Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#223 Feb 19, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Evolutionists have done what Chevrolet, Southwest Airlines, modern literature, and Hollywood have done. They've run a commercial campaign boasting numbers. Chevrolet and SWA bank on the number of customers, claims of being #1. Books and movies are in hopes that they will be bought because of quotes from various alleged qualified critics. As far as we know, Copernican scientists did none of these. The majority of people of who embrace evolution obviously don't really know why, other than they are overwhelmed by the Evolutionary "pitch" (Apparently some people actually think "Inherit The Wind" is about the "Scopes Monkey Trial"). If Evolution was that obvious, it wouldn't have need to have been programmed into us as it has for so many years by the media. As far as we know, Copernican scientists did none of these.
2. Again, not all scientists accept it. There are enough that don't to suggest anyone that they should think a little bit further than their "Star Trek" view of reality. We don't 'force' any scientific view in the legal sense. We choose to 'program' via media/commercialism to "force feed" it.
So you think 99.9% of scientists have been somehow conned into believing that human beings have evolved from lower forms without any scientific evidence to support it. In trying to understand how you could possibly arrive that that absurd conclusion I can only guess that you have a very poor understanding of how the scientific method works.

The scientific method demands valid scientific evidence to support claims. It would be impossible for 99.9% of scientists to be duped into believing something for which no valid scientific evidence exists because valid evidence is the only basis of what they accept as true. They do not accept claims as valid because somebody told them they will go to hell after they die if they do not.
Job wrote:
3. I think the problem is just your not understanding me. Maybe this question may help in understanding what I mean by "religious based", and then we can go from there:
What religion was Aristotle?
It doesn’t matter what Aristotle believed, the point is that in the Roman Empire anything that disagreed with Christian teaching was considered heresy and not allowed, including things that Aristotle said. Secularism in any way shape or form was not allowed. Only the parts of Aristotle’s philosophy which did not conflict with Christian teaching were allowed. There were no secular scientists in the Roman Empire around at the time of Galileo.

“Aristotle rejected the idea that men were spontaneously generated by the earth…”- William K. Guthrie, Scottish classical scholar, best known for his History of Greek Philosophy
Job wrote:
4. AKA "Evolution, best-selling theory in America (or "worldwide" depending on who's being pitched)" -(Fill in the blank with the scientific equivalent of Siskel & Ebert).
5. And this I take it, means there isn't any? Personally, I don't think it's something they want to publicize.
Now that we live in a society that is is not controlled by religious dogmatism you are free to believe in any unsubstantiated creationist theory you choose (there still is a Flat Earth Society)because scientists do not force or propagandize their findings on others they simply give you the facts. Whether or not you believe is up to you.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#224 Feb 20, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So you think 99.9% of scientists have been somehow conned into believing that human beings have evolved from lower forms without any scientific evidence to support it. In trying to understand how you could possibly arrive that that absurd conclusion I can only guess that you have a very poor understanding of how the scientific method works.
The scientific method demands valid scientific evidence to support claims. It would be impossible for 99.9% of scientists to be duped into believing something for which no valid scientific evidence exists because valid evidence is the only basis of what they accept as true. They do not accept claims as valid because somebody told them they will go to hell after they die if they do not.
<quoted text>

2. It doesn’t matter what Aristotle believed, the point is that in the Roman Empire anything that disagreed with Christian teaching was considered heresy and not allowed, including things that Aristotle said. Secularism in any way shape or form was not allowed. Only the parts of Aristotle’s philosophy which did not conflict with Christian teaching were allowed. There were no secular scientists in the Roman Empire around at the time of Galileo.
“Aristotle rejected the idea that men were spontaneously generated by the earth…”- William K. Guthrie, Scottish classical scholar, best known for his History of Greek Philosophy

3. <quoted text>
Now that we live in a society that is is not controlled by religious dogmatism you are free to believe in any unsubstantiated creationist theory you choose (there still is a Flat Earth Society)because scientists do not force or propagandize their findings on others they simply give you the facts. Whether or not you believe is up to you.
1. Scientists are not any different than politicians, celebrities, etc., who will use vague terms like "99.9%". There are facts however that cannot be overlooked. Evolution make certain assumptions that conditions are as they always were, or similar outside of our relative proximity. We 'don't' know how fast light travels in deep space for instance. Just as light travels slower through water, we really don't know whether or not conditions out in deep space may cause light to travel at a different pace than calculated. If evolution wasn't a religious issue as it is a scientific issue,this 'fact' may not be avoided nearly as much as it seems to be.

Like it or not, science, as we know it today, is a religious/political affair. Probably most people view Creationism/Evolution as a religious/political affair.

2. The concept of 'secularism' was different back then as it was today. When you walked into a typical Barnabus & Noblius Bookstore in Ancient Rome, and other ancient empire communities, you didn't have a 'secular' section in "Row A",'religion' section in "B". Mandates to believe a certain way was common in empires. If it wasn't a god(s), it was often a man. Empires consisted of different nationalities, and it would have to do have been difficult to enforce empirical laws mandating what people need to believe.

The misconception, or dishonesty in some cases, is that the war was strictly between Galileo and clergymen. His rivals were Aristotelian scientists, a scientific branch that developed well before Christian laws. I understand what you're saying, but under your guideline, Galileo was not a secular scientist either.

3. Oh really? What do you think Mao Tse Tung taught which pervades China's educational system today? Today, you have to go way back in history to be able to use the "Christian Law/mandates" theme. We don't have to go back in history today to find mandates on embracing 'evolution'. Of course you and I live in a 'relatively' free society so far.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#225 Feb 20, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientists are not any different than politicians, celebrities, etc., who will use vague terms like "99.9%".
99.9% is not a vague term it’s very specific and also very accurate.

“One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science" – Newsweek

Do the math!
Job wrote:
There are facts however that cannot be overlooked. Evolution make certain assumptions that conditions are as they always were, or similar outside of our relative proximity. We 'don't' know how fast light travels in deep space for instance. Just as light travels slower through water, we really don't know whether or not conditions out in deep space may cause light to travel at a different pace than calculated. If evolution wasn't a religious issue as it is a scientific issue,this 'fact' may not be avoided nearly as much as it seems to be.
…and you are apparently overlooking the fact that in spite all of these “so-called” assumptions science as given us more knowledge about the world we live in in the past 200 years than religion did in the previous 6,000 years.
Job wrote:
Like it or not, science, as we know it today, is a religious/political affair. Probably most people view Creationism/Evolution as a religious/political affair.
Many like you try to make science into a religious/political affair but among scientists evidence not political or religious opinion decides.
Job wrote:
2. The concept of 'secularism' was different back then as it was today. When you walked into a typical Barnabus & Noblius Bookstore in Ancient Rome, and other ancient empire communities, you didn't have a 'secular' section in "Row A",'religion' section in "B". Mandates to believe a certain way was common in empires. If it wasn't a god(s), it was often a man. Empires consisted of different nationalities, and it would have to do have been difficult to enforce empirical laws mandating what people need to believe.

The Roman Empire was one of the largest in history, it encompassed territories in both northern and southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

The Roman Emperor Justinian issued severe laws (Corpus Juris Civilis) against heretics in AD 527 and 528. Those who dissented from authorised Christian teaching were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen and those who persisted in public dissent could be put to death. In 1482CE 2,000 heretics were burned in the tiny state of Andalusia in what is now Spain.
Job wrote:
The misconception, or dishonesty in some cases, is that the war was strictly between Galileo and clergymen. His rivals were Aristotelian scientists, a scientific branch that developed well before Christian laws. I understand what you're saying, but under your guideline, Galileo was not a secular scientist either.
her•e•sy (n)- an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching,

“Galileo was found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy,’ namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.”- Annibale Fantoli,“The Church and Galileo”
Job wrote:
3. Oh really? What do you think Mao Tse Tung taught which pervades China's educational system today? Today, you have to go way back in history to be able to use the "Christian Law/mandates" theme. We don't have to go back in history today to find mandates on embracing 'evolution'. Of course you and I live in a 'relatively' free society so far.
There are no "mandates on embracing evolution"!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Placitas, NM

#226 Feb 20, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientists are not any different than politicians, celebrities, etc., who will use vague terms like "99.9%". There are facts however that cannot be overlooked. Evolution make certain assumptions that conditions are as they always were, or similar outside of our relative proximity. We 'don't' know how fast light travels in deep space for instance. Just as light travels slower through water, we really don't know whether or not conditions out in deep space may cause light to travel at a different pace than calculated. If evolution wasn't a religious issue as it is a scientific issue,this 'fact' may not be avoided nearly as much as it seems to be.
Like it or not, science, as we know it today, is a religious/political affair. Probably most people view Creationism/Evolution as a religious/political affair.
2. The concept of 'secularism' was different back then as it was today. When you walked into a typical Barnabus & Noblius Bookstore in Ancient Rome, and other ancient empire communities, you didn't have a 'secular' section in "Row A",'religion' section in "B". Mandates to believe a certain way was common in empires. If it wasn't a god(s), it was often a man. Empires consisted of different nationalities, and it would have to do have been difficult to enforce empirical laws mandating what people need to believe.
The misconception, or dishonesty in some cases, is that the war was strictly between Galileo and clergymen. His rivals were Aristotelian scientists, a scientific branch that developed well before Christian laws. I understand what you're saying, but under your guideline, Galileo was not a secular scientist either.
3. Oh really? What do you think Mao Tse Tung taught which pervades China's educational system today? Today, you have to go way back in history to be able to use the "Christian Law/mandates" theme. We don't have to go back in history today to find mandates on embracing 'evolution'. Of course you and I live in a 'relatively' free society so far.
Science as we know it? Who do you think you're fooling? The only thing you know about science is you're against it.
Job

Campbell, CA

#227 Feb 21, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
99.9% is not a vague term it’s very specific and also very accurate.
“One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science" – Newsweek
Do the math!

2. <quoted text>
…and you are apparently overlooking the fact that in spite all of these “so-called” assumptions science as given us more knowledge about the world we live in in the past 200 years than religion did in the previous 6,000 years.

3. <quoted text>
Many like you try to make science into a religious/political affair but among scientists evidence not political or religious opinion decides.
<quoted text>
1.!987????? Yes, I'll do the math. That was 26 years ago.

The # of creation scientists has grown, and more than likely will continue to grow...

http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-...

You believe a large population of people can be duped by religion, but think it's impossible for people to be duped by anti-theism.

And by the way, how do you know that percentage is accurate? Because someone in their camp says so?

2. I thought science had nothing to do with morality? You grew up in a nation that valued the Bible and it's principles. The Bible has outsold any science book you can name (not dissing science books in that God gave man the ability to utilize science).

3. Evolutionists may not necessarily try to make science a religious/political issue. It may come more naturally. Let's just say for instance that the religion and the Bible never existed. There would still be politics involved (like in anything else), but evolutionary scientists (if they existed) would no doubt have a different lingo. They would state things like "As far as we know the Earth is this old based on the information we have. But could be different under other possible circumstances", instead of "The Earth is this old, and those who claim otherwise are ignorant".

Evolution has had it's roots in rivalry with the Bible since day one. It's "all about" religion. Many people who embrace evolution do so because it's pitted against creationism. "I don't like Christianity! What's that you say? 99.9 percent of scientists promote evolution? Why those ingnorant Christians!!!!".

Another irony is the lack of interest in science. The movies about Copernicus and Galileo are pretty scarce. We may find a low-budget, made-for-TV, or foreign flick, but that's about it (not that I've found any of those either). Many of the "The Bible Is Mythology" crowd are probably going to run to the theater to see the New "OZ" movie, Jack The Giant Slayer, any Star Trek movie (a big proponent of evolution), etc.
Job

Campbell, CA

#228 Feb 21, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1.<quoted text>
The Roman Empire was one of the largest in history, it encompassed territories in both northern and southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
The Roman Emperor Justinian issued severe laws (Corpus Juris Civilis) against heretics in AD 527 and 528. Those who dissented from authorised Christian teaching were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen and those who persisted in public dissent could be put to death. In 1482CE 2,000 heretics were burned in the tiny state of Andalusia in what is now Spain.

2. <quoted text>
her•e•sy (n)- an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching,
“Galileo was found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy,’ namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.”- Annibale Fantoli,“The Church and Galileo”
<quoted text>

3. There are no "mandates on embracing evolution"!
1. Do I need to get into what Anti-theistic communists have done (The USSR and China once being/being giant empires themselves as well as smaller anti-theistic nations)?

2. Do you think Galileo's view is contrary to scripture? Do you think that the Bible teaches that the Earth is the center of the Universe?

3. a) Where is the belief in Creationism, or Christianity mandated?

b) How well do you understand Communism?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#229 Feb 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1.!987????? Yes, I'll do the math. That was 26 years ago.
The # of creation scientists has grown, and more than likely will continue to grow...
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-...
Your list contained only about 100 (including a dentist and several people that died before Darwin’s theory was proved) names. 100 is less than 700. The number of scientists that accept creationist theories has apparently decreased rather than increased.
“The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.… This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition.…The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1200) than there are in total who support intelligent design.”- National Center for Science Education "Project Steve"
“… the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters [B.Sc., Ph.D. USC, Associate Professor of Education McGill University] to be about 99.9 percent.”- Cynthia Delgado,“Finding the Evolution in Medicine”, July 28, 2006
Job wrote:
You believe a large population of people can be duped by religion, but think it's impossible for people to be duped by anti-theism.
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that religion is based on faith and science is based on evidence. It’s much easier to dupe people when you aren’t required to provide evidence.
Job wrote:
And by the way, how do you know that percentage is accurate? Because someone in their camp says so?
2. I thought science had nothing to do with morality? You grew up in a nation that valued the Bible and it's principles. The Bible has outsold any science book you can name (not dissing science books in that God gave man the ability to utilize science).
3. Evolutionists may not necessarily try to make science a religious/political issue. It may come more naturally. Let's just say for instance that the religion and the Bible never existed. There would still be politics involved (like in anything else), but evolutionary scientists (if they existed) would no doubt have a different lingo. They would state things like "As far as we know the Earth is this old based on the information we have. But could be different under other possible circumstances", instead of "The Earth is this old, and those who claim otherwise are ignorant".
Evolution has had it's roots in rivalry with the Bible since day one. It's "all about" religion. Many people who embrace evolution do so because it's pitted against creationism. "I don't like Christianity! What's that you say? 99.9 percent of scientists promote evolution? Why those ingnorant Christians!!!!".
Another irony is the lack of interest in science. The movies about Copernicus and Galileo are pretty scarce. We may find a low-budget, made-for-TV, or foreign flick, but that's about it (not that I've found any of those either). Many of the "The Bible Is Mythology" crowd are probably going to run to the theater to see the New "OZ" movie, Jack The Giant Slayer, any Star Trek movie (a big proponent of evolution), etc.
I don’t think the Bible was intended to be interpreted literally; however, the vast majority of Christians, before Galileo, did. That’s why they believed the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe. That is also your problem. Your literal interpretation of Genesis is preventing you from accepting the scientific evidence for The Theory of Evolution.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#230 Feb 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Do I need to get into what Anti-theistic communists have done (The USSR and China once being/being giant empires themselves as well as smaller anti-theistic nations)?
Irrelevant!
Job wrote:
2. Do you think Galileo's view is contrary to scripture? Do you think that the Bible teaches that the Earth is the center of the Universe?
I don’t think the Bible was intended to be interpreted literally; however, the vast majority of Christians, before Galileo, did. That’s why they believed the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe. That is also your problem. Your literal interpretation of Genesis is preventing you from accepting the scientific evidence for The Theory of Evolution.
Job wrote:
3. a) Where is the belief in Creationism, or Christianity mandated?
Nowhere, rational minds put a stop to that a couple of hundred years ago.
Job wrote:
b) How well do you understand Communism?
Irrelevant!

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#231 Feb 21, 2013
Lordofnuts wrote:
Can I get an Amen?
No, you're just another AntiChrist Bible hater.
Job

United States

#232 Feb 22, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Your list contained only about 100 (including a dentist and several people that died before Darwin’s theory was proved) names. 100 is less than 700. The number of scientists that accept creationist theories has apparently decreased rather than increased.
“The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.… This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition.…The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1200) than there are in total who support intelligent design.”- National Center for Science Education "Project Steve"
“… the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters [B.Sc., Ph.D. USC, Associate Professor of Education McGill University] to be about 99.9 percent.”- Cynthia Delgado,“Finding the Evolution in Medicine”, July 28, 2006
<quoted text>

That's obiously only a partial list. And yes, some of the earlier well-respected scientists were included, probalby because the usual comeback is supposed lack of qualifications (what University they attended, what branch of science they were in, etc.). That's the automatic "go-to".

One of the ironies however concerning qualifications, is the political conflict between the evolutionary science community, and Dr. James Watson who is fully qualified, noted for discoveries, and has awards which include the Nobel Prize. The conflict is due to his view of the Black race being intellectually inferior to 'other' races. In terms of science, technically, this should not be an issue because science is not supposed to involve morality and political correctness. Evolutionay scientists are involved in "politics". They 'have' to maintain a positive reputation with the public. They are "public-acceptance conscious". That's part of the whole "numbers game". Yes, I've heard the whole "Project Steve" thing before. Like any monopolizing business-institution, they need to maintain "numbers", and realize they can potentially come crashing down anytime.

Do you agree that numbers is really irrelevant as far as actual scientific fact is concerned?
Job

United States

#233 Feb 22, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that religion is based on faith and science is based on evidence. It’s much easier to dupe people when you aren’t required to provide evidence.
<quoted text>

2. I don’t think the Bible was intended to be interpreted literally; however, the vast majority of Christians, before Galileo, did. That’s why they believed the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe. That is also your problem. Your literal interpretation of Genesis is preventing you from accepting the scientific evidence for The Theory of Evolution.
1. I understand that completely. But that doesn't mean there's no evidence involved in religion. As far as evidence, do you agree that we have no evidence as to how fast light travels in "deep space"?

2. The question is, do you think the Bible "literally" claims that the Earth is the "center of the universe"? Like, say, how the Bible literally claims that Jesus rose from the dead after three days?
Job

United States

#234 Feb 22, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Irrelevant!

2. Nowhere, rational minds put a stop to that a couple of hundred years ago.
<quoted text>
Irrelevant!
1. Why would this be irrelevant? Communists have put people to death for their belief in God. Today, people of faith are tortured and imprisoned for their beliefs...inevitably resulting in death by anti-theistic regimes.

Mao Tsu Tung indoctrinated evolutionary science into the fabric of their empire-nation. The Roman Empire appears to be more of a straightforward command. But indoctrination is still "force". Although supposedly "freedom of religion" was/is honored in China, it wasn't practiced. Today, there's a degree of toleration, not because they've become tolerant in nature, but they were left with no choice. There's still persecution of people of faith in spite of a degree of toleration.

And this is just referring to China. There are still the other anti-theistic regimes to consider.

2. Rational minds haven't done too well with the anti-theistic regimes problem.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#235 Feb 22, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're just another AntiChrist Bible hater.
Are you a recording?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#236 Feb 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
That's obiously only a partial list. And yes, some of the earlier well-respected scientists were included, probalby because the usual comeback is supposed lack of qualifications (what University they attended, what branch of science they were in, etc.). That's the automatic "go-to".
Of course it’s only a partial list; the Discovery Institute had a list of 700 scientists in 2007 (didn’t change much from 1987). There are still more scientists named Steve that accept the Theory of Evolution.

You can’t cite scientists who died before the evidence for the Theory of Evolution was provided. Scientists operate on evidence. Doctors didn’t wash their hands before surgery prior to the discovery of germ theory because they were unaware of the evidence that the germs on their hands caused infections.
Job wrote:
One of the ironies however concerning qualifications, is the political conflict between the evolutionary science community, and Dr. James Watson who is fully qualified, noted for discoveries, and has awards which include the Nobel Prize. The conflict is due to his view of the Black race being intellectually inferior to 'other' races. In terms of science, technically, this should not be an issue because science is not supposed to involve morality and political correctness. Evolutionay scientists are involved in "politics". They 'have' to maintain a positive reputation with the public. They are "public-acceptance conscious". That's part of the whole "numbers game". Yes, I've heard the whole "Project Steve" thing before. Like any monopolizing business-institution, they need to maintain "numbers", and realize they can potentially come crashing down anytime.
If Watson said that black people have superior protection from the ultraviolet rays of the sun because of the genetics of their skin pigmentation it would not have been considered racist.

“While speaking at a conference in 2000, Watson had suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos.”- Berger A. Thompson, British Medical Journal 321
Job wrote:
Do you agree that numbers is really irrelevant as far as actual scientific fact is concerned?
No; any individual scientist or small group of scientists can be wrong. An overwhelming consensus among experts lends confidence that the conclusion is correct. If 99 doctors tell you that you need a heart transplant after examination and one tells you that you don’t you would be a fool to accept the conclusion of the one.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#237 Feb 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Why would this be irrelevant? Communists have put people to death for their belief in God. Today, people of faith are tortured and imprisoned for their beliefs...inevitably resulting in death by anti-theistic regimes.
Mao Tsu Tung indoctrinated evolutionary science into the fabric of their empire-nation. The Roman Empire appears to be more of a straightforward command. But indoctrination is still "force". Although supposedly "freedom of religion" was/is honored in China, it wasn't practiced. Today, there's a degree of toleration, not because they've become tolerant in nature, but they were left with no choice. There's still persecution of people of faith in spite of a degree of toleration.
And this is just referring to China. There are still the other anti-theistic regimes to consider.
2. Rational minds haven't done too well with the anti-theistic regimes problem.
Communism is a political, social system and economic ideology it is not science. Political, social and religious systems have frequently been known to force beliefs on people, science merely questions things, does the research and makes rational conclusions based the evidence and intelligent people make use the new knowledge "intellectual luddites" don't.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#238 Feb 22, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I understand that completely. But that doesn't mean there's no evidence involved in religion. As far as evidence, do you agree that we have no evidence as to how fast light travels in "deep space"?
No I do not agree. If you were to say that since we have never been to deep space we do not know that it is not full of goldfish that would be an unreasonable supposition. Since there has never been an observation of the speed of light in a vacuum in near space being different than 186,000 miles per second to suggest that the speed of light in a vacuum is different in deep space would also be an unreasonable supposition.

religion (n)- system of beliefs

science (n)- observation, identification, description, experimental investigation
Job wrote:
2. The question is, do you think the Bible "literally" claims that the Earth is the "center of the universe"? Like, say, how the Bible literally claims that Jesus rose from the dead after three days?
No that is not the question; the question is can a literal interpretation of the Bible be taken as absolute truth. The answer, as demonstrated by, Luther and Bellarmine etc. is no.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#239 Feb 23, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you a recording?
Kind of.

Ezekiel 33:9 (KJV)
9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Job

United States

#240 Feb 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Of course it’s only a partial list; the Discovery Institute had a list of 700 scientists in 2007 (didn’t change much from 1987). There are still more scientists named Steve that accept the Theory of Evolution.
You can’t cite scientists who died before the evidence for the Theory of Evolution was provided. Scientists operate on evidence. Doctors didn’t wash their hands before surgery prior to the discovery of germ theory because they were unaware of the evidence that the germs on their hands caused infections.

2. <quoted text>
If Watson said that black people have superior protection from the ultraviolet rays of the sun because of the genetics of their skin pigmentation it would not have been considered racist.

3.“While speaking at a conference in 2000, Watson had suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos.”- Berger A. Thompson, British Medical Journal 321

4. <quoted text>
No; any individual scientist or small group of scientists can be wrong. An overwhelming consensus among experts lends confidence that the conclusion is correct. If 99 doctors tell you that you need a heart transplant after examination and one tells you that you don’t you would be a fool to accept the conclusion of the one.
1. In my opnion, it wasn't necessary to include those scientists on the list. I think there are enough highly qualified creation scientists today, who have also testified to the difficulties they've faced as creation scientists by an institution that 'should' draw a lot of suspicion. I think this unnecessary conclusion was due to the temptation of placing well-known, highly-respected scientists on the list. Those who it's difficult to black-ball.

As far as the "Steve" thing, it's another way of glorifying numbers, and only impresses it's own grandstand. Now, if there are more scientists named Englebert who embrace evolution, I 'might' be slightly impressed.

2. This is a very interesting statement. From first glance, it would appear that you are in a sense defending the idea that I presented that evolutionary/naturalist scientists have no grounds to rebuke James Watson. In other words, stating that Black people are less intelligent would be considered no different than addressing the advantage of their skin pigmentation. And that you disagree with the scientific community at large (majority of course being evolutionists). Keep in mind, we're not talking about some liberal media folk who cry 'racism' at every corner:

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fur...

Is this correct?

3. And yet another interesting statement. And again, I have to wonder what your reasoning is for including this, before I comment on it. Can you please provide your reason?

4. Medical situations often require immediate attention to where one is pressured into making a quick decision. This is quite a bit different than scientific theories. Not a good analogy. But if you wish to go there, in situations where a 'vast' majority opinion in court ruled someone guilty, giving them life-sentence, or the death penalty, would it have been foolish to 'not' adhere to majority opinion even in situations where it was found out later that the 'sentenced' was innocent?
Job

United States

#241 Feb 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Communism is a political, social system and economic ideology it is not science. Political, social and religious systems have frequently been known to force beliefs on people, science merely questions things, does the research and makes rational conclusions based the evidence and intelligent people make use the new knowledge "intellectual luddites" don't.
The American media, which has promoted evolution for years is not science either.

So it seems here that you are attempting to disconnect American and Western evolutionists from evolutionists in Communist countries. Or, you're either embracing one of two ideas:

1. Communist countries forced evolution on their citizens,'without' there being actual scientists involved, or taught by unqualified/inauthentic scientists.

2. There are authentic qualified scientists who submit to the forceful methods of their superiors.

Both have their problems. The first one is just too huge of a stretch to assume the USSR, China, etc., never had authentic scientists. The second one would be proof that some evolutionary scientists succumb to political/authoratative pressure.

If one leans towards #2, then how can they presume that evolutionists in the U.S./western world don't succumb to existing political, social, peer pressure?

Do you agree that evolution has been pushed into the minds of the general populace via TV shows, movies, etc.? That many who embrace evolution do so without studying, or even having an interest in science? It may not be forced as it would be in, say, China; but it's certainly indirectly pushed into the minds of many via mass media.
Job

United States

#242 Feb 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
No I do not agree. If you were to say that since we have never been to deep space we do not know that it is not full of goldfish that would be an unreasonable supposition. Since there has never been an observation of the speed of light in a vacuum in near space being different than 186,000 miles per second to suggest that the speed of light in a vacuum is different in deep space would also be an unreasonable supposition.
religion (n)- system of beliefs
science (n)- observation, identification, description, experimental investigation
<quoted text>

1. No that is not the question; the question is can a literal interpretation of the Bible be taken as absolute truth. The answer, as demonstrated by, Luther and Bellarmine etc. is no.
1. The fact that we don't know how fast the speed of light is in deep space is just that...fact. It's got nothing to do with goldfish. To make an absolute dogmatic claim that the speed of light is 'absolutely' the same in deep space is unreasonable. It's understandable to make a calculation that we admit could be wrong depending on certain conditions. It's the 'dogmatism' I'm addressing.

2. This is not some sort of Universal/philosphical question for mankind, or a Shakespearian "to be, or not to be?" type question. This is "my" question to you.

Do you think that the Bible literally states that the Earth is the centerpiece of the Universe?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Does God Hate? 21 hr Big Al 139
God has Granted Repentance that Leads to Life -... 22 hr Sheriff Joe 529 9
My Dream 1, part 1 and 2, the meaning? Tue rickpilgrim 1
The People's Lounge (Mar '09) Tue Roadie 4,441
Why should God bless America!? (Dec '15) Tue RiccardoFire 199
According to the Bible, is anal sex between a m... (Oct '10) May 21 religiousnuts 191
News New figures show debt crises are growing across... May 19 nanoanomaly 1