You complained of insufficient answers in reply so I will help you:
>That is actually completely untrue. The 1st Amendment only assures us that no religion can be pushed by the state in school, but there is NOTHING, ANYWHERE that says alternate viewpoints cannot be shared there. Get your facts straight, dear.
>
Get YOUR facts straight, sweetie pie. (Yes, I can play the same cutesy condescension game.)
> but there is NOTHING, ANYWHERE that says alternate viewpoints
Get a clue. If it was a matter of "alternate viewpoints", astronomy professors would include astrology in their classes, medical school professors would include blood-letting and homeopathy, and earth science professors would include flat-earthers to have their say.
Again: Alternate RELIGIOUS views are not allowed in SCIENCE classes. The involvement of God in creation, for example, is not SCIENCE because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. As born-again Christian, Dr. Francis Collins, said in response to a question similar to your claims: "As soon as someone invents a deity-detector, God's role will be appropriate in the science classroom. Who made that determination? The Christian scholars of past centuries who defined the methodological naturalism of the scientific method. That's who. (It had nothing to do with atheists and "evilutionists".)
>As to being "welcome to publish it for peer review", really? It's that easy, huh?
Yes. I've published and countless other Christians have published. But by all means keep telling yourself that it is the big bad evil worldwide conspiracy that keeps RELIGION out of the SCIENCE classroom.
> Because that's all your version of "science" is.
That "version of science" was defined by centuries of Christians scholars. Get used to it. They chose to be intelligent.
> A few pieces of bone scattered here and there is no actual proof of ascending life forms.
"Lying for Jesus" does not advance the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. There are THOUSANDS of fossils which provide details of the evolution of life on earth----but not a single fossil is needed to establish The Theory of Evolution. The mapping of the human genome was yet another slam dunk for the theory. The Theory of Evolution rests on everything from nested hierarchies and phylogenetic trees to geologic strata to radiometric dataing to ERVs to atavisms to things you will NEVER take the time to learn nor have the ability to comprehend.
>In the absolute absence of transitional life forms,
Does lying make you feel better? There are so many that most museums keep the majority of them in basement storage. And by the way, EVERY organisms that reproduces is a "transitional life form."
> it's mind-boggling to me how haughty and ugly you folks get when anyone dares question your "theory"!
It is mind-boggling how stupid you sound when someone dares to tell you that your ignorance is not taught in the classroom. Evidence is prefered.
>You can't prove it and
If you understood science, you would know that PROOFS are unique to mathematics. Learn what science. It depends on EVIDENCE. When you pass sixth grade science and learn some terminology, then you may be able to ask intelligent questions.
>you can't DISPROVE the Creationist viewpoint!
1) I"m a creationist.
2) If you can provide COMPELLING EVIDENCE, testable under the scientific method, and think that your RELIGIOUS CONCEPT merits a place in the science classroom, you are welcome to publish it and EARN its place in a science textbook. (You shouldn't have to get state legislatures to help you bypass that process.) But remember Dr. Collin's admonition: invent a "Creator-detector" first. Until you do, you lack a scientific basis.
3) Belief in Creation and the affirmation of The Theory of Evolution are not opposites. I believe in creation as does Dr. Collins. All of the world's Christian believe God created everything---and most of them have no conflict with The Theory of Evolution.
>And yet you guys get so superior and treat anyone who disagrees with you as if they are some lower life form with too little intelligence to tie their own shoes!
I attribute your problem more to stubbornness and refusal to learn than a matter of too little intelligence. I doubt that you are intrinsically incapable of anything but ignorance on this topic. But keep in mind that YOUR are defending the movie, not me. The embarrassment is yours, by your own choice. If you can say with a straight face that the trailer gives you any reason NOT to be embarrassed at its foolishness and dishonesty, you've lost all credibility.
>Well, it may have escaped you, my dear, but there are many VERY educated individuals who disagree with your viewpoint
Religious dogma does not insulate someone from ignorance nor does education vaccinate even the most intelligent people from being ignorant when they choose to be. How many atheist deniers of The Theory of Evolution do you know? How many biology professors of the world's universities deny The Theory of Evolution? It is not about the evidence that determines their choice to deny the best attested theory in all of science. Many will freely tell you that it is in SPITE of the evidence that they reject The Theory of Evolution. They believe it threatens their faith. Their problem is FEAR more than it is stupidity.
> and they have degrees I'd venture a bet you haven't even DREAMED of achieving in your own academic experience!
What a childishly infantile statement. And by the way, the dentists and chiropractors on those silly "evolution denier" lists have NO standing whatsoever. The only degrees that matter are those relevant to the scientific fields involved in the issues.
>You can't call them idiots because they are not.
They aren't idiots. The Book of Proverbs calls them FOOLS because they "mock instruction and scorn knowledge." God has filled his creation with evidence for evolution. We see it everywhere we look. To be blind to God's magnificent works is to be like the Pharisees who attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan because they didn't want to believe them. Those Pharisees weren't idiots. In fact, they were probably the most brilliant men within miles around. But they were fools nonetheless.
> You can't call them fools because they work off the same scientific processes YOU affirm to be true.
No they do not. Many of them even emphasize their Statements of Faith----which declares UP FRONT that any evidence which seems to conflict with their traditional interpretations of the Bible will be ignored. They make clear that they do NOT follow the evidence wherever it leads. That declares the reality that they do NOT "work off the same scientific processes" as the REAL scientists. I was part of the academy. They are not and will never be. You will certainly never. You and other denialists are protesters with your nose pressed against the glass of the REAL science academy....wondering why your whining doesn't matter to anyone else.
No, they do NOT work from the same scientific method. They reject The Theory of Evolution for religious reasons. If they had EVIDENCE against The Theory of Evolution, they would have published it for peer review and it would be in the textbooks. Yet NO SUCH EVIDENCE exists. As you've already demonstrated, spreading LIES about the science is all that they can do.
> They just come to different conclusions.
Correct. Their religious views have trumped their ability to understand scientific evidence. They deny the scientific method and replace with the popular traditions of their individual churches and denominations. (That is why they have no single scientific theory which they all endorse. They agree on very little.)
>Stop acting like your viewpoint is the end-all, be-all of human existence.
More lying. Science cares about evidence. Some people do and some don't.
>Well, at least wait until all the fraud is weeded out and all the revisions have been made to your "theory" before you get back on your high horse.
You mean the creationist fraud which is still promoted by the Hovinds, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and other Young Earth Creationists? Creationists have a long, rich history of frauds. Indeed, most of the creationists' most attention-grabbing arguments turn out to be frauds or hoaxes, unlike the case with real scientists. Real scientists, of course, make blunders, and they get exposed by scientists. (Piltdown Man, for example, was questioned by the scientific community IMMEDIATELY, in part because the "discoverers" refused to cooperate with full peer review. It was ignored in theories of human evolution and NEVER played any role in confirming The Theory of Evolution. It was a British media campaign which wanted to counter the Germans for their discovery of Neanderthal Man. Yet, over a century later, Piltdown is all you can come up with for paleontology fraud related to evolution! Pitiful!) Frauds are RARE in real science. They are COMMON in "creation science."
Creationists never discover and publish any new fossil species, except for frauds or hoaxes.
Here's a brief reminder of Creationist FRAUD: There was the Paluxy River human footprints amid dinosaur tracks, which Carl Baugh named Humanus Bauanthropus, after himself, and which were aggressively promoted by Henry Morris, A.E. Wilder-Smith, Russell Humphreys, Clifford Burdick and Baugh; the "black skull of Freiberg", actually a carving made of coal, promoted by Henry Morris; the Calaveras skeleton fraud, promoted by Morris and Duane Gish; Carl Baugh's Humanus Davidii, which was actually a prehistoric fish's tooth that they mistook for a pre-Flood human’s; Clifford Burdick's "Moab Man" of the Cretaceous, and “Malachite Man”, which were just fairly recent remains of Native Americans; A.E. Wilder-Smith's Phenanthropus mirabilis of the Carboniferous from Berea, Kentucky ("footprints" outlined with chalk; also, some footprints of four-legged amphibians called human prints); the “Coso Artifact” supposedly from a pre-Flood super-civilization (actually a 1920’s spark plug for a Model T), promoted by Answers in Genesis, Carl Baugh and Donald Chittick; the Castanedolo and Olmo fossils, real enough fossils, though creationists like Henry Morris dishonestly misidentified their geological strata as to era and condition; Kent Hovind's and Jack Chick's "New Guineau Man", which never existed, and which they invented whole cloth in order to accuse scientists of fraud; Clifford Burdick's pre-Cambrian pollen that never existed, and his footprints on trilobites; the fraudulent Ica Stones from Peru, carved during modern times and promoted by countless creationists; and "Meganthropus", various digitally altered photos of Biblical giants, to name just a few.
These were all CREATIONIST fakes, and in every single case creationist asserted:
1. They falsified evolution.
2. They contradicted the specific predictions of evolution.
3. The fact that most scientists ignored creationists' fraudulent concoctions was proof scientists are biased against creationism,
4. Which proves scientists are incompetent and untrustworthy due to unreasonable bigotry against fraudulent data.
Yes, you are defending a long and proud tradition of creationist fraud. And many creationists CONTINUE to promote those frauds!
Yet again, your ignorance of reality has led you to make a fool of yourself. Any real scientist can proudly compare evolutionary biology with "creation science" in a head on "Who has the most fraud?" competition. Do you REALLY want to go there? Is it not pitiful that you have to go back more than a century to try and find a flaw in the REAL science? (Of course, anyone who knows the REAL story of Piltdown knows that it was an illustration of how well science works. Meanwhile, creationists CONTINUE to parade their fraud. Look at you!)
> Because I'll be honest with you.
That would be amazing if you were.
> To many of us out here in the world that watch these debates go on between believers and non-believers? Most of us laugh at your haughtiness.
Sadly, many laugh at your ignorance. That is why we wish you would keep your folly hidden away and private.
>Most of us, whether we are convinced of the Creationist viewpoint or not, find your affectations to be really off-putting.
>
REALITY CHECK: ** NEWSFLASH REMINDER! **
We briefly interrupt your temper-tantrum for an important reminder about the realities of the actual world we live in:
The people who have never earned a science degree and who would flunk a very basic high school biology or physics class are NOT likely to demonstrate by means of EVIDENCE that all of the world's science professors are wrong about the science of their respective fields of specialization. Nor are they likely to overturn scientific theories which have survived a century and a half of falsification attempts. (Even if they like to copy-and-paste from YEC websites.)
Yes, we all know that it is lots of fun to PRETEND that the reality is otherwise. After all, that is why these discussion forums exist: so that uninformed people can pretend that they know much more than all of the world's scientists. (Isn't it fun to imagine that Joe Schmo, who knows nothing about nested hierarchies and frame-shift mutations nevertheless can show that cock-sure blow-hard, Richard Dawkins, that he's wrong about everything?)
But please, DEAR children, let's not forget that it is just a game. The real world doesn't work that way. One has to EARN one's credibility by means of EVIDENCE and peer-reviewed analysis.
{That is all. Please continue your alternative reality game. Have fun!}
>Try treating people who disagree with you with the same respect you'd like to be given
You mean like the "respectful" and "TRUTHFUL" series of lies which is the trailer to this movie? Is that your goal for honesty and respect?
You mean like calling people "dear" to insult them?
> and then maybe some real discourse can take place.
The "discourse" is over. We don't allow arguing (you call it "discourse") in the classroom as to the sum of 2+2. No teacher has time for NON-SCIENCE topics.
If you have a Comprehensive Theory for Special Creation, you can publish it. If you think the academic journals reject it because you are just WAY too smart for them and they feel inferior to you, then publish it on your own. That's why Darwin did. He didn't wait for a journal. He published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" through a conventional publisher----and it WON OUT in peer-review because of the merits of its IDEAS, not the anger of religious fervor or your sense of superiority over others.
> I hope I'm wrong.
You need not hope any longer. You ARE wrong and will never publish such a theory because EVEN YOU know that it isn't science.
Christians through the centuries have a long history of being stupid about science. They deny science and claim some theory is wrong and unbiblical. A few generations later, they pretend that they were just a little bit wrong and that the Bible never supported the error. Remember Copernicus? Galileo? How about Bruno burning at the stake? Christians don't have a good track record in science denial, do they!
God gave us two major sources of answers to our questions: the Book of Scriptures (the Bible) and the Book of Creation (which science explores and explains.) You've decided to listen to the one and not the other because you don't like God's answers in his creation----so you choose to ignore them and despise those who DO listen. So your foolishness and ignorance is by deliberate CHOICE, not a lack of IQ.
>Further, you, like others here who don't even profess a belief in God, cling to the presumption that because something has legal precedent or is considered "legal", that that means it's right.
>
Nobody said legal means "right". Legal means REALITY. Try it. The Dover decision (which was NOT appealed because there was nothing to appeal) established that Dover school board members had LIED throughout the case (and were vulnerable for imprisonment for that perjury) and had tried to impose RELIGION on a science class. Dover was one of a SERIES of court cases which have never been appealed. SCIENCE belongs in a science class, not religious claims. The only creationist I know of who has published an actual scientific theory of creationism is Dr. Hugh Ross, an Old Earth Creationist. I disagree with his arguments but I respect him for UNDERSTANDING WHAT SCIENCE IS and going to the effort of actually drafting a proposal for a Theory of Creation that WOULD be appropriate in a science class. (Unfortunately, his arguments are not compelling and his evidence for his claims are quite insufficient. So few science classes will waste time on it. But if some professor DID choose to include it on his syllabus, I would DEFEND IT because in Dr. Ross' case, he framed what happens to be his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in the form of a scientific hypothesis that is TESTABLE under the scientific method. That would COMPLY with the Dover Decision. So it would be Constitutional to include it in a science class if some teacher so chose. I suggest you read some of Dr. Ross' articles to see that it IS possible for a creationist to conduct themselves in a professional and scientifically rigorous manner. He doesn't make his case by emotional tirades devoid of scientific evidence.)
I also would suggest you Google Dr. Todd Wood, a Young Earth Creationist who is begging people like you to shut up and LEARN some basic science and find out how it works. Religious fervor does NOT have to be mindless and ignorant. It also does NOT have to lie. Of course, the very fact that Dr. Wood begs his Young Earth Creationist brethren to STOP lying and START LEARNING some basic science has made him very unpopular.
So anyone who claims that all Young Earth Creationists are ignorant and dishonest and simply spew rubbish could learn a few things from Dr. Wood, a "creation science" activist with some integrity and a willingness to pursue being Christ-like.
> Illegal does not make it wrong.
Jesus said otherwise. Of course, this would not be the first time you and Jesus are in total disagreement. Humble yourself before God and start listening to God's answers, both in his Bible and in his creation. Like the fool of the Proverbs, your ignorance is not due to natural disability but due to scorning instruction and mocking those who would try to teach you the answers in God's creation.
>The simplest fact of the matter is that the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION does not prohibit the teaching of Bible or Christianity in the classroom.
Of course, it doesn't! It DOES prohibit the teaching of RELIGION (whether from the Bible or otherwise) in a SCIENCE class. Only SCIENCE belongs in a science class. If you can publish a Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Special Creation which is testable under the scientific method and better explains the diversity of life on earth and the evolutionary processes we observe daily than does The Theory of Evolution, your theory will replace it in the textbooks----and how many times you happen to mention God or the Bible in that theory won't matter (as long as they are intrinsic to the SCIENCE and TESTABLE.) Otherwise, your ideas will belong in these classes: sociology, anthropology, religious studies, journalism, psychology, and anywhere else the PHENOMENON of religious thinking is topical.
reply
share
bible-and-science-forum
10 years ago
{continued with Part #2}
The Constitution doesn't determine that only MUSIC THEORY belongs in a music theory class. It doesn't have to tell us that mathematics and mathematics only is appropriate in a math class. So, "dearie", leave your stubborn ignorance behind you and wake up to the reality of how science works and how the educational academy works.
Meanwhile, I can name plenty of atheists with degrees beyond your wildest imaginations.....and yet pretending that that fact is at all relevant to what belongs in a science class would be just as silly and ridiculous as when YOU make a fool of yourself by using such "logic".
> Anything you have to hold onto is a lower court, WRONG decision by people who have no respect FOR the Constitution as written.
1) The case wasn't appealed because everyone understood that there was NO Constitutional justification for NON-SCIENCE to be taught in a science class. The Supreme Court would have refused to an appeal (even if it had managed to make it past an Appealate Court.) Why?
2) Because the Supreme Court had established the Lemon Test in the early 1970's. Judge Jones applied it at Dover.
3) Judge Jones is a born-again, Bible-affirming Christian. Clearly he understood the Bible better than you do---as well as the Constitution. Live with it.
4) I suggest you read through the entire SERIES of federal court rulings on efforts to impose RELIGION in the classroom. It would save you a lot of embarrassment. If you think you found a legal flaw in the Dover ruling, tell us what it is.
5) Not everything belongs in the Constitution. Common sense, for instance. And common sense says that a teacher teaches only SCIENCE in a science class.
Creation Science advocates try to use state legislatures to force their religion into the classroom because they know they can't succeed in the gauntlet which is the science academy's PEER REVIEW. Christians like Francis Collins (who is likely to win the Nobel Prize soon) managed to survive peer review---despite being a born-again, Bible-believing Christian who plays worship songs on his guitar at speaking engagements. And he also praises God for creating evolutionary processes. So you do NOT have to "Lie for Jesus" in order to be a Christ-follower. (You also don't have to assume that ignorance is a fruit of the Spirit.)
>This country will cease to exist as a free nation because of automatons such as you who read a liberal newspaper and take the word of the ACLU over the actual 1st Amendment.
>
The ACLU has nothing to do with the definition of science. (And you really need to learn the definition of "liberal.")
>You are a slave to a liberal, human ideology and pay no attention to the reality of right and wrong.
You are a slave to your own ignorance and give the impression that you are AMORAL, because you have no hesitation about accepting the claims of those who lie habitually on "creation science" topics. You sound like a mantra-repeating, YEC clone of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. You clearly haven't a clue of what happened in the Dover Trial and how the school board members LIED to the court and to the public.
>And that you claim to hold a belief in God and then demonstrate no belief that He's powerful enough
Once again you lie. Show EVIDENCE that I have no believe in God's power.
I could play your same game and accuse you of lacking the belief that God could have created EVERYTHING in an instant!
> to create and build the universe and everything and everyone therein as is indicated Biblically (in 6 24-hour days), shows utter hypocrisy.
No, it shows your utter ignorance. Genesis isn't written in English. It is written in Hebrew. YOM has a range of meanings. Nevertheless, it is quite irrelevant to your claims because the SIX YOM are the basis of an outline of GOD'S COMMANDS, not the FULFILMENT of those commands. If you would start reading more carefully, you would see that God commanded PROCESSES to take place over time, such as "Let the water bring forth...." and "Let the land bring forth...". In addition to describing abiogenesis (also in Genesis 2:7), the entire chapter fits harmoniously into the evolutionary processes which God describes for us in his creation. How long will you ignore God's answers in BOTH his bible and his creation?
>At least have the decency and good sense to stop picking on someone who OBVIOUSLY has more faith than you do.
While you've sat on your oversized rear end whining about imagined enemies, I've spent days and nights (the nights were the worst) in a filthy Central African Republic jail while my native-born Bible translation assistant was beaten, taken into the bush, and never heard from again by his family. I returned in the 1990's to try and find out what happened to him but the body was never found. There had been a series of murders in retribution ever since, back and forth, between the families involved, because that is what the culture there demands. By the way, don't assume that one gets any sleep in a C.A.R. provincial jail at night. If you sleep, the ants eat you alive and sometimes the rats. You hope that you will be jailed with someone else, because then you can sleep in shifts while the other person keeps you from being nibbled on. So tell me, other than being laughed at for saying something foolish about your church's favorite traditions defying science, what price have you paid for faith on the mission field? How much "faith" have you quantified so far?
Yet, I found I was much happier on the mission field as a Bible translator than in the average American church because so many so called Christians are just like you: obsessed with their own self-righteous ignorance and comfort-seeking self-indulgence.....and championing their cherished collection of man-made TRADITIONS of their particular sect which crowded out the Biblical text so long ago that they can't even read Genesis without seeing all sorts of things which aren't there at all. THAT is the power of TRADITION. It is also why you will never bleed for the Gospel. You lost any concept of Biblical truth and faith long ago. It is why you will never pay any REAL price for the sake of the Gospel. It is why you will never survive for weeks by eating earthworms, grasshoppers, and, when lucky, the rotting corpse of a river hog while hiding in the bush when Islamic commandos burned your village, ready to kill any white person they can find and torture any Muslim who dared become a Christian. No, for you it is all about your pride and demanding that YOUR DENOMINATION'S favorite traditions are honored in the local schools, even if irrelevant to the actual SCIENCE taught in a science class.
You will never pay a price in fulfilling the Great Commission and in translating the Bible into new tongues---but you WILL think yourself a martyr for the Kingdom because you broke a fingernail while paging through a book of Ken Ham rubbish. And you will recruit people to see a fantasy movie about a biology professor who somehow has no idea what The Theory of Evolution means and thinks "the chicken or the egg" question defines what evolution is all about. The movie even has the world's most brain-dead dad who sends his daughter to a REAL university and then is taken aback that that university teaches SCIENCE in a science class! Horrors! Yes, Mr. Comfortable Christian in this silly movie thinks himself a martyr because his little girl won't hear the same 6,000 year old earth rubbish in science class that her Sunday School teachers fed her! What a terrible "crisis of faith"!
Did you hear what the producers of the movie have done? They filed DCMA accusations against Youtube REVIEWS who dared make FAIR USE (as specifically allowed by law) of trailer video to comment on the film! If that is truly what they've done, I hope they are taken to court on that abuse of the law and the civil rights under Freedom of Speech under the Constitution. And sadly, their behavior gets attributed to ALL Christians!
Yes, I've sat in my office during office hours and had young undergrads who aren't even my advisees come in to see me, distraught because their arrival on campus brought some real science into their lives and they realized that their parents and their youth pastors had LIED to them about the evidence. They are on the verge of throwing away their entire faith because, "If they lied about such basic facts of science, how do I know that they didn't lie about the Gospel itself? Is God just as imaginary as "creation science" evidence?" Yes, they would come to me because I was known as the Christian evangelical who had been a Bible translator and an SIL instructor/field director. Some students made the transition and were able to separate the lies from the truth. Some didn't. But of one thing I'm sure: Young Earth Creationist "creation science" promoters like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort have produced more atheists among church-raised Christian young people than Richard Dawkins ever will.
>Rebuking me in HIS name for standing WITH His Word...dangerous stuff, child.
You haven't a clue what "standing WITH his word" means. You and those like you are among the greatest threats to the church in America today. You represent the lazy Laodicean, destined to be spewed from the mouth. You will never make a single sacrifice for that "His Word" you talk about. I doubt if you spent years laboring in the Hebrew and Greek texts in order to better understand what God has revealed. I doubt that you've spent years laboring over the SCIENCE to better understand what God has revealed. You will never have to watch a tropical medicine expert lace a parasitic worm to a carefully sliced twig so that it works like a clothespin....and listen carefully while he gives you instructions to twist the worm around the twig half a turn every other day so that the parasite can be extracted gradually without tearing the worm in two---and thereby tunnelling deeper into your inner thigh before dying and losing your leg to gangrene. (The little spurt of pus and blood with each twist makes one wish that some rubbing alcohol was available. Or even clean water. But for the latter, you have to wait for several hours while a 2-liter Coke bottle serves as a UV disinfecting chamber, laying on the tin-roof under the tropical sun. Otherwise, water from the river is laced with cholera bacteria from the village a couple of miles upstream where there's commonal outhouses over the river and herds of animals dump their waste regularly.) You won't have to live through malaria fever and typhus. Worse yet, you won't have to watch kids with STD lesions on their mouths begging in the dirt and knowing their likely futures....and then find that the American church that once helped sponsor a local mission project has decided to redirect their funding to help Ken Ham build his "Ark Park" for $76 million----because it will "evangelize" America. Really??
I think you know as little about the "dangerous stuff" that comes with the Gospel as you do about science and Constitutional law. I pity you. You ignore the knowledge that so many in this world would love to have available to them. (Many would love to have a Bible in their own language. I did something about that. Did you? Of course not. You ignore God's answers in his creation just as much as you ignore the scriptures that command you NOT to bear false witness. The Lying for Jesus trend has gotten entirely out of control. Watch the comments under the Youtube pages where this A Matter of Faith trailer appears.)
But those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. And those who revel in their ignorance will continuing to think it makes them more "spiritual". You may think yourself a virtual martyr for standing up for a vile marathon of lies. But nobody else does. At best, they will think you uninformed. At worst, they will think you just another "Liar for Jesus."
God has clearly revealed to us the history of the earth and all life on this earth. Accept God's answers or reject God's answers. The choice is yours. But as for me, I will praise God for the evolutionary processes he created and I will be thankful that the God of the Bible is nothing like the puny, fumbling deity of "special creation" and a 6,000 year old earth.
reply
share
Auntneice7
10 years ago
Wow, step anywhere near your sacred cow and you get downright ugly, don't you???
I'll tell you what. You keep on with your self-defined god and man-made "religion" and I'll keep on doing my level-headed best to follow God. Enjoy yourself.
However, the next time you decide to "rebuke" someone, try not to follow it up with a nasty diatribe and acting as though you are the end-all/be-all of intelligence. Maybe sitting in a room translating material is a better fit for you because communication is not your strong suit.
Have a nice life, honey.
reply
share
vulnerable101-1
10 years ago
Auntneice7 says:
"Maybe sitting in a room translating material is a better fit for you because communication is not your strong suit."
What a sad, bitter, and petty woman you are. Or are you really? I think not. I'm shocked that you look down upon God's people with such delight. You show signs of someone deeply wounded.
May God heal whatever sour bitterness has infected your heart. I can only suppose you have been hurt very badly, perhaps by people in the church?
Honey, the scientific details of the origins of life aren't more important than people. Idolatry is not just a matter of stone images. Something has taken you off the path. From what you write, it is like you are begging for help.
If you need someone to talk to, please message me. (My husband set up this account long ago but I'm the only one who uses it.)
reply
share
Auntneice7
10 years ago
That's very sweet of you, vulnerable, but did you read the absolutely scorching two-post comment I got from someone that also claims to be a Christian?
I don't look down on Christians. Not at all. In fact, if you'll look back over the last couple of days, I've been trying to get people to quit being so mean to one guy (I don't know why I think it's a guy. Nothing they say indicates one way or the other) because he doesn't hold with their "scientific" viewpoints of the origins of life?
You're right. This entire subject is, at the end of the day, much less in importance than the souls of human beings.
I just got really upset seeing someone, claiming a relationship with God, being so mean to someone ELSE who holds the name "Christian". That ought not to be. It is bully behaviour and yes, I've been subject to bullies in the past myself. I hate seeing it happen to someone else and ESPECIALLY by someone claiming they're a follower of Christ. That, to me, is pretty inexcusable. Notice I did not say unforgivable. But there is no excuse for treating people the way this "bible and science" person has consistently done to Navaro. It's just plain wrong.
Did I get a bit sarcastic? Yep. I tend to do that when people get snide. My bad, I suppose. But I do not apologize for defending someone who is being dog-piled on by a bunch of other people. Especially, when one is claiming a relationship with Christ and is throwing stones at the other Christian alongside the unbelievers. That is just wrong.
reply
share
SedateProf
10 years ago
"It is bully behaviour and yes, I've been subject to bullies in the past myself."
After reading through this thread, I saw that YOU are a bully. You treat those who disagree with you about origins as if they are enemies of God. You use the term "Darwinist" as an expression of contempt. What you should be saying is that some people accept the evidence for evolution while you reject it. You are afraid it leaves out God. It doesn't.
I watched the movie trailer. Do you think lies are OK if they make fun of people you dislike? I haven't seen the entire movie but I saw quite enough in a trailer which lies about the theory of evolution. How it that right? People who don't know Christ will most likely stay far away from the movie. If they watch the many review videos online they already know that it lies. If somehow they went to see the movie, it will push them away from Jesus because even non-Christians know that lying is contrary to his teachings.
Of course, if the movie were based on Biblical truths, it wouldn't have to lie. Would it? But if the mistakes were honest mistakes, out of scientific ignorance, that means the movie company didn't even bother to check with scientists to the facts straight. That's another violation of the scriptures.
The movie "God is Not Dead" had a good title. But the rest was an embarrassment to all Christians. We don't need movies which harm the Gospel. Like A Matter of Faith, the GIND movie was mainly about despising others. That is why it made the Christians wonderful and the atheist professor a total monster. Same with the Muslim father. See a pattern? Christians: good. Non-Christians: evil. Is that Biblical? No.
Very disappointing.
reply
share
Auntneice7
10 years ago
After reading through this thread, I saw that YOU are a bully.
I'M a bully. Hmm...methinks thou hast redefined the term, SedateProf. I don't deny sarcastic and borderline angry words. Why? Because I was angry! LOL! Angry words come out of someone who is angry. Did you bother to stop and ask yourself WHY I might have been a bit perturbed??? Navaros = 1 person. Vulnerable101, SedateProf, bible and science = THREE people (all claiming to be part of the family of God in Christ) piling on top of ONE person. THAT is textbook bullying. And the things you guys were saying to Navaros were not at all in the spirit of discussion. You were name-calling, EMBODYING the definition of trollish behaviour all the while calling HIM the troll!
Are you telling me that, educated as you purport to be, you really don't see the hypocrisy in that behaviour???
I have not once said that everything Navaros has said is in the proper spirit or attitude. But this individual has just as much right to speak their mind here as anyone else does. And they have the right to do so without the fear of being dog-piled on. ESPECIALLY by those that would have us believe they have ANY part of the Holy Spirit living in them.
I came here to look into this movie. What do I find? Pretty much the usual. Science worshippers who can't countenance the possibility that God has the ability to do what He TOLD us He did right there in Genesis 1 and following and will pretty much destroy, if they can, anyone who says otherwise!
So, about the movie. On the basis of the trailer, you know the movie is full of lies. Even though it hasn't even been released yet and you haven't seen it. Because trailers NEVER misrepresent a movie, right??? LOL! Naive much???
Howsabout we all SEE the movie before we decide it's full of lies, hmm??? And before you that claim to be Christians continue barbecuing anyone who DARES to disagree with your dogma, how about a little time in the presence of God and ask for a little humility yourself? There isn't one finger you ought to be pointing at me or Navaros or anyone else until you get your own spirits in check. Fix your own house before throwing stones at someone else's.
reply
share
SedateProf
9 years ago
Vulnerable101 described her well: "What a sad, bitter, and petty woman you are."
One of many things I appreciate about the Young Earth Creationist science-illiterates is that they provide their own refutations, both by their lack of basic sense and ability to debunk themselves in just a paragraph or two.
Of course, anybody who calls evolution a "religion" might as well put a "Kick me!" sign on their own posterior. They ridicule themselves more than anyone else ever could.
(Do they really think that calling natural processes (i.e., evolution processes), which we observe all around us on a daily basis, "religion" impresses anyone? Yes, they think it profound and convincing. Let's hope they continue. In fact, when they do this in front of an audience, watch the eyes of everyone on the front row. Watch the rolling of the eyes, that singular gesture that says in unmistakable terms, "What a pathetic mor0n." No, we do NOT need our village idi0ts to represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ by babbling their nonsensical misunderstandings of science. We deserve better. The Gospel deserves better.)
reply
share
SedateProf
9 years ago
Vulnerable101 described her well: "What a sad, bitter, and petty woman you are."
One of many things I appreciate about the Young Earth Creationist science-illiterates is that they provide their own refutations, both by their lack of basic sense and ability to debunk themselves in just a paragraph or two.
Of course, anybody who calls evolution a "religion" might as well put a "Kick me!" sign on their own posterior. They ridicule themselves more than anyone else ever could.
(Do they really think that calling natural processes (i.e., evolution processes), which we observe all around us on a daily basis, "religion" impresses anyone? Yes, they think it profound and convincing. Let's hope they continue. In fact, when they do this in front of an audience, watch the eyes of everyone on the front row. Watch the rolling of the eyes, that singular gesture that says in unmistakable terms, "What a pathetic mor0n." No, we do NOT need our village idi0ts to represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ by babbling their nonsensical misunderstandings of science. We deserve better. The Gospel deserves better.)
reply
share
bible-and-science-forum
10 years ago
>"Wow, step anywhere near your sacred cow and you get downright ugly, don't you???"
>
God's Bible and God's Creation are not "sacred cows".
As long as you are defiant against both, your ignorance will continue.
The academy will continue to teach science in science class, not religion. Your personal interpretations are no doubt important to you and your church, but the real scientists don't care what non-scientists wish were the case. Your disapproval of God's evolutionary processes do not change reality.
Rather than struggling against reality, why not embrace what God in his wisdom created? But if you have the evidence and a scientific theory which provides a better explanation than The Theory of Evolution, publish it and fame awaits you. Einstein trumped Newton and has gone down in history as the greatest scientist ever. The best ideas win out. (The worst ideas die out.)
That is how science works. You can sulk about it. Or you can face reality.
"A Matter of Faith" will drive people away from the Gospel. Why? God does not bless lying. If a three minute trailer botches the difference between abiogenesis and The Theory of Evolution and shows a biology professor who doesn't understand evolution, how can anyone respect it? The movie will accomplish two things: (1) reassure tradition-bound Christians, and (2) convince non-believers that "Lying for Jesus" is what Christians do because we hate science and the truth.
reply
share
briand-116-972841
10 years ago
The sacred cow reference was not about God's Bible or God's Creation. The reference was your ideas.
I ask you to remember that the cross of Christ is an offence to those who do not believe (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25). So, if something drives away the lost, it is not always bad.
I do not want to tear you apart as others have done. One saint tearing apart another is hardly fitting. However, I do ask you to consider that there has been valid evidence submitted by PhD scientists that show a young earth (e.g. radiometric dating, the Milky Way Galaxy, fossils). However, there is much persecution in the scientific world if one does not accept an old earth scenario (I have experienced it). By adhering to a young earth perspective and referencing it in a scientific paper, one can effectively assure that that paper will not make it into print unless published by a creationist journal.
reply
share