sees meaninglessness I see tradition and faith in any event neither of us see logic in the choice.

However regardless of that choice if my two points above stand then what Dawkins is arguing against is religion not theism and furthermore using evolution as a support for aethism is not valid.




I agree - your points stand. I think (without wishing to muddy the waters further) that the missing ground is probably Deism. Dawkins distinguishges between Theism (essentially belief/behaviouralsystems based on omnipotent deities) and Deism (the belief that their may be something that we can/may refer to as God). He admits to not feeling too uncomfortable with Einsteins notions - he has stated that if someone wishes to call the universal laws that govern the universe God, then he believes in God.


The arguments for the existance of God can take you as far as Deism, but it is Theism that is Dawkin's bugbear. He's not particularly fond of Deism either as it goes, but seems to go easier on them than on Theism, which in theological circles normally carries the notion of God as an interventionist entity.

[Balla Boy]

From the God delusion:


Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies. An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!' Well, if that's what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied. As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.

[Balla Boy]

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings.





I'm not familiar with Dawkins' work, but certainly Christians who hold to the reformed (i.e. Biblical) view would not say that morality is dependent on faith in God. I think it was Dr John Owen, the 17C theologianwho said 'we do not condemn morality, but we do not rely upon it for our salvation'.





I've always found that an interesting view point. In the Catholic tradition, God and Good are effectively conflated - what God decrees to be good is good, and is good because God decrees it to be so. The reward for doing God's will is salvation, the punishment damnation.


If salvation is independent of morality, does that mean that Hitler could be saved if he belived in God sufficiently while someone who does lots of "good things" could be damned?

Speaking of concregtions there was a documentary on the radio about some preacher - I think affiliated to the Oral Roberts university in Tulsa (think major bibe belt nutjob) anyway he was thrownout for heresy (he stopped beleiving in hell) and lost his congregtion.

He was talking about the resulting loss in donations. Apparently he used to turn over 200K a week in donationssmileys/shock.gif

SD,


I think Dawkins is fairly clear. Even if you accept on, say, the grounds of contingency that "God" exists, there is nolink between that and morality, casuistry, ritual or any of the rest of the trappings.





I'm not familiar with Dawkins' work, but certainly Christians who hold to the reformed (i.e. Biblical) view would not say that morality is dependent on faith in God. I think it was Dr John Owen, the 17C theologianwho said 'we do not condemn morality, but we do not rely upon it for our salvation'.





I've always found that an interesting view point. In the Catholic tradition, God and Good are effectively conflated - what God decrees to be good is good, and is good because God decrees it to be so. The reward for doing God's will is salvation, the punishment damnation.


If salvation is independent of morality, does that mean that Hitler could be saved if he belived in God sufficiently while someone who does lots of "good things" could be damned?

This was the basis of the Lutheran schism.

Could Hitler have been said to have been doing God's will or following his commandments?

Oral Roberts university honour Code pledge (http://admissi&#111;ns.oru.edu/code-of-h&#111;nor-pledge.pdf)

come on who'll join mesmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gif

[Ronnie]

I've always found that an interesting view point. In the Catholic tradition, God and Good are effectively conflated - what God decrees to be good is good, and is good because God decrees it to be so. The reward for doing God's will is salvation, the punishment damnation.


If salvation is independent of morality, does that mean that Hitler could be saved if he belived in God sufficiently while someone who does lots of "good things" could be damned?








It hinges on 'Justification by faith'. This is based on "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" Romans 4:5and the doctrine that sinners are justified by Christ's death on Calvary. Someone without faith who performs good works would not gain salvation by those good works according to the Bible since 'Without faith, it is impossible to please Him.' Hebrews 11.6. Interesting you should mention Hitler. The only book I have read relating to him was by a Jewish man who converted to Christianity, became a pastor and was given the job of looking after the spiritual needs of some Nazi war criminals. I can't remember the details now as it's twenty years since I read the book, but the author tells the story of how several of these criminals came to faith in Christ so I would think Hitler was capable of being saved. The best Biblical reference would be the thief on the cross next to Christ. No time for him to carry out any good works, but because he sees who Christ is, 'he will be with him that day in Paradise'.

[Ronnie]

Oral Roberts university honour Code pledge (http://admissi&#111;ns.oru.edu/code-of-h&#111;nor-pledge.pdf)

come on who'll join mesmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gif






Not me. Best avoided. Roberts has the idea that worldly riches are a sign of salvation which they are not. Typical American neo-pentacostalist.

[Balla Boy]

I've always found that an interesting view point. In the Catholic tradition, God and Good are effectively conflated - what God decrees to be good is good, and is good because God decrees it to be so. The reward for doing God's will is salvation, the punishment damnation.


If salvation is independent of morality, does that mean that Hitler could be saved if he belived in God sufficiently while someone who does lots of "good things" could be damned?








It hinges on 'Justification by faith'. This is based on "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" Romans 4:5and the doctrine that sinners are justified by Christ's death on Calvary. Someone without faith who performs good works would not gain salvation by those good works according to the Bible since 'Without faith, it is impossible to please Him.' Hebrews 11.6. Interesting you should mention Hitler. The only book I have read relating to him was by a Jewish man who converted to Christianity, became a pastor and was given the job of looking after the spiritual needs of some Nazi war criminals. I can't remember the details now as it's twenty years since I read the book, but the author tells the story of how several of these criminals came to faith in Christ so I would think Hitler was capable of being saved. The best Biblical reference would be the thief on the cross next to Christ. No time for him to carry out any good works, but because he sees who Christ is, 'he will be with him that day in Paradise'.





Ok, with you up to there. What if criminal had been the subject of a daring rescue, continued to acknowledge Christ as his saviour but had gone back on the rob a week later?


Is faith in itself sufficient for salvation, or is it supposed that faith brings with it an obligation to behave according to God's expressed will and you can undo your salvation by denying Christ through acts if not through belief?

Oral Roberts university honour Code pledge (http://admissi&#111;ns.oru.edu/code-of-h&#111;nor-pledge.pdf)

come on who'll join mesmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gif






Not me. Best avoided. Roberts has the idea that worldly riches are a sign of salvation which they are not. Typical American neo-pentacostalist.

How the hell didi he come to that conclusion.
The more I see of these bible belters the more I see how they are generally profoundly unchristian.

[Ronnie]

Ok, with you up to there. What if criminal had been the subject of a daring rescue, continued to acknowledge Christ as his saviour but had gone back on the rob a week later?


Is faith in itself sufficient for salvation, or is it supposed that faith brings with it an obligation to behave according to God's expressed will and you can undo your salvation by denying Christ through acts if not through belief?








The criminal could go back on the rob and not lose his salvation because his salvation relies solely on his faith in Christ, but as unconditional salvation is not license to do as he likes, it's unlikely he would return to his former ways. Faith is sufficient for salvation because it says in Jude 24 that God is able to keep you from falling. There are obligations, but failing to observe them will not result in the loss of salvation. This was the subject of a big debate between John Wesley and George Whitfield in the 18th century and John Calvin and Jacob Arminius in the 16th. From what I have read, Calvin and Whitfield were right.

[Ronnie]

Oral Roberts university honour Code pledge (http://admissi&#111;ns.oru.edu/code-of-h&#111;nor-pledge.pdf)

come on who'll join mesmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gifsmileys/lol.gif






Not me. Best avoided. Roberts has the idea that worldly riches are a sign of salvation which they are not. Typical American neo-pentacostalist.




How the hell didi he come to that conclusion.
The more I see of these bible belters the more I see how they are generally profoundly unchristian.






They see it as God's blessing which in a way it is, but they also see good health in the same way. How they square this with the ailments Paul has such as facial disfigurement and abdominal pains eludes me unless Roberts sees himself as being greater than Paul.

[Balla Boy]

Ok, with you up to there. What if criminal had been the subject of a daring rescue, continued to acknowledge Christ as his saviour but had gone back on the rob a week later?


Is faith in itself sufficient for salvation, or is it supposed that faith brings with it an obligation to behave according to God's expressed will and you can undo your salvation by denying Christ through acts if not through belief?








The criminal could go back on the rob and not lose his salvation because his salvation relies solely on his faith in Christ, but as unconditional salvation is not license to do as he likes, it's unlikely he would return to his former ways. Faith is sufficient for salvation because it says in Jude 24 that God is able to keep you from falling. There are obligations, but failing to observe them will not result in the loss of salvation. This was the subject of a big debate between John Wesley and George Whitfield in the 18th century and John Calvin and Jacob Arminius in the 16th. From what I have read, Calvin and Whitfield were right.





So if you're truly saved in the first place that belief is going to stop you from going back to your previous evil ways? Think I understand that.


I guess what I'm unclear of is whether for someone who professes faith in Christ there's a behavioural point at which he's not going to go to heaven on that basis alone.


What I understand from what you're saying is thatthere isn't an act or accumulation of acts that will prevent him going to heaven as long as he believes in Christ, but that if he truly believes in Christ he's not going to carry out those acts. Is that right?

[Ronnie]

So if you're truly saved in the first place that belief is going to stop you from going back to your previous evil ways? Think I understand that.


I guess what I'm unclear of is whether for someone who professes faith in Christ there's a behavioural point at which he's not going to go to heaven on that basis alone.


What I understand from what you're saying is thatthere isn't an act or accumulation of acts that will prevent him going to heaven as long as he believes in Christ, but that if he truly believes in Christ he's not going to carry out those acts. Is that right?





It's possible for someone to go back to their former ways (known as 'backsliding') but they wouldn't lose their salvation since that is based on what Christ has done for them and not what they do for Christ. Nothing can prevent someone from going to heaven once they have faith in Christ, but it's important to realise that this is all due to God's grace.

[Balla Boy]

So if you're truly saved in the first place that belief is going to stop you from going back to your previous evil ways? Think I understand that.


I guess what I'm unclear of is whether for someone who professes faith in Christ there's a behavioural point at which he's not going to go to heaven on that basis alone.


What I understand from what you're saying is thatthere isn't an act or accumulation of acts that will prevent him going to heaven as long as he believes in Christ, but that if he truly believes in Christ he's not going to carry out those acts. Is that right?





It's possible for someone to go back to their former ways (known as 'backsliding') but they wouldn't lose their salvation since that is based on what Christ has done for them and not what they do for Christ. Nothing can prevent someone from going to heaven once they have faith in Christ, but it's important to realise that this is all due to God's grace.





So (and this isn't meant provocatively, but out of genuine curiosity), Pius XII goes to heaven but the jews in the concetration camps don't?


Or does Pius XII luck out on a "claiming to be God's representative" clause?

[Snamh]

You suppose I reject science, which I don't. It's perfectly reasonable to reject spurious ideas presented as fact which is why I would reject the ideas of Mengler, the evolutionistbut accept the ideas of Von Braun whose ideas were provable. Stephen Jay Gould has yet to come up with an explaination for why, when carbon dated, some higher sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon was shown to be older than lower sediments. He could have said carbon dating is unreliable, but since many evolutionary theories rely upon it, was unable to do so. I don't see why many people facing the death or illness of a loved one suddenly find faith in a God they have spent a lifetime rejecting the teachings of. I assume they won't be troubling the local priest or minister. To do so would be completely inconsistant.





Again, you are setting up a straw man ("It's perfectly reasonable to reject spurious ideas presented asfact")and thereby completely missing the point. Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact.


Imagine we are sitting in a garden under an apple tree, and an apple falls off. Unless you are a solipsist, we can both agree that we have just observed an apple falling to the ground. Therefore, wenow have afact: the apple fell to the ground. We use a theory to explainthe fact. You wave your hands and say "It is the will of God that the appledfell to the ground".I try and understandand explain this fact using a theory, which, to be valid,must be in principle falsifiable, and should be predictively successful (in other words, if I were to shake another tree,my theory should predict thedirection (down to the earth of floating off into theaether) that the apples thus shaken off willfall). My theory may subsequently be overturned if it is falsified, but that does not mean that the whole endeavour of relying on reason and logic to explain the falling of the apple is pointless.


The theory of evolution is in precisely this position, because it is a theory and not a fact; the facts which underly the theory of evolution relate to the incomplete and patchy fossil record. Evolution explains the difference between a fossil of age x and another related fossil y by means of survival of the fittest, sex selection, and everything else that makes up the theory. As soon as someone comes up with another falsifiable theory which has demonstrably greater predictive success than does the Darwinian theory of evolution, then evolution will be replaced by the new theory, just as the theory of general relativity and the curvature of space time encompasses and delivers greater predictive success than does the Newtonian theories of gravity.


Of course, the real reason creationists get upset about evolution is that contradicts Genesis; if there were no creation story in the Bible but instead there was some guff about how God directs objects with smaller mass to fall off trees towards objects with larger mass, then we wouldn't be talking about creationism, we would be talking about gravitationism. And then your argument would be "Oh well, these scientists presented Newtonian theory as fact for three hundred years, so clearly the whole notion is bo***cks", whereas no one presented it as fact, they presented it as a theory to be tested and improved upon.

[Balla Boy]

I want the clapping smiley back.


Bravo, Mr Da Ean.

[Ronnie]

So (and this isn't meant provocatively, but out of genuine curiosity), Pius XII goes to heaven but the jews in the concetration camps don't?


Or does Pius XII luck out on a "claiming to be God's representative" clause?





Well, I'm no man's judge since that is the sole prerogative of God, but looking at some of the doctrines which Pious and his fellow popes believed in, it's difficult to see where about in the Bible they come from. The Jews anywhere and at any time since the death and ressurection of Christ are in the same position as anyone else. If God chooses them for salvation, they're saved.

[Balla Boy]

So (and this isn't meant provocatively, but out of genuine curiosity), Pius XII goes to heaven but the jews in the concetration camps don't?


Or does Pius XII luck out on a "claiming to be God's representative" clause?





Well, I'm no man's judge since that is the sole prerogative of God, but looking at some of the doctrines which Pious and his fellow popes believed in, it's difficult to see where about in the Bible they come from. The Jews anywhere and at any time since the death and ressurection of Christ are in the same position as anyone else. If God chooses them for salvation, they're saved.





So there's no link between your actions on earth and whether God saves you? Not even your belief in God or otherwise- if God chooses you, then you're in?


That's really interesting - I can see why it never caught on as an element of established religion. Doesn't really have the social control functions that are built into other creeds, does it?

[Ronnie]

You suppose I reject science, which I don't. It's perfectly reasonable to reject spurious ideas presented as fact which is why I would reject the ideas of Mengler, the evolutionistbut accept the ideas of Von Braun whose ideas were provable. Stephen Jay Gould has yet to come up with an explaination for why, when carbon dated, some higher sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon was shown to be older than lower sediments. He could have said carbon dating is unreliable, but since many evolutionary theories rely upon it, was unable to do so. I don't see why many people facing the death or illness of a loved one suddenly find faith in a God they have spent a lifetime rejecting the teachings of. I assume they won't be troubling the local priest or minister. To do so would be completely inconsistant.





Again, you are setting up a straw man ("It's perfectly reasonable to reject spurious ideas presented asfact")and thereby completely missing the point. Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact.


Imagine we are sitting in a garden under an apple tree, and an apple falls off. Unless you are a solipsist, we can both agree that we have just observed an apple falling to the ground. Therefore, wenow have afact: the apple fell to the ground. We use a theory to explainthe fact. You wave your hands and say "It is the will of God that the appledfell to the ground".I try and understandand explain this fact using a theory, which, to be valid,must be in principle falsifiable, and should be predictively successful (in other words, if I were to shake another tree,my theory should predict thedirection (down to the earth of floating off into theaether) that the apples thus shaken off willfall). My theory may subsequently be overturned if it is falsified, but that does not mean that the whole endeavour of relying on reason and logic to explain the falling of the apple is pointless.


The theory of evolution is in precisely this position, because it is a theory and not a fact; the facts which underly the theory of evolution relate to the incomplete and patchy fossil record. Evolution explains the difference between a fossil of age x and another related fossil y by means of survival of the fittest, sex selection, and everything else that makes up the theory. As soon as someone comes up with another falsifiable theory which has demonstrably greater predictive success than does the Darwinian theory of evolution, then evolution will be replaced by the new theory, just as the theory of general relativity and the curvature of space time encompasses and delivers greater predictive success than does the Newtonian theories of gravity.


Of course, the real reason creationists get upset about evolution is that contradicts Genesis; if there were no creation story in the Bible but instead there was some guff about how God directs objects with smaller mass to fall off trees towards objects with larger mass, then we wouldn't be talking about creationism, we would be talking about gravitationism. And then your argument would be "Oh well, these scientists presented Newtonian theory as fact for three hundred years, so clearly the whole notion is bo***cks", whereas no one presented it as fact, they presented it as a theory to be tested and improved upon.








But we are at the stage where these theories are believed and presented as facts by many. A visit to the Natural History Museum in London or the natural history section of Liverpool museum gives no indication that evolution is merely a theory. Personally I don't get upset by the theory of evolution since a theory is unlikely to shake my belief in creation. Dawkins, Gould and their believers can work themsel

[Ronnie]

So there's no link between your actions on earth and whether God saves you? Not even your belief in God or otherwise- if God chooses you, then you're in?


That's really interesting - I can see why it never caught on as an element of established religion. Doesn't really have the social control functions that are built into other creeds, does it?








It is an element of established religion though. The Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England which includes the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales is a fairly good example of it's acceptance as a Biblical fact. Even better is the Westminster Confession of faith which gives a fuller account with scripture references and which is the Presbyterian statement of faith. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith is better again since it deals with infant baptism and why there is no record of an infant being baptised anywhere in the Bible.

[Snamh]

But we are at the stage where these theories are believed and presented as facts by many. A visit to the Natural History Museum in London or the natural history section of Liverpool museum gives no indication that evolution is merely a theory. Personally I don't get upset by the theory of evolution since a theory is unlikely to shake my belief in creation. Dawkins, Gould and their believers can work themselves up into a lather about creation (the Guardian article being a subdued example) and try to find facts to fit the theory but it's nothing I haven't heard before many times. What is a fact is that creationists and evolutionists are both taking a step of faith. The only difference being one side recognises this while the other pretends faith has nothing to do with it.





Therefore, we are at the stage where your issue is with proselytizers of evolution, and not evolution itself. It is not the job of museums to hand out copies of the works of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos at the door. Museums need to place their exhibits in context, and the way to structure and contextualise fossils (for example) is to explain the similarities and differences between them. Evolutionary theory does a very good job of doing this, which doesn't mean it is "right". But if you accept the logic of scientific enquiry in other domains, why stop at evolution?


I disagree that evolutionists and creationists are both taking a step of faith - the evolutionist is actually doubting and questioning his position until something better comes along, in the meantime relying on evidence which has been extensively examined by others; the creationist never reaches that stage because truth has already been revealed so there is no need to doubt, and therefore no impulse to inquiry and accordingly none of the benefits that flow from the exercise of intellect.

[Snamh]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,335,Public-school-teacher- (http://richarddawkins.net/article,335,Public-school-teacher-tells-class-You-bel&#111;ng-in-hell,Jim-Lippard) tells-class-You-belong-in-hell,Jim-Lippard

[skeesicks]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2456974,00.html (http://www.times&#111;nline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2456974,00.html)

Also here's a lecture by Ken Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) on youtube. This is almost two hours long, but if you're interested in the debate it's well worth watching - he really knows what he's talking about.

[Ronnie]

I disagree that evolutionists and creationists are both taking a step of faith - the evolutionist is actually doubting and questioning his position until something better comes along, in the meantime relying on evidence which has been extensively examined by others; the creationist never reaches that stage because truth has already been revealed so there is no need to doubt, and therefore no impulse to inquiry and accordingly none of the benefits that flow from the exercise of intellect.





Had you heard Ken Ham speaking on the subject you wouldn't say the intellect wasn't excercised. The evolutionist (at least the ones I know) don't seem to doubt anything. In fact reading anything which wasn't presented to them in a two minute news item or a short article in a newspaper would be a new experience for them. Make no mistake, it's a step of faith since the evidence you mention will have been examined by others who are biased in their opinion. There's nothing more human than having a biased opinion, (since we are all biased) but the evolutionist likes to think he approaches the subject from a position of neutrality. At least Ham, Young and Johnson are open about their intentions.

[dipstick]

I have read the previous threads with great interest and never knew that Munsterfans had so many philosophers and scientists in it's ranks. Now the saying "blind them with brilliance or baffle them with bulls**t" comes to mind butI fear I tread on thin ice as some impassioned arguments have been made by both camps, some of which I understood and othersI could not asI am not familiar with falsiable theory etc.


Anyway for my tuppence ha'penny contribution: I suppose that there will always be aconflict between evolutionary sciencewith it's conjectures/theories and creationism with it's brand of fundamentalistic teaching based on the Book of Genesis. I understand neither completely but feel that science offers a more realistic appraisal of where we came from. OK, the Big Bang might turn out to be the Big Fizzle but at least Hubble demonstrated that there is a certain logic to this theory with the Redshift Law of Galaxies. Creationists believe that God created the Earth. Fair enough, the Book of Genesis says so. But is there any corroborative evidence to support this? Also who wrote the Book of Genesis? At least scientific papers usually have a name attached to them.I know the bible is an ancient text and for that reason it may not be possible to discover it's author/author's. I, however,find more inconsistenciesin it than in science.I know that science is also full of conundrums but I feel it's evolving and that sometime in the future it will provide a meaning to life and our origins.


Someone mentioned that Einstein was religious. Even though Jewish he attended a catholic elementary school. Religion is something you grow up with and in some cases it's brainwashed into you. I can understand why he was religious for that reason alone. Also I feel that it's very reassuring to a believer if your faith is strong enough not to question God's existence. After all, if there is an afterlife then one would feel much better about becoming compost.

[Ronnie]

I have read the previous threads with great interest and never knew that Munsterfans had so many philosophers and scientists in it's ranks. Now the saying "blind them with brilliance or baffle them with bulls**t" comes to mind butI fear I tread on thin ice as some impassioned arguments have been made by both camps, some of which I understood and othersI could not asI am not familiar with falsiable theory etc.


Anyway for my tuppence ha'penny contribution: I suppose that there will always be aconflict between evolutionary sciencewith it's conjectures/theories and creationism with it's brand of fundamentalistic teaching based on the Book of Genesis. I understand neither completely but feel that science offers a more realistic appraisal of where we came from. OK, the Big Bang might turn out to be the Big Fizzle but at least Hubble demonstrated that there is a certain logic to this theory with the Redshift Law of Galaxies. Creationists believe that God created the Earth. Fair enough, the Book of Genesis says so. But is there any corroborative evidence to support this? Also who wrote the Book of Genesis? At least scientific papers usually have a name attached to them.I know the bible is an ancient text and for that reason it may not be possible to discover it's author/author's. I, however,find more inconsistenciesin it than in science.I know that science is also full of conundrums but I feel it's evolving and that sometime in the future it will provide a meaning to life and our origins.


Someone mentioned that Einstein was religious. Even though Jewish he attended a catholic elementary school. Religion is something you grow up with and in some cases it's brainwashed into you. I can understand why he was religioius for that reason alone. Also I feel that it's very reassuring to a believer if your faith is strong enough not to question God's existence. After all, if there is an afterlife then one would feel much better about becoming compost.





The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, but the Bible was inspired by God according to the second book of Timothy. There are scientific explainations which back up the creationist view (many of them on the web) and evidence of a global flood as well as it being mentioned in the folk lore of ancient civilisations. If I were a scientist (or perhaps a philosopher) I would be able to put the argument across with the seriousness the subject deserves, but I'm not, so rely (at the evolutionist does) on the work of others. But the debate is interesting enough.

[dipstick]

Well Ronnie,I suppose the bible is the best selling bookof all time and I guess if that's the case it must hit the spot somewhere.I have never tried to read it much myself as I find the language too archaic. I havealso tried toread Ulysses a few times and though regarded as one of the great works of English literatureI find itis veryheavy going. Maybe I should concentrate harder but at present I don't really have the time.

[Ronnie]

Well Ronnie,I suppose the bible is the best selling bookof all time and I guess if that's the case it must hit the spot somewhere.I have never tried to read it much myself as I find the language too archaic. I havealso tried toread Ulysses a few times and though regarded as one of the great works of English literatureI find itis veryheavy going. Maybe I should concentrate harder but at present I don't really have the time.








I'm no Bible student, but I prefer the 1611 version than any of the modern ones. Having read about the modern version it seems they aren't as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as the 1611. Some of the language is archaic, but there are more single syllable words in it than the New International Version which was brought out because modern man (and no doubt woman) allegedly couldn't cope with the 1611 version. The thing to do is not read it from cover to cover but read it systematically using something like R.M. M'Cheyne's plan. I've done both and M'Cheyne is the best method as it shows where the Old Testament connects with the New by taking passages from both. I've never read Ulysses myself. In fact I haven't read much fiction at all, but I've read quite a bit about history, politics, theology and sport. The school system here hardly encourages a love of books and for three years after leaving I didn't read any. It's been a case of making up for lost time ever since and it's been a long time since I left school. The best years of your life? Whoever said that must have been a very sad lad. smileys/wink.gif

[dipstick]

The 1611 is the King James bible, is it not? Was he notthe king Guy Fawkes tried to blow up? Not too popular with us Papists was he? Only joking. Might try it though. I must read " Beyond a Boundary" first though.

[Ronnie]

The 1611 is the King James bible, is it not? Was he notthe king Guy Fawkes tried to blow up? Not too popular with us Papists was he? Only joking. Might try it though. I must read " Beyond a Boundary" first though.











His namesake in 1685 wasn't too popular with the prods either. There's something about Kings called James and Charles. One book I have read is 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine which is a great argument against monarchies. 'Beyond a Boundary' is a great book. I'll have to get around to reading his 'Black Jacobins'.

[dipstick]

We, the Irish,are not a great lover of monarchies either but that goes with the territory and history of Ireland. Still my mother in law has great time for the Queen. I suppose the mother thing has something to do with it. King Billy was one of the most unpopular, butI suppose he was really Dutch. Very popular with Michael Stone though, of Stormont fame.

[Ronnie]

We, the Irish,are not a great lover of monarchies either but that goes with the territory and history of Ireland. Still my mother in law has great time for the Queen. I suppose the mother thing has something to do with it. King Billy was one of the most unpopular, butI suppose he was really Dutch. Very popular with Michael Stone though, of Stormont fame.





The marketing of the monarchy has been an absolute triumph by the British ruling class. The b*****d son of a French whore and Norman nobleman arrives with his army and becomes king. A Dutch poof gets invited over because the powers that be don't like the way his unclewants the C of E to be run. In more recent times, the Prince Regent (a lunatic of German descent, by the way) congratulates the Yeomanry on murdering unarmed mill hands at Peterloo. One of this descendants decides Hitler is a top hole chap, marries some yank and gets the sack. His jug eared great nephew carries on an adulterous affair with some upper class hag while his clothes horse wife s seeing a Sanhurst Rupert and the England punt and grunt captain.All of this and their popularity remains considerable. Not to the extent it was when I was a kid, but enough to sell newpapers and for idiots to stand in the rain for hours just to catch a glimpse of these worthless parasites. Oh, andenough to trigger a debate in the rugby league press every time Brian Carney decides to do what thousands of the crowd have done for years and not belt out 'God Save the Queen' as though his life depended on it.Good for him I say.

[Mcork]

I notice that this thread has become a discussion on Darwin &amp; the
his theory of evolution rather than a discussion on Creationism.

A theory as others have said, is just that, impossible to prove definitively &amp; easy enough to pick holes in.



But let's discuss Creationism : I'm interested : Who here is a
Creationist apart from the obvious? Explain your dogma er I mean
"theory". has there been scientific articles published in recognised
journals referencing experimental &amp; other evidence to back up this
"theory"? I'd love to hear it! Lads, Darwin has been done to death
already.

[Ronnie]

I notice that this thread has become a discussion on Darwin &amp; the his theory of evolution rather than a discussion on Creationism.
A theory as others have said, is just that, impossible to prove definitively &amp; easy enough to pick holes in.

But let's discuss Creationism : I'm interested : Who here is a Creationist apart from the obvious? Explain your dogma er I mean "theory". has there been scientific articles published in recognised journals referencing experimental &amp; other evidence to back up this "theory"? I'd love to hear it! Lads, Darwin has been done to death already.






There's plenty of information on the internet on the subject. All you have to do is look. Unless you're as thick as you generaly seem to be on this site.

[Mcork]

I was hoping someone intelligent would reply, that's why I put in
"apart from the obvious". It's obvious that you are a creationist but
you are also quite mad (perhaps there's a link) &amp; incapable of sane
adult conversation so I wont fall into the trap of engaging with you.
Please crawl back to your swamp.



Have we a "sane" creationist out there who'd like to share the evidence that supports this "theory" ?

[Ronnie]

I was hoping someone intelligent would reply, that's why I put in "apart from the obvious". It's obvious that you are a creationist but you are also quite mad (perhaps there's a link) &amp; incapable of sane adult conversation so I wont fall into the trap of engaging with you. Please crawl back to your swamp.

Have we a "sane" creationist out there who'd like to share the evidence that supports this "theory" ?



Yes, anyone care to address this attention seeker? He would like to bring the debate down to his usual level and I couldn't be bothered. If I wanted to discuss matters with a cabbage, I would go to the shop and buy one.

[Mcork]

<H1>Scandalous, it would be a laughing matter if they weren't interfering with childrens education. These lunatics are trying to pass of as science, something as ridiculous as scientology or astrology . I cant believe that peoples judgement are so clouded that they cant separate science from pure superstition. Religion &amp; theology are fine in religous class or at home but arethe UK going to go down the road of Afghanistan &amp; Saudi Arabia &amp; allow religous extremists like our own resident lunatichere decide the school curiculum </H1>
<H1>Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools</H1>

PR packs spread controversial theory

James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)


<DIV id=GuardianArticle>Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.


The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".


A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."


<!- This site/secti&#111;n combo is not set up to show MPU's ->But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.


"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."


The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual, was sent to the head of science at all secondary schools in the country on September 18 by the group Truth in Science. The enclosed feedback postcard was returned by 89 schools. As well as 59 positive responses, 15 were negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable".


"We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught."


"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.


But leading scientists argue that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causes. "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," said Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at the University of London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.


The DVDs were produced in America and feature figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote ID and insert it into high school science lessons in the US. Last year a judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled that ID could not be taught in science lessons. "Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote in his judgment.


It is not clear exactly how many schools are using the

[Ronnie]

It's just been on the local radio. Nick Cowan was interviewed and pointed out all the inaccuracies in the Guardian report. Some people will believe anything they read in a newspaper which is why Mcork was defending The Sun on the last messageboard. Phew! What a loony! Needless to say, anyone with any intelligence always questions the British press rather than postan entire article from it likethis trusting half-wit has done.

[sewa]

How dreadfully boring.

[Mcork]

<TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 width=629><T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3>
<DIV ="mxb">
<DIV ="sh">Creationism 'no place in schools' </DIV></DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width=416><!- S BO -><!- S IIMA ->
<TABLE align=right border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 width=203><T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41546000/jpg/_41546050_skull203ap.jpg
<DIV ="cap">The Royal Society cites the fossil record in evidence </DIV></DIV></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE><!- E IIMA -><!- S SF ->Leading scientists have warned against the teaching of creationism in schools, saying pupils must be clear that science backs the theory of evolution.


The Royal Society statement comes after claims that some schools are promoting creationism alongside evolution.


Meanwhile, delegates at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers' conference rejected calls for legislation to ban the teaching of creationism.


The Department for Education said that creationism was not taught in schools. <!- E SF ->


The Royal Society's statement said some pupils may wish to "explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so".


"However young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."


Fossil record


It added: "A belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record.


"Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4,600 million years ago."


Vice-president of the Royal Society, Professor David Read, referred to the King's Academy in Middlesbrough.


The school is one of three run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy.


The foundation has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the schools.


'Faith position'


Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism - the academy denies that it has taught creationism.


In 2003 Sir Peter said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."


Prof Read said the reports about the academy highlighted how the education system "allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge."


He added: "Our government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."


Supporters of intelligent design believe life is so complex it must be the work of a supernatural designer.


Influence


Teachers' unions are to debate the role of faith schools at their annual conferences this Easter.


Members will be asked to vote on calls for the government to legislate to prevent the growing influence of religious organisations in state schools and for it to stop funding faith schools.


<!- S I ->
<TABLE align=right border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 width=208><T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD width=5>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif</TD>
<TD ="sibtbg">
<DIV>
<DIV ="mva"></DIV></DIV></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE><!- E I ->


The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said recently he was not comfortable with creationism being taught in schools.


A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said that neither creationism no

[dipstick]

Am I seeing double ?

[onthe 22]

Creationism smileys/evil.gifSummed up as we demand you prove Darwinism Scientifically.Any shortcomings prove its false.Meanwhile we have a collection of books edited for political and cultural reasons over two millenia as proof that God did the job in 7 days ,breather included,we see no issues with that, cause we believe.And we ain't kin of no monkey.Compelling or what.


Written as a totally pissed off with gullible gombeens science graduate.(long time ago)

[Snamh]

<H2><BIG>Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution</BIG></H2>
November 28, 2006 | Issue 42•48 (http://www.the&#111;ni&#111;n.com/c&#111;ntent/index/4248)
< =text/>OAS_AD('Bottom1');



TOPEKA, KS—In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life.
<DIV =article_photo style="WIDTH: 250px">http://www.the&#111;ni&#111;n.com/c&#111;ntent/files/images/Kansas-Outlaws-R.article.jpg


Lawmakers decried spontaneous genetic mutations.</DIV>


"From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."


The new law prohibits all living beings within state borders from any willful adaptation to changing environmental conditions. In addition, it strictly limits any activity that may result in enhanced health or survival beyond the current average lifespan of their particular species.


Violators of the new law may face punishments that include jail time, stiff fines, and rehabilitative education and training to rid organisms suspected of evolutionary tendencies. Repeat offenders could face chemical sterilization.


To enforce the law, Kansas state police will be trained to investigate and apprehend organisms who exhibit suspected signs of evolutionary behavior, such as natural selection or speciation. Plans are underway to track and monitor DNA strands in every Kansan life form for even the slightest change in allele frequencies.


"Barn swallows that develop lighter, more streamlined builds to enable faster migration, for example, could live out the rest of their brief lives in prison," said Indiana University chemist and pro-intelligent-design author Robert Hellenbaum, who helped compose the language of the law. "And butterflies who mimic the wing patterns and colors of other butterflies for an adaptive advantage, well, their days of flaunting God's will are over."


Human beings may be the species most deeply affected by the new legislation. Those whose cytochrome-c molecules vary less than 2 percent from those of chimpanzees will be in direct violation of the law.


Under particular scrutiny are single-cell microorganisms, with thousands of field labs being installed across the state to ensure that these self-replicating molecules, notorious for mutation, do not do so in a fashion benefitting their long-term survival.


Anti-evolutionists such as Hellenbaum have long accused microorganisms of popularizing "an otherwise obscure, agonizingly slow, and hard-to-understand" biological process. "These repeat offenders are at the root of the problem," Hellenbaum said. "We have the fossil records to prove it."


"No species is exempt," said Marcus Holloway, a state police spokesman. "Whether you're a human being or a fruit fly—if we detect one homologous chromosome trying to cross over during the process of meiosis, you will be punished to the full extent of the law."


Although the full impact of the new law will likely not be felt for approximately 10 million years, most Kansans say they are relieved that the ban went into effect this week, claiming that evolution may have gone too far already.


"If Earth's species were meant to change over successive generations through physical modifications resulting from the adaptation to environmental challenges, then God would have given them the genetic predisposition to select mates and reproduce based on their favorable herit

[Mcork]

Funny article. As I said before we could have a fine laugh at the
expense of the low intellect gullable twits who believe in Creationism
were it not for the fact that some of these lunatics in the states have
managed to introduce this superstitous nonsense into science class in
schools.

Now I dont mind if some idiots like yer man here want to believe in it
because it was apparently written in a book by the wonderful wizard of
Oz, Moses or whoever 1000's of years ago but kids dont know better for
the most part &amp; introducing this as "science" is fundamentaly
wrong.

The great achievement of the these "creationists" has been to somehow
implant in the mind of the greater public (this thread is proof) that
they are part of the debate for &amp; against "evolution". In the
scientific community, creationism is seen correctly as religous dogma,
superstition &amp; has nothing whatsoever in common with science where
there's an obligation to provide documented evidence to support your
assumptions. It's not even pseudo science like arguments against global
warming where scientists actually interpret (misrepresent data &amp;
evidence) to support their deductions. It has as much credibility as
scientology or Astrology &amp; yet there is no big debate on these.