|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 8:29:44 GMT
Dear Harris, The statement is a fact, atheists claim that God does not exist False. Some claim that there is just no reason to think there is yet but are waiting for you guys to present your evidence. Still waiting I should say. , therefore they also claim Jesus did not exist. False again. one does not necessarily follow the other. There could likely have been a person who went around preaching and making grandeous claims as to his own divinity.
|
|
|
Post by hackenslash on Nov 9, 2008 20:17:19 GMT
Michael, For 40 years I was an evolutionist like everyone else 'educated' in my generation. Then I met am American Catholic who campaigned against the 'ideology', for that is what it is. He gave me some books to read on the subject and it took me five minutes to realise I was the victim of a gigantic fraud. That was twenty years ago and since then I have been on a journey out of 'modernism' back into 'tradition.' It began with an intense study of every aspect of the 'theory' in relation to science. I then researched how 'theistic-evolution' came about and this led me back to 1543 and Copernicus's theory of heliocentricism. This theory led the way to an assault on the traditional scholastic belief of the Church until 1741 and 1820 when Rome capitulated to scientific theory disguised as scientific reality. After that Modernism accellerated until no literal interpretation of the Fathers was left intact. This assault - rightly named NEO-scholasticism, threw every doctrine of the Church into chaos until most of them lost credibility even among the elect. Everyone now has a different version of dogmas like Original Sin as can be demonstrated by Dr Reville who intends giving us another one in next weeks Irish Catholic. My Catholicism was framed with the Penny Catechism. Twenty years of study now and I am now back to a literal reading of Genesis where the Fathers read it so, -and that includes a geocentric reading as was defined and declared as Catholic doctrine in 1633. My research and thinking on the matter is that Catholicism in all its aspects follows perfectly only from such a position. Any other scenario, be it heliocentricism or evolutionism, results in problems for the Catholic faith and all its claims. I have now satisfied myself that Catholicism is a perfect faith and complies with the four means of knowledge, reasoning from the senses, reasoning from true science. reasoning as in Philosophy, but all under the auspices of Theology. So Michael I am one very rare Catholic: a geocentricist who believes in a 6,000 year-old earth and that everything was created by God in six days ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. I of course can now defend my position in four ways as described above. I am well used to the rants and empty rhetoric of the anti-geocentrics and evolutionists and am glad you allowed the one above for it demonstrates one of my points, they are all bluff relying on the universal consensus to back them up. Hope this is sufficient for the moment Michael. Needless to say the debate will open up. I would be very interested to hear your theories about fossils, and the overwhelming evidence for the veracity of evolution by natural selection. I would also like to hear how you can cling on to a geocentric universe when it has been observed reliably for many hundreds of years (including observations from space) to be not even heliocentric. Certainly, Earth orbits the sun, but the rest of the universe doesn't, unless you take the proposition of relative motion proven by Einstein in general relativity to extremes?
|
|
|
Post by hackenslash on Nov 9, 2008 20:22:11 GMT
Redmond, The entire theory of evolution loses credibility when it evolves from a Godless state of mind and heart when presented to those who believe in the Eternal God. Of course the theory of evolution is credible when the involvement of God is conceded for those of faith. The conflict between both studies of science is not between creationism nor evolutionism but whether or not God was involved in the development of either. The Godless of course perpetuate the concept of evolution as a rationale to prove there is no God involved in the initiation and development of life on this planet as we know it. Those who believe in God do not need to propose nor deny the existence of either rationale as God is not limited in His ability to either create or evolve any matter including human, plant, animal or any other subhuman form of life according to accepted Doctrines of faith belief which support a living God who existed from the beginning of time and who has no end. So the real debate should form around the existence of God as Creator of life in any scientific rationale in order to establish what is credible in the mind and heart of any constituent belonging to either rationale. Wrong again. Evolution is not, nor has it been among any of the atheists I know, held up as prtoof of the non-existence of god. ALL of the atheists I know say that they simply don't know, but that in the absence of supporting evidence, Occam's Razor insists that we strip away any unnecessary propositions, namely god. He simply isn't necessary to explain what we observe. There can never be any evidence either way, but that does not, of course, make both propositions equally probable. The presence of evidence that totally blows some of your deepest held doctrines out of the water calls the whole edifice of your belief into question. Meanwhile, there is not a single shred of evidence to support any of your beliefs. How can that be explained?
|
|
|
Post by hackenslash on Nov 9, 2008 20:28:14 GMT
Atheist do not take up their cross, rather they throw it down and cry that God is unjust. Otherwise it appears that you are making a statement of fact, when this is not always the case." Dear Harris, The statement is a fact, atheists claim that God does not exist, therefore they also claim Jesus did not exist. As Jesus carried his cross and called Catholics to carry their cross, the atheists would have to agree entirely with the Catholic Doctrine in carrying a cross which they claim not to therefore the statement is a fact: Atheists do not take up their cross, rather they throw it down and cry that God is unjust and punishes those who do not repent. Any atheist who claims to carry his cross is contradicting his own statement of belief. No, the statement is not a fact. Again, atheists make no such claim. They only claim that, in the face of ALL the evidence, god is extremely unlikely. The historicity of Jesus is certainly a can of worms, since the only person whose word we have for it is the misogynistic St Paul. I am willing to accept that Jesus may well have existed even though, with all the 'prophets' and 'messiahs' wandering around the region with their followers, there is no mention of him in reliable historic sources. That aside, there is literally no evidence of his divinity, and nor can there be. The default position of a rational person, when faced with a proposition for which there is no evidence, is to reject it until some evidence presents itself. Atheists do not take up a cross, nor do they throw one down. They simply reject it as symbolic of man's credulity.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 10, 2008 10:38:37 GMT
Dear Hazelireland, Christ left his Body and Blood on this earth for you and his forgiveness. He is inviting you as well as I do to come to the banquet of Life to join Him in Eternal Life. How is that a reply to anything we have just been talking about here. You quote me saying we are still waiting for your evidence then you reply with this. Its a complete nonsequitar.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 11:38:10 GMT
Here's a nice one for our self-appointed equaters of atheism with science and reason. Apparently Richard Dawkins has just presented an award, called after himself, in honour of the person who each year promotes science and reason to Bill Maher (the American TV comedian and atheist propagandist). It so happens that Bill Maher is an aggressive opponent of vaccination who discourages people from getting vaccinated and states that he does not believe in germ theory. he claims Pasteur repudiated germ theory on his deathbed (a view as bogus as the claim that Darwin repudated evolution on his deathbed). note: in quoting and linking to Mark Shea I do not endorse his commens about what he calls "the Darwin mythos". He is not a literalist creationist but appears to have some form of belief in Intelligent Design without ever giving much thought to the matter. EXTRACTS Tuesday, October 13, 2009 One of the things devotees of the Darwin Mythos frequently hyperventilate about... ...is the catastrophe of a scientifically illiterate population which will surely slide into utter ruin if every single American does not believe and confess the theory of evolution and (most important) the atheistic materialism that undergirds the constant public expositions of the doctrine. All this is done, of course, with the claim that this is all about science, critical thinking, reason, rationalism, etc. blah blah. Curiously, nobody says this sort of stuff about those who don't know or care about aerodynamics, hydraulics, quantum physics, or electrical engineering. Our pop sci philosophers do not panic and fret about the massive ignorance of the American populace and our disgrace in the eyes of the world when it is revealed that the average computer user has only the dimmest idea of what actually takes place inside a microchip when you type "the average computer user has only the dimmest idea of what actually takes place inside a microchip" on your keyboard. Everybody pretty much grasps that the average person is average and often has no time to learn science when he's trying to earn a living and feed his fambly. But when it comes to the Darwin Mythos, the panic levels are cranked up to 11. Anybody who betrays the slightest ignorance of, doubts about, or questions of any aspect of the project or the philosophy behind it is shouted down as a disgrace to the republic, a fool, and a danger to civilization. I've long been inclined to think that the reason for this is not really a love of reason or scientific inquiry, but a religious zeal for the philosophy of atheistic materialism for which the Darwin Mythos has provide such excellent cover for over a century and a half. And when I read of spectacles like the Richard Dawkins Award this inclination hardens into a conviction. What's the Richard Dawkins Award?: The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins. So who is this year's winner? Which advocate of science and reason has done the most lately to "advocate increased scientific knowledge". Why, Bill Maher, of course! You know, Bill Maher who tells us that germ theory is bunk, who says vaccination is a fraud, who knows more than the whole medical community about the illusion we call "AIDS", who is a vocal and dangerous advocate of all manner of scientific quackery. That's the guy the Apostle of Reason and Science Richard Dawkins selected to receive his prize. Why? Because he's a noisy atheist and that's all that matters. Naturally, of course, PZ Myers makes excuses, cuz he's all about science and reason. But some aren't drinking the Kool-Aid and have a number of pertinent questions for the Great Apostle of Science and Reason. What cracks me up about all this is that, quite simply, nobody will ever die from thinking God created the universe or having some doubts about the proposition that hydrogen is a substance which, if you leave it alone for 13.5 billion years, will turn into Angelina Jolie. Myself, I can't help getting the impression that Paul is just speaking common sense when he says of the Creator, "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." I think you have to work extra hard not to see hand of God in creation and that guys like Dawkins are living testaments to the fact that the trouble about making yourself stupider than you really are is that you can often succeed. And the proof of this is that Dawkins has chosen to lionize a guy whose scientific ignorance and quackery really could lead to actual physical harm and even death for people who take him seriously. But no cost is too great when your real project is not "promotion of science and reason" but "attacking Jesus Christ, no matter how stupid and irrational your ally is." markshea.blogspot.com/2009/10/one-of-things-devotees-of-darwin-mythos.htmlEXTRACT ENDS Shea also provides this link to a science blog (whose author appears to be an atheist himself) which protests about the award as outrageous and incidentally shows how well-founded are Bill Maher's claims to be able to detect when a view is self-evidently ridiculous (as expressed in his arrogant little documentry RELIGULOUS, much hyped by the IRISH TIMES and similar outlets a short while ago). scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/here_are_those_inconvenient_questions_fo.phpEXTRACTS In any case, that's what annoyed me so much. It wasn't that Professor Dawkins was ignorant of Bill Maher's anti-flu vaccine rants, his conspiracy mongering about big pharma, his claim that Louis Pasteur "recanted" germ theory on his deathbed, and, most recently, his advocacy of cancer quackery and his claim that modern medicine hasn't made any progress against cancer in 50 years. With Bill Maher being a distinctly American phenomenon and Dawkins safely ensconced in Oxford, I wouldn't have expected that Dawkins would have known about any of that. Nor do I labor under any sort of delusion whatsoever that Dawkins has ever seen my blog, much less read it regularly enough to have come across any of my posts on Bill Maher. Orac may have a huge, pompous, insufferablely self-righteous ego that drives people nuts, but even he's not that deluded. No, where Professor Dawkins earns an EPIC FAIL is in his utter lack of curiosity about Maher's views and blithe dismissal of people's concerns, particularly given that the award is named after him. Maher's pro-quackery views (not to mention that he is on the board of PETA) are well-known, and that one of the criteria for the award was "advocates increased scientific knowledge." I hate to say it, but Professor Dawkins just didn't seem concerned at all about the disconnect. That's what bothered me, not some unfounded worry that Professor Dawkins might have suddenly turned pro-quack on us.... Moreover, it's another huge straw man argument. No one is saying that honoring the creation or Religulous necessitates agreeing with or endorsing Maher's other views. Really, that was even lamer than Dawkins' response. What we are talking about is giving someone who advocates anti-vaccine views and quackery an award, one of whose criteria is to advocate for increased scientific knowledge! In fact, Maher's belief in alt-med is no different than creationism at its core, and it's not closeted at all. He spews it to the masses frequently on his TV show and in his standup comedy act. It is a non-reason-based ideology that subverts and denies science. In fact, I would argue to Richard Dawkins' face if I were ever to get the opportunity, that the alt-med woo that Maher champions, particularly he anti-vaccine views, is a greater threat than creationism. They have a much more direct and immediate impact on people's health now in the form of the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases and people suffering needlessly because they eschew scientific medicine, thanks to the blandishments of faith-based medical practitioners. Creationism may be a long-term threat to science, but quackery such as the kind that Maher promotes is a threat now. A tangible, palpable, immediate threat. Moreover, like creationism, alt-med is every bit as much inspired by religion or "spirituality." Much of it is based on religion-inspired prescientific notions of how the body works and disease develops. What is reiki, for instance, other than faith healing, just with Eastern religious beliefs instead of Christian beliefs. Heck, the person who developed reiki even said he developed the technique during a search to find out how Jesus performed the faith healing miracles described in the Bible!
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 11:55:38 GMT
The issue you are having here Hibernicus is one of „infallibility“. The point here is that we do not hold any person 100% sacred or infallible. Ever.
The award was presented to Maher based on his work on the film “Religulous” among a few others things. I will not presume to know all the reasons he was selected as I was not privy to the deliberations of the committee involved.
However the presentation of such an award is not saying “We agree with everything you said”. It merely says “Thanks for this work you did over here, it was much appreciated.”
Another example of his is Sir Isaac Newton. He was one of the best Scientists our species has produced. He was given a knighthood for this, amongst many other awards and his work is still recognised today.
He was also a firm believer in everything from Alchemy to astrology to more. He was, in some ways, a kook of the highest order.
The idea, therefore, that assigning a person awards for one area of his work is somehow meant to EITHER celebrate OR indict his beliefs or work in another area is entirely erroneous.
I applaud Maher for some of his work, and I welcome the award, but I would sit down and debate long and hard with him on the areas I think him wrong. He is not therefore undeserving of the award, but I would myself have awarded it to someone else myself. I disagree with Dawkins and his committee on that too, though not enough to either condone or defend the choice itself.
See, we do not agree with these people merely because of who they are. We disagree on much. Dawkins may be the atheist the mostly theist public have elevated, but he ranks low on my top 50 list of important atheist personas in the media and world today.
And as a general comment I would suggest everyone who finds themselves agreeing with a person on “X” merely because you once agreed with them on “Y” to seriously re-examine “X” again.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 13:51:40 GMT
Hazelireland misses the point. It is quite possible for someone to make great scientific contributions and yet have deeply misguided, cranky and unpleasant views. Newton is perhaps not a good example because his odder interests, though their futility is obvious in retrospect, may not have been quite so obviously misguided in the light of the intellectual standards of his own time (e.g. it is well known that modern chemistry was to some extent indebted to alchemy even though the latter was based on a mistaken theoretical foundation). Here are some recent examples of scientists who combined great contribution to knowledge with harmful and unpleasant views: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Paulescu (discovered insulin; supported the fascist Romanian Iron Guard) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Soddy (pioneer in exploration of radioactivity: the entry does not mention this, but his theories about banking and finance had anti-semitic undertones). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley (invented the transistor; eugenicist) Bill Maher does not have these sort of scientific credentials (as Dawkins, whether one agrees with his atheism or not, unquestionably has), and as the articles to which I linked showed, he has actively promoted pseudo-science. The ONLY way this award could be justified is if you equate atheist propaganda with scientific thought, so that propagating atheism is taken to outweigh all other intellectual sins. BTW RELIGULOUS is based on a snarky know-it-all attitude which is reflected precisely in Maher's anti-vaccinationist views and which is the opposite of genuine critical thought. IF Dawkins was going to give an award on this basis, he woudl have done better to give it to the makers of the new Darwin biopic CREATION which, from what I have heard of it, does make a serious attempt to convey the process of intellectual discovery.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 14:54:00 GMT
Not sure how the point was missed when it matches exactly what you were just saying. Maybe you just enjoy saying people have missed the point, even when they have not.
Yes, people make great contributions. They can do this while also causing harm, espousing total quakery, or while being generally idiots in every other area of their life.
The point is, that awarding an award for their contributions is done independently of this irrelevant extra stuff and is in no way either a tribute OR an indictment of them. The award was given on the basis of work done in an area relevant to the award. No more, no less.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 15:38:40 GMT
The point is that Maher (unlike Soddy, Sheckley, and Paulescu) has not really made any contribution at all; the mindset of RELIGULOUS is of a piece with his anti-vaccinationism and detrimental to any sort of critical thought. If Dawkins wants to give out a prize for promoting atheism, that is one thing, but to call it a prize for promoting science and rationality and then give it to Maher is like creating a prize for foundational theology and then giving it to Ian Paisley or Robert Sungenis.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 15:40:54 GMT
That is your opinion, and you are not on the board of people who decide how and who to allocate the award to. Maybe do some research on the exact procedure they have for allocating the award, and compare it to what Maher has achieved. Then you will be working with fact, not personal bias and opinion.
As I said, I can also think of people I would have preferred to give it to. This does not mean I find Maher undeserving of it however.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 15:47:41 GMT
As a matter of general interest for anyone reading this thread; here is a link to an essay outlining the Thomist critique on Intelligent Design on the grounds that it misunderstands the concept of creation (and also incidentally rebutting the view that there was no tension between religion and science before Darwin or Galileo): guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.htmlEXTRACT Back in the days of Thomas Aquinas himself, there was a scientific revolution that seriously challenged the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. From the time of the early Church, orthodox Christians have held that the universe was created by a transcendent God who is wholly responsible for its existence and the existence of everything in it. In fact, this is a teaching that Christians inherited from the Jews and shared with those of the Islamic faith. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, however, a great historical change came to Western Europe as the works of the ancient Greek natural philosophers and mathematicians became available in the Latin language for the first time. Especially important among these works were those of Aristotle who had worked out the basic principles of nature and developed a methodology for scientific research that promised, in time, to unlock the secrets of the universe. This scientific revolution caused great excitement among the Latin-speaking scholars in the then new universities of Europe. They avidly pursued research in many of the natural sciences and, essentially, founded the historical tradition of experimental science that continues today. It was not long before progress was being made in such fields as mathematical astronomy, optics, meteorology, botany, zoology, and other sciences. At the same time, the new science was a cause for concern, for some theologians saw in it a challenge to the doctrine of creation. Specifically, many held that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the claim of the Greek naturalists that something cannot come from nothing and the Christian teaching of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the Greek philosophers used their fundamental principle as grounds for arguing that the universe is eternal: there can be neither a first nor a last motion. It certainly appeared to many of the contemporaries of Thomas Aquinas that one cannot have his Christian cake and scientifically eat it too; Christianity and natural science seemed to be incompatible and one must choose between the two. Into this medieval debate comes Thomas Aquinas. He pointed out that the Christian conception of God as the author of all truth and the notion that the aim of scientific research is the truth indicates that there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth—not a religious truth and another scientific truth—but the truth, the way things actually exist and function. Yet, what about the apparent conflict between notion of creation from nothing and the scientific principle that for every natural motion or state there is an antecedent motion or state? Thomas points out that the judgment that there is a conflict here results from confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that I call the “Cosmogonical Fallacy.” Those who are worried about conflict between faith and reason on this issue fail to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. “Creatio non est mutatio,” says Thomas, affirming that the act of creation is not some species of change. So, the Greek natural philosophers were quite correct: from nothing, nothing comes. By “comes” here is meant a change from one state to another and this requires some underlying material reality, some potentiality for the new state to come into being. This is because all change arises out of a pre-existing possibility for that change residing in something. Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a taking of something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing. Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all. In this way, one can see that the new science of the thirteenth century, out of which our modern science developed, was not a threat to the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. To come to know the natural causes of natural beings is a different matter from knowing that all natural beings and operations radically depend on the ultimate cause for the existence of everything: God the Creator. Creation is not a change. Creation is a cause, but of a very different, indeed unique, kind. Only if one avoids the Cosmogonical Fallacy, is one able to correctly understand the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Thomism and the Autonomy of Nature Two implications of this distinction between change and creation are worthy of note here. One is that God creates without taking any time to create, he creates eternally. Creation is not a process with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is simply a reality: the reality of the complete dependence of the universe on God’s agency. The other implication is the radical otherness of God’s agency. God’s productive causality is unlike that of any natural cause, for God not only produces what he produces all at once without any process, but also without requiring anything pre-existing or any preconditions whatsoever. God does not act as part of a process, nor does God initiate a process where there was none before. There is no before for God; there is no pre-existing state from which God’s action proceeds. God is totally and immediately present as cause to any and all processes. On the basis of these implications for the correct understanding of creation, modern Thomists distinguish between the existence of natural beings and their operations. God causes natural beings to exist in such a way that they are the real causes of their own operations. Indeed, if this were not the case, then it would not have been that God created this natural being, but some other. Salmon swim up stream to spawn. In creating such a natural being, God created a fish that reproduces in this way. If God created salmon without their natural reproductive agency, then he did not create salmon, but something else. EXTRACT ENDS [NB - this last paragraph is relevant to the argument which I have been having with Ezigbotutu on another thread about the existence of natural law - if an exchange with someone who only screams and sneers can be called an argument. This partly turns on the question of whether if a natural law exists it is good because God commands it or god commands it because it is good. The account of Thomism above suggests this is a false distinction. I am not a philosopher so my ability to develop this line of thought further is limited. Do we have a Thomist in the house?
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Jan 2, 2010 11:26:07 GMT
I think the Roman Catholic Church now regards Genesis as not a factual account of the World being created in six days. However I hope the goings-on in the USA never spread beyond the shores of that country. I refer to the mob "Answers in Gesesis" and the "Young Earth Creationists". It is a fact that 46% of Americans believe in the Literal "Word of God" account of Creation. I have read too that many American Christians believe the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Rev. Billy Graham (I'm not joking about this). The most whacky example of this came from Kent Hovind. His Doctoral Thesis has been leaked. This has to be the highlight of the year!!!! The elusive document can be found here 88.80.16.63/leak/kent-hovind-...ssertation.pdf To make matters worse he got his PHD from the Patriot Unversity. Here are links to a few facts about this quack mob: Patriot Bible University, formerly known as Patriot University, is an unaccredited fundamentalist Christian correspondence school located in Del Norte, Colorado.[1] Critics charge it is a diploma mill, lacking sufficient academic standards to award degrees.[2][dead link] Patriot is not accredited by any recognized accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of its degree titles is restricted or illegal in several jurisdictions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_UniversityOn this site you will see photos of the manificent campus where the students are poisoned with the Word of "God" by brainless bullshit artists. Here is the link to the esteemed "University" www.patriotuniversity.org/Now the fake "Dr." Kent Hovind is a guest of Uncle Sam in a Slammer for tax evasion where he is probably conducting Bible classes. I am posting this as an example of the stupidity of any credibi;ity of the first chapters of Gesesis regarding "Creation". For the record I have studied Astronomy and Astrophysics.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 2, 2010 15:33:33 GMT
As it happens, this sort of Genesis literalism has spread outside the US (especially among evangelical Protesstants, though I am sorry to say some traditionalist Catholics such as Redmond propagate it, and recently Muslims have got in on it). The problem with taking Mr. Hovind as a type is that he is a con artist; what is worrying are those who sincerely believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 28, 2010 19:06:38 GMT
I'm afraid I didn't get to see the Darwin biopic CREATION as I had intended (due to work pressure). Anyone interested in this topic may like to see Stephen Greydanus's comments on the limitations of its approach, from the DECENT FILMS site. According to him, the film seems to assume that the only possible options are Genesis literalism and atheism. www.decentfilms.com/reviews/creationEXTRACT Nor does the film ever consider the question that Master and Commander raises in those brief lines: whether divine causality and natural processes might be compatible and complementary rather than contradictory explanations. Instead, every character in Creation falls into one of two neatly opposed camps: those who devoutly believe that God created the world and therefore reject evolution, and those who enthusiastically accept the evidence for evolution and therefore reject faith in God. The first camp includes Darwin’s wife Emma (Bettany’s real-life wife Jennifer Connelly) and her pastor, Reverend John Innes (Jeremy Northam); the second, biologist Thomas Huxley (Toby Jones) and botanist Joseph Hooker (Benedict Cumberbatch). Only Darwin himself struggles with the tension between the two, and even he has no thought of a possible reconciliation.... Huxley’s views of the incompatibility of science and faith are stated with admirable clarity and forthrightness. Where is the other side of the debate? Where is the Darwin who declared it “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist”? Where are the likes of Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray — representatives of, respectively, religion and science, who saw no quarrel between their two worlds, and both of whom Darwin cited in this connection? Where, indeed, is the [real-life] Reverend Innes who vouched that his friend Darwin “follows his own course as a Naturalist and leaves Moses to take care of himself”? END OF EXTRACT
|
|