Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm (This post was last modified: August 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm by Captain Scarlet.)
After moving steadily southwards in the sky the sun reaches an end to it's winter cycle on the 21st of December, the shortest day in the northern hemisphere. For 3 days the sun appears to stand still in the sky before apparently rising again on the 25th. Thanks to our understanding of celestial mechanics we understand why. Does this trouble christians? On the face of it it offers an explanation of the resurrection myth. Instead of a miraculous event it was really mysticism that the resurrection refers to
(August 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: After moving steadily southwards in the sky the sun reaches an end to it's winter cycle on the 21st of December, the shortest day in the northern hemisphere. For 3 days the sun appears to stand still in the sky before apparently rising again on the 25th. Thanks to our understanding of celestial mechanics we understand why. Does this trouble christians? On the face of it it offers an explanation of the resurrection myth. Instead of a miraculous event it was really mysticism that the resurrection refers to
What makes you think something like that would ever bother christians we do study science, even have evolutionary science forced upon us in public schools.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(August 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: After moving steadily southwards in the sky the sun reaches an end to it's winter cycle on the 21st of December, the shortest day in the northern hemisphere. For 3 days the sun appears to stand still in the sky before apparently rising again on the 25th. Thanks to our understanding of celestial mechanics we understand why. Does this trouble christians? On the face of it it offers an explanation of the resurrection myth. Instead of a miraculous event it was really mysticism that the resurrection refers to
What makes you think something like that would ever bother christians we do study science, even have evolutionary science forced upon us in public schools.
Well I think the best thing to do with a response like that is to underline it. Perhaps you should watch a few Kent Hovind videos he can prove dinosaurs and men walked on the earth together. Better still he has photographic proof in a video documentary called the flintstones.
(August 14, 2010 at 4:35 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(August 14, 2010 at 12:45 am)Godschild Wrote: [...]even have evolutionary science forced upon us in public schools.
You mean taught there because it's science?
The problem is that evolution is taught as if it is a proven fact and all the scientific evidence against it is ignored. If you want to see some of that evidence here are two good sites:
Some evolutionists argue that the only ones opposing evolution do so for religious reasons but the second site above doesn't have anything to do with any religion. It confines itself to presenting the scientific evidence which isn't compatable with evolution.
I think that evolution should be taught in the public schools but it should be presented honestly and include all the scientific evidence both for and against evolution.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV
But there is no evidence whatsoever which indicates that life began 6,000 years ago in the Middle East. None. Zip. Nada. And all the bleating of creationist assholes about alleged "problems" with evolution....which mainly exist in their minds anyway...does not change the fact that creationism is nothing more than religious bullshit and does not belong in a "science" class.
Keep your bullshit in your churches where it belongs.
@theophilus. Oh dear here goes the "let's attack evolution again" line of argument. Do you never tire of being a pawn used by well funded fundies who want to spin lies about science. If there was any good evidence against evolution it would be jumped on by mainstream scientists wanting to make a name for theselves and win huge grants etc. The unfortunate thing for anyone wishing to argue this way is that there are 10's of thousands of papers peer reviewed
every single year which add further weight to the voracity of evolutionary theory. On the other side there is 1 paper widely ridiculed and subsequently refuted from michael behe (a motivated fundie). Do you have any idea how much intelligent design and it's attack on evolution was ridculed and humiliated not by scientists but by a evangelical judge. It's pure fantasy. Come on change the record. The fact that evolution occured is evidenced by ALL related science (taxonomy, paleontology,phylogeny, biology, it goes on). The theory of evolution is the umbrella theory explaining all those observations of all of those related sciences, it is powerful and predictive and is used in modern application eg genetic loading in fish stock to name one. Alternative theories explain nothing. Its a science not a religion, yet another example of fundie spin. Change the fundie record it is sooooo boring. If you don't like science go home turn your lights off and pray for them to come on or perhaps if you're poorly go to an exorcist, I'll stick to light switches and doctors ta very much! But the fundies behind the lies against evolution know they can fool some of the people all of the time.
Mind you top scientist like ray comfort and Kent hovind are working hard on alternative theories so it shouldn't be long before you're proven right!
(August 14, 2010 at 11:19 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: The unfortunate thing for anyone wishing to argue this way is that there are 10's of thousands of papers peer reviewed every single year which add further weight to the voracity of evolutionary theory.
This is one of the reasons we don't hear much about the evidence against evolution. Papers must be peer reviewed before they can be published and the peers who are doing the reviewing all believe in evolution. Here is an article which shows some of the problems with it: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i5n.htm
Quote:In the past we have discussed in detail how scientific journals have refused to publish original work by creationists, but later published essentially the same work by evolutionists. Here is a quick review.
The theory of plate tectonics was originally proposed by a creationist, but was rejected by the major scientific journals of the day. The only journal that would publish it was an obscure French journal. Later, when proposed by evolutionist Wegner (without the observation that movement of continental plates demonstrates the power of God), it was published (despite the lack of any plausible natural force capable of moving so much mass).
Guy Berthault’s paper on lamination of particles in a fluid flow was rejected by major scientific journals (because it explains how sedimentary rock is formed rapidly rather than over millions of years), so it had to be published in creationist technical journals. Twelve years later it was published by an evolutionist, without credit to Berthault, and without mentioning the obvious conclusion.
Mary Schweitzer isn’t a creationist, but she had to publish her discovery of unfossilized dinosaur bones in Earth magazine, rather than the respected scientific journals, because of the obvious impact to the theory of evolution. She was able to publish her research in respected scientific journals a decade later by saying that the bones really were millions of years old, despite not being mineralized, and that they were very similar to bird bone. The need for proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds was enough to sway the peers in favor of publication, despite the age problem.
Of course, the example that is probably freshest in your mind, involves the firing of the editor who dared to print a peer-reviewed article favorable to Intelligent Design in a journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution.
Peer prejudice is not limited to creationists. Graduate students don’t get much more respect. That’s why Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey had to blackmail Science into publishing a paper by his graduate student, Stanley Miller, about the origin of life.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Oh pls. You have clearly never worked is science. It is an ultra competitive field. Most scientists can't wait to get one over on the competition, prove them wrong, discover something new, get more funding. It is very far from a conspiracy, but it suits your argument to make out that it is. Science has advanced our civilisation to unprecedented levels of success in understanding our world and applying the results. Peer reviewing is the process by which we filter the respectable views out from those lacking any evidence. Behe in the Dover trial had to admit that for ID to be taught in schools the definition of science would include alchemy, astrology, crystal healing and any other new age mumbo jumbo. Read the transcript of the judge, it's fascinating stuff and whilst the judge has a similar religious view to you he condemns the scurrilous fundie attempts to discredit evolution and paint it's advocates as some kind of conspirisists who keep the 'real' truth away from folks. Start thinking for yourself and drop extremism and being a mouth piece for liars. In your religion it is a sin to bear false witness and you are doing exactly that.
