Thinking

Shaftesbury, UK

#284 Feb 26, 2013
Why?

Most christians accept Evolution.
dollarsbill wrote:
If I was a betting man I would bet that on Judgment Day massive fraud will be found in the 'evolution' industry.
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#285 Feb 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence would that be?
What observable evidence for evolution?

Surely you've seen dogs.
How did all those different breeds come about?

Are you familiar with horses, corn and other various horticulture?

Ever go to a museum and look at those suits of armor worn by mighty men known as Knights?
Now picture a modern day football player trying to strap that same suit of armor on.

What brought on the differences and changes?
socci wrote:
The evolution hoax was created by the Jesuits.
No.
Darwin was not a Jesuit, he was a protestant.
socci wrote:
The father of big bangism was a Jesuits.
Jesuits must really intimidate you.
Is it that they are Christian men of knowledge?

Jesuits were called the schoolmasters of Europe during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, not only because of their schools but also for their pre-eminence as scholars scientists and the thousands of textbooks they composed.
During their first two centuries the Jesuits were involved in an explosion of intellectual activity, and were engaged in over 740 schools.

Jesuits were always deeply involved in scholarship, in science and in exploration.
By 1750, 30 of the world's 130 astronomical observatories were run by Jesuit astronomers and 35 lunar craters have been named to honor Jesuit scientists.

The so-called "Gregorian" Calendar was the work of the Jesuit Christopher Clavius, the "most influential teacher of the Renaissance".

Another Jesuit, Ferdinand Verbiest, determined the elusive Russo-Chinese border and until recent times no foreign name was as well known in China as the Jesuit Matteo Ricci, "Li-ma-teu", whose story is told by Jonathan Spence in his 1984 best seller. China has recently erected a monument to the Jesuit scientists of the 17th century - in spite of the fact that since 1948 120 Jesuits languished in Chinese prisons.
By the way, no other religious order has spent as many man-years in jail as the Jesuit order.

Five of the eight major rivers of the world were first charted by Jesuit explorers.

Two of the statues in Statuary Hall in the Capitol in Washington are Jesuits:
Eusebio Kino and Jacques Marquette.

A 1978 Brazilian stamp celebrates the Jesuit founding of Săo Paulo.

Spanish Jesuits went to Paraguay in 1607, built settlements which lasted from 1607 to 1767 for the indigenous people and taught them how to govern and defend themselves against the Spanish slave traders.
They also taught agriculture, architecture, metallurgy, farming, music, ranching and printing. The Guaraní natives of Paraguay were printing books on art, literature as well as school texts in these settlements before the American revolution.

This Utopia was suddenly crushed by the influential slave traders who were able to intimidate the Spanish crown into destroying the settlements. King Charles III expelled the Jesuits in 1767 when Paraguay boasted of 57 settlements serving 113,716 indigenous natives.
These Jesuit Settlements were called "a triumph of humanity which seems to expiate the cruelties of the first conquerors" by Voltaire - hardly a friend of the Jesuits.

The history of Latin America would have been quite different if this form of settlement had been allowed to develop according to its own momentum, offering democracy a century before North America.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#286 Feb 26, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
If I was a betting man I would bet that on Judgment Day massive fraud will be found in the 'evolution' industry.
Pascal's wager??
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#287 Feb 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence would that be?
The evolution hoax was created by the Jesuits. The father of big bangism was a Jesuits.
Fundamentalist is just another word for Protestant who fundamentally believe the Bible.
Surely you like math and geometry.
These structured disciplines must be comfortable to a person with fundamental tendencies.

Check out this info from a Jesuit priest, Joseph F. MacDonnell, S.J. Professor of Mathematics at Fairfield University.
Tell me what you think about his discertation on the 13 Archimedian semiregular polyhedra.

"It can be proven that there are only 13 Archimedean solids, two of which occur in two forms.
These two are the two 'snubs', and the two forms of each are related to one another like a left-hand and a righthand glove: they are enanttomorphic.

The set of thirteen is illustrated below.

One of these solids, the truncated tetrahedron, can be inscribed in a regular tetrahedron. The next six can be inscribed in either a cube or an octahedron, and the last six in either a dodecahedron or an icosahedron. The 'truncated' solids are so called because each can be constructed by cutting off the corners of some other solid, but the truncated cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron require a distortion in addition to convert rectangles into squares. So the better names for these two solids are 'Great Rhombicuboctahedron' and 'Great Rhombicosidodecahedron'. The solids 34.4 and 3.4.5.4 can then bear the prefix 'small'. The syllable 'rhomb-' shows that one set of faces lies in the planes of the rhombic dodecahedron and rhombic triacontahedron respectively.
All Archimedean solids are inscribable in a sphere."

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/rs/polyhedr...

socci

El Dorado Springs, MO

#288 Feb 26, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
Surely you like math and geometry.
These structured disciplines must be comfortable to a person with fundamental tendencies.
Check out this info from a Jesuit priest, Joseph F. MacDonnell, S.J. Professor of Mathematics at Fairfield University.
Tell me what you think about his discertation on the 13 Archimedian semiregular polyhedra.
"It can be proven that there are only 13 Archimedean solids, two of which occur in two forms.
These two are the two 'snubs', and the two forms of each are related to one another like a left-hand and a righthand glove: they are enanttomorphic.
The set of thirteen is illustrated below.
One of these solids, the truncated tetrahedron, can be inscribed in a regular tetrahedron. The next six can be inscribed in either a cube or an octahedron, and the last six in either a dodecahedron or an icosahedron. The 'truncated' solids are so called because each can be constructed by cutting off the corners of some other solid, but the truncated cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron require a distortion in addition to convert rectangles into squares. So the better names for these two solids are 'Great Rhombicuboctahedron' and 'Great Rhombicosidodecahedron'. The solids 34.4 and 3.4.5.4 can then bear the prefix 'small'. The syllable 'rhomb-' shows that one set of faces lies in the planes of the rhombic dodecahedron and rhombic triacontahedron respectively.
All Archimedean solids are inscribable in a sphere."
http://faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/rs/polyhedr...

Sounds like Kabala. Jesuits have always been pagan. Evolution is pagan. The Christian Bible certainly does not support pagan evolution beliefs.

More about pagan Jesuit education..

www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/god...
socci

El Dorado Springs, MO

#289 Feb 26, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
What observable evidence for evolution?
Surely you've seen dogs.
How did all those different breeds come about?

Are you familiar with horses, corn and other various horticulture?

Just shows how dumb you are. Genetic variation is not evolution. The evolution theory says the dog came from some other lower creature we have never observed and cannot produce in a lab. Everyone admits genetics allows all dogs come from the wolf. There's no proof it came from anything else.

Did God Create Poodles?
http://creation.com/did-god-create-poodles

The Origins of Variety
Professor Walter Veith
www.youtube.com/watch...
.
Cisco Kid wrote:
Darwin was not a Jesuit, he was a protestant.

The Jesuits and Freemasons founded the Royal Society in London where Darwins were members. The Jesuits were involved with the Piltdown and Peking "man" hoaxes. Their so-called 'education' is just pagan brainwashing for their counter-reformation. The Jesuit invented the discredited big bang theory that God did not create or even exist. Chardin the Jesuit was a new ager kabalist. The Templars founded the Jesuits. That's why they all work together. The low level Freemasons are unaware recruits from all walks of life.

But as for evidence, there is none for evolution. It's just textbook sophistry to support the marxist world revolution against real Christianity & Bible.
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#290 Feb 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Just shows how dumb you are. Genetic variation is not evolution. The evolution theory says the dog came from some other lower creature we have never observed and cannot produce in a lab. Everyone admits genetics allows all dogs come from the wolf. There's no proof it came from anything else.
Did God Create Poodles?
http://creation.com/did-god-create-poodles
The Origins of Variety
Professor Walter Veith
www.youtube.com/watch...
.
<quoted text>
The Jesuits and Freemasons founded the Royal Society in London where Darwins were members. The Jesuits were involved with the Piltdown and Peking "man" hoaxes. Their so-called 'education' is just pagan brainwashing for their counter-reformation. The Jesuit invented the discredited big bang theory that God did not create or even exist. Chardin the Jesuit was a new ager kabalist. The Templars founded the Jesuits. That's why they all work together. The low level Freemasons are unaware recruits from all walks of life.
But as for evidence, there is none for evolution. It's just textbook sophistry to support the marxist world revolution against real Christianity & Bible.
How do you feel about...Light Bulbs?....and....EE-lectricity ?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#291 Feb 27, 2013
I think the whole discussion about religion vs. science boils down to the value you attach to divine revelation vs. empirical evidence and your own capabilities of understanding each.

“The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them”- Henry Louis Mencken

Fundamentalists of all religions are convinced that their book is the inerrant word of their “God” and that they understand it correctly. That means that they are not capable of rationally considering anything that appears contradict the “Word of God” as they understand it.
Job

West Sacramento, CA

#292 Feb 27, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
"If God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the rising sun (S- U-N), then how can one insist that he be taken literally when writing of the rising of the Son (S-O-N)!... In the summer of 1977 a fellow geocentrist, James Nolen Hanson… wrote… that if I were to contact him, he might be able to get me a job teaching computer courses…" -Professor Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. degree in astronomy in 1973, Baldwin- Wallace College
I’m sure he would have a hard time getting a job having to do with astronomy!

2. <quoted text>
There are several hypotheses (unproven) about how the universe might have come into being but scientists do not claim to know for a fact exactly how it happened.
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science....This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." - Stephen Hawking
There are numerous religious mythologies (unproven) about how the universe came into being and they all claim to know for a fact exactly how it happened. That's the difference between science and religion.

3. There's definitely peer pressure. As far as "banning", I think it's the other way around:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/200...
The modern evolutionist is "far" from any heroics bestowed on Copernicus and Galileo.
<quoted text>
Dr. Watson made a statement that was offensive to many people including scientists. He provided no evidence to back it up. The scientific community reacted exactly the way one would expect it to. Had he provided evidence to support his comments there would have been a huge controversy and debate about the evidence. Since he provided no evidence he was ostracized for an offensive personal opinion just as he should have been. It's not about politics it's about evidence.
1. How can one take an evolutionist seriously when he says "The Sun is rising", or "The Sun is descending"?

2. And there are creation scientists who have shown that it's possible for the earth to be 6,000 years old. Why do we have to discard what creationists have produced? Sure there are some folks who take this as absolute fact without looking at evidence. But there are obviously people who take evolution as fact, some who may not even know who Hawking is.

3. What makes you claim that his 'statement' was not an hypothesis?

Recent editorials in this journal have defended the right of eminent biologist James Watson to raise the unpopular hypothesis that people of sub-Saharan African descent score lower, on average, than people of European or East Asian descent on tests of general intelligence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18656315

You should understand that there was concern due to Watson coming close to starting a small riot.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharps...

Should one be forced to retire due to a hyphothesis? Why would this be unique if science and morality do not go hand in hand?

You bet there was some "face saving".
Job

West Sacramento, CA

#293 Feb 27, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The situation with Copernicus’ and Galileo’s and Heliocentric Theory is exactly the same as the situation with the Theory of Evolution except for the fact that the Bible authorities are no longer in control; but they still refuse to accept the scientific evidence presented to them.
Except now we have an institution made up of 95% atheist and agnostics (at least in the "Biology" division) who's religious bias has taken the monopolizing place of historic European theocrats.

It's a "religious/political " issue.

“THE HEAT IS ON”

Since: Apr 12

Satan IS in "The Church"

#294 Feb 27, 2013
Lordofnuts wrote:
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanised" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity of Gods.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who committed suicide while praying to himself for help, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Can I get an Amen?
Do you Bible~Bashers ever give proper credit for anything? That is the same as stealing. http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

Now I'll state what a Fundamentalist Christian truly is:

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalism, refers to a movement within Protestantism upholding a literal reading of the Bible. The movement arose in British and American Protestant denominations in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians. These Protestants reacted against modernist Protestant theology of the 19th century, which they felt undermined their basic faith. They especially insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, which was denied by the modernists.

A third strand—and the name itself—came from a 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[16] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version stressed several core beliefs, including:

The inerrancy of the Bible

The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.

The Virgin Birth of Christ

The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ

The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundam...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#295 Feb 27, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How can one take an evolutionist seriously when he says "The Sun is rising", or "The Sun is descending"?
Professor Gerardus Bouw is a not an “evolutionist” he’s a self-proclaimed Geocentrist based on his understanding of the Bible and I certainly do not take him seriously.
http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/bouw_b...
Job wrote:
2. And there are creation scientists who have shown that it's possible for the earth to be 6,000 years old. Why do we have to discard what creationists have produced? Sure there are some folks who take this as absolute fact without looking at evidence. But there are obviously people who take evolution as fact, some who may not even know who Hawking is.
Creationists have produced no scientific evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old; to the contrary all of the scientific evidence from all of the different fields contradicts that.
Job wrote:
3. What makes you claim that his 'statement' was not an hypothesis?
Hawking’s statement was not a hypothesis because he did propose any specific “testable” cause for the universe he simply said there was no reason to believe that “God” was the only possible cause.
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" -Stephen Hawking
Job wrote:
Recent editorials in this journal have defended the right of eminent biologist James Watson to raise the unpopular hypothesis that people of sub-Saharan African descent score lower, on average, than people of European or East Asian descent on tests of general intelligence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18656315
You should understand that there was concern due to Watson coming close to starting a small riot.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharps...
Should one be forced to retire due to a hyphothesis? Why would this be unique if science and morality do not go hand in hand?
You bet there was some "face saving".
I’m not sure what you think the Dr. James Watson affair proves; I think it proves that science does not operate on the basis of the unsubstantiated authority of the Bible or even the unsubstantiated assertions of one of its own eminent researchers. It operates on evidence. When the unsubstantiated assertions are as offensive as those of Dr. Watson there is of course a more vigorous response. Put up or shut up.

"Scientific theories that advance knowledge demand evidence. Evidence is the relevant information that is presented in theory. Evidence is publicly verifiable, reproducible, and references facts and observations to inform scientists (and convince others) which theories are probably true. There are various measures, philosophical approaches, and tests to convey on the likelihood or degree of support that the evidence conveys about a particular inference.'- Elliott.Sober, philosopher of science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#296 Feb 27, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Except now we have an institution made up of 95% atheist and agnostics (at least in the "Biology" division) who's religious bias has taken the monopolizing place of historic European theocrats.
It's a "religious/political " issue.
It was a religious /political issue when the Bible authorities were in charge but now it’s an evidence issue. No atheist or agnostic is going to condemn anyone to hell or persecute anyone for heresy because they don’t believe. Science allows those that don’t believe the empirical evidence to condemn themselves to ignorance.

"The Religion that is afraid of science dishonours God and commits suicide. It acknowledges that it is not equal to the whole of truth… Every influx of atheism, of skepticism is thus made useful as a mercury pill assaulting and removing a diseased religion and making way for truth." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Job

Walnut Creek, CA

#297 Feb 28, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Professor Gerardus Bouw is a not an “evolutionist” he’s a self-proclaimed Geocentrist based on his understanding of the Bible and I certainly do not take him seriously.
http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/bouw_b...
2. <quoted text>
Creationists have produced no scientific evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old; to the contrary all of the scientific evidence from all of the different fields contradicts that.
3. <quoted text>
Hawking’s statement was not a hypothesis because he did propose any specific “testable” cause for the universe he simply said there was no reason to believe that “God” was the only possible cause.
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" -Stephen Hawking
<quoted text>
1. I'm not talking about Gerardus Bouw. One man who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth because he thinks the Bible makes this claim doesn't mean anything to me. There was a man who claimed that the world would end on May 21st 2011 because he thought the 'Bible' indicated this. The only other people who believed it were those who followed his teaching. These things happen.
What I was referring to was if one is going to critique the Bible because it uses the common language and expression of the day through the various writers, then what about modern evolutionists who use common language/phrases of the day? To humans, it appears to us that the Sun rises and descends. We know in reality it doesn't, but "the Sun rising/descending" are common phrases. We all understand the implications. We're more comfortable with that than saying "We're 'adjusting' to the Sun's position bringing light/darkness".
2. Give me some examples.
3. I wasn't referring to Hawkings, I was referring to Watson. What makes you think that his reference to racial intelligence was merely a 'statement' as opposed to a 'hypothesis'?
Job

Walnut Creek, CA

#298 Feb 28, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m not sure what you think the Dr. James Watson affair proves; I think it proves that science does not operate on the basis of the unsubstantiated authority of the Bible or even the unsubstantiated assertions of one of its own eminent researchers. It operates on evidence. When the unsubstantiated assertions are as offensive as those of Dr. Watson there is of course a more vigorous response. Put up or shut up.
"Scientific theories that advance knowledge demand evidence. Evidence is the relevant information that is presented in theory. Evidence is publicly verifiable, reproducible, and references facts and observations to inform scientists (and convince others) which theories are probably true. There are various measures, philosophical approaches, and tests to convey on the likelihood or degree of support that the evidence conveys about a particular inference.'- Elliott.Sober, philosopher of science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
They weren't demanding that he "put up". They demanded that he "shut up". What the affair shows is that there's moral, ethical principles involved. Is it ethical to suggest that a particular race is less intelligent than another? It's obviously "unethical". By 'why' is it unethical? If there's no God, or as even deists may suggest, no 'personal' God, then there theoretically would be no reason to rebuke someone for making a hypothesis, or even stating an opinion. All we can say is, "we/I disagree".
If you read that article I linked, you will probably see that some people either 'support' Watson's theory, or believe that he was treated unjustly because he made a hypothesis, and unjustly accused of being a racist. Now do I think Watson is racist? It could very well be. However, it's possible that he isn't, and honestly believes his theory (And his public apology was merely for the sake of his well-being, and to undo the embarrassment of the scientific community).
Now the reason for his public rebuke from among scientists may not be for ethical reasons, so much as "political correctness". Even sciencists have to conform to the "political correctness" of the day. In fact, you could probably easily side with the people referenced in the article who maintain that Watson was unjustly treated. But you can't do that, because you are subject to political correctness.
Job

Walnut Creek, CA

#299 Feb 28, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a religious /political issue when the Bible authorities were in charge but now it’s an evidence issue. No atheist or agnostic is going to condemn anyone to hell or persecute anyone for heresy because they don’t believe. Science allows those that don’t believe the empirical evidence to condemn themselves to ignorance.
"The Religion that is afraid of science dishonours God and commits suicide. It acknowledges that it is not equal to the whole of truth… Every influx of atheism, of skepticism is thus made useful as a mercury pill assaulting and removing a diseased religion and making way for truth." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
What 'evidence' exactly is condemning the Bible?
socci

Mount Vernon, MO

#300 Feb 28, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Creationists have produced no scientific evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old; to the contrary all of the scientific evidence from all of the different fields contradicts that.

The fields are censored of truth. In the middle east there are over one billion muslims. By your definition this must be the truth since they all agree. No matter consensus we will need to see the actual evidence.

Creationist have explained many evidences proving a biblical created universe & earth..

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Evolution theories only hold any weight in the censored schools & textbooks not on the internet where they fail to produce the actual evidence.
Thinking

Shaftesbury, UK

#301 Feb 28, 2013
Bollocks.
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
The fields are censored of truth. In the middle east there are over one billion muslims. By your definition this must be the truth since they all agree. No matter consensus we will need to see the actual evidence.
Creationist have explained many evidences proving a biblical created universe & earth..
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Evolution theories only hold any weight in the censored schools & textbooks not on the internet where they fail to produce the actual evidence.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#302 Mar 1, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not talking about Gerardus Bouw. One man who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth because he thinks the Bible makes this claim doesn't mean anything to me. There was a man who claimed that the world would end on May 21st 2011 because he thought the 'Bible' indicated this. The only other people who believed it were those who followed his teaching. These things happen.
What I was referring to was if one is going to critique the Bible because it uses the common language and expression of the day through the various writers, then what about modern evolutionists who use common language/phrases of the day? To humans, it appears to us that the Sun rises and descends. We know in reality it doesn't, but "the Sun rising/descending" are common phrases. We all understand the implications. We're more comfortable with that than saying "We're 'adjusting' to the Sun's position bringing light/darkness".
The only reason that you know, today, that the Earth revolves around the Sun is because of the scientific evidence produced by the observations of Coperincus and Galileo. The religious people of that day refused to accept the evidence on the basis of conflict with the Old Testament book of Joshua. People like yourself, today, refuse to accept the scientific evidence for evolution on the basis of conflict with the Old Testament book of Genesis. There is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution.
Job wrote:
2. Give me some examples.
Examples of what?

There are no examples of scientific evidence that support the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That the Earth is billions of years old is supported by scientific evidence from Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biostratigraphy, Magnetostratigraphy, Tephrochronology, etc. Read a science book!
Job wrote:
3. I wasn't referring to Hawkings, I was referring to Watson. What makes you think that his reference to racial intelligence was merely a 'statement' as opposed to a 'hypothesis'?
The Watson affair is simply a blemish on Dr. Watson’s reputation not all of science as you seem to trying to make it out be.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#303 Mar 1, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't demanding that he "put up". They demanded that he "shut up".
…because he didn’t put up.
Job wrote:
What the affair shows is that there's moral, ethical principles involved. Is it ethical to suggest that a particular race is less intelligent than another? It's obviously "unethical". By 'why' is it unethical? If there's no God, or as even deists may suggest, no 'personal' God, then there theoretically would be no reason to rebuke someone for making a hypothesis, or even stating an opinion. All we can say is, "we/I disagree".
If you read that article I linked, you will probably see that some people either 'support' Watson's theory, or believe that he was treated unjustly because he made a hypothesis, and unjustly accused of being a racist. Now do I think Watson is racist? It could very well be. However, it's possible that he isn't, and honestly believes his theory (And his public apology was merely for the sake of his well-being, and to undo the embarrassment of the scientific community).
Now the reason for his public rebuke from among scientists may not be for ethical reasons, so much as "political correctness". Even sciencists have to conform to the "political correctness" of the day. In fact, you could probably easily side with the people referenced in the article who maintain that Watson was unjustly treated. But you can't do that, because you are subject to political correctness.
If the Dr. Wastson affair is all you've got you've got nothing.

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
Who stole the keys to Heaven? 4 min Laci Ann 7 195
Why would God not tell the Jews about hell or t... 17 min 15th Dalai Lama 535
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 24 min Patrick 4,083
A Message from Nettie (Feb '14) 27 min Seentheotherside 1,392
dollarsbill vs an athiest 33 min The truth works 290
The Prophet of Jesus Christ 53 min Prophet of Jesus ... 1
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 1 hr Laci Ann 7 2,998
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 3 hr Laci Ann 7 946
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••